skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One of the founders of Simula here.

We're flattered that someone posted us to HN, but we were honestly not ready for this much publicity at this precise stage of our project. It would have been better had this happened a few weeks from now, when we have more accurate footage of our actual prototype to show. Let me explain:

1. *Video footage.* The video footage on the front page of www.simulavr.com is taken against an HTC Vive and an older prototype of our window manager. It doesn't showcase the higher resolution of the Simula One (more than 4x that of the Valve Index), or any of the new features we are intending on releasing with it (hand tracking, AR mode, environments, etc).

2. *Prototype pictures.* The website doesn't have any actual photos of our headset yet! That's because we are in the process of finalizing the design. We have printed parts and plenty of renderings, but they are still changing every week.

3. *Specs.* The specs are close to the final specs, but still placeholders. Between supply chain issues, stuff still under development, and issues getting support from manufacturers at our volumes, we might have to change things for the final prototype.

One of the reasons we threw up this website in its current form was to get the ball rolling for manufacturers. They won't supply us with parts unless we have some sort of product interest, but we can't generate any sort of product interest unless we have some sort of website. It's very much a chicken and egg sort of problem.

We appreciate everyone's kind words, yet also understand the skepticism. For people on the waitlist: expect updates to start to come from us in a few weeks, when we will show some previews of some of the actual goodies which makes our headset special.
> Exactly, and what's wrong with that?

It’s entirely opposite to the whole field of good user interface design?

It seems pretty uncontroversial that the goal of a user interface ought to be making it easier for the user to do what they want to do. If I load up a site for some product, there’s basically 3 possible outcomes of reading the page:

1. I don’t want the thing

2. I might want the thing, but I need more info

3. I want the thing

In the 1st case, the close tab button works great. In the 2nd and 3rd case, I want to either get more info or get the thing. So a site with a good user experience will provide an obvious indicator that says “click here to learn more” and “click here to get the thing”.
"Webster defines [word] as..." has been a running punchline for over 20 years. I think the dignity of the real anti-vaxxers will remain intact.
> This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs.

I see this, or forms of it, oft repeated but it's never synced up with reality for me. Sure, you will have some hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool proponents of someone/some topic that will follow them to the ends of the earth but you stop the radicalization of so many more than I have to count it as a net-win. I used to be staunchly 100%-free-speech, no-holds-barred but I am, and have been, coming to the realization that it's simply not tenable when you factor in technology/internet. Banning Parlor from App Stores and infrastructure absolutely cut down on their users. Sure, some will continue to use it but you cut off the on-ramp for radicalization. Same story with YouTube, actually it's even MORE compelling for YouTube since the majority people going to Parlor were people already inclined to think a certain way (aka: believe the election was stolen, COVID is a hoax, Democrats drink baby's blood, etc). With YouTube we have endless examples of people being slowly radicalized as YouTube's algorithm takes them further and further down the rabbit hole and, unlike Parlor, you can start down that path while watching something completely innocuous. See also: Reddit banning T_D or other subs promoting violence and hatred.
The stifling seems to be by design, or at the very least it's being considered acceptable collateral damage. Our modern censorship infrastructure does not see minority voices as legitimate.

That infrastructure may not even be capable (as evidenced here) of allowing for minority voices or any form of nuanced dissent, because it has been outsourced to a combination of incompetent "AI" (or dumb algorithms) as well as underpaid, understaffed, undertrained humans.

We are reaping the benefits of tech companies prioritisation of "scale" above all else.
The section about Apple is quite wrong. Their products were held back by semiconductor technology as far back as I can remember. Some examples were never getting a laptop running with a G5 and for sure with the early phone and tablet prototypes they wanted to focus on effciency in a small package. Buying PA-Semi was integral to their product roadmap.

The stuff about twitter I am not sure. You certainly do not need kernel expertise or to use the JVM at all to build a similar product these days. It seems they could be just held back by legacy technology choices that don’t really benefit the product and which competitors probably won’t need the cost of supporting.

Companies should always be evaluating how critical their in house technology is to thier business and/or future product roadmap.
>"Yet New Zealand consistently tops Cato Institute's freedom index."

Good for them, but that that index is meaningless to me. Truthfully, I have no respect for arguments that twist acts of suppressing freedom into acts seen as enhancing or preserving freedom.
Yes, exactly. And deciding legality should be done better than current automatic moderations that punish innocent content without a working appeals process.
This is actually just a non-scientific rule of thumb that I personally developed the first time I ever used an SSD as a boot mirror.

I have heard smart people confirm that this is a smart and reasonable practice but have never seen any data or supporting figures, etc.

It's basically cost-free and if you don't like other vendors, you can always pair up (current Intel drive) with (one generation ago Intel drive).
So big tech have become the holders of "truth". I don't care whose legitimacy they claim, governments are not the holders of truth either, and science changes daily. Suppressing freedom of information is not alright.
> "we have to stop misinformation", "we have to stop these troll farms", never "we have to educate ourselves to be more savvy"

Well, it's both:

* For misinformation spread through centralized media (TV, radio, newspapers, etc), we do need to stop it, because the privilege of running a media company comes with responsibility to not spread misinformation. The same applies to any official government channels.

* For misinformation that spreads person-to-person, we do need to address people's lack of ability to think critically and search for truth. This is a long-term goal that can be achieved by teaching critical thinking classes (like philosophy) in K12. Finland is taking this approach already[1].

Social media like Facebook falls somewhere in between. To the extent that Facebook can act as a media company (e.g. by providing a platform for groups with membership in tens of thousands), it should have the same responsibilities as TV stations and newspapers of comparable reach (in my personal, biased opinion).

While it doesn't make sense to stop people telling things to each other, it does make sense to go after the hubs where misinformation originates and spreads to many people at once (in my biased opinion).

When it comes to individuals, well, that's why we need educational reforms.

Side note: the entire point of Russian propaganda/misinformation campaigns is not to spread any particular viewpoint, it's to destroy people's ability to search for truth (everything is fake, might as well pick what resonates the most!), reason critically (bad faith reasoning 101), and hold a civil discussion to find common ground (any disagreement can be won by making the other person angry).

It is self-sustaining; affected people start coming up with their own alternative realities which spread like wildfire. Tribalism and fake news are the result.

[1]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/how-finland-is-fighti...
Predictive power, the capability of making accurate predictions, should be the measure of what we call "science". E.g. physics is science, but economics, psychology, sociology are not. Today we have modern equivalents of the astrologers and tea leaf readers of old.
All of which I'm aware of. But none of which has changed my arithmetic, though I apppreciate your concern.
Vaccine misinformation, right?
If there is demand, please file an issue and we can discuss increasing this limit.
However, these colors are themeable and thus there can only be finitely many.

There is no technical reason for this limit of 6.
To me this article seems to miss the point. Obviously science can't provide objective answers to subjective matters.

The problem we have in society right now regarding science, as I see it, is that we have a significant group of people who disagree about the objective parts.

The people who think the world is flat, the people who think the world's age is measured in thousands of years, the people who think all the world's top climate scientists are part of a massive conspiracy, the people who think COVID is a massive conspiracy, etc.

Our science problem as a society is that those people are mainstream. They're politicians, they're pundits, they're your next door neighbor, and they're all objectively wrong but they use the appearance of science to intentionally spread lies.
I did what others weren't willing to do:

I helped him.

Instead of waiting him burn.
I stepped in and really helped him.

At first he was afraid of some backstabbing from me.

Then once we trust we cleared all problems, upgrade whole structure and finished a year long project.

We did discuss, argue but once we cool off. We did get out to drink coffee as good friends then get back to work.

Tl Dr -> Help him or get out.

Don't be passive.

Ps. My old boss had lost his mother and was not coping well. Inviting him to lunch and coffee breaks helped a long way.
I would hate to see the future of open source go the way of the open core model. Open source has become a very popular way for startups to get traction and lead gen, for their revenue generating, fully-featured, open-core version. I understand why this exists, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I'd love a Richard Stallman rant on the subject.

I think it would be a good idea for open-core startups to grant options to EFF or the equivalent, at the beginning. I'd very much like to see the community directly benefit from the corporations that bootstrap themselves off of the communities back.
I'm not sure I entirely agree.

There are people getting vaccines for the first time every day right now. Somehow they came around.
Do you think it is that people truly believe the scientific method is wrong or do you think it is something else?

I have a theory (I'm programmer, not psychologist) that with the pandemic there is a lot of emotions (fear, anxiety, anger, unknowns, etc.) floating around people's heads that get all jumbled up and they grasp for something that they can cling to which, however illogical to many, calms those fears to a manageable level. And then they find things online which support those ideas and they go deeper with them because it calms them to have "answers".

I see headlines of similar anti-vaxx, etc. things from US/EU and wonder if this is a western phenomenon? Are people seeing similar sentiments rising up in say Japan? Or other non-western countries?
They already were at that point, regardless of what people claim.

Facebook had the ability to paint whatever picture they wanted as truth by controlling what their users saw at what time. And they utilized it proudly long before COVID to increase engagement.
Everything is built for seismic safety, but that doesn't mean you won't have to scrap a ton of wafers or have any damage if there is an earthquake.
I work in ecommerce/erp space and I need something like this, but not JS (I using Rust now).

I tried in the past build my own but is truly hard!. I make a "event log" database but it sometimes could become so big that fill the server disk, and most events become uselles after a while. So figuring what is truly an "event is not as obvious.

Exist a paradigm that could work here? I using sqlite + postgresql (and can't move to any fancy nosql).
see apathetic boomers and their homes
So is Joe Rogan gone from Youtube? Or only his "only fat people need to get the vaccine" videos are going to be banned? I wonder what other companies like Spotify would do to the big influencers that are spreading misinformation, etc.
If the satellites don't work, then submarines and sonobuoys will be used. If those don't work, attritable intelligence drones will be used. If those don't work, they will go for the CSG first with whatever works, sinking the AEGIS ships, and then work their way up to the carrier.

The absolute trump card though is that they are preparing hypersonic intelligence drones. If those work out, they're going to be impossible to stop and there's no hiding a carrier from a plane flying past with line of sight.
> I've actually wondered if most people might not need to be protected from unregulated content in the same way that people need to be protected from exposure to lead, radon gas, etc.

Yes, but that means deciding which content is harmful, and that's where we are now. Figuratively, you end up with lead-lickers coming out of the woodwork saying that their way of life is being stifled by regulation/moderation.

Chasing user "engagement" has been pushing conversations from the mundane middle toward the fringes. Thus, people make understandable but hasty generalization[0] that what they're seeing is more common than average.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Inductiv...

In the past, I think this drift was counteracted by codes of morality (whether internalized, reinforced by people you know, or promulgated by regulatory bodies) as well as the limited means of disseminating information (few newspaper editors/radio announcers/news anchors to many readers/listeners/viewers). Though I'm sure there were plenty of wild pamphlets spreading chaos in the centuries between Gutenberg and Zuckerberg.

Even though most of those morality codes are downright oppressive by today's standards, and the many-to-many distribution enabled by the Internet has many benefits, we haven't found a substitute, so there's a gap in our armor.

Side note: Believing conspiracies and yearning totalitarian are two different failures in thinking. I say that because only the latter had strong support in the 20th century—even earlier if you count monarchies. Someone supporting Flat Earthers isn't harming me (except by undermining science in general); someone supporting Stalin 2.0 is an indirect direct threat to me.
Not to mention that if we are going to have a systematic collapse, it will be caused by the elites around the world and no "news" entity will gives us a heads up about it.

Remember that Trump was going to collapse the global system with his "war" against china? Apple and Microsoft have gained 2 trillion dollars in market cap since Trump. That's 2 trillion with a T. The media tells us there is going to be a collapse but people with money are betting that there will be significantly more global trade, even with china.

Who knows what they are actually talking about? Someone working at CNN or the monied elites?
>Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.

Just to confirm, are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out?

>Would or should?

sorry, should.

>They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.

And what do you think about that? Specifically, good faith actors getting swept up by bad faith actors? Is that fine? Should we do something about it?
I do this as well. Those are red flag items.
One thing that I have been increasingly aware of is people confusing science with utilitarianism. Science investigates truths about the world we live in. Utilitarianism incorporates science, but is built on subjective moral and ethical assumptions.

I see a lot of people who disagree with utilitarian proposals labeled as "anti-science".
Nope, because that's the beauty of science. I personally run on a "trust, but verify" basis: science allows society to come together and verify many aspects of claims: can it be done, can it be replicated, what's the likelihood of the replication actually measuring a real effect, etc.

"Vaxxers", as you have so put it, (or as I like to call them, normal human beings) have reached a level of proof that vaccines are safe, and that, specifically, the COVID-19 vaccines currently in deployment are several magnitudes safer than, say, contracting COVID-19 itself.

"Anti-Vaxxers", however, have (un?)intentionally proved that vaccines work, performing one of the largest voluntary human drug trials in history as the placebo group. Their sacrifice shall, hopefully, not be forgotten (lest we repeat it).
The real data is that the common side effects are negligible and the serious side effects are exceedingly rare.

Over 6 billion doses have been administered since they were first given early this year. Even if you were waiting for the "guinea pigs" to experience side effects, that point has long passed. There is no massive die off. No massive set of complications. I work in a building where over 90% of the people have received two doses of Pfizer. In April. Everyone here has three arms, six toes, and a glorious horn, just like they're supposed to.

If you aren't convinced by now, you're not supporting "informed consent" you're conflating "being a contrarian" with "being concerned".
That's great news! The post made it sound like you had to have a 1Password account, but now that it's showing up in my account it doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks!
I think of it more as a "non-organic trash". Ie easy to separate from food waste, and take out when full vice when stinky!
In my book, those are broken people and managers.
I recommend the "Bad Blood: The Final Chapter" podcast by John Carreyrou. He's the journalist who broke the story and the podcast goes into some detail about the history and also talks about what is going on now.
You need a better information architecture to handle read replicas than just running a monolithic database. You need a much more complicated/limited one to do sharding.

I wonder if people see it as ripping the bandaid off to go straight to sharding. Or perhaps being multitenant introduces that idea. Seems like everyone, or at least the louder ones, discover that they have one 'whale' who gets to be too big even for a single database, or buys one of your other customers, and then where are you?
But how do you "land" on a landing page, if it isn’t the main entry point ("home page") of the site?
Edit: Or are landing pages just a specific kind of home page, with particular objectives?
There is government pressure (more correctly just social pressure) but the government hasn't given a mandate that these platforms must take this censorship stance.

And even then, this is only an issue because everyone is on just a handful of platforms -- so the companies build one-size-fits-all policies. But we're not all the same size.

I'm not terrified of my community encountering misinformation. I'm far more terrified of a community being unable to articulate and defend why the information is "mis".
What's the point of this comparison? To prove how futile it is to resist government power? It seems like we're saying "We will make you do whatever the hell we want. You will do it, and we'll bring up how we made you do this next time we force you to start doing something else. And everyone will laugh at how stupid you sound."
Who's making the money? The advertisers threatening to pull out? Is it because they don't want to advertise on videos that spread misinformation? I thought they could control what videos their ads appear on. This seems more like political pressure.
Getting injured in traffic poses a risk to the people that come and save you. People getting flung from cars also pose a risk to other road users.
Yep, that's a great review. Overall I'm very impressed by the R1T! I'm not a truck buyer, but this bodes well for the R1S which I am interested in.
Not scientific, physical.
Dude read that back to yourself and think about it for just 5 seconds.

"Validate" it how exactly. This is just like a child folding his arms and saying "well now I'm not doing it" because somebody asked them to. It's the same attitude that has left hundreds of thousands pointlessly dead, because owning the libs is more important than self-preservation.
Look at the board. Older men. They saw an attractive, young, energetic technology wizard and fell for her charm. I don't know if one could go as far as to say this is female privilege, but I think there was definitely elements of seduction.
I don’t think the blog post does a good job of letting us know they communicated ‘hey, we gun make this core’ before they decided to do it (and release this post).
That is absolutely ridiculous.
This is the exact reason vaccine mandates are necessarily and even desirable as a policy. You're not alone, but the proportion of the population willing to live with discomfort in life is vanishingly small, and hopefully small enough that herd immunity can be reasonably established.

We see similar behavior/attitudes among off-grid folks who refuse to use credit cards or other common adaptations.

I make no judgment of you for your thoughts, just pointing out why a policy maker is justified in increasing the personal cost to ensure the responsibility of freedom isn't shirked, since an unvaccinated population invites variants and harms (imposes social cost) on people unable to be vaccinated (kids, medical issues). So long as Anti-vaccine advocates are willing to pay for the costs of their actions, have at it.
> You would have to be a fairly active user to run across deliberate misinformation, generated by offshore troll farms.

I think you are missing the point of this research. The entire point is that 19 of the top 20 Christian pages, for example, are produced by offshore troll farms, and until recently, this was generally not known.

So no, you do not need to be a fairly active user, not at all. Many, many casual users came across this because it was incredibly widely shared, and because Facebook's algorithms push such content far and wide.
I like your thinking... but why hide a video on a private S3 bucket?

I was just thinking about this problem from a different angle.

What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:

1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory

2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID

3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube

4. If not, upload the file.

5. Delete the file.
1. My point is that you lost me here:

> This immediately produces an incentive for both the network to make use of as much computational capacity as possible to keep itself safe, and for any attacker to amass enough computational capacity to mount an attack

This seems false to me. Could you elaborate on what incentives you see at play here?

On another note, I feel one of the finest design details of Bitcoin is that its "decentralization-failure-mode", a.k.a. under a 50ish-percent-attack, is technically indistinguishable from normal operation.

2. The DID spec doesn't require the use of Bitcoin. So we agree with your last statement-disguised-as-question. Thus, it shouldn't have been listed as a reason for the rejection of the proposal (which spawned this thread)