skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
London, circa 1830. Nobody is saying you have to work 70 hours weeks in a cotton factory. You can grow your own cotton, feel free to process it any way you want! As long as the attention market concentrates in the hands of a handful of megacorporations by virtue of economies of scale, the freedom you talk about is not very tangible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_in_Great_Britain_during_t...
The free version was a great resource while developing MQTT clients a few years ago, sorry it was too expensive.
I agree with you it's a hard topic. I consider myself jaded. I'm not even old and am starting to think the "olden days" (20 years ago) were simpler and saner. My perspective is of someone who is completely disillusioned with all of it. I don't think Social Media can have a net-positive impact in the world at all, even if I use it and find many good parts in it. The ugly bits will always outweigh the positive.

We have to ask ourselves: what are these new tools and inventions being used for? Are we better off today, where everyone has access to this virtual square, or 30 years ago where no one really had a place to say what were on their minds? I think it's clear, with respect to COVID-19, we're much worse off since the tools like YouTube and Facebook are being used to worsen the epidemic, not make it better.

Obviously it can have a good impact. I use YouTube everyday to educate myself on multiple topics (mainly history, computer science, architecture -- non-contentious things). I love that aspect of it, I have more access to knowledge now than I ever thought possible. But in order to limit YouTube to that it'll have to be heavily regulated and stripped down. Which raises the questions of free speech.

Still, I think we may find in a few decades that things like Facebook/Twitter/Youtube were better off left uninvented, never to have seen the light of day, like VX gas and nuclear bombs.
Unless you need to run on mobile, Qt is the answer.
Ask HN: What would you do with $1 million tax free, no strings attached?
The EU should just invest in FOSS protectionism - money for FOSS if you work in the EU.

Ban Microsoft and Oracle from public procurement, and invest the money in Europe.

We have no Tech industry and pitiful wages because we've bowed down to this US colonisation for decades via neoliberal policies.
If i knew my vaccination records were required to work where i work i would have taken my skills elsewhere. Not once was i ever told my medical records would or could be required for continued employment.

I got vaccinated to protect myself and those around me. My job has no business in my health records. period.

edit: also, i'm 100% wfh since before the pandemic started. I'm endangering no one at my workplace.
Well, apparently, neither is what we have done. But at least in the scenario mentioned above, we don't find ourselves slipping into totalitarianism.

Perhaps there is no way, in a liberal society, to have a silver bullet? It turns out principles matter in such situations.
And, it's back up per OP.

https://twitter.com/Twotafkap/status/1443250484458962953
By censoring the debate on youtube, you're basically confirming to the wacko conspiracy theorists that there is in fact a conspiracy. The damage to civil society is far greater than a little misinformation.

The solution to bad speech is more speech. Speaking of nuance easily lost, an algorithm is not going to be able to figure out the nuance required to censor rationally. Honestly, I don't think most humans are capable of it. Best to err on the side of letting information spread.
Their advertisers wouldn't much like that. Pharma being one of their larger advertisers, allowing videos about cheap out of patent drugs that may prevent someone from taking a vaccine is in direct opposition to this model.
3-D printing new houses in a Mexican village
I'm not happy with it either. If there's another way to push back against corporate censorship that's more effective than boycotting their services and the objectives they're working towards, I'm all ears.

But so far as I can tell, I don't have a voice in the matter so I'll opt to be a statistical papercut.
Google controls the search engine. Not the conversation. They can ban and censor but the truth always finds a way out.
Of course, when you get to buildings that are old enough, you have several layers of solid material (brick/stone) on the exterior, as well as things like double-thickness brick interior walls as well. This doesn't do RF propagation any favors, either.

My home was built in 1830 and 2.4Ghz wifi is strictly line of sight within the building, and cellular phones must be kept near windows on the side of the building facing the nearest cell tower to function.

And this isn't in a rural area either, this is life in a brownstone in the middle of a large city...
Come on now, they aren't open Nazis or holocaust denials. They're run-of-the-mill European right wing populists against immigration, EU in general, and most things progressive.
That's honestly news to me. I thought that "scientific consensus" is supported by peer-reviewed research, by definition. Can you elaborate?
And when roundabouts were introduced into the US they were criticized for being socialist.
Building a static site generator in 100 lines of Rust
This article is misleading misinformation.

> "I've had COVID - therefore I don't need to get the vaccine." Turns out that's not entirely true. On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study reporting that individuals who've had COVID are twice as likely to get reinfected

The article makes it sounds as if prior infection makes it 2x as likely to get infected as having the vaccine.

In reality, the study is only comparing previously infected individuals. So it's "just Covid" vs "Covid + vaccine". This is obvious. My original claim is, that "just Covid" is better (or equally good) as "just vaccine".
I'm running Mosquitto as the central messaging broker on an embedded Linux product right now. It's super lightweight.

Running the broker on the target has been a really great thing during development. I can run validation systems on other machines and inject messages over the wire, or I can actually run the UI on my dev machine and let the backend respond from a live target.

I also have a development team in Asia that can't get to the newest hardware, so I fire up a system here and open a port they can access. They love it.

That said, the bandwidth in MQTT is lightweight but you still need a TCP/IP stack on your system. That's typically more substantial of a footprint than Mosquitto will be at the end of the day.
Does the "social media industry" provide a service where you, an individual, can sign up to one single site, and access every social media post that exists?

No. Because they're different social media sites. They do not work together. They compete.
> May I also point out that the greatest schism in Communist groups is over Leninism/Trotskyism

The Stalinist/Trotskyist split is a split within Leninist-derived Communism, and it hasn't been the “greatest schism” in that community since at.least the rise of Maoism; I’m not sure there are any Trotskyists left (in the US, leading ex-Trotskyists went on to form a significant part of the core of the neoconservative movement.) AFAICT, Leninist-derived Communism is all Stalinist “socialism in one state” now.

The biggest split in Communism (at least, the Marx-derived subset) seems between developed-capitalism first Marxists and Leninist-derived vanguardists, though the former subset is also less tied to old orthodoxy and so has mixed a lot with non-Marxist socialism and is less easy to draw a firm bubble around than the Leninist vanguardists.
Scientific debate happens in scientific circles. The results are presented to the media. The public debates it on social media.

> Be better, be a part of the solution.

And what is the solution?
>What's next, in that case

I'd rather focus on "what now", because in my opinion there has not been any candid communication between the yays and the nays. All of the media produced along the lines of "5 common vaccine myths DEBUNKED by fauci" are drivel and work backwards from the position that anti vaxxers are dumb and irrational and all their complaints are totally wrong, rather than actually trying to convince people of anything.

What I would love to see is a public, formal debate between two people/groups about vaccine mandates. I might even pay to see it, or fund it or something. I think the closest we have had to this was Rand Paul "grilling" Fauci in a congressional hearing, which was not helpful because it devolved into the participants yelling over each other.

>candid communication doesn't address if the opposing view has overwhelming (and un-candid) counterpoints

I'm not sure if a formal debate counts as "candid communication", but I do think a formal debate would address this. If one side is totally unreasonable and none of their arguments hold up, everyone will see that. If one side just reverts to yelling, everyone will see that.

I know this is a pipe dream, because our media masters have decided that vaccine opposition is just too dangerous. But frankly I cannot think of a better opportunity for the people who claim they know best to actually prove that their opponents are wrong.
Does anyone have a sense of how expensive each building is?
What are they basing that on? Her turtleneck was too tight?
> What changed in 2020?

Liberals started doing it.
I posted an article earlier today[0] about an AI that recently identified a probable fake painting. It certainly seems like an area where AI should be able to compliment and/or outperform humans.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28692543
Well, science itself is independent of political motivations. Some alien civilization running the same experiments in a galaxy far, far away will get the same results and, eventually, reach the same conclusions about how the world works.

Politics, being concerned with the allocation of limited resources, does two things to complicate this ideal picture:

1) It decides "which science" gets done right now, which means the progress of science may not be uniform in all areas.

2) It applies research findings improperly to serve non-scientific goals.

Notwithstanding, the science remains just science. And crucially, trying very hard to stop or limit #2 from happening, in particular, is essential in making better _political_ decisions.

Political decisions are inherently about how to manage conflict between social groups, and while it's not really my place to judge the quality of any given political decision, it's hard not to judge the quality of a political decision which is not based in the physical reality that we all share.
"Anti-vaccine advocate" is clear. It identifies a set of behaviors that are intellectually dishonest, either claiming hesitancy, outright denying science, or (even worse) economically benefitting by sowing confusion.

When people don't do this, they aren't advocating against vaccination.

My understanding of the strawman fallacy is that the strawman is inaccurate. None is expressed here, simply labeling a phenomenon.

> which would be making unfounded assumptions about your general argumentation style and would pre-judge future statements by you.

After decades of internet discussion, such charity from people holding opposing viewpoints appears to be rare even when explicitly and rigorously adopted.
I agree the general meaning would be free to say and do anything, however in reality free speech is freedom of speech from the government. Not individuals or private entities. What is common in law is the idea of the market place of ideas. This is generally what free speech to the average American is. We are free to spread information whether right or wrong in order for others to comment and critique and to grow as citizens. I think it's a horribly slippery slope to ban one group from speaking. You can't have an active conversation about a topic without allowing someone to talk. Their decision is sidestepping the root cause and is treating the symptom which is algorithms optimized for engagement. Misinformation and hysteria is what drives engagement.
There wasn't overwhelming evidence in the Cosby case, which is precisely why his conviction was overturned. He was convicted based on testimony he was forced to give against himself in a civil trial where he was not allowed to exercise his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The previous DA specifically said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Cosby, which is both why he never pursued charges and why Cosby was forced to testify against himself (without the threat of criminal indictment, he didn't have the right against self-incrimination on the civil suit).
Nowcasting the Next Hour of Rain
Most MDs are general physicians and know little about vaccines other than textbook knowledge that is decades old. Why would you trust them over a team of researchers? Especially at this point of the pandemic when we have so much data showing their effectiveness?
I don't mind the downvotes, I assumed I'd get them because I was saying something unpopular in a thread of people who seem to be super excited about it.

It was really more a PSA and I'm happy to take the karma hit if it helps some people at the end of the day.

Sadly, the device is in the hands of DHL at this point, and hasn't moved from one of their locations in over 10 days now. Giving it until Friday before I reach out to Remarkable again and ask for them to make this right with a full refund. I doubt they'll give it, they seem like a bunch of people that are fine with someone saying bad things about them in threads like this, potentially costing them tons of money, just to not lose out on one single return. Refunding me would get me to just go away as I never want to hear from them or do business with them again. But refunding me will get me off their back.
I think that it's not about malicious extensions. It's about compatibility. If there's no public API, then all API is public and any code change will break something. So you either break extensions or don't change code at all. With public API you can change code while keeping public API working. And if something must be changed, the damage is limited and controlled.
Weren't the rioters convinced that they were saving the democracy that was about to be undermined by what they considered to be a stolen election? If so, weren't they participating in the democracy?

As a thought experiment, consider protests against fraudulent elections in other countries (Russia and Belarus come to mind, but I am sure I saw some other countries in newspaper headlines recently). Would you consider those protests to be an exercise in democracy?
>There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead

A good faith discussion between opposing parties requires establishment of some common ground and a set of rules of engagement (eg 'claims must be supported with facts/data'). Cult leaders foster a sense of paranoia among their followers which makes a good faith debate virtually impossible.
Enron, for one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Peak_and_decline_of_stoc...
NATS actually also has support for MQTT[0]. If you already have a deployment for queues, microservices, etc, using the NATS mqtt endpoint seems like a very good option.

[0] https://docs.nats.io/nats-server/configuration/mqtt
It is, but at what point do we start not allowing people to display a fist connecting with another person? Violence isn't good in most situations, but do we really need to just not allow it at all, even in this comedic setting? I don't know anyone that sees someone get assaulted in real life and think that that isn't a bad thing. We're desensitized, but I don't think we're that desensitized.
I'd love to debate you to crush you with facts.
> What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were

You have confused gullibility with willful ignorance.
One of the reasons we find ourselves even in such a predicament is so odd: while governments the world over were (and are) quite willing to put very strong curbs, shut-downs etc. in place, they are hesitant to generally mandate vaccination. So now we are in these proxy campaigns on vaccinations.

Of course, one could argue that governments should not/cannot mandate vaccination, but then we also generally accept that governments can send you off to die in wars. Generally speaking, this whole mess actually brings some much deeper issues on state vs the individual to the surface. Those are the ones that will eventually need proper debate much more than finer points on immunology.
Time to switch to https://odysee.com/ - It's been growing very fast. You can buy LBRY tokens to align your incentives on the financial side: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/library-credits/

You can profit from doing the right thing and taking a stance against censorship.
I'm developing a mqtt client/broker and the protocol is all but simple to implement.
I didn't found any implementation, mosquitto included, that was really lossless.
The obvious best-tool-for-the-job language here is blazon. Here's a rough POC:

checky argent and sable
5 square voided in saltire palewise argent
12 square inverted sable in dexter chief a square voided fesswise argent
on a plain cross escartelly checky sable and argent 3 square voided fesswise inverted argent
in third quarter 3 square voided in bend sinister argent
in first quarter 3 square voided in bend argent

I used the interpreter at drawshield.net.
Or read his book! It's fabulous.
A few examples would be nice to understand what you are saying.
> At least the software never deliberately works against the user

I look at some of the Gnome 3 design choices and I start to question that.
Chinese censorship is backed by the threat of arbitrary imprisonment or violence. In that case, it's not really the banning of the topic that's working, it's policing for compliance and de facto criminalization of defiance.
> Very few people nowadays think that seatbelts are a bad idea

Just look around this very thread, you may be surprised.

The main problem, I believe, is that most of the people really don't like the idea of being ordered to be even minorly inconvenienced even for their own supposed benefit, much less for benefit of the others.

I've known several smokers, and they all complained how the laws keep getting stricter on where you can legally smoke, and that the tobacco prices keep going up, and that people keep asking them to not smoke near them, etc. And every time I asked "why don't you just give it up then?", oh boy, the replies I got and their tone... let me just say I've never asked that question again to the same person because I feel that'd actually turn me into their enemies.
Collected 2500 remote jobs from the Internet in 28 days
Hey all, I am Sandeep. I am from Kolkata, India.
I am currently working for one of the biggest e-Sports companies based in Los Angeles, USA.

I have been working remotely since 2018 and it has enabled me to level up my developer journey. In 2021, I am able to earn 7x of what I was making in 2018, all thanks to remote work.

The current scenario of finding a remote job is pretty difficult.
All the remote job boards are either too colourful or very hard to browse.

That's why I started a side project of mine, it's called https://remotefront.io I am building this for the last year. As a remote worker myself, I tried to solve my own problems with this project.
It has been able to collect 2500+ remote jobs from the Internet in the last 28 days.

It aggregates remote jobs from 10+ popular remote job boards and provides a cleaner way of browsing.

Every Monday & Thursday it will send you a list of remote jobs that match your preferences.

It frees up your time and hunts remote jobs for you in async.

I am looking for feedback and criticism.
I have been disappointed with Solarpunk as a movement, aestheric, and literary genre.

Indeed. Solarpunk enthusiasts are by and large insufferable, being people who get off on the aesthetic of sustainably solving problems but don't ever feel like doing the hard math of planning on how to maintain a technological society while doing it. It's as if steampunk cosplayers were a voting bloc.
Overall this is a good idea but with too many options to turn ugly fast. You need to carefully examine the situation: For instance at an old job my contract contained the following sentence: "all intellectual property and code, developed during or outside working hours, regardless of it's nature or purpose belongs to {COMPANY_NAME}". Somehow if my employer pays me extra for working on personal(albeit open source) projects will make me incredibly suspicious.
"Literally" it's the trailer that killed them.
> That ship has sailed.

It hasn't. Monopolies have become powerful, then been disassembled before, and it can happen again.

Standard Oil was broken up, as was Bell Systems.

With some new legislation and lawsuits, we could absolutely reduce the power of Google/YouTube and Facebook over online communications.

I agree that those entities have already become far too powerful, but we can remove their power, and shred them into smaller pieces if we had the will to.

I agree that we may not have the will.

But I disagree that the solution is to put more constraints on the speech rights of private entities. You don't fight censorship with compelled speech. You fight monopolies with aggressive anti-trust legislation and action.
Ah, thank you for clarification.
Software is much like mathematics. Who is paying mathematicians? Both government and industry.

A lot of mathematics research has no immediate applications but still is valuable. Software is more practical, governments should pay for creation and maintenance of "infra-structure software", which no single corporation is willing to pay for. Why aren't they? Because the end-results benefit everybody.

So I think the discussion about "better models to finance open-source" is misguided. Government(s) should pay for it, as much as it has a positive return on investment in terms of better infra-structure.

That is a matter of politics, not "better models". Will the government invest in infra-structure? That is a political question and largely depends on who you vote into power.
> I wouldn't conflate the two unless I was intentionally trying to shill for RU or CN.

This sounds like some "... assuming your not a Red ..." Cold War-era dialogue to me.

Is that really the best way of expressing your point about the differences between personal freedom and non-cooperation with US law.
> I don't see how that's actually a counterargument to my statement.

It is. The burden of the proof is always on the person or the organization that cares about something deeply enough that wants to perpetuate such behavior. E.g. Vaccines or seatbelts or reduction in sugary drinks or whatever.

The failure to do so is theirs not the people whose behavior they are trying to change because they are fine with the present day status of handling things.

If you fail, you only have yourself to blame. You don't get to say "Ugh. their bahavior is nonsensical!"

> What, are you trying to argue now that people who wear seatbelts are boring?

Well...yeah? If you wear a seatbelt while driving in the city chances are that once we get to the club you won't drink, which also means you won't lose inhibitions, which also means that you won't pay for drinks, which also means that you won't find female companionship for the night.

I mean it's not some new discovery. People who play it safe are boring.

Nature can't be fooled, there is no substitute for taking risks and having things going your way, that's the best outcome among the many possible outcomes and that's why we refer to those people as "cool" , "charismatic" or "projecting an aura"