skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You are free to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

A youtube channel by Saint Andrewism is a wonderful educational source which covers all the matters at hand in detail.

In particular, you may be interested in the history discussed in "The case against the Gu!IIotine", as well as "Nonviolence, a path to freedom?"

I'd also suggest Beau of the 5th Column; he has bite-sized five minute "Let's talk about"s which address specific current events as they develop, and add context via a short history lesson.

I'd finally point out that the State Monopoly on Violence is inherent.

I'd also point out that MLK was white-washed, and that neoliberal white culture curated the parts of his speeches what suited it.

I'd love to tell people that violence isn't the answer, but I can't do that unless I'm ready to feed them.

This quote, too, also is logical to me:
Malatesta: "Violence .. is eminently corrupting." largely paraphrasing this one but it rings true to the authors original sentiment.

So, in short, you can feel lucky, because you have the privilege to take whichever side in debate you choose, and you don't have to feel the collective grief and anxiety [which comes with] being targeted for something as arbitrary as the amount of melanin in your epidermis.
Because "free market solutions adoption" doesn't happen.

We live in a society, and there are some amount of beliefs shared by large groups within that society(In this case, "wearing a seatbelt isn't a personal choice, because not wearing one and getting into an accident taxes resources from others and therefor extends beyond "I should get to do whatever I want"). The second you put a formal sate into place, you're giving up freedom in exchange for codification of social beliefs.

The problem is that not everyone agrees on these social beliefs. Pick literally any topic, and someone says "no, that's wrong". So no matter what laws you make, someone always disagrees with them. You now need ways to enforce those beliefs, and penalties are easier than rewards (because you need a way to fund/create rewards and that requires more resources than a penalty which often involves taking resources from those involved).

The point is, without enforcement there will always be a group that doesn't do the thing everyone else wants.

(Side note: your hebrew law example is pointedly NOT how US tort law works, and I think a lot of people are thankful for that. We all know bulls, even those without a history of goring, CAN gore someone to death, and if you don't do everything in your power to prevent that, you're liable.)
No questions, just wanted to say thank you for such a great service.

Trusting a service provider is really hard in most cases, but you make it easy to trust rsync with posts like this and backing it up with reliable services.
> Would you be making the same points if the debate was about ISIS propaganda?

It doesn't matter, that's a fallacious comparison. It's not what the videos are about, and even if it was, who decides what is pro-ISIS propaganda and what is just discussion about what ISIS was doing? For years Youtube has been de-platforming anything that is not advertising friendly using AI, often de-listing videos altogether, with very little recourse unless you know someone who works at Youtube.
Waggle Dancing In The Dark (official video) - Bee VEVO
Lovely idea but what happens when reason cannot convince someone e.g. people who believe in religion?

At that point you have to work out whether offering them a platform is something you want to do.
A lot more information on DDOS background and techniques on Cloudflare's learning site:

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/what-is-a-ddos-atta...

Includes full details on 11 different common DDOS attack types.
It’s not just what gets said it’s what doesn’t get said. Islam, more so than Protestant Christianity, views the teachings of the prophet as guidance and a model for how to live. One can imagine scholarly work that analyzes how Islamic beliefs—including traditional ones—provide social benefits. For example, there is a strong negative correlation between AIDs prevalence and percentage Muslim population in African countries, likely due to rigid Islamic sexual standards.

Of course being a professor is different than being an imam. But the political climate in American universities—under which you have to take many of the beliefs of most of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims as per se bigotry—means you get a lot of articles focused on how Americans are racist against Muslims and relatively little work delving into Islam itself on its own merits.

In the context of racial minorities, you see a huge distortion as well. The religiosity and social conservatism of Black people tends to be totally excluded from academic conversations about structural racism. Raj Chetty (a British Indian economist) has been doing studies showing that the two factors that most strongly affect upward mobility for Black kids is rates of single parenthood in the community as a whole, and levels of white racism. The latter is covered at length in academic treatments, but the former is virtually ignored.

These distortions exist with respect to other groups, but have less impact there because academia has far less impact. Harvard’s new lead chaplain is an atheist, but who care because academia has very little influence on the public discourse surrounding Christianity. Nobody looks to academia to explain what Irish Americans are thinking.
It'd be cool if this would decrease the number of antivaxxers, but actually it probably won't and Google really shouldn't be able to do this anyway.

Perhaps if YouTube didn't have almost total market dominance it would be less problematic.
I think a better solution would be to ban algorithmic media distribution. Let people post whatever they want on YouTube. If there wasn’t a toxic engagement algorithm radicalizing people this wouldn’t be a problem. That would kill the social media business model, which is an added bonus IMO.
I don't necessarily trust the NSA, things like DUAL EC DRBG are an excellent reason why.

However the govt standards for cryptography to use are known as FIPS 140. These standards are made by NIST, which has the NSA either heavily own or directly write the documents. This means that the NSA is defining the crypto standards for the rest of US Gov.

The conclusion is that if you want wireguard in govt networks, the NSA must bless their crypto primitives and algorithms. That's why I want to know their thoughts on it.
I often find myself wondering what the 'killer app' of purely functional programming languages is. For the longest time I assumed they would become much more popular as multi-core cpus proliferated, but pretty much every purely functional language out there is relegated to a dusty corner.
Yea, if only someone would post the links to the 10 year safety and efficacy of these vaccines it would really shut these skeptics up. Ok, well, maybe just the 5 year data. No? Well, I think even 3 would help.

If we’re going to disingenuously compare smallpox and measles vaccines, perhaps we could start with their efficacy. Are there any claims from even the mfgs that Covid shots are in the same range?
It's the Tolerant Pilgram problem.

(See early US history around relgious ... freedom.)
What's the difference between whispering "fire" in a crowded movie theater vs. yelling it out loud? - is it simply the volume of ones voice? Might some intangible like intent have something to do with it? How do you even go about quantifying that? What if everyone laughs at your outburst? What if they trample each other to death?

I feel as though this crowd gets wrapped around the axel on these kinds of questions - anything with too much ambiguity that can't be code golfed into the tersest possible formal logic statement.

When Justice Stewart attempted to define what "hardcore pornography" actual __is__ he simply wrote "I know it when I see it" (1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio).

That's about as good as one can do in some cases.
A large percentage of the population believe an invisible being in the sky created the universe in 7 days, why is everyone so surprised that a percentage of the population believe Bill Gates is implanting microchips in vaccines?
I can only assume they mean "ok" in the sense of "the large fraction of less-sophisticated engineers who only want to think about the happy paths in their code."

Github's co-pilot is a poor code generator, but it's a fair example of how bad a lot of public code is. I'm not sure private code tends to be much better in many orgs.
> Your personal health is none of the government's business.

In theory, maybe. But the government's main business in practice seems to be the continuation of its (government's) existence, and having somewhat healthy population, and having population at all, for that matter, really helps -- especially if the measures intended to improve the public health/safety don't really cost the government much if anything.

> In a free market, it's in the interest of the manufacturers to take care of their customers

[Citation needed]. Anyway, the car market is not free: every car manufacturer has non-infinitesimal market share, and that opens the possibility of all kinds of interesting market manipulations.
I like the analogy of laws-against-drunk-driving more.
Specifics depend on the country. In the USA, over the air broadcast is restricted in content on the premise that broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource, and that you don't have much choice with what you see when you tune in. That argument gets pretty weak with point-to-point networks with nearly unlimited bandwidth, as I see it. An analogy might be the difference between ads with nudity on billboards (I believe that can be prohibited in the USA?) and ads with nudity in a print magazine going to a subscribership expecting such ads (protected by the 1A, including for mailing through the USPS).

Public libraries are perhaps another source of analogy. My local library system has some of the most vile and objectionable works ever printed on the shelves due to popular demand. Many public libraries in Canada and the USA are quite absolute about that with regards to free expression. For example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/porn-library-ottawa-po... "Library patrons allowed to surf porn, Ottawa mom discovers"
> Companies should always be evaluating how critical their in house technology is to thier business and/or future product roadmap.

For these sort of deep-expertise support teams, they would have to be considered over very long time horizons, since a kernel or JVM team might be needed to deal with a serious bug at any time, but there may not have been such a bug this year.
If you have a particular project to support, ask a dev if they can offer a "support contract" (even if that only means "clients can send me, the developer, an email if they have issues and I'll reply within 3 business days, I'll also take care of releasing at least once every 6 months"). That way there's something for the finance department to work with.

Once the dust settled, do the same with the next project.
Or how about not being a complete moron and simply doing the unambiguously, obviously right thing with no downsides?
There are many kinds of seatbelts really. We have belts to hold kids into booster seats. We have belts to restrain dangerous criminals. We have collars for dogs.

The vaccine means different things for different people. For people with poor immunity its a life-saver. For you people<18 years its largely pointless from a life-saving perspective. It would be like advocating for seatbelts on your lazyboy.
How will we tell if it works? A decrease in anti-vax sentiment and an uptick in vaccine take-up? How will we tell that it was due to YouTube?

What if it doesn’t move the needle at all (pun intended) - does it mean YouTube is much less influential than we (and they, apparently) think? Or that they waited too long and the anti-vax message had already embedded?

It’ll be very interesting to watch.
I feel bad but yes I agree with this. I have a family member who won't get the vaccine because of "5G Microchips" and "government tracking us" with "poison" (despite her receiving literal poison in the form of chemotherapy, and clutching her phone with Facebook and TikTok no problem...)

What could I possibly say or do to convince this person otherwise? They are so far beyond rational understanding of the vaccine that I'd rather take down the misinformation than be afraid of somehow re-enforcing that family member's beliefs.
> Because we know for sure that Covid infection causes significant long term damage in at least 10% of cases.

Where are you getting your information? Your mayoclinic link doesn't make this 10% claim, nor did you provide any citation for it. I'm genuinely shocked by how divorced from the clinical reality your claims are.

SARS-1, which is SARS-2's less infectious but much more deadly older brother, didn't even cause long-term damage in 10% of cases. And you're trying to claim it for SARS-2, which is a virus where many who are infected will never even know they had it (if they don't get tested)?

Your claims are unfounded and, quite frankly, simply false. There's nowhere near 10% occurrence of "brain damage", scarred lungs, or "some other organ malfunction". (The vagueness of your terminology betrays you, btw)

Since you almost certainly haven't read any literature, let me provide you some reading material. I'll stick to just the lung issues subclaim. Some of these are on the older side but they're still relevant:

["Follow-up Chest CT findings from discharged patients with severe COVID-19: an 83-day observational study"](https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-27359/v1) - First Submitted May 4 2020, Published online May 12 2020

> Radiological abnormalities in patients of severe COVID-19 could be completely absorbed with no residual lung injury in more than two months’ follow-up.

^ note this is severe COVID-19, so that's from a population selected for severity of symptoms and they're still recovered by 2 months.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1440-1843... (SARS-1 pathology)

> Preliminary evidence suggests that these lung function abnormalities will improve over time
This is what few people take into account. I know someone who was involved in a fatality accident and the family of the deceased sued them even though the deceased person was clearly at fault. That isn’t even the biggest problem though since insurance took care of it, the person who survived the crash had a lot of trauma from feeling that they “killed” somebody.

Just wear a seatbelt and put on that helmet.
Thanks for pointing that out. Singer is still alive and is still a professor at Princeton.
I keep hearing this narrative about "We need to help open source developers" but it feels as empty as the narrative around gender and race diversity in corporate environments.

People within big corporations talk about the problem as a substitute for actually solving it. They could easily solve it. It would cost them very little. They just don't want to solve it.

Big corporate directors hate open source developers. They think we're all a bunch of communists.

They don't want to incentivize value creation via open source.

Instead of trying to figure out how to leverage network effects to capture some value from open source and help grow innovative ecosystems, they'd rather smother innovation and incentivize cronyism, dirty politics and bureaucracy instead.
Sure, but WHO are you supposed to pay those $2k to?
All of those things, but also I think a factor we all underestimate is Elizabeth herself has this super creepy presence in nearly every photo and video where she makes an appearance -- something just seems "off", in an almost uncanny valley sort of way, and confirmation that something is in fact "off" in the form of an actual scandal, I think, might satisfy some deep emotion that drove views to the original news stories that showed her picture. Those pictures stick with you, even sans-scandal.

Can't wait to see who they cast in the inevitable Netflix series.
This is called having a "nuanced perspective". It's something of a lost art these days.
FWIW, TPM 2.0 can encrypt the TPM traffic, so the attack by physically sniffing the TPM (https://dolosgroup.io/blog/2021/7/9/from-stolen-laptop-to-in...) is no longer possible.
I'm not talking about technical difficulties, the Python dev experience is top notch and I have no complaints in that area. What I mean is that it's hard to form a mental model of what's going on because it's as though you were using two different languages: the "fast" API calls and the "slow" munging of the results.

The frustrating part is that the language doesn't seem to "compose" any longer, it doesn't feel uniform: you can't really do things the simple way without paying a hefty peformance penalty.

With that said, the #1 reason why any code in any language is slow is "you're using the wrong algorithm", either explicitly or implicitly (wrong data structure, wrong SQL query, wrong caching policy, etc.), and in that sense Python definitely helps you because it makes it easier (or at least less tedious) to use the correct algorithm.
yeah I know, I already covered that

> the article then mentions some stuff like access to the bootloader, which of course means you could flash a more capable admin panel into that lets you do way more like take everyone's bitcoin

I was just wondering why they would spend so much time talking about the lower effort stuff, if it doesn't do anything. I'm sure it does something bad, but I can't go over to my convenience store and say "someone might change the convenience fee to a slightly higher percentage!" to get them to do anything, if thats the extent of the attack surface for just the admin panel if its already surveilled, so its useful to be able to say exactly why

I can imagine social engineering would allow a fake technician to come and service the machine though, with a hat and a voluntary personal mask mandate not being conspicuous right now. It would look so much more official to have a bunch of cables and computer doing a firmware flash lol.
You mean like most people currently know that most of the crypto-claims are bs but hype it up anyway?

You don't invest in something that's changing the world, you're investing in something that gains value, changing the world is just the narrative to get the sucker downstream to jump on board

EDIT: to add something less controversial, i can recommend the book "the key man" of a similar bluff in the impact investing space
How'd you get from profit to censorship to fascism? That's a lot of jumps!

There are simpler explanations.
Perhaps start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

The market-based process of product optimization you have outlined has many holes -- in this case, market failures including cartel behavior and incomplete information.

The thing that's surprising is that despite the many flaws of the pure laissez-faire approach, seen repeatedly, people trot it out as if it's still fresh, in wonderment that it hasn't been tried hard enough.
> Create a hundred sites and post it, feel free!

When you do that, then they come for your hosting providers and payment processors.
Anything short of complete 100% vaccine fanaticism could and probably will be construed as anti-vaccine when useful.

Source: downvotes on this post.
For all the crap the DoD gets, this has been a solved problem forever in the military. Even putting aside technical things like the Blue Force Tracker or ABMS that present a global view disseminated to users in the field who also feed information back to the distributed data store, it is simply expected and accepted that data will not be consistent in the presence of sparse network connectivity, which you will inevitably sometimes have, especially in the older days when relying on radio mesh networks or even further back before this was primarily a technological problem when headquarters communicated with forward units via horseback messenger. If the decision point is more critical to get right, you wait until you have reasonable assurance your information is accurate and consistent. If the decision point is more critical to be moved past quickly, then you act on the last known state even though it may no longer be accurate. If it's most important that all units be on the same page, then you act on the last known agreed upon plan, even if some units have newer information. They don't update until they get positive confirmation from headquarters that every unit has received the new information.

Heck, as much as I don't like them, even Facebook got this right last I knew when I still used their app years ago. It never required a network connection. If you weren't actively receiving updates, it just showed you the cached last known feed, accepting that it wasn't up to date. And if you tried to post something, it would just cache that too and wait to send it. They didn't invent eventual consistency, either. It's been a basic operating principle of distributed organizations, especially armies, for thousands of years.
The NATS protocol [0] looks pretty simple, but is text based unlike MQTT which uses a size optimized binary protocol.

[0]: https://docs.nats.io/nats-protocol/nats-protocol
I'm sorry, but: Wouldn't it be important to make sure the person actually wants secular values in politics when parts of their religion doesn't think the same way?

I mean, if he doesn't personally think folks should be using birth control or that same sex marriage is bad (as the Catholic Church does), isn't it important to ask how they deal with this? Does it come out in votes or does the person think that they should live up to a stricter moral code than what law dictates?

If you don't find this stuff out, you might wind up in a position where the law reflects religious values rather than broader secular ones. You don't have to have an official religion for this to happen, merely enough religious folks in office that vote with their religion.
Maybe you can look at micromorts, it's a unit of risk designed exactly to make these kind of comparisons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
>Fear for yourself, your family, and your future will apparently cause people to abandon all sorts of supposedly cherished beliefs.

And we (the US) must realize we've been put under a constant state of fear by news / advertisers for the last 30+ years. We don't really even realize that we aren't in a "neutral" mental state because we've been constantly bombarded by fear mongering. The constant fear is "normal" here. It wasn't always like this. This is why the "for the children," is so effective at infringing on our rights, we are afraid for the wellbeing our kids, more so than ourselves. It's nefarious to use our fear for our children to pass controversial legislation. I mean stop to think about how evil that is.

What would our country look like if we weren't being constantly being programmed to be afraid?
Meanwhile, there's r/HermanCainAward and r/LeopardsAteMyFace which are each full of hundreds of examples of anti-vaxxers who got sick and died because they "did all the right things" and "stood strong against the government" but COVID didn't care.
I know HN is always on a hair trigger to call out free speech issues, but "youtube does a poor job of curating covid information" is the expected outcome. You don't need to postulate a conspiracy or malicious actor to explain the expected outcome.

So it's kind of hard to take stuff like this seriously:

> ...we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky?"

Of course you are. Youtube middle-management aren't the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable scientific or medical information. If they ever were, that would be a crisis worthy of outrage.