skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The reality is that government and law are based on values, culture, and moral and religious beliefs. It has always been this way and always will be. I think the biggest mistake in your framing is the incorrect belief the left are not interested in strict social controls. They are absolutely interested in strict social controls, including:

Redefining gender and enforcing it in all institutions. Also, redefining marriage and enforcing this definition in all institutions. The left would love, for instance, to remove non-profit status from churches that don't support their definition of marriage.

Redefining racism and enforcing the definition in all institutions. The idea, for instance, that disparate outcome proves racism is deeply and fundamentally flawed, and yet the idea has been enforced and become entrenched via judicial activism, laws, and executive action.

Redefining sexual norms and force-teaching these norms to children in public schools.

Forcing citizens to pay for taxpayer-funded abortion.

Indoctrinating children with woke ideology in public schools, with support from the federal government. This is morally equivalent to forcing a particular religion into public schools, if not worse.

Cancel culture is a direct manifestation of the left's desire for full control over social behavior.

The left used to say play the anti-authoritarian card when they were the underdog in the culture wars. Now that they are winning, they no longer need to, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so.
If your parent is startrek fan, tell him "Commander Data" transmitted a "sleep" command to BGP (Borg Gateway Protocol) collective.

As result, the borg collectives can access to network, even 7of9 can't enter the campus.
YubiKey Bio builds biometric authentication into a security key
How is this relevant? Me subscribing to "greed is good" doesn't also automatically subscribe to "there shouldn't be any government intervention".
> The future is serverless, but not database-less.

I'm a fan of Timescale but definitely not a fan of "serverless" as a phrase.

That phrase is just abstracting "other people's computers" one additional degree, in a borderline meaningless way.

There's still a server. How is that serverless? It's just a server managed in a more indirect way.

Please convince me I am wrong here.
Whether or not anything here is illegal is for the courts to decide. But the hearing is for policymakers. If there's grossly disagreeable and unethical conduct then it's up to policymakers to create new laws or modify existing laws to prevent these things in the future.

This is why hearings like this are important.
That is argument for universal inaction. There is always more research that can be done to study potential outcomes, but eventually action needs to be taken.

We are staring at a house fire and at a certain point we need to stop debating the potential water damage and turn on the hoses or the entire house will burn down.
It's in reference to powerful actors making sure they are involved and have visibility in these things.

Flat out, not being aware of what people are capable of is a threat, and so they make sure they are aware.
Countries with highest number of politicians named in Panama Papers
Every time I swipe my credit card, an intimate profile of who I am and what I do is updated. I don't see the difference between verifying my identity to use a service, and the thousands of other electronic activities I perform on a daily basis that succinctly outline what I do.

This nonsense that one more organization asking for ID is somehow the straw the broke the camels back is decades too late.

You say you are under no illusions, and then you demonstrate with words that you are under illusions.

You don't see it? It is clear as a bell to me.
He was no saint but it was a more interesting world with him in it.
> A crime is something that violates existing statutes of law, period

What are you trying to communicate here? You're really stretching to defend your poor reading.

[EDIT] rather, you're really digging in—"my poor reading is the only correct reading, because I say it is, therefore the post is what's wrong, not my reading".
you forgot your password or your password was correct but it stopped working because they changed the requirement?
Amusing you seem to have some idea of consequences of politics movements - however, so-called conservatives (and libertarians), by unseating government power (which is the only organization large enough to challenge corporate power) leaves a power vacuum for wealthy/corporations to usurp that power.

So anti-government-reguluation leads to a different flavor of fascism by corporate elites (all owned by the very wealthy).
Cons: its name is "MeWe"
I think you missed the word "directly" in what you quoted from me. If Facebook directly made money off of engagement, people would pay for the Facebook service. The extra step of "sell ad space to advertisers" makes engagement an indirect money maker.

Philip Morris doesn't make money every drag someone takes, that's exactly my point. It's different.

Also, cigarettes are bad for you in any quantity. Social media is not obviously bad for you in any quantity, it's the knock on effects of being constantly aware of what your peer group is achieving and how you react to that which creates problems (among other indirect issues ultimately caused by your decisions related to social media, not the social media itself).
And thus why the excellent course "NAND to Tetris"[1] is named as such.

[1] https://www.nand2tetris.org/
Why does the supposed author of this text have a thispersondoesnotexist profile picture?
Corporate power, greed and profiteering is a much more substantial cause for the devastation of the "community". It used to be that hackers hacked (read the_uT prophile for a good definition on what hacking is) and -for the most part- stayed quiet. With everyone and his dog selling out to the highest bidder and maxing out self-promotion in his character sheet, that's certainly no longer the case. This is also reflected in (current) Phrack articles and authors, they're no longer an expression of the underground but of the corporate/infosec sphere that they belong to.

The underground these days is to be found on 4chan and other related (or not) subcultures, just like the_uT wrote more than 12 years ago, but certainly not in infosec.
Indeed, I generally associate those videos with low/0 effort YouTube content farms trying to make a quick buck on ad revenue.
Blind people dream in visual images
More details about the October 4 outage
Red-Hat mostly.
I'm guessing she would be eligible for an SEC whistleblower award if her complaints result in fines to Facebook.
Windows 11 Security [video]
A matplotlib backend isn't even needed, just a cool piece of info, it's possible to extend ipython and/or jupyter console to display pngs and svgs with sixels (and/or kitty graphics, dynamically). I have code lying around for this.
> Stalking is only illegal because that person "doesn't" have your permission

Do all people scanned by Facebook have a Facebook or Instagram or whatever account?.
> The market is globally competitive.

If national governments are going to allow companies to be trans-national, then we clearly need trans-national regulatory authorities. This isn't rocket science.

People act like corporations are immutable acts of divine intervention. They are an artifact we create and we are free as a society to change their parameters however we wish.
You've been able to change the voice in Siri for years under settings

https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/change-siris-voice-on-iphon...
Reminds me of PSD and this comment:

// At this point, I'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format.
// PSD is not a good format. PSD is not even a bad format. Calling it such would be an
// insult to other bad formats, such as PCX or JPEG. No, PSD is an abysmal format. Having
<snip... many more lines>
//
// PSD is not my favourite file format.

from https://github.com/kjk/xee/blob/master/XeePhotoshopLoader.m

(I have many GB of scanned photos in this format from a canon scanner)
No more Facebook for her.
The problem is that people who can successfully enact a revolution or who aspire to become the decision makers of the collectivist society (it's never run democratically) are not temperamentally individuals who would actually govern with a light touch.

Once people like that are in charge, it can take many generations for government to become more liberal (in the classical sense). When individual rights are lost, they are very hard to recover.
My tinfoil theory about the outage yesterday is that it was done on purpose, as a way to create an opportunity to "hide" as many internal documents as possible without anyone noticing.
>closely examine a near monopoly

Facebook is a near monopoly? In what? Ads? They're not even the biggest advertising company, Google is bigger.

"Social media"? There's Twitter, Reddit, Snapchat, Tiktok, Tumblr, Youtube and dozens of others.

Can you clarify what you mean by "near-monopoly" in this context?
what attack vector are you worried about? CIA man-in-the-middling a zine to make the articles less entertaining?
I think most C++ implementation of bogosort use std::next_permutation
The statements Facebook is being judged on very well may also be too vague for anyone to find real fault - I can't tell if there's anything there to specifically prove that facebook were directly misleading investors while privately chatting about how awesome it is that radicalism drives engagement - if there's a memo to that effect they could be in real trouble.
If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.
My response is by no means a whole response, but I share my amused surprise given that 'shareholder value' argument gets trotted out the moment company does anything that upsets society a little. This suggests that it is not about the good of the society, but that of a specific power center. Normally, as you said, pursuit of profit is cool in US.

Here, FB, if you listen to some of the commentary, is not doing 'enough' to combat 'hate' and 'disinformation'. In short, FB does not do enough about wrongthink to use 1984 terms.

Now, there are arguments to use against FB for the impact on society, but the fact that everyone appears to be surprised that company, gasp, chooses profit over society, is beyond hilarious. No fucking shit.
Is that true for domestic sales?
Oh, she doesn’t work in tech now. Her work will now involve television interviews and book-signing tours. From that jumping off point, she’ll be able to do what she likes.
It's not fixing facebook. No one was saying "fix facebook" when Barack Obama was praised for using it and it was part of his strategy to win. For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

The "facebook is bad" started happening when Trump won, imo. Essentially the establishment on both sides realized that it could also be used against them as much as for them. It feels similar to AM radio, which conservatives successfully used and you started to see cries for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.

I agree with the post that this wont solve anything.
“Whistleblower” - with the heaviest use of air quotes.
Why compromise? Just have a helpful variable like Perl's $[ to set the first element index.
This is good stuff. I'd add: if you're tussling with what seems to be a very confusing problem, often you are looking at _two_ problems.
I don't think it is what you are getting at, but she may be entitled to financial compensation if Facebook is fined as a result of her whistleblowing.

> Whistleblower awards can range from 10-30% of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million.

[0]: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-149
You just compared a social media company to a weapons manufacturer.

Elsewhere, I see comparisons to cigarettes, oxycontin, gambling.

It is easy to see how one might think Facebook to be evil if they are constantly bombarded with these false equivalencies.
I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values.

For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow it to grow into the monstrosity that it eventually became. In response, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 which subsequently prevented the actions that Standard Oil had used to consolidate the market.

There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically.
It's a very different issue. One important difference is that the children being harmed here are American children. Rightly or wrongly, it raises the priority since American parents are seeing their own children harmed.

I don't want to defend Nike, but still, the fact that people are poor enough to send their kids off to factories to make shoes isn't Nike's fault.

But again, very different issue. Worthwhile to think about, but I don't think it should detract from this one.
I think Scott was looking at it from a too US-centric perspective and part of what made the book interesting was drawing connections between movements around the world.
I'm sorry - that's the only part of my statement you're going to read? The throw away context at the beginning?

I'll remove the mention of it being a near monopoly since that's really unnecessary for the main statement.
The difference is, I didn't give them permission to stalk me, and yet they still are. I am not in plain view, I have adblockers, and do-not-track, I reject cookies from facebook and have never given them my phone number. Yet they know my phone number as someone I know allowed their app to look at their contacts, they keep shadow profiles and they create new domains so they can get around adblockers and cookie rules. They even change their privacy settings just to make it harder to keep up with protecting yourself if you are a customer.

Many countries have laws against companies harvesting phone numbers just because someone called them, your browser information isn't really different to that.

>90% of the internet DON'T use that business model. It's actually quite a small proportion. They're just all over the place as they make profit from creeping into other businesses and using them as a collection platform. Ad networks need to be reigned in (and yes, that's what FB is).
Easier said than done though.
My wife works for a massive company that now makes you classify every email as external, internal, or confidential and after numerous emails, training and constantly calling people out on things, nobody can still figure out the difference (and thus marks everything far less secure than it is), despite it being trivial.
Sibling comments are saying money, but that's not the whole reason imho. The mere act of putting out that kind of quality artifact into the world attracts the talent that can produce that kind of artifact (or in fact, even just talent that wants to learn/get to that level).

Obviously without the money incentive said virtuous circle could break down in an instant.
That's why we must always give these companies a consulting quote that covers much more than flight tickets and expenses. Make sure they pay up front, otherwise it's some project manager's empty promise.
Correct.

She said that she began thinking about leaving messages for Facebook’s internal security team for when they inevitably reviewed her search activity. On May 17, shortly before 7 p.m., she logged on for the last time and typed her final message into Workplace’s search bar to try to explain her motives.

“I don’t hate Facebook,” she wrote. “I love Facebook. I want to save it.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-whistleblower-frances-...
Absolutely. I also have some "scrappy" educational creds. That gets me a lot of condescension, as well.

I'm still a bloke, though, so I can't say I know how they feel.
Lmao have you ever been in a school? How would that even be geometrically possible?
I'm glad you find me amusing, but I actually agree with you that the concept of power decentralization needs to be applied to corporations as well. I definitely don't claim to have the answers to how to accomplish this, nor did I think the U.S. founders would ever imagine the power that corporations would eventually wield.
This program says there's an act passed 10 years ago protecting whistleblowers who report internal documents to the state.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-...
INOI 2004. this guy's OG.
While this is quite concerning, honestly as someone deep in the .NET ecosystem, Microsoft has made so many (surprisingly) good moves in recent years that I think there’s room for a couple of fuck ups. [1]

I see all this as something that can be corrected. Not necessarily a sign of anything too sinister. (Maybe I’m too optimistic).

Admittedly I didn’t like the AppGet/WinGet story but there could be a side to that which we don’t hear about. First time I’ve heard about the IdentityServer issue - doesn’t sound great.

But MS have gone too far down the path they’re on for me to any longer dismiss their new found “open source” focus with the same level of cynicism that I once had.

There is a LOT of really good stuff happening here. It can no longer be brushed off as just surface-level pandering, which was what I used to think in the early days of their move to .NET Core and open source.

But that said, I really hope they take the lessons from this and sort out the Foundation.

[1] I exclude Windows 11 from this analysis
The problem is that would cover pretty much anything.
Nike has received (and continues to receive) a lot of attention about that sort of thing for decades.

But, on a larger level, I see several comments that seem to be implying that talking about the wrongdoing of one company isn't valid unless we talk about the wrongdoing of all companies at the same time.

I think that argument is faulty. If the argument were good, then it wouldn't be possible to talk about any company's wrongdoing because you'll always be leaving others out of the conversation.
Yep outside of a few industries that have specific supply constraints (like semiconductors) the broad shortages are mostly due to the ports. They have zero room to absorb the additional demand thanks to the longshoreman unions having blocked all opportunities for automation and efficiency improvements over the past couple decades, so a record number of ships are waiting at anchor for many days if not weeks outside of major US ports.
FB does this in spades - as does google. And their goals with AI/ML is to have these tweaks done by AI - and let the humans only take glee in seeing their shipped code working and making results that make Zucks coffers happy.

FB ran an experiment of language across millions of users about a greeting sentiment and other syntax/context to see which types of phrases got the highest level of engagement... (I cant find the story, it was on NPR a few years ago...

When I was at FB they had a "build your own bar" event where each department were to build their own bar for happy hours, and then FB would give ~$400 or something like that to stock it up...

Down the rown from us was the ML/BI group of some sort - they had their bar up super fast and were having happy hours every day it seemed.... bunch of weird folks on that team, super smart, weird folks.
"but it doesn't work with JS disabled in my text-based browser!" -- all of HN
I see where you're going, but your implementation broke the sort.

As for time complexity, it changes from ϴ(n²) to O(n²). Alternatively, you can drop the O-notation and calculate precisely so as to include constant factor speedups, though your algorithm may end up slower in the worst case.
Exercise Burns Fewer Calories Than Previously Thought
A bit off topic but I'm a little sad to see "Covid-19 made in lab" in the "dangerous to yourself and others" tier, especially with how much public view has evolved. Very few people will ever know for certain, it seems, but it could very well have naturally mutated from an existing virus in captivity and then escaped accidently. We have to be careful how we approach framing conspiracies because you risk to alienate and smother valid discussion.
No, calling out more fundamental and broker problem is the first step to address the root problem.

Otherwise, you are just whacking moles, and pretending that one day there would be no more moles...

Or rather, you indeed are OK with a constant number of moles indefinitely. That's OK. But the premise of the parent is obviously that the moles are growing too numerous and are not staying constant at all...
100% on Lighthouse
Of _course_ the state of affairs today is not satisfactory. There are many ways we could improve the world, or Western Civilization. That's a completely different question.

We face several serious challenges to our civilization in the coming decades, no question. I don't even know if we will overcome them, but if we don't then out civilization will be in decline, if we do overcome them then it won't.
FYI the lady was the Product Manager and ran the entire Civic Engagement group. She's not just a project manager working on a team of devs.
Problem is the blockchain stuff usually ends up being computationally expensive for what it's trying to do.

I could maybe see a use case for DNS but then either each computer has to have the full blockchain locally or rely on providers to do that for them in which case we're basically at the same model we have now (with root servers and DNS servers).

Obviously you don't want to publish private IPs, etc. to other computers... so inside a local network you're not buying yourself much.

For routing tables I could see more of a use case for blockchain technology since you can actually verify the routing tables and prevent BGP spoofing, etc.
It's possible but the economic and social upheavel would be massive. Not a good scenario for anyone I think.
It'd be great if this was tunable and usable in non-OOM scenarios.
There is not much mystery here IMO.

The obvious options:
- she went in with an agenda from the beginning intending to get this stuff
- she went in, discovered that the sociopathic pattern she'd been warned about and had a nagging doubt about was worse than she though, got the religion, and got the stuff

As an aside,

Facebook hires smart. Both of these and her success are consistent with a smart and motivated person. Isn't that what we're supposed to be selecting for? Isn't drive and high functioning what Facebook is filtering for?

More: isn't setting aside moral misgivings and agonizing, in pursuit of achievement of your mission, EXACTLY what Facebook is trying to filter for...?

Always a shame when the sword cuts the wielder!

But back to the point: does it matter which of these is true?

Not to me, or to democracy; the bottom line is that it takes an action like this to force the endless malfeasance, amorality, and actual destructive behavior into public consciousness. Not least when fighting a machine that seeks to stifle criticism and control narrative: this is indeed exactly what she is bringing receipts on.

The supposition seems to be that she is a plant, sent on a mission to bring down Facebook.

Let's say that's the case.

I have no issue with that, as Facebook belongs down.

I don't care who paid for this skullduggery—especially if it's the US taxpayer.

The GOP has done everything it can to curtail the ability of the state to challenge the power of accumulated capital.

I would applaud a game leveling asymmetric warfare style methods to do the state's work.

Indeed, this would be a remarkable and rare return on taxpayer money, should it bring about the dismantling of their profoundly caustic monopoly.