skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Saw this clip of Joe Rogan criticizing vaccine skeptics near the beginning of the pandemic. He calls people who think vaccines are dangerous “whackos”. Seems he lost his way.

https://twitter.com/kingbullyo/status/1489666078431236100?s=...
How are they silencing him? He can publish anywhere he likes, they just paid him to work for them and now he's bringing their brand into disrepute.
> Building the self-sensing and error-recovery logic to support a "level 5" automated unfolding is wasteful

Very true, especially if they tried to do all that the first time.

In a way, this stepwise deployment is a test run for a future version that can do it a little bit more automated.
>broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed.

A statement many people appeal to that nobody can substantiate.
I think he can probably wipe his tears with some of the $100 bills Spotify gave him.

But seriously, though. He surely knew the stakes when he decided to sign the deal with Spotify, moving from an open podcasting ecosystem to a corporate controlled one.

> So I'm guessing, like a lot of things in the US, private companies are now deciding to figure that part out.

For people who decided to take a giant paycheck from those private companies, yes.
Trust me, I know enough to not listen to the guy. I saw clips of his Bill Burr episode where tried to make wearing masks 'gay' in the bad way, and it kinda pissed me off.

I don't like the guy, but I just do what any other reasonable person does and don't listen to him.
So he sold the rights to Spotify so they can do with it whatever they want
I don’t think that is contrary to my point or what I was trying to say. The left lane is for passing cars in the right lane, and for turning left across traffic in cases with no middle turning lane. The left lane is not meant for driving. I don’t think this varies by jurisdiction and may not be a regulation per se, it’s just the norms and rules of the road.
Most of the episodes that where removed are comedians. Makes sense. :/
What we see is a mash-up of the brain’s last 15 seconds of visual information
If I recall correctly, it’s in his contract that if he leaves Spotify, he gets the rights to all of his episodes.
Censorship by way of market forces is still censorship.
I used i3wm as my daily driver for years, but not since wfh, where I use...just tmux + chrome + vscode sometimes.
I am not sure there is really a winning play in situations like this that does not result in substantial losses either way.
I guess that's why they invented slide rules. I could get within 3 significant digits on a slide rule (and compute the exponent in my head), whereas I guess the margin of this envelope is too small to contain the calculation.
hey jarrenae,

Thanks for this update. I've included a couple points below to improve on before our next meeting:

- can i get a similar look to this but in pie chart format? Maybe just include top ten labels?

- I would like to see a larger size of the visual on the page

- the color scheme is okay but try experimenting with black font for the locations

Best,
LimitedInfo
And thus the "banality of evil"
Misses an opportunity to talk about Stirling's approximation to the factorial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling%27s_approximation

Gigantic fake numbers are rubbish (I believe that 110%), but saving work with approximation is cool.
I'm just providing you with an explanation for why you might have accrued downvotes beyond the initial one that you were complaining about. As you can now see, doing so has derailed a potential discussion you wished to have.
What makes nonsense like this work is that there really is a percentage of people who actually completely buy into the nonsense and find it all very "inspiring".
He got paid $100M and his popularity is at least partly based on throwing red meat to stir up controversy. I think he’s thriving on attention from lots of people who would never otherwise think about him.
Everybody is calling for cancelation. Nobody is calling for censorship. Your morals are confused.
Generally at big-tech/FAANGs, you can expect:

... a refresh grant every year equal to 25% of a new hire grant for someone of your level vesting over 4 years, quarterly, with no cliff.

... a COL adjustment.

... a merit-based pay hike.

... a market adjustment if appropriate.

This is not a reduction in pay no matter how you slice it. It's going to be way more than 7%. It's going to be roughly 6.25% + 3% + 0-5%. 10-15% annually. 13-18% if they get the COL.

These are assessed relative to the market.

This is on top of your base pay, bonus, company bonus multiplier and vesting equity which has probably significantly appreciated year over year - potentially huge, as GOOG is up 37% YoY.

I'm not worried for the employees even though leadership didn't commit to making COL adjustments 6-7% this year instead of 2-3% like most years. It's a rounding error for these folks and there's no world in which they're getting a pay cut if they're meeting expectations.
No, need to understand the abstraction level best suited both for the CS degree obtained and the environment the programming is being done in/with.

Unfortunately, most CS degrees are toolmaker theory for supporting areas of scientific endevors. For the "non-university" world, don't care unless it's clear what area of CS want to specialized in.

Typically don't control/define most of the enviroment the programming is being done in/with. Until one specializes/demos experience in a specific area, "programming" sucks because "general purpose" experience is real-world entry level.

A general CS degree hopefully will allow for figuring out what to specialized/get experience in. Although, hopefully don't pick something that's a grinding profession. aka game programmers.
I mean, he isn't allowed back in Canada, last I heard =[ but I still love him.
Personally I really hate that idea. Spotify is a for-profit corporation. It's only official view is to make as much money as possible. Any other political or philosophical statement is at best a calculated ploy to make more profit. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Now, if the platform were a publicly funded news organization or TV station, then you could make that argument with a straight face.
>If Spotify is trying to effect or create the appearance of a willingness to reach a compromise in response to the recent singer pressure campaign, then it is doing nothing other than signal weakness.

Perhaps it's just been a long week, but I don't really understand what you mean by "weakness" in this context.

Spotify is in an uncomfortable place right now. Some of the folks who generate some revenue for them aren't very happy with another guy who they bet on to generate even more revenue for them.

This, of course, made worse by the larger discussion around the pandemic.

Spotify is never going to win here. Regardless of what they do they will inevitably alienate a bunch of folks. The question for them is, "what's going to cause the least disruption to the revenue stream?"

I guess I'm not sure how (or why) it makes any difference, no matter what they choose to do.
> They can do whatever the fuck they want.

If that's your framing, you should also grant that we can also protest whatever the fuck we want. This is a trite and unfruitful line of argument.
It absolutely is censorship when the exclusive owner and distributor of the content refuses to distribute and takes it down. It's the very definition of it.

You might be conflating that with the first amendment and free speech, but that's entirely different.

This is the deal Rogan signed so it's also free market capitalism, but that's not mutually exclusive either.
It's hilarious to me how every time this "free speech" "discussion" comes up, it inevitably leads to "people not wanting to associate with me or listen to me speak is denying my free speech".
It's a reference.

And who is it calling names?
Some guests who got theirs removed complained on twitter, so this seems unlikely.
I think it's exclusive, otherwise why would he stop publishing on YouTube.
Technically more powerful. Better… well, not with no battery life, it wasn’t.
Thanks for the wikipedia article - perhaps you should have read it first
My guess is that this is a technical error. Daniel Ek seems to know that yielding an inch to these whiners never yields anything but more whining.
Maybe the compromise was to remove videos algorithmically, ostensibly to avoid bias from human selection, and this is the poor result? None of the episodes that were removed are particularly controversial: they're comedians and contrarians mostly, and none of the episodes that actually inspired this controversy.
> Pro speech people don't like this

I’m “pro speech” and I love this! No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do. They have a contract with Joe Rogan, are ostensibly honoring it, and are making a decision on what speech they want to be associated with.

What else do you want them to do? Be forced by someone to make a decision they don’t want to make? That doesn’t sound like something someone who believes in free speech would want.
Was trying to find on that page where the servers are based (latency is a big issue for me with VPS)
You're right, unfortunately I fell prey to the same knee-jerk instinct that I'm calling out! It would've been more accurate for me to say he's free to publish these views in any other avenue, if not the episodes.
> The user does not know why the prices went up

Why not? The app can totally tell them! When I eat at restaurants, I see a receipt with tax + tip + SF mandate itemized out. Nothing stops a developer from itemizing out those costs in communication with users though.
They are removing episodes that have been around long before Covid. You have proven to be just parroting the same old song and dance without thinking for yourself and as a result are unfit to comment on this topic and should refrain from any more discussion regarding this matter.
What exactly does deleting episodes get Spotify? I'm really not seeing the grand strategy you are alluding to.

Edit: I missed the obvious sarcasm. I need coffee.
Role of partitioning and data locality in the performance of druid cluster
Yes, app developers should be able to say that (and to say “pay on our website”). The gag order on app developers is wrong and should be illegal.
This is not the government and you have no idea what the Stasi system was.
A friend calls LinkedIn “the reverse Tinder”: where hot women write to nerds only to be ignored
So if I insult and berate you at a party, and you choose to go home after seeing that the host won't intervene, you're the one who's against free speech?
Want to Guarantee Y C Interview Follow This CheatSheet
If you're actually interested in this topic, you should read "What is this thing called science?" by Alan Chalmers. One big take away from the book is that there are many things that are "factual" and "scientific" but are not "falsifiable".

It's been an important part of modern scientific advancement that falsification is a good, but not perfect way of learning about how the universe works.

For example, macro-evolution is basically unfalsifiable, and yet it is generally regarded as good science.
Pretty sure the contract doesn’t let Spotify do whatever the fuck they want.
They could but it just feels wrong to take down stuff because of mob chasing after them. Soon, we will be silencing political opponents, critics, contrarians, etc. the entire fabric of society falls apart when mobs fight like this. There needs to be stern principles of free speech, in colloquial and philosophical sense [1], that keeps the wheels greased and keeps the fabric intact. Honestly, we are heading towards a society akin to CCP in China except instead of Governments censoring directly, we have a proxy of Big Tech/Corp doing it for them.

Besides, Joe Rogan, there are far too many crackpot books on Amazon. We shouldn't take them down.

[1] I am well aware of the legal definition of Free Speech. But most people in our society argue with the philosophical position.
I'm not sure this website is accurate as Rogan so far has not said anything on Twitter or Instagram about this.

Yet if true, this is such BS. It's hard not to see Rogan, with his massive and mostly bipartisan audience, yet still polarizing and controversial discussions, as a litmus test for how well the West really embraces dissent. We're supposed to have invented dissent, right? And Joe Rogan, he's our little free speech canary--and the Western culture is killing him.

But if you don't care about this or don't think it's important, try to remember that bastard time traveling love child of Donne and Orwell: never send to know for whom the censors come.

Sigh. He shouldn't have posted that 9 minutes video "addressing the controversy" and taken such a conciliatory tone. People see those things as weakness or creating a fake-pretext to make it easier to censor him.

From Joe's perspective he probably doesn't care. He's got the exclusive deal, so not going to lose a dime if Spotify cancels him, and even if they does lose money... he probably doesn't really need the money. He's his own platform, his audience is in love with him not with the delivery mechanism.

From society's point of view these kind of binary outrages about censorship, to me, relate to a recent Glenn greenwald tweet where he says that society's going to end up needing two of everything depending on one's ideology: segregated websites, etc. And I think that's probably the point because the outrage about different views is helping to manufacture consent for introduction of a Chinese style censorship system in the West. But it'll be worse than the Chinese system which is guided by some sort of people focused ideology, as it'll be something corporate.

In light of the possible oppressing nature of this the smart thing for individuals to do is not to engage in these ridiculous outrage battles, to avoid inflaming this intolerance of other people's views. Instead of letting yourself be used to manufacture consent for whatever new horror is slumbering towards Bethlehem to be born, set yourself to manufacture your own tolerance toward people with different opinions and not let your strings be pulled by whoever is seeking to inflame these kind of divisions.

I mean we're supposed to be "the permeable", right? (Short Bus).
Every platform is eventually going to have to deal with this.

The correct move is to be a free speech maximalist (in either political direction) until laws are broken. You can also make rules against directed harassment and threats.

Tell the detractors that "it could just as easily be your side being silenced", because that's the honest truth.

People will complain, but only the fringes will leave.
> You can but its not really advisable. Games are not designed to work like this. They might not break, but its contrary to the design of the game and will harm the experience in numerous little ways.

No, it won't. It works as designed in VR. This is a completely baseless claim.

> It is undeniably easier to aim with a mouse.

No, it isn't because it's not natural or intuitive compared to pointing a firearm with a laser pointer. There have man machine, industrial engineering studies surrounding this.

> The controls are incredibly important. They are your interface to the game.

Yes, and something to mirror real life's physical objects and environments is a lot more intuitive and natural. Again, you have a completely baseless claim.

I'm very confident that your opinion of VR highly tied to your personal dislike of physical movement. That is not an issue with VR, that is just your personal preference.
If you live in a jurisdiction where you need to pay sales tax, you will pay that sales tax, it will be on top of anything that the seller would normally charge you. You can't escape this tax by going to a different seller in your same jurisdiction. You can choose to move to a different jurisdiction if you don't like paying that tax, but a seller who sells in both will charge you the same subtotal (+ different tax).

Same with Apple's 30% fee - it's unavoidable on their platform so it acts as a private sales tax on their platform. Some developers might choose to essentially subsidize their apple users by charging them the same price on Apple and on tax-free platforms like the web. That may be out of fear for Apple or out of cultural inertia or whatever, but it doesn't make sense, they're the ones leaving money on the table, not the ones who charge people taking into account the cost of doing business with those people on their preferred platform. They could get more profit selling their app for cheaper when not subject to the 30% platform tax, if they think that their pricing with that tax is optimal.
I hope that no-one here was surprised about this given that this multi-million 'exclusive contract' was seen by many as a sell-out to a private platform that has the upper hand on what they allow on their platform.

It seems that those concerned about him selling out now have a point, but I doubt anyone cares - JR still made his money and that decision was ultimately up to him.

But perhaps the big lesson here for others is to run your own company and host your own show.
They're alluding to a lack of grand strategy.

Edit: Enjoy your coffee!
Too many things are Turing Complete. I would like to propose more research into things which are "Tetris Complete".

https://everything2.com/title/Tetris+complete

Tetris Completion extends Turing Completion by adding the minimum requirements for a functional implementation of Tetris. From the link above:

* a display with at least 20 rows and 10 columns, and enough read/write random access memory to store the current contents of the display,

* a way of repainting one row or column of the display without affecting the others,

* a timer with a resolution of at least 100 milliseconds

* a small set of keys whose state can be read without blocking execution, which for Tetris are left, right, clockwise, and anticlockwise

* a linear bounded automaton programmed for the particular puzzle game
I'd disagree. The sections on power talk and posture talk were classic. I see people using it a the time now for various purposes.
Can you find a citation for the $100 million dollar number? It does not seem to have been disclosed publicly by either party.
I'm pretty sure the comment is sarcasm.
You are free to associate/disassociate with whoever you want. When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue.
I did a rough tally of the 70 removed episodes:

Comedian: 45,
Political Commentator/Media Personality: 8,
Brian Redban: 5,
Health/Fitness: 2,
Scientist: 2,
Author: 2,
Musician: 1,
Pornstar: 1,
(MMA) Fight Companion: 1,
Giorgio Tsoukalos,
Kevin Smith,
Cliffy B & Johnny Cristo (can't even figure out who these last two are)
HN does vote fuzzing so you’re literally tilting at windmills here
Chances are he has an out if Spotify violates the content agreement. They knew precisely what they were buying…and I am sure he has a remediation capability in his contract when there is a content dispute.

Also, have an upvote, I hate fuck faces and dick faces who downvote because of cursing. Reminds me of all those morality prudes demanding album stickers and whatnot.
Understandable given how dry - but you may want to tweak the settings on your sarcasm detector.
Why is the expectation that regulations will force Apple to set the bar lower than what Google has already done?
Pretty sure the first sentence is sarcasm.
Spotify also has very little user stickiness. I switched pretty painlessly to Tidal and now I get better quality audio and the artists get more royalties and I don't have to have JRE and Peterson staring at me every time I login.
This is a misunderstanding of the concept of free speech in the US.

Is the capital G government intervening with discourse? If not then there are no first amendment violations.
Exactly, if you want to take issue with Spotify's decision that's fine, but calling this a speech issue is short sighted.

Would we really want to further limit what right holders are allowed to do with their property?
That ends in a cesspool that nobody is willing to spend money on or do business with.

See Voat.
> It has very few third party games

The library of games on the switch is enormous…
So would I, but I’d also not have a job, or at least make a lot less income. Without marketing, advertising and sales, there is very little economic activity.

It’s like the old adage: this job would be great it weren’t for those pesky customers.
Most FAANGs will just nuke them from orbit instead of trying to coax them out with a 3% raise instead of a 6% raise. Google may be an exception, I don't know, but you're not going to last long as a 'low performer' at Amazon (as today's LinkedIn post will attest) or Meta or Apple. They'll just tell you to pack your shit.
Free speech is about GOVERNMENT interference. You seem to have that confused with the free market, or perhaps just confused by social consequences of anti-social behavior.

Nobody is silencing JRE.
> Now they seem to be removing episodes, but reportedly not the controversial ones?

Yeah I don't get this part. While I could understand why they'd want to remove Alex Jones, there are uncontroversial names like Tim Ferriss who were also removed.
He can't just move. He made $100 million exclusive licensing deal.
> But perhaps the big lesson here is to run your own company and host your own show.

And give up $100M? LOL why on earth would that be the big lesson?
It's been one weird fucking ride watching Joe go from an unheard of zero budget podcast about nothing to being a central figure in American politics over the last 10 years. Some times I wish we could just go back.
I think that's a little unfair. If Spotify were just say, Neil Young and Joe Rogan material, this would be way different.

To your example, if the party had say 50k people at it, correct. I really wouldn't care what one person was saying.

That aside, I don't recall Rogan attacking anyone directly.
I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of the rules.

There have been plenty of Chrome extensions that are Show HNs: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Chrome.google.com+Show+Hn
Many episodes with COVID discussion are still up. The ones taken down feature comedians and (non-COVID related) controversial figures. I'm not sure these removals are related to the controversy.
Let's be honest. It was always a matter of if - not when - they'd start to cancel Joe Rogan. Arguing about the minutiae of who said what on which podcast is missing the forest for the trees. There was always a reason.
> A iMessage can install a virus, but you don't see people asking for human moderation of all of their messages on the remote chance that one message contains a virus.

You keep making this silly silly argument.

A text message is not like a software application.

If you really thing the two are comparable, you honestly don’t know anything about computer technology.

You also clearly don’t understand security if you think a platform can be free of security flaws.

As for things slipping through app review. Obviously that happens. That proves that the platform isn’t secure, and that App review isn’t perfect.

If app review wasn’t there, even more things would ‘slip through’. What matters is not how many things slip through, but how many are stopped.

The platform security isn’t perfect, and nor is app review. Together they are much better than one would be alone. It isn’t hard to understand this if you want to.
In some versions of object oriented programming, some aspects of objects can be queried from the outside, some cannot--they are invisible states.

For protons, they may come with a serial number, but we're not allowed to read it because of the constraints built into God's programming language.
Yes. Thank you!
This has nothing to do with free speech.

Spotify is not being compelled by any authority to remove or keep content on their platform. The only reason why Spotify hosts or removes content is because it's what they decide is best given market pressures.