skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The part of the “general purpose computer” that Apple does not display in its iPhone marketing is the “computer” part including the original “there’s an app for that” commercial. Arguably also the “general purpose” part in that a general purpose computer will run any calculable task, and App Store + OS policies prevent this or at least make it difficult and the messaging around this also comes out of their crack marketing team. Feet to the fire, Apple would probably call iPhones pachinko machines before they ever called them general purpose computers in any part of their marketing.
I agree. They put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The solution was not to hire him, but that’s long past.
When JRE went to Spotify many people were hailing it as an anti-cancellation move. They clearly misunderstood.. the podcast was decentralized (even if your podcast host shuts you down you can serve the rss and mp3s from somewhere else). And Youtube was another avenue of distribution. Centralization makes you more vulnerable to getting particular content vetoed.
I think I speak for the majority of people here.

Before the Spotify deal, you would just see couple of Joe Rogan clips on YouTube and you have sat through maybe 3-4 entire podcasts. You don't care much about MMA or you don't think comedians are that important/hypeworthy as the JRE fandom would claim.

After the Spotify deal you just slowly stopped even seeing the clips because for some reason you just don't care to search for them and YouTube stopped recommending new clips.

You would hear about some hot takes about Joe Rogan vs something but you just don't find it worthwhile to investigate or frankly having an opinion about them.
There’s a blizzard going on, billions and billions of snowflakes.
I have a life. Maybe you need a backbone?
It worked fine in the past when the mainstream platforms were also free speech platforms. Scale matters and those websites are only terrible because they're bastions for everybody else who also got banned.
Rogan better buckle up. He's stepping on the narratives of some powerful people and this kind of thing won't stop until he's under thumb.
Um, what is "vote fuzzing"?
"A potential audience of millions of users" means less than it implies. If I just put my work online, have I got the audience of billions of Internet users? Probably yes, but it doesn't mean much - I still need to tell people about my work somehow so they would be interested in it.

If we think about how App Store can actually actively help us in promoting an app, without specifically buying ad in the App Store - which doesn't cost $99/year, it costs much more - it's not exactly appealing. Epic's CEO showed how bad the App Store search is in finding apps that users specifically search for: https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/101985252700794470...

And why wouldn't it be bad? Iphone users don't have any better.
Free speech has nothing to do with it. Spotify paid him a $100M to provide a product according to their terms. The idea that this is a free speech issue is ridiculous and makes no sense. If it was a matter of access to the content, what you should be arguing for is not having an exclusive contract with Spotify, but use one of the million other services that allows anyone to download the episode.
People keep saying this but Neil Young and the others never pressured Spotify to do anything about Rogan or anything else. His statement was very clear, he didn't want the association and wanted his music removed.
FFS read about it. It burns clean at use site but causes tons of largely unmeasured methane emissions at extraction site, to the point where it's 50%-70% as bad as coal. Except it's worse because clueless people think it's great so they're building even more gas plants which will work for decades to come, whereas coal at least is being shut down.
Oh I liked the Rogaine + Burr episode where he shouted down a primatologist for being stupid and not checking the internet for wisdom first. He closed by mocking her for having a vagina. He's really an impressively free thinker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E&t=342s

"You're a fucking idiot go online and look it up."

"Go online and look it up."

"Yeah you've learned from shit from college. When was the last time you got online and researched primates."

"Stupid"

"Stupid"

"Stupid"

…

"I have a vagina."
Uruguay! First?
Is haveged still useful/relevant?
I think this will lead to outcome that few people cheering for this are anticipating. Musk, Thiel etc. will back an alternative platform that will host JRE, Lex, Jordan Peterson etc. and in the long term it will win due to being less restrictive. Which in the long term is prob a positive thing.
voat is a forum, podcast platforms are passive and do not have any kind of direct social interaction. 'free speech until the law is broken' is what appx the entire internet was like until ~6 years ago.
Bogleheads Investing Books
The Wii continues to outplay the Switch in my house. It's great how solid the Switch's hardware is, but the games are a bit meh -- though I'll admit that's probably a product of the times and competition, might as well just repackage old games.

But I can't imagine there will ever be a console as revolutionary (no pun intended for those who remember) as the Wii. To take such a huge gamble on motion gaming and have it work so well is so applause-worthy. To compare, imagine Zuckerberg announces a headset today, and it's actually good? See how wild that sounds?
Spotify’s purchase of JRE turns them into his publisher/sponsor. When consumers and musicians cut ties they’re speaking with their $$ and saying they don’t want to support his content. That’s not the same as silencing or censoring him. There are countless open platforms he can speak his mind on.
> I'm not sure this website is accurate as Rogan so far has not said anything on Twitter or Instagram about this.

I checked for a couple of the episodes on Spotify (#1103 Tom Segura, #1218 Gad Saad) and could not find them, so it may be legit.
No, Voat was a cesspool, because Reddit really only pissed of the "unreasonable" people, who all went to Voat, and unsurprisingly made it a cesspool.
In summary: racism and slavery aren't the answers to all historical questions.

Iirc, most of the immigrants of the 1800s came from northern Europe. Most will be happier with a similar climate.

The growth of the South East didn't really take hold until air conditioning was popularized in the 1950s.

Racism is endemic throughout North America (especially if you consider indigenous/native, or Irish a race).

Slavery enabled larger farms in the inhospitable climate of the southeast and caribbean, but the existence of slavery there did not magically suppress immigration, the climate and subsequent economy did.
This is the thread I'm reading

context:

other1:

> That’s disgusting. These 4 execs made order 200M in 2020, Google took in 130B in quarterly revenue in q4. and they have the steel procreators to tell their employees about how they can’t give quality of life adjustments during on of the worst inflationary periods in 100 years. Fuck google with a pointy stick.

other2:

> Is it really disgusting? Google stock rose 65% in 2021. Unless you are working at the cafeteria, the recent inflation had little impact on the compensation of Google employees.

other3:

> So by that logic execs certainly didn't need an increase in salary?

you:

> Did they get a salary increase? Or did their equity just go up like everyone else?

> Executives tend to have salaries that are a fraction of total comp.

other4:

> I mean, it's literally the second sentence of the article we're discussing...

> >The Mountain View, CA-based company will be raising the salaries of four execs from $650,000 to $1 million...

you:

> Sure, but "They also received stock awards valued at between $23 million and $35 million, split between performance-based equity and stock that vests over time, the filing states.".

> That $350,000 doesn't even move the needle? Why is the focus there?

So this thread starts off with criticizing Google over not giving COL adjustments in a terrible period of inflation given their massive profits.

Someone says the stock gains negate the impact of inflation.

Someone else says if stock increases were sufficient, then why did execs need a salary bump.

You asked if they got a salary increase.

Someone else points out that they did.

You then point out they got lots of stock.

And then say that their salary increase barely moves the needle so why focus there?

The point seems to have been lost here.

To go back to the original point, the point was that Google denied their employees COL adjustments. If giving their execs salary bumps didn't even move the needle for them, then why give it to them especially when they denied their other employees COL adjustments despite having massive profits?
I mean, Dr. Fauci told the American public it didn't need to wear masks. Was that misinformation? Did that kill people?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...

EDIT:
I know people have trouble with single sourcing. Here's a more sympathetic source to Fauci:

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8...
Polarized Thinking and the Internet
How Phishers Are Slinking Their Links into LinkedIn – Security
I know it is sarcasm. I just do not see a clear winning alternative that doesn't lead to someone posting a similar sarcastic response.
Can you share your copy of the contract? You seem to know all the terms and conditions.
Ideologically I am a free speech maximalist, but I also personally despise being advertised to nonconsensually.

The issue with unadorned free speech maximalism (aside from people legitimately complaining about idiots spewing lies) is that it also dictates a 100% hands-off approach to even the most egregious spamming, as spam is legal.
I was absolutely stunned when Spotify did the Joe Rogan deal. You could already tell at that point that he was a divisive kind of person and I just couldn't understand why anyone would want that headache. I was already wondering how YouTube was going to deal with him and even joked to people I knew that the staff at YouTube were probably high fiving each other and planning a big party as soon as they heard the news.
If that was actually the case — they are asserting the Canadian government are literal Nazis — that's offensively stupid. It's also kind of a convenient excuse, and probably the only way you could positively 'spin' displaying such a blatant hate symbol.

We both know that's not the real reason they are displaying it though. Organizations and governments are frequently accused of being the second coming of Hitler's National Socialist party, but in what distorted reality does it make sense to accuse your opponent of being fascists by flying a hateful, fascist flag. That's not how things work.

> How do you know what's going on? Are you there?

Are you really asking me if I'm embedded in a protest movement that has defaced the Terry Fox statue and raided a homeless shelter? No, I'm not. But a quick google uncovers a quote from the 'movement's' spokesperson, who was asked about the proudly displayed symbols of hate:

> When asked specifically about the swastika, he brushed the question off: “People troll, do stupid things, whatever. Who cares?”

That doesn't exactly fit with the narrative you presented, and suggest they don't have an explanation for why members are showing hate symbols. And so it's logical to assume that the members displaying these ridiculous hate symbols are doing it because they are hateful people, who feel these symbols are the best way to communicate their message to the rest of the world.
If you have an income it’s because of economic activity, most likely derived from advertising.

I pay for YouTube Premium to avoid ads because I hate ads. But I also like robust economic activity. So, I’m happy to pay a fee instead of seeing ads.
Baseless speculation, but maybe the guests are asking for their episodes to be removed so they aren't associated with the podcast?
How big are the companies these people landed exec positions at?
Presumably, her job has effects in the world beyond just her. ;)
> No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do

Yes they did.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
> that is getting people killed.

Twice as many people died in the US last year from Heart Disease than from COVID, but I'm pretty sure we don't (yet) ban youtubers who extol the awesomeness of gluttonous fast food in weekly videos.

At some point, people need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and also allow others to do the liberty to do the same. If someone is an adult, in the US, and not vax'd by now, that's on them. Period. Not anyone else.

To put it another way, I owned not one, but two separate copies of "The Anarchists Cookbook" over the years growing up.. the number of governments I have, to date, attempted to overthrow? Zero. Why? Because I was capable of reviewing the offered material and going "yeah, not today prison, not today."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Try-hard

"Try-hard: Somebody whose effort level and emotional investment is excessively high for the level of play in which they are competing."
8chan is maximal free speech. We live in a post-truth society. This is the fruit of society saying enough with the lies.
Honestly though, why not start your own site if you’ve been deplatformed? It’s never been easier or cheaper to do.

The only roadblock is DDOS protection since Cloudflare has shown an equal propensity for censorship.
People aren't mad Spotify is hosting Rogan; they're mad that Spotify gave him 100m to be the exclusive distributor of his crap.

I don't get why people keep trying to turn this into a free speech issue. It's not. I stopped giving Spotify money because they're going to turn around and use it to fund thinga I disagree with. So I guess people are just arguing against capitalism?
Europe Expands Virtual Borders to Thwart Migrants
LInkedin makes 10b/year and 65% is recruiting tools?

6.5 billion dollars a year?

Really?
They can, but when it was signed, the promise was they wouldn't. Of course, words are wind, and we're witnessing the proof of it right now.
Your free speech rights stop where my property rights start.

Or alternatively: whose speech is more important? Rogans or Spotify's?

If companies can select who they will publish to please people they can also 'cancel' them to please people, or do artists somehow have tenure once they become controversial and divisive?
Are you referring to the luck surface area?
https://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-sur...
Free speech doesn't always mean an issue with the government. Free speech can be seen as the opposite of censorship.

This is plainly censorship (within Spotify's rights, but still censorship) and while nobody's 1A rights have been violated, it's still affecting someone's ability to publish to their audience.

That's not a legal issue, but a moral one.
What in this list of removed episodes supports that rationale?

https://jremissing.com/

They're not removing the Covid mis-info episodes, they're removing ancient ones with (AFAIK) non-controversial subject matter.
Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party; Simone be Beauvoir was banned from teaching for molesting her students [1]; and Foucault may have molested children [2], and certainly he advocated for the right to have sex with minors [3]. The publisher's of these philosophers are private companies so why don't we wage a twitter campaign against them until they stop publishing these racists and sexual predators.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Personal_li...
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
Some of them are really baffling. Tom Segura, Bert Kreischer, Ian Edwards? Tim Ferris?
There's quite a few ways to slice data, but profit would likely be better than revenue.

Apple does not make 30% profit off of total iPhone revenue, as they do still have to pay for development, infrastructure, and supporting staff.

They have a historical 38% margin on hardware, and just reported a 70% margin on first-party services.

The stores (iTunes Store, App Store, Books) may very well be their lowest margin divisions. Which would make sense, since they are selling other people's products.
It's now 113.

I wonder if it's not so much about the selection of the episodes as it is they'll be deleting many of them, and it just takes a while.
MIGHT kill you, if it has its babies with it. But lets hope they don't get a load of Jet Li movies to practice with.
Really? Spotify are getting people to report on their neighbours?
Can you still install Linux on the new switches? If so, I might have an interest in one. If not, it's just more walled garden garbage.
Free Speech: when you try to force a private company to broadcast your speech for free
We are all microscopic pawns, who cares?
The fringes will leave. And the advertisers. Because P&G and Fire and Chase Bank do _not_ want to be associated with this kind of stuff.

It’s much easier. You don’t need to be a free speech maximalist _on your platform_. Trying to tie up the whole podcast market under your umbrella is what caused this.

If Rogan was still doing things himself with a standard podcast RSS feed her could still be heard without issue. Spotify listeners could listen without issue. Spotify wouldn’t be getting dragged in the media.

This is 100% Spotify’s fault for trying to control someone controversial and was 100% foreseeable.

> Every platform is eventually going to have to deal with this

I agree. It’s part and parcel of being a platform. You know what’s better than platforms _allowing_ people to say what they want?

What we had before Spotify (etc.) tried to take over: the open world of podcasting.
The winning play is to make no changes that could get you back in the news, and wait for the news cycle to move on to the next outrage.

Possibly try to grease Rogan's hand to lay low on the vaccine topic/guests for a while.
Of course they folded. (And on a Friday night too.) Would you risk billions and cocktail party invites over something as silly as free speech? Daniel Ek is not that dumb.
Modern version of book burners? Do you want to pretend to be a victim any harder?
If anything the lesson here is to blow up harder and faster after you've taken the $100M so you can go back to doing your own thing with your massive and loyal fanbase.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, tear it off.

How Spotify ever thought this was a good idea still eludes me
“Vote fuzzing” is a practice where a site’s reported vote count is intentionally made to report inaccurate figures. This is a strategy that some sites employ to attempt to throw off vote manipulation. I am not sure whether HN does it, but it is famously employed on Reddit.
> It's only official view is to make as much money as possible

A couple years ago there was a giant banner at the top of my premium Spotify page reminding me not to beat up Asian people.

Thank goodness they curtailed my race-based violence as a Spotify subscriber, but I don't see how that makes them money.

I suppose the virtue signalling was a calculated ploy, but it seems like a long and winding road getting from those banners to more premium accounts.
That's how it begins. "Enough with the lies" or we will crush you.
My favorite parody:

Yesterday I was walking to an interview. There was a starving dog on the road. I stopped to feed him & missed the interview. The next day I got a call asking to come in to do the interview. I was surprised, but I went. Then the interviewer came in. He was the dog.
It's at least $100 million: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca...

Or it might all be bullshit? That would somehow be perfectly fitting.
I don't know anything about google internals, but in many other applications the search engine is optimized on long-term engagement and profit data. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out google optimized page rankings based on the profit google earns from it's ad business on the page.
Not particularly interested in debating whether “told” equals “forced” in this context. I suspect you understood my intention.
The really weird thing is that the media keeps saying Rogan's "controversial", but almost no one cares. It doesn't show up in polling -- your average person has about 15 things of a higher priority right now.

Almost feels like the point of many articles is to tell people the correct thoughts on a topic, instead of actually finding out and reporting how people feel.
“Separate but equal” is not legal in the US. That strategy may work for now but it won’t hold up long-term.
I'm interested in the multi-episode guests that only had some of their episodes removed. One is Kevin Smith, of whom I'm a fan. Does anyone know of any others?

There are other multi-episode guests who had them all banned, like, I think, Dave Asprey, who is a blowhard. I think those who say things that situationally get their content removed are probably pushing the edge in a way I can appreciate.
Apple developer accounts come with support, hosting and services.
VP level often has fairly high turnover, maybe that's where this originates from.

In my experience at the VP level you have many highly skilled reports who are gunning for your job. Once you get the VP job then there may be many more enticing opportunities at other companies with just tough competition in the current position.
The number one growth hack: Exiting your comfort zone, then sharing that experience with others.
No. We’re deciding as individuals not to give business to entities that profit by promoting baseless conspiracy theories which pose a threat to public health.

It just so happens enough people are doing so to create some market pressure. Spotify is simply reacting to that pressure as all businesses do.

Nobody is being silenced.
The evidence supporting this is the 4 YouTube videos at the top of the list, followed by 3 of those 4 YouTube videos on page 2 (LOL).
You're confusing free speech with the first amendment. When Voltaire wrote about freedom of speech he wasn't referring to the US government. It's a universal principle.
Community is hard.
Guess it depends on what you value more: your editorial control or the cash.

We know what he chose. I’d argue it’s what the vast majority would choose.

But they both (Spotify and Rogan) knew what they were choosing.
Forgive me but what are you protesting exactly? You are certainly free to do whatever you want, I'm not the thought police.

But maybe take a second, step back, and think about what you are outraged about... A private enterprise retracting publication of their IP.

Outrageous! Imagine if TV shows or movies were removed from Netflix! Or if someone bought Vine and shut it down. Or if part of a Wikipedia page were ever edited.

At some point you have to look in the mirror.
That's great, thanks! I'll take a look at the links.
>When you pressure other entities to associate/dissociate with someone according to your preferences, that's a free speech issue.

That's free speech. As long as no one is being coerced through violence, attempting to influence someone's opinion and convince them to associate or disassociate with someone is clearly free speech. Hell, it describes most political speech and a lot of journalism.
> The common refrain is well, don’t write shitty code then, but all code starts off looking good to the person who wrote it. I guarantee if you have 400 engineers working on a Rails app it will end up in this state because it (ironically) lacks sane guardrails

This can be said the same of any other framework or language. It is up to your team to organize the code, write documentation, agree upon linting rules and of course encourage best practices. If you’re leaving those decisions to each engineer writing code - thats the problem
Can someone please archive this thread. So many gold comments here.
The cringe-worthy thing about LI is that people take it seriously.