skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tend to agree. Wikipedia does a fantastic job of trying to stay objective. I think the real root here is that the last decade has led to a bifurcation of "facts" across partisan lines. There are realms of discourse where people just don't think it's appropriate to present unrefuted fact A without also presenting perspective B, even if the support for B is mostly just spin. So someone reads an article on A and thinks it's "biased" because it doesn't lead to the readers' own opinions.

But that's not something Wikipedia can solve, and I think they do what they can about as well as is possible. Here's a good example page of the effect, check out some of the edit wars on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19...

The result is a little jumbled, with some contradictory spin still lurking in sentences here and there. But for the most part the article has limited itself to an objective treatment, and done well.
In Germany this was talked already over quite a few years ago.

Wikipedia would have to make it easy to clone parts of its websites to your own service so you can change the parts which are important to you. and then basically the most surfed-on-site wins.

but atm you either fetch the database and set it up with everything.. or .. no idea.

but nobody liked that model either.

we'd need wikipedia with more-git-like backend i think, some guy wrote "levitation" for that, but there would be still a need of setting it up as service and declare which parts are important for you and for which you redirect yourself from your service to the real wikipedia.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220305051510/https://www.nytim...
That took me by surprise.
he said the ukranian statehood is a mistake. where does this cultural genocide thing comes from? there are at least two public appearances when putin switches to ukranian (briefly).

no one doubts that the west has every right to do that but i fail to see how it helps to stop casualties
(Reparented from another content thread) Agreed. Wikipedia's strength is its long tail of niche articles. However, once one gets off "popular" articles, the quality bounds rapidly spread.

But that seems inherent to having an article for which there are only 1-2 editors, as opposed to 10+ frequently reviewing.

So better UX is probably the best "solution." I.e. pulling editor count, frequency, and reputation into the reader-visible part of the page.
> Anyone else find them just too bulky for something you wear all the time?

Nope! As long as it's robust enough to hold up and not get scratched or smashed while I slam it in the car door or whack it against the cage at the gym or whatever else clumsy thing I do each particular moment, I think bigger is better.
> Ukraine has become an American pawn in geo-political chess.

Shouldn't we at least consider what's their view on this instead of painting everything as big power rivalry? Didn't they democratically choose to apply for EU membership? Considering neighbouring Poland has joined the ranks of high income countries and Ukraine has been stagnating under Russian protection can you blame them? Also, considering the blood ties between Russia and Ukraine before this war why would Ukraine consider joining NATO if it was not afraid of Russia (and still isn't apparently)? I think this line of reasoning of Ukraine pursuing NATO membership before all this started is a bit absurd.

https://freepolicybriefs.org/2018/03/12/polands-road-high-in...
> But ideally Wikipedia itself would build some internal mechanism

It has WP:ANI, but it is hard to go against established editors, if they are not writing outright lies or doing harassment. Say, if I want to edit a line from a summary of the Wikipedia page on a person which unfairly represents a person and the established editor thinks it makes sense, then I can't do anything. They are not writing misinformation as they will often have a source for it, but the tone and representation of that on the Wikipedia article can still be unfair.

I would give specific examples here but then I would be accused of trying to influence talk pages with publicity on social media/forums. Moreover, as some of the talk pages have my comments, I don't want my online personas to be linked.
Now if only WebKit GPU acceleration would stop breaking <canvas>
I was in the market for both vehicles. On ground prices for the Bolt did not approach Msrp. You had deals lowering them to 25-30k. And Tesla sales were typically not its cheapest models.
Bourbaki student M. Talagrand has some work on approximate independence. If I were trying to do something along the lines of Probabilistic Machine Learning: Advanced Topics I would look

(1) carefully at the now classic

L. Breiman, et al., Classification and Regression Trees (CART),

and

(2) at the classic Markov limiting results, e.g., as in

E. Çinlar, Introduction to Stochastic Processes,

at least to be sure are not missing something relevant and powerful,

(3) at some of the work on sufficient statistics, of course, first via the classic Halmos and Savage paper and then at the interesting more recent work in

Robert J. Serfling,
Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics,

and then for the most promising

(4) very carefully at Talagrand.

(1) and (2) are old but a careful look along with more recent work may yield some directions for progress.

What Serfling develops is a bit amazing.

Then don't expect the Talagrand material to be trivial.
Finland buying Israeli air defence weapons
Thanks for the suggestion, will consider publishing the list at the end of the page.
They are called multiple ways. I like to call mine a Personal Handbook[1] but I've also seen this being referred as Digital Garden or Personal Knowledge Base.

I keep a list of open knowledge bases here: https://publish.obsidian.md/davidgasquez/Personal+Handbooks

[1] https://publish.obsidian.md/davidgasquez/
Actually, you're right. You made very good points here. I always assume other people are rational. While many are, many are not, and I often forget the latter. Thank you.
A formal ban on editors being members/volunteers/associated-with state-related propaganda outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) would be good. It wouldn't stop anything underhanded, but at least they would not be able to lie to themselves that they were doing nothing wrong.
This is an unfortunate situation for sure, but I think I still agree with how they responded. What if they had accepted your evidence? The page still has no publicly visible references, so I (the user) have to just take the editor's word that the article is correct - I have no way to verify that information myself.
Well, I heard by from someone, but I stand corrected, nasa [0] says:

Debris left in orbits below 370 miles (600 km) normally fall back to Earth
within several years. At altitudes of 500 miles (800 km), the time for orbital
decay is often measured in decades. Above 620 miles (1,000 km), orbital debris
normally will continue circling Earth for a century or more.

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html
Designing Compute-intensive Applications?
What is the benefit of this?

Right now I see an example of how to write unreadable and hard-to-debug code

Being a senior PHP dev I would not let pass such code into our master branch, mainly because it is syntactic sugar that does not help with a specific problem and also does not attribute to a clearer and readable code at all.

Remember: In a company, where we rely on the code to earn our living the two factors readbilty and testabilty are the single most important ones. Because if you are off to holiday and your coworkers can't get a grasp of your (seemingly) clever code, than the whole company has a problem.
> You could prove that an event happened before a certain timepoint (not after it).

Not with what GP proposes.

If I understand their proposal correctly, it is to include a value from "the current-highest-block from a blockchain to incorporate proof of a previously-unknowable, globally-verifiable value." You can always include historic values trivially.

It is much more involved to actually do a transaction on that chain, which could indeed be used to prove existence before a certain time. But yes, your alternative proposal would work for that, if you assume the chain cannot be controlled by any individual/partisan party.
Hi everyone! GenieCloud is a no-code platform to quickly build & deploy data applications using Julia, Python and R. Just import your AI/ML/DS projects and easily build reactive and responsive data dashboards visually.

I’m Adrian, the creator of GenieCloud and of the Genie web framework (https://genieframework.com/). Genie is a Julia low-code library for building data applications - just like Streamlit or Dash, but for JuliaLang. According to many of our users, while useful and powerful, low-code app development leaves a lot of productivity on the table. GenieCloud makes the creation of professional looking data dashboards easy and fun. First release is focused on Julia, but support for Python and R apps is already in the works.
Can you say what exactly here is a straight up lie? That the Snake Island defenders were thought dead after contact with them was lost following the attack? That Ukraine claims there were 13 defenders while Russia claims there were 82?

There's a ton of things we don't have good video coverage of, including the Snake Island events, so it's very hard to verify any claims. This lack of certainty affects the belligerents too so -- unless you have conclusive evidence to show that deliberately false statements have been made -- I think it's quite arrogant to say "straight up lies" concerning statements that may have been made in confusion and without a full picture of the situation.
To get some peace and quiet away from the wife.
They couldn’t control January 6 either. Literally the only people charged with sedition - those who had a plan - were part of an extremist organization that coordinated in person.
You can only establish a no-fly zone once you have control of the airspace. Which would require using NATO aircraft to shoot down all Russian aircraft over what is a non-NATO member. It goes without saying that that would seriously escalate the conflict.
Fast Flood No.4
→
⌛ → 30 seconds
▶ → 18 moves
→ 3 tries

This game is amazing!

I was a little confused by the game mechanics at first so it took the first two rounds just to figure out what's going on... maybe animate the active colored blocks with sth like a shake/highlight effect?
Kicked out of Pennsylvania? Did someone forget to serve the eviction notice on Simon Cameron, James Buchanan, James Laughlin, etc.?

Those who settled in Ulster were looking for land (confiscated from the Irish). Those who came to America were looking for land. If they moved west and southwest, it was largely for more and perhaps better land.

Weep not for the Scotch-Irish. They've done pretty well out of America. (I have Scotch-Irish ancestry, traced by an uncle back to Bushmills in Ulster.)
Get rid of anonymous edits.
> It certainly isn't the case that engineering is "done" either, as the open bug count is growing constantly and huge swathes of the software aren't maintained and don't even have maintainers[2].

Wikipedia is moving to Vue.
Support multiple competing Wikipedia-type online encyclopedias.
No other country that is allied with western liberal democracies openly employs Neo-Nazis in any capacity to my knowledge, other than Ukraine.

Please share examples if you have them. It should be easy if, as you say “most countries have at least a few hundred.”

I’m struggling to understand how I am the minority here calling out what I always thought was a widely agreed principle on HN i.e. Nazis = bad.

Nazis are not the good guys and fighting alongside Nazis, even if convenient, is wrong. A few weeks ago this statement would have been so obvious as to be redundant on HN.

What if we win the war but lose our moral compass?

How do you explain to your kids that Nazis are bad except sometimes they are useful so not always bad?
The smarter-than-the-average people aren't the problem

The people who are very sure that they're way smarter than the average are often not very smart.
>”In other words, they approve of perpetual, blatant dishonesty, or at least don't think it is important enough to change their opinion.”

Or it’s the case that they see the other side as being perpetually and blatantly dishonest.

Edit: Which is more likely, one political faction is objectively correct and the other is objectively wrong, or that partisan people view the world in such a way that their own side isn’t lying and the other is?

If you wonder how such people can approve of lies and blatant dishonesty it’s because they fundamentally don’t see such things as lies to begin with. They see it as the truth.
'My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me' (bbc.co.uk)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60600487
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30555692

--

The 25-year-old has been speaking regularly to her mother, who lives in Moscow. But in these conversations, and even after sending videos from her heavily bombarded hometown, Oleksandra is unable to convince her mother about the danger she is in.

"I didn't want to scare my parents, but I started telling them directly that civilians and children are dying," she says.

"But even though they worry about me, they still say it probably happens only by accident, that the Russian army would never target civilians. That it's Ukrainians who're killing their own people."

--

He was surprised not to have heard from his father, who works at a monastery near Nizhny Novgorod in Russia. He called his father and described what was happening. His father replied that this wasn't true; there was no war and - in fact - Russians were saving Ukraine from Nazis.

Mykhailo said he felt he knew the power of Russian propaganda, but when he heard it from his father, he was devastated.

"My own father does not believe me, knowing that I'm here and see everything with my own eyes. And my mum, his ex-wife, is going through this too," he says.

"She is hiding with my grandmother in the bathroom, because of the bombardment."

--

"I called my mum again. I told her I was scared. 'Don't worry', she said, reassuringly. 'They [Russia] will never bomb Kyiv'."

But they are already doing it, Anastasiya replied.

"I told her there were casualties among civilians. 'But that's what we had too when Ukraine attacked Donbas!', she said, laughing. For a moment I couldn't breathe. Hearing my mum say this with such cruelty just broke my heart."

Anastasiya believes the image Russian media has created is one of the "glorified Russian army" ridding Ukraine from Nazis. For years she avoided political arguments with her parents, but this time she slammed the phone down on her mum.

We spoke to Anastasiya when she was travelling away from Kyiv after four nights in a bomb shelter. Her mind was on an uncertain future.
I'm guessing it's here https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo?filter=snowflake under "Snowflake WebExtension" but they should link to it more prominently.
The Wizard of Oz lived in Emerald City. He wasn't actually a wizard, however.
On decentralized prediction markets, or the lack thereof
3! You could make grey using the checkboard box character thing.
I feel like I might have explained that badly. In my suggestion, the source code would be diffed as a machine-readable AST tree. That means all source code reformatting actions which do not change the meaning of the source code also do not appear in the diff.

In this explanation about Go:

https://golangdocs.com/golang-ast-package

the text following "and we get a nice structure" is what the source code management tools would be working on. It's an abstract representation of the source code's meaning, but not tied to how things are formatted or indented.
What do you want Wikipedia to do in that circumstance, though? Just accept uncited facts based on the promise of someone on the internet? The problem with your SO's relative isn't that Wikipedia is doing something incorrect, it's that the historical record is wrong. And that sucks, but it's not something an encyclopedia is going to be able to solve. That's why we have historians.
The face mask article example you gave is actually one of the ones which would be less affected by established editor bias as there would be more editors from different regions participating in editing it.

Moreover claims by health organisations like WHO can be used to prove or disprove the efficacy of masks. But this is a luxury articles that are dealing with established authorities publishing information have.

Articles on persons and social issues tend to mostly not have any such authority and the debate is mostly generated through opinion.
> Of course there are two extremes where there are problems: disputed topics (especially contemporary political topics) and niche topics receiving little to no attention.

An unusual third extreme, where things are so wrong, so entrenched and so unchecked that they have the potential to not just misrepresent truth but also change it.

I refer you to the story of the Scots Language Wikipedia:

https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html
I was ashamed when I learnt Wikipedia artificially funds the writing of pages of women, so they try to reach equal numbers to men. I wouldn’t be ashamed if the criteria for admissibility were equal, but barely being a researcher with published papers is enough, while men with entire books on the subject get rejected.

Talk about rewriting history…
Very nice read. For me you are one of those anonymous heroes.
Victim blaming? I'm not a fan.
In summary, you do not have sources for your claims and we're to take you at your word.
This could almost be taken word for word from an article about Mozilla.

People who think 'social justice' is a bad thing seem to set really high standards for the open, independant organisations they say they support, and they're not afraid to give them some extreme tough love and undermine them at every step if they don't follow their priorities.
This is a good example of an amazingly bad article with the worst type of wiki lawyering on the talk page. It basically still has the same conclusion in the lead as when it was originally created, and most of the claims/leaks against Hunter were considered "false"/dinsinfo... But now that those laptop leaks were either confirmed by different reputable sources, it more or less indirectly calls most of the claims true yet still ends up labeling everything a conspiracy theory for absolutely no reason other than some editors going all "nuh uh"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira...

>"Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE"

After ignoring articles from the guardian, politico, the nyt just because it's supposedly not relevant. And even if it was actually hunter's laptop who care right? It has nothing to do with the article centered on the claims that it was his laptop. I think ultimately this is just unconsequential, and the hunter story does not really matter, but if you contrast it with the wiki page on the russian links with trump, the extreme selectivity in sources somehow just... disappear. Keep in mind that no one is actually contesting that the contents of the laptop are actually from hunter at this point except for Wikipedia. Even the emails have been pretty conclusively proven to be his.

The problem is that it leads to just more preaching to the choir; usually wikipedia is pretty good at neutrality in the tone of it's articles (even when those are biaised, which is normal). But with such a blatant attempt at mental gymnastics through the entire article, you end up convincing no one that the info is actually legit or credible. A lot of recent political articles end up being written in a manner much more similar to a smug RationalWiki article than to an actual encyclopedic text
So Gell-Mann Amnesia applies there as in most other journalism.
As a side note, if you’re interested in Kessler Sundrome and haven’t read Seveneves yet, you need to get on that. :)
Using Files with Browsers, in Reality
I think this is an overly simple answer to a complex dynamic. If you invest time researching victimization, you will understand why victims are usually not in a position of power to decide their fate. Some even actively support the perpetrators — that’s not a sign of a real will, but a symptom of submission.

All this is achieved by perpetrator through fear and manipulation. There is a reason why societies keep ending in this kind of situation, and this reason is not a lack of will to “stop the abuse”.

Human mind has dozens of biases, those who exploit them and add physical abuse to the mix very often end up on top. In USSR this exploitation was made into an art, especially at earlier times (30s and 40s).
Do you have an example? I mean, I'm sure there's a terrible-but-forgotten-and-ignored page in there, but in my experience Wikipedia's rules about citation and notability work very well to limit expressions of opinion in the pages.

Are you absolutely sure you aren't just expressing the effect I noted? You got mad because a page listed facts, but not the "right" facts?
I'm assuming this is only coincidentally coming shortly after Russia's threat of a ban on them?
No we are not. And this absurd fake news that the west is responsible needs to end.
Foundational Articles on the Creator Economy
What you are sure of doesn't really matter though, does it?

Elections in occupied territory, especially when there are substantial doubts about the fairness of those elections in those territories (see the article you linked) make it hard to know what is really going on there. And regardless, Russia has already invaded on the pretext that Ukrainians had launched attacks on those regions (which turned out to be staged) so I think we're a bit past that point now.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the citizens of those regions are far, far from happy with the Russian invasion.

Ukraine may not be homogenous, but it became a lot more united a week ago.
It happened already and we are still alive https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581
Yeah. I said « le compte est bon » to myself.
I’m not specifically math inclined and I had fun playing.
That's almost just like doing something to fix things.
At Wikipedia's scale, the red tape is more of a safety harness than anything
Well, if you are not the one traded like cattle, it is rather easy to sit and talk all about rationality and pragmatism. I'm sure that if you go there and explain them the errors in their thinking and in their way of life they will be totally appreciative of that.

I'm not african and I'm not even sure if my hypothesis is close to the truth, however, trying to make historical facts disappear because they are not pretty is not how it works.

When talking about heritage in regard to the english language, don't forget that it is not their heritage or at least that their heritage is french and arabic as well.
Also, it could usefully be used to identify people for treatment as was done in the old USSR: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800147/
I feel your frustration but I don't think I want a Wikipedia with secret citations and an editor voucher system. Such a scheme would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is nominally supposed to be verifiable and editable by any reader, and could only reinforce the gatekeeping mentality of its editors.