skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>>If we are going to say that censorship is justified because you want to prevent violence or insurrections, we open the floodgates to some seriously bad things<<

If it were just as bad as "The censors want to prevent the bad things", I think I might feel that it would be justifiable. This type of thinking also robs the broader public of its agency to reason. The broader public is not comprised of petulant children, regardless of what the media outlets would tell you and what the behavior of Twitter might show (very few of those people display that sort of behavior in actual life, where consequences happen).

This "moral highgrounding", to protect us from the corruption of verbiage that may occur on one platform or another is a ridiculous idea to think that functional adults might need. We are not so weak as to be protected from ideas that "must not be named". Words are not magic, and people cannot be enchanted by their mere utterances. They can be enticed by them being outlawed and the verboten mystique that makes the forbidden seem so savory.

People may be uneducated, but it is impossible to educate them through silence and the silencing of ideas. These verboten ideas will get spread around, major platform or no. They'll spread without any kind of resistance or discussion and no disinfectant light of truth by debate will be shone on them because they will be pushed down to the nooks and crannies, off of the popular platforms where the light of day can show them to be the BS that they are. They'll find their place in small groups and factions, I felt and grow and split people apart. They'll make people not talk to each other and they'll make us a weaker country and a less educated one. A country that tries to run away from hard questions and conversations because it's easier to tell someone or some group to shut up and don't talk about that, rather than address a topic with an open and honest conversation with facts and dialogue.
>It is also sufficient to post a warning label in the video's description that a false election claim makes an appearance.

Why not just stick it in every video you make regardless of content if the alternative is potentially the loss of your career?
> VR just… isn't going to happen, in any "changing the world" form, in our lifetimes. This is a subject for a different blog post, but I think AR and projection will do much more for us, far sooner.)

Curious why OP thinks this (in particular for VR computing).
I think you have described the problem. More specifically, states vote for the president but not in a way that is proportional to their percentage of the union’s population.
Definitely a good idea to let corporate social media behemoths decide what is acceptable speech. What could possibly go wrong?
DNSSEC is, unsurprisingly, designed to secure DNS only. It only tells you that the answer you received is authentic. DNSSEC would prevent a DNS server being hijacked via BGP being evil in that it couldn't give bad answers.

It however doesn't typically help in a BGP hijack. The DNS answer is authentic, but the server at the answer given isn't.
Exactly. Lets assume Trump was completely the leader of January 6th and giving direct orders to go into the building and those people were his army. The only death by violence was one person and on a causality on his side. In Ukraine literally thousands are dying. There are people who literally attempted assassinations getting bail and keeping their online accounts.
It sounds like you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. The person I replied to said that if small and medium businesses published compensation information, it would cause job seekers to prefer FAANG companies less. I said that was not true -- FAANG companies will still be very attractive to job seekers even if other businesses publish their salary info. Job seekers already know that smaller companies cannot match FAANG pay, and the exact amount of the deficit is not very important.
7 is similar to the italic 1, I guess.
but also, the hand written version of 7 was taught to us, in Hungary, in the 1980s, with a small horizontal cross-line on the slanted stem of the 7.
we quickly abandoned that small detail when writing, because we never saw that on printed material, though in writing 1 & 7 can be similar
It's difficult to tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
Mostly the former, it's pretty hard to get fired at Apple. Still, if the managers don't like me they won't give me fun work, since my team was big on "you don't get to do satisfying work until you prove yourself with unsatisfying stuff".
So business as usual then
Wow I didn't even think of that one.

I saw it when a business for which I did some work would have customers calling from their competitor's lobby saying, "This stupid receptionist doesn't know about my appointment, what do you mean I'm in the wrong place, I put your name in the phone google?! Screw you I'm going to just get the work done here!" Google/Maps/Android had customers driving past the business for which they had searched by literal business name to some other business that was spending more on Adwords for that literal business name.
> I just open the repo in my browser and browse through the directories.

Browse via what? It would be entirely reasonable, not weird at all, if git.example/user/repo/ showed a list of branches and tags. And then it would actually be easier to reach git.example/user/repo/v3/ than to reach git.example/user/repo/master/v3/

The particular way github does directories isn't canonical. And if you wanted to clone the repo, you could clone a specific branch easily.

When it comes to minor versions, you have to dig anyway to see the matching source under the current system.
Educated people are more easy to brainwash actually. They’ll believe anything the establishment tells them because they spend more time in school following directions and going “by the book” - they excel at this.

Less educated people need to learn to trust their instincts, and be skeptical at all times.

Politics is about really simple stuff because you can’t over complicate at such a high level of abstraction.

I think there is no relationship whatsoever between education level and common sense. If anything the correlation is negative. Highly educated people don’t need common sense because they deal with complex things.
Is it not? I'm sure this would be very difficult to get right, but I've often wondered why there isn't more innovation in the direction of not censorship but rather "gating" behind proof of knowledge. What I mean is, what if there were a series of questions presented to the viewer before they could consume this kind of content? This could act as a way to deter folks from mindlessly viewing the video but also as an educational tool. For this kind of political video, you could ask relevant questions from eg the US citizenship test [0].

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions...
At this point, major platforms function like public spaces in online discourse, even though they are legally considered private property. Because of their huge influence in society, Youtube shouldn't be permitted to censor political viewpoints in their platform.

And see, there's always a fine balance between private property rights and other rights. For example: you can't prevent people from a given ethnicity from shopping in your store, even though it is a private property and in many cases you can refuse service to a particular customer - just not for this reason. And this is perfectly okay, because private property rights aren't absolute.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScEsxsoXl_7R4aD5F8-... Here is the petition itself, it was signed by some 33.493 persons, but on the 4/3 they stopped receiving signatures, in light of the new drakonian russian laws...

You can get up to 15 years of prison for disseminating 'fake news on russian troups', and Putin signed this into law on the 4/3 https://meduza.io/news/2022/03/04/putin-podpisal-zakon-o-nak...
Your comment sent me off on a mental tangent for a minute about what it would take to create a PCF - portable canvas format

I suddenly realised I was reinventing HTML!

Just allow people to export HTML/CSS for archival.
The restaurant isn't forced to make good food. But in this analogy isn't it more like the restaurant being forced to put up a poster of your bad review? The overall point being made is, why should a private entity be forced to do something they don't want to do?
Just managed to log into Lobsters from SerenityOS
I don't think like/dislike counts were ever a good way to identify misinformation, and I would argue that even if they were, they shouldn't be.
And when the police are the criminals, do we need more of them then, too?

Chicago police, in particular, are no different from mafia.
That really depends what "up to" means and how big the "fleet of smaller reactors" is going to be. Announcing up to 14 today is very little when you have over fifty reactors to replace in the next two or three decades when you consider that building a reactor takes around fifteen years. Nuclear energy hopes are pinned on those small reactors, but afaik, none of them are ready for prime time today.
Where's Wally and a Swiss Cheese View of Deep Learning
Blaring horns and blasting music continuously through the night and day, keeping thousands of people from sleeping is not "peaceful" nor legal.

Blocking a nation's highways and borders for weeks is not legal.

People screamed blue-bloody-murder when BLM and Occupy protesters chained themselves to barrels across interstates, disrupting traffic for an hour or two...but the Canadian government tolerates a complete shutdown of a border, along with near continuous public disturbance for weeks - before finally clearing the protesters, and that's somehow an example of oppression?
Agreed. You have to ask yourself though: Why is the Western media so intent on cleaning Russia's house, while vehemently denying, dutifully downplaying, the West's own squalor?

It is a truly striking example of "the beam and the mote." After we remove the beam from our own eye, I will be glad to address Russia's splinter.
After your first loss it starts counting up while the 3...2...1 go thing appears, which costs you three seconds.
> When working with hard/physical assets, one needs no proof of anything. The existence of the asset is the proof.

Counterpoint: Real Property
I certainly wish that, at least in the American case, they are different. There is however evidence to the contrary.

My country was invaded by Russians in 1968. While it wasn't particularly pleasant, I think it was better than being bombed, or perhaps even, economically starved.
Can confirm DisplayLink works fine
Remember that 1 in 10000 (or 1.4 in 10000) is the total number of reported thefts, not the number of falsely reported thefts, much less the number of falsely reported thefts that result in arrests or a month in jail. And I'm guessing that the number of extraditions is zero so far.

I think you're vastly underestimating the uncertainty that people confront every day. Here are some other things carrying a risk of about 1 in 10000 that something terrible will happen:

- Going skydiving or hang gliding 20 times has about a 1 in 10000 chance that you will die.

- If you're a child aged 3-13 in the US, being alive for a year has about a 1 in 10000 chance of killing you. Or being alive for a month as an adult aged 24-34. Or being alive for 11 days as a 45-year-old man.

- Unprotected vaginal intercourse; the odds that you get HIV on a given occasion are said to be actually about 10 in 10000, an order of magnitude worse, but I have to assume that's with a new partner. Presumably this means that vaginal intercourse with a new partner with a condom has about a 1 in 10000 chance of giving you HIV, since condoms probably have about a 10% failure rate in that situation, due to breakage, intentional removal, or misuse. This is assuming pregnancy doesn't count as "something terrible".

- Speaking of pregnancy, the risk that giving birth will kill you is about 2 in 10000 in developed regions of the world. In Africa it's 80 in 10000.

- And if you do have a baby, the risk that your baby will die before reaching 3 years old is about 60 in 10000, in the US. It's about 4 in 10000 that they'll die the day they're born.

- Your lifetime risk of drowning in your bathtub are about 1 in 10000. Your lifetime risk of choking to death on your food is about twice that.

- Living in a house for your lifetime has about a 1 in 10000 chance that the house will catch fire and burn you to death, in the US. The situation is much worse in areas with worse building codes.

- Living around human beings for a year carries about a 1 in 10000 chance that one of them will murder you, though this is an average that includes both Oakland and Israel.

- Scuba diving has about a 1 in 10000 chance of killing you in 10 dives.

- Riding a motorcycle has about a 1 in 10000 chance of killing you every 1000 km.

- Smoking 140 cigarettes had about a 1 in 10000 chance of killing you with lung cancer in the 01970s. Presumably your chances of survival are better now, but cancer still isn't fun.

- Watching television for 200 hours reduces your life expectancy by 100 hours, which is the same reduction in life expectancy as a 1 in 10000 chance of instant death.

So, that's why I think a 1 in 10000 chance of a car theft report --- probably reducing to 1 in 100000 or less if you didn't actually steal the car --- isn't big enough to worry about.
I think you missed the bit where the platform removed content for the mere mention of Trump.

So you agree YouTube is perfectly ok to remove content because it mentions 'the opinion of a man about election results.'?

And if Trump was to hypothetically win in 2024, would it be perfectly fine for YouTube to remove any content which is dissenting of Trump? I'm sure a dislike or negative comment would stop that...
No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would otherwise be. Criticizing a video game, or a movie, or a restaurant or a streaming service does not imply the use of force to do anything nor does it imply having to get the government involved. It just means we think a product could be improved upon.

I think Youtube would be a better product and better serve their viewers and content creators if they didn't suspend The Hill for playing a clip of Donald Trump. My belief in this does not imply any use of force whatsoever.
Why do they need to "mitigate" anything?

Politics has been rife with BS and lies forever. This isn't a one-off, they've been doing this for years and only in a certain direction. Not un-coincidentally, it's in the opposite direction of their employees' political views which are 95 D for Microsoft to 99% D at Google. (The whole range of big tech companies' political affiliations is within this range, which is actually more partisan than D voters themselves.)

The practical effect of this, and it may be hard to see this coming from an environment where literally 99% of the people who surround you think the same way, is for people to permanently form strong opinions against you. It's already happened in America because of 2020, which is why monopoly break ups are now a highly likely proposition, but coming from a different end of the spectrum.

It has always amazed me the vitriol that tech companies have for people they do not understand or care to.
Might be misremembering, but IIRC you predicted L5 by 2030 on one of your earlier livestreams? Or was that L3/L4? Did you change your mind?
> in the event of a suspension of trading of our Class A shares on Nasdaq of more than five trading days, the holders of those Notes would have the right to require us to redeem their Notes at par plus accrued interest. The current principal amount outstanding is $1.25 billion

*ring ring*

Margin Calling
That would be unfortunate, because it would mean that the first war would end civilization. Fortunately, that didn't happen. It's certainly possible that current civilization is too fragile to survive the levels of distrust and greed that are inherent to warfare, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Says who?

I’m only caught up to what’s been declassified, so I had to google what you’re talking about. This [0] is a good enough answer for me: CIA involvement in 2014 is a rumor at best and Russian propaganda at worst. I like knowing what my government is up to so if you have a credible source by all means…

> The claims are coming from Putin's advisers who threatened to invade Ukraine. However, there's a problem with this stance - Ukraine protesters did not need significant funds and had very few weapons, mostly self-made Molotov cocktails, and absolutely no heavy weapons or even machine guns. Their actions were fairly chaotic, but when 300,000 people pour on the streets, little can be done in response. In the meantime, no CIA agents were documented in Kiev - Russia would have advertised such evidence if there was any.

Further down:

> There was no “coup.” After about three months of protests and police violence against demonstrators, Ukrainian president Yanukovych fled the country to escape prosecution, was kicked out of his own party, and voted out of office, peacefully, by a majority of the democratically elected parliament, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The largest block of parliamentarians that voted him out were his own party members and former party members.

[0] https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Uk...
He only got it initially, that’s not what the parent comment was talking about. Future investments into the company came purely through the company’s success and growth (and VCs attracted to that). Just the initial investment would hardly count as “too much involvement from mom and dad bank”. Especially when that investment managed to grow to $1T+ without any involvement from them since then.
It doesn't take conspiracy-mindedness. Just observation.
In concrete examples if a future conflict of interests arises:

They could shut down more airspace to russian reinforcement of allies.

They could more easily cut off access access ports in the black sea.

They could invade Belarus on a new front.

They could move conventional and nuclear bombers closer to moscow.

They could arm Russian revolutionaries using the land boarder.

Being encircled makes it harder for Russia to respond to many many threats.

In the last 20 years, the US attacked and toppled Russian friendly governments in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and lybia. Close bases were very helpful in each case.
Burnout from face-to-face meetings is also real. If needing to schedule a meeting increases the friction needed to interrupt people, that's a win.
Why is this type of "censorship" problematic? Is it also problematic that youtube doesn't host porn?
People like this are absolute legends. It brings me so much joy to look at this and I really appreciate the hard work that went into this. Thank you!
Opps! My mistake. Yes, 350K citizens. A city’s worth of people. That think they can be a nation. Wild.
>We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here

Not really, no.

From your own source:

"The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."

It literally states there was no evidence of collision or conspiracy.
Double dog dare you to buy their bonds at the discount and trigger the redemption right
How did the 'insurrection' cause catastrophic risk to Twitter?
> obviously in this case the grandparents did choose to work, but could have chosen to have other do the work for them and still reap the profits

Why is that obvious? It seems to me the profits weren’t great as indicated by the grandparents cleaning.
but any one of us can buy one of the bonds and trigger the right

theyre probably trading at a substantial discount!
Streamers on twitch were getting banned for saying the word cracker, temporarily losing their livelihood because of joke outrage from some loosely organized people on Reddit/Twitch. Meanwhile Covid variant Omicron was just about to peak and the amount of misinformation about Covid peaked too.

Sacrifice another ~350k Americans and countless others around the globe from our refusal to stop misinformation, I sleep. Save some gamers' mock wounded pride; real stuff.

Never saw much misinformation on Twitch to be honest, but they are taking a more active role as of a few days ago: https://safety.twitch.tv/s/safety-news/detail?language=en_US...
>The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator

But this actually is a potentially thinly veiled way to spread
disinformation, right? If you wanted to push a dishonest narrative, all you'd need do is show clips of someone else speaking the words and call it "reporting".

And this is all within the context of a massive surge in d/misinfo across these platforms. They're already having trouble keeping up. I think that context is important, because it warrants a different level of "aggression" in policing. If someone is spouting lies is it reasonable to, say, block the original producer of those lies, but let thousands of other accounts repeat them and generate millions of impressions for the lies?

Because, the lies would still be getting out there, and these platforms are trying to combat being the conduit for them no matter where it comes from. Seems reasonable.
I’ve never voted for a politician who voted for the Iraq war. If other Americans had the same stance, our politicians would stop getting us into wars like Iraq. It’s my #1 issue over anything else.
I feel like it was a bit misleading to mention large amount of energy to train a model and then show a chip which can only be used for inference and not training. In general people are optimizing for power use at the edge and not for training.
Drive by wire throttles have nothing to do "ensuring the right amount of fuel/air would be passed into the engine."
Fine.

You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom.

You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them.

If you do want a digital public square look for something run by the government with a mandate to publish everything.

I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be too happy with that either… too many libtards, too many nazis, too many racists, too many whatevers…
Maintaining standing in multiple superpowers is an art of linguistics

I got a kick out of the mention of “consumer sentiment”
They wouldn't be allowed to mention the war.

Also wrong to assume they are on Putins side.

Russia != Putin
After the mid-terms, any Section 230 protection these companies have is going bye-bye. Any kind of active moderation of perfectly legal speech through 'terms of service'/'community standards' will remove any common-carrier liability shield.

Actions like this have turned this into political red meat for some. These companies really need to learn how to read the room. Ratcheting downward the ability of people to freely use these platforms just feeds into whatever persecution complex they have, and justifies it. You don't get rid of bad ideas by allowing them not be spoken no matter how well meaning you are.
The first assault on Grozny failed.