skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But they /almost/ do! I use an '86 IBM M as my daily driver, but I've bought two keyboards from https://www.pckeyboard.com/page/category/UKBD which still makes this style of keyboard. They're not nearly as broken-in as my M is of course, and the construction differs in a few insignificant (to me) ways, but the typing experience is identical. I'd recommend giving them a look if you're in the market.
If a "return to web 1.0" means going back to baroque and quirky websites on which I have to constantly fight to find information and not carve my eyes out out of digust then no, thanks. The Web was meant as a means to publish hyperlinked text documents, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't want to read an entire book on a web page, just let me download an .epub file. I don't want to read your poorly formatted artsy manifesto in my browser, just let me download a PDF. I don't want to read your blogpost which is just a presentation in disguise filled with inline images, just let me download a powerpoint file.

I'm glad that if I want to search for some information Wikipedia presents me a consistent interface and gives me a brief overview of a subject and presents me with further hyperlinked content both pointing to IRL and web-hosted documents. Wikipedia to me perfectly represents the spirit of true Web 1.0 even if the content is Web 2.0 in nature.
I'll worry the moment the state makes expression of ideas illegal.

When it comes to private vehicles for speech, the right to amplify or attenuate speech carried on these vehicles is itself a free speech right.

Newspapers can exercise editorial judgment. Forums can create policies. These policies can be regarding how discourse is conducted, they can even be topical. Your Math Professor can shut down your classmate's extemporaneous treatise about the gold standard taking up time in linear algebra class. Time, place, and manner matter.

Everyone has a right and a responsibility to curate conversation in a way that serves the discourse for their sphere of influence -- except the state itself.

Everyone also has the right and responsibility to create a new forum or sphere to discuss ideas they feel aren't being poorly served elsewhere. Or, if they wish, any ideas without limitation at all.
The WSJ, in that article, calls California's pandemic restrictions "The most sweeping restrictions on liberty ever seen", which is just an absurd assertion. Even if you scope it to the US or even California, where Japanese-American civilians, including children, were once relocated into internment camps.

This is why people tend to roll their eyes at the WSJ opinion section. (The journalism side, to be clear, is top-notch.)
Show HN: A different way to practice machine learning
We built a site that posts one machine learning question every day.

Each question presents a problem. Usually, a real problem that you and I have or will face at some point in our careers. Questions are multi-choice, and we show you a full explanation after you answer them.

No bullshit: you load the page, answer the question, and leave. The next day, rinse and repeat.

We are using AWS in the backend. The questions are stored in a simple DynamoDB table. The React app fetches the questions from an API and tracks some basic stats, like the accuracy of the answers. Very basic functionality, but after the huge reception, we are already working on a few features like sessions and email subscriptions.

We have many ideas around a database of high-quality machine learning questions. We are already planning to extend the site in different ways.
It's funny, because a lot of the arguments in this thread in favor of maximal free speech use the example of past religious suppression and orthodoxy as support, and they act like they are on the side of the bloody Enlightenment, piercing the darkness of ignorant r3ligionz, but if you disagree with the rules set by the constitution on speech or guns[0], they want to cling to that text as it was written in the 18th century religiously, the same way a fundamentalist Muslim doesn't want to alter anything in the religion despite societal changes that have occurred since the 7th century (using this example because I'm Muslim, not because I'm a bigot who wants to pick on Muslims).

[0] Legally, it's debatable whether the 2nd Amd applied to the bearing of arms for personal use, but we can go by the law on the books right now, and I think that the ship has sailed anyways
CSS grid has finally made it unnecessary to abuse tables for layout.
I'm not sure I'd expect coherence from anyone who has a problem with Trump getting banned from Twitter.

The biggest problem twitter had there was that they had rules and then certain users with such a large following that they where unwilling to enforce them.

It took a literal insurrection on the capitol to do it.

I don't have a solution, moderation is inherently a problem for that case.
Which this is not. He is making an offer to buy which the board has to approve. The title is wrong in this case.
They're like enums but without the risk of colliding across unrelated contexts. And because they're dynamically generated you can have runaway symbol generation that triggers a memory consumption problem.

Newbies try to use strings as enums, because they don't understand enums. Symbols provide tradeoffs compared with both.

This is what you get with a dynamic language where people try to overload functions with "I accept a scalar OR an array!!!"
I worked a lot with both MS online offerings and google's. My own money go's to MS when it comes to documents etc . It is better than the offering of google especially if you need a bit more the the basics. Support is also better.

I don't thing that google office suit is bad just that MS is better

That being said I'm contamplating to stop with MS as I have less needs for a good office suit and just use what apple offers
There needs to always be a place for anonymity, but I’d argue not in all forums.

Words have impact. I’d love to see some foundation or something to work on the problem of toxicity/hate. Develop technologies to allow sites to better police against it, detect bots trying to incite, etc..

Of course, you have to draw a line between free speech and hate speech but we already do that.
END FREE SPEECH. We can't possibly live in this world. Things must be controlled! THINK of all the bad things we could hear!
PyCoders Weekly
That's really about monopolies on information and other gateways more than anything. We are so used to consolidation to one or few large platforms for us to access information or services. This is in large part due to network effects, but also due to poor regulation as well as us being lazy.

So if we have lot of different options to access information and your views are still unwelcome in all but the most extreme places, then I think it reflects quite poorly on your views. You might not get a platform, but that doesn't mean you're being persecuted.
It's not an obvious good idea to buy Twitter though - and is especially risky if you're not wanting to just continue to run the business as is without potentially de-stabilizing it and destroying it in the process.
Unlike most people, I found CRT more pleasing to use than LCDs. When LCDs started to become mainstream, they were making me dizzy after short use. After using the same screen for a longer period of time, I can somewhat get used to it, but I still feel queasy after more than few hours of use. But switching to another LCD still takes me some time to adjust to make it even usable.
Not sure I buy this analysis. I mean, he’s spending $43B dollars. That’s a heck of a jerk move, even just for the time and effort it takes.
American Civil Religion is a powerful drug. Funnily that and their deification of "The Founding Fathers" smell a lot like the absolutist models of Kings and their Divine rights, while being the opposite.
Most C-level people couldn't care less about security. I'm yet to work for a SaaS that implements 2FA, yet at some point all of them have had passwords that a script kiddie could brute force within an hour. The only time I've seen security become a top-level priority was when some customer demanded some kind of checkbox compliance like SOC / ISO27001.
Free speech is a cultural phenomenon in addition to a constitutional policy.

Everyone wants to reduce everything to laws for some reason when the whole reason they are laws is because we value them culturally. The law is a last resort. We shouldn't be setting societal boundaries merely on extreme limits of law.

Trying to fix these cultural issues at gunpoint via courts is no better than trying to fix culture via censorship and social isolation.
>The government could dump monetary grants into Mastodon/Matrix or otherwise subsidize federated/self-hosted alternatives the same way that we've subsidized renewable energy.

As one example, France has generous tax deductions that effectively triple the value of your contribution for places like Framasoft, although it's not necessarily targeted just at free software.
Ever heard about HB laptop?
This is exactly why individuals should not be allowed to have tens (let alone hundreds!) of billions of dollars in wealth - they become all-powerful and too easily subvert the will of the people. They become their own ruling class, which is unacceptable in a functioning democracy.
This is quite patronizing to people in "first world" countries.

If there is no limit to free speech is it not possible that lies and falsehoods are so potent that spreading them leads to an authoritarian fascist police state?

There is a line that has to be drawn, for me it is solidly on the free-speech end of the scale, but absolutely not "unlimited".

I hope enough people will recognize when an idea is moving a society from democracy to autocracy and in this case all options to stop the autocrat should be used, including shutting down their ideas.

Trump walked very close to the line with his big lie on the legitimacy of the last US presidential election.
Hey, one of the creators here!

I suck at memorizing things. I'd instead apply what I learn, but finding an opportunity to do it is not always straightforward. How about using 3 minutes every day to answer a random machine learning question?

This is how the idea came to be. I've been writing questions since the year started, and together with a few friends, we built the site and released it on April's Fools Day. Not sure why.

The reception so far has been beyond my wildest dreams!
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be a pretty good baseline.

> Art. 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Yeah but how bad is a 5 min restart for that one dude in Australia at odd hours?
We don't consider something a right based on whether it costs money or not.
Bravo! He absolutely fell into his own trap! An this is why free speech is a complicated issue. And besides - one person would say "you get people to stampede", meanwhile the perpetrator will say "that's only your opinion, I'm a comedian, here is my Youtube Jackass channel where I do things like that all the time and my intention is never to hurt anyone!". How you gonna prove if he's genuine or not? Jury that has their own opinion? And what if he really IS genuine in just being a stupid joker? Okay, so now you gonna tell him "you cannot say that!". Then we back to square one - controlling free speech.
The NYT removed a few words from the original list that were seen as more obscure, but otherwise it seems like they just copy-pasted the client-side code.
The options available to the author are:

1. Manually add a link to every page on the site each time a new one is added.

2. Give up on hand-writing HTML and use a server-side templating system

3. Give up on having navigation on each page

4. Load the navigation through JavaScript

Given that they want to hand-write HTML,
and they (presumably) want it to be easy enough for everyone to do,
the JS options seems like a reasonable choice.
>Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.

This view somewhat misses the point. If you get on the big platforms and become famous, TODAY, you might have an opinion that matters to quite a few people. What about BEFORE? What platform were the big youtubers using in 2002? The big instagram influencers, where were their voices being heard in 1998? Paraphrasing you, "their opinions didn't exist".
If it is a paid service other can now use the service while you pay the price.

And the API might also expose data you don't want to expose to the public.

That's why you never put these on the client side.
There are better options, for example a proxy that injects tokens into the header.
Didn’t you hear? Musk has launched an hostile takeover of hacker news too! /s
25% over current share is price quite typical.
>The move runs contrary to what has become the typical business model for digital news outlets.

Which digital news outlets? Oh just you.
Leaks are everywhere. I went to a certain country and needed to register my phone, somehow ended up in a workflow that allowed me to enter any national registration number (similar to a social security number) and it would output the person's name, phone number, address and other details for me to confirm that that was me :)

No rate limiting on the endpoint, doesn't require auth, didn't block my VPN, doesn't even set cookies (very privacy conscious devs apparently). I could have mined the entire country's data. Insane.
Though in the case of Dell, he had financing commitments lined up along with his offer. Musk has demonstrated no such commitments.
I'm sure this is just a publicity stunt, but if he actually manages to gain control of Twitter, I don't think his plan will go as expected. Every "platform for free speech" quickly collects "free speech" that is distasteful to most people (such as alt right posts), and it will be cancelled by payment processors, service providers, and not least of all advertisers. If he really tried it, he would get too much pushback from people on the board who realize this.
Yes, there is certainly a limit on both sides. I think when social media platforms would ban hate speech and the like, most people were perfectly ok with it. Once they started banning political opinions that most people would consider not that inflammatory, or even interesting (think COVID discussion) people starting having a problem. The social media platforms themselves became a political tool rather than a tool to share ideas.

Why is Twitter really important? This is really the crux of it for me. Ever since mass communications, the news was the arbitrator of opinion. It was common for journalists of prominent newspapers (like the NYT) to declare themselves "kingmakers" in elections, even presidential ones. How they portrayed a candidate directly affected his or her outcome in a significant way. If journalists at the NYT thought a candidate wasn't a "serious candidate", they wouldn't get much coverage, or that coverage would be intentionally unflattering. Social media breaks that barrier down because now the politicians can circumvent the news as a middleman of information and we can now have discussions of ideas on a fairly large scale without requiring the news to deliver that information.

Once Twitter becomes just another arbitrator of information, then we've regressed as a society back to the times where all our information was filtered by "kingmakers." Instead of a new world with much more available contact with our political class, we digress to the way it was before, the only difference is we have new arbitrators.
In general lists of words (without definitions etc) are not subject to copyright.

But there was a lot of controversy around the scrabble word list - I don't recall how that turned out in the end:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/09/scrabble-copyright-...
Twitter's management has no say in whether or not they sell, except insofar as they get to vote with their shares like any other investor.
In those cases the solution isn’t to force those companies to moderate their content differently, but to prevent them from becoming de-facto monopolies.

The popularity of Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and Google’s core products isn’t the issue. The issue is that any time a successful competitor comes up, they can just buy them out.

Imagine if Facebook wasn’t able to buy Instagram, and it had survived as a competing platform?

There’s no need to apply the concept of “free speech” to private companies. There is every need to regulate monopolies so that a handful of tech giants don’t have the power to effectively suppress content across the majority of the outlets people are using every day.
This seems like a win/win. If Elon takes over Twitter and fixes it, we get free speech there (plus, product innovation!). If Elon is rejected, battle lines clearly drawn and hopefully many alternative platforms (innovating on product as well as terms of service; enjoy tankie-twitter!). This is like the great unbundling of Craigslist, probably created 100x consumer surplus over a decade.
Elon Musk buying Twitter thread probably.
That, or they piss it away on vanity projects like this and level themselves downwards in the process.
You can configure just security patches and not full upgrades.
Hue bulbs, the kind that talk to a central bridge over, I believe, ZigBee.

The bridge just hooks up over ethernet and provides a locally accessible no-nonsense REST api that is surprisingly well documented (sadly requires logging in with a free account: https://developers.meethue.com/develop/hue-api/ ).

Authentication is simple. Press the big button on the bridge, hit an API endpoint within 30 seconds, and you get an auth token.

The only other requests I needed were a GET to list the id and status of all bulbs, and a POST per bulb that is on to change its color temperature (you cannot set color temp of a bulb that is off).
Maybe soon that'll be the case, but it is not currently for the Java edition.
I think it means there were 502 duplicate submissions. We're down to only 200 so it should be smooth from here on out.
For whatever it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot. It just sounds like you think a clearinghouse can do a lot of things that they cannot do.
Net neutrality went out the window the moment Net backbone operators reached for DPI (Deep Packet Inspection), traffic shaping, and QoS (some workloads get prioritized over others).

It's a beautiful ideal to reach for, but it's expensive, because it implies actually investing in infrastructure instead of exec bonuses.
I live in Charlottesville and the ACLU caught a lot of flak for supporting the KKK in a rally earlier that summer before the August 12 Unite the Right rally. When they backed down was the first time I started to pay attention that maybe some of the criticism against the left's assault on speech was legitimate.

(For the record, I am very far left, but from a time when true free speech was a sacred left value.)
My first thought is that there's all those little corners for grunge to collect in. Imagine the state of this setup after say, a years habitation by someone whose focus is so intensely virtual (or whose physical abilities are so limited) that they are willing to embrace this setup.

I think I'd want this made of easily wiped plastics with bins instead of shelves. Design for easy vacuuming or hosing it off.

eyes desk overdue for spring cleaning with catlike poise
My initial position was that censorship has historically been mostly bad. My more fully explained position is that censorship is bad enough that we should not let the state censor, but not bad (or good) enough that the state should interfere in the publication of speech by private media platforms.

I guess this is why the best opinion-havers write essays instead of hot takes in the comment section.
> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial ..

We (the internet) tried that with 8chan. Things kept escalating to the point where a bunch of people got murdered in a synagogue. Condoning violent echo chambers will always ALWAYS lead to significant violence.
All things you listed are entirely in the power of governments - even the smallest ones. I'm actually fighting with the state about one of these you listed as we speak (healthcare insurance).
It's always kind of ironic to read complains about distractions on online blogs.
> Left alone user content rapidly devolves into the most low-effort salient content - flame wars, political proselytizing and porn, mostly.

Polemics, porn, and politics
> I can call up people I've helped get elected and get my thoughts right to them.

How about regular citizens who voted for those people but didn't "help them get elected"? Do they get to voice their opinions? Or what you're saying is that your politicians only serve those who directly donated resources (time is a resource) to them? Even though they should theoretically serve their whole constituency?
> _ it even lets you declare an array whose index is some enumerated type._

You can do this in Rust also: make a custom newtype wrapper for your array, and impl Index<CustomEnum> for the wrapped array.
What idea have they censored?
I agree. Other options are Zoho [1] and ONLYOFFICE [2].

[1] https://www.zoho.com/

[2] https://www.onlyoffice.com/
We already have limitations on free speech in the "first world".

Ask somebody involved in a merger how "free" their speech is.

Or somebody involved in a court case.

At issue is what we choose to protect from harmful lies.

Wealthy people with good access to lawyers can sue for defamation. A courtroom is protected by perjury laws. Business is protected from fraud.

And yet the tools to fight the COVID pandemic are beneath protection? Minorities are beneath protection?

Look at the Americans -- half the country still thinks the election was stolen, and the only people facing consequences for that are the ones who lied about Dominion Voting Solutions because there a business had standing to show damages.

Free speech online has been tried, the end result is 4chan, which gave way to Qanon. When fascism takes hold in the first world, it will be "free speech" without any protection of truth that ushered it there.
I'd like to plug the company I work for: I'm at Bree (YC 2021)[1], and we're hiring for a senior software engineer. We're currently trying to help Canadians who live paycheck to paycheck. We work remotely, with half the team in Vancouver. We're in a very fun stage of growth and there's a lot of stuff to be done! For more information, please take a look at our official job description [2].

[1] https://www.trybree.com/

[2] https://trybree.notion.site/JD-Senior-Software-Engineer-9c30...
Now your turn, Windows.
> Moderation is definitely important but moderation, apart from the obvious abuse and illegality, should be done on the smallest level possible.

That's your opinion, and you're absolutely welcome to hold it. I understand that position, but I don't agree, and I would prefer a more strongly moderated platform. That's my opinion. If a platform has too little moderation for my tastes, I may choose to leave it, and that would be bad for an ad-based platform's profitability, not to mention network effects, etc. Given enough users (and employees!) who think like me, the platform has an incentive to perform stronger moderation.

I think we should have more platforms to choose from, and maybe even require some kind of inter-operation between them. We should enforce existing anti-trust law on these big platforms, not try to force them to change their moderation policies.