skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Perhaps "free speech absolutism" isn't quite the right framing here, but more "First Amendment absolutism," with all the known bounds and checks (defamation, libel, incitement to violence). It does give a US-centric bias, but may better convey the meaning and intent.

"Go lynch this man" is speech, but is not protected under the First Amendment. And the First Amendment gives much broader protection than most countries' legal systems do.
Domain names are just bytes. Call me a romantic or a maniac, but DNs must be free. Period. That's why abandoned all of my domains and stopped paying for air. Moved to OpenNIC. But I don't run an enterprise though )
I'd suggest instead that the submission should be changed to point to Elon's actual official offer statement:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...

We don't need Bloomberg's analysis/interpretation, we can do that here.
Compelling companies to host stuff in its original context in perpetuity even if they want to remove it because it continues to harm people and whilst trying to resolve social media cesspits with more aggressive real world policing and punishments sounds like the worst of both worlds...
Apparently he's not the thought sending type of mentalist.
Only up to blond hairs which then you have to switch over to electrolysis like me. I have red hair which is really a mix of different hair colors such as light brownish red, 'redder', and blond. Like right now I don't have any beard shadow but I do have many blond hairs left over.
OP mentioned being worried changes Musk implements would effect revenue opportunities. They also mentioned the offer was poor because it didn’t match up to the IPO price. I think my assumption that the OP cares about this as a financial investment is fair.

The real arrogant move is jumping into a conversation to tell someone they are arrogant without any evidence to back it up.
>>> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.

> Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.

Oh but who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is how the idea of free speech emerged :)
It is bizarre in the US that people don't really think about it being the first thing amended to our constitution.

As if that was just random ordering and not a statement in and of itself.
That would be great but it's a hypothetical.

How would you prove that's happening?
Honestly I don't really understand the deeper meaning of quoting/grouping, so I might be quite wrong about its use.

How is concatenative grouping/quoting different from combinatory parentheses (or your binary equivalent).

In pure lambda calculus you need parentheses to disambiguate, because everything is a function and there are no natural non-functional values. In a concatenative language you need something to solve that problem, maybe quoting does that?

I'm over my head when I think about precisely how "small" these languages are, when trying to be explicit about how much is hidden in the virtual machine of evaluating a program (string of symbols).
Why a dedicated distro, can't you use any distro on a chromebook?
> Even free speech absolutists agree that falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre in order to cause a fatal stampede is (and should be) a criminal act.

Then they are not really 'absolutists'. Either you are free to speak or not. If you are considering something as criminal act and some other not then you are not 'free speech absolutists'. Words can have consequences yes, but you are here just arbitrary choosing which one can and which one can not have consequences.
Homeless being caused by a lack of homes doesn't really will out. The people camping on the side of the road don't have a downpayment and good paying job who could afford a house if only they existed because zoning is bad.

The causes of homelessness is well understood now. The problem comes from ideology, not only is the fix ideologically opposed, the cause is ideologically imposed.

Homelessness after many years or no growth or even the situation getting better started rising in 2014. LA county homelessness was roughly 40,000 in 2011, dropping in 2012, rising slightly for 13, 14. Overall pretty flat for several years straight. Then suddenly a huge increase in 2014. Basically rising every year since. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-p...

So we know it's a policy that changed in 2014 and has been making the situation worse every year. A policy which hadn't been changing prior to 2014 but also a policy that is getting worse every year.

https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/

Greece fell into this trap as well. You think you are doing a good thing with the best of intentions. Instead of helping people earn more, you are in fact creating homelessness.
What makes your suspect this?
I'll second this and add that you're probably sending out fewer but more targeted applications as you progress further in your career.
Maybe you should look at the german Querdenker scene.

They didn't use russia's free speech but ours to turn our people against us.
I too am eager to see whether, if the bid is accepted, the tremendous quantity and variety of anti-Musk sentiment on Twitter keeps flowing.
It is not actually generating much of net income. Or even losses money.
+1 My thoughts exactly.
Why would you have purchased millions in washing machine motors?

Also, take a look at ImportYeti.com
I'm not a web developer but this stuff, from the outside looking in, is reason enough for me to avoid. Obviously I'm no expert but this sort of stuff happens enough that I wouldn't even know where to start to learn this stuff properly.
This might be a good place to ask - I have a first generation Samsung Chromebook (exynos arm based) which is no longer supported by Google.

Gallium doesn’t support it; is anyone else using this device? Which OS are you using? And did you open it to reflash the bios, or you just ctrl-d each boot and hope not to accidentally press space?
> the vast majority of progress civilization has made has been under conditions much more regulated in terms of who can have sex with whom
Facebook has two social media applications, one chat product, Oculus etc. They are more diversified than Twitter.

Also, the simple reason is profit. Unlike Twitter, FB makes very high profits on 25x revenue of Twitter
Magic-Widget is an online pop-up builder
Online system for making pop-up notifications with extended statistics and advanced functionality
> Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Social media has value to humanity.

Long after people land on Mars and spread to the farthest reaches of the solar system, humans will still be social creatures, and thus there will be social media.

All of mankind’s achievements and technological advancements eventually culminate in more social media.
Nice use-case for bookmarklets! With Firefox I've started using the LibRedirect extension for that, which also covers other big sites.
Not just HTML. If we want a static web, we could write the whole thing out in stack automata like PostScript. Very simple.
What if ISPs start really inspecting your traffic and then ban you when you start visiting certain sites they don't like? You going to say the same thing then especially when how ingrained the Internet has become in everyday life?
Indeed.

The subtle point is that the public forum cannot be owned, and that while the public forum is subject to the law, no one can moderate its content.

What has effectively happened is that the public forum has arisen in the cyberspace. We were not prepared for that since that has never happened.

If the govt hired a contractor to oversee a public good, the contractor could not decide who was allowed in or not, or who was allowed to speak, that wouldn't fly under the law.

Some of the large platforms have (accidentally?) come to own the commons. They cant exercise control just like any other standard property, while the commons are still subject to the law of the land.

Instead of a blanket statement like "my property, my rules" we should be working to define the commons. That is a valid debate. We can debate that definition, which is similar to "what constitutes a monopoly?"
The plot of the TV show was very interesting. Unfortunately the acting of some characters was subpar and there was too many seasons.
>free speech in the sense of “everybody should be forced to platform every idea” is silly IMO.

That's a red-herring. The debate isn't really about free speech rights on a private platform. 'Web-scale' platforms will always need a certain level of moderation. This debate is really about the who is within the Overton window and who isn't. Conservatives and certain parts of the Progressive Left want to be within this Overton window, while mainstream Democrats want to keep them out.

Having said that, there is a related matter of government's indirect incursion into moderation policies of private social media companies, by way of use of executive and legislative threats, and what that actually means for constitutionally protected speech. Right now that part is ignored by the supporters of one political party because it serves their political goals.
Always interning all strings is what Lua does, and the concept of a symbol in Lua is merely a particular string pattern which the parser will recognize. They aren't syntactically identical, you can replace any .field with ["field"] but you can't say `local ["field"] = value`, but there is no distinction in the types.

I get a lot of use out of both of those decisions (immutable strings and string/symbol identity), they work well together, and I'd (much) rather have the problem of string-builders than the problem of tracking references to strings and copying them if I need both the original and revision.
Thanks for clearing that up. Moderation is definitely important but moderation, apart from the obvious abuse and illegality, should be done on the smallest level possible. Banning someone from a platform for expressing an offensive view is not moderation; its censorship. Creating customizable user filters or groups that hide these people is a better answer. Reddit has a lot of their own problems, but the federated model of subreddits works. The problem arises when some subreddits are banned or the overlap of mods on each subreddit, but in principal its correct.

I would love shared filters on twitter. For instance, if I don't want to hear things about topic X, I can download a topic X filter that's community maintained that hides posts from troll accounts or keywords. You can mix and match filters. This is better than banning people. Is twitter going to allow back all those people that were banned for discussing lab theory?
I see his number one publicly visible skill as being a great shill and a master marketer. I agree that not everyone can do this. but is it possible there are skills that people at activist hedge funds have that Musk and his team may not have in equal measure?
If you're taking literally the most surface level view possible, then sure.

But it doesn't at all reflect the actual realities of what led up to that happening.
Ignoring that I write software to analyze biological data in a lab, so everything I write is really just for me (and includes a lot of infrastructure type code like a sub-request authentication server for nginx)…

Two programs that to wrote just to make my life easier: one for viewing tab delimited data in a tabular TUI, and another for getting data from my server back to my local machine without using scp. The second one is actually quite handy. To use it, you start a daemon on your local machine. Then when you SSH to the server, it creates an SSH tunnel back to the local daemon. The tunnel is setup to use a Unix socket, so you don’t have authentication issues to worry about (just file permissions). Then to send a file back to your local computer, it’s just “rtun send remote1 {remote2…} local”. The best part though, is if you want to view a remote image, you can run “rtun view file1 {file2…}” and it will open the image locally (it transfers the file as a temp file and calls “open”, etc). When you generate a bunch of figures remotely, being able to open them locally from the remote command line is very helpful.
The same applies in the US, unfortunately.
Failure of a business can still occur with legal speech, like racism. How would tying your identity to an account help in that situation?
Sure, but the feedback loop is much slower. It’s great if you can easily catch most issues locally.
Why limit yourself to old hardware too. I was just thinking about how blazing fast Win 3.1 would run on a modern i9 machine. None of that pesky memory protection or preemptive scheduling getting in the way of getting real work done :-)
You can very easily configure your editor to convert tabs to spaces.

Braces are unnecessary.
I may have misunderstood things, but isn't the gist that software written correctly for this unique hardware isn't subject to the bottleneck? Is it really a hardware problem then, if it can't accommodate suboptimal software with maximum performance? This is after all not an Nvidia or AMD/ATI GPU architecture, and I wonder if anyone ever brought a similar argument forward in the many cases of this or that game having distinctly poor 3D performance on any of their hardware.
I'm tired of Google's business products
I've been trying to start a business lately, and as many people do, have chosen to rely on Google's suite of products. Google Ads for marketing, Google workspace for email, Drive for spreadsheets... The works.

While working for other companies, I never really had a problem with their services. In fact, Google remains one of my favorite companies of all time for solving the search problem (their search engine is still the best, sorry haters).

However, over the past few months, I have STRUGGLED against the tide to use their other services. My Google ads account is currently suspended for reasons I cannot fathom. My Google Sheets spreadsheet is currently frozen (the reason I'm ranting right now). Their administrative setting pages feel like going to the DMV from the amount of options on screen. Last but not least, their support is almost nonexistent.

Am I alone in this? Is this a problem of my own making, by using Safari instead of Chrome, and not configuring my services properly? Or is this a feeling that others get?

Conclusion: I hope Google gets some real competition soon because it feels like they are falling off.

Edit: Shameless plug, my company peddles a data movement tool called SQLpipe. https://sqlpipe.com
When has this stopped him? He already violated securities laws several times and merely got slapped in the wrist for it.
What an incredibly narrow and US-centric view of Twitter.
I had a 2007 Element and loved it. I held on to it until it started having major problems. I never hosed mine out, but mine was from Canada and had a drain hole in the the front and rear.

I never hosed it out though even when it really could have used it. We camped in it a lot.
When someone gives you a million dollars for a weekend project you take the million dollars.
Removed my tw?tter account in a week, after reading the Terms of Service. Won't regret even if it dies.
To be fair, I think a lot of developers begin with that. There is a logistical problem in providing secrets to a process without getting the secret exposed. Environment variables are an often chosen approach. Of course when the software is tested and ready to be deployed, the step to use a secure container containing credentials is often neglected like it was probably done here. This isn't necessarily sloppy programming, it is just skipping an essential step.

How do you provide your secrets to your apps? Using an external service? That would still require another set of credentials. Using environment variables? A file only the user running the app has access too? Another way?
He does not care about damage in reputation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593

Twitter's current cancellation policies are an abomination, but we'll see whether it gets worse with a private Musk company.
Source? Every unified programmable GPU I've seen uses SMT, including the PowerVR GPUs going back to the SGX days. It's core to how they approach modern memory hierarchies.
> I don't want my platform to say anything about this

You should have the freedom to start such a forum without being regulated out of existence and join such a forum without fear of isolation. You should not be able to force other privately owned forums to adopt your view.
As the other poster said, our right to speech is not something a corporation needs to abide by, it's something the government needs to abide by (at least in the US).

I see your point below about basically that we should have a more expansive view of the Right than the scope of its actual legal application, and, while I think it has merit, I ultimately think it's just a normative view that most of us simply don't share.

If I don't like Twitter's policies, I won't use Twitter (I already don't, and would be even less inclined if someone like Musk owned it). Not to mention it's not clear that Twitter is even censoring speech--there is plenty of garbage on Twitter. The notion it's even an example of censorship is laughable, actually.
> So yeah, there's a pretty strong case to be made that certain internet companies are like that. Can you survive without social media? Sure, but you can also survive without sewer. It's just a lot harder to live a normal life.

Holy crud, then break them up if they're that powerful. The right to private moderation is part of the 1st Amendment and should only be abridged in very specific circumstances; don't get rid of the 1st Amendment just because you're scared of Facebook's lobby arm.

There are lots of platforms other than Twitter/Facebook. Anti-monopoly regulation against tech companies has reasonably wide bipartisan support in the US. We also have more evidence nowadays that social media doesn't necessarily have to result in natural monopolies. There are so many things we could do rather than significantly abridge people's rights to free association.

- 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.

- The government could stop allowing purchases by these tech giants in general.

- The government could split up Facebook/Instagram/Horizon.

- The government could push for more open app policies on stores or regulate sideloading (seriously, the amount of pushback this idea gets as a violation of Apple's rights, compared to the amount of support for regulating social network moderation is wild to me. Both of those are an interference in private rights, but one of those things is also a significantly bigger restriction of 1st Amendment rights than the other).

- The government could force open APIs between services (Europe is trying to do this, we'll see whether or not they get it right).

- If that's too much interference into the market, the government could explicitly legalize adversarial interoperability and revise the CFAA to make it easier to scrape websites.

- Then there's an entire conversation to be had about payment systems online and why we have some of the market forces that we do have around monetizing eyeballs and paying for content.

----

But to immediately jump to treating Facebook as a public utility -- not only is that a really drastic step with a lot of 1st Amendment implications, it's also kind of a depressing step because it assumes we couldn't make better social networks than Facebook/Twitter, and I absolutely believe we could. It's depressing to think that we can't ever move past them and the only thing we could do is just try to reduce one specific problem that they have.

I don't want Facebook to be an essential service; even if they didn't censor anything I don't want to use Facebook. I don't really care what their moderation policy is. I hate almost everything about the website; I want alternatives, not a more regulated monopoly. I don't even like the ad-supported model in the first place, I think that monetizing attention is antithetical to creating a good social network.
Trump utilized newspapers, TV news networks, rallies, and word of mouth as well. He's banned from twitter right now but still tops the poll of who would win the next election
It would have been much more professional sounding if the testing had been done "in vitro" --- like with Ivermectin.
> Always interning all strings is what Lua does

That'd be catastrophic for performance in Ruby - every string allocation would always have to be reified, and would always need to access a shared data structure.
Oh, I see. In that case the stock is likely to decline from current levels and you should short it. (Not Investment Advice!)
What about if the government tells private platforms what speech is acceptable, going so far as flagging "problematic" posts?
I think if I went down this path I’d have to build a tower case - more control over the various devices and more of that 90s feel.
if you can sue them, and their right to speech is absolute, then you won’t win.

See the problem here?
> but the "moron" part is clearly mirroring his initial self-deprecating remark, rather than a direct insult.

Mirroring someone's self deprecating remark, adding an insult, and adding "sorry not sorry" is being an ass. Or at least, it takes a lot of familiarity before it is not being an ass.
An Introductory Guide to Functional Programming Concepts
> Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine?

As a free speech absolutist, "yes".

That's literally literally what the word "absolutism" in "free speech absolutism" means.
I agree a single company doesn't have all the power, but for some reason they generally seem to act in concert with one another. Take for example the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was suppressed "by mistake" according to Jack himself [1]. Later, survey indicated many voters believed it was a "very important" story [2].

Another example is lab leak.

Thus, yes, yes they do.

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hun...

[2] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...
I was not able to find an explanation on the internet, but I'm sure that some of you folks will know something about it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-14/elon-musk...

Musk one step ahead.
The argument basically boils down to "everything used to be better, and the general populace shouldn't be able to use the internet". While I have good nostalgic feelings about the way the internet used to be, this misses a lot of things the modern internet offers our society, and only focuses on the negatives.
We both think the other is an idiot. I'm going to trust my friends that are securities lawyers and professional traders over an internet stranger regurgitating commonly held misunderstandings on how the market works. Believe whatever you want.
> who decides what opinions are idiotic?

This is a valid question. The answer is clearly not a firehose—free speech absolutist forums are selected against by users for the toxic pits they devolve into.

Multiple forums and the gating mechanisms of wealth and literacy were the Enlightenment era’s filters. We don’t want nor have those any more.
Can't see South Africa electing a white person for president in the near future or ever
> Surely the same standards should be applied to all users?

The standard under discussion seems to be free speech absolutism with the question "how much more liberal could twitter get". The ban of Trump just makes a good high profile example of Twitters current limitations on free speech.