skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Also under the "If you tolerate windows" umbrella, PowerShell.

I've been a die-hard Linux user since the middle of high school, but during some work recently, I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly I could get a basic GUI for a PowerShell script I was writing.
You have no idea of what you’re talking about.

In the past year or so, from memory:

- The Father 2020

- Titan 2021

- Another Round 2020

- Charlatan 2020

- Climax 2019

All of them are European movies and have been recognized internationally. None of them are even remotely close to copying another film. You can say that you don’t like or care about these movies but there is a lot of diversity in European productions.
I know plenty of people who don’t have Twitter accounts and live extremely normal lives. Can you say the same thing about electricity?
> if you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians

Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources.

You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.

> What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?

Flippantly: Russia.

Less flippantly: freedoms exist in balance. Taking an absolutist stance on individual speech curtails freedom of association. In practice, I suspect it will make most social media unusable in its current form. (Which may be for the worst.)
This reads like the radio ad for Navage nasal rinse
This ID thing makes no sense. Did the team doing the deletion take these cloud site IDs and plug then into a script expecting app IDs? And it still found and deleted sites? Or is the script like a delete anything script? Give it an ID and it will go find it in any table and delete it? That seems to be what they are implying.
Same reason people install Linux on their computers instead of just using WSL on Windows. It's faster, it's more natural, and the whole OS receives updates forever.
> speech by itself cannot harm anybody

The "by itself" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Sure, if you post someone's home address with an allegation that they're a paedophile, the instruction to attack them doesn't harm them, it's people following the instruction. And the bombardment of words sent to harassment victims isn't the sole factor in the emotional state of harassment victims, and it's the virus that kills not the antivax sentiment etc etc.

But they harm people rather more directly than Twitter having the freedom to delete those words if its management feels that would be the responsible thing to do does...
This is still 100% possible, and many frameworks support it. SPAs are not the only way to build things, and frankly aren't even the most popular way to build things outside of tech startups.
Just to verify that I understood the concept I looked up the definition of "hostile takeover" from various places, its common theme is taking over a company without approval of the board.

The actual offer states [0]:

>As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.

Which means he is asking for approval, which seems to contradict the headline and the quote from Mirabaud Equity Research which was used to make the headline more sensational as they were quoted saying “This becomes a hostile takeover offer which is going to cost a serious amount of cash”.

If the board disapproves of the offer and he acquires a larger stake of ownership, that would be more inline with what a hostile takeover is.

[0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465...
Except the way it's pronounced in the song is not the way the English pronounce it, if that's what you mean. The emphasis is on the first syllable in the song and on the second in the British English. It's like someone who has heard someone imitating and English accent wrote the song.
The current Prime Minister would be torn between "law and order" and "sticking it to the ABC". His head would explode.
As many as 15% of Americans may hold QAnon beliefs [1]. Where is the evidence that "the opportunity of exchanging error for truth" is actually being seized?

It's all very well making an argument from principle, but if the real-world outcome is tens of millions of people believing absurd and dangerous conspiracy theories, I don't find the argument from principle very persuasive.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-republi...
This special case is a common recommendation situation, for a matrix X of (unit) user-vectors (whose entries are, eg., preferences for products/1)... then X^TX compares all users with all other users.
Musk's Twitter, First Comments
Show me people banned for only discussing the lab theory. There was a global mistake in harshly categorizing the lab leak theory as wrong, but the people who were banned were banned because they used the theory (which it still is) to advance dangerous views that Twitter decided not to engage with.

There’s the word media in social media. A newspaper will carry a theory, but not an article using the theory to spuriously decry public health mesures.
>What I see missing from Haidt's analysis is increased federalism and localism as a solution.

There are problems with Haidt's analysis and your proposed solution. The idea that society has become fractious because of technology masks a real division that has always existed among people. There's always been in-groups and out-groups which often fight each other with the in-groups usually dominating all levels of society within a given region. For example, in "red states" LGBT folks often have to keep their identity a secret or at very least pretend to bow to the dominant group which in theory gives them some protection. Of course, this is an illusion as many trans and gay/lesbian/bi folks find themselves murdered more so in hostile regions than not despite passing or hiding their sexual orientation.

What social media has done is give out-groups such as LGBT folks a means to voice their views, share their lives, and basically live as if the dominating groups don't have a say in living. This has basically made in-groups furious because in the past, a simple act of lynching would bring such out-groups to heel but now with the power of having mutual aid across the internet through GoFundMe, random meetups, and chat apps like Discord such acts of physical and structural violence don't stick as well. A family in a rural red state can't force their gay son to act straight when they can safely move out to another city even before the age of majority thanks to friends online paying for their bus ticket. No more can the local church lock down minorities in their community when they can up and leave thanks to social media connecting folks to others that have the means to help.

Essentially, society is breaking up because the means to unify via absence of freedom to flee local tyrannies and brutalities has been diminished greatly. It's not that people are experiencing the equivalent of the tower of babel from the Bible, it's that people are recreating their own colonial ventures to far away lands to avoid persecution much like religious minorities did when coming to North America. Instead, they're just fleeing to other states or countries with friends.
The sell you the opportunity to share your thoughts with other users.
Twitter and Facebook should either be forced to accept regulation around banning and denial of access to their content or should be forced to remove accounts of government officials and government utilities. It’s somehow become the defacto standard that government can release updates on social media at faster rates than any other channel of communication that they use and that people can be banned from accessing that communication. I think it’s disingenuous to say Twitter is not a public utility given the way it is used by government offices and politicians to communicate. Especially given the way Twitter had actively worked to facilitate that.

Barring a legal requirement for government to share all information to citizens on other channels at the same pace as they do on Twitter, being banned from Twitter prevents access to information that one is legally entitled to. That is clearly unacceptable.

I think Twitter should be able to moderate content as a private entity. But they’ve knowingly created a situation where outright banning is a powder keg and I feel like they’ve mostly lost the right to do so. They should have a good case for making accounts read only but they are definitely causing huge problems when they ban someone.
As much as I very much admire the output of Elon's various ventures, I'm not sure of the value of this move, either for him or Twitter.

I think Twitter often brings out the worst of his character (or perhaps "reveals"?)

I wonder if he might be too emotionally invested in how Twitter operates for this to be a good move, given his numerous Twitter-led controversies. I worry about the motivations behind him trying to do this.

But I could be wrong. And to be fair, I can think of worse owners...
My first product in 1987 sold in boxes, with floppies that had to be duplicated and a manual printed, plus shipping to distributors and mail order companies. If we were lucky we got paid 180 days later assuming they were sold, otherwise we had to pay to get the unsold inventory back. A later product with a larger audience cost $10 just to send an update, and that had very little profit, since it required all the same manufacturing costs. I never did that again.
yep, nobody is bringing up marquees, horrible gradient background, unreadable bright blue text on yellow backgrounds, flashing GIFs and all the other atrocities. Plus the endless "coming soon" and "under construction" pages
Do you get to decide who can use Twitter, or does Twitter?
> "You ran 15km before breakfast? You bloody mentalist" "You carried on drinking even after I left? Mentalist"

Well some of this I include under high-risk social behaviour I suppose.

But it's a good observation. I can't think of a time recently I've heard it used positively.
That makes no sense. These two things have nothing to do with one another.
I also use a Model M. they don’t make them like that any more!

I use an IDE to SD card adapter rather than CF, as SD cards are super cheap and easy to image.
I love the simple and honest idealism that drives this message. I think it’s completely unrealistic, and goes against human nature, but I still appreciate the vision.
Yes, where you can face hellish legal processes and the threat of jail time over jokes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

Sounds perfectly free to me!
A few months ago, I installed Windows 2000 onto an ancient ThinkPad T21. I then put Office 2000 on it. The intent was 'mono-focused' (I like that word) writing.

The project stalled, as I was stuck looking for a good offline dictionary/thesaurus to put on it, as I knew I would need it, most out there are horrible or online only.

I should resurrect the idea and blog about it really (directly from the aforementioned ThinkPad).

I think there's mileage in a 'Writers Distro' for Linux, which only bundles a set of apps for Writing, and NO network drivers.
They also use lasers and just intense light and electricity. All of these have very high power levels which cause cell heating and destruction.

The thing to keep in mind is the action is thermal and requires much more power than cell phones to have any effect.
The big thing HTML brought over literal static documents is easy and pervasive hyperlinking. Without that, I'm not even sure if you can call whatever's left "the web".
Censored data presents a selection bias issue, but from what I can tell, Twitter's censorship seems to have little rhyme or reason. It is neither effective at suppressing lies and propaganda, nor effective at permitting reasonable discourse that falls afoul of some mob's opinion.

They still have every right to do it, but I'd be more interested in the merits of censorship if there was any institution that seemed to be doing a half-decent job of it.
Assuming the factual premises of what you're saying are true, the problem with the lab-leak thing was that it was bandied about by Trump and his supporters as some kind of excuse for his poor handling of the pandemic (which began before the pandemic even started via his dismantling of certain government functions meant to deal with such outbreaks). They also were people who wanted to downplay the severity of the disease overall, act like everything could continue as normal (for largely selfish reasons), etc.

Don't get me wrong--I think the initial response to Covid was probably overzealous, and it has lasted way too long (once we had vax, everyone should have been done with it).

My point is simply that they wielded the info/idea in an ideological way, and this led to it being dismissed, whereas if the idea was discussed and established among experts first, it would have been taken more seriously. In other words, bare, unregulated, irresponsible free speech did harm in advancing this idea.
Q1: How much ambient RF spectrum intensity has there been during evolution vs. sunlight exposure?

Q2: How much has ambient RF spectrum intensity risen today vs. natural background levels?

A1: Virtually none.

A2: 10^18
To be fair monitors were only about that size in total at the time
>the only country with actual free speech

I think you win the hottest take award with that one ;)
I think bringing back the adventurous side of the internet is important. Back in the day if you wanted to find information about a specific topic you had to search(not google search) for it. In doing so, you weren't inundated with more and more information that starts relevant, but quickly devolves into whats trending to drive DAUs and add clicks.
1. The chance that Musk would buy Twitter, non-zero before his purchase announcement and somewhat circulating as a market rumor and thus perhaps part of speculation upholding the stock, would go to zero.

2. Musk's departure could be read by some as a vote of no-confidence in management by a capable businessman, and that after some conversations with management about strategy.
Doubleplus cool idea. What's the podcast?
Have a look at 90% of corporate codebases.
did this transition happen because extremists were able to spread their ideas?
I remember feeling control over how much I could push my sleep time. I think it was one of the only things that I could play with that seemed to only affect me. Also at that age doing things differently seems cool too. Starting at 15 I’d go to bed at 6am and wake up at 10 or 11. My school hours were from 5pm to 10:30pm because my school was tiny and in high demand so there wasn’t enough room to put everyone in day shift. During the day I’d do small IT jobs or homework. I loved it, but I wonder now if my bad sleep is what pushed me to depression.
Single threaded only though! So you leave a huge amount of that i9 performance on the table.
https://vhsoverdrive.neocities.org/essays/oldweb.html

stated; >The web was established with the best of intentions.

The basic idea was that if everyone could share their thoughts and ideas with the world,
the best ones would be vetted and float to the top.

The bad ones would be ignored and pushed to the bottom.

But human nature has a tendency to corrupt the best of intentions.<

-

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-shuts-down-ai-chatbot...

stated; > Microsoft shuts down AI chatbot after it turned into a Nazi - By Amy Kraft Updated on: March 25, 2016<
Sure, the web used to be a fun place for tinkerers in the beginning. But the cat's out of the bag and we cannot put it back inside.

Going luddite is never a good solution. We'll just have to accept the consequences of what all this new development has brought us and learn how to live with it, not suppress all recent development in the hopes of recreating an environment that only really worked for a small subsection of humanity.

Personally, I'm hoping all this share-everything is just a trend, that will pass by itself. Future users will look back at it with a sense of wonder: did people really post pictures of their food online? "Yep, and then we had buttons to tell each other that we liked seeing it. It was a weird time. Some people still miss it and argue we should go back to Web 2.0."
Nobody saw it coming… /s
Looking back on it, was school the right choice? Do you think you'd have done better to go with the passion back then?
> I remember Musk offered to solve world hunger but the NGO people who said they could do it flaked when (pen in hand) he offered to cut them a cheque.

I hadn't heard about this, but looking it up now, it seems that your account isn't accurate. According to these articles he asked the UN to detail how they would spend the money and they did.

https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-solve-world-hunger

https://fortune.com/2022/02/15/elon-musk-5-7-billion-donatio...
The process of getting the world as it can be experienced and its cultural representation to converge by updating the latter.

Power is the same, but acting on the former.

Stay away from mirrors or that definition collapses on itself.
(Disclaimer, work for Neeva), but sounds like we might offer a lot of what you are looking for. We are an ad-free, private search engine. Which means no ads, no affiliate links and you data is not sold or shared. We give users control letting you customize your search result preferences for sources including news, shopping and more. Want more of X? That's your choice. want to see less of Y? That's your choice. We also block third party trackers, let you search across personal apps like dropbox and email all from the same search bar. See for yourself neeva.com
The only time I see rank propaganda on HN, it’s about stuff Elon Musk loves, like the blockchain or self-driving cars. I dread what he’ll do to Twitter.
4 billion databases and 10k connections - I sense a problem :D

And I don't think even pgbouncer would help.
Ah! Wordperfect - best word processor on DOS by far.
> The notion that all speech should be allowed actually seems stupid to me on its face, the more that I consider it.

Who will decide which speech will be forbidden, and on what basis will the decision be made? How accountable will this person or body be, and to whom? Will it work transparently or in secret?

How will it enforce its decisions? Who will be bound by them? What punishment will be appropriate for those who utter forbidden words?

The praciticalities of censorship-enforcement are as nightmarish as the "ethical" arguments for it.
Sticking to their own principles I see. It's even written in HTML4.01.
You're poor, a.k.a a class of society.
It's absolutely possible, because the hardware doesn't care about your compilation model: you can mix normal pointers and capabilities as you wish. A challenge is that it's easy to go from capability -> pointer, but harder to go from pointer -> capability -- where do the extra capability bits come from? CHERI C provides a default ("inherit capability bits from the DDC") but I'm not sure that's what I would choose to do.
Why would they? They are not providing a service for sharing opinions.

Twitter is a service for sharing your opinions with the public. Obviously terms of service are going to include limits around your ability to share your opinions. If the service had no terms, that would mean that you could post 1 million spam replies to every single tweet anyone made.

Similarly Twitter's TOS shouldn't include anything around electricity usage.
In most of Europe, the governments regulate free speech, and it works okay.
Can anybody make a good argument as to why Twitter (in its current form) isn’t a major detriment to society?

If Twitter poofed out of existence today, it would be a major win for this planet. People talk about a frightening future with a human hostile AI that wants to destroy humanity. That exists, it’s twitter.

Elon buying it, even if he runs it into the ground is a good thing. Getting rid of some of the hostile AI is a good thing.
Try WordNet, it requires tcl/tk, it may run under Windows 2000.

https://wordnet.princeton.edu/download/current-version#win
If this was enacted, they'd probably just change the effect of a ban such that banned users can view "utility" / "government" content (but no other?)

Also, can't unregistered users see that information anyway?
> Personally, I'm hoping all this share-everything is just a trend, that will pass by itself. Future users will look back at it with a sense of wonder: did people really post pictures of their food online? "Yep, and then we had buttons to tell each other that we liked seeing it. It was a weird time. Some people still miss it and argue we should go back to Web 3.0."

This. 100%.
Well there is wide speculation that Elon could open up the rules of twitter a bit - perhaps allow Trump back on, widen what type of Covid-19 discourse can posted without repercussions, etc.

Fewer people think Elon has any predilection to locking down what can be said on Twitter.

(I don't know what will happen ultimately, but that's how it could be related.)
the key word we might be hung up on is "remove". they can't just remove, but they can sway just enough to have real social impact.
The HN front page is an algorithmic feed. Where and how do you draw that line?
I blog: One year of posts in a single org file (2015)
I am sympathetic to the argument here, but I think this misrepresents the counterargument. I think the argument against this is simply that it's not what people actually want, it's what people like us want them to want.

It sort of reminds me of that series where an architect makes fun of mcmansion monstrosities. The architect is right - those mcmansions suck - and we're right - simplicity in computing is better - but I think people want the mcmansions and I think people want the flashier more interactive software.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Racist is certainly not legal in the UK and people have been prosecuted for tweeting racist messages.
Since that's not part of any document it's your opinion as to what "Free speech" is and if it's a human right
Wow, that is an amazing way to describe it. I've never heard that before. That is a great framing of the debate: free speech doesn't mean free reach. I don't know who made it up (kudos to you if you did) but having terms to describe each part of the issue is very helpful. TIL
> Understand this: limits on free speech are far more dangerous to society than allowing fringe extremists to spread their ideas.

I just don't see the evidence to back this claim up.

Granted, if I really think about it, I am not directly harmed either way. The fact that this is one of our fiercer debates is probably a good sign of our decadence lol
Do you mean building a UI from powershell or some sort of UI wrapper for powershell?
Is he able to sell his 9% stake while the board mulls his offer?
That’s basically how IntelliJ (and the other JetBrain IDEs) work. They market it as a subscription, but after you’ve been subscribed for a year you get an key that lasts forever for the version that you initially subscribed to. Subscription years after the first (so basically, choosing to upgrade from the initial version) are cheaper than the first year.

It would be nice if they chose to have an option to just buy a version outright without the appearance of a subscription, but I understand why they don’t.
If only the browser defaults had been better, this would have worked better.
" apart from the obvious abuse.."

"Banning someone from a platform for expressing an offensive view is not moderation"

What if an offensive view creates abuse? Who defines obvious?
Today there are more platforms to post your opinions on than ever before.