skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It would be better to have a suite of controversial books and check those - I agree. That wouldn't really be a "litmus test" though - that would be more of a "test suite" which is a bit more effort than I care to invest in the claims of random groups that they oppose book banning. A litmus test, by definition, has a singular pass/fail check.

Regarding the popularity of The Turner Diaries - I believe I already addressed this. It has similar search volume, per Google Trends, as one of the example books from the article - "The Black Flamingo" - despite being published ~50 years earlier. So, I don't think popularity is a determining factor in what books the BPL is making available.

Furthermore, effectively banned books, by definition, cannot be popular. If they were popular then the bans on them would not be effective.

I feel that I've let my desire to engage in "point by point" internet-style arguments derail me though. Why the BPL does not have The Turner Diaries is beside my point - maybe they don't like it ideologically, maybe it's just not popular enough, maybe they've never heard of it - who knows.

Instead, the point I want to be making is more like - "If you think book banning is bad, would you want to make this book that advocates for genociding non-white people available to kids?" Because you should test your principles at the limits and not on appealing special cases.

A lefty 2SLQBTGIA+ activist may think and say that "Book banning is bad" when they look at a list of 1,500 books about gay sexuality being banned - but that doesn't mean they are actually against book banning, they might just be against things they like being banned. If you want to know if that lefty person is against book banning, find a book that they would hate and ask them how they feel about that. Similarly, if this article were published by a neo-Nazi institute of religious fundamentalism, I wouldn't be asking them "How about the Turner Diaries?" They would absolutely host that book and complain about it being banned. I'd ask them "How about the 1619 Project?"

As I wrote in my original comment, I am actually for book banning. I think some books are inappropriate for young people and those books should be banned from contexts where young people are likely to encounter them. When someone comes along and says "I'm against book banning!" I feel the need to challenge that because I think book banning is fine and good.
>Irreversibility is both easy & often

Did you mean reversibility? Because otherwise you're agreeing with me: I'm saying irreversibility is easy, often the default with crypto Yes, that is what I am saying. In traditional banking reversibility is easier, and (mostly) the norm for situations of standard human error.

In the case of this particular contract a limited form of reversibility is even what was intended, but that doesn't matter. It's a system that doesn't allow for honest error.

For some, that's a feature. For the vast majority required to take smart contracts mainstream, that is not a feature. Better error resistant reversibility can be built, and that's when things may become attractive to more people. But, again, many proponents view irreversibility as a feature so it's not primary consideration when building things.
Isn't brake dust everywhere?
Every generally accepted theory starts out as a theory held by one. And sometimes directly contradicting the consensus.

We think independently for a reason. Not submitting to the PERCEIVED consensus is a good thing. It means we can have different deeply committed people investigating different theories at the same time, rather than waiting for a central authority, financed with other people's money, to give up on one and pick up the next when it finally gets over its ego.
They removed Danny Devito’s blue check mark when he supported the Nabisco union or whatever.

Twitter is so close to being perfect, I hope they fix it…
I have a sometimes 12mbit connection, but there's a Fiber POP about 1 mile down the road. There are phone poles (with fiber on them) between here and there. What does it cost to string fiber on poles, and what are the hopes of getting right of way? Alternatively, is there some way to pay / force the telco to build out FTTH?

Some people a few miles away have a fiber POP at the end of their shared driveway, and are trying to decide if they should pay the extra couple hundred per house to go from 1GBit to 25GBit symmetric to the houses.
Yeah, cynicism is actually terrible for science, and as a result many scientists aren't overly cynical. I think it's something that happens as folks mature: they tend to look for the positives in papers, rather than the negatives.

This has certainly been my experience in cryptography: as a student you often start off proposing schemes which get broken by your advisor/collaborators (not out of malice, but just because broken schemes are broken), and so you learn to react to novel ideas with "how is this broken?". However, as you mature, you realize that all new correct ideas arise from the ashes of many broken attempts, and so your reaction slowly changes to "how can I fix this?", leading to an overall more positive outlook on both your work as well as others' work.
I've been genuinely surprised at how immune white progressives seem to be to polling on what minorities support, even on issues relating primarily to minorities.
Antarctic Exploration Vehicle Lost Somewhere at the Bottom of the World (2020)
I would agree sans the exception you carve out.

I've seen too much "We're on the brink of $Horrible-evil-calamity-brought-on-by-out-group!" immediately followed by "The storm is coming there is nothing that can stop us now!" to think otherwise.
Because it's controversial.
Ask HN: Should computer science degrees be separated from software engineering?
There are schools/colleges that offer degrees in crafts (for example, car repair) which are clearly separated from academic degrees in the same field (mechanics engineering, in this case). This is not the case in software engineering: you have to graduate with an academic degree in order to work as a software engineer.

Do you think it is a good idea to create separate degree programs for teaching the "craft" of software engineering with a reduced dose of academia?
I'm just saying there's gotta be because of what we've observed so far. Like you said, we can explain 100% of the phenomena in our solar system. It leads to believe that we can do that in the future for things outside of it.

Also, just because a theory is discontinuous at its boundaries doesn't mean we can't have a theory that is on the other edge of that boundary. The unifying theory is supposedly supposed to link both general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Obviously this is just my opinion but I think any system that is sufficiently observable, with enough time can be figured out completely. I don't think it's a matter of if our brains can understand it but if we can have the ability to run experiments on it and enough time.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that as of today, I personally think it's useless.

Sure, being 10Gbps-ready is already awesome, but it feels like buying a 16k TV today. For some niche use cases it might make sense, but until this technology is mainstream and makes sense it would take a while
> Well, that theory also predicts that the universe can't exist for very long, which is a pretty big experimental inconsistency.

Sure, but I don't need to appeal to this fact to know there's a problem that must be solved. The infinities are enough.

> Well, Maxwell's equations were relatively well experimentally verified by other experiments, so there were good reasons to at least tentatively accept their prediction of a constant speed of light* in any rest frame as a given. Even if the Michaelson-Morley experiment was not big on his mind, it was still relatively clear that this type of experiment could be performed with technology already available at the time, as the speed of light had been measured with pretty good precision already for a few decades.

But again, even if MM couldn't have been performed, Einstein still would have had good theoretical reasons (consistency with Maxwell's equations) to posit SR. And indeed, this was the path the discovery seems to have actually taken.

> So, SR was not some highly speculative theory based only on extrapolating other theories, as solutions that only address BHILP but not other problems of QM/GR are currently.

Sure, but this is a difference in degree, not in kind. You accept that theoretical arguments for new phenomena that are not directly testable (at present) are acceptable if they're convincing enough. The question about BHILP under this view (which I agree with) is then about how convincing the theoretical arguments are.

Hossenfelder, taken literally, suggests that no theoretical arguments will ever good enough in the absence of empirical evidence.
> they are free from inflation and deflation

No systemic measure is free from inflation or deflation in a dynamic market.

Prices move, sometimes in a correlated fashion, and credit waxes and wanes organically. Long-run inflation may be theoretically zero in some systems (constant money supply and magically constant velocity), but in reality, we have never observed this. (Even under commodity money systems with relatively constant money supply.)
Here I am 3 months after move in and $5500 later and Charter STILL hasn't installed my 1 gb cable.
> Science works on consensus, the consensus of experts.

This is scientistry, not science. Science works on observation and experiment. In a perfect world perhaps consensus would be established scientifically, but that’s observably at odds with the history of science.
Android loses 8% of its global OS market share in five years
When considering these major inventions of the 1800s, it is vital to know how these inventions benefited our modern industrial and tech world. Every entrepreneur and business leader today owe them a sincere gratitude for igniting the revolution in their own backyard.
Both sides will claim that the other side is fascist, because calling something fascist is a powerful rhetorical tool. Still, it's possible for one side to be correct and the other side to be incorrect in their characterization.
I think item 8 is one of the most obvious boxes it ticks.

The weak-minded, constantly-triggered, safe-space seeking, snowflake libs control the entire world with an iron fist.
> "...there is no incentive for banks to increase interest rates on accounts as they are already sitting on too much cash."

and folks wonder why banks are so strictly regulated... no, banks are never sitting on too much cash unless they've made a marketing and/or an operational error. most banks are highly levered, meaning they're lending out, say, 10× the cash they hold, so they never "have too much cash on hand". quite the opposite. banks continually lobby regulatory agencies to raise their leverage thresholds so they can lever up even more and rake in more of that sweet, nearly risk-free[0] cash flow.

that they don't raise savings rates is purely out of greed, not necessity. they're also under no competitive pressure to do so, which indicates a malfunctioning market (functioning markets are by definition competitive). and more galling, they charge you hidden fees out the wazoo for the "privilege" of banking in a mine field.

banks are core infrastructure, much like roads and housing. i'd rather go back to a simpler form where banks were only allowed to make money on the spread between lending and savings rates, making them boring and having to compete (with higher savings rates, for example) for your business. all the risk-taking extensions to banking can still exist, just in a separate, firewalled entity with no access to that (nearly) risk-free cash flow.

[0]: risk-free in the finance sense of being free of idiosyncratic risk, not systemic risk.
Just because savings won't last more than a year doesn't mean those savings aren't the product of a decade of work.
Geometric control of topological dynamics in a singing saw
Nah, when the science is settled it becomes a law. Like the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Those things take hundreds of years. We don’t even have a working model of climate change which is why they average out hundreds of them.

The science on climate change is far from settled.

It’s pretty easy to take any given climate change model and watch it give inaccurate predictions.
You mock attempts to share critical feedback with you. It is clear you don't value criticism. It is plain to see why someone who doesn't value criticism wouldn't understand why someone else would value it. Nevertheless, plenty of intelligent people consider soliciting critical feedback of their ideas to be among the most important things they can do.

I eagerly await the day you present concrete evidence of your claims that many here are being paid by Elon Musk to promote him, but I grow more and more certain with your every reply that you have no such evidence. If you did have the evidence, you would collect a hundred dollars quickly. Since you don't, you call me a fool and pretend I speak drivel. I could call you a liar for that, but I won't. I think you are confused enough that you believe your own false claims. I completely forgive your insults.

However, I must insist you not see yourself as wise in your own eyes. You who proclaim that others should not "think for even a moment" have no place whatsoever mocking at cultists.
It's utter nonsense that hasn't corrected its widely documented errors and omissions. Those "ahistorical bits" include a claim that preservation of slavery was a motivator of the American Revolution. And it is surely odd that an account of American race relations somehow neglects to mention the Civil War.

The book shouldn't be censored, but it isn't "history" any more than intelligent design is "science".

I suppose a public library maybe should have it, but it belongs on a shelf with the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the works of Lysenko and the tracts of the Flat Earth Society.

It doesn't belong within a hundred yards of a school.
Ah yeah, thanks to 21st century tech, now you emulate 17th century risks when holding wealth! Progress!
Yes that's what I mean: the transportation-sucks problem can be solved either by improving transportation or avoiding it. I would have preferred improvement, but getting a giant house in the exurbs and never leaving it also technically works.
Your comparison doesn't hold.

Tesla stops when it sense a imminent collision even if you have your foot on the pedal.

But, based on the incident, it seems to rely on the cameras and radars. Not on engine performance data.
They don't care... until they do.

And once you do care as a user FOSS gives you more options since you can invest either time or money to fix your problems, and the market of who you can give money to support you isn't artificially constrained by IP access.
It seems to have had a big cultural impact.
That was a delightful write up. My first _personal_ Internet connection was in France and was a dial-up 56kb/s modem connection (I could saturate it! :) Just before moving from Denmark to USA I had dirt cheap 1 Gb/s cable network so I was floored to find that not only not generally available in Silicon Valley, but also generally much more expensive and less reliable. In _Silicon_ Valley! (Yes, in SF there are more options today, but in the original Silicon Valley in the south bay, options are very poor and I refuse to ever again deal with Comcast).

My current provider (Sail Internet) provides a symmetric connection so I have experimented with cloud backup. The difference between my internal network (10G and some 100G) and the external (< 1G) is pretty sad.

ADD: I'm so sick of hearing ("why do you need that" or "what's the point"). There are plenty of applications TODAY, but even if you don't have any, new ones will manifest themselves once the technology is available - it's the way technology works (who would have imagined that daily video conference would be a part of life?).
That had happened to Dicks before though.
Sure, that's a possibility. But, the problem is that this feature comes from a very fundamental place in QM's mathematics - QM is (almost) a linear theory, and with linear equations, information can't be lost. So, to assert that QM is wrong about this is to invalidate all of QM's equations.

Now, it's important to recognize one thing: QM is not really a linear theory, because it also has Born's rule, or the Measurement postulate. That is, while the wavefunction evolves according to purely linear equations, when you ultimately want to measure the state of the system, you get a non-linear update: the wavefunction suddenly "collapses" to a single value, and information is indeed lost (different wave-functions can collapse to the same state after a measurement). However, the measurement postulate is itself poorly understood, so its hard to introduce it into the discussion without derailing things.

There are even consistent interpretations of QM where this doesn't actually happen, such as Many Worlds, where the information is actually still preserved across the totality of the worlds.
>This is a bad take, but unsurprising when most Western culture still lauds virtuosity playing and "skill" over most other things

Why is that a bad thing?
Without drowning in fan noise? This world... Sure, I guess you can get a Mac Studio, or some other 'workstation' class PC, but your switch will still need to be within a few meters of that endpoint, and it's not going to be very green nor silent.

2.5Gb/s can easily be done with a lot of laptops and workstations these days; 10 Gb/s isn't quite there yet (and 25, 40 and 100Gb/s are definitely in the server-only fiber-or-DAC-only realm)
> These documents are alternatively treated as holy texts by developers who parse them for hidden meanings, then shunned as irrelevant because they can’t be understood.

My biggest problem with reading RFCs is not because they are hard to understand, it’s because they are vague, underspecified or don’t accurately describe reality.

The most infamous example of underspecification being, of course, JSON.
>provides a “small” way to test the change in assumptions that creates the big solution

Isn't this the problem. Unless we discover some primordial black holes, all black holes we currently know about are way too cold, and will be way too cold for billions of years, to test anything.

GR predicted black holes, but GR wasn't about black holes, and there were plenty of other things you could test.
From what I can tell, all the books listed as banned by the "Central York" district of Pennsylvania have been reinstated, along with most of the bans from the "North East" district of Texas... which significantly reduces the size of their list.

Their methodology wasn't all that great either:

"We define a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.

PEN America analyzed all relevant news stories on challenges, restrictions, and bans to school library books, curriculum, and classroom libraries anywhere in the United States, over a nine-month period. We consulted school district websites, corresponded with librarians, authors, and teachers, and reviewed letters to school districts organized by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). We confined entries in the Index to actions that resulted in removals or restrictions of books of any kind for at least a period of one day."
“Don't criticize, they're old and wise
Do as they tell you to
Don't want the devil to
Come out and put your eyes.”

Supertramp. Lots of sheep out today downgrading people who stop and think.
Funny you should say that. Eco anticipated not only Trump and Putin, but meerita as well:

Eco grew up under Mussolini’s fascist regime, which “was certainly a dictatorship, but it was not totally totalitarian, not because of its mildness but rather because of the philosophical weakness of its ideology. Contrary to common opinion, fascism in Italy had no special philosophy.” It did, however, have style, “a way of dressing—far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever be.”
The problem you're describing with physical coinage is one of the reasons why paper money was invented in Europe, among other places
Was the removed FlickType app uploaded to the store 2 years ago with Bitcode on, or off?
One part of why we're in the pickle we're in is the both-sidesism from the press and others.
What are the takeaway implications of that for consumers of medicine? Understand statistics? Don't be first to try new tech? Whenever I try to second-guess my doctors I become hopeless about how hard it is to get them to state, and/or to find for myself, sources for their conclusions.

Also, a world in which nobody was willing to be first to try new tech seems like it would probably be worse for everybody.
At the time I compiled it Golden Cove wasn’t out yet. Golden Cove has 19% higher IPC than Rocket Lake which would place it just above Zen 3 at a score of 175.6.
Plus, you know, the globalists.
You can very obviously commit genocide against a country or people even while the overall population count increases.

The definition of genocide does not require a net reduction in population.

Genocide means to intentionally target a group of people, such as an ethnic group, and to kill a large number of those people. Whether the overall population of that group net goes up or down doesn't factor in at all.
Wait isn’t fascism modernist?
Yes and:

Another thing that's been bugging me is that Liberalism doesn't have a response to the Paradox of Intolerance. It's our Achilles Heel. (Or more likely, one of many.)

To take direct action against disinformation (propaganda) weakens the very heart of Liberalism itself. That's why civil society is impotent against the like of Murdock, troll factories, conspiracy grifters, etc.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Paradox.
> With demurrage currencies, everything works like TIPS. Yields may be negative but they are free from inflation and deflation.

Not at all true of historical demurrage currencies, with are subject to inflation/deflation as normal but also have reduced nominal value over holding time.

ISTR the term has been resurrected for crypto products, but I can't find any details of how any crypto demurrage currencies work that would confirm or deny that they are somehow insulated from inflation/deflation and only change buying power by the demurrage charge, though I can't see it being likely to work in practice.

In theory, you could have what is basically a “stablecoin” managed against a price index like the CPI-U instead of an actual fiat currency and then add a demurrage charge on top of that (which could provide stabilization resources, so it's not completely irrelevant to function).
Won't load for me.

Here is a text archive:

https://earthly-tools.com/text-mode?url=https://www.bransont...
That was particularly annoying though because the new product did not support joint accounts whereas the old one did
That will be my dream!
A place where family and friends can visit.
It's fine to have competing explanations for the available evidence. But that's not what anti-science political positions usually look like. Rejecting both the evidence and the explanation without justification or alternative is completely different from reasonable scientific dissent.
That's wonderful. I'll leave the semantics of nucleons to the physicists though.