skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The lawsuit was filed in 2018 and Jones has multiple videos as early (maybe earlier) as 2016. I'm not sure how this makes any sense. I think Jones is disgusting and pushing paranoia and fear for a living is disgusting, but I can't understand any world where it's just that a person makes a potentially genuine mistake in their opinion/judgement, explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued.

Intent matters and after watching the trial I have very little understanding how the jury came to that verdict other than they just wanted to punish a bad person any way they could.

I think the world will be a better place if Jones and his gross idea of media, disappears, but I have a feeling he's just going to be made into a martyr here.
"that library needs a different code block for every one of those methods"

Yes, and that is trusted code - even with isolation, an compromise of that method's resolution code would result in malicious parties being able to impersonate anyone else using that method.

There are use cases where you don't want correlation, in which case the decentralized identifier might exist only for you to log into a single web site. At that point, it might be easier to use a method like did:key or did:jwk which encode all of their information into the URL itself, and forego the ability to rotate or revoke keys.
I was wondering myself about that so I did some sleuthing. This law professor explains that the Texas Constitution provides for "the right of trial by jury to be inviolate": https://twitter.com/heidilifeldman/status/155562807903639142...

The whole Twitter thread has more details but the TLDR is because of the Texas constitution, and the large amount of money at stake, this will almost certainly end up being resolved on appeal in the Texas court system. In particular, to answer the question if the Texas legislature's cap may inhibit the jury's ability to determine the punitive award amount, as the state constitution says they may.
These are not summary judgments, they are default judgments. Alex Jones repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to produce evidence, which resulted in him being in default of the court. IANAL, but FRCP rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) very clearly indicates that a default judgment "against the disobedient party" is a permissible outcome of "[failing] to obey an order to provide or permit discovery".

Essentially, Jones was found in contempt of court, and the judge slapped him with a default judgment. It's not strange at all.
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

Not in any legal sense.

1) Defamation is already well established in US law; no novel legal questions came up regarding the borders of protected speach in this case.

2) Precedents are never set at trials. In order for anything from this case to become precedent, it would need to be appealed. Even then, the precedent is limited to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. For this to result in a national precedent, it would need to make its way to the Supreme Court.

3) It was already ruled that Jones is liable, this decision is entirely about the amount. The ruling on liability was not based on the merits of the case, but instead on procedural concerns. Specifically, in the words of the court:

> Defendants' dicovery conduct in this case has shown flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilies of discovery under the rules. The Court finds Defendants' conduct is greatly aggravated by the consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout the other Sandy Hook cases pending before this court. ... In sum, Defendants have been engaged in pervasis and persistent obstruction of the discovery process in general. The Court is also faced with Defendants' refusal to produce critical evidence. Defendants have shown a deliberate, contumacious, and unwarranted disregard for this Court's authority. Based on the record before it, this Court finds that Defendants' egregious discovery abuse justifies a presumption that its defenses lack merit.

If there is any precedent to be set here, it would not be about the merits of the defamation case, but about the due process implications of the default judgement. Having said that, I found that to be an even bigger stretch then a hypothetical challenge on the merits, as Jones was given ample oppurtunity to participate but simply choose not to.

https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Septe...
You missed an important part of their comment:

> More fundamentally though our web tracking protections are built upon a data set (we call Tracker Radar) that is frequently updated based on web crawling (we call our Tracker Radar Detector), which offers a much more comprehensive picture of third-party web tracking of which to base lists and evolving protections relative to solely community maintained lists.

It is certaintly feasible that a funded company has more time and resources to keep these lists up to date, as compared to community-maintained ones
Sure you can, but then you can't call it 'analog' anymore. But you can reproduce the distort...I mean, the "warmth" with digital filters or whatever and it will pass any blind test.
According to this regulatory filing with the SEC, and others, he did, as I said a smoke screen to distract from the fact he most certainly did crash the stock as you suggest. A total sale of about $8.5B, but the total Twitter purchase price was $44B and that difference is where you are likely getting the idea of the loan against his remaining stock.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001494730/000089924...
Actually SBCL (and other CL impls) still follow this tradition; cf.

https://pvk.ca/Blog/2014/03/15/sbcl-the-ultimate-assembly-co...

You can also use the new sb-simd to play around with vectorization in the interpreter. Okay you'll break something, but it's such joy while you do it. C/C++ and other "strictly-separated compilation" languages OTOH seem so dogmatic and stupid now. It's no surprise why development is no painful in the latter. Also not surprising that the world prefers them.
Why do vocals.wav, other.wav, and instrumental.wav all start out the exact same (with vocal sounds)?
desktop-like at home, notebook-like when at coffee shop
Thankfully the US doesn't force small businesses to run their business according to lawmakers' preferences for return policies. If a prospective customer doesn't like the return policy they are free to spend their money elsewhere and the market will decide whether the policy is good for business.
I am not any kind of medical professional, but I would categorize him as a sociopath.

When pressed in court, he admits that he doesn't really believe anything he is saying. He just doesn't care who gets hurt, as long as he keeps making money.
I used to listen to Jones a lot back around 2010 and I feel very confident that Jones fully believed it was a staged event, more surprising to me is that he corrected his mistake many times on air, on video and in person many years before he was sued.

I said this in another comment as I hope his platform disappears, but I don't think justice is being served here.
August 31st you'll be able to order online
I drive a stick shift and I would bet that at least half of my braking is engine braking. It's pretty much my default behavior if I want to slightly slow down to downshift and then immediately shift back.

With an ICE, I have no idea whether the wear and tear you avoid on the brakes is offset by the strain you put on the engine or if it saves or wastes gas. Don't know don't care. I just do it because I am Walter Mitty.
Is the idea that companies should just eat an ever increasing proportion of fraud? I'm thankful that a blunt policy isn't enforced on companies where I'm from - as long as I know what the return policy is, I'm fine to make the decision whether it is acceptable for me or not.

The result of that policy will probably just be that European companies are under more fraud pressure and will go out of business sooner than companies that have more tools to combat fraud.
Be your own harsh critic. I do find hostile PR stressful and I have both had to give them and got them. I stopped in management when I realised how unpleasant I found negative feedback processes. Trying to rectify a significant performance or behaviour issue is really hard.

Maybe you need to get to set expectations for delivery to a level you can achieve reliably, to get positive feedback for over achieving. If the company is obsessed with stretch goals push back a bit and rebalance the agenda.

Being willing to move roles or employer is out there. It's peak intensity for stress but may be worth it.

Best of luck. Keep talking to the therapist. Believe in yourself and remember some people thrive on hostility and some use it to mask their own fears and insecurities.
Ouch. Looking at that link, today I discover my late 2013 MBP had that fault and is in the list of machines that was eligible for repair, but of course the time limit has passed.

I have a late 2013 MBP whose screen developed visible loss of coating in 2014, and cleaning the screen even made an annoying always-on bright pixel due to a tiny chip in the surface. I was sad at that at the time and looked into getting a new display, even paying for it, but there was no way to do it. You couldn't even go to an Apple store and pay for this repair.

That said, this 2013 MBP has been a lovely and excellent machine in almost every respect, and it's still my daily driver (as a software dev), which is great value and longevity for a laptop. I was skeptical of Apple before I got one, but now it's almost a no-brainer to get another when the time is right.
> Any more is just placebo.

This is a very simplistic view of things, on many fronts, but I'll try to be as concise as possible.

In a classical wind/bow orchestra, there are more harmonics at play than the 20Hz-20KHz band, and these harmonics affects our perception of the sound and soundstage. However, recreation of this is very hard, because you need both recording and playback chains which can handle these harmonics as well.

To faithfully reproduce such orchestra, you need a speaker for every instrument, ideally with the exact air movement capacity of the instrument you're mirroring. This is not practical. Instead we mic all of them, mix all of them, and add room echo to the mix to capture harmonics as best as we can.

However, this can't replicate some instruments anywhere around its real sound.

Examples are Turkish qanun [0] and Chinese guzheng [1]. These instruments sound bland, flat and shallow on all recordings, but listening them live, directly with your ears is a goose pimlples inducing experience. Higher end stringed instruments have a similar vibe to them.

So, a 16bit/44KHz signal at 20Hz-20KHz band cannot reproduce these instruments with any faith.

Standard CDs, high quality vinyls, lossless files carry a lot of information, but not all information we can process with our ears. Like how even the best digital cameras cannot reproduce the colors we can see with our eyes.

Reaching these resolution levels are neither cheap, nor practical, hence we use what's practical.

As a result, your master-pressed-vinyl possibly can't carry this information either, because the recording chain was not able to capture that amount of information, even if you went all the way to install your own power pole to feed clean power to your impossibly expensive audio equipment with all that capacity to reproduce that sound.

IOW, you can't extract the sound which is not there to begin with.

Your friendly ex-orchestra player reported from its AKAI-AM2850.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanun_(instrument)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guzheng
Unrelated (although not completely), on your news search, the msn.com reprint of an article usually shows up far more often than the original article. Is this on the list of things to get to?
Are you logging into the site?
It's in the first paragraph of the README in the github repo and th3 second paragraph on the website. I'm not sure what more can be asked of the author.
Policies like that harm both dishonest companies and honest customers. Honest customers end up needing to pay more to cover the cost of fraud from dishonest customers.

We voluntarily have a 30-day return policy anyway instead of the required 14-day in the EU, but a lot of what the interviewee brings up rings painfully true.
You're just playing with semantics. If everything humans do is natural than everything is natural: computers, plastics, concrete, etc. The purpose of using the word natural is to distinguish from what is unnatural, and without grabbing a dictionary, for me that generally means something that does not "naturally" occur (i.e. without human intervention specifically) in the natural world.

Chemical engineers create unnatural things, things that don't exist in the natural world.
To be fair, SAML was a victory at the time - in that they could even get the parties involved to agree to come to the table and write specs and agree to implement them.

IMHO, such consensus work improved in quality for a while after the WS-* dumpster fire was put out by JSON.
> whoever put the guy on air

He put himself on the air, he's the creator of InfoWars. I'm sure other people are involved, but ultimately he's still the one to point the finger at.
> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer?

I don't know. It just strikes me as weird as forcing someone to buy something that they don't want to own or run. Especially after fighting it for months and even adopting a poison pill.

Imagine if you agreed to buy a house for $1 million and the housing market crashes and the house is worth $500k. And now multiply those values by 50,000. Why wouldn't you try to get out of the deal?
"Metaprogramming" is a very broad term. Templates etc. might be nice, but it's hardly anything compared to what you can do with Lisp macros (there's an orthogonal issue that this power leads to unreadable code; see "Lisp Curse", but ignore it for now.).
> This seems like basic statistics but maybe I'm missing something.

Yep, the thing you're missing is that it was 100 samples per week, over a quarter, so 900 samples per calculation. I don't remember the margin of error cited but I think it was about .5%. Its not your fault though, because this is a misunderstanding that Musk actively encouraged in his tweets.

Musk has actually shown quite a few times that he either doesn't know what he's talking about here or is trying to mislead the public. For example, he also confuses total bot count and the number of bots in mDAU, which are different things.
> Tech needs to improve before it'll rise again.

No, it doesn’t, and waiting for the iteration of tech-consumerism that resembles your childhood fantasies is everything that was wrong with the transhumanist movement. It attracted too many people who sat on the sidelines and did nothing to move the needle. It was a magnet for people who couldn’t cope with reality, which occasionally helped, but usually stirred chaos.

It definitely needs a rebranding. In fact, a reasonably good attempt was made as early as the 1980s.

https://metanexus.net/h-true-transhumanism/
I once went to an early 2000’s transhumanist party with Nick Bostrom. He had a transhumanist leadership position at that point, if I recall. (The party was rad)

The most transhumanist thing in my life currently: getting into flow states writing academic papers with GPT-3. It is genuinely mind melting.
Yeah, the academic subject is called "macroeconomics" so if you look for good textbooks on that subject they should explain these details.

At a crass level, in the USA, my understanding is the main mechanism used is: there is someone at a desk with a terminal at the Fed bank in NYC that can buy and sell treasury bonds for "free" (dollars that vanish or appear as needed, electronically) and they do so day to day to keep the rates within the window established by the FOMC committee. (But there are other ways for the Fed to create and destroy money)

So really, the money is going into the hands of any and every one who borrows money during that general time period, and thus receives a lower interest rate than they would have if the government were not carrying out that policy. Larger debtors benefitting to a greater degree, naturally. If you get a mortgage on a small house, you benefit. If you borrow money to take over a large corporation for your hedge fund, you benefit.
>explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued.

Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I'm pretty sure he was still claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag on Joe Rogan as late as 2020
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

Interestingly, despite whether people believe free speech applies or not, the argument whether it could be considered free speech is actually irrelevant because Alex failed to test that defense by defaulting in the original trials by failing to turn over documents. As such, I can't imagine this would set a precedent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sa...
first thing I thought about was Sandman
If those companies go out of business, then ones willing to follow the rules will fill in the gaping void. :)
Musk has done irreparable damage to his name and brand. The decline from genius and eccentric to straight up fraudster and borderline unstable is just amazing actually. I now don’t know what to think of him as he still has amazing businesses and they haven’t even peaked yet. I may still buy stock in them but won’t work for him ever.
Speaking of dual-EC -- it does seem like 2 questions seem to be often debated, but it can't be neglected that some of the vocal debaters may be NSA shills:

1. does the use of standards actually help people, or make it easier for the NSA to determine which encryption method was used?

2. are there encryption methods that actually do not suffer from reductions in randomness or entropy etc when just simply running the algorithm on the encrypted output multiple times?

It seems that these question often have piles of people ready to jump in saying "oh, don't roll your own encryption, ooh scary... fear uncertainty doubt... and oh whatever you do, don't encrypt something 3X that will probably make it easier to decrypt!!" .. but it would be great if some neutral 3rd party could basically say, ok here is an algorithm that is ridiculously hard to break, and you can crank up the number of bits to a super crazy number.. and then also you can run the encryption N times and just not knowing the number of times it was encrypted would dramatically increase the complexity of decryption... but yea how many minutes before somebody jumps in saying -- yea, don't do that, make sure you encrypt with a well known algorithm exactly once.. "trust me"...
The finding some years back was that the harmonic distortion in tube circuits was even harmonics and in solid state was odd harmonics (or maybe vice versa). This could cause tube electronics to sound better than equally good (by measure of thd %) solid state electronics.

This says nothing about the difference between analog and digital recording media unless you think that disc lovers shun solid state electronics or something like that. Do they?

There wasn't much digital sound around when McLuhan said that "The medium is the message." I think that's the substance of this whole brouhaha. What's wrong with rejecting digital media when one deplores the inundating tide of changes in society's tempo, cultural content, aesthetics, and forms of dis-function that have been carried so far and wide by digital media? Isn't change always impugned?
"We don't censor, we just push sources I don't like to the 100th page of search results."

Still not buying it.

Does your hiring process still discriminate illegally? https://www.publish0x.com/late-to-the-pol/duckduckgo-alleged...

You're a bad actor with a product that does nothing but scrape Bing and pretends to stand for privacy. Just give it up.
Submitted multiple times in the past:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20014281

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7052479

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8391400

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15021759

1981 issue of Byte Magazine.
CACM special issue on Lisp (1991)
Communications of the ACM, September 1991 (Vol. 34, No. 9)
To be fair Musk’s Twitter does read like a bot full of illogical, nonsensical tweets. So yeah any well written algorithm could classify it as a bot :)
Wireless Agile Interconnects for Heterogeneous Multi-Chip Processors
Being – or rather not being – Unix seems to be important enough to the GNU project that it's in their name:

GNU's Not Unix
Actually, that might be evidence that there really hasn't been much progress in Systems/PL.
> deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech

IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I think deserves qualification. My understanding is that it’s not the falsehood which is restricted, it’s the damage caused by purveying the falsehood. If I’m not mistaken I can claim (anywhere under US jurisdiction, unless under oath or otherwise legally sworn to be truthful) that I have a cat (I don’t) without any legal risk to 1A protection whatsoever. Granted, that could raise other eyebrows which might gain legal force if I persisted, presumably around competency to care for myself (or my dog, who I assure you does exist).
Kaspersky blames misconfiguration after customers receive “dear and lovely”email
Idea -> diagram -> pseudocode -> code. All on paper. Prefer loose sheets so I can spread them out. Mentally run through it and "printf" to the margins. Concise languages only.
That's actually a pretty bad comment - they commentators have no idea what they're talking about, and one of them even says "... assume it's the same under the US law" and goes on to disrepect the " ... judge, whatever her name is".

Really, is this what you consider a "good comment"?
The plaintiffs attorney has talked about this to reporters twice that I've seen

Time 1: https://twitter.com/dansolomon/status/1555308565715451904

Time 2: https://twitter.com/averytravistv/status/1555692735906349057

In the first video (which was from before the jury announced what they though were appropriate punitive damages) says "10, 15 times" compensatory damages, $50m is below the upper end of that. The 10x you quote just seems to be the lower end of what he suggested the limit might be.

The second video discusses what the statutory cap is (they think $750k per claim, $4.5m total)/that they don't think it's constitutional. Also that they don't think this will be directly litigated like it usually would, but be adjudicated by the bankruptcy court.
Oh my. The author put his website on a host ame that includes an underscore: http://_.0xffff.me/dynamodb2022.html

While underscores are valid hostnames per the DNS spec, they are not valid for hostnames in URLs. Firefox honors the HTTP spec and fails the request, but Chrome seems more lenient and displays the page.

To the author. Please put your site on a valid hostname.

Edit: Better explanation: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2183140