skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I bet you if you questioned those people on things tangentially related to free speech or with indirect questions they would still score as a supporter of it to some degree.

Historically, hacker culture has couched free speech as a technical problem - i.e. the same as a network outage. This is where we get the catchy-but-wrong canard of "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it". This leads people to assume that "unrestrained publication" and "free speech" are synonyms, and that all we need are faster and better printing presses that are harder to shut down.

DDoS attacks, doxing & unmasking, harassment, spam, and so on are all ways to reduce free speech online without having the technical ability to restrain publication of some content. If you take the "censorship is network damage" approach to free speech then it's hard to argue against these things that have clear censorious effects. Mocking someone on Twitter is the same as posting someone's home address under this definition. If you take free speech as a sociopolitical problem - i.e. where censorship is any kind of violence directed at someone for speaking their mind - then these things are obviously censorship, even if they are shaped like speech.

The people involved in these kinds of censorship have, of course, appropriated the language of free speech. This is tragic, because it means free-speech liberals are pushed to drop that language, because it virtue-signals that you actually support censorship with extra steps. You instead talk about online harassment and marginalized groups - i.e. the people currently being censored - rather than the underlying principle of not censoring people.
Not the OP, but while I would have no problem using an orchestrator based on a different common packaging than Docker (e.g. RPM or AppImage), I would be very hesitant to use one that needs its own bespoke packaging. Because that's maintenance work and I would need to feel confident that someone will keep packaging future app updates.
> $20k phone

Is this what some of Blackberry phones would have been if they continued their earlier legacy and designed phone lineups that appeal to reach people (hardened device, durable, privacy, "non-trackable", can connect to any cellular network and satellite internet.. etc)?
> Everything is compiled straight from GitHub

For some reason, that instills terror in me.
that's so like science isn't it?
Well then, I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
Most of these turn out to be sensor artifacts, operator errors and the likes, and even some blatant fakes.

The problem is: it takes much more effort to investigate (and possibly debunk) each of these occurrences than to shout "UFO! UAP!".

It always reminds of the rule of bullshit: it takes 10x more effort to debunk bullshit than to produce it. Thus if you don't want to be tangled up in believing lots of bullshit, you have to develop a certain resistance to it.

We as a public have not developed that certain resistance to uncertainty in observations, and still jump on them, thinking this time it could really be aliens.
Some weaknesses I see with SAP compared to dedicated solutions are in logistics and warehouse management, process industries (e.g. continious chemicals production, SAP is way better for discrete products and still it works just fine for the pricess industry), aerospace MRO (SAPs aerospace and defence package is more geared towards production) and eCommerce (eCommerce as a business is not that complex).

Basically, if you are a manufacturing company SAP is easily among the best solutions out there. Added benefit of using an ERP that litterally everone else is usong as well: you have a way larger pool of people to recruit from that know the system. The less market pebetration an ERP has, the harder it is to get people who prwviously worked with it. That means higher training efforts, more need for external cobsultants and performance issues until your emoloyees adapted to whatever ERP you have.
The effects sequences I saw in the video clip didn't look over the top...

Besides what's wrong with a little ridiculousness? Some of the special FX I've seen in memes of indian movies look like they take a decent amount of imagination to visualize

Note that I have not seen any indian cinema, no idea where to start with that, other than to say that the Bollywood format (and musicals in general) has little appeal to me...
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair."

-- They Thought They Were Free:
The Germans, 1933-45, Milton Mayer
> 50 years ago, you didn't see corporations able to effectively silence people as much as you do now.

The government was always trying to silence people though, see McCarythism and Vietnam war protests.
> Some works have consciously attempted to avoid flanderization, such as Rick and Morty.

I am not sure to phrase my disagreement with such a statement because Rick oscillates between a few crazy states but Jerry has been pretty one-dimensional for most of the show's life.
>>> Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free speech is a bad idea? Or is has it always been like that?

I grew up in the USA in this era also. Except half of society knew free speech only for the other half. Look at movies, leadership, or school curriculums and you notice how limited free speech actually was. The only ones with freedom of speech were narrow slivers of society who held the microphone and got to decide what constituted free speech.

The internet changed this, now everyone has a voice and can participate. Not everyone likes that.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/lawmakers-push-to-b...

Don’t forget the 1619 Project.
Not surprising in the least. Anyone who has browsed 4chan instinctively senses that the pendulum swings from downright madness to sheer brilliance on a post-by-post basis, and this is something you can’t really find on other sites no matter how much you analyze the so called “signal to noise ratio.”

You can’t have an open and intellectually gratifying discussion if you know there are things you cannot say. So the topics, and their themes, are stifled from the get go. Be exposed to this environment long enough and you’ll self censor.
it used to be Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away now it is Qualcomm giveth and Google taketh away. Seriously tho we even had palmOS and WindowsCE running on 2 decades old arm cores and now we cannot run linux properly on multi-billion transistor gigahertz cores!
Ok then I don't understand. You brought up revenue comparisons as an argument against unionization, presumably because a company making less revenue per employee is somehow bad for employees. I claimed that revenue per employee is largely unrelated to compensation or benefits and we should really be talking about those things. Now you seem to agree that profit per employee doesn't affect wages but instead only benefits the corporation, which is able to start new projects.
Peoples eyes get spoofed all the time by all manner of illusions
Smart Contract Development – Move vs. Rust
Do you think it's a realistic concern that the entire world will collude to not let you have enough of the currency that they rely on people having in order for it to have value? What's the incentive there?

It seems more realistic that the manufacturers of the most efficient mining hardware would refuse to sell it and instead use it themselves or sell to allies since that has you know, happened.
Aer Lingus Cancels Dublin Flights to Europe and UK
Shrinkflation
That was infinitely better than TFA, thanks.
A block can end at any time and another huffman block with another table can start. There is no way to know that without decoding all symbols.

Decoding the huffman codes is by far the most expensive operation, so you don't save much.

For decoding match lengths you also need to decode all symbols.
You said it in a tacky way, but the evidence does suggest that the average intelligence of a population is an important limiting factor in civilizational attainment. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.

Likewise, the likelihood of a startup succeeding is gated by the intelligence of its employees. Successful founders know this and hire accordingly.

I’ve yet to see a sound argument for why it’s ok for a company to discriminate on intelligence, but not for a country to. And of course many countries that are seen as having admirable immigration policies, such as Canada, do exactly that through various proxy measures.
Isn't it also the case that large companies are the reason projects like Linux have been so successful? Linux is an example. A very high percentage of Linux contributions are from corporate sponsors. [0]

[0] https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/ (Kind of old but I don't think it has changed much.)
You can trust science as in scientific method and practice and mistrust specific research or studies. All is well then.
Not even close to Houdini. It’s on par with its modeling but has nothing on Houdini’s sim, particles, FX.
I think the term you’re looking for is scalping
I don't even know how to respond to this. The idea that the intelligence and military apparatuses follow the law to the T is absurd to me. Perhaps some facts to the contrary:

* The CIA and NSA conduct mass surveillance of the American public, contrary to the law [1] [2]

* The CIA maintains illegal black sites with systematic torture [3]

* The CIA made a request to execute a false flag against american citizens to start war with Cuba [4]

* The CIA executes illegal assassinations and other covert operations [5]

* The Pentagon has presided over many illegal wars and war crimes [6] [7]

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

[3] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/guantanamo-transcripts-g...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/21/do-we-need-...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

[7] https://www.resistance.org/illegal-us-wars
>>> I think the desire to restrict other peoples speech is relatively new because the internet was relatively new. 50 years ago, you didn't see corporations able to effectively silence people as much as you do now.

50yrs ago, corporations and narrow slivers of the US who controlled their editorial boards (e.g., those in NYC or LA, to some extent DC) were the only ones with free speech. They didn't "silence" anyone, they just didn't give them a platform at all.

A stark example is police brutality and BLM movement -- this is not a new phenomenon. Except the media (including liberal media) chose never to cover it in a way where real change could happen. The extent of police brutality only entered the realm as a serious issue once the other half had sufficient freedom of speech to talk about it, gather around it, and bring it to light in a serious way.

This is the success of "the hashtag" and new media in Silicon Valley.
I am not an iOS dev, but is it possible that banking apps (and I admit they're slow at adapting) depend on certain APIs that have changed, or Apple deciding to enforce a use of a specific API for a specific type of apps?

I am asking to learn.
I've been a senior DoD technology leader, I know how it works. I live in DC, I see the ads.

Never once has Raytheon or any other defense company tried to make me or any other PEO, acquisitions or contracting officer buy something by generating some fake scare in an attempt to make me or anyone who can actually spend money on behalf of the DoD do so (hint, there's not that many people who can actually approve real money).

People think there is some conspiracy to just grow our military for it's own sake - in fact it's almost always at the behest of a foreign partner that needs defense and is asking for the DoD to come and help them (usually via treaty or NATO request).

The reason the DoD and the US IC grows is because we are literally protecting the economic freedom of MOST of the world because they explicitly ask us to protect them. It is in our best interest to protect those who ask because the more people who are our partners and allies, the more we can increase trade and promote our way of life. Whether you think that is good or bad is up to you. However there is no secret government cabal sitting around trying to figure out some new fake reason to scare the population. There's more than enough scary things that you aren't dealing with on a daily basis because

What was the last time an American citizen seriously worried about being invaded by a foreign power or attacked by a nation state? It just doesn't even occur to the average citizen that there are about a million people working to ensure Americans don't even have to think about not being attacked by foreign power. This is true for every major nation state with a significant defense presence.
How do you get from your first paragraph to your second? Many immigrants I know are, if anything, more zealous about freedom of speech than other Americans. It was one of the reasons why they went through the trouble of immigrating here.
Using Unix 3rd Edition by Peter Kuo because it helps in understanding basic Unix principles and tools.
> Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech.

What if a private entity owns the town square?
Knowing contempt of lawful order can get a person locked up until they comply with the order. Some politics and public perception may come into play.
it did not have the legal consequence of depriving one of their money.
Thanks for this! This explains the project better than the GitHub site
There is a semantic dispute over how free speech should be defined which is wrapped up in your views of the subject to begin with, but in my view the most consistent way to define the topic is that free speech is "the notion that people should speak freely without fear of social sanction".

When I think of somebody who supports free speech, I think of somebody who:

- Speaks in a less filtered way

- Brushes off people saying something offensive about them

- Brushes off people saying something offensive about other people

- Doesn't support the regulation of speech at any official level

I don't see supporting free speech as an inherent good by the way, I see it more as something nessecary to counteract the even larger issue of the "tyranny of the majority", and this is essential on more levels of society than the governmental level. Even amongst a group of peers or colleagues consideration must be given to allowing free speech.
At the same time as FLIR and radar?
Thanks for the links. Some interesting stuff.

I think that 'degrowth' might be one of those 'defund the police' type things, where a good idea is summed up with a short phrase that becomes popular partly because the idea's opponents see it as absurd. I'd never really dug into it as it mostly seemed to be something that reactionaries talked about to rile each other up.

I guess it's like saying GDP isn't a good thing to aim for in society. Some people think that's stupid, because they think GDP measures quality of life, while other people think it's sensible because they think GDP doesn't measure quality of life. Which leads to some confusing conversations. And if 'growth' is implied to be 'growth of GDP regardless of sustainability etc.' then it's the same conversation.
Ha, if only. No, a satellite broadcasting L5 only gives you ionospheric corrections for that satellite.

Otherwise what would be the point? WAAS already gives ionospheric corrections for a course grid. If you could just assume that the ionospheric delay was constant across the sky, you wouldn’t need L5 at all.
HN λ
conflates the topic of free speech, with state-funded education that teaches people they are automatically oppressed (privilege theory), and teaching to a captive audience (students).
The difference between pos and pow isn't in the architecture of just those two elements. It's in what those chains do.

If a POW miner invested the resources to take over the network, breaking the network would certainly crash the price.

However, node operators get a bigger payout than delegating your stake or staking it yourself. Overtime, this percentage difference will allow the node operators to control the network 'without breaking it'.

Btc can be minimally exploited because it doesn't do anything. POS networks are by design highly adaptive networks, with smart contracts, oracles, virtual machines and any other wonder programmers can dream up. This allows a 'soft control' exploit rather than btc's 'hard control'.
It's complicated because the most serious threat to free speech in the US right now is cancel culture, but most aspects of cancel culture are explicitly protected under the first amendment: "...or abridging the freedom of speech [private corporations choosing what to host on their websites, calling someone's employer and requesting that they be fired for what they said], or of the press [this garbage https://parade.com/news/simu-liu-under-fire-joke-batgirl-can... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble [twitter mobs, unless you count their speech as violence in which case we are back to square one], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [here, demanding that a government employee be fired https://www.change.org/p/ucla-fire-ucla-professor-gordon-kle...].
It's fine that the app on your phone can read your messages, for that reason. It's not fine that it can then send them to its developer or anyone else. (I know it claims it doesn't. My point is that it can, so you have to trust that the developer is telling the truth, and that an update will never make it start to.)
It also breaks the “back” button.

If you click on an item after significant scrolling, view the item, then click back, where are you? almost never where you were. Usually just at the top of the list.
Thank you for the thoughtful response!

A few thoughts:

> You can't bypass borrow checker, and you wouldn't do everything in unsafe.

Isn't unsafe still bypassing the borrow checker, in the sense that you're mostly using it because you're doing something the borrow checker does not otherwise allow?

> Because Bevy knows when and how Resources are related it systems can freely run in parallel if two resources are unrelated and mutable, or related and immutable.

But again, I don't understand how that is a unique benefit of Rust. It's completely possible to implement something in C which allows multiple threads to run over unrelated memory locations, or the same immutable memory location. As a programmer you have more options for how to achieve this when not restricted by the borrow checker. Most of the ECS systems in existence solve exactly this problem, and probably most of them are implemented in C++.

> Point of a good programming languagues isn't to enable writting programs that can do anything but to aid programmers in writing error-free programs.

I mean, I think it can't be taken for granted that preventing errors should be the top priority of every programming language. It's probably a priority of most languages, but there's no reason it has to take the number one spot.

I would argue the universal priority of programming languages is to enable the programmer to deliver user value through their program. Rust's thesis is that memory safety issues are such an obstacle to delivering user value that the language should prioritize safety at the expense of a certain amount of pain for the programmer. Languages like Zig and Jai prioritize programmer velocity and relegate safety to optional static analysis tools.

Python is another example: it's very easy to write an incorrect Python program, but the barrier to entry is so low that it enables non-programmers like scientists to do very interesting things by copying a few lines off the internet into a notebook.

There's no one best set of tradeoffs. But as I said from the beginning, if one of the main tasks you are doing is manual memory management, as domains like game dev and HPC require a lot of, you might want to choose a language which prioritizes explicit memory management.
Thanks for writing all that instead of me. I've heard the "we are not looking for someone to blame, just fix it" too many times. That sort of reasoning strikes me as protecting people's egos as if that's more important than not repeating the same thing over and over again. Both positions have merits, of course.
Looks nice, I like the concept. It would be nice if you pre-loaded some public domain books, to allow the user to get a feel for the application.
“The headlines” typically refer to coverage in a mainstream publication, not a post on HN.
Capital costs for offshore wind are 67% [1].

The current median LCOE for new offshore wind is ~$125. Reducing capital costs to 30% could bring the median LCOE down to ~$67.

That would make offshore wind a good deal cheaper than all fossil fuels [2]. Natural gas, pre-war, was the cheapest - at about ~$75+.

Onshore wind saw a ~50% decrease in LCOE in 2011 [3]. This could lead to a similar decrease for offshore.

Solar is gaining ground rapidly - 38% growth from 2010-2020 vs 16% for wind. But solar isn't perfect. In the US - we have 3x more wind energy production than solar [4]. But >90% of that is onshore wind - because it was previously so much more economical.

A massive improvement like this for offshore could be huge! If we could add as much offshore wind as we do onshore wind - that could cut out an extra ~12% of fossil fuel consumption over the next decade.

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7943/pdf

[2] http://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/renewable-energy-/

[3] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

[4] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3