skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> On the flip side I think it's fair that if they have many of these large customers with more than $25 million in turn over not contributing that they do pay for the software development.

Do you mean for every single OSS project? Have a look at the dependency graph for a typical React project or anything built with Maven. Charging for this is unworkable. The collaborative work on which open source is based would collapse.

Just as a concrete example, ClickHouse incorporates something like 97 other software packages in contrib ranging from NuRaft to zstd. ClickHouse in its current form is only possible if those packages remain free.
IMO we're pretty far off from building a single model that can generate a whole film at the press of a button.

But I think a more interesting distinction is a model that allows a human to generate professional quality without spending the time or skill it used to take. We've got most of the building blocks -- a language model could generate a 3 act summary, could go from a description of a scene to the text of it, can go from a text description of a character to an image, from an image to a 3d models, etc.

Every step needs human intervention and curation, but the difference is it can be done by anyone. As the tools get better they get more control. I think in under a year, anyone will be able to create a 30-page graphic novel that is indistinguishable from human created work without close inspection. It will still take a lot of time and creative energy but they will not need to have an art or writing background.

In 5 years, creating a pixar level feature animated film will still take a lot of work, but it will be achievable by, say, a high school movie-making club over the course of a semester, rather than needing a studio of hundreds of specialists over two years.
Absolute free speech is a practical impossibility. Fighting words, by definition, are words that could result in the limitation of freedoms (including speech) of others.

For example, what would you do if one person successfully convinces a crowd (through speech) to hang/kill their opponent? Given that the opponent would subsequently be dead (or maimed), how would they exercise their right to free speech?

I can certainly agree with the paper, but not to the point of absolutism. The logical flaws in free speech absolutism betray very weak logical prowess, which would presumably mean the individual is deficient in cognitive ability.
The guys in the Nimitz case saw the thing move with their eyes.
That’s exactly my point. Laws restricting speech. Free speech is a utopian nonsense, there are always restrictions (just ask the SEC). It’s just a question of where a society thinks the line should be drawn.
If you have a sufficiently powerful laser, you can create a spark that floats in mid-air. The air at the focal point gets ionized by the strong electric fields and looks quite dazzling (and dangerous).

That spark, in turn, can be moved around freely and emits all sorts of RF noise.
Really liking the UI design. For the (presumed) target audience a Raspberry Pi image would also be a nice way to get started.
Wow! Okay, well that's dumb, never mind then!
Only dual frequency? Triple frequency for L-band corrections is all the rage these days. If you have that you can get close to RTK accuracy anywhere (with good sky view).
> 0. Why so anti-intellectual?

I'm not the person you're responding to, and perhaps it was their tone more than their content that you're replying to, but...

I think there's a lot of value in a KISS philosophy, and using the simplest most accessible algorithms possible. I don't think that's anti-intellectual so much as minimalist. Less charitably, one could say that reaching for something more complex than is needed is navel gazing or gate keeping.

I'm far from an expert on the topic, so I'm not trying to assert if either of you is more correct than the other as far as what the more appropriate model is.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" -Richard Feynman
> The law is temporary

I'm not so sure about this. In the article he states:

> Once it became clear the intended law would likely pass parliament

and in the dutch version it sounds even worse to me:

> Na het verschijnen van het advies van de Raad van State is mij duidelijk geworden dat de verruiming van de bevoegdheden en de verschuiving van het toezicht niet meer ongedaan zullen worden gemaakt.

I can't really tell for sure if he thinks this law is here to stay, but me being a pessimist when it comes down to government, I think there is nothing temporary about this.
Has been reported in NRC.
Interesting question. They partially address it in the paper:

> Controlling for gender, ethnicity, and education did not meaningfully alter the relationships between cognitive ability and support for freedom of speech, nor the mediating role of IH. Also controlling for participants’ ideology (separately or in addition to the demographic variables) did not meaningfully alter the results, which can be found at OSF. (p. 39)

I read that to suggest that, at least for study 3's results, the inclusion of education did not meaningfully change their results.

If we are thinking about possible confounders, something I am wondering about the extent to which their choice to use verbal cognitive ability (i.e., "a vocabulary test (i.e., Wordsum)" for study 1 and 2, and "a (verbal) cognitive ability measure, that is, the Ammons Quick Test" for study 3) could explain participants' preference towards freedom of speech, which arguably is usually discussed as a verbal form of freedom, either spoken or printed. As they are measuring verbal capacity, I would expect people who are better with words to be more drawn to freedom of speech. Maybe people who are more "outgoing" might be drawn more towards freedom of assembly.

I am also wondering how people who are drawn more towards non-written forms of communication (e.g., memes, videos, podcasts, etc.) score on their verbal cognitive test and whether they have similar/different views about freedom of speech.
Same reply as to the other answer, the guys in the Nimitz case saw the thing move with their eyes.
Yes. Just look at the "words are violence" alphabet people.
Protect them from what? I assume you're presupposing that "free speech is dangerous" here?
It sounds sad to me. It’s like how visions of heaven 500 years ago all imagined huge feasts every day, but if you told me heaven was a Golden Corral, I’d look for a different heaven. We are still in this scarcity-capitalist-mindset that more money/stuff is always better, but I don’t think that’s the right way to be looking at things. We should appreciate the forced scarcity, like how our ancestors may have been hungry sometimes but lived at a much healthier weight.

Please keep in mind I’m not talking about living in poverty, I’m talking about having all your monetary needs met to live your lifestyle (without being forced to work), without having a huge excess left over.
I don't think we know the true feelings of each individual, but certainly the major employers in the field here find it in their interests to control the information. So even if the general population wants freedom of speech, that needs to be balanced against the duties of job. If you're set up at FAANG, the risk/reward ratio might not favor one's ideals.
One of the best books I’ve read in years. There’s very little fluff, which is exceedingly rare in a technical book.
Acknowledgement from whom? Will the acknowledgment be meaningful to the next class of student?

Acknowledging wrongs is most meaningful when all the stakeholders participate. When you are constantly getting new stakeholders, and losing old ones, it’s hard to meaningful buy in.
I don't know about TV Tropes "coining" the concept, I had already discussed this 5+ years ago wrt to computers and we even had a pitch for the "Flanders Threshold"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353106

I'd accept that Flanders Computing is an offshoot of the overall much-later-coined flanderization process.
Ultimately we have to ask ourselves what’s more likely, super intelligent aliens getting almost-caught sneaking around in the liminal zones of perception? Or human error, sensory fallibility, and ghost stories?
what about monetization. i.e. livelihood, the thing that keeps people from starving etc
I think something like that can work, but at Google scale, the suggestions would have to not hinder users who accidentally click them or think they did something just by appearing. Google has largely succeeded by trying to guess when the searcher means the author Tolkien without any UI prompt/change.
It’s probably easier to assume it’s the restrictions on speech that you agree with. I usually prefer the easy way myself.
I can't speak to all of HN, but over the years I've gone from a free speech absolutist to seeing rights as balanced against one another. And also to consider what motivates me to be for free speech.

For example, one reason I think free speech is vital is that I want everybody to have a say. Another is that think society works best when we hear from a wide variety of perspectives. However, there are some people who use "free speech" as a reason that they should be allowed to be abusive. Note, for example, the way that Kiwi Farms was waving the free speech banner. You'll see the same thing being done by people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery.

In practice, a platform like Twitter has to choose between hosting abusive Nazis and hosting the people who the Nazis would try to drive off the platform. Personally, I am more concerned about Jews feeling safe to speak freely than I am about Nazis wanting to use their free speech to abuse them. So although my 20-year-old self might have been shocked that I am no longer a free-speech absolutist, I am fine with him being shocked, because I have come to value net, long-term practical outcomes more than the isolated ideals that I now see as valuable heuristics, not articles of faith.
What your describing is a standard HR investigation.
Would it be better to phrase it as "I believe that other people should be able to hear from people they want to" and "I believe that we should stop people from hearing from certain people"?
As one who works on the iOS app for a major US financial company, my guess would be they included some “security” tool/SDK that is having problems getting upgraded to iOS16.
you definitely can, try long pressing on it
Hence why certain people are trying to lower the IQ as quickly as possible.
Reread my first paragraph and try again.
The header approach is easier to graft on to an existing system where the entire html document is generated in one go. Otherwise you have to deal with generating the response in chunks which can be nontrivial.
You must surely then get his (with Feijen) book A Method of Programming. It is designed for classroom use targeted at a "introductory programming curriculum".
I mean, I can't be sure, but I'm also pretty sure planes aren't supposed to bounce when you land

The plane wasn't something I personally had a lot of faith in. It was pretty obvious that they spent as little money as possible to operate.

Don't think too hard about it, and enjoy the amusement :)
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value.

It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free speech is a bad idea? Or has it always been like that?
Years ago, I was talking to a friend about IASIP, South Park, and Arrested Development, and why they had held up so well. I argued that it partly had to do with the fact that the characters were already so extreme, they were resistant to Flanderization.
???

Don't mind this guy and just watch the video. It's pretty much the same format that is used for conference videos everywhere.

It's fine.
Android has copy and paste before iOS but you wouldn’t want to brag about it just because. It didn’t work well at all till iOS came out with their implementation
Protection from their perception of threat.
Early Simpsons did satirize Christianity a bit but didn't go full blast with it because they already had their hands full with just satirizing the idea of a "normal", wholesome American family that ironically corresponded less and less to the way people were living their lives at the time. We now see satire of American Protestantism as a desirable thing, but it wasn't as desirable as it is now in the early 90's even though people obviously wanted to see some of it.

Flanders looks like a poor foil because we no longer see Homer's family as scandalous. He is indeed a good 'straight man' (in the comedic sense) but early Homer is no longer as goofy so we fail to see it.
I've noticed that it's hard to feel threatened when someone you trust says something you don't understand. Can imagine the reverse to be true.
I'm not sure what you're pointing out in particular. The homelessness or the fighting? Homelessness is caused by poverty, not by drugs. People fight, with or without drugs. If you don't want to see people fighting in public places, you need a police force patrolling the streets that will actively break up fights, or you need a culture where people will intervene in fights they're not involved in and break them up. It would appear San Francisco has neither.

>At some point you have to be pragmatic and realize that some mental illnesses can't be fixed with more freedom.

I'm fine with a world with more than the absolute minimum number of mentally ill people. Put another way, there are things that are not worth sacrificing in order to have fewer mentally ill people.

>A responsible society provides said structure for those people who need it, and lets the ones who don't be free as you claim they should be.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the goal of a society is to organize efforts in order to accomplish tasks that would not be possible by individuals or smaller groups. "Providing structure to those who need it" seems more like the responsibility of a hospital, not of societies in general. While a society that works like a hospital (rather than merely containing them) is conceivable, I think asserting that one that doesn't is irresponsible is going too far.
You said in this thread [1], quote:

"Facebook has a body count"

and when someone responded blaming Facebook for an actual genocide you replied with:

"Yeah, when I say that Facebook has a body count, I'm not kidding"

Then when someone else disagreed with you, stating that "the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events [lies with] the perpetrators" you doubled down by saying:

"Facebook is morally responsible for that harm"

and proceeded to argue that their "barest minimum" standard should be to ask, "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?"

You very clearly argued that in fact Facebook can be blamed for, well, god knows what. Genocide and "body counts" at minimum but it's pretty clear that you think almost anything can be blamed on a social network or other communication providers, given that basically all organized human activity involves technology-mediated communication at some point.

And now you're trying to claim you never said Facebook can be blamed! If you didn't really mean that then you need to learn to better express yourself, because a whole lot of people in that thread interpreted it in that exact way and you proceeded to respond without correcting them, indeed, by telling them why their views would lead to more airline accidents (!). Ye gods, you must have been a serious liability problem waiting to happen with these attitudes. Imagine lawyers bringing up your views in discovery and then saying, Twitter's own staff definitely believe Twitter can and should be blamed for ${litigants harm} by their own arguments. Case closed, your honor.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165
Sure, but that’s not how science is made. Lots of things “make sense” and are ultimately proven wrong.
I tried to go to iOS just for curiosity since 2 years but I think the next device will be an Android again for these reason:

- you cannot simply install applications outside the AppStore

- developing applications even for personal use requires macOS, an Apple developer account, etc

- it lacks of decent applications, such as an email client that works, thanks to limitations imposed by Apple on what the applications can do in background

- it comes with stupid limitations. Such as you can't to a software update on a mobile network (why? To this day with cheap plans that gives you 50G or even unlimited data for 10 euros at month a lot of people no longer even have a landline internet connection and thus Wi-Fi at home, and have to use another phone in hotspot mode to download an update, this is pure insanity of Apple!)

- it works well if you are all-in in the Apple ecosystem, for example you have also a Mac, but it doesn't integrate with Windows (the Windows phone companion that lets you to receive notifications on the PC and other stuff is only available for Android, since iOS doesn't have APIs to do that stuff such as read notifications).

- the only browser allowed is basically Safari and this to me is very wrong for the open web (it's true that in Android you have Chrome, but you can install whatever browser you want, such as Firefox). Safari doesn't support progressive web apps for example for no reason, so you are forced to install an app while you could have used its PWA enabled website.

- you are forced to use Apple services, while in Android using Google services is an option (you can have an Android OS without Google Apps, even if it can be impractical I like having this possibility at least in theory). For example the only way that I found to backup my photos was to pay iCloud, since Google Photos (that did give you unlimited space back then) didn't work in background and thus you have to open it to sync (something that is pretty useless for a backup tool that you want to be always running...)

- it's less user friendly, there are things that are complicated for no reason. This was confirmed by a lot of people that transitioned to iOS and find it more difficult to use

- to this day it's practically impossible to mod (jailbreak) an iPhone to overcome its limitations. In the past there was jailbreak that really did solve many of the issues, but this day it's nearly impossible

- lack of support for open standards, such as the usage of the proprietary lightning connector instead of USB-C (something that is now a requirement in the European union by the way)

From the hardware perspective, it's well built for sure, but I find it too expensive for what it offers. The iPhone that I actually have (an iPhone XS bought new for 600 euros) it seemed expensive when I bought, now to get an iPhone of a similar range (that is an iPhone Pro) you have to spend at least than double that price! A decent Android that is enough to me for my daily tasks can be bought for 200 euros, a top spec one for 600. To me the added cost of an iPhone is not justified.
That's not new in the digital realm. Speech has always had social consequences: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
The programming language concepts class I took in college used that as our text book. Looking back it was one of the most useful classes I took.
Yup. Folders are good if "taken seriously" for truly discrete things -- as in they have to be categories of things that ARE something and NOT something else.
Smoking and alcohol are unfortunately too convenient as coping mechanisms go. A stimulant-anxiolytic to keep you going through a shift, and a sedative to slow down and stay numb. And they (nicotine especially) feel just too effective—at the start before you build up dependence at least.

Lifestyle modification can only go so far when the stress of living remains high. Swap the burnt stuff with something that puts less tar in your lungs, maybe, but any further is… sigh.
yes you have it right on, now if we can infer the effective range of such a technique it may be apparent that the real target is about twenty miles removed from the visual manifestation of the phenomenon.
Well, for awhile there was lots of talk about CRT. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/02/texas-critical-race-...
At least they've dropped that fuckwit Andrew Orlowski.
Constructionism
I don’t think it’s urbanisation. In the west, the twentieth century had urbanisation and was far more open to free speech while many parts on the world didn’t and were more censorship prone. In fact, in the middle east for example, one could argue in the middle of the twentieth century there was less urbanisation but more openness to western ideas and less religious oppression than it is now.

I think the shift away from free speech we are seeing is the result of decades of indoctrination and people being goaded into emotional reactions via social media.

I genuinely don’t see any functional difference between so called “social justice activists” railing people up and fanatical preachers delivering fire and brimstone sermons. It’s the same phenomenon manifested in different forms.

I will also add, most censorship prone people tend to accuse their opponents of lacking “critical thinking”. While at the same time, missing the point that is precisely what opposition does. You look at the other side, you criticise it’s premises, you criticise it’s assumptions, you criticise it’s goals, you look if the stated goals align with the actual results and criticise the discrepancy. You really can’t have critical thinking if you can’t, you know, criticise.

I think we had more free speech, and more critical thinking in the past because criticism was allowed. Nowadays, if you criticise anything that goes against what some would term The Cathedral, you will suffer severe consequences.
Ask HN: Do you invest in domain names?
Could you please share your experience in investing in domain names? How do you find them? What tools and registrars do you use? How do you negotiate prices when selling? How often do you sell? Any other information you'd like to share?

Otherwise, could you please share what prevents you from investing in domain names? (finding good available domain names, ...)
> Additionally, by June 30, 2022, Oregon's large cities (with population over 25,000) and cities in the Portland Metro region, must allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses in residential areas.

Including the Portland Metro region seems sensible. In the Boston metro, municipalities have too much power.

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/zoning-variances-ar...
Unless science has shown that much of the "Science" in this field of study is garbage
AI-controlled extraterrestrial probes should be quite likely. There are many purposes for such spacecrafts, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

Actual grey people flying from another star system in a tin can; not very likely.