skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This seems like an insane opinion to me. The college is extremely wealthy and made a considered choice to repeatedly slander a small business and attempt to bankrupt it. The college acted like a malevolent psychopath, not in the heat of the moment or at the end of some escalatory chain, but after plenty of time to consider and deliberate. The punishment must be a large dollar figure because the college is so rich - if it were small then it would not punish the college. As is, the punishment is much too small.
are you right in thinking these, or am I missing out?
To expand, this law allowed investment banks (e.g. Goldman) and commercial banks (e.g. Washington Mutual) to do what the other could. Effectively this allowed the mortgage backed securities that were a major player in the financial crisis to be created. There were a lot of other issues that contributed to the crisis, but (as far as I'm aware) the main mechanism used would not have been possible without this deregulation.
>because god knows when I played Minecraft as a kid I saw so many conversations that weren't exactly appropriate.

And how much harm did this cause? Because I saw the same, but I don't see it having any real negative effect.
And an extremely ineffective organizational structure when the leader is incompetent. This is fine in the lower-stakes scenario of a company. For nations, it isn't surprising that the most successful ones have switched to democracy. Peaceful handover of control, representation of diverse interests, and all that.
In literature classes I find Bukowski to be an interesting way to gauge your peers. Not as course material mind you, but you can guess a lot about a classmate's attitudes from how they feel (if familiar) about Charles Bukowski and Haruki Murakami. Sort of like how you can tell a lot about certain kinds of tech workers by their taste in books really (granted the yardsticks are different and they have to actually be readers).
Our ability to understand risk is imperfect, and certaintainly divorced from actual risk numbers.

While perceptions based on media are surely a factor, its also based on our control over the risk.

Lots of people die in car accidents (presumably because they are bad drivers) but I am a good driver, therefore the risk for me is much lower or zero. I am in control therefore my perception of risk is reduced. What risk there is, I accept in return for the utility of a car.

Same for drugs - my kids are well brought up, and I'm a good parent, so the risk of an overdose is low, and I feel in control of that. Clearly lots of people balance the risk of an overdose against the utility of taking the drugs (and clearly they get it wrong a lot.)

School shootings have no (direct) utility. So I am both lacking in control, and there is no utility balance, I am concerned about this a lot more.

I see the solution as fewer guns, but that crosses over with the utility perceived by a large segment of society. Since they are unwilling to give up that utility we reach an impass.

School shootings are a side effect of gun ownership, which has a significant perceived utility to a large group of people. Those people implicitly accept that some people (including children) die in the service of that utility.

To them taking away guns is as ridiculous as taking away cars (which also kill people.) taking away cars is absurd right?

Of course perceived utility may not be real. Lots of people in the world live without guns. Lots live without cars. But these perceptions are hard, dare I say impossible, to change.
Servers are a social event - that should be where the social norms apply. Different servers have different social norms. I should be able to use non-child-friendly language on a private server with adult friends (and friends of friends) without worrying about someone reporting me for it.
Chronically misunderstood, early Michel Foucault goes one step forward than this and asks "Why not just remove the human as catalyst of truth entirely? What if humans are just the canvas for knowledges rather than the other way around?" Another way to look at his hypothesis: what if truth and knowledge are no differently anonymous automata than the processes of biological evolution with respect to individuals?
Well said. I've looked at a lot of products/services in this vein, and many are aspirational / idealistic. You'll want to brace yourselves for the not-so-pleasant realities like the comment above mentions: egos, status, etc.

I indeed like to see clean decision-making based on effective patterns. The challenge often comes down to handling people that don't play along. :) Maybe the "clean" solution isn't realistic. Maybe the people are in a hurry. Or don't really pay much attention. If only people would behave themselves! :P

Maybe the usual textbook "decision making process" is only descriptive in the sense that it attaches a label to certain activities. The textbook models often pretend to be linear and unconnected to other simultaneous decisions.

P.S. Agenda-setting as an operational leader is both hard and arguably essential. I distinguish "operational" leadership from "motivational" leadership, conceptually, even though they are often blended into a person or role.
I don't know anybody who started using cannabis because it was decriminalized (I don't use it myself). Are you sure that's a significant demographic?

The only thing that has really changed is that we have fewer people in jail, we can know our doses in milligrams (instead of "hits" or whatever), and we can talk openly about our plans and get feedback from a wider audience re: whether they're good ones.

If psilocybin were legal, you friend would probably know better than to mess around with it if he has a family history of schizophrenia. As it is, he can only talk about it in small echo chambers, which is how harmful misinformation thrives.
> The downside of this trick is that now, for example, ramanujan2(5) and ramanujan2(5.0) give different results. In some contexts, the improved accuracy may not be worth the inconsistency.

Why not just use

fact = math.floor(fact)

instead of int()?

I hate functions that randomly decides to return a different type too.
Some folks have standards and principles.
White Flight
SF should buy it to house the homeless. They could train/employ people to maintain the ship. Leave it permanently docked.
It's best to judge individual people for their indiviual deeds. Discrimination by a fact of belonging to a group is too imprecise, almost always. It's okay to be more vigilant based on it, though - statistics does work.
I'm surprised the insurance will pay for this. The judgment, and actions by Oberlin's administration, strongly suggest they were acting in bad faith. The college's behavior exceed negligence, the typical threshold in these sort of insurance contracts.

Pretty incredible Oberlin can get out of this considering what other insurers will do to avoid paying for incidents with cause.
My IRC client can't connect to MSN messenger. But that doesn't make sense either.
Isn't this basically the same as asking "why do you care about people other than yourself?"
> There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught.

That difference is not clear to me. What sort of deterrence to an individual would not also lead others to think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught? - or, to consider the contrapositive, if it does not invoke that thought in others, why would the convicted be deterred from trying again? The fact that they were caught once does not mean they will be next time.

Furthermore, I dispute the idea that deterring people from committing a harmful act, before that harm is done, is not a justifiable goal for a society (note that this does not imply that I must therefore endorse the cutting off of thieves' hands.) Quite often, the perpetrator cannot compensate fully for the harm done, and it is always better if it were not done in the first place.

We should note that what is being deterred here is Oberlin's decision to fight the case rather than accept its obvious responsibility and compensate the plaintiffs for the damage it did. Personally, I think this is a net benefit to society, and if it makes entities in similar situations think twice, so much the better.
Geometry shaders in general always felt awkward with a lot of gotchas and unintuitive aspects. This, though more complex and abstract, seems a lot easier to use.
So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime?

I really ask you to consider this from a moral standpoint.

Society isn't always right. Sometimes society just does things because it's easier, not because it's right.
> Another example is concerns about climate change

I'm not sure that measuring respondants expressing "concern about X" in isolation is a good metric. It costs nothing to express concern.

Aside: I'm afraid I can't stop thinking of Channel 4's Brass Eye show from 2001 about the (fictional) drug "cake" (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cake-channel-4-contro...

Instead, how about asking what respondants what steps they have taken - if any - in response to their concerns about X?
laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments

Wait, you mean to tell me the King can veto laws in the UK? I thought you guys figured this loophole out? Who controls the military?
The rules are that you are supposed to keep the original title. OP linked a different title. You are allowed to edit within a small timeframe because we're humans and mistakes happen. Same goes with comments. We work on good faith here (another rule) and so don't abuse it. Bad faith actors do get warned. Dang is a dang good moderator and underappreciated for the amount of work he has.
Driving 80 in a 55 isn’t an arrestable offense, so a Citizens Arrest wouldn’t really be appropriate would it?
I'm of course quibbling over the definition of "uninhabitable", but again this seems overblown. I concede you're referring to the habitability of Earth by humans, rather than just extremophiles. But still, even with a worst-case scenario, I don't see how this would ever make the Earth completely uninhabitable to humans. Would it make it impossible to sustain billions of humans? Sure, unless they develop some really interesting tech. But I don't see how a mere 12C rise in temperature (or even double that) would make it impossible for humans to survive. Life would probably greatly resemble a Max Max movie, but still, that's different from "uninhabitable". "Uninhabitable" means there's no way for humans to survive at all.
FWIW, pairing by connecting a cable is not the worst way to do it. As long as it still works when you disconnect the cable.
Unrelated to your reply, but that twitter thread is truly bizarre.

>The one thing about this that has always struck me as ludicrous is the argument that the student body serves as a tool of the colleges whims. Students fucking hate the administration and resist it at every turn, & always have…much like 19 yos at any liberal arts college

Then why go to these schools? I don't understand why you'd pay $80k a year (just checked Oberlin's tuition for 2022) to go to a place that you hate. It makes absolutely no sense!
In other news Poland just inquired about purchasing 100 Apaches

https://twitter.com/Kama_Kamilia/status/1567910769475338251
Qualified Immunity would have a large word with you.

If an Officer makes a wrongful arrest in the line of duty, Qualified Immunity will go a long way to shielding them, whereas a citizen without Qualified Immunity would be subject to wrongful arrest lawsuits and kidnapping charges.
> Every couple of months one of his friends will get banned for no reason.

I know you want to trust your child’s friends, but “it happened for no reason” is exactly what kids say when they don’t want to own up to the consequences of their actions. Obviously, you can only monitor your own child’s gameplay and not what their friends are doing on their own time. I strongly suspect there’s more going on than you realize.

> It literally is as easy as fill out the form, user is automatically banned, no verification required. Microsoft is not actually enforcing anything.

I highly doubt this. The Minecraft FAQ has this to say about it:

> Will I get banned without my case being reviewed by a human?

> No. Our team of human moderators handle player reports. This team is dedicated to Minecraft, and familiar with the community, platform, and lore. Our team reviews every report before any action is taken.
Even if it were to come out of the endowment, it's what, 2-3% total? I don't know how much universities typically pull out of an endowment each year but a 3% total drop can't impact yearly budgets in any meaningful way.
Metals Fuse Together in Space
> So you should be punished for a crime for more than the harm/compensation/individual deterrence, just so that you can stop future crimes by unrelated people by you being a peg that others can consider if they might commit a similar crime?

Exactly right. I want to send a message to potential criminals. I think that it’s highly beneficial to sacrifice the well being of a criminal in order to prevent more people from being victimized by other criminals. I think preventing crime is a strong moral imperative, and this is significantly more important consideration than the rights of criminals. In fact, I think putting the latter above the right of the people to not be victimized is morally despicable. I hope that my position is clear.
You can't argue with the law.
Secret societies have a mysterious aura surrounding them, but they are often just social clubs with extra steps.
It might actually be a good business for the Internet Archive to get into. It seems like a natural adjacency to their current mission. They could even include a "right to archive and distribute" clause at, say, 5Y old content.
they might be referring to bedrock edition, although I'm not sure how it works there, but they've had global moderation from the start AFAIK
I have no opinion on whether this particular college punishment is equal to the crime. I was responding to that one poster on the merits of punishing more significantly for crimes to deter other unrelated future people who may or may not commit similar crimes.
I'm going to be charitable, because I recognize the username since you usually comment with more verbose and thought-out text, and assume you meant to say "They should be thankful that Gibson's doesn't do like Saudi Arabia and cut off their hands".
It's possible --- but not likely.

The smartphone market is owned by the hardware manufacturers and they have every incentive to minimze the life span of their products.
It doesn't even qualify in this instance, but in what universe is thinking that people who commit crimes should be detained so they can be arrested an archaic thing?

You don't need to have a Blue Lives bumper sticker on your car to think that people being punished for committing crimes is a good thing.
> Yet its [python] easy readability comes at the cost of performance.

This does not sound correct. Why would there be a tradeoff between readability and performance?
The reason to use Python instead of Perl is that you can do `python3 -mvenv env`.

Actually using the language itself is far less painful in Perl than it is in Python.
Yes, there is a difference between the two parties and you know it.
Well they can't let everyone in because they have finite attention to give, and one of the reasons to be in YC is for their attention.

They also presumably have finite money, so giving money to everyone is clearly untenable.

YC is a brand, letting everyone in would dilute that brand. Letting people pay to get in would dilute that brand.

They act as a first-level-filter. Having made it into YC goes on your resume Because you passed that filter. The VC network values you more Because you passed that filter.

In other words YC as they are, are specifically working as designed. Changing that removes their value.
Note that from their chart it’s 350% faster, i.e. 4.5x as fast (they say, as is unfortunately common, “4.5x faster”).
support for democracy and the rule of law also comes to mind
I do not think Docker is the end game. Firecracker/kata containers neither.

https://github.com/tensorchord/envd is my favorite container tool. It provides the build language based on Python and the build is optimized for this scenario.

There may be more runtime and image build tools for both containers and VMs. And different tools may be designed for different purposes. That's the future I believe.
The problem is not that the feature exists - the problem is that you are locked into it, can’t easily opt out, and if it goes wrong you lose access to a product you’ve paid for.

A good system would cater for everyone adequately.
Hate to break it to you, but that society has existed for centuries - it’s an accepted rule in most common-law countries.

For example, from Wikipedia:

“In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted vary by state.”

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
Whose free speech? This verdict doesn't have anything to do with the students protesting, does it? I thought it was based [almost?] entirely on the fact that the Dean of Students was handing out these ridiculous flyers.
These are all the wrong books, very little truth in them. You should start by reading: The Creature from Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin.
That doesn't sound right. It doesn't match up with what I know of FIRE. I couldn't find anything to suggest that FIRE opposed the verdict in my searches. Please try to find the link - I'd like to see it.

I did find one document [0] that was a legal filing that references some FIRE documents discussing speech codes, but that was it. FIRE didn't sign it, and as far as I can tell FIRE had nothing to do with the filing supporting Oberlin.

Some of the attorneys signing the filing identified themselves as "Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Coalition Against Censorship, and Defending Rights & Dissent." NCAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Against_Cen...) and DRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Rights_%26_Dissent) are not the same thing as FIRE.

[0] https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/amicus-ncac_osc.pd...
Is this website just 4chan but prettier? I clicked on the feed and all I saw was people saying f*g and hentai.
>barely legal (revoking people's access to what they bought ...)

Kind of like when Microsoft bought Mojang and locked one of the world's most popular online experiences behind talking to M$ servers? There is no way to play the game you paid for - even offline - if you are not interested in creating a Microsoft account. They don't seem too concerned with the whole "terrible idea which is barely legal" thing when there's an opportunity to force people into giving them data.
Would it not make sense for you to get user validation with a smaller scale poc than the herculean plan you outlined. Also your plan seem to focus too much on funding goals than user acquisition or product market fit. Unless you are planning to create a spacex style capital intensive company, I don't see why you need so much funding for.
What? You can get some at Dolores or just go to Zide Door. I go there quite often. Nicely labeled and packaged. Pretty consistent dosing.

Been doing this for years too. It ain't even new.
jQuery and React are apples and oranges. React was more part of a paradigm shift than a better jQuery.
Did they really misspell the name of their own company in a public statement?
This is an excellent argument for getting rid of qualified immunity, but not a very good argument against citizens' right to detain those they see committing crimes.

I don't think there's much chance the cashier here grabbed the wrong person.
I mean, first off, do whatever you want. I'm not a cop.

I found I could make myself do things I had a lot of resistance to with this technique. It wouldn't necessarily be great, but it would get done. One could call this activity... eating frogs. I'll defer to the article on the issues with that in general.

The problem with this technique is that it's so strong (god it sounds like I'm selling the thing) that you don't even exactly notice the will power you're using up. But you're still using it! My experience with doing this kind of thing too many days in a row is that every individual day feels okay, but they build up until some type of subconscious rebellion goes off.

Maybe if you were more chill about it, didn't use it super frequently or only on things you absolutely despise it would actually be fine.
What a great segue back into my first comment in the thread.
any humans for your libido? what do they think of your tent, or do you just rent a place for the day when you want to take someone out?
Vagrant images are always huge. But docker images are small. You can deliver and share docker images with ease.
(non native speaker) Instead of the "correct" 4.5x as fast?
IMO the best way would have been to enforce it for realms, maybe have a way for privately run servers to opt-in, and let parents toggle some switch that only lets their kids play on moderated servers. but microsoft was completely unwilling to make any sort of compromise in that direction.

Adults tend to generally prefer to play with other adults, and they might also use profanity on adult-only private servers. Unfortunately adults can also be just as petty as kids and may report other adults just to get back at them for something or other. plus we know any moderation system run by a megacorp will inevitably result in some percentage of completely random bans.
Everybody has lobbyists, there's no public cause that lacks lobbyists in the USA and if you think it's only corporations with effective lobbyists it's probably because you're discounting a slew of causes and groups.
Absolutely.

I'm not endorsing the decision, I'm just saying this is how things happen in the corporate world. It has nothing to do with embrace/extend strategy, and it's not a product of Microsoft acquisition per se, it's just the way corporate decisions are made.

Keep in mind the people involved are no less smart than you or me, but they are responsible for single concerns, and the winning concern will be the one with the best narrative and metrics to back it up, because the tie-breaking executive will not have bandwidth to understand either side deeply. If we want to effect change, we first must understand this dynamic.
Almost all endowment money is restricted, meaning it is earmarked for a specific purpose by donors. They can’t just pay out of the endowment. They would have to pay out of their operating revenue, which is probably not a reality because that is budgeted to the dollar.

So my guess is insurance may have paid the bill, but Oberlin will pay over time in the form of high premiums or something else. The biggest punishment to Oberlin will be the embarrassment of the actions. Heads should have already rolled for this.