skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Free speech is about saying what you like, but in a context where others are free to leave

An excellent example of the comment I was trying to wrangle in my head, inspired by our shared OP: this whole idea of "free speech" or "not free speech," and this university's attempt to codify it, seems remarkably oversimplified still.

First, where did you get this extra context that our OP and I both seem to be missing, that "free speech is about time and place," or that political rants are only ok when people are "free to leave?" I'm not finding anything like that clicking through the links. Is this just your personal value about what you believe "Free speech" to be? Does MIT agree? Has MIT codified something like this? I'd like to read it, if so, because I'm very interested in this conversation and idea.

I'm very interested, because I disagree with you that there is a context (in this university scenario) where "others are free to leave." Easy: extracurricular activities, common ways to get bonus points or saddle up with the professor. Your philosophy teacher likes to go to the local libertarian debate club, a place where a common topic is whether gay people should be "allowed" to get married. The professor encourages students to come, either to "challenge" themselves, or, write a paper on what they observe, or straight up as a bonus points opportunity, whatever. If you think the explicit bonus points is unrealistic or a practice that should end, instead consider the "soft bonus" by attending based on the professor's recommendation alone. In any case, gay students really aren't interested in hearing their very existence being debated, and prejudice their grade by not going. Nobody else faces this difficulty. Better: a gay student comes, and argues whether white people should be allowed to marry if gay people can't, because there's functionally no difference ethically there, and prejudice their white teacher against them. Can you pick up what I'm puttin down here?

My argument is essentially that your point ignores both explicit and implicit power dynamics that underlie this debate. The same dynamics that make "cracker" a far less harmful word than the n-word, or, make a romantic relationship between two adults problematic if one adult happens to be the other's active professor.

I feel like this context is often simply ignored, and I believe that that's because the people that get to decide what these statements coming out of these working groups look like, are people that are mouthpieces for the existent hierarchies that are protecting themselves from change and criticism, the blowback that many are calling "cancel culture" and others are simply calling "consequences for actions."
It seems to be talking specifically about course content.

So if you're a biology professor, and you dislike the government (or universities) climiate policies, you can't use your lessons as your soap-box.

Unless you can tie it to "faculty member’s expertise, relevant to the subject matter, and consistent with both sound pedagogical principles and the achievement of learning objectives."

This seems entirely reasonable - heck, it goes as far as allowing proffesors to expouse their own political views in classroom as long as they can establish it's relevant.
>What's a war the US would easily win.

Not really, a US/PRC war happening off PRC coast (likely theatre) will also be against PRC land based aviation and rocketry where US is unlikely to win. The numbers game is increasingly favouring PRC is that US doesn't have the logistics to maintain a war near PRC shores going forward because PRC can take out USN sustainment fleet and turn carrier groups into single deployment assets with DAYS of endurance. US ability to generate useful sorties to actually erode PRC land based platforms and the effects they can generate that covers most of US East Asia security commitments (likely trigger) is diminishing fast.

E: over rate limit

>turn into a nuclear war

No it wouldn't, and PRC currently massively building up nuke umbrella, so US wouldn't even more against adversary that can strike back both strategically, and conventionally, especially existentially on CONUS. This US exceptionalist would salt the earth of enemies who sink a carrier wank is reserved for small/mid tier nations that US can bully with impunity. And at the end of the day without carriers, short medium term, US doesn't have the platforms to conventionally destroy PRC... because at that point they will lack "necessary" "whatever forces" to do so.

E2:

>the US has never been attacked on its own soil before in the modern age, except for 9/11, and the results there were catastrophic.

And non nuclear, on nation not particularly responsible. The broader point being US has never been attacked on it's soil because outside of single point vunerabilities like 9/11, US adversaries technically could not, hence US free to prosecute "all out", leading to exceptionalist talking point like losing a carrier will lead to nuclear war. But decision calculus change when US homeland is now permenantly vunerable to peer adversary, repeately, and at scale. This does not mean US would not be forced to escalate with full determination (again likely non nuclear) as result of homeland attacks, but change in vunerabilty means US will be more avoidant of initiating intervention that could lead to homeland exchanges, with respect to PRC this means being deterred from starting a war over TW in first place, which PRC is willing to go to existential ends for, whereas US, most likely is not.

> overestimating the Chinese military's strength

Maybe every relevant PRC platform is vapourware, but if they're remotely credible, then they don't need to match US military pound of pound but asymmetrically dismantle US power projection ability, which is what PLA modernization has focused on in past 20 years. PRC doesn't need to sink 11 carrier groups, it needs to sink 10 fast support ships at dock or and AWACs / tankers in their hangers that enables US projection, a much easier task done with concerted effort by a PRC with massive industrial base, extremely competitive S&T eco with multitude more STEM graduates, and defense budgets which in PPP terms is close to US. IMO, if anything, more people over estimate US miiltary strength vis-a-vis PRC now. Or that that PRC's goal is to build up strategic and conventional deterrance so we don't have to find out before too long.
There is also a ton of room for work in modeling, simulation, data analysis, etc. The field could use computationally inclined people.
Annie Proulx doesn’t think writing workshops are useful, but ” Writing comes from reading, and reading is the finest teacher of how to write.”
Snopes has a very complete fact check here (regardless of political concerns you may have about it overall, this article particularly has good factual search): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

There’s a bunch of important contextual quotes:

> If, for example, Dwight Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System," he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Eisenhower meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with interview remarks about the Internet.

> Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

It’s can be a funny joke, but, given its role in the presidential election and the possibility that is swung it to GWB, it’s important to make sure one is making that joke with the full understanding that it was actually taken wholly out of context which it sounds like you’re disagreeing with. If Vint Cerf (the guy this article is about) is out there saying “yup what Al Gore said is 100% accurate”, wouldn’t that cause you to take a second look (seriously - that snopes article has a lot of detail. Highly recommended reading if you’re unfamiliar with the context).

Having an organizing or foundational role in ensuring funding gives you a pretty strong claim. It’s like Sergei Brin saying he invented Google. Probably about 0% of his original lines of code still exist. Would you laugh at Steve Jobs if he claimed he invented the iPhone even though he didn’t do participate in inventing any of the actual innovation that would make it what it was like capacitive touch control and multitouch gestures? Would Lincoln be out of place for saying he won the Civil War even though he personally was a civilian and personally hasn’t fought or killed anyone and wasn’t a general? Would Truman be out of place in claiming he was a key piece in the creation of the atomic bombs considering he took the Einstein-Szilard letter to heart and set the governmental wheels in motion that led to the formation of the Manhattan project?
There is no such thing as a protected class.

You're trying to say "people I agree with".
I don’t think either of your responses actually answer my questions.

The first doesn’t really have good frameworks outside of hate speech or discrimination against protected classes. Everything else is generally company or code of conduct based, which at least to my reading, don’t fit within their definition of freedom of expression.

The second doesn’t actually address the balance at all. Different courses have significant demographic biases, most noticeably gender and ethnicity. that means that the majority group has a naturally amplified freedom of expression when it comes to any topic of debate. Do the minority demographics get equal time to voice their views if there are fewer of them? How do you avoid being drowned out? This isn’t exclusive to gender but also just general opinions like abortion. Freedom of expression has to come with stricter requirements for courtesy imho and more rigour for factual analysis. But those would then impede on freedom of expression.

I still feel that freedom of speech and expression are paradoxes as long as unbalanced power dynamics can exist.
I hoped for something else in the end of the article. I use a local only password manager with automatically long (generally speaking, some stupid services limit password length to ridiculous short value) random generated passwords, which I don't know myself, it still seems to me to be best approach.
> The US/NATO bombed literally countless civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Don’t act like the Russians and Iranians are especially evil. This is the trick war profiteers want you to fall for.

Never heard of US/NATO raping children and random civilians during war and the soldiers getting away with it/it being encouraged. US/NATO may do terrible things during war, but that doesn't mean they are anywhere near as bad as Russia.
I think you are being overly unkind to yourself. It could be that the people who become great artist learn this, but it's also possible they just won the genetic lottery in terms of brain chemistry.

Beating yourself up by comparing yourself to people like that won't make you like them, but it will severely distort your self image and mental health.
They also tend to not be new families of antimicrobials with novel mechanisms of action, which is what's needed for more significant gains against resistance.
Further yet, most companies trying to be like Apple copy the superfluous actions but not the necessary one. You get the wasted space, but not the "doesn't crash and glitch around all the time".
Yeah, I'd rather make good food exciting. One of the things I love about living in California is the good produce. So many vegetables are delicious just roasted (until you get some carmelization) with a little olive oil and salt. Just stellar when fresh out of the oven or off the grill.
Not completely true, https://support.apple.com/guide/icloud-windows/set-up-icloud...
Some people are good at consistent moderation. I am not, but I am good at binary behaviors, even when they require a lot of discipline. Intermittent fasting works very well for people built this way since you are on or off.

I normally maintain a healthy weight if I only eat from 12-8. If I really don't pay attention and graze that entire window, I can still creep up doing this. If I hit 175lbs, my rule is I cut my eating window from 1-7 until I reach 165 which happens in less than a month on the 6 hour window.

I've kept this up for 5-6 years. You get over the hunger pangs within a few weeks and then it just becomes normal. I've only had to cut my window down to six hours I think three times since I started the routine.

PS: I have had diagnosed ADHD since middle school. I wonder if there is any correlation between ADHD and intermittent fasting as a successful diet strategy. I think there is something similar between struggling with focus and a proclivity for absent minded snacking. It makes it so much easier to have a binary rule that I can follow that tells me when this is or isn't allowed.
Thats not sad.

Looking up the actual meaning of chemical names from ingredients in fine print on every damn thing you eat, and filtering in and out based on gossip hype superfood of the year... is sad. Very sad.

Eat boring food is solid advice.

Veggies, fruits, no bullshit carbs and protein, stuff that grows in the region where you live. Takes some effort to search and then its just autopilot mode.
There's a simple zero knowledge proof to show that you actually have the data. Have a CSV of username + salt + hashed(salt + email) + hashed(salt + phone number) , etc.

Users can check their own email/phone/etc to verify that the attacker has the data, without the attacker revealing the data.

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more.
That depends. Would suggesting they be legal be legal?
I agree with you, but that's essentially cold-thinning when it lets you run an otherwise-too-thin base oil.
That's why you would use normal balloons filled with helium and graphite powder.
There are very few universities that hit this mark. That being said, MIT might actually be one of them.

My understanding of the situation is that most universities accept federal funds, which have a bunch of strings attached. One of these strings is allowing freedom of speech. This is why communists couldn't be banned from campuses back in the 50s and 60s, or the speech codes of the 80s and 90s failed.

This doesn't apply to universities like Harvard or Brigham Young that take zero federal funds, but the vast majority of them aren't going to pass up the money.
That sounds nice, but then look at James Damore. I don't think he treated anyone less than human. He had an unpopular opinion and Google cowered to activists
It’s not easy to place and install cell towers because they need to have good lines of sight to their area of coverage and they require a lot of power and installation expertise. Helium’s “box on your shelf” model where they got thousands of crypto enthusiasts to buy little boxes that pay out cryptocurrency for connecting to the network might have some plausibility of possibly working for ultra low bandwidth IoT use cases, but is physically incompatible with the demands of an actual high bandwidth cell phone network.

It looks like this is just an MVNO on top of t-mobile- MVNOs are basically where an existing cell phone company pays a small commission to someone who can sign up users. Sort of like an affiliate link. In this case, Helium is using this relationship to imply that they have built an actual cell phone network, which is probably very far from the truth.
So we're just going to forget that the labs faked test results and lied? Before you downvote as fake news, a Democratic AG sued over it.
It’s interesting. I knew of the Canon Cat and that it was called that for a number of years.

Seeing that advertisement puts into context a little bit why it might have been called a “Cat”. Note that there’s no mouse and they emphasize this part and the part Jef Raskin had in originating the Macintosh project at Apple.
Since you’re from Nevada…

There was a similar incident at the Green Valley Country Club involving a golf club and the overhead lines in the early 1980s
Anecdota - but I saw several (like three) Teslas with tow trucks responding (or parked in unusual places) in my area when the temp was sub 20f. Could be cold related range issues, could be an inability to charge, It's just very unusual to see so many of one make with troubles at the same time.

Admittedly, I felt a little smug as I drove by them in my toasty warm inside sedan with a V8, I feel less smug when I go to put gas in it ;-).
1) Eat for satiety and, as a rough proxy, focus on things high in fiber (beans, lentils, grains, vegetables, etc). You will likely eat a larger volume of food but that’s ok.

2) Don’t diet, switch lifestyles.

3) Still take time to enjoy in moderation that which does not fall into these categories.

4) Give calorie counting a go for 6 months or so as it will give you a good intuition on some surprising sources of calories; personally I would not do it too much longer as it can take the joy out of eating.

5) Check in periodically on a scale.

6) Exercise regularly if you’re not already; it’s helpful both physically and mentally. It’s OK to start small and work from there.
AGPL makes something free as in "non-encumberable", it doesn't leave you free to do more or less whatever you want with it like the MIT or BSD licenses.
Not exactly a diet tip, but first thing every day (after stretching) I drink a large glass of water (16oz), drink another large glass with a tablespoon or so of psyllium husk, then another large glass of water. Then whatever breakfast I feel like. Psyllium is cheap, safe, and readily available (and most of us should be eating more fiber, right?).
The Way Things Work CD-ROM (1994)
And the way delivery drivers drive... Our UPS guy drives in a way that makes us surprised his vehicle lasts for a week...
Agreed! Haven't had the need myself but zustand probably makes more sense for a richer selector interface, using reducer syntax, etc.
When we wrote our compiler, it would have been kinda hard to do so without writing a parser.
My phage boilerplate:

Phage comes up a lot here - it seems to be on of HN's favorite biology topics.
I have a deep and abiding fondness for phage, but they're not quite as awesome as they seem at first glance. From the perspective of an infectious disease epidemiologist who has been super-interested in phage for my whole career (literally tried to get a job out of undergrad with a phage therapeutics startup):

1) There's no such thing as a "broad spectrum" phage. They're organism specific, and that means not only would you need to keep a phage library on hand, but you'd have to do a lot of diagnostic tests. That's going to be both expensive and tricky. There are treatment guidelines for things like sepsis right now that are basically un-doable with phage therapy because of the time it takes to tune a phage library.

2) Phages are living things. Not only is that a weird regulatory framework to be in for a drug, but it also means that you need to be able to keep phage alive. In contrast, antibiotics are inert.

3) Phage therapy is also relatively new in the West (after being abandoned for some very real, very serious safety concerns back in the day), which means there's just less of a R&D infrastructure behind it.

There have been people working on commercializing phage therapy since I was in undergrad (I'm now a tenured professor). The problem is it's hard, and antibiotics are so much better as a treatment that there's kind of a ceiling on the excitement that they can generate, especially when trying to treat at scale.

Some of the most interesting applications are currently combination antibiotic and phage therapy - it's much harder for bacteria to maintain resistance mechanisms for both simultaneously.
I wasn't aware Google produces accurate facts. Cf. front page links to Wikipedia as an obvious counter.
It's surprising that this never caught on with the command line crowd. It's a well thought out approach to doing everything with the keyboard. Did anybody ever use this interface again?
Totally. I don't keep unhealthy food in the house. If I really want it I can go get it in the moment. But keeping it all a few blocks away enlists my laziness on the side of healthy eating.
I'm not a Staff+ level engineer but what's always worked for me at a new company is getting a book or two on the target language and reading those everyday for about 30-60 minutes until I feel up to speed enough. It's allowed me to ramp up quickly.
Ai art is just stolen artwork. It's gonna be good enough for someone who wants to tell a story but not good enough if u want an angel with wings made of bank nodes or some other original idea.

Ai is just going to relieve all the unhappy artists and high skilled artists will still be in demand.

I also think art is for your own enjoyment and you can go back to that next to the day job.

The artist who wants to change the world won't care much about money and they still do original work while starving. Everyone else will find a way to adapt.
> I don't know if there's a popular solution for immediately seeing changes in production like you seem to be looking for

No, I just want to run it in dev. There is no good way to do this currently because it's just too slow to be smooth.

Vite is undoubtedly an improvement over what came before, but the entire method of operation is just not what I want. I don't want to run a Vite process in a second terminal. I don't even use npm for half the things I work on, because there is no need for it. I just want to compile a file every time I load it on my dev machine (i.e. on 'GET /file.ts' runs 'if (hash("file.ts") != cached_hash("file.ts") { tsc("file.ts", "file.js"); serve("file.js") }'). For production, I just compile the files in the binary and serve those.

There are other reasons one might want to use Vite ("hot module replacement" and such, although I personally dislike it) but currently you need to use Vite or something like it, with no realistic option to keep it simple if you want to. If tsc was faster it will become realistic to make everything a lot simpler, with a lot less tooling, and a lot less complexity.

> other, arguably better workarounds than not using Typescript

My current plan is to look at rescript when I have some time. It seems a lot faster and offers mostly the same features. Though the big advantage TypeScript has is that it's JS-compatible and "upgrading" a project is a lot easier, and that's it's kind-of standard whereas rescript is kind-of obscure (which doesn't matter for my personal projects, but does for some things I work on as a contractor, where I want to make sure the next person can work on it in 2 years after I'm gone).
No, typescript has full type erasure and almost no type-directed emit. The shimming you're seeing is probably the result of tsc downleveling newer javascript features to older browsers: typescript itself has nothing to do with it.

https://www.typescriptlang.org/tsconfig#target
Right, but then you have a ton of contexts littered everywhere. Seems like that would be a lot of clutter.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/4vpxb...

Empirically North of 150