skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> For example what if a person or group is being bullied but it’s claimed under free expression? What recourse is allowed within the realms of their free expression? What happens when things escalate between parties beyond just words but physical harm?

Easy. Deal with it in exactly the same way the government does.

All of these edge cases, and situations, and "where is the line?" Are all questions that have been discussed for centuries, in well published court cases that have gone to the supreme court.

I think the supreme court has done a good job, over the decades, of deciding what the line is for acceptable speech or not.

As such, other groups/platforms/large organizations should aspire to limit themselves to the same limits and actions that the government does, even though they are not the government.

> absolute freedom of speech has never really been a thing

It's not, but the best guideline we have, are what the courts have decided, IMO.

If the speech is legal, then allow it.

If it's not, then disallow it.

Or if some currently legal speech is so horrible that you think it should be disallowed, then go through the normal legal process, of making a law, and subject it to the appeals process, constitutional review, and all the checks and balances that go along with making speech illegal.
1. There are already pretty good definitions out there for speech that rises to the level of "harassment" if it is severe, pervasive, and/or repeated. There are also ways to restrict speech in a content-neutral way (i.e. no bullhorns at 11 PM for anyone). Those can definitely still be used. And, of course, physical harm is not the same as words and should never be confused with that.

2. You balance it by allowing free speech and encouraging robust debate rather than demanding loyalty tests or speech codes. Restricting speech or telling people that they "can't say that" is an excellent way to result in groupthink; encouraging free speech and especially a culture of free speech that respects differences is the best way to prevent one-sided groupthink. Such one-sidedness has many negative consequences, including (but not limited to) ineffective actions, alienating wider groups of people, supporting bad science, and limiting the scope of discovery and study.
It seems to me that far too few "have the courage to use [their] own understanding," and that many would willingly abdicate intellectually to external authorities, provided the opportunity to do so without incurring social costs. A culture of open, potentially adversarial, discourse is incompatible with systems of thought which devalue the individual's capacity to reason, and so that culture itself is routinely undermined.
There are other, arguably better workarounds than not using Typescript. The main reason that so few people are bothered by tsc being so slow is that they don't actually use it for compiling! Because Typescript does absolutely nothing at runtime, you can just strip the type hints, get valid JS and be done.

The type checking usually only happens during development time, continually or on demand. Shifting type checking to the IDE is how Vite can be so fast.

I don't know if there's a popular solution for immediately seeing changes in production like you seem to be looking for (running dev servers in prod is probably not a good idea), but regardless I think Vite is worth a look. It gets rid of a lot of the cruft people criticize about web development.
.xyz are very bad tld for email or even hosting.
So much that you cannot even send domains with that tld as a text message to certain users in the US.
E.g. TMobile blocks all reference to .xyz domains if sent as a text message .
Not sure if I'm missing something but if the authors claim:

1. That chatbots don't understand what they are producing -> a search engine doesn't either.

2. The benefit of search is that you engage in sense-making -> you actually need to do that with a chatbot too.

3. You would want access to the sources -> that's already fixed for today's chatbots (see perplexity.ai, for example, which offers links next to its claims).

4. We may trust chatbots more easily because of their language: we already have that problem with search results.

I understand the idea that there will not be an ever-knowing AI and we will probably don't even want one. But what we have today seems an improvement over a search engine (not necessarily a replacement).
There is a guy at stripe that has saved the day for me in the past. He usually comments on posts like these. His name is Edwin. You might just want to wait a few days until after the holiday and see if you get your problem fixed. Stripe is a great tool. Difficult to truly replace.
Devil's advocate; MIT and many other universities are technically businesses. And they have become more and more like businesses with each passing year.

So in this case, would complete free speech be out of place by your metrics?

In the case of MIT, which is a 501(c)(3), but also sits on a multi-billion 'endowment'.
It doesn't for me in my rss reader :(
>A war with China would be a lot more like WWI than any of the wars the United States has recently fought

Where did you get this crazy idea? China and the US are separated by a huge ocean; there's no way to do trench warfare there. A war between the two would entirely be a naval and air war, not a ground war. That's a war the US would easily win.
I wouldn't work for them if they offered me a million a year. Everything I've heard about them suggests they are unethical and have zero concern for their cattle.

But I'm not in the OP'S situation.
The reverse engineering work that went in to this is absolutely top notch, I've read some of the articles and can barely follow them, the leaps of intuition are so large they almost feel like parallel construction at times.

Here's to hoping they get it to work. And wouldn't it be nice if Apple just for once helped out and opened up their hardware.
But what if their unpopular views are rooted in evidence, yet goes against what's morally fashionable (at present)? Who would adjudicate this and why should we trust their judgement, especially when bad optics could become a concern?

For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. However, there are activists who are trying to override empirical findings to justify their ideas about gender (I have no horse in this race). Furthermore, their voices have found a home in organisations like big tech. In such a case, and given the zeal of these activists, wouldn't someone who remark that sex is binary (in a casual conversation about biology) be punished? Or to put it more precisely, how can we trust those in authority to fairly judge that the innocent remark made isn't a "mistake"?

In a climate where "speech is violence" and "intent doesn't matter", people are free to project their views onto others and accuse them of tall crimes. Without free speech, the case I've mentioned above seems likely to end up in unjust persecution. Unfortunately, my hypothetical scenario isn't theoretical, but has happened in academia already. The system you proposed doesn't seem immune to this.
Yes it is, as it should be. (Examples use cases: kids, elderly and people with disabilities)
I wonder, why is the focus always on Nazis and not on say, Communists who also have a history of creating violence, death, and destruction? Why do we not equally focus on shutting down voices calling for enforcing absolute economic equality, or dividing people up into classes? Why is free speech less important in only one of these cases?
My "secrets" are motivation and time. I was very motivated to change my diet and changed my life to make sure I had the time (and energy) to cook a real meal every day. I also treated it (almost obsessively) as a quest to improve my cooking skills (and probably taste too) to use as little processed additives as possible. On average I eat more than 500 gram of vegetables a day now and really enjoy it.
Edit: I also only drink water and one cup of decaf coffee with almond milk a day.
With a programmable keyboard & a desire to avoid using the pinky finger with Ctrl, I'd suggest taking a look at home-row modifiers
But the definition of Nazi is fleeting, since there is no more National Socialist party in Germany and american problems are different.

In France we do limit free speech legally, especially around anti semitism and walk a fine line. For instance a man said "Islam is the stupidest religion on Earth" and was found innocent in court: he can insult a religion or a God, as long as he didnt call for people to be hung. But another said "Heil Israel" in a comedy piece to mock, in his view, how Israel was behaving like its former oppressor. He was censored and it started a long list of sentences in court as he persevered on that line of thought. He's considered by his supporters as a victim of political correctness.

It's hard to decide what to do: on one hand, it's interesting to express views that challenge common acceptance, on the other, it's not a big cost to shut up and move on when society decides the cost of letting you speak is too great a threat considering our history.

To avoid that Nazi at the bar "problem", first decide what the problem is: that people speak or that people listen. If you cant accept they speak, you must define limits to speech (that s the French model and we are clear some things simply cant be said, period, so shut up and move on). If you can, then you must educate your population so that merely listening to hate speech doesnt trigger hate. That's been the american model, and we never believed it can actually work: after all, you elected a man who was against elections, for instance.
I should have said queried Google, perhaps. I typed in exactly 'how many oranges in a cup of juice', without the quotes.

Interestingly, if I add 'are' as in 'how many oranges are in a cup of juice', it doesn't do that weird cu in conversion and gives a reasonable answer.

That seems like an odd parsing choice for lack of a, in this case, fluff word, as the former is how I would ask the question... though maybe I'm the odd one.
>> . Similarly how do they stop majority dominance and snowballing into group think? E.g if there are way more men or women in a program and they use their larger numbers to amplify their freedom of expression in a way that affects the others.

Is that not the very definition of democracy? Majority rule easily and frequently overrides and marginalizes minorities. Its kinda the point.

Of course specific minorities have gained mind-share over the years with the majority, and thus become "in the majority". Usually this takes the form of a growing acceptance that others, although different, are still people.

Women have had the vote for barely 100 years. Civil rights. Gay rights. Marriage rights, and so on.

It seems like every era brings a new fight, a new minority to hate, fear, ignore, accept and embrace. The old-guard has a moral panic, wails about their "way of life", but alas they are the minority, so eventually get shouted down.
I don't believe that your example is what the first amendment exists to protect, in fact if your hypothetical researcher is causing physical harm to people with their treatment, that's probably a criminal offense that has nothing to do with political speech.
The water from the river is regulated at a federal level - https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2021/11/why-does-g...

> Google’s data centers are right by the Columbia River. Why can’t the company just get its water out of the river?

> Federal law strictly governs water use from rivers. Anderson says withdrawals from the Columbia generally aren’t permitted.

> There are exceptions in cases where waters users can provide a “bucket for bucket replacement” of any water they pull out, Anderson told a city council meeting in September. In such a case, though, a water user would have to find water to put into the Columbia someplace else to compensate for water being pulled out by the city, or by Google.

So, if Google was to use Columbia river water, condense it, and then return exactly the amount that it took it, there wouldn't be an issue.

Instead, Goole is using water from the aquifer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Plateau_Aquifer_Syste... ) where it is getting depleted:

> Areas where groundwater depletion is a concern are in the Umatilla area, and the Palouse slope. In the Umatilla area, total decline since the 1970s is from 300 ft to 100 ft of water height. Overall, between 1968-2009, mean groundwater decline across the aquifer system was at 1.0 ft/year.

The Dalles is part of the Umatilla syncline (see page 9 https://people.wou.edu/~taylors/g473/gonthier_1985.pdf ).
That would be nice, but it's a ways off. The question here is: which is ecologically worse? Conventional mining on land, or mining the sea beds? I don't know the answer here.
Stop eating when you are full.
Really. Pay attention to when your body feels sated and don't eat anything beyond that point.
Dreamcast has a little Windows CE logo right on the front but I never knew to what extent that meant much
Tracking calories is annoying logistically. I had quite a bit of success with what I called"clicker diet" - tracking calories in abstract clicks, similar to how points used in agile software planning. A bit more here - http://web.archive.org/web/20180709144838/https://clickerdie...

(This is only taking care of calories counting aspect of losing weight, not a silver bullet on is own)
Wonder what they would think of Noam Chomsky being a linguist and cognitive scientist.
You think this is the result of how much the average person can be trusted? Trash on the streets or urine in a phone booth are one thing, but this hits a bit different:

> equipment vandalized but nothing taken from the sites

Bust just out of curiosity, how do we make it so people can be trusted, so that then "society works"?
No, but, I'd like to try out self-hosted Wallabag: https://github.com/wallabag/wallabag
When should statements be outlawed?

Are people free to make untrue statements?

Are people free to make “falsified” statements?

Are statements inducements?
>I wish someone who downvoted me would tell me why the answer is no.

This is an internet forum full of know-it-alls with Dunning-Kruger Syndrome and toxic personalities. You're not likely to get reasoned answers when you ask honest questions; instead, you just get downvotes and insults.
It's just not as good as an EV!
Hydration is a big one for me, especially drinking one or two normal size glasses of water before a meal. Helps regulate the appetite.

Also, not very secret since I got it from an interview with Salma Hayek but it really works: don’t eat meat more than once in a day. i.e., if you have steak for lunch make dinner a no-meat meal. It really eases digestion.

And cutting out sugar, that makes such a difference.
> truth is our only defense against runaway power.

A lot of today's "truth" is simply what powerful people say it is. If you disagree, tough.
doesn't `readonly` solve this already?
front end stuff, so "without breakpoints" means continuously scaled, not piecewise.
There’s no evidence anything can stop Nazism. Trying to stop it through enforced speech could very well accelerate it.

More effective than fear of government punishment is shame. Few care about pissing off the government in this country so that seems like a non-starter.
> Free speech in the USA is (supposed) to mean the freedom to do political speech without state ramifications

I hear this a lot, and it's not actually true. That's what the first amendment means. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not define the concept of free speech as a whole, it just protects a form of it.

It annoys me when people assert that being silenced by a private entity doesn't actually limit freedom of speech, because they argue that the freedom isn't being restricted unless a government is doing it. I'm not necessarily for unrestricted free speech (because it often ends up being loud and obnoxious, and often silences other speech when it becomes a shouting contest, especially on the internet), but this very specific interpretation that the US Constitution's first amendment actually defines free speech has always bugged me as something logically unsound.
When I was a kid, a friend of mine and I found a flexible metal rod on the ground about two meters in length. The 14-year-old geniuses we were, we decided to toss it at the power lines above until we shorted them.

After about 40 minutes my friend made a successful throw, landing it perfectly across the overhead lines. The rod partially vaporized and bits of it landed in the grass, starting small fires. We put out the fires by stomping on them and then ran like hell.

We later learned that we had blown a fuse, shutting off power to the street where it occurred, probably affecting about 50 homes.

We swore one another not to tell anyone. We escaped punishment for our crime.
The proprietor of the bar isn't required to let them use it as a platform for their ideas, and given that Nazi is not a protected class, they're not required to even let them inside. They can turf this hypothetical Nazi out on the street and let them rant out there.
> Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

- Michael Pollan
All I want is nominal types, if this is possible already, somebody please let me know!!
Learn the difference between eating until you are full, and eating until you are no longer hungry.

Stop eating when you are no longer hungry. I think that's a lot of it.

There are a lot of ways to make that work, I'm not sure which are best. For me avoiding sugar helped when it was difficult, but now that I've got things under good control my diet matters far less than the fact that I eat to handle hunger rather than as a way to feel full.

But I mean, also roast brussel sprouts, lentils, and nuts are delicious. These are just facts.
This is the second time I've seen this specific example in this context. Where are people getting this from? And why is it being used to counter "we shouldn't tolerate Nazis?"

I don't understand in real life how it would arise that two medical experts could be looking at data that contradicts each other so strongly that one could believe the other's treatment is suboptimal to fatal lengths without the recommended treatment being resolvable in a single conversation (research so inconclusive on either as to make both treatments suspect imo). Why would either professional be presenting a treatment as "recommended" without the strong caveat of "but others of my caliber think this recommended treatment will kill you." If said caveat isn't included, surely we don't want doctors going around giving such blatantly misinformative advice?

And again why is the "free speech " blanket always cast so wide as to include this? We aren't allowed to not have Nazis around without risking restricting medical debate? Smacks of slippery slope.
Choctaw and Irish History
The pipe wish can be accomplished with a class. Not the most ergonomic but works well. You just need to explicitly cast `return <?, ?>this`.
tsc is slow (and that's a shame), but there are Typescript compilers like swc that are quite fast.

It's totally reasonable to keep your setup simple, all that complexity is often not required. It only really pays off on larger projects (it's super simple to set up nowadays though).
Note the use of the words "in the classroom".

Free speech is about time and place. They are saying that speech can be free, but going into a political rant in the middle of a class on calculus is not appropriate.

Free speech is about saying what you like, but in a context where others are free to leave. I can't leave my class without prejudicing my grade, but I didn't sign up for your diatribes on human diet.
Thanks for the answer - I'm hoping to slowly change passwords and switch to a new manager over the next year, which sounds fine to do as long as I don't need to worry about the security of my current vault. The major blocker is that now I need a new master password - it was effort to memorize this one, given its security, so I need to generate & memorize a new long string of digits, etc.
~200 years of American history disagrees with your premise that Jan 6th is inevitable ‘every few years’.

The problem with deciding that ‘nazis’ don’t deserve free speech is that you won’t always get to decide who is a ‘nazi’ or what ‘nazi’ speech looks like.
I always come back to this exchange between the Yale administrator and the protesting students:

Prof: I stand behind free speech; yes, I do.

Student 2: Well then that sorry doesn't mean anything.

Student 3: Even when it's offensive?

Prof (addressing Stud 3): Even when it's offensive. Especially if it's offensive. Even if-

Stud 3: Even when it denigrates me?

Prof: Even when it denigrates you, even though I don't agree with the content of the speech. I have the same objections to the speech that you do. The same ones.

Stud 2 (interrupting): But it doesn't submit(?) afflict to you-

Stud 1 (interrupting): But what about the swastika-

Prof (cont'd): But, I defend the right for people to speak their mind.

Stud 3: So when the IAC (Intercultural Affairs Council) sends out an email saying...

Prof: So who gets to decide what's offensive? Who gets to decide guys?

Stud 2: When it hurts me!

Stud 1: When it's offensive to me!

Prof: What if everybody says, "I'm hurt"? Does that mean everyone else has to stop speaking?

Student 4: But that's not what was happening!

Stud 1: No! Because you don't- No, but you don't under-

Prof: Hold on. So I agree with the content of your speech. I am as against racism as you are. I am as against social inequality as you are. I have spent my life addressing these issues, even some of the students in my class can speak out to this, but that is different than the freedom of speech. The right to defend people to say whatever they want including you! Including your right to write what you want and speak to me; which I will also defend.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_adminis...
PRC has more proper blue water surface and subsurface combatants than USN currently and has for years. Many of which more modern. Last years count of "ocean going" / blue water capable is like ~350 PLAN vs ~300 USN. PRC also has a fuckload of "coastal" ships, but at this point even Chinese coast guard has sizable blue water fleet (retired PLAN ships go there).

US still has more displacement via super carriers, better subsurface and larger replenishment fleet to enable more persistent blue water ops. Incidentally PLA is rapidly building up replenishment capabilities, but ultimately most of fleet will stick around PRC shores, with some moving into IndoPac for SLOC security or Africa for anti piracy. But currenly PLAN has MORE "ocean going" vessels than USN, and gap is expected to widen to PLAN 400+ wheras USN ship building lucky to maintain 300 by end of decade.
Last Wednesday night, I drove a torx bit right through the first knuckle on my left index finger. Since I type all day this seemed serious enough to go to the emergency room. When I see the doctor, I am sure I sounded like a fiend looking for a hit but in this case for antibiotics. He tells me that he does not want to give them to me because if I didn't really need them that it could make it so they don't work for me later in life when I have a real need. Instead he gave me an xray, a tetanus shot and sends me on my way. Since then the swelling has gone down and my finger looks nasty but healthy and I am so far glad that I did not get the antibiotics.
Do people have the right to be uninformed?
Related, my colleague during undergrad was convinced biophotons (light produced by our own cells - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophoton ) had a legitimate communication function. I still think about that time to time!