skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The internet happened. Now we have access to not just what the elites think (via the mainstream press), but also also what they miss or misrepresent. The exposure to many other plausible narratives mean that the mainstream media will never be the same again - most people now understand the news is not concerned with just objectivity or truth, but with narrative (even if journalists conflate the two). I don’t think you can ever rewind back on the internet and information explosion. The animal has tasted blood, and it wants more.

Trump shouldn’t be given so much credit for the present moment. It should instead go to the iPhone, twitter, Reddit, Facebook, 4chan, blogs - the internet fire hose. And it’s not just the United States, it’s happening all over the world.
To its own way of thinking, in its own made-up frame of reference, it could appear to be. In the actual, physical universe, it would still not be. Physics and chemistry do not care about our feelings and emotions.
In practice this is how social networks already work - and it turns out that most people treat "like" and "trust" as equivalent. So you get information filter bubbles where people are basically living in separate realities.

In theory there was a time in the past where there was such a thing as a generally "trusted" expert, and it was possible for the rest of us to find and learn from such experts. But the experts are also frequently wrong, and the rise of the early internet was exciting in part because it meant that you could sample a much wider range of "dissenting" opinion and, supposing you put thought and effort in, come away better informed.

These things -- trust, expertise, and dissent -- exist in great tension. That tension is the underpinnings of the traditional classical liberal University model. But that is also gone today as the hypermedia echo chamber has caused dissent in Universities to be less tolerated than ever.

I can't imagine any practical solution to this problem.
I think the extension of this concept is that if I downvote the crazy people then their voting habits don’t impact what I see
I still care about it for this weird reason: I want to be >=500 so that I continue to have the ability to create polls.
I have plenty of faith in Propublica.

It used to be that you knew, and cared, what was news reporting and what was opinion.

I wonder whether this is cyclical though. It's not as if partisanship is new in newspapers. They used to be very blatant about it, having "Republican" and "Democrat" in their actual names.
For me personally, I began to lose trust in the news after I started learning about persuasion and cognitive science. After that, I started seeing manipulative rhetoric and propaganda techniques in articles and news segments that didn’t seem like obvious hit pieces. A skilled communicator has a considerable amount of leeway when reporting “facts”.

Journalists like to depict themselves as objective and rational guardians of democracy. But they’re just regular people, and their profession has adopted a mentality of righteousness. I roll my eyes every time I see “Democracy Dies in Darkness” on WaPo’s website.
How Diffusion Models Can Achieve Seemingly Arbitrarily Large Compression Ratios
Pertaining to recent discussions around AI art ethics and the ability for image diffusion models to "copy" training samples, this post provides intuition for how generative models such as diffusion models compress information from a dataset. It provides intuition showing that the amount of information that is compressed during learning is not determined by the dataset’s memory footprint, but by the nature and complexity of the underlying distribution that generated the data in the first place.
Oh yeah. Couple levels had the vehicles, I think. cs_siege is the one I remember most.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect

If you're writing for the joy of writing (intrinsic motivation) and then start getting paid for it (attaching an extrinsic motivation to it) the original "for the joy of X" tends to get lost.

It isn't a "who wouldn't" but rather a "why would you".
They're defining harmful content based on political orthodoxy, like every other censorious tinpot dictatorship in history. The objective remains the same too; promote a thought monoculture and propagate the political orthodoxy. The original article makes it very clear that it has nothing to do with preventing harm or promoting equality or any of the other nonsense this is being giftwrapped in.
Or that loser Steve Jobs. Look at him. I mean he had a good few years in the beginning - Apple I (1976), the Apple II (1977), the Apple Lisa (1978), but then fails to do anything redefining until the Macintosh (1984), takes another break for 4 years until the NeXT Computer (1988), 10 years! until the iMac (1998). 2001 was a good year for him with iTunes (2001), iPod (2001) but again takes a 2 year break before iPhone(2007) and then skips out again for 2 years until the iPad in 2010.

Or just look at all the gaps in the honors and awards section in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Honors_and_awards

Is there anybody that's "redefined an industry" every year running for more than 3 years straight?
> a compromised root ca allows an attacker who already has dns or ip control

DNS or host/IP control is not a requirement at all: a Trusted CA is already trusted to sign a certificate for any hostname (with exceptions): that's what Trust means, and it also means that we trust them not to issue certificates for domains/hostnames without doing at-least Domain Validation - and we have schemes like Certificate Transparency to help bolster that trust, but it still doesn't prevent an already-trusted CA from issuing its own certificate for, say, google.com or microsoft.com. This is why techniques like Certificate Pinning and co/counter-signing, and others exist - but they're only useful when the client isn't a human-operated web-browser ("smart clients", "IoT", etc). EV certificates were (amongst other things...) meant to help protect against small-time crooks but again, don't help when the CA itself is compromised.
John Oliver covered this, "Guardianship" scam, theft enabled by the government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2pEffLEJo

It is similar to the PACE scam, where government lets a company steal someone's house with a fake "energy credit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv8ZPFOxJEc
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-do-i-avoid-risk...

Stuff like this turns me Anarchist in the "Government can't work" sense. The criminals are always 10 steps ahead of (or in cahoots with) the government, turning every attempt at "promoting the general welfare" into highway robbery, and no one in government is willing to prosecute and convict these criminals, because white collar crime gets the "it's too complicated to explain" Get Out of Jail Free card.
A couple notable naturally occurring magnetic resonance's:

- Schumann-resonance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances

- Alfven Waves - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave
>>It accurately describes our society that is not sustainable, desirable or ethical.

Spot on!

However it is not all black & white, but a gradient of high trust to almost zero trust. For example, the US is definitely degrading in the last decade, but is still nowhere near the levels of endemic and systematic paranoia of Russia or North Korea.

It all comes down to this: if you want to live a self-determined life in a society with a self-determined government, you must personally and as a nation be better armed, prepared, and allied than the abusers and autocrats who want to steal from you and rule you. Giving the equivalent of nukes to the abusers/autocrats is not a smart move.
I was thinking more of a federated "webring" structure, with some content being present in more than one node, and where maintenance and curation are distributed (and gathered independently) among nodes.

The nation of, say, Japan, has limited interest in funding an american noprofit today; but they would likely have a great deal of interest in funding an equivalent focused on Japanese content, for example.
Ok, so how close is minecraft as a "toolkit" for converting ascii games to graphical? I don't know how minecraft servers/mods/etc work, I just have been watching my kid's JJ/Mikey with him. I squarely missed the minecraft crazy, I was post-college.

But DF could be (squints) converted to some minecraft "world" couldn't it? How hard is it to do minecraft worlds that would mirror/translate/active generate from some complex sim process like DF?
> Imagine a world where the only content you see is from publishers that you trust, and that your friends trust, and their friends, to maybe 4 or 5 hops or so, and the feed was weighted by how much they are trusted by your particular social graph.

Sounds like what Facebook was (or wanted to be) during its best days, until they got afraid of being overtaken by apps that do away with the social graph (TikTok).
Thing is that people like Musk and Bezos derive their opulence from exploitation of people who have to sell labour to live. The fortune Bezos amassed is created through labour of people his enterprise employs. People piss in bottles working in Amazon warehouses so that Bezos can eat better food, live in a better house, pay for elite education, and have access to better/more comprehensive medical care.

The reason this is the case is because people like Bezos own the means of production and ensure that labour and resources are directed towards their benefit first and foremost. These people simply won the birth lottery and now they get to rule over the rest of the people because of that. If you don't see that as a problem then I really don't know what to tell you.
Keep at it sir, some of us are using the showdead userscript.
Your radical opinions are worth a consideration, atleast for me.
> you'd have to decide when to stop binge-watching, because the show would always go on.

I would argue that this is already the case. I'd hazard a guess that almost any concept one is interested in, that can be synthesized in a few words (e.g. "deep-ocean human habitats", or "ethics and techniques for this niche psychological framework"), has an infinite rabbithole available online: usually, starting from Wikipedia, there are countless pages and videos about and around the topic.

So the ability to stop binging, i.e. sufficient self-awareness, is already a pretty useful skill, and it will be increasingly necessary.
I gave a couple of examples in my sibling comment. One example began as "right wing rhetoric" (if you consider moderate conservatives to be 'right wing'; I'm not sure exactly how they fit into official taxonomies) and the other began as moderate liberal rhetoric that was adopted by right-wing groups after the fact. I think lazy, out-of-hand dismissal of both kinds is common, but I think the left has cried "right-wing", "Nazi", "white supremacist", etc so often (and over such obviously innocuous stuff) over the last decade that this sort of rhetoric has lost much of its effect (on the other hand, the right is working as hard as ever to make 'right wing' something honest people want to distance themselves from).
I really enjoy this observation. It's the same sort of hermenutic that plagues armchair historians who don't look at primary sources and instead rely on the limited palette of the people who they either agree with or look up to.

Observing something through several layers of abstraction hardly provides the most accurate picture.
So I'm 6 years in as a bootstrapper.

Let's say I took a 500k year salary and paid 1M to my developers.

I always claim development as R&D.

I now need to pay taxes on (500k + .8 * 1M = 1.3M?) Despite only taking 500K salary? At some point I would owe more in taxes than I took in salary..
Has there ever really been independent fact-based journalism? I think not. We're all human with inherent bias, and while it seems like journalists tried harder in older times - they still had bias. We can yell and scream at eachother about who started what, and who was worse; but for what?

It seems that as years go by that editorial boards (leaning in both directions) are having much more impact on what you and I read. Those editorial boards are influenced by owners and investors. Those people have bias as well.

There still does not seem to be a journalism source that is bias-free. I read yesterday that "Chat GPT is a panacea for bias in reporting". I nearly gagged!

In 2001 when the twin towers fell, I was encouraged by how suddenly everyone put down their party ties and went to talk about how we would rebuild and retaliate. In present day, the war in Ukraine has done nothing but further split our nation. So what changed? We didn't act like this during Bosnia.

Is it the effect of journalism bias, or is it our nature as humans still working through the shock of Covid that we can't let things go. Are we now looking to argue just one more time to make sure "the other side" knows we think they're wrong?

We are sick as the human race, and nobody is admitting that. We've gone from intent to divide instead of intent to unite.
Ask HN: What happened to Startup School forum?
>I'll take real professional journalism over amateur internet commentary any day.

This is a /r/selfawarewolves-tier post. Bravo.

>Anytime I hear people generically blaming "The Media" for everything I just roll my eyes.

My post outlined multiple specific instances where the media dropped the ball. It by definition is not "generically blaming."
'corpora' fyi
I had to look this up, so here's my attempt at translation for non-Americans:

> A pedophile with a cameraphone is terrible. But law enforcement that can search and seize property at will is worse.

> A racist with a social media account is terrible. But a president that can deny people their freedom of expression & assembly is worse.

I agree.

(ps. offtopic meta remark, the American enthusiasm for remembering laws by number never ceases to amaze me)
Most of the Anglosphere still has way too much faith in the BS nonsense the media runs...
How is they can make a really problematic privacy law that degrades the web in the name of privacy (would love to sue the EU on the basis that those cookie banners cause problems for people w/ disabilities) and an equally problematic law that helps embezzlers re-offend in the name of privacy but can then invade everyone’s privacy with chat control?

Is there some court that can rein it in? Can the EU be made to explode like a computer in an old movie when it is faced with a contradiction? Can the rest of the world make the EU relocate to the moon or mars so we can have some peace?
Twitter, like most modern social media, is just the Two Minutes Hate but running 24/7.

As a society our use of social media will one day be looked back on the way we look back on the Romans using lead as a sweetener.
That's all fair. You're pretty persistently knocking down alternative interpretations as "not what my CPA said", though. Maybe just let them be and let people draw their own conclusions since this is a discussion. Idk. People are trying to help out and you just keep saying "not what my CPA said". Obviously we should be having this discussion with your CPA, then (:
What about Android users?
Has it been discontinued?
Both the police and the DFC dropped their charges. What information could there be that we still need to hear from the other side?
It was to my knowledge that they had tried in some method, but for whatever reason it was repeatedly worked around & their work kept showing up here, typically leading to them being harassed on Twitter by users coming from here.

You can now see, that for various reasons including this, they no longer use Twitter

I may be remembering some things incorrectly, but that’s the jist.

Just thought I’d pass along the knowledge of their hatred for this site out of respect, as I don’t think most who repeatedly post & upvote their work know. Feels. Grimy as fuck to me, but I’m nobody.
> Reminded me of FlexPlay from 2003, "self destructing" DVDs for short-term rentals

The first post recommended by tumblr at the bottom of this article was about FlexPlay (and DIVX): https://foone.tumblr.com/post/705631633513005056/so-regardin...
The United States Digital Service is a team of cross-agency federal technologists who work on some of the biggest issues affecting the American people, including: streamlining immigration, helping veterans get benefits, modernizing health care, reforming hiring, fixing procurement, and more. Check out our most recent impact report for examples of what you could be working on: https://www.usds.gov/resources/USDS-Impact-Report-2020.pdf

We're looking for the most empathetic, mission-driven, and tenacious technologists who are committed to untangling, rewiring, and redesigning critical government services. We hire folks from all walks of life who have demonstrable experience tackling complicated problems in the public, private, or non-profit sectors. We're hiring for:

* Software Engineers (Frontend, Backend, Full Stack, DevOps)
* Site Reliability Engineers (SREs) and Security Engineers
* Product Managers
* Data Scientists
* Designers (Generalists, Strategists, User Researchers, Interaction Designers, Content Strategists, Design Operations, and everything in between)
* Procurement Specialists
* Bureaucracy Hackers
* and more!

Come join us in shifting government tech in the right direction -- no prior government experience required! Read more about getting hired here: https://www.usds.gov/faq
In cycling there's a term called MAMIL, which means 'Middle Aged Man in Lycra'. It represents a grown man, clearly out of shape, with the latest and greatest equipment that probably cost him north of tens of thousands of dollars, singing praises about about the edge his equipment gives him over everyone else - whilst sporting legs worth about 5 dollars.

I play RTS games, which don't need any fancy equipment to play and win, but still don't believe you need a 5K USD monitor to play CS.

My point is those things that cost money don't help win, reader, unless you're talking about those Nike sprinting shoes that were all the rage in the Olympics last year, those things rule.
No problem. As an interface designer I can assure you that nobody wants to have to track content horizontally and vertically while trying to parse it. Unless there is something you're trying to convey with a carousel that couldn't be conveyed with a list, don't use one. Simplicity is a virtue in content layout.
I like your optimism that spammy content will be downvoted.
I just played for a couple of minutes, it's a little rough but still fun.
> (1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred.

The fact that charges were never brought means that the law very likely wasn't written in a way that a reasonable person would believe a crime had occurred. Certainly the DA's office did not believe a crime worth indicting had occurred.
This is the exact opposite of my experience. It's the only place where my elected officials were actually engaged. I received regular updates from my representatives without even asking for them. They just mailed all of their constituents flyers explaining the current issues and how it affects the community. I've lived in 5 different states and never saw anything like this in any of them except California. Go figure.
> I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state.

> In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}.

If public servants were left to their own devices and could mandate any law they like, they would instantly prohibit any behavior that is not explicitly allowed. Because that's how they themselves must function so that public can hold them accountable.

The trouble is that they inherently push this mentality to the politicians who must rely on them to get popularity contest points and sometimes manage to win these nonsense laws that help nobody.

> Pretending there's a sinister, organized New World Order (aka "them") with decades-long plans to restrict freedom is fantasy, and doesn't help us target the actual problem.

Sure, but there actually is "them". They are clueless, individually powerless, out-of-sight, largely disconnected social class that actually makes this happen. And they can wait decades for the right situation. In Czechia, the public servant actually responsible for introducing DNS blocking was actually tasked with online hazard oversight. He pushed it through in order to block just 6 websites because it was somehow easier for him than negotiating banning payments to them, probably because of turf wars. The respective two ministries are rivals and won't ever cooperate. He lobbied for this for like 10+ years and then a bunch of idiots has gotten elected and ran with it.

So in a way, you are right. But you are also somewhat wrong. From my experience finding the actual people pushing for this (it's usually not the politicians) and outing them would work way better.
Fluxbox ftw!!
I'm a PM and I have anxiety during standups. I think it mostly stems from the fact that I have perpetual anxiety that I've forgotten something that someone needed from me and am holding them up. (Ironically, or perhaps very logically, because of this anxiety I virtually never forget anything and block anyone because I have a detailed and redundant note-taking system that makes sure I do everything I need to.)

So yeah, I think it's just common to have some anxiety when you're up in front of your peers doing anything at work.

As for the length of your updates, let's just be clear that you're the one doing it right and everyone else is doing it wrong. There's cultural variance in how standups work, but generally the correct thing is that you get through the basic update quickly and then get into details as needed with the appropriate subset of people once updates are done. My standups right now are running long because of 1-2 people who just go on for too long or start trying to talking through solutions during their updates, so I'm having to walk the line between not wanting to nag every day but also making sure we're keeping the time under control.
Why is it reasonable to expect unbiased results from an LLM trained on internet content which almost everyone agrees is biased? Isn't this the expected outcome?

If anything, I'm surprised the results are as close as they are. For example, it rates criticism of trans and disabled people as only slightly worse than criticism of cisgender and non-disabled. If this discrepancy were (as some in this thread seem to be suggesting) the result of some liberal OpenAI employees intervening to favor their own side, I'd expect those bars to be much farther apart.
Well see, they're trying to have it both ways aren't they? If energy suppliers were a nationalized/socialized entity, then it makes sense to fund like that. But instead it is privatized and people paying those bills with welfare monies is basically a wealth transfer from the middle class (via taxes), through the poor (welfare) and ending up in pockets of the company's owners.
We have elections... but offering water to a voter standing in line to vote on a hot sunny day may get you arrested in some states (like Georgia).