skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The thing is that the law as written allows them to do just that. If they don't like your content on YouTube, they can punt it instantly. And it can be for ANY REASON. And that's not even including their first amendment right to refuse distributing or listing your content.

You're not wrong, but in addition to the leeway afforded to the rich and powerful by "the law", there is also substantial leeway afforded to every individual under "reality", and one option available is that it is technically possible to behave however one likes, including in a manner that is not compliant with "the law" or "the social contract", neither of which I or most anyone else was consulted on, despite living in a country governed by "democracy".

Interestingly, it seems like it is those who are classically "less intelligent" who are most likely to realize that this powerful exploit exists, buffoonery like January 6, anti-vaxx, and shooting power stations with an off the shelf rifle being prime examples of this.

I sometimes wonder if like corporations or most any other organization on the planet, it might be prudent to review our governmental and legal standard operating procedures from time to time to ensure they are working as intended (underlying, actual intent (as opposed to proclaimed intent) being another matter that more than a few people are starting to become rather dangerously curious about).
sir, I would like to sell you a website
It's a lot of different things for different people.
For some people its a way to get organs. For others it's to escape poverty.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/10/13/medical-assistance-de...

It's been offered to people depressed and Vetrans, and now is getting pushed to young people.

The gross part is that it's been pushed as a way for government to save money. IF you don't think thats the over riding incentive you haven't been paying attention.
Because calling someone good looking is considered shallow and we deem shallowness a bad trait to exhibit. No one is going to say - “well the only reason I really got interested in my partner was because they were good looking”. They’ll try to posthoc justify it by saying your personality or whatever was good - even though your looks is what opened the door.

I’m not denying the skills. I literally talked about the doofus with good looks. He could improve his personality and skills and then he’d be a gigachad… I am saying that improving your skills is hardly sufficient for today’s market. We live in a different time and it’s wildly superficial.
> Frankly I think this situation is hilarious, pitting Republican's crime and punishment fever against their god fever.

It genuinely won't matter. Those thumping the anti choice, anti autonomy drum have not demonstrated the ability to feel shame for their hypocrisy -- at least I've never seen it over the last few decades.
"Let us assume that the parents get neither utility nor disutility from spending time with their infants."

Umm...
Vegan diet. Eggs can be a good nutrient source, but are not necessary.
AutoSleep has been invaluable to me. To the best of my knowledge stock watchOS won't track sleep unless you set or schedule the Bedtime mode, which is annoying -I might forget to toggle it each night, or the schedule will kick in when I plan on staying up. AutoSleep automatically detects whenever I go to bed and wake up, along with history/metrics for a flat fee and no subscription.

I don't deeply trust many of the metrics but anecdotally it's very accurate for the amount I'm sleeping, which is mainly what I'm concerned with
i went the lazy route and just bought a ti silent 703 off ebay.

no ink (thermal printing), has serial (with db25 connector), so plugs'n'plays into linux with just a normal usb serial adapter.
I think the point is that some applications will use DoH/DoT/a custom protocol to bypass DNS-based blocklists. It's trivial to run your own DoH/DoT/custom server if you just hardcode the IP into your application.

You can still block those by doing IP-level blocks for known ad domains, but that starts to become a problem if one of those domains are run from a shared cloud host (i.e. Cloudflare etc.) because you will also block legitimate domains.

Most in-app ads and tracking will still use HTTPS so if you use SNI sniffing + certificate validation (to prevent domain fronting) you can still do network level blocks, but that's quite resource intensive, especially at modern internet speeds.
Ask HN: Why pay for ChatGPT premium instead of using GPT3 playground?
Pretty obvious question. Anything I’m missing?
> what you're asking for is censorship

Most people use the word censorship to refer to banning some specific kind of content: banning what. Meanwhile, the discussion around Facebook is usually around how they measure and reward content, not what the content is.

If you're actually being sincere in this discussion, I think you may not see how engagement is just one particular kind of how and it's not a given that social media sites optimize for it. It was an innovation that some sites introduced because it benefited their business model and it caught on for a while. But it wasn't universally adopted, needn't be used at all, and is becoming less fashionable among both sites and users. Facebook's a bit behind the game on restructuring away from it though, possibly because of over-investment and momentum, or possibly because of being a closely-held company that can be philosophically stubborn.
> why the more expensive eggs at the store did not rise as much as the cheaper brands.

Recently, I was stunned to find that the cheapest eggs in my area, by far, were at Whole Foods. Order of $2-$3 less per dozen than at other supermarkets.
there’s always somebody yelling fraud

look at herbal life as an example

or amway
This seems like a terrible idea considering the amount of heavy metals used in the manufacturing process. I think a better use case would be growing agricultural products used for industrial purposes (the "plastic" window mailers on the majority of the junk mail you receive is made from soybeans for example, or hemp for fiber production), but this seems like we are asking for trouble.
Their business relies on the whims of fickle consumers not changing, which seems to happen frequently.

Facebook hasn't been cool for a decade+ and usage has dropped a lot in the last few years[1], so all of their eggs are going into baskets that either a) face similar competitive battles (insta v tik tok et al) or b) are gambles (metaverse), other ventures.

Social media, and perhaps the internet at large, seems like it's shaping up to be a lot more ephemeral in nature than we were led to believe when the unicorns were growing up. Not sure how these companies navigate that other than via conglomerate/acquisition style growth.

[1] https://blog.chartbeat.com/2021/06/24/facebook-decline-regio...
properly done glued wood boards don't have a warping problem, and sometimes are even stronger than whole wooden planks. In fact most of Ikea furniture is made from those, except wardrobes and cupboards, which are not expected to have much pushes from aside.
* AutoSleep - sleep tracking.

* Stocard - gym / loyalty cards.
> I can get about 8000 calories of rice for $5 retail at a grocery store

Meal replacement shakes like Jimmy Joy / Huel / Soylent do have a lot more nutrition than just plain rice + some veggies / condiments

I'm no nutrition scientist but those Taco Bell items you pointed out don't seem like nutritionally complete meals you could eat all day. I did eat Jimmy Joy all day for a month or so and I did feel healthy but to each his own. Also didn't require me to drive 3 times a day to a Taco bell wasting time in the process, waiting in line etc.
Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?
As technology permeates the world more and more, the hiring process is becoming more dehumanized, IMHO. What can we do as an industry, to make hiring more efficient for everyone?

Some of the pain points I observe are:

1. Applicants must wade through large volumes of job postings, which are often poorly written, and frequently lacking key information which is important to the applicant.

2. Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don't meet the requested minimum requirements.

3. Employers are then too overwhelmed to reply to all the applicants.

4. Applicants are then annoyed with the lack of replies.

5. By the time an employer finds a potential match, the applicant may be difficult to reach, or is no longer interested.

6. By the time an applicant hears back from an employer, they are disappointed in the quality of the response, and already have a bad impression of the employer.

What is working well today to address these pain points?

What are other Possible Fixes?
That means they are still making tons of money, just less than they did a year ago.
I’m not even expecting to ever retire. Be it for the fact that I don’t think that the economic situation is going to improve that much, or for the fact that I’d most likely die from boredom.

I’m in my mid-20s.
Remote workers in India isn't the only inexpensive workforce that has improved language skills recently...
Can't imagine anyone putting anything other than pirated mp3s in 95%+ of mp3 players ever produced.
I completely agree that there's a place for preservatives in the world. it would be silly to suggest otherwise

my position is a hedged rule of thumb. of course additives are not all bad, but taking this attitude is a simple policy that I trust for my general health, and a low-noise signal to send to food producers and other consumers.

>it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question

this is true. and when the tradeoffs are health vs hunger that's fine, but when they're health vs profit/share price, it becomes an issue. obviously there's a situation where lack of profit motive can lead to hunger, but that's not a situation currently likely to arise in the developed world
Its a good thing to wish for: This way, the US labor can also become free to disperse to regions with more sane cost of living and work for similar wages.

Similar wages, because the overseas senior talent wont work for anyone's corp for dimes, in contrast to what some seem to think. They have their own career trajectories, their expectations. If you don't pay them more than what the local corps pay, you wont get them because those local corps come with a lot of perks and the social status. The latter can be quite more important in many regions of the world in respect to the expectations of your family, relatives and friends so the pay difference must be worth losing it.
> Anyways, my biggest takeaway is that you can make a mistake and be completely fucked for the rest of your life.

Or if you get into a situation like this, you may not take necessary steps to save your life or someone else's life because you may get a $300K fine.

This court ruling puts a chilling effect on staying a life, and could cost more harm and lives.
There is such a thing as a design patent that could cover something like the smiley.
It wasn’t just one individual company in this case, but a seemingly coordinated cabal like industry-wide action. Strength in numbers. A “corporate union” action if you will. All highly profitable companies sitting on mountains of cash. The layoffs were an exercise in capital asserting dominance over labor and financial engineering.
25 out of almost 1000 doesn't seem like much to me. My parents are both retired and financially comfortable but would consider employment with a lot of flexibility. The 62% who had already returned to work IS surprising to me. I'd bet most of those are financially motivated
I think your comment shows the difficulty SCOTUS is having with this case. What's the difference between "promotion" (in my definition, that means putting an influence behind it to improve its standing with the viewer) and other actions commonly necessary to display information, and is that difference enough to eliminate the Section 230 protections for the defendants?

In my language, I say HN does not "promote" content because the view for me is substantially the same as the view for everyone else. Contrast that with YouTube, where Google's algorithms elevate content specific to individual users, thus leading me to conclude that Google thinks I "should" watch the content. I would argue that far more than automated filtering, signals from other users, and human moderation goes into YouTube's recommendations -- particularly a calculation of the revneue to Google of you watching the video.

But again, this concept that Google "promoted" the content that harmed the plaintiffs and should thus be liable for that action is the heart of the case, not that Google should be liable for the content itself.
Just post a healthy amount of random nonsense along with any of your actual posts to dilute the effects

Banana Sebastian housewares fly swimmingly under terrestrial Zruodroru'th Memphis Steve Jobs archipelagos
"Software engineers on Hacker News are discussing joining the circus after mass layoffs" - paychex, probably
Settings & Privacy -> Shortcuts -> Shortcuts bar -> Marketplace -> Pin
And not to forget the Amazon flavored Searchbar ;)
I mostly agree with this, but it’s missing some details in how many younger people actually behave versus what they believe. A lot of young men and women will claim to not be particularly attracted to femininity or masculinity or believe in traditional views on gender expression while being attracted almost exclusively people who do present traditionally gendered traits.

I’ve met so many young men who say they don’t particularly care if the woman they date are feminine while exclusively pursuing relationships with women who are petite, have long hair, shave all their body hair, dress in almost exclusively feminine clothes like mini skirts, wears a ton of makeup and has very feminine mannerisms. I’ve also met a lot of you women who would say the same about not caring about masculinity in the men they date and then exclusively date tall, muscular, hyper masculine jock types or the bad boy, rebel without a cause artsy types. You’re absolutely right that they’ve changed the definition of masculine and feminine, but they haven’t changed their preferences to match.

I think a big part of the gender disconnect in modern dating is that many men and women have divested themselves from their traditional gender roles while seeking out partners that largely still conform to their traditional gender roles.
Also, a libel case does not work when the accusation is true. In this case, it depends on what a "strong" signal is. That it is a signal is quite obvious and has been shown (as a general principle) in meta-studies looking at replication.
Baby formula exists, though, and is a totally viable alternative, so this one seems like it'd be thrown out pretty quick.
There was only one case brought by Equality Labs, the Cisco case, which was thrown out. Any perceived discrimination also will be made out to be caste discrimination as there is money to be made, benefits to be had.

Upper caste manager dings lower caste employee for performance --> caste discrimination

Upper caste employee talks back to lower caste manager ---> caste discrimination

This is how things will play out.
But they've been doing it long before Streaming services became a thing, as long as it makes financial sense and doesn't dilute/diminish brand image they're game
5 of 11 of the reasons are related to money and health.

What a "shithole" country.
Same here in DC area. Whole foods has the cheapest eggs. Strange times!
My definition would be that they're all bad and there is no good use for them because the end results are harmful - more spend/engagements I view in the same way I would "more smoking". Any algorithm or curation excluding perhaps based on latest or "most views" or something similar would be a recommendation as far as I'm concerned.

But I'm just not sure how or why online platforms get to have their cake and eat it too. If the NYTs publishes a story that eating Tidepods is healthy and encourages kids and parents to do so, they get sued. If Facebook creates an algorithm that causes the same or similar to happen they get a free pass. They either have to be a public speech platform where anyone can say anything as long as it isn't literally breaking the law, or they have to follow the same rules as other entities that curate content. If you want to say "why not both?" then that's fine but you have to apply that to all entities, not just online content.