skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The core of the problem is that many many people no longer believe in a culture of free speech. They think that, as long as it's not the government doing it (and even sometimes when the government is standing right over there, waggling its eyebrows and flexing its muscles), it is both acceptable, and in many places good for people to be punished for nothing but speech.

The first amendment is absolutely just a governmental restriction, but the concept of free speech itself absolutely must be more broadly protected. The new social media era of algorithmic content makes these waters murky. Because these platforms aren't just hosting content, they are picking and choosing who it gets shown to. It's a complex situation that isn't as black and white as some free speech advocates would like to admit, but before we can address any of those complex factors, I think it's vital to argue vehemently that free speech is a more broadly important value than just the first amendment.
Jacques Barzun--who wrote a book on William James--had a suggestion: every baby born in America should acquire a Ph.D. along with the birth certificate.
What if they are crackpots?
>No we don't, and questioning settled science is usually a racist dog whistle.

Yeah, just like McClintock was known for her wildly racist views. Along with Watson and Crick - that whole "DNA is important" was just a ruse to get the redliners out. And who could forget Einstein? Only tools know the Theory of Relatively has anything to do with physics.

And anyone who uses the term "settled science" doesn't understand what science is
None. The ORM didn't design and type up the code.
>'build your own platform' is a lie. You cant do that without relying on other services today.

You can do it today very effectively. Many platforms exist today that don't rely on any of the major conglomerates. It's really not difficult, you just don't get the niceties that the big players have the experience in providing.
Not sure, what they will do. But if I was them, I would fork the latest MPL version of the code and license all their contributions as GPL.
I must admit that the test coverage is still lower than we would want it to be.

Currently, we are in the process of adding tests, and the test coverage will only keep increasing over the next few weeks. You can learn more about this in our community Slack: https://infisical.com/slack
What about those tests where they say to fold a piece of paper X number of times, and then punch holes in specific places. You then have to pick the image of what the paper would look like unfolded. Do these types of visualizations give you the same issue? I have known several people that just could not visualize these tests, and I'm curious if these are related.
The basic equations of aerodynamics led people (like von Karman) to conclude that lighter than air craft would not be competitive. And so it proved.

The basic physics of DT fusion reactors led Lidsky to conclude that any DT reactor would have poor power density. And so it has proved.

Sometimes knowledge lets one rule out whole branches of the technology search tree.
Yeah, and sometimes it leads beyond megacorps to governments, too.

Optus (telco in Australia), owned by Singtel, which is majority owned by Temasek, which is owned by the Government of Singapore. You can also substitute in India's 2nd largest telco (Bharti Airtel) for Optus in that example, by the way.
I don't know enough about this to even comment...

Is it of value for you to link to something important? Lacking information on this.

Thanks
Support that but not that easy, when big platforms are censoring actual scientists while amplifying others who align with some narrative, it gets tricky. Just a couple weeks ago about the whole LK99 thing, a barista on Twitter was leading the discussion..
Not sure if I'm just bad at reading Rust code, but it looks like the end-to-end encryption is implemented by pre-sharing a symmetric key, and communicating a 24 byte xChacha20Poly1305 nonce over the wire as websockets are established. This key and nonce are subsequently used to encrypt and decrypt messages sent between the two parties. It looks like the encrypt and decrypt functions are called as new websocket traffic is read or written to the stream.

If true, this means that every message sent via this means uses an identical keystream to encrypt all messages, and thus results in a loss of confidentiality of all messages. Am I missing something?

https://github.com/narrowlink/narrowlink/blob/abf35e38567b88...

https://github.com/narrowlink/narrowlink/blob/abf35e38567b88...
Back then, maybe two decades back, Google was seen as evil as it declined to acknowledge that it will delete user data after the user has closed its account.

Time changes.
> Refreshing compared to the ways others have gone

Do you know of companies charging for service manuals?
>"Electromagnetic plasma containment folding" does sound like something a crazy person at a bus station would rant about.

Or the very person that someone with a show like Art Bell would have as a guest.
Tokamak record time for plasma confinement is 403 seconds as of April 2023, see https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/mutimedia_news/202304/t20230...

403s is about 7 minutes, so less than Wendelstein 7-X.
> In this scenario, would you still be opposed to vaccine mandates?

There are no circumstances in which I would give up my right to bodily autonomy. You could simply tell me those data and I would stay away from others all on my own, like an adult, as was observed of most people in the UK during a pandemic which was not nearly as deadly, with vaccines not nearly as efficacious, nor as safe, nor with an at risk population as important (sorry, granddad) as in your example. Mandates are unnecessary and unjust.
Storage might be cheap, but memory and bandwidth aren’t.

Memory is the new disk, and disk is the new tape.

You want everything to remain resident in memory, and spool backups and transaction logs to disk.

If you’re joining from disk, you’ve probably done something wrong.

E.g.: compression is often a net win because while it uses more CPU, it allows more data to fit into memory. And if it doesn’t fit, it reduces the disk I/O required.

This is why I look upon JSON-based document databases in horror. They’re bloating the data out many times over by denormalizing and then expand that into a verbose and repetitive text format.

This is why we have insanity like placeholders for text on web apps now — they’re struggling to retrieve a mere kilobyte of data!
Edward Snowden is the single most influential person in the entire history of information security and it's not even close. The data he revealed changed the direction of the evolution of the internet rapidly and completely. HTTPS websites, E2E encrypted communications, VPN providers, metadata reduction, etc. All of these things gained traction because of Snowden and are integral to the modern internet.

Aside from the very real gains in privacy and security, I would also like to make the argument that we would currently be living in a fragmented hellscape of an internet if the net had not turned (mostly) opaque after 2013. Imagine the same AI spam filters currently operating on your email but for all network traffic. We would be suffocating under the weight of (sometimes) well-meaning, but ill-conceived security solutions. Fortunately, we took a different path.
A self-aware super intelligent being with self-preservation goals is not like the printing press.
Generally Intelligent (YC S17) Is Hiring Machine Learning Research Engineers
Generally Intelligent is an AI research company working directly on building human-level general machine intelligence that can learn naturally in the way humans do. Our mission is to understand the fundamentals of learning and build safe, humane machine intelligence. Here are our open roles:

Machine Learning Engineer (SF or Remote, Contract or Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/9411e2ec-502a-403... Combinator

Research Scientist (SF, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/6c25a25c-35ec-4d7... Combinator

Machine Learning Research Engineer (SF, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/c2f4a435-1eef-489... Combinator

Systems Engineer (Remote, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/7afede07-8f22-4c4... Combinator

Technical Lead Manager (SF, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/75fac008-22e5-49a... Combinator

Infrastructure Engineer (Remote or SF, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/e66a55a3-a117-406... Combinator

Senior Software Engineer (Remote, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/38a93a78-fb8d-461... Combinator

Technical Interviewer (Remote, Full-time/Contract):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/8443234d-a8c7-439... Combinator

Theory Engineer (Remote):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/63499488-91b1-415... Combinator

Chief of Staff (SF, Full-time):
https://jobs.lever.co/generallyintelligent/f5d04435-cfb5-4e3...
Last I heard, sha-1 isn’t broken for any arbitrary hash.
A license that effectively bans your company from using Microsoft anywhere is an interesting choice.
I'm not sure that a serious discussion of this topic is even possible, but I will attempt it: isn't the consensus still that the virus has a zoonotic origin? That is mostly a rhetorical question, because unless I have missed something, it is. Why do so many folks want to pretend that this has been proven incorrect?

Perhaps I have a selective memory but I seem to remember that most of the pushback against the lab origin theory from people like Fauci was primarily intended to combat racial and ethnic tensions that were growing at the time. Especially when it came to the notion that the virus was purposely released.

I do not recall any reputable scientist completely discounting the lab origin theory; the public statements merely reflected the consensus at the time, which still seems to mostly be the consensus today. So what exactly is the problem here?
I have a lot of opinions but I have to post them anonymously or my life’s work will be destroyed. I’m hopeful that once I retire and move all my income-generating assets to a trust that I can advocate more for my opinions. People in my city have had their retail businesses destroyed for donating to Republicans. It’s just a very dangerous world to say anything so you have to be very careful.
So long as you do not exceed a certain current, they have zero resistance. There are other forms of parasitics though that can effect it.

Those crazy electromagnets they use on these stellarator are simple superconducting loops that they 'charge' by inducing a current. That current is maintained so long as the superconductor stays below a certain temp. There is even something called a SMES (superconducting magnetic energy storage) that stores power this way, as I understand it they have a 0% self discharge rate.
He wasn't just on amphetamines, he was also on MAOIs which are stronger stuff
To paraphrase the old TV commercials.

"This is your mind on postmodern thinking. Any questions?"

Just like mate selection in peacocks created elaborate pointless plumage, competition among scholars in fields with inadequate connection to reality allow divergence off into absurd lines of thought which have their own elegant internal consistency but no external purpose. They could just be considered art or entertainment, except for the risk of causing grave harm when someone mistakenly uses them to justify policy without evaluating their consistency with reality or legible human values.

See also the recent HN thread on kritiks in high school debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36920566
> I think this is true up to a point, where that point is what should be argued. I think if a disease were sufficiently deadly and had a long incubation period such that it would allow itself to spread rapidly, we'd all argue that vaccine mandates should be enforced.

I see your point. If we are talking theoreticals w.r.t. your following disease/vaccine combination I would like to add the following:

It only works when the vaccine has no side effects long or short term.

Suppose that the scenario happens and a vaccine is in place at light speed. We skip all the normal trials (through cutting them short, whatever) and begin issuing it. We find it to be very effective at what it does and we force everyone to get under penalty of law, placement in a camp, whatever. Pick your poison. What happens if the pharma companies make exactly one mistake?

Now, we can name the drug. Let's call it Thalidomide. Is it worth causing, for example, horrendous birth defects to preserve herd immunity? Now you have to choose between saving people now versus saving people in the future. We have no idea what effects mandatory vaccination will have in 10, 20, or 30 years. That is a very scary proposition given how widely issued it was. It's also strange the FDA said it would take 70 years to release all the data. I think it's naive to think that there won't be any effect. Perhaps not as extreme as thalidomide - but how do we know today?

If someone doesn't want to take a vaccine they should be allowed to not take it. They are not immune from consequences. Such as, barring from PRIVATE non-tax-funded establishments. But bodily autonomy should go unquestioned. No matter which way you cut it vaccine mandates are a strike against civil rights.
> Electric motorcycles are a terrible idea because they are not the problem as far as emission go.

There are other reasons to want an electric motorcycles besides low emissions.
If we can get rid of the "staging area" and resolve the ambiguities of "checkout" it would be a great step in the right direction.
So what this really says is that 80% of executives would have used a different approach if they had data about the subject. Which... is pretty lackluster? If you don't change your strategy in response to new data, you're bad at your job.
> I have a couple Google accounts that are just pulling email to a separate mailbox and who knows if that's active or not.

Probably not.
I think the point is to ensure there's human interaction. Don't expect any automated activity to affect the timer.
It is actually very rare for a judge to forfeit the bail money when a defendant violates the terms of his bond.

Source: 10 years in criminal court

Funnily enough, I had my bail revoked last year because I retweeted a posting from the county public defender's office about the serious flaws with house arrest monitoring.
As history, this is completely incorrect, but beyond that, if you don’t believe in the mission of the President in committing an act of war, you have a responsibility to resign, and it can’t be bracketed as “bad ethics”.

Anyway, another historical point besides what the other commenters have said is that Rumsfeld believed in “transformation” which meant you could do more with less in modern war. He was totally wrong about it.

It wasn’t his fault Turkey didn’t let the US attack from the north, but other than that, the fuck up is his responsibility, among others.
> What you really want, instead, is that nobody should be able to listen to the speech you don't like because you're afraid that other people might decide they like it.

Well said.
The article is pretty rambling but its thesis is good: automated systems are causing and will cause tons of problems. But those are practical problems, rather than the vague high brow problems.

Problems like how can we deal with wealth inequality in a world where 99% of people are obsolete aren’t particularly attractive to a TED talk audience that paid $500/seat.
The sweet spot in my experience has been for WFH orgs to get together periodically for extended offsites. A one week gathering twice a year has forged some incredible bonds on my distributed team.
The simple solution is democratization. If average Joe can’t have privacy, then President Joe shouldn’t either. And average Joe should have as much access to President Joe’s data as President Joe does to average Joe’s.
I’ve started talking about crystals to attract hot chicks that are already into crystals. Many are, or want to believe, just like researchers want to believe in a room temperature superconductor.

The alpha is that pedantic and over-analytical guys dismiss crystal energy at the expense of their reproductive opportunities, and the way around it is literally just not doing that.

One thing I quickly noticed is that the purpose of all crystals are expected to be the same.

“It absorbs energy and gives out good energy”

So I same the same thing everytime.

Employers must be encountering something similar from some form of stakeholder, such as the board for an analogous self preservation or reproductive opportunity, so the answer is always “increase productivity” every time.
Your comment about his mother laughing in court is misleading. She did laugh in court BUT you did not include the context. Here is what Coin Desk said:

“Bankman-Fried’s parents, Joe Bankman and Barbara Fried, were seated in the third row behind members of the press.

They appeared to oscillate between dejection and defiance, at times holding their heads in their hands and clasping their hands. Bankman-Fried’s mother audibly laughed several times when her son was referred to as a “fugitive” and his father occasionally put his fingers in his ears as if to drown out the sound of the proceedings.”
(https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/13/inside-sam-bank...)

Notice that she only laughed when Sam Bankman Fried was labeled a fugitive. My guess is she laughed because she believed he was innocent and because he was in court!

Basically, the above poster did not include context about Ms. Fried’s laugh. The post made it sound like she was disrespectful, arrogant or crazy. Once context is added, it is clear she probably laughed because she did not believe her son was a fugative.
Making it clear that you don't take a thing seriously is another way of saying "this (trial) is unnecessary".

Saying "this trial is unnecessary" in a way that gets attention is also a way of highlighting your experience (especially when not exactly given a podium in the event), expressing an opinion, and possibly holding onto some respect. Which is pretty relevant at all sorts of levels. Maybe even keeping a given job, etc.

Strange and especially strong expressions, lacking nuance, in the face of e.g. "why TF would you act like that in this setting" is sometimes a telling characteristic of extremely logical people. Logical to the exclusion of lots of other perspectives, even. So, this is really lining up well with the concept of SBF as logic-first, everything else second. Maybe morals second, ethics second, or whatever.

If you want to know where SBF's moral education went missing, you are probably going to have to look at the grandparents or further back at this point. The parents are right in the hard-logic, high-negotiation wheelhouse. This is a situation with known dynamics to them. They are looking to be players. That is a different mindset than most are used to.

These parents are logic- and rhetoric-focused minds, they are used to theatrics deployed for strong effect, they have seen power abused left and right, and you can see that they are very amenable to open protest.

My guess is that they are also pretty fed up with seeing particular aspects of their area of expertise used in an especially emotive way, as opposed to logical, for example.

IMO this is a fascinating study in "the law" (thing we all agree to obey; covert social contracts) vs. "the quote 'law' unquote" e.g. the mindset of deciding whether you don't like it, and if you don't like it DO NOT SUPPORT IT. Cry foul and make yourself known.

That's a very, very uncomfortable dichotomy due to the relatively crosswise distribution of legal/political power by comparison. In the US the legal branch is effectively held captive by stabilization-focused psychology. SBF-type people are going to get crushed perhaps more than most, because stabilization-focused organizations fear innovation and novel thought structures even more than they fear immorality.

Mom & Dad are seriously leaning into their chosen role here and doing so in the face of power; it's worth taking note, and I would add especially so at a theoretical level. (Practical people will always tell you it's best to shut up and not make any waves, but this POV is not exactly where the future of law is coming from, for one)
Yes. As long as you make no claims as to who's voice it is, that is.
Every time I’m back in the office, it’s like the last few weeks of repressed communication and collaboration all comes out. So we spend very little time grinding away solo, but all these little details and knowledge sharing all occur and it’s highly valuable even if it didn’t directly relate to jira tickets moved on that day.
Are you sure that the requirement for a clear conspiracy is present in the laws in all 50 states and federally?

For instance, 18 U.S. Code § 1028 (a)(2) appears to criminalize transfer of identification documents as long as you know it was stolen or unlawfully obtained.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

The laws on credit card fraud require "unlawful or fraudulent intent" though.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1644

Even discounting the above, you could imagine why a provider may not want to serve a website that engages in that sort of borderline illegal behavior.
> No we don't, and questioning settled science is usually a racist dog whistle.

Woah, a claim this bold is gonna need some more explanation bub. Science is quite literally never settled. Even gravity gets new developments every once and while.
Not the OP, but I already blocked it with my robots.txt. I am 100% sure I want to be removed from their index, even if they become "the next Google". I would rather have my website fade away into obscurity than increase the usefulness of their AI or any other AI model.
I really don't see how anyone can look at how covid proceeded and come to the conclusion that we need less trust in experts. "Thinking for yourself" was an excellent way to die of covid and to produce much longer, much higher peaks in your region of residence than you would otherwise have had.

Places with populations that shut up and listened suppressed covid nearly entirely until the rise of the much-more-contagious Delta and Omicron, neither of which would have realistically arisen at all if the whole world had applied suppression of that magnitude. New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Korea, and China remained open for business throughout most of the pandemic precisely because they had strong institutions and because they successfully enforced expert consensus.

Even within the US, the map of covid deaths is practically an electoral map, which is itself practically a map of trust in institutions. San Francisco had a death rate of 134 per 100k. King County (Seattle), 158. And less you think it's an urban/rural thing, rural Vermont sits in the 150s. Meanwhile, almost nowhere in the South or Great Plains is below 400 per 100k, and almost everywhere that is is a blue island amidst a sea of red. Raleigh-Durham, Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and St. Louis are all visible clear as day on a map of death rates.

Even if we assume that expert consensus got covid's origins wrong - a fact that is far from demonstrated - I will happily take a temporary error in a relatively unimportant fact about the virus' origins over hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and years of shutdowns that could have been avoided with better coordination any day. Experts are sometimes wrong, but from an outside-view, probabilistic standpoint, a person betting against expert consensus is almost always going to lose, especially if they are not themselves an expert.
Neutral channels don't exist, never have never will. So the demand doesn't make any sense. By operating, the channel must make self-preservation decisions, these decisions cannot be neutral.
I think this is the end of my Gmail account, which has been locked for some time due to suspicious activity. All it does is forward email, but no more.