skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Obviously this depends on who you're listening to.

Certainly, the chants for a ceasefire right now because there are civilian deaths in Gaza can be a way of holding Israel to impossible standards. No country on Earth can wage war without civilians being killed, so unless you believe that Israel isn't entitled to wage war against Hamas in this situation, it's not clear what a call for ceasefire means - Israel should just surrender?

Also, it's hard to tell how much of this is a Twitter bubble vs not, but the amount of people calling what Israel is doing genocide is very large (despite this being completely wrong), and many people are saying something to the effect of "nothing at all makes it ok to kill civilians", see above what that kind of statement means.
The Dawn of 'Chocolate' Fertilizer
> There really is no self-defense purpose in my mind to what Israel is doing. It's more self-avenging as others mentioned.

> You can argue it's a preventative operation to prevent future attack by taking out Hamas, but the approach they're taking does not indicate that since it's completely counter-productive and Israel must know that.

dang has asked us to engage in thoughtful, curious conversation, and absolutes like you’re using seem unhelpful to this end.

What is a “self-defense purpose?” I genuinely believe that Israel has such a purpose, and I think I argued it reasonably well. I didn’t say Israel’s actions were productive or wise, but the self-defense purpose exists.

If Israel’s military command thinks of Gazans as machines or beasts, then it could see itself as doing the right thing. I personally believe that, especially when there is some form of conflict, one needs to remember that people are human, with human feelings and motivations, and consider those feelings and motivations, and Israel might act differently if its military command did so.

And this leads to:

> If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.

I think this exact feeling is a large part of the problem on both sides. Both sides have killed loved ones on the other side in ways that seem intentional, callous and pointless. (Remember what started the current war, and what Israel is doing as part of this war!) So, if people on both sides share this type of permanent hatred, then they will have a hard time ever finding peace. (And neither Israel nor Gaza are monoliths. Their people, their governments, their deceased ancestors, etc are separate. The actions of some IDF members, the orders from command, the actions of the government, and the actions of the average people are all different. And similarly for Gaza.)
> Not sure if you're being honest or poisoning the well

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My company is hiring, we’re looking for a rockstar koopa jumper
>Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/opinion/israel-hamas-ceas...

There are plenty of cases of countries being attacked by terrorists and not responding like Israel has. PKK has carried out acts of terrorism in Turkey. FARC carried out attacks in Colombia for half a century.
It's not that I don't have an opinion (or even a strong one!) on this subject. The point is that everyone (and their mother) has a strong opinion, not only on the absolute morality of a side's actions, but on the morality of each source, of each agency involved, with various amounts of prejudice and superstition baked in.

Even worse, not one side is willing to really compromise. Even for the root issue of the Israel/Palestine conflict itself, it's impossible to "square the circle" on both the rights of each side, the motives of each side and the actions of each side. There's so much history and (mis) information flying around that it's hard for anyone to make a logical argument or contribute in a meaningful way.

I believe all of the above to be true and I believe the above could be overcome with earnest effort from both "sides" (if we are calling it that). Very, very rarely have I ever seen any attempt at compromising or meeting in the middle or having even a respectful conversation about this subject. So, inevitably, the conversation devolves into a mud-fight.

It's like "Godwin's Law" of geopolitics: any conversation about the Israel/Palestine conflict inevitably devolves into mud-slinging where both sides compare the other to Nazis.

So, forgive me if I want my tech-related forum to remain "mud-free".
I mean they might be used to doing that as ffmpeg is predating github. (and git.)

as long as it works for them...
If a star vanishes because you build a Dyson sphere that’s one way of sending a message
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza

Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).

How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)

* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.
That's a pretty fair characterization of the Roko's Basilisk crowd though, isn't it?
The law could change, allowing the usage of your data without your consent.
Ah, I actually played on this one multiple times in Berlin, at the video game museum. It’s quite fun.
> Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again.

This is often said and I’m sure often in good faith, but I always find it a bit unsettling. If by “making sure it never happens again” you mean stronger protection of the boarder going forward it’s fine of course. But if you’re referring to someone kind of offensive operation (as I assume most who say this are, since they are defending an offensive operation) I can’t see how that would be possible within the law of armed conflict. It would require sending Gaza back to the stone age and keeping it that way forever, or permanent occupation, or something like that.
Yes, should have local models in addition to remote models. Remote ones are always going to be more capable, and we shouldn't throw that away. Augmentation is orthogonal - you can augment either of these with your own data.
Nice, I hear you on "fun and aggravating" :)

Sounds similar to the use cases we're seeing, where it's not only easier to process/build on Postgres, but also saves you on the Salesforce API.
It’s could be a great day for Open Source software.

Maybe we need to adapt Open Source so that cloud providers who use it have to pay for continued development instead of just using it for free or putting a control panel on top of something and calling it their own product, but that’s the solution we came up with the first time proprietary software vendors started trying to lock the universe down into perpetual upgrade nonsense.

Perhaps it’s time to revisit Open Source licenses with a fresh, sharp pencil and an eye towards making all these systems compete with cooperative, collective-interest development again. We definitely need to find models that don’t cut the investment valuation so hard, as that’s been a huge problem for the Open Source companies.

Down markets and cost saving periods are when Open Source has seen massive adoption, as companies look to save money…

Maybe I’m wrong but it’s been on my mind a lot lately.
Wouldn't that make his predictions even more significant? He controls the biggest population, second biggest economy in the world, one of the fastest growing economies and middle classes out there, has one of world's biggest network of spies feeding him info internally and externally. If anyone could manifest his fantasies, it would be Xi.
> Vernor...said something much more interesting: that as the speed of innovation itself sped up (the derivative of acceleration) the curve could bend up until it became essentially vertical, literally a singularity in the curve.

In other words, Vernor described an exponential curve. But are there any exponential curves in reality? AFAIK they always hit resource limits where growth stops. That is, anything that looks like an exponential curve eventually becomes an S-shaped curve.
Then how would you refer to the different groups/entities and/or populations involved in this conflict?

I'd say there is of course a range of opinions and different narratives on both sides (from from actively seeking coexistence to humanitarian to pragmatic to nationalist to religious fundamentalist to having a deep personal hate for the other side).

Then you have all kinds of different groups, factions and third parties with their own allegiances and motivation.

However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. You can see this rather easily by observing which groups view each other as mortal enemies and which merely as a nuisance.

There are - thankfully - lots of people trying to bridge the divide and not aligning themselves only with one side. This is where we all should be headed, but it doesn't change the fact that currently there are sides.
Individual primate neurons fire as frequently as >600Hz [1] and they're not synced on the same "clock". It's a poor analogue overall.

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5067378/
I won a game on that machine at the gamecon in Leipzig, probably 15 years ago.

I got a blister from the heat, went to the first aid area to get something for it and they shut it down after.

Fun times
Clever idea and apparently an excellent source of potassium. However I wonder how the public would react to the 'chocolate' branding. Since potassium is salty if they try and taste it they will quickly reject it!
should've stayed dead
Pre-vision, pre-team, pre-product, and pre-revenue -- An opportunity to build the future in this blank canvas with the founding team.
> I don't think it's possible for a coherent or respectful or even useful conversation to happen here.

I've seen some variation of this sentiment both here on HN and elsewhere. It makes me wonder: is the topic so toxic that no conversation can happen at all? If that's the case, what's the appropriate forum for debate?

I'd argue that meatspace gathering places tend to not be much better (see: current debate about how this is playing out on college campuses), which has the net effect of chilling any discussion anywhere. That leaves op-ed pages, blog posts, Substacks, places where people can broadcast their opinion to the world...but not have to engage on it whatsoever. That doesn't feel like a great alternative to at least attempting to create space to talk about it.
If you add a dependency without understanding the license that dependency is released under, you should stop doing that. That counts for every license, and particularly if there is no license.
i'd be thrilled to find a recipe for Nana's Secret Pizza Sauce at the bottom of a tech blog :)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the post also links the "add Canonical CLA check #12665" [0], and my understanding is that "retain copyright" here is like a typical forum agreement where you going forward must agree to a perpetual worldwide unlimited license to Canonical that they can use as they please per [1]:

>In effect, you’re giving us a licence, but you still own the copyright — so you retain the right to modify your code and use it in other projects.

You explicitly do retain ownership, so you can then take that same code and contribute it elsewhere under any license you wish. The same author could contribute the same patch to both the LXD and the Incus fork. But some might object to being required to allow Canonical to specially license as they want.

So your characterization seems unfair, and then gets kind of nasty at the end:

>The author is pissed off because he can't build custom versions without redistributing the modifications

Incus is a full fork, and Canonical has apparently been taking changes back from it as well as is often the case with such forks where both sides get value from each other. It's perfectly understandable for some folks to be bummed if that's no longer the case, and there is nothing evil about the Apache2 license. There's plenty of history that in OSS going back to the beginning, no need for insinuations or attacks. Shouldn't throw around "FUD" at core authors just because they're a touch blindsided.

----

0: https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12665/commits/eb5c773d...

1: https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors
What would happen if everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow?
Then I'll pay only for 2/3 of their products I guess
> In light of this, it should be obvious why duplicates make no sense in a relation. Saying something twice doesn't make it more true!

Saying something twice doesn't make it more true, but that could also entail that duplicates should be benign. After all, "true AND true" is still true. So I don't think the conclusion that duplicates make no sense follows from this fact, it rather entails that duplicates should have no effect (idempotency).

In fact, a higher performance implementation is possible if we permit duplicates at some levels of the system because we don't need to check for duplicates. If duplicates have to be removed, that can arguably be done at the final materialization stage, or some other stage where it makes the most sense and overall work is minimized.
Well, it's hard to say - the US killed far, far more people in its wars. That said this war has been waged for far less time.

It really depends on how you extrapoalate out the deaths in Gaza. If it's "Israel kills 10k people a month", that would be a horrible situation where Israel would be acting very immoraly.

If you assume that there are going to be far less casualties going forward, relatively speaking (which is my view, given that Isarel has switched to a ground offsenve), then this war will end up with far fewer deaths than Iraq or Afghanistan
the main reason there's a version 2 of the apache license is to ensure that it's clearly legal to incorporate apache-licensed code into gpled systems such as this new version of lxd

it is correct that the ubuntu company cannot prohibit people from copying and modifying stephane's code, or indeed the entire previous version of lxd, under the terms of the apache license. but they can certainly keep using his code in new versions of lxd under agpl

in fact, apple can use stephane's code in a proprietary lxd derivative if they want to. that's what the apache license is designed to permit

if you want to prevent people from using your code in a more-restrictively-licensed fashion, don't use the apache or other bsd-like licenses; use a copyleft license like the agpl. and don't sign a cla
> This is a "slow day at the news" filler thing, that's just how they be.

Doesn't mean we have to accept it, or distribute it.

> diagnosed

And that's the key here, we don't have the stereotype of people with bottles of whiskey in their desk drawers anymore. Kids just get picked on for dealing with their shit better than their parents.
> If Ukraine went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a group of kids partying, I'm pretty sure their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia, in some sense, would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat.

That is an interesting thought experiment in itself. I'd like to believe you are right, but then I remember that there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated. There was also little interest to determine if Ukraine may have been behind the destruction of the dam that killed many innocent civilians. So, I'm not entirely sure how European and US opinion would have oriented.

> Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K.--they are the ones who took the land and gave it to another

That is a good point, and I'm pretty sure other European states would have quite a bit to attone for to help set this right.
The way he was corrected by a community note on that statement... kinda hilarious.
I mean, if it didn’t then what would it be for?
Oh noo!!! Anyways...
The point is that religions at the time had a logical framework which the scholars liked to interrogate and play with the logic of even if that served no real world purpose. Likewise, fighting about doom vs accel when current day Gen AI is nowhere close to that kind of stuff (and hasn't shown it can ever be) is kind of pointless
> But with AI, to most people it's just software.

Practical AI involves cutting-edge hardware, which is produced in relatively few places. AI that runs on a CPU will not be a danger to anyone for much longer.

Also, nobody's asking for a universal ban on AI. People are asking for an upper bound on AI capabilities (e.g. number of nodes/tokens) until we have widely proven techniques for AI alignment. (Or, in other words, until we have the ability to reliably tell AI to do something and have it do that thing and not entirely different and dangerous things).
This reminds of "Shock Tanks" my brother and I used to have. The concept is pretty simple, your RC tank get 3 lives per round, if it gets hit you get shocked.
Original author here, thanks for sharing! The case study has been discussed back in 2020 [1] but there have been quite a few updates (ES2020, local dev, testing, etc.) since then. Happy to chat!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24893247
Fisher, one of the great statisticians, argued that insufficient evidence existed to conclude with certainty that smoking causes cancer.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2000852/

After that, a number of well-designed experiments on rodents demonstrated that smoking causes (strong causation) cancer (in rodents) beyond a reasonable doubt (as in, if you disagree, you'd better bring some impeccable data).
> Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing.

I am not so sure about that.

I don't recall a bunch of anti-British terrorist Germans out for revenge for Dresden after WWII.

Nor have there been a bunch of anti-American terrorist Japanese out for revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even in the US, there really isn't a terrorist movement among indigenous people for revenge for the atrocities perpetrated on them by the United States (Wounded Knee being only one of many).

I think revenge can be a factor in radicalizing, but I think it has to be tied to some hope of advancing a goal beyond revenge for it to pick up steam.
Not that it means anything for this debate but LeCun has half as many citations as Hinton

Hinton 732,799 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=JicYPdAAAAAJ

Bengio 730,391 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=kukA0LcAAAAJ

He 508,365 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=DhtAFkwAAAAJ

Sutskever 454,430 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=x04W_mMAAAAJ

Girshick 418,751 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=W8VIEZgAAAAJ

Zisserman 389,748 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=UZ5wscMAAAAJ

LeCun 332,027 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ
This is most likely the reason, and the teams involved in launch approvals (legal, safety, privacy etc).
I don't really feel like clearing up all the half-truths or outright lies here, but I wanted to just call out one:

> with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.

The "from the river to the sea" is the language in the Likud charter, the party ruling Israel and dropping thousands of 2-ton bombs on Gaza right now. The popular chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" is a direct response to that. I'm unaware of Hamas' charter using the "from the river to the sea" language, although I'm open for correction here because I have not read the entire charter.
Some email providers navigate to every URL you receive to check them for phishing and malware. That doesn't play well with one-click unsubscribe links.
Give "Dark" a watch.
You only reach a vertical asymptote if every derivative up to the infinite order is increasing. That means acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle, pop, etc. are all increasing.

The physical world tends to have certain constraints that make such true singularities impossible. For example, the universal speed limit: c. But, you could argues that we could approximate a singularity well enough to fool us humans.
I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics.

You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back.

The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back.

That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight.

If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!"

If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians.

In conclusion:

Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it.

Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.
Mostly agree but this particular discussion seems ok. Well done @dang.
> Hasbro had been averaging profits of around ~$250M for the last several years.

> Paying ~5 people >10% of your profits is INSANE.

Wouldn't profits be determined after wages are paid?
Their pricing model seems designed to make you leave. I wish you well.