skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I think those are just two perspectives on the same situation. “wokeness” is realizing we should be treating people better and “anti-wokness” is people feeling called out by that.

>People tend not to like it being pointed out that they are assholes, especially when they know it’s true. That’s pretty much the whole “anti-woke” thing in a nut.

I think this is an example that accurately sums up with most normal, non-partisan people mean when say say "woke". The smug self-righteousness exhibited by those who believe themselves morally superior to others is "woke". The suggestion that somehow you are an asshole if you don't sign on completely and without question to the bizarre social and political agenda of self-appointed word and thought police. The people that you avoid like the plague because they are constantly searching for something to be offended about or some way to chide you about having transgressed against some ever-changing lexicon of acceptable terms and phrases. The people that think the world is neatly divided between "oppressors and the oppressed" and that where you fall on this insurmountable divide is based almost entirely on who your ancestors were or what your skin-tone is rather than anything you've actually done in your life. The people that think they have a monopoly on deciding what is right and wrong, and that they have been appointed the moral arbiters to decide what everyone is allowed to say.
> I'm also extremely suspect at all these SV leaders suddenly highlighting their views that are conveniently in lock step with the new administration. Like you say, pg has talked about this before, so I'm not saying his thoughts aren't genuine, I just think what Tim Sweeney said recently is pretty spot on "All these SV leaders pretended to be Democrats, and now they're pretending to be Republicans."

Yep. IMO you struck right at the heart of it. My cynical POV is that pg, like many others, tries to be on the good side of who's now in power.

Everything else discussed in the article or here, as valid or interesting as it might be, looks to be a distraction from this central motivation.
Read about semantics and social constructionism.

A symbol or word carries no inherent meaning. We give it subjective meaning. That meaning is constructed socially through a shared understanding of what that symbol means through context and intention.

The same symbol or word can have multiple, and sometimes opposite, meanings, in different contexts.
Linus thought "hard r" meant "retarded", when it actually means "nigger" (a really really bad slur, as opposed to soft-r, "nigga"). It was funny when everyone realized he didn't mean what they thought he meant.
Over the holidays we played a game called Hitster which has a very simple premise of listening to music and guessing the release year. My in-laws have a Sonos system and it was so laughably bad connectivity-wise with the wrong song playing, no song playing, songs not stopping, etc...

I jokingly said that a 100$ bluetooth speaker would have been better, which was not super well received.

Bottomline is: It does not matter how good your sound system is if it's not reliable.
I'd argue the general population doesn't even know this trade off exists (not helped by the pros being advertised to users and the cons purposely not mentioned). Even then the minority (us) shouldn't be stopped from doing what we want with our stuff just so some company can make more money.
An Attmept to Billionaire-proof social media wih Bluesky's protocol
I see. Thank you for this I couldn’t remember the first time I heard this but I’m pretty sure this is what I saw and am referring to.
Webtop – Alpine,Ubuntu,Fedora,and Arch containers containing full desktop envs
> "What if it's most effective to .. instead of preaching about what people should do, you just do what it is that you believe to be right?"

It isn't. See these LessWrong articles[1,2,3] about charitable giving for more reasoning. People take ideas, understanding of the world, behavioural cues, from what we see around us. From the first link, a charitable fund raise over a mailing list involved quiet private donations without fanfare, and public mailing list posts about why (other) people were not going to donate, why it was a bad idea. None of the donators posted publicly in support of donating.

I could make up any number of examples, but here[4] is a recent news article about two young lesbian women living together who "had been spat at in the street and received anonymous messages - including abuse scrawled across their front door on Christmas Day". What good does it do them if everyone who supports them does it quietly, and everyone who hates them does it loudly and publicly? What world does it lead to when spitting on someone in the street is fine, but speaking out against it is "woke leftist moralizing"? What world does it lead to when people who are not involved looking around to see how others are behaving (bystander effect) see LGBT hate enacted, written, spoken, and don't see or hear anyone around them speaking against it?

Would the young women care if someone vocally complaining about it at the pub is genuinely annoyed or just performatively status grabbing?

Seems pretty clear from history that just quietly living your life while horrors whirl around you is a personally comfortable way to live your life, but is not an effective way to change any of the horrors. Whereas taking arms against the horrors can be an effective way to change the horrors regardless of whether you're doing it because you really want to, or because you were peer pressured into it, or because you are just going along with what everyone else is doing.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7FzD7pNm9X68Gp5ZC/why-our-ki...

[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N6FNkxMJpraMLTPwq/to-inspire...

[3] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KoTCTwmPbEAZTyPbz/why-you-sh...

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgnwqdp7gno?at_bbc_team...
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada [Eligible to work in USA]

Remote: Remote - Yes | Hybrid - Yes | on—site - Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Java, Python, JavaScript, PHP, HTML, CSS, NoSQL, MySQL, Postgres, Git, Linux React.js, Express.js, Node.js, Flask, TailwindCSS, LangChain, Firebase, HuggingFace, RAG

Résumé/CV: on Request

Email: sudm057 at gmail

Hi Everyone, I'm a recent computer science graduate with experience in web, database technologies. I also have experience working with LLMs and using RAG in applications. I am interested in front-end/back-end/AI/ML roles and internships. Please feel free to reach out.
The physics in the simulation was faulty, that should be better now. Of course there are less collisions in 3D than in 2D. And this catapulting of stars is also an artifact in the discrete computer simulation

https://tiki.li/run/#cod=fVPRbuMgEHznK0aqdGodxSW5S0+uSl/zEVF...
Private companies looking for profit and leaving when they notice that is not profitable is not a undesired thing. If your margins depend on you screwing your customers, your business model shouldn't exist. California will figure something out, maybe making high density residences easier to build, would make a difference. Also, that's not exactly why they are leaving, they are leaving because the state forces them to pay the insurance if an "act of god" (systemic risk, like a wildfire) happens.
Precision Engineering Desk Toys – Metmo Metal – MetMo
It's totally reasonable, just unfortunate for this use-case.
If wokeism remained a personal awakening I don’t think there would be much push back. It’s the virtue signaling and holier than thou judgment people don’t like.
He can also just stop open sourcing his company's work on the product. WordPress is GPL, not AGPL, so they can make any changes you want and use them on Automattic's platforms without ever releasing code to the community again.
No, on iOS Sonos requires actual location services, and precise must be turned on. Pairing a basic Bluetooth device does not require that. I went to Sonos tech support, escalated, and they confirmed you can't just bluetooth pair to activate the speakers. Once you've done that you can turn off the location services, but I feel like it's a blatant violation of my privacy. I returned $800 worth of speakers.
so, it was 99% based on dns hijack, but he says nothing about how it was done?
Microsoft Says Human Ingenuity Crucial to Red-Teaming
They didn't until very recently, at least if you don't live in the US or use a VPN. Always had to go to some alternative where they hadn't been DMCAd yet to get my celebrity jeopardy fix.
Pastor indicted for Christian-themed cryptocurrency pyramid scam
Maybe. I think in this case (woke mind virus) most geeks are cowards at heart, or at best want to avoid conflict, and are easily bullied into something. They end up becoming true believers soon after they come to realize they’re with the popular group for a change.
Call me when these type of indirect unfunded mandates ever succeed at squeezing blood out of the corpo stone, or when they don't end up entrenching the existing corpos.

Broadband is indeed a market failure in many places. The answer is to create direct competition in the form of municipal fiber, not to cheer on weasely half-baked approaches that just solidify the positions of the monopolist dinosaurs.
Serious professionals write their own plugins or keep a known good list, review plugins before installing them etc.
Line sharing / unbundling / open access, whatever you want to call it is the way for this to work. Ideally, separate companies for last mile access and IP transit.

Drop the customer traffic off somewhere in the region, and let 3rd party ISPs pick it up from there.
Gay marriage succeeded as a movement long before the issue of wokeness came to the fore (with the BLM movement). If you actually read the positions of the thought leaders of the latter movement (people like Ta-Nehisi Coates) the argument is exactly what liberal, white, and right-wing people are afraid of:

The Case for Reparations [1]

People are right to react with vigour to these sorts of large-scale redistribution plans. This is a design of the far-left in academia that has its roots in the communist movements of the early 20th century in Europe and Russia, whose worst excesses led to the deportation and execution of millions of Kulaks in the Soviet Union [2].

You might call this a slippery slope argument but the historical precedent was exactly that: a slippery slope where society slid all the way to the bottom. Once enough people have convinced themselves that it is good and right to use the political process to take property away from a group they consider to be their enemies, there is no limit to the amount of destruction they can achieve.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Reparations

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
The point made by pavlov is very real.

> The alternative is just a really really unlikely coincidence.

is untrue.

In my real world experience of several decade, in multiple countries, (AU, UK, US at the very least) it is commonplace for comany boards and public service departments to have multiple members with common traits, be that schools, debate clubs, sexual orientation, vacation habits, former employers, etc.

The networking effects that draw birds of feather together are clearly apparent once you actively look for them. Having several lesbians in senior management of a large organisation isn't particularly noteworthy and it doesn't follow that they would be bad at their job simply because they are lesbians.

YCombinator is littered with examples of socially incestuous startups ..
I think having it in the homepage title is fine. I do it for most sites I build for exactly this reason.

“HardBreak - Open-Source Hardware Hacking Wiki”

Looks fine as a title, and helps for embeds/sharing.
But I’m not saying “don’t care.”

I’m saying that if you screw up sometimes but generally have good intentions your kid is probably going to be fine.

But it is also your right to try to figure out the perfect thing to do in every situation.
What you've observed, quite accurately, is that our bar for emotional intelligence when it comes to corporate executives is the same that we expect from ten-year olds.
> Tax their profits and transfer it to the people. It's simpler, more visible, less unintended consequences

How is that simpler? I'm assuming by "transfer it to the people" you're talking about a subsidy paid out where the customer pays $15 and the municipality then pays the balance, but why should they? The data networks the ISP is paywalling access to were in large part already funded by the taxpayer. And besides-which, that doesn't put a cap on the price the ISP can charge at all, and in fact gives them a reliable avenue to now help themselves to either the pocket books of the people it's meant to be benefitting, or the state coffers, neither of which is a good solution.

And as to the market effects, I mean genuinely, have you ever purchased internet service? Because I have since I moved out of my parents house in the mid 10's, and I assure you as a sysadmin and pretty techy person, in that time, I needed ONE (1) service call to address an issue in their wiring, and apart from that, to my knowledge, I was basically 100% profit, minus whatever expenses go into maintaining the trunk, and my price went from about $70 per month to within shouting distance of $200 over the course of 3 years, and then stayed there for the subsequent four years, for pretty middle of the road service at half a gig down and about 35 MB up. So I guess by your logic, there must've been a hell of a lot going up further up the trunk to justify me paying ballpark $7,000 over those months.

Or, more likely, the CEO wanted another yacht.

Edit: This stuck in my craw so I googled a bit, and the biggest provider of fiber service in New York is Verizon FIOS, who posted a profit last year of EIGHTY. BILLION. DOLLARS. So you'll forgive me if I have doubts that even if we presume they're losing their shirts on this $15 per month program for qualifying low income folks on a per-address basis, that they're going to go under about it. I think they'll manage just fine.
and

-- the punch repeated three times

-- the pulled punch

-- the actors age inappropriate punch
were the 11% that were solved when the perp was a football player?
Celebrity jeopardy is one of their more popular sketches over the last 20 years and is exactly above it all affectation.
careful when doing that though!
i've seen some big eyes when people assumed IDs to be uniform randomly distributed and suddenly their "test group" was 15% instead of the intended 1%.
better generate a truely random value using your languages favorite crypto functions and be able to work with it without fear of busting production
I continue to be fascinated by "coded slurs" -the way people use labels like this to attack views they oppose. It feels like a shorthand, but also a way to attack the voice, not the message.

So "thats just PC|woke|SJW nonsense" is used, over time, to avoid having to address the point.

TBF it's also true "he's a fascist" is probably shorthand.
Isn’t the teachable moment to realize your kids are going to see those things no matter what I do? Kids on the internet see all sorts of stuff and almost all of them end up fine.
What an awesome machine. The shot at 10m27s is very cool: https://youtu.be/iSe1izplce0?t=10m27s
Americans are paying their food higher than they should because industrials are paying more for sugar because lobbyist paid money to politicians to get them to put tariff on sugar import.

So, basically American's money is going in the pocket of big corporation thanks to corrupt politicians.

And it's still going on to these days, no government has yet removed these tariffs.

Isn't tariff what started the American revolution ? Things changed.
Pretty much all of that is answered if you actually read the article.
>Are you suggesting that you think that disrespect is a better default behavior towards others than respect?

Not at all, disrespect is something that is earned as well. Personally I behave with courtesy towards all people until they give me a reason to do otherwise. There is a big difference between courtesy and respect. I will say "thank you", hold the door open when someone is coming in behind me, and otherwise treat anyone I don't know with decency and courtesy.

>there is a base level of respect that should be accorded to even our worst enemies.

We'll have to agree to disagree here! When someone has proven themselves to be worthless and not entitled to respect, I feel no obligation to them whatsoever.
Haha this is a brilliant comment. McAfee lived one hell of a life.
Assuming you're in the U.S., the FCC has adopted new broadband labeling transparency requirements meant to address exactly this sort of thing. They went into effect last year.

https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabels
> understand a little about what life is like in their shoes.

That's empathy which is a different concept than treating someone with respect.

> learning about a lot of kinds of people and their experiences.

Having knowledge of a breadth of different people's life experiences is also a different concept than respect. The author proposed "treating people with respect" as the minimal normative standard. You seem to be rejecting his proposal of "respect" as insufficient and instead are proposing an alternative which includes empathy and a "lifelong process" of gaining broad knowledge of different lived experiences.

While those are valid things to propose, you're suggesting a meaningfully different standard by expanding on what respect "sometimes means." It's worth highlighting because I interpreted the author's central argument on this point as being "treating people with respect" alone should be sufficient as the minimally acceptable standard. Whether I agree with the author's proposal or not, I understood it to explicitly exclude requiring anything beyond how we treat others.

While this may seem like a minor distinction, it strikes me as central because the concepts of feeling empathy and having a lifelong interest in acquiring cultural knowledge go to our internal thoughts and feelings, whereas the author's proposal limits itself to our external behavior - which I take to be his point.

It'd more useful if you'd been explicitly direct in your response, perhaps something like "Just treating people with respect is not sufficient. Instead, the minimal normative standard should be..." It would be clearer that you disagree substantially with the author and what you're proposing instead. It would also enable a more interesting discussion about whether society should limit itself to judging how we behave toward others vs going further to judging how we think and feel about others internally, regardless of our external behavior.
thanks for sharing. the loss of property rights is an aspect I hadn’t considered… would be great to brainstorm further with an actual lawyer on these topics
> Taken a step further, customer support probably has the best understanding of their markets' needs!

People working in customer support, from my experience, sort of see the anti-survivorship bias working in action. Not many people call up to say how well something works. I would agree with you though on good Salespeople (ones that do try to understand what customers need and all that, not necessarily ones that sell the most) knowing what the customer wants/needs.
Thanks for your recommendation! With Sonophone, my group of one Sonos Outside + 2 old Play:3 speakers now reacts almost instantly instead of waiting minutes for that group to be ready to be controlled. Awesome.
i imagine the thought process went "oh, indentation is much inferior to braces. i know, let me use the second worst option to braces."
> it does seem a reasonable assumption that "harassment" would outnumber the other crimes mentioned.

No it doesn't. The incident rates and under-reporting rates are all different.

Further: t's not the responsibility of the person you replied to, to provide evidence negating the original claim, which is completely unsupported and comes from someone who clearly has at best poor education on the subject and at worst is intentionally misrepresenting standards for what will be considered enough to take a report, much less investigate and attempt to prosecute.
Growing safer spuds: Removing toxins from potatoes
Some samples of misinformation at the highest levels. There are many more, here are some of the more recent ones:

False claims of beheaded babies, reports of babies burnt in ovens.

Even more nefarious , are the psyops influence campaigns (both against own citizens [1]) and against American's [2]

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-admits-psychological-warfa...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/israel-us-disinformation-us-lawm...
> The financial barrier is an excellent guardrail against bots and drive

This is Musk argument but it fails on 2 important ways.

1) You had to pay to set up a bot farm to get X ammount of engagement before. Now you can pay 1 subscription and have access to the same or more engagement. So the financial burden to peddle things like Shitcoins is ludricusly lower

2) The subscription system is built ON TOP OF the system that previously meant trust. A system that still means verified in other platforms. Essentially hijacking trust through payment, which means the people who were educated on its meaning, or know about checks from a different platform are now EXRA succeptible to bad actors.

> I don't see how you get to the idea that you can only pay for X if you are in some kind of financial elite, it's just normal subscription.

Its not that _you can only_ pay it if youre rich. But lets say you wanna promote a specific idea, like idk "CRT is taught to children", which was an idea cooked up in a think tank to try and push for home schooling and defunding public education under the guise of some weird stuff being taught in schools.

You can easily coordinate buying accounts, talk points and the amplified attention of the subscription means you have a massive leg up. Compared to the other side, who would need to figure out what your plan is, grassroots organise, find funds for all its members to pay the subscription and then reply, without talking points and much higher risk of fucking up the response.

By virtue of having a megaphone you can pay for, you disrupt in large part the network effect of social media, and instead of consistent high quality posters you embolden and benefit people willing to pay. Its like Pay 2 Win but the whales are grifters and assholes.

> "Verification" is all well and good for the mainstream but pretty meaningless for niche and new voices; and we saw the consequences of unaccountable moderation for free speech by those doing the verification.

Well the consequences were pretty negligeble compared to the alternatives. FB tried low moderation and got to support 2 genocides. New Twitter has allowed neo nazi groups to organise and platform themselves, it has allowed the Turkish goverment and Saudi to disrupt dissent at home while they carry on bombings of Kurds and Yemenis respetvely.

Or is Trump getting banned from breaking the TOS much worse than Zuck and Musk allowing the taliban, Isis and any dictator who calls them get their way?
> Free market proponents love to go about saying that growing food should be left to countries and regions who do it well (due to climate and infrastructure),

I think this is globalism rather than free market.
Yep, just the age-old trick of creating a problem and then selling an ineffective solution. Unbounded profit!