Kaveren

I don't know why that expression is being taken literally. Obviously if you make terroristic threats to the US government you're going to be in trouble no matter where you post. Obviously the context is given by the original submission.

The point is that the attitude I was responding to is extremely entitled. You're not entitled to use Facebook. You're not entitled to post about abortion without a fact check from Facebook, that is up to them. If you don't like it, leave Facebook.

I'm tired of the public square narrative, as if Facebook is the only forum for discussion on the Internet. If Facebook blocks my speech, I can talk about it on Twitter, or Hacker News, or Gab or chan boards (using these as an example), or my own website, or any other number of places for discussion.

Facebook is a private company.

if you want a social network where you can say whatever you want without interference go use gab or 4chan. it's facebook's choice whether or not they want to do this.

edit: "whatever you want" supposed to be figure of speech, seemingly this must be pointed out.

It's such a sheltered attitude I see on HN where people talk about just ignoring the news, when you know that you don't have to worry about anything bad happening to you. It's a civic responsibility in a democracy to be informed. Even if you can't influence much with one particular vote depending on where you live, your voice can do a lot (see the NRA).

There's people dying in Yemen from a war that the US is supporting. There are serious debates occurring about the future of the economy which will have massive repercussions. Climate change poses a threat to the stability of civilization. We're coming to a crossroads with government surveillance issues.

It is deeply annoying when I see that people just tune out. You don't need to obsess over the latest 24 hour news cycle, but it's important not to be a personal isolationist for the good of society.

It's a bit of a black box, but how do you get around this? Is it a matter of domain age? IP trustworthiness? Or do a lot of people have to categorize it as "Not spam" first?

Are you using IPv6 or IPv4 to send the emails? DigitalOcean apparently blocks port 25 outbound IPv6 access because whole ranges are getting blocked.

They will not literally die but they will not be healthy at all, many of them will likely live less than non-vegans. It is a dangerous lifestyle motivated by poor reasoning.

I can't understand how people enjoy this fake food. It just can't match the original taste. This sort of food is extremely unhealthy, and vegans will never be able to get the protein they need to survive. We should not encourage the appeasing of certain niche markets, the radicals must be made to realize that normal KFC is just a fact of life.

no, though that may constitute fraud depending on the jurisdiction. this is why some VPNs are based in certain countries, such as ProtonVPN in Switzerland. obviously they have to comply with a valid legal request, but depending on the data retention laws in the jurisdiction, there may be nothing to give over.

some VPNs definitely lie about logging, maybe most of them. ProtonVPN is one of the least likely ones to do so given their transparency relative to other VPN companies, their ProtonMail service, their infrastructure, and their founder.

upstream logging is still possible, and protonvpn is the only VPN service I know of with any of its own infrastructure. it has one datacenter in switzerland and you can use it as a proxy to some of its third party operated endpoints in other countries.

Maybe gets doesn't need to be banned because it got removed in C11 and at least gcc issues a warning on use.

Cars don't change how humans run. Computer chess does change how humans play. While yes, the interesting part is watching humans play humans, the concern is that computers will influence players, be it in chess or competitive videogames, into less interesting play. I think that's a real concern as artificial intelligence improves, though right now I don't think it's a problem.

A new study of 5,000 students shows no material impact from growth mindset. [0]

It's just feel good science.

[0] https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-growth-mindset-lessons-ha...

I don't expect attempts at solutions like these to be brought up, and I don't think a session like this is necessary to bring forward an attempt like that. What can the owner of 8chan provide as useful information about this? The relevant legal procedures for violent speech are already known to Congress.

> "The bill could create a bipartisan commission of experts tasked with drawing up recommendations to deal with the "intersection of homeland security and social media," a committee spokesperson told The Hill."

This is just going to be political theater. Everyone already knows that unmoderated anonymous boards are cesspools of hate, the obvious recommendation is to do moderation. The government can't infringe on free speech, so this is a waste of time. What are you hoping to get out of him?

Only way this turns out to be substantive is if it leads to a push from the Democrats toward a constitutional amendment in regards to hate speech, which I could see happening.

And yet there are so many more people who came from as fortunate or more fortunate means, including those who went into mathematics, but are not as talented as them.

Michael Phelps is not just a product of luck, either. You could train your entire life and not be as good a swimmer as him. You'd have to redefine luck to include genetics.

I don't know how you can possibly believe this. Do you really believe that Terry Tao got lucky, and just worked way harder than everyone else? Same can be applied to business executives.

It is completely possible to be worth 1,000x more than the average worker in your company. Just because many (if not most) CEOs don't deserve this doesn't at all, does not mean that you can definitively say that nobody does.

Really awful rhetoric (from anti-capitalists) I hear is that nobody works 1,000x times as long or as hard as the average worker. Value is not manifested in how long or how hard you work.

I think it's part of a wider worldview that doesn't believe that talent is very impactful, and in favor of cooperation rather than competition.

when I say that it should be taken to mean "you don't (and are not entitled to)". there are a few bad actors who are persistent and tools like shadow banning are very helpful with that, saying that socialism is awful isn't going to get you shadow banned.

you don't have a right not to be shadow banned. it's the best solution to many problems with trolls who will keep coming back on new accounts, with new IP addresses and so on. it's really hard to get shadow banned most places, you have to earn it.

also you don't have a right not to be censored by private companies.

Political discussion happens all the time on Hacker News, but you don't see many mass shooters from HN. Culture of the online communities matters a lot (and moderation). I don't think chans create gunmen per se, but they assist to radicalize antisocial young men.

I don't think anything is gained from political discussion on *chans. Free speech is important, and no company should be legally punished for providing these spaces, but that doesn't mean discouraging them from existing is wrong.

Political *chan culture drives mass shootings in the first place by radicalizing antisocial people more. You'd likely have fewer mass shootings you'd need early warning about in the first place.

The source of the mental health issues caused by social media is toxicity, competition for status, and false perceptions of how good other people's lives are. I don't believe stopping people from seeing more by clicking a continue button is going to help with the core issue.

This is from the same man who blames human trafficking on the sexual revolution. [0] Conservatives hate Big Tech because of liberal bias (real or perceived). It's simply another unnecessary authoritarian measure.

[0] https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the...

A lot of that can likely be attributed to increased public awareness of the dangers of smoking.

And this will solve it how? All it does is create the awful user experience of having to manually tap continue. If, instead, the law prevented scrolling past a certain limit (which would be very stupid indeed, but this is just a hypothetical), users would simply switch to the next social media app.

That's not because of infinite scrolling and autoplay.

I dislike when people use adages like these (___'s law). They rarely add anything to the conversation and I think a lot of confirmation bias is involved. Moore's Law is an exception to this because it's actually falsifiable and less of an adage.

You don't need to spend 10 years to become a fantastic programmer. Many people are clueless when it comes to how to learn things (this is why the question "how do I learn X" is so popular even when it has been answered many times before).

Quickly identify the best resources to begin with for whatever topic, which is very easy to do, and work through them. This will get you much more value per time spent than opting for the easier "get rich quick option". For the C++ example, this is the difference between the learning C++ in 24 hours book, and The C++ Programming Language.

I think someone dedicated and mildly intelligent could become very good at programming within two to three years, and outdo the vast majority of programmers with 10+ years of experience.

It's not a bad thing to want to go fast, which is why I disagree with the premise of the article. Just make sure you go as fast as possible without sacrificing quality of learning.

Ok but that's a terrible definition of talent because that's not what talent is. Inherent ability is much more important than people like to admit to themselves or others. The 10,000 hours thing is also a myth.

Creating companies should be as frictionless as possible. You shouldn't need to provide much information at all, and it should be extremely cheap. Some states do this pretty well, others not so much.

I'd rather a library card take almost no information as well, but you could run into issues with stealing, so it makes sense that it would take more.

I imagine you could make a convincing counterargument that Big Tech has done plenty of great things for developers at large. We could look to the historical example of Bell Labs under the ownership of AT&T, which brought us the C programming language. Today we could look to examples like Google's Material Design, the Go and Dart programming languages, or Facebook's stewardship of React.

You can take the cynical view that people at Google are just trying to get people to click on things, which, true, is their primary business model. But you can equally say that employees of Google (who work on Search) are trying to provide a good search experience to everyone around the world for free.

Tangentially, for Amazon, they deliver some of the best customer experience I've seen. I can start a Live Chat session at 3 AM (with a human) when I have a problem. It's not just getting people to buy crap.