PH01

FYI. To the best of my knowledge these are the contents of the tweets in question. I leave it up to you to judge whether you think this is antisemitic or not. This is not content I have written and these are certainly not views I hold. However, I do think it is important to know and remember exactly what was said.

@breakingbaht

Okay.

Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.

I'm deeply disintereted in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much.

You want truth said to your face, there it is.

@elonmusk

You have said the actual truth.

Exactly the same "old school media" published an article today entitled "Elon Musk visits scene of kibbutz massacre with Benjamin Netanyahu". The article mentions Musks recent post as the reason for his visit. A key take away from the article is Benjamin Netanyahu saying of Musk:

“I hope you will be involved. And the fact that you came here, I think, speaks volumes to your commitment to try to secure a better future.”

That does not square in the slightest with doing anything they can to make him/them look bad. It presents Musk as a reasonable guy who received praise from the PM of Israel. The article is here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/elon-musk-visi...

> I feel for the people of Europe; they deserve better. So many of the smart, lovely people you meet here are stuck on absurdly low salaries in countries without any obvious future other than managed decline. Instead of being offered a future, they're offered endless relitigation of the past.

Most of the Europeans I know leave the US as soon as they have kids. Everyone seems to prefer managed decline rather than having their kids attend lessons on what to do if a man with a gun comes into school.

> Do you need someone to explain why comparisons like that are effectively useless?

> It’s so dishonest and cheap I’m surprised to see it on HN and not on Reddit where it belongs, but here we are.

The account was created to post that comment. Oddly enough similar things happen on Reddit when discussing this topic.

> The US has lied so many times it's not even funny. I assume Russia is lying as well. So I don't believe either side.

Is there a reason you created a HN account only to post this comment? Do you have a normal account that you didn't want to use?

Welcome to high end academic neuroscience. It's a place where banal, but completely rational explanations are to be ignored in favour of hyperbole and media hype. The study will have been designed to only allow for publishable results. Anyone who understands the hardware involved will certainly question how this "entrainment" was achieved.

There is at least one person with five incisors between their canines in the real face camp.

The SixthSense talk and the associated hype in 2009 was terrible. It was impossible to convince the majority that the cuts of demos in the TED talk were effectively choreographed set pieces, even though many scenes required tech which didn’t work like that.

The whole thing was hyped as “open” and liberating. Nothing was released until the hype died down (2011). What was released was not even close to the talk, it gained no traction and never iterated past v0.1.

SixthSense was a prime example of deliberate misinformation coming from academia. MIT Media Lab won a huge number of awards, Mistry was touted as a genius, and then absolutely nothing happened.

Agreed. The headline is fascinating the content is appalling.

PNAS reporting the shocking news that peoples heart rates tend to increase during the exciting part of a story and that an increased rate leads to higher correlation between subjects.

Edit: Without naming any author in particular - does anyone else spot a pattern whereby certain researchers consistently hype their findings to the point of borderline dishonesty?

If it proved that this was a lab leak and evidence suggests the lab leak was covered up there will be a seismic shift in international relations with China across the globe.

I would not call that irrelevant in the slightest.

There are plenty of people who feel and think the same.

Many people find it very difficult to understand that money is not always a motivator. This is a particularly difficult concept for managers to deal with.

If an employee is not motivated by additional remuneration, or in the case where they do not require an income, the relationship between employee and employer is fundamentally different.

> He is one of the most ethical people in the information security industry.

What does this statement actually mean? To my mind both cryptocurrency and cypherpunk culture have set some fairly low bars for ethical and moral conduct.

There appears to be a bit of a pattern of idolisation in crypto and cypher areas. A developer who fits the media mould of the 1995 Hackers film is spotlighted as saving the world. The spotlight brings attention and drives a project forward. Eventually the spotlight reveals these people have the same motivations as most people. Onlookers are disappointed.

What is your baseline for how good swipe typing is?

Pre-smartphone plenty of people touch typed text messages. No need to be staring at the screen. Stealth messages could be sent without taking the phone out of your pocket.

Physical keyboards probably appear to a significant section of people who would like to use their phone as a productivity device. Surely if swipe typing is so good it would be an option in Windows 10?

I agree on the price but I am still considering purchasing this phone.

The accused internet accounts are all linked via Keybase. The usernames and content go back as far as 2004. Lots of this information is already common knowledge in the UK because of previous scandals.

At what point do you acknowledge that her partner has been doxxed as a self-confessed paedophile? The alternative would involve an incredibly elaborate plot targetting a random US citizen years before he happened to meet the person involved.

Her partner posted content about being attracted to children as far back as 2015.

A five year setup followed by a Twitter hack seems incredibly unlikely.

Edit: The unique name used for her partners keybase account is associated with similar content posted in 2004. The evidence appears concrete that her partner is a self-confessed paedophile.

Is it acceptable to explain what happened on ycombinator or is the information banned here too? This is all documented on the Reddit admin concerneds Wikipedia page. It is relatively common knowledge in the UK.

Reddit hired an admin.

a) the admin's father is a convicted peadophile, he tortured a child in the house he shared with said admin.

b) the admin hired her father (post conviction) as her election agent.

c) the admin claimed not to know the full details of her fathers prosecution for torturing a child.

d) the admin was suspended from a UK political party after her partner tweeted peadophilic fantasies.

Is it not unsurprising that this created a disastrous situation for moderation and PR on Reddit? How on earth did Reddit not see this coming?

* Edit: Apologies the text should read post charge, pre convinction.

Was a long shot. I'm also searching for an obscure site I was almost certainly linked to from here.

Did the site have a video stream in the centre and a chat box below it? There were often streams of storms filmed from a beach front location?

Quite a lot simpler to seperate the mixed signals using a modern multi-electrode array.

So, to be clear, the signal of interest does not go above 1kHz.

Obviously if you want to sample a signal you have to use a higher frqeuency.

How are signals up to 10Khz generated? I thought the absolute refractory period of a neuronal action potential limits the rate at which they can fire.

What signals do you mean? Brain waves measured in EEG typically range from 0.5 Hz and above.

Doesn't reconstruction like this rely on the decoding mechanism being trained on the original images? This doesn't scale to reconstructing any visual image, only to differentiating between those the decoder has already seen.

It doubt very much that it reconstructs from the visual cortext. That is a non-trivial task with fMRI which has a much higher SNR than EEG.

Are we working on the same definition of rational? I am using what I consider to be the standard definition which would pop up from a google search:

"based on or in accordance with reason or logic" / "able to think sensibly or logically" / "endowed with the capacity to reason".

You made the claim that you do not believe people are rational. Following from this you would also have to believe that individual's actions are without reason. Consequently, any perceived reason or logic, either by the actor or an observer, would actually be a post-hoc explanation for action. From a behavioural persective cause and effect would no longer exist, nothing could be predicted and nothing could be planned.

This is entirely at odds with what we know about post-truth. Individual behaviour can be modelled and population behaviour can be predicted to a degree.

Irrational actions do not imply irrationality. An irrational action is usually a consequence of rational thinking based on incorrect information.

You claim:

> Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.

You also state:

> But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract.

Do you not see the contradiction in these two terms? The creation of formal proofs implies rationality. The comprehension of formal proofs implies rationality. If people are only born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment and keeping harmony who wrote the formal proofs?

> Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth".

Did you read the article?

> Here, “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed by less important matters like ideology

It does not imply a golden age of rationality at all.

> In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side.

This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false.

If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?

To be frank, I take issue with manifold and polyglot because both come across as unnecessarily pretentious use of english. The secondary problem is that I looked in two places to find 'what' the project is. Instead of finding information I found adjectives which can convey an intention to impress, this can easily give a negative first impression.

With no context the sentence 'truly manifold long-term project devoted to ...' is meaningless to me, because I don't know if we share common definitions of four highly subjective terms: 'truly', 'manifold', 'long-term' and 'project'. On first impression this does not come across as a singular 'project' in the way I would define one. Consequently, as a first time reader a get confused.

In contrast to the site, your description in this thread 'thi.ng is definitely not a framework - it is a collection of ...' makes immediate sense. Here you expressed the essential information in a 20 word sentence. On the site the same thing is expressed in a meandering 40 word sentence.

If you read the comments in this thread it's clear that there are readers who haven't understood from the submission title or from the landing page what thi.ng is. When I read the word 'computational design' I don't immediately think of 'parametric design', 'algorithmic design', 'generative design'. Instead, I have to use google and read around. The landing page itself describes thi.ng as 'a truly manifold long-term project devoted to Computational Design'; again I'm a bit stumped, what does the author mean by manifold in this context? Go to the github page and the title reads 'Polyglot computational design tools', are we calling ourselves Polyglots now? Seriously?

That's usually about as far as I get before I conclude that I don't care enough. To my mind those are all flags which indicate that it's probably not something I want to engage with.

Not to cast aspersions but a big part of the homelab "scene" appears to be aesthetics. If you look at Reddit's /r/homelab/ the majority of the top posts over the past year are about how things look. Variations of "wife acceptance factor" are a regular topic of conversation.