gormo2

Very interesting to see this at the top of HN literally just after reading "Human Capital: a Horror Story"

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/27/human-capital-a-horror-st...

Online dating seems to be a perennial problem, like a note-taking or "todo app" that attracts many different approaches from startups, but whose end result never quite scratches the itch (for me, at least).

a bit offtopic, but have any HN users successfully used dating websites in the past 2-3 years to find long-term partners or spouses? If so, which did you use and do you feel the site/app helped facilitate that process, or was it more of luck that it worked out?

Can someone use this if they espouse "white nationalist"-adjacent beliefs (such as building a border wall and deporting illegal immigrants)? What does it mean if they can or cannot?

>They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry.

Somehow saying "yes, these multinational corporation could exert undue influence over a political system, but they just wouldn't" does not seem sufficient. I feel that such an attitude is like saying "The US government would not spy on its on citizens -- they wouldn't do that, just imagine the public outcry!" Perhaps that is a bad analogy, but the issue here is that we are nearing the point where "oh, they wouldn't do such a thing" becomes untenable.

The CFO of Google said, in the leaked video[1] of the TGIF immediately following Trump's election, that they would use "the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values." Going by the reactions of everyone in that meeting, their efforts are certainly not impartial or apolitical.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRf9UxsM-NE

FUDing BTC and shilling Ripple? Why the *heck is this #5 on the front of HN? Come on.

Boomers are worse, a thousand-fold worse. I doubt there has ever been a generation more destructive, hypocritical, or self-unaware... I pray there is never another.

Ajit Pai did nothing wrong and shouldn't be attacked with as much personal vitriol as we're seeing.

To waka or not to waka That is the question

Nice comment. How does that relate to the SMA visualizations discussed in the article?

Author order matters for AI/ML papers, which this one is

All the more reason tech companies should take a stand against any kind of censorship, especially along political lines (be it left/right/whatever)

The fact you just call them "Muslims" speaks volumes about you and your beliefs. Educate yourself #notallmuslims

There is nothing inherently bigoted about Islam or Muslims. Neo-Nazism however...

If recent events have shown anything, it is that we need to do a lot MORE to stop neo-Nazism. I'm not saying doxx all neo-Nazis and whites, supremacists. But we need to name them. Make them known.

Don't support their businesses. Don't let them have domains or websites. Kick them off Google platforms, Facebook, even OKCupid. All private companies need to take action now and make sure none of them can use the internet to spread their hate, or really use any service.

I think it is time to organize contacting car dealerships working next to deny selling any automobiles to them. Eventually we can get the DMV to deny licenses to these dangerous individuals, or at least put them on a registry so the feds can check in on them.

>women are inherently less capable of being good engineers

The memo never argued that, no one defending it argues that. I urge you to read the original document.

What was the inspiration for the dinner that kicked off OpenAI? What made you invite Greg to it?

Made this comment in the other (flagged) thread. Here goes:

I agree it was not nefarious, but it was a decision that shows unbelievably poor judgement, especially for a CEO. I'd be surprised if he keeps his position. He's undermined his fundamental role as the leader of one of the biggest social media sites by violating the trust that users put into the site's administration.

The context as I understand it involves some ravenous hordes of conspiracy-theory redditors promulgating fake news stories and doxxing innocent people. However, by changing the text of these users comments, whatever their actions, and by admitting to it, Steve has opened the floodgates. Now there is no question -- in the minds of these users -- that the site is truly "against them" and willing to not only censor them but to rewrite history as they see it. They can no longer trust anything they read on the site.

But what is worse is the effect and message this sends to normal users. How can, for instance, any person safely participate in an AMA now? When the real possibility exists to have their words changed out from under them, and no way to prove they aren't in fact the author? And from that, why would anyone post anything potentially personally identifiable, if (in their mind) some disgruntled admin could modify what they said to include false yet humiliating or criminal things (e.g., throw in racial epithets, link to porn, admit adultery / drug use) that might eventually link back to them. And how far does this go? Can admins send PMs under the name of other users? What else? To me at least, the scary thing is that Reddit posts that only obliquely reference personal information have already been used as the basis for surveillance and legal action [1]...

And taking one final step back, from a business side this drama goes beyond just being unprofessional. Reddit posts are now often linked to from news articles. How can the media trust the source they link to? If the content of posts are 'up for grabs' to be edited by admins in the minds of users and the media (even if they aren't in reality), then one of Reddit's functions that is growing in importance -- that is, news-making -- may be stymied.

Harming trust is extremely dangerous for social platforms. And when it is the CEO themselves doing the harm, it could very well border on being suicidal for the site.

[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/58hae4/what_is_a_...

I agree it was not nefarious, but it was a decision that shows unbelievably poor judgement, especially for a CEO. I'd be surprised if he keeps his position. He's undermined his fundamental role as the leader of one of the biggest social media sites by violating the trust that users put into the site's administration.

The context as I understand it involves some ravenous hordes of conspiracy-theory redditors promulgating fake news stories and doxxing innocent people. However, by changing the text of these users comments, whatever their actions, and by admitting to it, Steve has opened the floodgates. Now there is no question -- in the minds of these users -- that the site is truly "against them" and willing to not only censor them but to rewrite history as they see it. They can no longer trust anything they read on the site.

But what is worse is the effect and message this sends to normal users. How can, for instance, any person safely participate in an AMA now? When the real possibility exists to have their words changed out from under them, and no way to prove they aren't in fact the author? And from that, why would anyone post anything potentially personally identifiable, if (in their mind) some disgruntled admin could modify what they said to include false yet humiliating or criminal things (e.g., throw in racial epithets, link to porn, admit adultery / drug use) that might eventually link back to them. And how far does this go? Can admins send PMs under the name of other users? What else? To me at least, the scary thing is that Reddit posts that only obliquely reference personal information have already been used as the basis for surveillance and legal action [1]...

And taking one final step back, from a business side this drama goes beyond just being unprofessional. Reddit posts are now often linked to from news articles. How can the media trust the source they link to? If the content of posts are 'up for grabs' to be edited by admins in the minds of users and the media (even if they aren't in reality), then one of Reddit's functions that is growing in importance -- that is, news-making -- may be stymied.

Harming trust is extremely dangerous for social platforms. And when it is the CEO themselves doing the harm, it could very well border on being suicidal for the site.

[1] https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/58hae4/what_is_a_...

An intelligence that exists in the physical laws of the universe? Well that's not novel or science fiction, it's been posited by thinkers for thousands of years and is commonly referred to as "God"

>Are they using something different now?

Yes, why else do you think we've had such breakthroughs in the past six years?

Difference in this case is there's actually evidence rather than hearsay.

>But despite the rising prominence of Russian hackers in this news cycle — and Chinese hackers before that — it's worth pointing out that the United States has grown fairly proficient in cyberspace, too.

How am I not surprised that in an article about US espionage the American s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ media makes sure to remind yet again us how bad, bad, bad the Russians are.

It became a national security issue when the Republican candidate called on a foreign power to influence the election.

>And the article lists various reasons why none of those would likely apply to her.

I guess we have different definitions of "likely" since the only reasons given are:

(1) Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

(2) She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did.

(3) "If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything," a former top government lawyer told me.

Like I said, those are hardly unbiased or definitive assessments. Clinton and her aides have every reason to say that there was no wrongdoing. The government lawyer quoted even says "If" acknowledging that it is an assumption. As for the IG report, if it had said the violation was minor and mostly because of regulations implemented only after she left office, which had been claimed before, then it would be looking really good for her. As it stands, there is still an FBI investigation looming.

That's not as bad as Colin Powell, who used AOL while serving as Secretary of State.

And of course it also was hacked by, you guessed it, Guccifer.

It's quite possible the law discussed in that article was broken. The author lists the three cases of relevance: (1) whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system, (2) did she willfully communicate classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it, and (3) did she remove classified information with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. None of those are settled yet. The headline that "Hillary Clinton didn't break the law" is an opinion, not settled. The author is only citing what Clinton's aides and one government lawyer have said -- those are far from unbiased or conclusive. And after the state department IG's report from yesterday, it is pretty clear the violation was intentional.

They wouldn't give her the fancy mobile device that she wanted. They offered alternatives. She just wanted a Blackberry.

Actually "Shit HN Says" has been around for a long time.

I still see gold tint to that image, and it is far from black, which I verified by opening the color in photoshop.

And I'm confused about your point about the camera white balance. It doesn't matter what is causing the "gold tint" only that I am seeing it and others vehemently claim they see no gold tint. The point is there is a perception difference that is not being accounted for. I mean, I understand how the shoddy white balance makes what in reality is black fabric shift gold/orange in a photo, but objectively in the original photograph the bands of fabric are not black or gray but a muddy gold color, so I do not understand how anyone sees it as black.