michannne

This comment highlights how ridiculously politicized HN has become. Just an hour ago this post was downvoted, and somehow has been upvoted despite not adding anything to the discussion

>You know what's even more toxic? Literal Nazis and fascists, the ranks of which have been, if not growing, then clearly emboldened.

What does the word literal even mean at this point? What is fascism to you? What is Nazism to you?

>This group "feels oppressed" because they are not able to exert their will to oppress others.

How is this sentence even appearing on a thread about an app getting removed because they refused to force more stringent moderation onto their users?

I agree with @pxtail that these companies will hopefully get what's coming to them. But on another note, their flagrant behavior only highlights the immense power that old media had before the Internet became as big as it is today. Just as in the past, media companies hold massive sway over the opinions of regular folk, and in all this time the law has not evolved to challenge that power in any way.

The thing I dislike most about Trump's presidency is that it shone a spotlight so bright on DC that lawmakers and politicians that no one would have cared for otherwise have become celebrities, which doesn't bode well for the future, as any organization that controls the mediums these celebrities use to gain followers and boost their platform holds power over them.

It is Facebook that gets to decide whether or not you will even get a chance at getting elected, it is Twitter that gets to decide if you even exist outside of your local city, it is Amazon that gets to decide if you even get a website to host your platform. Obviously these aren't the only ones but you see the point I'm trying to make, which is that politics have become a televised drama, and these tech companies are the Executive Producers.

It boils down to this. Left or right is irrelevant, these companies will remove you if you say something they don't want you to say, there's no additional complexity that needs to be analyzed. Any judgement that one needs to make on how to feel about the censoring they do can be made on that simple rule alone. I'm amazed the discussions about censorship have been muddied to this extent where even the past relationships of people have been scrutinized to determine if they were deserving enough of a ban. None of that matters - did you say something they did not want specifically _you_ (the individual) to say at this time? Then they will decide to ban/suspend/remove you. Now how you feel about that is how you feel but there's no reason to even think "Well they let this person say this!", because these companies are not in the business of free speech. They can turn on a dime tomorrow and start banning Antifa members left and right and it still wouldn't change their bottom line.

>You can think of it as people waking up to offenses that have been allowed to go unchallenged for way too fucking long

"People" is a general term, "offense" is a relative term. What you may consider an offense, I might consider a complement. Additionally, what you consider an offense today, you might not do so tomorrow. There is no such thing as a static set of provisions that can handle all cases of immorality across all of time and satisfy all people.

>The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance

The price of freedom is nothing, the price of consequence is eternal vigilance. The only reason you would need to be alerted if someone commits an offense you deem immoral, is so that they can be punished for the offense. You can't reverse an act that someone committed, but sure if you have constant oversight of their actions you can definitely punish them as you see fit. Law is synonymous with punishment, but it is punishment that applies universally to all parties, as opposed to the Terms of Service applied by modern corporations, which (by design) can be applied to whomever and can be ignored for whomever the corporation feels like. Hence why it's a slippery slope.

I don't see why this would be related. What is the difference if this was enacted in a Trump presidency vs a Biden presidency?

Humans spent thousands of years telling stories orally, we didnt even have a written language for much of our existence, yet our memories have been working pretty well these past few millenia

This is not about registration, it is the replacement feature that can cause a ballot that has not yet been successfully validated to be invalidated.

I'll clarify: using name and DOB allows you to see voter information. This is relatively benign as it is public information. However the site also has the option to request a replacement ballot. When requesting a replacement, the website mentions that if a previous mail-in ballot has not yet been successfully validated, it will be cancelled.

My aim is not to spread disinformation here. I have hidden the thread until a reputable source can confirm further as there may be other details I'm missing. This is not about changing votes, but the replacement of a ballot that can be initiated using very little information, and can cause a person's mail-in ballot to be invalidated.

The tweet is wrong yes, but my main point was the fact that requesting a replacement ballot invalidates the previous sent ballot.

Yeah, I shouldn't have jumped on the tweet, but I was able to verify on the website itself that it does notify that an existing ballot would be canceled when requesting a replacement.

I've no intention of creating undue panic.

I've hidden the thread and will delete it tomorrow likely.

"But keep spreading misinformation"

I've nothing to gain spreading misinformation. As I've said I've hidden the thread until a reputable news org is able to report on this.

When requesting a replacement. I have hidden the thread until the story is confirmed by a reputable news org

If you head to the website and put your name and DOB, the cancellation of your ballot after requesting a replacement is mentioned at the bottom of the page

I'll add that anyone can request a replacement, and the cancellation is effective immediately

The tweet does imply voting, but cancelling is possible, this is just the most visible tweet as of right now

Ive updated the title to reflect this

I would like to add that so far, the information suggests that anyone in Washington (known to use a similar system) receiving a mail-in ballot can have their mail-in ballot cancelled by a stranger on the internet before it arrives.

I will update the link and title as additional information comes in.

EDIT: California requires SSN, so it is not as susceptible

EDIT: Oregon requires further steps, is not susceptible, there has not been any confirmation on Washington and I cannot test that myself

We live in a country where we have elected officials and laws to deal with individuals and organizations that undermine our democracy. I don't need some random collective of people headquarted in a random state to decide those things for me.

There's no need to qualify that with "many authoritarian or the like use". There's no way to know whether or not PRISM has had any impact. Even if the program were to stop today, if everything remained the same, you could still argue that the effects of the program were so great that they've essentially collapsed the US-targeted terrorist attack industry, possibly forever.

The only real discussion that can take place is whether or not the potential safety afforded by the surveillance is worth the real erosion of freedoms. Those in favor of the surveillance are winning that discussion where it matters, whether its through emotional appeal, fearmongering, corruption or whatever. Its a totally opinionated case at this point, which even the ballot box wouldn't help as you'd just be shifting the onus of persuasion from the military leaders to the American people, who definitely don't know enough of what's happening overseas to make a reasonably informed decision.

Its the most complex issue voters would be straddled with, everything pales in comparison.

IME, once you get your foot in the door (in any career, not just software), side projects, hobbies and such become irrelevant to securing a job compared to real world experience. All that really matters in the initial stages of career progression is to prove to potential employers that you can do whatever work they may ask you to do. I think some employers do like to see initiative, but that can be conveyed during an interview, you don't necessarily need a starred out Git repo to demonstrate you are passionate about software, and of course, a Git project is not enough to show employers you are passionate about software.

Has anyone ever even used Zoom to connect with family members?

Because IMGUIs are designed to be procedural, making it easy to couple changes in UI with changes in control flow. Requiring an ID for every widget would get really annoying really fast, considering IDs would become voided pretty often. The default is no IDs, leave the ID assignment up to the developer who knows if and when an ID would be stable

You can wrap tools like Dear ImGui and Nuklear into a reactive framework that handles state management and IDs and such and presents an API with a declarative interface a la React, but at that point you're pretty much building your own UI engine and just passing rendering on to those tools, which is not simple to architect.

Is this a joke?

You do realize VSCode is open-source?

I believe it did, in addition to mega-textures in video games.

What I am hoping for, and been hoping for a while, is for game engines to start integrating AI into workflows. There are some tools out there that do leverage machine learning to some extent, but what I would love to see are tools for instance that can take a video shot of an actor and then infer the bone structure a decent degree and transfer that animation into the model. Or a tool that allows style transfer of an image onto a 3D model so we can have realistically dynamic brush tools for environments, also integrating Face generation GANs onto models to reduce sculpting effort. Not to mention tools that can dynamically and infinitely scale 3D models based on material information.

I know some tools exist that can do some of these things at an okay degree, but it can be taken even further.

Truly the power of AI in video game tooling has yet to be unlocked, but I believe video games as a medium is in the position of being able to push for practical applications of new and exciting research, second only to CGI films. It's exciting what's in store for the future and I'm sure Carmack can appreciate the kind of breakthroughs that Microsoft would be able to foster

How about we look at that quote with a bit of nuance?

I think most of the players playing Grand Strategy are veteran players who have been playing since the early Civs. I think Meier's point is that if grand strategy wasn't already an established genre then he wouldn't be able to make Civ today

Sometimes I genuinely forget that these aren't exactly recognized glyphs these days.

You put a lot of weight on your morals and work ethic but my point is that those mean nothing to me. I don't care how hard you work to get the job done. Once you're salaried, how efficiently you perform your job is up to you, and what action I take when you don't meet the pace I expect is up to me. When I manage a team, I encourage those on my team to bring up any obstructions or changes they'd want to see to improve the efficiency of their work - past that I don't care as long as they understand the timelines we are working under and if everything is on time, why would I add undue stress to my team?

If timelines become tighter, at that point, and only at that point, would I crack down on efficiency.

>Thought experiment: ask yourself whether you'd hire someone advertising my work ethic or yours, if all other aspects are equal between the candidates.

That's like asking all else being equal, would I hire the person who wore Air Force 1s to the interview or the person who wore chelsea boots. That has nothing to do with your performance of your job and any distinction on that matter is personal preference. The only thing that is important is are you getting the job done on the pace it needs to get done.

At this point you seem like you'd discriminate your employees based on which IDE they were using. If they produced good work, would you care that the most productive person on your team was using Notepad++ to do their job?

The goal of work is to intentionally decrease the amount of work you have to do to achieve the same tasks. Why pay you when I can find a person who will do the same work you do in less time?

I think what you're arguing is that employees should always have some work to do, which simply won't be the case in every industry

It depends on the work you are doing and how good your team is at managing what needs to get done. We know who our clients are, what features they want, and how to think about adding those features in. That's pretty much all you need to focus on when it comes to software. We make sure to bring in and keep those who understand those core facets of the business and understand what should be a priority and what shouldn't.

In startups that become stressful, the main problem I have seen is an ungrounded management team that doesn't quite know what they want the business to look like in 5 years, so every other week - surprise! We've got a new client and they want X, Y and Z by tomorrow, so get working! - that never results in low-stress work.

I honestly doubt any one who says that they are productive for 40 full hours a week, or even 6 hours per day. There's a lot of downtime that employees usually do not notice from a first person perspective. Even still, the goal of IT is first and foremost to empower business goals through technology, one of the main aspects of that is increasing workflow efficiency and throughput of the rest of the business processes - in other words, make good software so the rest of the business doesn't have to work so hard.

I have definitely met workers who I've given a task and they produce sub-average work and, when confronted, give me the spiel about they worked "so many hours on this" and how could I "invalidate the time they spent".

At the end of the day, as long as you are doing the job at the pace I need you to be doing the job, then I don't care if you did it in 1 hour or 8 hours. If you want more work, ask, and if you're spending too much time on a task, then there is a communication problem as a team member should have caught that you were on the wrong track.

In my experience, focusing on hours worked has never produced quality work.