bxk1

It's not that harsh. He wrote some good things in the past, but his recent essays are very simple minded and anti-scientific. You can't categorize people like you are in a middle school and be taken seriously, human behavior is very complex, no one can be "conventional- or independent-minded", it's always both simultaneously or rather neither, as those ideas don't describe human behavior even to a slightest degree. I get that in the US people are used to the idea of classifying everyone into simple buckets, given how political propaganda there divides people into classes, like democrats and republicans, etc., so pg is comfortable with such idea, but it doesn't make it less of a nonsense.

Chomsky did a lot of work to show that it's not optimizing for profits or some subconscious biases of people influencing press, but very deliberate power structure pushing specific censorship, propaganda, it's all very conscious effort. Private ownership here helps a lot of course, not because of profits, but because owners are able to push policies and narratives top down.

The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings. On some issues it can be extremely difficult to find good faith arguments and evidence on each side of the issue.

"Good faith", "bad faith" labeling is not logical, it's more of an attempt to apply morality and ideology to reasoning to reject something based on your own preferred beliefs and feelings. Similarly illogical is evaluating evidence "from each side", this is not how to evaluate anything, there needs to be some base rate to compare the evidence to and all the evidence has to be compared, not just something cherry picked from each side, and not just evidence, known unknowns and unknown unknowns have to be considered too, and so on. It's way more complicated than people want it to be.

And it's very hard to have good logical arguments not full of fallacies. You will certainly never see them in mass media, as mass media needs to influence your opinion, not provide background for making a good decision.

Daniel Kahneman in his Thinking fast and slow book wrote plenty on reasoning, check it out if you haven't, it'll open your eyes on reasoning (I know the book had some crucial things wrong for his theory, but a lot of things throughout the book are still ok).

Right now there are people running around saying that COVID is as deadly as the flu

COVID is as deadly as flu. Some people just underestimate flu, as if it's something not dangerous.

that the pandemic was faked

Technically all pandemics are faked, because what is and isn't pandemic is more or less an arbitrary decision made by some official purely for propaganda and obedience reasons. It doesn't actually matter if it's called pandemic or not.

how the rejection of evidence and conspiracy-theorizing are harmful

Evidence based reasoning is not much different from superstition, it could be just as harmful as rejecting evidence to whatever you think rejecting evidence is harmful. To illustrate how faulty that reasoning is, here you are rejecting evidence that there was a literal conspiracy against general population with some officials and institutions telling people that masks don't work, an evidence they are liars, but somehow you don't want to consider that evidence in your evidence-based reasoning and suggest that others should not reject evidence from liars.

Of course you can't just accept evidence if you want something more than a superstition level decision making. For that you need to actually think and calculate, with all those base rates and probabilities, use something like bayesian reasoning or whatever, do some science. Even just quickly estimating this is still better than "accepting evidence".

For anyone else wondering why they use ZeroSSL as a fallback:

"Caddy has been acquired by the company behind ZeroSSL"

does Parallels fall into the category of software that runs poorly on the new M1 chipset?

It does for most use cases where you want to run images meant for different CPU architectures, like amd64. It shouldn't if you want to run something meant for the same CPU architecture, which isn't going to be a thing for a long long time.

For plenty of applications the whole purpose is not to run "a normal browser" and possibly not even have it installed.

This is pretty much the current step already, not the next step, with broad ban on anything that isn't a lot like Chrome and anything that they simply don't want to allow. In the last thread the narrative was hijacked with bullshit "security" justification, while in the blog post they ban much more broadly, any automation, text-based browsers, etc.

Insisting on getting paid for work is very different from insisting on owning a scarce resource in order to force others to pay you for it as much as you can squeeze from them. They are moral opposites, one is about not being exploited too much as an individual and other is about exploiting everyone.

This is pretty backwards in spirit. If you own the code, there is no reason to let any corporation use you like that. Just change the license to something anti-corporate if you started with too permissive one, it'll make it apply to all the new commits and force such corporations to pay for commercial license or stop using it. If you think they are willing to hire you to work on your project, they are even more willing to just pay for it.

The problem with your arguments is that they are full of assumptions of things that you say are good for society and humanity, while we don't actually have a scientific understanding of what the humanity is for to even be able to decide what is good or not to get there. Which, of course, makes all the arguments imply a power in someone's hands to decide what is "good" for humanity and society or what they are for as long as it's not "primitive dopamine hit engagement driven advertising", but someone more aligned with your ideals. I hope you can see how this is not much different from somebody else you don't align with having that power.

It's not that simple. Xenophobic content, for example, is "unchecked" on any U.S. owned platform, so is some racism, but not racism against black people specifically. At the same time in most other countries in the world racism, and especially racism against black people, isn't even a thing, but xenophobia is. So it's very unlikely for someone to truly sincerely be both against racist content and xenophobic content at the same time and even more unlikely to also sincerely be against censorship, then it's getting into very dystopian views territory, you can't hold such views without being exposed to massive amounts of propaganda.

These things could easily end up in ECHR, because a "fascist", just like an "idiot", could be considered an opinion, judgement, not a fact and so it cannot be false, unless it means something very specific in Austria.

if we agree that denial is worse for society but currently better for the guilty, what can we do to change that

Why is it worse for society? Guilt is already an emotion that exists for society, not for self-interest, it relies on morals, which all are learned through other people. If people are leaning more towards denial, it means that the cost for an individual to do something immoral is already too high, doesn't leave much room for mistakes that people inevitably make from time to time, so more people denying might be a natural feedback loop to make more space.

They basically do account downweighting for people they don't like. Just make a new account with clean cookies and if you are using the same IP check your comment visibility from other IPs from time to time, as they record which accounts were on which IP and might invent some other bullshit measure against you in the future as more people become aware of the downweighting.

With $1k MRR you can move to many cheap countries in the world and live there comfortably while working on your product, service, whatever it is you are offering. You can't do that with a regular job.

for more than a year I have been watching perfectly fine comments getting buried almost instantly.

Apart from an obvious problem of too many people having downvoting privileges, mods here also silently downweight some accounts even though they leave perfectly good comments. So there are two parts of this problem: mods being assholes towards some people regardless of their comments and mods letting too many people downvote comments. Same problem with flagging, except that flagging doesn't just make some discussions taboo, it also provokes mods to come up with a reason to issue a warning to silence such discussions even more if they feel like it.

But let's be honest, HN was never a place for dissenting views or "intellectual curiosity" as they used to say, it was always a very US, Silicon Valley capitalist-owned place, where the mods, YC tried to push people into one or another direction, push people to think certain way, suppress and disallow some viewpoints under various pretenses. I'm sure you've seen them claim guidelines breaking of people expressing some views, but never the opposite views if the views happened to be a common SV ideology (for example, I don't think I've ever seen an "let's ban sexist words" diversity activism being warned as "ideological flamebait" or such activists being banned, but it did happen with people holding the opposite views, just like it did with the guy from Google). All of this nudges people into echo chambers.

I'll add that it used to have more technical discussions a few years ago, but not so much anymore, you have to go to lobsters and reddit for that, even if they suck, they are at least still there.

This reads like a dystopian fantasy, a "vision" to inject government control into every aspect of people's digital life.

I will have to agree with this. Until I started working with Erlang/Elixir, I would probably have agreed with the OP article instead. Or at least its title, for reading about concurrency problems has become rather obsolete (for me).

That summarizes the problem with most of the articles and discussions on concurrency. People talking past each other because those who don't do much concurrency, especially complex concurrent software, haven't reinvented Erlang yet and don't understand what the fuss is about, and those who do can't explain in relatable terms how the actor model helps them organize concurrent code, preserve local reasoning, abstract, compose it, tolerate faults, etc. and eventually they stop bothering and so poor concurrency articles and comments continue to dominate the infospace.

At the beginning of the pandemic my sibling, who lives in the US, left Silicon Valley expecting to work remotely permanently, bought a big house in a much much cheaper location and is pretty happy about that.

Not sure if any of the travelling digital nomad lifestyle stories are even real, people who have managed to fly somewhere usually got stuck there for many months with all the touristy stuff not working and had to live like regular people, rent regular rooms, apartments, houses, shop at regular supermarkets, etc.

I thought it was Frankfurt in Germany, but can't confirm, there is only public data on per country connectivity, where Germany is at the top. But Brazil is definitely in top 5, for top 5 connectivity from last year the countries were: Germany, Brazil, Ukraine, U.K., Switzerland. Submarine cables are only a small part of connectivity.

There is no way DIY diode bridge and filtering caps on a separate board could make a slightest difference here, in fact high frequency noise from the power supply could only be filtered right near the chip. But leveling up an amplifier, to a 4 times more powerful as you did, would make a significant difference in sound.

No, it has all the commits from the latest version, the one released after the github takedown.

Currently you can get it from the author's gitlab: https://gitlab.com/dstftw/youtube-dl , i.e. git clone 'https://gitlab.com/dstftw/youtube-dl.git'

Actually, a hosting company challenging the police in jurisdiction where ECHR is ratified would go exactly there once it exhausts options in local courts. But not a customer of a hosting company challenging the decision of a hosting company.

European Court of Human Rights is also not exclusive to European Union, other countries signed the convention as well and ratified at least parts of it. There appeals can reach ECHR and its rulings have to be enforced locally.

I will admit that after the RIAA/youtube-dl story I felt that it confirmed my belief that it was a mistake for anyone to host anything on US based servers. This takedown with complete lack of transparency from a French provider (OVH) really proves me wrong.

There is a huge difference between these two cases. Most hosting providers in the world are not going to challenge law enforcement in their jurisdiction and will just cooperate. That's what OVH did, as everyone should have expected.

But at the same time most hosting providers in the world will oppose overreach of copyright trolls. That's what Github didn't do.

Still, if you need some minimal resilience it's never enough to rely on a single hosting provider from a single jurisdiction. Multiple different providers in different countries for frontend servers with some primitive DNS failover can easily solve this and similar problems.

This comment is also legendary misunderstood. He pointed out how trivial the idea was, which of course became a problem for dropbox when every tech company implemented it once they saw the demand for it and took its marketshare. Nowadays it's hard to consider dropbox as anything but a dying product of a dying company.

Microsoft pays for RIAA lawyers, why would it pay for more lawyers to defend themselves from other lawyers they pay for already?

People outside of the US can't be bound to be sued in a US court or anywhere outside of the jurisdiction they currently reside in and even then a country he is a citizen of could try to use high level channels to get him out of there. Extradition treaties complicate this a bit more, but extradition still has to go through local laws, local law enforcement, local government and far from everyone would get extradited left and right if there is an agreement.

The biggest thing a counter-notice could do (if it's even possible) is reveal one's identity and only if Microsoft/Github tries to verify it, which would be bad, because it could be used for harassment. But the author is obviously Russian, not sure if he lives in Russia, but if he does, they definitely won't be able to get him in Russia, only harass him.