HN user
It did also win against two male players - you can see some of the replays and the scores in the actual sony publicity video here: https://ace.ai.sony/.
Most notably the best player it played (#64 last year) it lost against quite handily, 11-2, 11-6.
It did play against a male player, as outlined in the article:
Sony AI autonomous robot Ace returns a shot back against its human opponent, table tennis player Yamato Kawamata, during a match in December 2025, as seen in this photograph released on April 22, 2026.
Which trackball do you use?
Maybe I'm not surprised by this because I work in higher ed, but that ratio of administrative staff vs faculty is not really anything to write home about. I work at a top 10 business school, and our staff/teaching ratio is about 5/1, and at schools like HBS or INSEAD in France, the ratio skews quite a bit higher.
That's the thing though, you're calling someone being forced out because they hold a bigoted position 'lynching'. You're equivocating what has historically been an act of racially provoked murder with the removal of a bigot - there's no justice to be found there.
Political opponents ought to (and are, in most cases) barred from effectively participating in the political process when they hold oppressive and bigoted view points.
Of course not, because that's grossly impractical. There are easy ways of dealing with that - You can first work with the assumption that most people are fundamentally good human beings who don't carry hatred or bigotry around in their heart. This is not too much of a stretch. Additionally, you can try and have conversations with those who are wrong in their beliefs. This is not always successful, but it's a reasonable thing to do.
The thing is, to a large degree society and economy do already do this. If you're outed as a sexist, or a racist, you lose your job. We mostly operate under the assumption that people are not those things. We're just currently in the phase where we're defining additional boundaries to what is and is not acceptable in the workplace.
After all, everyone who starts a development job nowadays does several things that are akin to what you're describing: You voluntarily confirm that you will not harass or discriminate, and when you break those rules you get kicked out.
There is no room for hate speech and bigotry in tech. They cause harm now, and promote harm in the future. You're using censorship as an attempt to wring a personal grievance on the behalf of people who would hide behind their hate speech as ideological differences and not what it really is: the verbal expression of actions they're already taking.
Bigots, sexists, racists, and hate groups of all stripes use free speech and the idea of censorship as a way to distract from the fact that they're putting into action what they pretend to only debate.
Not at all - I don't read Orson Scott Card anymore, because he's a bigot. That is a decision that doesn't touch upon whether or not his books are any good. When it comes to code, there's no piece of code or software product that can't be replaced by someone who behaves morally.
Ultimately, you can't, and shouldn't decouple someone's work from the person themselves. We ought to feel ashamed when we support someone who's beliefs and actions are reprehensible.
Opposing gay marriage causes harm because it's active oppression, and because it's a argumentative shield for people who have direct opposition to gay people themselves. There are no strong arguments against gay marriage beyond bigotry.
You don't have to pretend that you're not a bigot - opposition to gay marriage is bigotry.
You're right - you can't ensure that they won't use your work for bad, that's true. You can try to lessen the impact by making sure they're not part of your organization or community. Excluding them does help me, because I don't have to put up with someone who is actively trying to make my life worse.
I think if you manage an open source project you should feel comfortable taking a stand on contributors who have/advocate for actively discriminatory positions. Just because you organize a community project that may be used by people you fundamentally disagree with doesn't mean you have to check your sense of morality at the door.
If someone submitted a PR to my project who held openly racist positions, I would deny the PR. No amount of genius or technical merit makes up for that.
One could come up with a hypothetical of an open source project that is important enough to require any help it can get, and also somehow obscure enough that only a handful of developers are working on it. Nonetheless, I don't really think most open source projects (or even for-profit projects) fall into that category. At the point where work becomes so important that you need to compromise other parts of your character in order to finish it there are probably bigger things to worry about.
Reform is not the intent, although it is the criteria for re-inclusion. The intent is to create a community that respects all of it's members rights. Excluding the co-worker helps me because I don't have to worry about whether the fruits of my labor are going to a effort that will cause me harm either in the present or in the future.
Social interaction and software development go hand in hand - The idea that someone with a fundamentally hostile viewpoint is needed to create something of value for both of us is not applicable. There are many software developers who don't wish harm upon others, and they will be more willing to work with you.
The best outcome in this situation is not the product that gets created. The best outcome is an environment in which members of the community don't feel like their basic rights are in question.
Sure - but this has long surpassed 'ideas and opinions'. Oppression of gay people, minorities, and other marginalized groups is not founded in 'opinion' - it's a fact and representation of life. Gay people are currently in a situation where someone is trying to actively oppress them. When you donate to anti-gay causes, you're directly enabling harm.
This doesn't have anything to do with censorship - it has to do with letting people know that taking an active participatory position in oppression is not acceptable.
It's materially different because militant vegans don't try to infringe upon my rights. The difference is that if you were advocating for veganism as strongly, I can point to the fact that nobody is being hurt by that advocacy. If you're strongly advocating that gay people don't deserve equal rights (at best) or don't deserve to be alive (at worst), then it's very clear your position shouldn't be tolerated.
That's the problem with this whole argument chain - there are clear material differences between advocating strongly against gay people, versus advocating strongly against eating meat.
There is no diversity in opinion that includes bigotry - that's just a way racists, sexists, and other hate mongers hide in communities. Your axioms completely ignore the idea that there are opinions which cause harm without any introduction of violence - something anyone in a marginalized or oppressed group can and has experienced.
Diversity of opinion does not mean accepting opinions which directly and indirectly cause harm to others.
That's a false equivalency - members of a community hating each other is not the same as members of a community conspiring to oppress other members of a community.
The idea that two reasonable human beings will find something they don't have in common is not equivalent to finding out that the coworker next to you doesn't think you should have human rights.
Part of being a mature person is being able to realize that some members of a community hold positions that are fundamentally incompatible, even if they represent a net positive from a work standpoint.
It doesn't matter if your coworker has partially aligned interests with you if some of their other interests infringe on your human rights - that's when you choose not to interact with them, and to exclude them from the community until they change their ways.
You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software.
The problem is not that these are just controversial topics - They're beliefs and actions that directly infringe on others ability to lead their best and healthy life. Tolerating hatred by disguising it as 'diversity of thought' is just a way of masking and shielding people who need to be brought into reality. You cannot be an moral participant in our profession while believing that others lifestyles don't belong.
What a totally useless comment. Please try harder to contribute to hacker news threads.
It's not "He's actually a girl." She's a woman. Use the right pronouns.
What about react-easy-state stops you from transpiling to ES2015?
That's an unbelievable 90s of audio - It's not even Shen not being able to formulate a response - he's literally choosing to be silent!!
Really? You think that this is exclusively a matter of hygiene and style? I don't know what's worse, that you're so misinformed about the existence of white privilege, or that you feel comfortable trying to bring some edgy socio-racial nonsense into this conversation.
Correct, it's a react wrapper that implements the Material UI guidelines.
Funny this should come up - This past month I've been exploring building web apps using http://www.material-ui.com/. They have some of the best documentation I've ever seen for a front end framework. Easy code examples right in the component that you can play with and then peek at the source code.
It makes such a difference to be able to see the output and then quickly look at the source code. Really wonderful development experience.
I recently moved from a large (40k employees) company to a small one (600).
Performance reviews at the large company always involve a lot of paperwork, self reviews, and hoping that your manager gives you good feedback. Reviews are rated from 1-5 where 3 is the midpoint and is considered 'acceptable'. Tbh, I started as an intern there, and I can recall three or four times someone scored 4+ off the top of my head. Getting a 3 was so trivially easy it was almost insulting. Getting a 5 once required a lot of work outside of the office and usually meant you wouldn't be able to get it again the following cycle.
Most of these incentive systems are just focused around being the best personal brand manager anyway, because they incentivize employees to sign up for the shittiest projects and then make a lot of noise and throw around a lot of money and bullshit to make sure everyone knows that they're singlehandedly saving the company.
At the small company, we mostly do small one on ones, and you set some yearly goals for each fiscal year that you get evaluated against. There aren't any 'metrics' involved, and it seems mostly like it's aggregation of subjective reviews from superiors and coworkers. This approach seems to work well for everyone. We have a really technical developer who doesn't really do the social game (and he's remote) and he does excellent every year. I'm more of a mix (I like to communicate with endusers and so on) and I did well this year too.
Frankly, I think the biggest thing is just getting out of big corporate environments. They're tough for mental health, and they're tough to get ahead in.
Because it's not just about issues - I don't exclusively want someone to interact with me in a setting that's centered around the content. I would preferably like the experience to be more free form and open to a wider audience. Incidentally, I don't think the 140 character limit has ever really bothered me. Most of the time I text shorter strings than that - if I want to have a longer conversation I'll either send multiple tweets, or move to DM/chat.
Part of the problem is the sheer amount of racism and harassment. How many times do twitter eggs and other hate speech peddlers get reported without anything happening? Why does Twitter drag their feet over this? Nobody will miss the neo-nazis.
I mean - this seems like you don't actually use the service. I do JS development, and I can pretty reliably get someone like Dan Abramov or other JS 'rockstars' to look at/comment on an issue if it's required. Additionally, I can see these people interact with their peers and discuss ideas. Fundamentally, twitter has become a platform for idea exchange and conversation that has professionals on it, discussing things professionally! It doesn't really get more meaningful than that.
This seems like a particularly poor example just because the author is trying hard to graft vue/React onto an older style of web development. Why bother using either if you're relying on jQuery?
Or: Which of these is unethical.
Your brother bob wants your opinion on his home insurance.
One of your neighbors jokes about the recent storm damage hiking his premiums.
Our local competitors offer you 20k to consult during work hours.
My god, I'm starting to think Post Insurance Trauma meetings are in order. Everyone else I've met who worked/started in Insurance feels the same way. I can still recall those janky 'Internet Safety' etc. web seminars that restart if you accidentally click the wrong button and inexplicably take 45 minutes.
I went to Ohio State, and the above poster is presenting a point of view that only someone who has never lived there and probably never visited can hold. Nowadays you can walk from the OSU campus in Old North Columbus all the way down Short North into downtown Columbus on any night of the week and see nothing but restaurants, bars, clubs & so on.