Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, firing inspector generals en masse [1], personally attacking specific FBI agents and their families [2], intervening in the criminal proceedings of your friends and political allies [3], etc. is a pattern of behavior that undermines the rule of law in this country. It's a comprehensive strategy to weed out anyone who disagrees with you, hurts your feelings, dares second guess you, or, god forbid, didn't vote for you.

There are _literally_ dozens of links I could provide for each point since these behaviors happen constantly, but I just google'd and picked one each.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-trump-removes-fed...

[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/donald-trump-nemesis...

[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/judge-rebukes-trump...

It's a strange decision by Twitter here, but they are in a strange position.

Donny, love him or hate him, does say a fair few things that are ... questionable. Jack has talked about this a bit, and their conclusion thus far has been that anything he says, by virtue of the office, is newsworthy enough. Policies for thee, but not for he. It's been a battle with users, but everyone seems to just grumble along.

That policy has worked up until today.

A lot of work went into this decision. They A/B tested the color of the note, likely the font, the positioning, the exact words, the fact check itself, etc. This thing went through meeting after meeting and was run past some good legal counsel. Twitter isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's also not a rusty shovel. They red-teamed this a fair bit, I'd imagine. They must have known that Donny would not view it favorably and would do exactly what he is doing currently.

All the same they went ahead and decided to make the move at the end of May, ~6 months before the 'fit hits the shan'.


Their stock is, well, fairly ok. Jack seems to be doing alright. Monthly users are flat-ish since 2015, but compared to FB, it's a bit of a wash.

Redirect to http to https would be great...


It's really not a hard movie to follow. Story is not what critics disagree on.

And where do you go to read those paragraphs?

Ohhh, that makes a lot of sense -- sorry if my comment came off as patronizing.

Are you an infosec expert? You have said that it is impossible to trace origins of hacks multiple times but only offer two shallow points that you would learn about in your first week of a network security class.

There are papers out there that have multiple uses of using language to identify specific authors, determine multiple authors, and even decode known language. That's my first shallow example and would be a pretty reliable indicator if you could get your hands on their code. With a budget of millions of dollar I'm sure they have dozens of ways that can be combined. It would make no sense to reveal every single method they use to defend against people on the internet. That also assumes they don't just have a mole who told them about it, which they also wouldn't reveal.

Is anyone aware of a VPN out there that supports PiHole-like list filtering, so you could get the best of both worlds?

Well, was most of that $500 for storage costs, or for network? Surely you don't expect the monthly bill to include details about particular files or bucket sizes? Have you enabled CloudTrail logging and/or VPC flow logs?

It's not my intention to victim-blame here, yet do bear in mind that there are many, many ways to use the services and to expose resources to the bottomless appetite of the internet. Maybe Digital Ocean or Linode or the like would be a better option for starting out.

> Which is it, guys? How can you simultaneously be outraged that Facebook is imposing any restrictions on speech at all, and horrified that it isn’t actively molding user behavior on a massive scale?

Perhaps because it's not the same people in the two different cases? HN is a pretty diverse bunch at this point; I'm sure there are a lot of people here who want FB to be a disinterested publisher, and others who want FB to curate like mad.

> The call queue for that company never dropped below a constant 200-300 on hold and emails took days to even get to.

If those are the stats and you're still not actually solving many customers' problems; if tons of people are being hung out to dry with no recourse, then you're doing a bad job. If you don't have enough people to do the job, then hire more people. If you can't afford to hire more people, then don't do the job, or limit the number of customers you deal with.

People have been voting by mail for decades, in the US and many other democracies. There haven't been any incidents. And, yes, I am convinced wide-scale fraud would be almost impossible to hide: you can't pull off any fraud without, for example, many voters turning up at polling places even though they have been mailed a ballot. Or people noticing the voter rolls show them having voted when they didn't. Or whatever scheme you are using to intercept thousands of individual letters addressed to individual residences being noticed. Or sudden, unexplained changes in participation being noticed. Or many dead people somehow voting because you can't possibly stay up-to-date with all recent deaths in the community.

And, of course, the discussion isn't actually about voting-by-mail, yes-or-now? Because that has been possible for a long time and isn't going to change. The discussion is about making it easier and/or the default to protect people from communicable diseases.

The issue, then, isn't even if voting by mail allows fraud. It's if the likelihood of fraud is significantly higher when, say, 50% instead of 30% choose that option.

This is yet another blatantly obvious attempt to stack the deck in Republican's favour. It's sickening to see people pretend to care about the integrity of democracy by engaging with all these phantom debates about voter fraud, in the complete absence of any actual fraud happening (except that Republican in South Caroline, of course).

Meanwhile, real damage is done to democracy by the unrelenting attempts to selectively make it harder for people to vote. Take a look at these changes in polling locations in Milwaukee for a blatant example (the red, suburban spots are predominantly Republican locations, while the urban core leans democratic) : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYoIrdZXQAILKlB.jpg

I mean, who cares? If they aren’t altering data let them read it. We are surely reading theirs too.

You are accusing me of defending Zuckerberg. That is funny. The difference in your analogy is that there are laws against driving drunk, plus there is the potential for damage to physical property, physical injury or death. People can sue the driver for damages.

What laws prevent someone from hosting a website with billions of pages and taking content submissions from anyone. If what he is doing is wrong, then why are there no laws against it. What are the damages he has caused. Where are the lawsuits to recover them. Web posting or Tweeting complaints -- how effective is this as a strategy for change. What if the complaints were instead directed to commenters' respective legislative representatives.

Thanks for giving it a gander!

Right on the money. I think that's the most approachable revenue model; "free unless you don't do your chores" or some such. Perhaps a paid tier with additional features or gated by household size ... I dream of making housing coops (10+ people to a house) much more scalable.

I have high churn ATM though so most of my concern is there.

Again, it is true that they controlled world trade with a small % of their budget but they spent most of the 18/19th century subsidising other people's armies. So the reason they didn't need a gigantic military was because they paid other people to fight for them.

They also got involved tactically, even someone like Palmerston who was an interventionist didn't intervene before the point when it was necessary. And a lot of the direct military intervention was to secure trade in countries where you had a gun, and the enemy had a spear. So they really maximised what they spent in a way that others couldn't.

Compare this to France, who probably spent the most on military, if war breaks out then they don't have a choice...you are getting invaded. Britain didn't need a big standing army (and really didn't have one until WW1).

Also, whilst British expenditures were small relative to budget (I don't know this but assuming you are correct), it was still very difficult for anyone to catch up until the late 19th century because their economy was so much larger.

Germany invested in a fleet because they, correctly, concluded that the only way to beat Britain was their navy. France tried the exact same thing in the mid 18th century, they were actually predominant for a short period, but they imploded financially (this was pre-Napoleonic, although they obviously tried to rebuild with Napoleon).

I think the issue for Germany was their economic strength was kind of shaky (they were still a largely agricultural economy until the 1960s) and there was no scenario in which they wouldn't need to spend heavily on the army as well.

But it wasn't useless or opposed to what their aims should have been. War started, they got blockaded almost instantly (just like France in the Seven Years War), and that crippled them. So I don't think there was any easy answer (there was no way in which they were going to avoid war either).

I am not sure I said military spending by itself is valuable...but I don't think it is.

Love it! Also, I think it'd be more impressive to be consistent with your units when comparing page sizes e.g:


And has typos too.

>Can I get a refund of my Premium upgrade? >Yes, you can get a refund if you have been charged a new monthly / anualy payment and you haven’t used the Writing Facilitator since then.

Doesn't sit well for a product that promotes writing.

Yes, the title is ‘the ideal tech stack for a development blog...’ I consider commenting functionality an essential component of a tech blog so was hoping that was solved in the post. It isn’t, and it hardly ever is but I wish there were more choices in this regard

The issue here is that the people that already believe in these sources already think the president is lying. On the other hand, people that think the president is telling the truth aren't going to believe those sources. So what does this do? Are there that many people on the fence? Because everyone I know in the middle already thinks this is laughable (Utah votes by mail and every Republican in CA I know votes from home!), those on the left think it is about voter suppression, and those on the right think it is about voter integrity.

While I don't disagree with the program, I'm also not sure what it solves.

What a poor excuse. Things like this doesn't happen by mistake, it requires considerable effort on the contrary.

>In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.

How could you possibly know this, and how could twitter possibly know this? Surely that is the intent, but what do you make of stories like this one: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/goldstein-investi...

"Only registered voters will receive ballots", you cannot state a future event as a fact, since it hasn't actually happened yet. Stories like the one linked show that in the past, California has had problems with this.

Should twitter now fact check their fact checking? Perhaps the idea of future-telling is flawed to begin with and twitteer should not attempt to be a source of truth!

Before I clicked on the link, I assumed this was yet another egregious lie. But this one really doesn't qualify. It falls squarely in the category of reasonable opinions. Let's look at the claim: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". Clearly the veracity of the statement rests on the word "substantially." It's inconceivable that no one ever takes, for example, an elderly relative's mail in ballot and votes it fraudulently.

So let's consider if such fraud could possibly be substantial. Let's use California as an example. Registering to vote is easy, all you need is a web browser[1] and a mailing address where you reside or with a resident willing to give you ballots or ignorant that they are receiving them[2]. Also, the State of California faces an impractically large legal hurdle to reject suspected fraudulent ballots[3] so it can be assumed that most if not all will be accepted. It seems clear based on the observable facts that substantial fraud is certainly possible under the California regime. Please note I am not claiming such fraud actually happens, merely that it is easily practicable for an organization as well organized as, say, a political party. To be honest, I bet literally hundreds if not thousands of readers on this site could build "California vote fraud as as service" as a side gig. Let's disrupt the electoral process for a billion dollar valuation!

From this I conclude that while I personally disagree with the President, this particular statement is a (probably, I sure hope, incorrect) opinion, not a factually incorrect statement.

[1] https://covr.sos.ca.gov/

[2] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/more-than-80-bal...

[3] https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...

I'm guessing it's because a lot of people (possibly being paid to do so) flagged many comments with these words in them, and so the ML model learned to predict that these words would lead to complaints and just deleted it right away.

Hui's immediate response was, "Do you start counting from 0 or 1?"

Counting numbers are defined as the integers starting from one. I'm probably lacking a bit of rigour there. err ... Define 1 = S or is that S = 1 or S is a thing or 1 is a thing or something and then put more S (s) in until you run out of S (essessses) then you have reached infinity. If it's not a really big infinity then keep adding S (sssssss) or remove a few and add some more. You'll get there eventually - lots of Ss or infinity, or not, who knows? If you run out of S then try adding some T. Everything is better with T.

He would have better off with: "Do you prefer green trees or brown trees?" That would have simply sounded silly, rather than +1 insightful.

I agree completely. Trump does not have a crystal ball. Therefore, he should not present things as established fact if they are merely unproven opinion.

He is in a position of power and influence. His words have far-reaching consequences.

It’s amazing how many things exist in modern western culture that are geared around the most basic principles that used to be automatic, like “work hard”, “make your bed”, etc.

However, it’s easy to draw a strong correlation between this and the the departure from farm / manufacturing life into modern urban / suburban office life.

In, perhaps, 60 years, we will be at a point where the vast majority of people won’t even know anyone who works hard (from today’s perspective, such as a garbage man or farm hand). In the long run, these kinds of jobs simply won’t be valued; they’ll all have been “tractored out”.

This seems to be true of learning as well. It's strange how easy it is (for me at least) to break the cycle of doing something every day--I tell myself that it's okay to skip today so long as I make it up tomorrow (or on the weekend or whatever). At that point it's easy to keep putting it off just through inertia.

Well, remember it's their agent that's managing the brand. It's not as if the celebrity is picking it over 1000 other things. Their agent thinks that out of a 1000 avenues for strengthening the celebrity's brand, Masterclass would hit the right demographic and get the best return on effort (and it's their job to make those determinations).

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact