If the universe is an ever repeating pattern and time is meaningless in death, Karp will soon * endoftime^∞ buy that mansion again and again and again. Perhaps with in between variants where you buy that mansion or the mansion turns out to be a mountain goat.
I stopped all monetary support for Amnesty and for me it really did a lot of damage to the trust of human rights organisations in general. There are many good people working there or with them, but this is just disgraceful at this point.
They are more aware but bad at putting it in perspective. This is the classic "fear leads to bad decisions".
Granted, depends on where you live, but statistically woods are probably a lot safer than a city with a lot of traffic. Sure, regionally that is not true, you might meet a Grizzly and/or Canadian.
> are we really sure this degree of freedom is so developmentally important to be worth the risk?
Absolutely. A child has to grow up and detach from it parents at some point. It doesn't at all mean having a bad relationship, just being independent. Helps if you aren't a complete beginner by the time it inevitably happens.
I would be against a tax. In my country there are private institutions that collect royalties for any storage medium that is sold. Clients of these institutions are small and large media companies and authors, who get a part of the loot.
Harddrives and any form of media storage is more expensive for that reason. Not much, but you always pay. Reason for that is that these device would allow for copies of copyrighted material to be stored. And you cannot just found a private org like that, you need the sanction of a public office.
You can guess how AI would be factored in here, you will be forced to pay and money would be funnelled to established players. No thank you, I would vote for the Stalin option in that case.
I do think toxicity is often extremely subjective. Ironically the limits and definitions are often defined by the most toxic people, because they have the least tolerance in general. But that is just my opinion.
I don't know what limits HN uses. You are green at first when it is euphemistically true. You aren't allowed to downvote at first (although restrictions always apply to direct responses?). Generally I would describe the limits as minimally invasive. I would guess the average upvote score for a comment on HN is probably something about 3?
These mechanisms are quite smart and not too invasive, but not the sole reason for HN being like this.
For your network it highly depends on what audience you want to nurture. Do you want the classic golf club where people feel superior and exclusive to others? Use vouching and ID checking.
Do you want free thinkers? Don't moderate much, but you may have to gatekeep people looking for offence (or just don't feed the trolls and ignore them).
Do you want a broad audience or enthusiasts? "Exploitability" is not only a matter of education, but it certainly helps. If that is a problem on your platform, you need to find out about the type of exploitation to counter it.
Not everyone is alike and will get along, there are different personalities having different expectations. If you cater to all, you probably won't be successful.
I cannot say what attracts people preferring "pleasant" (meaning?) discussions on the net. I probably more or less belong at the other end of that spectrum.
Indeed, there are different societal structures that would attract more one or the other type of person.
I wonder if it would be possible to simulate this to understand what behaviors will emerge if you set certain types of rules. It is certainly difficult to create coherent personalities with LLMs that act in realistic ways but I wonder if one could get an approximation.
Perhaps what I have in mind is also not best described as "pleasant", but also something that is net-positive for society, where as a whole society is better off having that than not. This is arguably the case for HN but not necessarily for some of the bigger ones out there.
I have the opposite experience. While these anonymous groups tend to be high on vulgarity and directness, there are much more peaceful examples than the other way around. Propaganda got strong when we began to restrict content on social media by the companies themselves or external actors.
This human nature shit is empirically wrong. There are quite a few scammers around. You also meet these people in real life, you just don't notice immediately.
The UK and and Denmark thoroughly demonstrate why a state ID and age verification should be rejected. They just cannot stop themselves if they notice the full extend of the failure of their bad ideas.
If your solution to copyright infringement requires criminalizing the fundamental architecture of secure communication, your problem isn't the technology—it's your desire for absolute control.
I use Gitea and think it is superior to GitHub. Can be quite well integrated in the usual Microsoft corporate environment easily as well, so you don't even need to create users. Perhaps setup two or three groups and you are done. Can be up and running in a few little hours if you start with nothing aside your domain controller.
It also doesn't randomly fail and if it would, you can probably fix it yourself.
I don't think actions on a git repository host is a good way to fix poor deployment strategies if it goes beyond pushing a package to npm and co. Just to poke at the wound again.
But Gitea has interfaces here as well, didn't try them though.
That has been the problem with unit and integration tests all the time. Especially for systems that tend to be distributed.
AI makes creating mock objects much easier in some cases, but it still creates a lot of busy work and makes configuration more difficult. At at this points it often is difficult configuration management that cause the issues in the first place. Putting everything in some container doesn't help either, on the contrary.
reply