alex_c

>Facebook failed to provide crucial details about its "Cross-Check" program that reportedly shielded millions of VIP users from the social media platform's normal content moderation rules, according to the company's oversight board.

>Facebook told the oversight board that the program applied only "to a small number of decisions," which the company subsequently acknowledged was misleading

Indeed. Millions of users is a tiny fraction of Facebook's total user count, so in terms of absolute numbers it is probably a relatively small number of content.

But in terms of reach and influence, I would expect the VIP users to have by far a disproportionately large share. I would also expect them to be the most likely to post content that would end up in front of an oversight board. But of course, they are also the ones most able to raise a stink if Facebook moderates their content...

On a side note - does HN feel more "downvotey" lately?

I feel like I'm seeing more comments that are grayed out but seem perfectly civil and reasonable. Often they're back in the black soon after, but I'm sure the time period when they're greyed out influences the discussion. Of course, I don't have any way to measure this.

I wonder if some of the thresholds need to be tweaked.

This change was noticed and discussed in June, when Apple (quietly) added a clause to the App Store guidelines. We notified our clients back then.

Details were very vague at the time and now we know when it will actually start being enforced, but overall it’s more like half a year notice.

Agreed… and it’s too late to fix it now.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

Sort of... They are used at scale to share and ingest data between services, for things like recommendations, etc. But it is messy, a lot of the ontology is more or less the same but every company/database does things slightly differently.

Most of the difficulties are with matching artists and content across different databases, which is a separate issue. The ontology itself is tangential, but one example where it's important (even if it's not a fully / cleanly solved problem).

Music metadata (Musicbrainz, AllMusic, etc...) comes to mind. The data is usually more important than the ontology itself, and the ontology is not really consistent across the entire industry, but it's a somewhat relevant example.

Missing part of that quote is "This issue was caused by our own change and not related to any third-party DNS software and services."

Seems refreshingly honest to me. Slack screwed up, it's not anyone else's fault, but there's nothing Slack can do about it now, here's a workaround.

The last few years have shown me how many people are willing to believe utterly stupid things, and how easy it is to make people turn against each other. I knew this in the abstract, but watching it happen in real time is something else.

The human mind (myself included) has some serious bugs, and "we" as a society - with help from technology - are getting better and better at exploiting these bugs at scale. I don't think censorship is a solution, but I don't know what IS a solution.

Incidentally, what happened to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)? I miss that term, and I think it's much more descriptive of what we're seeing these days than the more vague "misinformation".

This is pure, distilled, 100% evil. I love it.

What is the definition of "win-win" that you are against?

I'm not familiar with Jim Camp, but the term is vague. The linked article to me mainly seems to argue that:

- the side with a better BATNA has more negotiating power (yes, of course) and

- a negotiator should avoid agreeing to a bad deal out of desperation (yes, of course - but not always easy to do)

I'm not sure how the concept of "win-win" specifically plays into it, so I think this is where definitions are useful.

To me, win-win doesn't make sense for transactional negotiations where there is only one dimension (usually price), but CAN happen for more complex negotiations with multiple dimensions where each dimension has different value to each party (price, time, volume commitments, etc...)

Nothing would make me comfortable doing so, any more than sharing my bank credentials with a 3rd party for example. The only question is whether the benefit or necessity of doing so outweighs my discomfort.

I think the discomfort is a good thing here.

Funny enough, that basically describes traffic in Vietnam.

I used to play Eve Online. I wasn't anyone important, but all the drama, intrigue, constant conflict was fascinating - it was fun just to participate and watch. Just to "be there", so to speak.

The biggest ships cost thousands of dollars' worth of in-game currency. Currency aside, they also took massive amounts of effort and coordination from many players to even build them. Trading or buying one was its own metagame, with its own power players and politics.

Large battles could easily destroy five figures' worth of USD, and kill leaderboards would track the dollar values for destroyed ships. Ridiculous amounts of money, really, for a space spreadsheet game - but hey, it's all in-game currency so it's not real, right? With some hustling, some scamming, and some influx of real USD you could always get more and keep the drama going. The investment of time and real money was really to participate in the story and events unfolding.

Anyway, the only way I can make sense of crypto is it's basically the biggest live-action MMO the world has ever seen (and I'd throw NFTs and GME in that category too).

"Welcome to Whose Line Is It Anyway, where everything is made up and the points don't matter!"

No you are right, reported cases alone can't tell the full picture. Mandatory testing can skew the numbers and probably undercounts vaccinated people. Same if vaccinated people are significantly more likely to be asymptomatic and therefore have no reason to voluntarily go get tested (but if that is the case, it brings us back to "pandemic of the unvaccinated" to some extent).

The breakdown is similar on weekends, holidays, etc which suggests that mandatory testing does not skew the numbers significantly in Ontario at least.

But as I said: reported cases blah blah, they paint a fairly clear picture to me but there is a lot of complexity there.

What about ICU numbers?

That unvaccinated people are higher risk of getting and spreading Covid? I agree, although I'm not sure what is the significance of the 4:1 ratio. Ontario's numbers suggest a risk ratio closer to 7:1 or 8:1 right now.

You mean the 50%? You're right, my math was lazy. Edited to 40%.

OK, I'll bite.

Ontario had 554 new reported cases of COVID yesterday. Of these cases:

- 319 were not vaccinated (213 of these were 12+ and therefore eligible to be vaccinated)

- 56 were partially vaccinated

- 136 were fully vaccinated

- 44 unknown

In other words, roughly 16% of the population (eligible but not vaccinated) is driving close to 40% of reported cases.

OK, but reported cases are blah blah, who cares, right? Individual cases will vary in severity and everyone can make their own decisions about risk tolerance, etc etc. But the strain on our health care system is the biggest cost we all share in the pandemic regardless of personal choices, so let's look at ICU numbers instead:

- 113 unvaccinated

- 7 partially vaccinated

- 8 fully vaccinated

You can draw your own conclusions.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/pkbgrz/ontario_sep...

May as well throw it straight in the ocean, skip all the extra steps…

Does this apply to cryptocurrencies?

Most towns do, occasionally - overflows happen. Article is from 2018 but I assume nothing has radically changed since then.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-enviro-report-1.4...

"I haven't purchased new Blizzard products since the Hong Kong censorship debacle"

I don't think Blizzard has released any new products (other than game updates) since then anyway, so I expect most people can say the same :)

By the way, check out Grim Dawn with the Reign of Terror mod if you want a "Blizzard-free" Diablo 2 experience.

Only thing that comes to mind is South Park's "We're sooorrry" clip. This sentence in the Dec 2020 article says it all, doesn't it?

"They were seen as one of Australia's most significant archaeological research sites, but they also had more than eight million tonnes of high-grade iron ore, with an estimated value of £75m (A$132m; $96m)."

Rio Tinto's official page on this is also worth a read.

https://www.riotinto.com/en/news/inquiry-into-juukan-gorge

Fascinating where they choose to use passive vs active voice.

- "Our relationship with the PKKP people extends over more than 17 years"

- "We are engaging with the PKKP people"

- "In partnership with the PKKP people, we are focusing on understanding"

- "We can re-establish a sense of place"

Contrast with:

- "The decision to destroy the rock shelters was taken nearly eight years ago"

- "the site was reclassified as ‘cleared’ for mining"

- "knowledge and awareness of the location and significance of the site was progressively lost"

- "the Juukan 2 rock shelter is likely to be irreparably damaged"

After having a kid, I learned many surprising things about parenthood and about myself.

One is the absolute joy of watching my little one do... pretty much anything. It's an infinitely more powerful drug than anything social media or entertainment companies have managed to invent so far.

Two is how much less judgemental I feel towards other parents, especially how reluctant I am to draw conclusions over small interactions where I don't know anyone's circumstances.

Needless to say, this article brought up very conflicting feelings for me!

There's only so much you can do with an area like this as a "destination", without being embedded in a healthy community.

However attractive the area is, if you have to make a trip you'll only go there infrequently. Large parts will be dedicated to parking. Transit may be a pain to get there.

Not to say it can't have value - it can be a central point to bring together a larger low density community. But there's only so much need for something like this.

Compare with what is usually meant by a "walkable" area. Medium or high density housing mixed with local businesses. Enough residents within walking distance to support local restaurants and shops even during the week, not only on weekends.

Not a common model in North America unfortunately, the trend is either low density residential housing, or high density condo areas without much commercial or public spaces.

Here's a similar study for Ontario, breaking down efficacy based on variant:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaCoronavirus/comments/oe6ajn/c...

Two observations:

* as the top comment points out, the confidence intervals matter

* the numbers are all over the place

I don't know the data for the Israel study, but I'm not sure we can confidently conclude something as specific as "4x higher chance of hospitalization".

Funny you should say that, as there is a direct line connecting player pianos in the 19th century to copyright law in the 21st:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

>What empathy?

Feels like this sums up so much of our world, it's scary. Anyway.

Main issue is with "mutual consent", or more specifically, negotiating power.

A contract negotiated between two parties with similar amounts of power will have terms that protect both sides. These will often define things like advance notice for cancellation, or penalties for early cancellation. The paying party usually wants the most flexibility for cancellation, the counterparty wants certainty of revenue, so a balance is found. Assuming everyone did their work, both sides should be reasonably happy with the terms of the contract.

A negotiation between a large corporation and an individual (low-level) employee is not really a negotiation, the individual employee can only accept or reject the corporation's offer but they cannot typically negotiate specific parts of the contract. Individually, they have no leverage. If they decline the offer and move on to the next company, they don't have any more negotiating power over there either.

Let's also talk about BATNA a bit here. BATNA for a company: they just hire the next person that comes along, still with the terms dictated by the company. BATNA for an employee: accept an offer somewhere else (again with the terms dictated by the company), or starve.

So what can an individual employee do to get more leverage and get an outcome closer to a "mutual consent" contract? Well, the obvious option is to coordinate their negotiation with others who also have low individual negotiating power but share similar interests. Combined, they should have a lot more leverage.

We could call this negotiating process "collective bargaining", and the group of individuals a "union".

Not grandparent commenter, but I don’t. I switched to the logged out, default experience recently. It’s so user hostile it’s been pretty effective at curbing my Reddit addiction and making me waste less time on that site.

>Figuring out how to park on a hill to deter cat theft

Can you explain this one?

I like this! I would consider using it for some of our projects.

Biggest issue I have is with the task list, for any reasonably complicated project we would at least need ability to group tasks into features or milestones. Task lists can get pretty granular, but communication to stakeholders or clients does not usually need to be that detailed, higher level groupings are preferable (and also makes it easier to organize the tasks).

As others mentioned, integration with Jira and such would be nice, but not a deal breaker.

Also I think I broke my demo project, I changed one estimate and the projections just say "New projections are being calculated". There are only 4 tasks :)