terminous

Bad headline. What is dissolved is the non profit organization that exists in Russia to host events for Russian Wikipedians and other tasks. ru.wikipedia.org != Wikipedia Russia.

> that a social media site can have such enormous influence on one's perception of "reality" is staggering and it should die and die quickly.

You say this as if humanity has not been fighting over the long-distance communication of information for literally the entire history of human civilization since the invention of language. Even before written language, storytellers decided what oral traditions they would or would not pass on, changing it each time they told it. Replace "social media" with "broadcast networks" or "newspapers" or "scientific journals" and it is the same issue.

You don't have a world in which 8 billion people are connected (or even 1 billion, or even 1 million, or even 1000) without a few intermediaries whose purpose is to distribute some but not all descriptions of reality to a public audience, and who gain immense power through that.

You must be new to the wonderful world of patent law.

> There are federal regulations that prohibit operating a GPS at faster than xx mph speeds, basically to prohibit guided missiles, and this would kick in first (may even trigger an error state in the accelerometer or OS, I'm pretty sure).

This app doesn't use GPS, it uses accelerometer. It is 100% legal in the US to operate a GPS while over CoCom/MTCR limits: above 1,000 knots (510 m/s) and/or at an altitude higher than 18,000 m (59,000 ft). The regulation is on the GPS manufacturer, who is required to output null/error/no GPS data if it detects it is above these limits (edit: unless they are licensed, which you can apply for if you're a defense contractor or in aerospace). It isn't like if a GPS device is traveling too high or fast, it is automatically a crime and bricks itself or alerts the authorities.

Because the SV VC business model isn't to build a traditional profitable business that beats the competition by providing a superior product/service for a competitive price. It is to dominate the competition by subsidizing the real cost to consumers, until you have taken over the market and can raise the price and lower the quality of the product/service.

Edit: Or the business model is to be acquired by a FAANG who fears they need to get into your area and care more about optics to their bosses/shareholders than how financially sustainable your startup is.

Real time voice translation is getting really good. Standard text translation is pretty much perfect for technical details, but just may miss idioms. You just have your smartphones out, type your message, and show the translation to the other person. They read it and start typing on their phone, then show it to you. I got through China pretty painlessly this way, and it is so normal for many, especially the young. I went to one restaurant where they got the younger waiter when they saw me walk in, who I thought would speak English. She just knew the phone text translation ritual, but was an expert in that.

But for millennia, people have gone to far away lands where they don't speak the language, and somehow managed to build trade routes without even having a dictionary or calculator. It is not that hard to work out a pidgin. Tons of things you can do with pointing and gesturing. Marco Polo would have killed to even have Google Translate circa 2010.

I'll also assert with no evidence that it is generally harder for an English speaking engineer to successfully communicate a technical idea into business speak for English speaking VC investors than it is for an English speaking engineer to communicate a request to buy a specific part to a Mandarin speaking engineer.

Is this supposed to just be a 2 page PDF, am I missing something? Kind of ironic to call out bad research with such a sparse paper.

*In the state of Utah

So there is upstream spam filtering. Thiss seems to contradict what you said: "There is no administrative ostracism. Nobody gets kicked out by brownshirts for expressing their view."

Spam is an expression of views.

> nobody gets kicked out by brownshirts for expressing their view.

What about spam? Is the expectation that it's your obligation to filter it client-side?

First author is a postdoc, second author is director of the institute and probably gets last author even if they did no work. The same criticism applies, even moreso for a postdoc than a grad student. They're probably under huge publish or perish pressure to get a faculty job soon.

I'm so glad I left that racket.

Stop. This kind of low effort comment needs to be a violation of HN rules, because it never contributes to the discussion.

See to me personally, I don't think this feels like it was written by AI. But this isn't going to be a productive topic of discussion.

At one point in time, nothing about New York City or Hong Kong said "high rise living." Then they became popular and demand changes the nature of the city.

If there are 5 houses in an area, populated by 1 family each for a total of 5 families, and those families have 1 child each (50% below population replacement rate), then with no new houses, there is no way for any of those children to have a house of their own until their parents die. But when their parents die, they get to have a home of their own.

At 2 children, the population replacement rate, only one child can have a house of their own after their parents die, if no new houses are constructed.

> I always wonder if people really want to live in high rises forever or see this as some kind of temporary solution until they find their "real place".

Santa Cruz is a university town. Most people are there temporarily until they graduate and find their real place. Population of 62k, half are students: 20k at UCSC, 10k at Cabrillo College.

> How exactly is it bad for consumers to get products below cost?

Because it is necessarily a short term strategy, and when the subsidy ends, it is incredibly disruptive (in the bad way).

It is good in the short term for those consumers who get in early and get their consumption subsided by VC funds or FAANG profits from another subsector. But it is bad in the long term for everyone when firms try to compete by selling below cost. Consumers usually win when companies have to compete with each other. But selling below cost is a strategy that only very rich or entrenched players can do. It means you have to play the VC unicorn game as a startup. It sets unrealistic price expectations for consumers. It leads to situations like this when the rug is pulled.

Look what has happened with ride sharing and delivery apps. A few rich VC backed firms took over the market and subsidized cheap rides. Entire industries were transformed, and most restaurants stopped offering delivery themselves. Now, it is becoming clear that those $5-7 rides actually cost 2-3x that, and that's not what people are willing to pay.

It is literally anti-competitive, bad for consumers and competitor startups. How can an average startup compete if a rich company or VC backed startup has a business model of selling below cost to get market share? The fact that the big players are doing it makes it an oligopoly not a monopoly, but that's still bad.

This is a 100+ year old problem and has already been solved in other industries, but tech likes to think it is unique. It's a bad pattern to sell below cost to gain market share. Oil and steel companies were selling below cost to undercut competing startups in the 1900s, then raised prices when those competitors folded. It wasn't good for anyone other than the robber barons then either.

Are you seriously asking this question or are you completely disconnected from the dictionary? What does "unlimited" mean? No limits. If you don't intend for a customer to make use of unlimited storage, with no limits, then use the proper English word.

Also, this was a paid subscription.

> taking advantage

No. 100% wrong. If you advertise and sell "unlimited" then you should deliver unlimited. If you don't build in acceptable use limits into the contract, then that's your fault, not the customer's.

Yes. Any customer service agent (human or chatbot) is supposed to be heavily censored.

Except this is just like in outsourcing, where it seems like pure cost savings, until you need to hire more people to manage the low inconsistent quality from those cheaper workers.

Denial of service is a crime, even if you do it to criminals.

The obvious question: do you watch a lot of TV shows on Netflix? Because these are all [edit: not all, but mostly] Netflix originals/exclusives.

I ask because as a Netflix user, these titles are constantly being pushed to me when I open up the app.

This "peer reviewed algorithm" is basically PageRank, or close enough for the following critique to apply: None of these algorithms are models that infer trust from raw content, aka there is no special sauce for trust here, it's just an information theory problem in the abstract. So Garbage In, Garbage Out. These algorithms are only good when you have a single, consistent signal of trust that you can trust. So it will have the same issues that Google has with SEO spam, and there's no graph-traversing algorithm to solve that, as it is an out-of-band issue compared to what these algorithms are designed to take as input. Take outgoing links to be your signal of trust, and you'll create a linkspam problem. So you need an anti-spam model that sits in front of this algorithm to detect violations of webmaster guidelines, aka gaming the system.

So in other words, all you need to do to game the system is generate a bunch of accounts that publicly link to you, follow you, or whatever this systems' input of 'User A trusts User B' is. And not get caught by whatever anti-spam or anti-bot model they're using.

It is clear you haven't even clicked on the article.

Shame on you. This deserves a ban from HN. Just reading the headlines and contributing to a discussion about that article as if you actually read it is deceptive and wrong. It's killing our ability to meaningfully discuss content when people just read the headlines. If you don't want to read articles and instead post about what you think the articles must be based on headlines, go elsewhere on the internet.

Policies against {uncivil interactions | personal attacks | harassment | abuse | spam | denial of service} all of these in their most fundamental form, are vectors for language & behavioural control. People who desire to control the language & behaviours of others will be drawn to occupy such positions of control, whilst those that don't want said control due to personal beliefs will not seek out such positions. Overall, their existence creates structures for authoritarian influences, as well as mechanisms for ostracization & self-censorship.

No person should ever be in charge of it.

More explicitly: you're 100% right that I want to control the behavior of others. On HN, I agree with most of the HN rules that expel speech from this space that does not contribute to the mods ideas of a good, healthy, productive discussion. It is civilized.

> I sometimes feel like those algorithmic challenges at interviews are more for making developers feel they work at the "top team" than filtering the candidates.

I think that's partially correct, but a side effect. I think the real function is to make managers and execs feel that their devs are the "top team". But totally right about it being more about feelings of superiority than objective and relevant qualities for the job.

> possibly an enlightened parent or a role model

This is typically the 'secret sauce'.

Important aspect: he had been fired and cracked passwords while no longer an employee, to try to get rehired:

"Rather ill-advisedly, the Perl-programming guru (who's written several books on the subject) tried to prove his worth by running a password cracking package after he'd left in order to produce evidence that security practices had deteriorated since his departure. Instead of re-hiring Schwartz, as he hoped, Intel called in the police and he was charged with hacking offences."

https://www.theregister.com/2007/03/05/intel_hacker_charges_...

Software engineering is also not a credentialed field, at least in the way other engineering fields are.