If there are sock puppets around here they are probably native internet crazies or maybe lazy covert software salesman. Most of the posters just represent the wide variety of opinions on a planet with 8 billion people competing with each other. There isn't much evidence of it and political propagandizing of HN through bots is pointless anyway - most readers have practically no money or power, there aren't that many of them and they aren't trying to coordinate to achieve anything politically interesting.
> The radicalization of, e.g., Marc Andreessen was very useful to some group, so there is no reason they wouldn't try more of the same in this venue.
He's a billionaire. They come pre-radicalised and detached from reality by default. A body don't get to be a billionaire by just going with the flow and not having any particular interest in influencing the world around them.
This place allows throwaway accounts, although it also greentexts them so they're easy to spot, and if they get controversial they tend to get downvoted/flagged. HN basically restricts politics to a narrow drip feed of one or two stories a day, a situation which has advantages and disadvantages.
Israel is openly committed [0] to seeing regime change in Iran; they were mowing down civilian and military leadership just last year. The US got involved. There is the history of western involvement [1] in overthrowing Iranian governments.
With that background I'm more worried about what the US's role here will be rather than what may or may not be taking place in Iran. My understanding is that the simulations around an invasion of the country were even more disastrous than the excursions in Afghanistan and Iraq and we really could use some signals of competence out of the US right now. We seem to be dangerously far into a WWI or WWII style environment internationally and we're already past the threshold of nuclear risk that sane actors would accept.
1,000 of people are being executed in Iran. 10,000 of people are being mutilated and injured. 1,000 of executions are planned — but you are somehow worried about the US's role more than this?
they were mowing down civilian and military leadership
Which 'civilians' were targets? Are we thinking of the employees of state television or Evin prison? It's unlikely the average Iranian shed tears over them.
For perspective, the Iranian protesters themselves have been burning down state television buildings this week, not to mention mosques, police stations, and other centers that the regime uses to control the people.
Nobody is talking seriously about sending foreign troops to rescue the protesters, but some strikes to take out regime targets would be welcome.
"Israel is openly committed [0] to seeing regime change in Iran; they were mowing down civilian and military leadership just last year. "
Are you surprised? The Islamic Republic has been drumming "Death to the USA, death to Israel" for almost fifty years and they invested a lot of money into both Hezbollah and their nuclear program.
They obviously cannot destroy America, but they could destroy Israel. Are you surprised that Israel wants to deny them this capability?
The situation with the Shah is somewhat similar to the situation around the English Civil War in the 17th century.
The King was authoritarian, but also a bohemian. The Roundheads were religious fanatics. They succeeded in overthrowing the Crown and executing the King, but they also turned out to be insufferably religious. After Cromwell died, the population re-invited the deposed monarch's son back, under some conditions. He met those conditions; his successor did not, but was promptly thrown out into exile, because he wasn't able to consolidate enough power anymore.
Unfortunately the Iranian population wasn't able to reconsider their choice after Khomeini's death (1989), because the government was much stronger and much more willing to kill. Also because of the Iraq-Iran war.
It isn't particularly hard to understand - people should be allowed to make their own determination about what is good for their health, what isn't and what risk tolerance they are personally comfortable with. If that principle is embraced a whole heap of good things are fairly obvious - why there shouldn't be state-backed eugenics programs, why exercise is voluntary and it makes health policy a lot less charged. If the principle is thrown out then a lot of problematic policy becomes hard to reject.
I mean, look at what the vax-mandatory movement got - they enraged a bunch of people, helped secure Trump II, made vaccine scepticism a mainstream and popular position which arguably handed the US health department vaccine policy to anti-vaxers. Maybe avoiding authoritarian tactics and sticking to principle would have gotten them a better outcome? Hard to see how it could be worse, to be honest. They screwed up pretty badly.
Aren't they optional in most cases? You can opt-out of vaxing your kids today right? They just won't be welcome in public schools. I guess the other common cohort is health care workers (which seems reasonable) per https://leadingage.org/workforce-vaccine-mandates-state-who-... More than 1 million people died in the US from the COVID pandemic so it seemed reasonable to work hard to get herd immunity but the backfire effect made that counter productive. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
> More than 1 million people died in the US from the COVID pandemic so it seemed reasonable to work hard to get herd immunity but the backfire effect made that counter productive.
There is no herd immunity for COVID, because you can get it more than once. Vaccination only protects for a few months, and doesn't reduce spreading much.
It's not a "sterilizing vaccine".
There are sterilizing vaccines for many childhood diseases. Measles, diphtheria, polio, etc. Can't get the disease at all if vaccinated. Those vaccines can almost eliminate a disease. With smallpox, this was taken past "almost" all the way to eradication.
Here's a list of 14 almost forgotten diseases, eliminated by vaccination.[1]
The current generation of parents has not seen most of them.
Google Joe Rogan Measles. This is the level of information that people are using to make these decisions, being fed to them by the LARGEST mainstream media source (Joe Rogan has the largest mainstream media audience).
Have infectious diseases stopped spreading? And all this is happening in the shadows of COVID where the vaccines famously had no significant impact on the rate of the spread. The people claiming they would turned out to be part of the misinformation crowd.
We ran a natural experiment in Australia. Everyone got the vaccine, then everyone got COVID over the course of a month or two. The official numbers were high and aren't even accurate because there were too many cases to count, it got everywhere and the measurement kits ran out.
> That's quite a claim. I see you provided no sources.
Why do I need to source anything? Nobody credible ever claimed the vaccines would slow the spread, no evidence was ever provided that vaccines slow the spread and theory suggests they probably won't slow the spread. The people making things up in defiance of the obvious are the ones who need to start providing sources on this one.
If you want to check the numbers; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia - we've got 22 million vaccinated people on a population of around 25 million in 2021. We see ~12 million confirmed COVID cases and in the immediate post-lockdown period the testing system crumbled under load. Do the math. An exponential process that everyone was exposed to was downgraded to ... still an exponentially growing process that everyone was exposed to. Maybe it spread the pandemic phase out to 2 months instead of 1 (based on my memory of watching the stats at the time).
The vaccine didn't cut down on the number of infections. It was strictly personal protection. Members of my family regularly get COVID.
Vaccination slowed the spread of the primary varients and reduced the health impacts on those that tested positive for COVID by preloading the immune response.
Yeah. That is a really good argument for recommending people get the vaccine. But it concedes any reason to start coercive medical treatments. The COVID vaccines were very much about personal protection. It circles back quite neatly to the idea that people should be allowed to make their own determination about what is good for their health, what isn't and what risk tolerance they are personally comfortable with.
The people arguing that collective action knows best once again blew their credibility with COVID, making up the theory about herd immunity was a big shot in the arm for the anti-vax movement. And as you can guess I'd rather side with the anti-vaxers, they're better friends than the authoritarians.
> I sourced my claims: smallpox, polio, measles, mumps.
1. That isn't what sourcing a claim means. It means to provide sources for why your claims are true; or at least where you heard the claim first. Picking specific examples is helpful, but it isn't providing a source.
And despite those examples, I still catch an infections disease ... basically annually.
2. I suppose I assumed it was going to be made obvious by context, but I don't care about smallpox, polio, measles or mumps and I'm not talking about them. Nobody forced me to do anything in relation to them, nobody threatened my livelihood over them and I don't feel at any risk of being forbidden from leaving my house because of them. It is a good point but I didn't intend to talk about it - it stands alone as a point and beyond that I don't care. Since you bought it up more then once you get this paragraph. But if it is necessary to put up with measles to put the authoritarians in a box? So be it. The anti-vaxers are the lesser of two evils, they're minnows compared to the sharks who were showing their colours through COVID; we're lucky that episode only lasted long enough for the authoritarians to do terrible economic damage.
Absolutely is. Those are examples of serious, deadly, infectious plagues that were either eradicated or seriously contained by vaccines.
> but I don't care about smallpox, polio, measles or mumps and I'm not talking about them.
I know you don't care about evidence. You care about vibes. Vaccines are icky, governments are authoritarian, you want to live in your fairy-tale self-serving world and society be damned.
I was replying to you not under any fantasy that I would convince you otherwise. I understood pretty well from the outset what sort of rhetoric you were on about.
I replied so it was made clear for others what exactly is being discussed here.
> But if it is necessary to put up with measles
It is. I am extremely grateful that the advances in medicine in the past couple of centuries allowed me to live without having to worry about serious plagues such as measles.
Either way, you didn't disappoint me. Have a great weekend.
No one is asking you to “believe the government”. We’re asking to believe the scientific literature and the non partisan experts who decide these recommendations.
Further, these recommendations are not new. They have a track record. You can look io the number of lives they’ve saved/reduced damage to.
The people who insist that we should throw out the expert advice based on openly available scientific research and literature in favor of one person’s feelings because he happens to hold a politically powerful position are the ones asking us to trust the government blindly. Actually, not blindly, but contrary to the evidence that our eyes see.
I didn't write "belief" but "trust", which is a related but different thing. You'd be very naïve to think that the powers that be are automagically uninvolved in both the Scientific Truth^tm that trickles down to the layperson and the source research and studies (both due to funding, censorship and outright lies in some hot fields like sociology).
tl;dr: I'm ready to believe in the vaccine theory, not in the infrastructure; applied science doesn't live in a vacuum
I'm not sure where to look for current figures (Wikipedia [0] is a decade out of date) - is Minnesota a net contributor or a net drain on the US federal budget?
It remains an odd strategy where money needs to be skimmed before it can be given farmers. Looking at the per capita numbers from 2015 and the raw tax take in 2024 it looks like Minnesota actually has enough money to sort itself out without relying on other states. It certainly seems like a strategic error to centralise significant influence over the food supply to people like Trump.
You're looking for the practical answer, but philosophically it isn't possible to translate an informal statement into a formal one 'correctly'. It is informal, ie, vaguely specified. The only certain questions are if the formal axioms and results are interesting which is independent of the informal formalisation and that can only be established by inspecting the the proof independently of the informal spec.
Philosophically, this is not true in general, but that's for trivial reasons: "how many integers greater than 7 are blue?" doesn't correspond to a formal question. It is absolutely true in many specific cases. Most problems posed by a mathematician will correspond to exactly one formal proposition, within the context of a given formal system. This problem is unusual, in that it was originally misspecified.
I suppose there's no formally defined procedure that accepts a natural language statement and outputs either its formalization or "misspecified". And "absolutely true" means "the vast majority of mathematicians agree that there's only one formal proposition that corresponds to this statement".
I think you suppose wrong. A statement like "the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides" doesn't seam out of reach of an algorithmic procedure like a classical NLP.
Sure, we can write a procedure that recognizes some formal grammar, which intersects with the natural language. Defining the formal grammar that fully captures the current natural language understanding of the mathematical community is a bit harder.
This problem was even worse: it's matched by the formal grammar, but the naïve formalisation has a trivial answer, so it is clearly not what was intended.
That clearly may be doing some heavy lifting. It is assumed that trivial answer wasn’t what was intended for the problem, but unless someone asked Erdos, I don’t think we know.
Considering that he did some work towards the problem, tackling non-trivial cases, I think we do know. There's no way he wouldn't have perceived trivial solutions at some point.
In principle I'm certainly on board with the idea, but the problem is - at least in the Anglosphere, probably further - that the financial system is part of the military and policing systems. They are a powerful and persistent lobby that want a phone to be able to provide enough who-what-when-where to be able to put someone in jail or in extreme cases drop a missile on them.
That is one of the reasons the crypto market is behaving like some radical innovation instead of just a group of bozos speedrunning financial history. For the first time since the invention of capital we have an asset class where it doesn't take the cooperation of a group of armed thugs to guarantee the integrity of the system.
Merkle trees can prevent tampering after the fact, yes.
But if you include collusion, there's no way for the blockchain itself to know who is colluding and where they are so.
Smart contracts may be vulnerable or malicious.
Wallets can be emptied.
Centralized exchanges and similar entities still exist.
Policing systems are still needed, because as long as there is something of value and there is still "evil" in the world, someone will try to steal it or damage it.
I would like to have the opportunity to consider a decentralized consensus algorithm that could accommodate nation state adversaries regularly. Not simply something cryptographically secure and distributed but something which can retroactively route around nodes who are temporarily bad due to external circumstances.
> It's not unreasonable to charge for the things they produce.
When it is funded publicly it certainly is. A key feature of the university research system is that it is where people are supported without the expectation that their work is going to be commercially useful in any near-term time frame. If something is going to be commercially valuable then people should develop it in the private sphere. Nothing stopping them. In fact, that is basically what the US does and it has been wildly successful and relegated the EU to being a technical backwater trying to figure out how to get out from under the US's commercial dominance.
> Also, should e.g. an American company have access to software produced by an Italian university?
Yes. Knowledge is for everyone. Even the Americans. Trying to hold back the progress of the entire species because the US knows how to pump out software is a remarkably myopic strategy.
> A key feature of the university research system is that it is where people are supported without the expectation that their work is going to be commercially useful in any near-term time frame
Idk where you got that idea from, but it's not an accurate picture since the mid 1980s. Yes, there is "fundamental" research, which is mostly a label for commercially not that interesting work (and cannot be expected to yield much open source anyway), but short-term project work and third-party funding are big. Also, much of the research is done with an eye towards profit, certainly in the medical and tech sector. And in the US, universities rely on a lot of private money.
> Knowledge
Knowledge isn't OSS. This (part of the) thread is specifically about (usable) software.
That seems contradictory with the idea that software should be developed in the private sphere: closed source, proprietary APIs, patents and trade secrets are the antithesis of sharing knowledge.
Progress in India is due to policy in India. The idea that India can handwave it's successes and failures on external forces might have been well justified in 1955, but in this century they get to choose. Best hope for the anti-Modi-policy crowd is maybe it isn't Modi's policies specifically.
In fact, in the vast majority of cases (including North America, South America, Europe, East Asia, India & South-East Asia) progress is entirely about countries choosing how quickly they are comfortable with improvement happening. Africa and the Middle East it is a combination of policy choices and cultural problems. Arguably foreign interference - although even then policy and strategy tends to be the bigger thing over time.
This is an extremely bold claim. Always was, but especially in today's world it is. I am not saying that Modi's policies are bad, what I am trying to say is that he is basically playing the game on the easy mode. He has access to the unprecedentely dynamic and resilient global economy _and_ he has access to cheap Russian resources Europe doesn't want to buy anymore. All Modi needs to do is not do anything really stupid - the economy will perform well unless clubbed to the head.
And that is all fine, and I am genuinely happy for India. My problem is that Modi is using that easily achieved success to erode democratic institutions - and that will become a problem in the long-term, as it always historically has, everywhere.
Russia wasn't the group that stopped selling oil to the Europeans, the Europeans refused to take it and have a military policy of arming people to blow up the means of transporting that oil to Europe. They're very proud of not using Russian oil. Modi could have joined in with that, he had a lot of people asking him too. Doing nothing (if he did nothing, again - I have no idea about the details of Indian policy) is a rather decisive policy given the pressure the Europeans have been putting on people.
The world has been in easy mode for 70 years now. Any government can choose to sit back and let people get wealthy. It is literally so easy that even the communists figured it out.
Whats the point of this progress which is completely destroying nature and giving people all kinds of cancer, India's oligarchy is more destructive than any other country on Earth. Indians used to be the most naturalist people in the world and now look at the state of the country.
Arguing over whether a different situation qualifies as a different sort of invasion doesn't move the conversation forward as much as you might intuit.
Legal problem, absolutely. But it is hard to spin bundling a web browser as an ethical concern - especially from MS's perspective. Everything they put in the OS is a component bundled with the OS. Some components being legally special and problematic would have been quite confusing to them when it first hit. Web browsers aren't special and there is an expectation that an OS can access the internet using a variety of protocols.
The ethical issue would be around making it technically harder for competitors to create a web browser. Eg, standard practice on mobile phones (which is worse than anything MS ever did and has always seemed fine to me).
> The radicalization of, e.g., Marc Andreessen was very useful to some group, so there is no reason they wouldn't try more of the same in this venue.
He's a billionaire. They come pre-radicalised and detached from reality by default. A body don't get to be a billionaire by just going with the flow and not having any particular interest in influencing the world around them.
reply