Most likely due to some physical (not legal) issue that would make it mechanically unsafe to operate the vehicle above that speed even in an otherwise appropriate location. (Or perhaps it's due to some obscure state law, or the manufacturer is just out to spoil your fun, or ... who knows?)
More generally, I agree with the point you make here about the responsibility to configure things correctly. However, it seems to me that Microsoft is also on the hook for failing to include the necessary context when an MFA request is sent. It's a bit like selling a car with seat belts that superficially appear to work but fail at the slightest provocation, no?
I thought the way you wrote it was clear but these comments got me curious what the various conventions might be so I took a quick look at :help in Vim (since it lists an awful lot of key bindings). I'm now officially confused and don't think you can go too far wrong.
In some contexts :help notates things as characters (ex zh, zH, and z<CR>). In other cases I'm seeing things written as <S-F11> and <C-G>. There's also CTRL-H (instead of <C-H>) but I'm not seeing shift written out like that for whatever reason. Sometimes they get mixed (I'm not sure what the rules are) such as for hh<Space> and hh<C-]>. Amusingly enough, :help appears to treat Meta-{char} as case sensitive but CTRL-{char} as case insensitive (I assume there's a reason). I also spotted a <kPlus> (for the keypad).
> Who spends that much time just in the command line these days?
Just stop using GUI utilities. It really is that simple. If you just don't use them you'll end up in a shell out of necessity because you still need to get things done.
Of course, the majority of my time is spent in my web browser reading documentation followed closely by vim for writing things. Actual time spent interacting with CLIs is a small minority at the end of the day.
No. Those are the very definition of publishers, not communications providers masquerading as publishers when it's politically convenient for them (recall the dance around Section 230 protections).
If a local newspaper ever somehow became the central point of communication for a significant fraction of the population, posting nearly everything they received by default with very little to no curation, then it would be reasonable to reexamine the expectations placed upon them by society.
The person I responded to did, in fact, directly imply this. Recall that I had compared the impact of modern mainstream social media to that of the printing press historically. Directly ignoring my central point clearly places your comment in bad faith.
"Freedom of reach" is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on (cultural, not legal) freedom of speech (and liberalism more generally) for the reasons I've already articulated in this and nearby threads.
> Freedom of speech is not the same thing as a (nonexistent) right to post whatever you want on a private platform
Again with a non sequitur - I never claimed that it was. I said:
> > Censorship reduces freedom to speak. That statement remains true whether or not the speech happens to be legally protected
It's really hard to have a good faith discussion about the pros and cons of a nuanced issue when one of the parties repeatedly fails to make good faith interpretations of claims which appear to challenge their worldview.
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc (and to a lesser extent search engines) are the modern equivalent of the printing press in terms of the effect they've had on how we communicate. A domain and VPS are simply not a viable substitute for access to mainstream social networks; to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
They are not at all similar to publishing. There's no editor. There's no approval process for the typical use case, only a retroactive removal process. They don't have an audience in the traditional sense of people paying someone to curate information for them but rather depend on network effects to maintain a monopoly on their segment of the market. To that end, they have more in common with a dating app than they do with the New York Times. The presence of advertising revenue is the only legitimate similarity I see to a traditional publishing model.
In spite of your claim that YouTube isn't infrastructure, it appears to me to have far more commonalities than differences with it. That it isn't (yet) regulated as such is merely a legal peculiarity from my perspective.
(And the above doesn't even begin to consider the effects that dumping VC and megacorp funded free product has had on the market. Good luck starting a competing platform when there's no viable way to operate a subscription model and your direct competitor has a monopoly on the relevant advertising market.)
I suspect you're being rhetorical, but the algorithm and specific metrics to use are selected by the developer. The data is entirely user generated - it's the result of collecting the metrics over some period of time. The trained model is the result of feeding the collected data into the chosen algorithm.
The point is that the algorithm is, for all practical purposes, tuning itself. The developer has essentially selected a black box to feed the data into, told it what to optimize for, and given it the ability to wiggle a bunch of unlabeled knobs. Which knobs it should tweak and in precisely what way is never specified by the developer. Instead of "show the following things to the following users", the developer just says "maximize number of videos viewed per visit" and the algorithm tweaks whatever parameters have been made available to it until it finds something that works.
Unfortunately, "something that works" is often not what we might have liked. ML is a bit like a Djinn, fulfilling wishes in an unpredictable and borderline malicious manner.
Not if it's built into the communication platform you happen to be using. Just one or a few basic indicators to give you even the slightest bit of information about who wrote what you're reading. Just a simple "p = 0.03 US resident" or an aggregate trust score based on a combination of social graph connectivity and spam reports or something. Sure, people could intentionally ignore it, but right now there's no indicator to be had even if you want it!
To be clear, I'm not talking about present day clunky GPG web of trust with key signing parties and all that. I'm talking about a hypothetical (ie as yet nonexistent) magical web of trust that somehow doesn't destroy your privacy in the process of being used. (It's not as crazy as it sounds - we already have zero knowledge proofs, blinded encryption, and various other privacy preserving cryptographic schemes.)
These aren't singular global quantities. Such censorship reduces spammers' freedom to speak in order to preserve that of the other participants. Spamming closely resembles a tragedy of the commons (overuse of the system to solicit sales) and anti-spam an associated regulatory action.
The problem with such an analogy is that spam is inherently off topic - approximately none of the other participants actually want to see it. That's fundamentally different from this case. Whether you deem it misinformation or political speech, many of the participants clearly do want to see it. In fact, they want to see it so much that such information is consistently selected by the automated algorithms that are designed specifically to maximize engagement metrics.
> We limit speech already, you can't advocate for the killing of other people, races, etc...
Actually, not that I support such behavior but (at least in the US) you can generally advocate for it. People usually don't (thankfully) so I don't have any examples immediately to hand, but my understanding is that the legal test is "imminent lawless action". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
> free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good
Rather than an absolute good, I would argue that it ought to be viewed as an absolute right. I would also argue that, whether used for good or ill, free political speech is a functional necessity of any democracy. (Necessary but not sufficient and all that.)
> in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed
Agreed, but it's a separate issue and I've no idea what anyone is actually supposed to do about it.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. The government can simultaneously regulate specific behaviors of large entities where there is reason for concern while otherwise largely leaving them to do whatever they want.
I don't think GP is necessarily suggesting that Trump will address their objections or that they personally support him. Rather, I read it as suggesting that much of his support may in fact be due to backlash against such cultural trends on the left.
You have an incredibly well put message here, but then you went and tacked on those last two paragraphs that border on uncivil, are polarizing, and (IMO) fail to add anything meaningful.
This mirrors my experience perfectly. Conduct on HN is uncommonly civil (for the internet) across the board - props to Dang and whoever else moderates things. Insightful discussion, however, is almost entirely limited to the extremely technical submissions. From biochemistry to compilers to machine learning, they consistently attract participation at a truly impressive caliber.
Sometimes I wonder what HN would be like if it were somehow possible to preemptively block the majority of the "fluff" articles that make it to the front page. I guess there's no way to automate such a determination though, and even if there were any such action would probably anger the majority of the user base.
Actually, in the age of ML it more or less does. You wire up the model, specify the metrics to optimize for, and then feed it lots of data. The algorithm figures out the details of how to achieve the specified goal on it's own. Have a look at (https://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/convnetjs).
Don't worry, you're free to speak your mind so long as you don't actually try to communicate with anyone. Please take care not to express your opinions outside of the officially designated free speech zones!
> They're private platforms. You can send those links via many other routes ...
That is a complete non sequitur. You say it's not about freedom of speech. Someone responds that, in fact, blatant censorship is occurring. You don't even attempt to refute this point, instead falling back to pointing out that the censorship isn't illegal!
Censorship reduces freedom to speak. That statement remains true whether or not the speech happens to be legally protected, and regardless of how wide spread the censorship might be.
The original devblog from 2005 is (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20050412-47/?p=35...). Aside: Upon pulling that up, I recognized the author as the one who wrote my favorite article about undefined behavior (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140627-00/?p=63...).