How in the world is a tweet about funding methodology even close to outrageous content that tip toes into banishment? You're losing the plot, friend.
It's simply a tweet to say he gets more value from talking directly with the founders about what he wants to know. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I could see how a certain audience would say ** context and ignore to categorize it as "controversial edgy tweets". Easy to rile those people up though without challenging the algo.
In this case it isn't on the ban axis, but it's pretty obvious that Twitter likes edgy statements that are often in the "Ironic lie to make a point" (positive view) or "ironic lie shrouded in fog to let my avoid repercussions" (negative)
The whole point is that he didn't say it as you worded it, it's always about making a dramatic statement.
When you get into the "riling people up" part - like saying "Thanks I'll definitely listen to him now" in response to criticism of someones bona fides - it's very satisfying, but bad for the soul IMO. It subtly distorts how you view empathy because you're always arguing with a hyperreal snapshot of the other person (and them to you)
Ok, but is that true for GCP? The GCP portfolio seems to be intentionally run differently than products elsewhere within Google.
Looking at that list, there's not much of a record for GCP products. I'm just skimming, maybe Chatbase but I believe the plan was always to integrate it into Dialogflow itself.
I think it's irrelevant to what was being said in their conversation. In Marc's context, being fake/shit equated to non-replicable simply. Before that quote, I believe he was talking about the replication crisis briefly.
C'mon guy, that's not good faith argument. I have a whole twitter full of folks calling for war crimes against what China's doing; Not to mention, Disney got plenty of backlash for that move from the people paying attention. (Google Disney Xinjiang and it's so ubiquitous I don't feel the need to link myself)
Seems your problem is more with mainstream media. You're deflecting from the argument at hand here. Not to mention, the wrongs of the Israeli cybersec industry, like with NSO group, seem much less covered than Xinjiang genocide (to me, but I'm sure there's ways to quantify the coverage differential)
My point is that there's a massive propaganda campaign targeted specifically at Israel. Many Western and non-Western nations are developing these kinds of tools. They are not at all unique to Israel. Yet again and again, we are exposed to publications targeting Israeli companies, specifically.
This article doesn't even try to hide the fact that it is focused on Israel as a nation, while several other nations operate in this space.
> Disney got plenty of backlash for that move from the people paying attention
"So much backlash", yet nothing has been done. Mulan is still distributed, and that thank-you note to Chinese authorities who build and maintain massive prison camps is still there.
It's almost like all these "moral concerns" are just thinly-veiled real politics.
Disney could remove that thank-you note from the Mulan credits. It didn't.
That's the same Disney that takes action against any works in its catalog that have any trace of supposed racism.
So, Disney tirelessly takes action against dubious subtle traces of racism in 60+ year old works, but won't take any action against real racism subjecting millions of people in China, right now. In fact it embraces this current racism.
Why? Because Disney wants the lucrative Chinese market and needs to play nice, cooperate with, and sometimes even praise the CCP which operates these racist prison camps.
So all the moral outrage against racism in the Muppets etc is just meaningless virtue signalling. Everyone is really doing what is in their best interest, but sometimes it is beneficial to dress that up for PR purposes.
Shh... The product marketing-authored deck on common objections doesn't care about SMBs. No offense to the original comment, but that's such a rehearsed answer that as you mentioned is irrelevant (despite sounding good on the surface) to everyone else.
A contract like Deutsche Bank means dedicated GCP customer engineers, professional service engagements at the highest levels, direct conversations with individual product leaders/managers, roadmaps conveyed to their needs, alphas etc etc.
If it's irrelevant to the Deutsche Bank's of customers, then it's of course fair game to get f'd with.
The day big tech companies learned that democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them, these kinds of actions started happening. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
It's also the day there was an insurrection/invasion of the capitol to prevent the Democratic process. This was fueled by the unfettered calls to violence on Parler.
If you're going to pick the events of the day, it's best to mention both.
To elevate that mob of miscreants and their raid to an insurrection or invasion will only give them more legitimacy and notoriety. They are criminals, period, who never had a chance to cause fundamental damage to the function of government (by their own actions, anyway). Don’t give them more power.
None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power.
If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.
Not an arbitrary line. You seem to think I wouldn't support criminal charges for the rioters over the summer. I do. I think they should all be prosecuted for any crimes committed.
But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government.
Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President?
Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer.
It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.
Facebook and Twitter provide accountable moderation. Parler doesn't and instead claims to assign moderation to random unaccountable users instead. This is according to their CEOs own interview earlier this week.
You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?
Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct.
Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.
Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.
With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.
Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.
What calls for violence, that weren't moderated?
What organized looting?
What riots that weren't instigated by police brutality?
Did any of these try and overthrow the Democratic process?
Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.
Politicians, including the incoming VP, did encourage and even bailed out the rioters, and did nothing to curb the violence directed at innocent civilians.
Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer.
Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.
The rioters that were bailed out, were they involved in said looting and violence? What were they guilty of? Do you have links to people who took part in criminal activities that were bailed out by the VP or other politicians?
Two of the three listed people are for crimes unrelated to the protest.
The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor).
Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence.
Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
> Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.
> Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well.
> You're taking Kamala's comments out of context. She has, even at the time, disavowed rioting and looting, but encouraged peaceful protest
Only after the protests had been raging for months. Nor did she call out the specific groups responsible for the violence.
And in any case, actions speak louder than words, and her bail efforts fall into that category. Now, you've questioned whether those bail funds went to the rioters. Let's be clear: the organization that she was donating to explicitly doesn't filter who they bail out based on the circumstances of the arrest. This was not an effort to merely help the peaceful protesters unlawfully arrested by authoritarian cops (which no doubt there was some of that) it was for everyone. There is no way rioters weren't included in that group. And it's clear that the politicians and celebrities who donated to that fund didn't care.
> To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
It is not at all. Democratic politicians and public figures have been providing cover for rampant criminal behavior for months. AOC brushes it off as "making people uncomfortable". Chris Cuomo of CNN asked "Where is it written that protests have to be polite or peaceful?" live on air. Joe Biden only really started condemning the violence after Don Lemon and others pointed out that the rioting was hurting the Democrats in the polls.
Neither Biden nor Trump actively incited riots. Though both were wishy washy about their respective riots, generally supporting "protestors" and giving generic statements disavowing violence.
None of what you said is incitement to riots, so I'm a bit confused why you are saying I'm wrong given you don't seem to disagree with me. :S
Also, he never disavowed the protestors, just the people who were breaking in and being violent (who were a small minority). And he certainly didn't "get himself banned from Twitter" by "back peddling" given he just said:
> The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!
And
> To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.
We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're fighting for. We don't have a choice, because it destroys what this site is supposed to exist for.
I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've been doing this for a super long time. But please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site in the intended spirit: thoughtful, curious conversation across differences. If you can't do that, that's understandable of course, but then please don't post until you can.
HN's rules have been designed to try to preserve this place as somehow interesting, not the scorched earth that internet forums usually descend to. The rules don't stop applying because someone else is wrong or you feel they are, and it's not ok to break them because you're right or you feel you are. Actually those are the cases where they apply the most.
there is only one side with a president. If you had asked differently, you couldnt be so biased anymore because many many democrat politicians were quite explicitly encouraging more riots and even harassment of politicians. While police stations were burned down. Meanwhile a bunch of Trump supporters casually walked into the senate laughing and smiling and giving thumbs up to the camera. If you cant see which one is worse, nobody can help you
They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history.
Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?
I'm a LOT more concerned about the rise in hateful, violent rhetoric being bandied about by self-described 'patriots' who seem hell-bent on bulldozing their way into political power as soon at it became obvious that they could not win by legal means.
These people stormed the legislature of the US to attempt to install their cult leader as dictator. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
And Parler will find another web host. If the daily stormer can find one, these clowns will. They're not disappearing.
Of course it's concerning, but it's also concerning how quick people are to dehumanize and call for censorship, putting a lot of energy into discussing endlessly just how evil or stupid or unreachable those other people are, rather than root causes [0]. The mainstream is whipping itself into hysteria just as much as QAnon does, and it really does seem like circus all around. Just for some perspective:
> The capitol has been the site of multiple bombings, shootings, assassination attempts, and stormings for centuries. Pretending its an unbespoiled sacred Church which has never been penetrated so vulgarly is just ahistorical.
This is also because learning to live with each other is harder than just denouncing the other side. We need to help people understand that the root cause needs to be examined as you said.
This looking for the root cause usually works well in big companies - for example on the Toyota production line but in politics people tend to look for easy answers. Examples like the war on drugs, getting overly tough on crime or defunding the police altogether do nothing but exacerbate the underlying issues.
Apart from calling this out and trying to vote in people who can think deeper I'm not sure what else to do. Living in close nit community/larger families you need to learn accept people for who they are and that seems to be going out the window with the increased focus on the individual in modern western culture. There's no one size fix all unfortunately...
I’m equally concerned about the rise in left wing propaganda. Including extreme double speak and obvious gas lighting. Censorship and manipulation. Very clear online manipulation by bots and paid trolls. Extreme bias in news.
America has become a country of absolutely insane extremists in a relatively short time.
There doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to try to get things back on track. As an outsider looking in it feels like everyone’s IQ has dropped below room temperature.
No, they are being downvoted because "don't storm the Capital chanting about hanging the vice president", and "don't use allegations of voter fraud as an excuse to violently oppose the installation of a duly elected government" are probably not Extremist Left Wing Propaganda.
It concerns literally everyone that large tech companies are opportunistic and only start taking violent threats seriously the moment the bully in chief is out of office, but you have it the wrong way around.
This type of content should have never been tolerated to begin with, the only reason they're only starting to do something is because they don't fear political retribution any more.
It doesn't concern me at all. It didn't concern me in 2016 when all these companies helped Trump and his campaign, and when none of them banned him despite repeated violations of their T&Cs. Now that it serves the companies to act they're all starting to act. Companies are largely bipartisan. They do what they need to do to stay in business and maximize their profit. That means playing politics and shifting from one side to the other when the wind changes.
The time to be concerned would be if these companies choose politics over profits.
I don't want to be that guy and say to effect, "well, welcome to the real world". There are trade-offs involved for every side, good and bad.
Your book discovery process may be optimal for you, but I couldn't be further away from that. I don't really care to know Bob or Sally's taste at the local bookstore, don't know them, have 0 trust in them. (There's probably exceptions, insignificant ones though, in big cities like Austin with really cool book stores & a niche collector-kinda collection, but that's a different market to me)
Why would I care about human curated isles and shelves when I could go look up what Tyler Cowen's reading and recommending, or Marc Andreessen or Patrick Collison? Not to mention, Twitter's fantastic for this. There's very interesting people that post snippets as well of what they're reading, and build up a credibility that gives you insight into the book as well as knowing this person has a reading taste that aligns with your own.
And then once I evaluate the options, I can easily go on Amazon and get whatever I want to read in a timely manner (Not to mention using Amazon's reviews as an additional filter, the 2/3 star reviews for more critical analysis)
One benefit for me is that it's faster and easier to walk into my neighborhood bookstore and walk out with a good book that maybe I've already read a couple exerpts from right in the store (not some brief preview online), than doing my own legwork on book discovery and waiting for a shipment. I love my local bookstore, the people working there have great taste since they are literally professionals at this.
And? Let's assume Trump loses, Biden wins. Do you have a specific basis to say that'll significantly change things for Palantir? Noting Thiel/Trump's relationship seems insignificant.
There'll always be entrenched national defense & security + intel bureaucrats who hold power, regardless if a Democrat or Republican is in office. Seems Palantir has at least spent a pretty penny building relationships with some of those folks.
What a ridiculous comparison without context. In 2018, EFF's total support & revenue was 17.2M ($15M being public support) [0].
In 2019, the Linux foundation had $96 million in revenue and $71 million in assets [1].
In 2018, Mozilla's revenue was $450M [2].
So how could you possibly compare EFF CEO's pay to Mozilla's? If Mozilla's CEO performs 10% better than the market average CEO, that's significantly more valuable than if the same thing occurs at EFF.
The market rate of good CEO's doesn't simply decline because they work for a non-profit. It depends on the context.
It's simply a tweet to say he gets more value from talking directly with the founders about what he wants to know. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I could see how a certain audience would say ** context and ignore to categorize it as "controversial edgy tweets". Easy to rile those people up though without challenging the algo.