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...).

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?

In some contexts :help notates things as characters (ex zh, zH, and z). In other cases I'm seeing things written as and . There's also CTRL-H (instead of ) 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 and hh. 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 (for the keypad).

What an amusingly pointless distraction!

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.