If you are interested in more background on biological brains, c.elegans is really just "the very first breakthrough" (in the phraseology of Max Bennett's A Brief History Of Intelligence -- a recent, worthwhile popular science book).
I'm no expert, but I think you could have the reverse proxy node be the only thing whitelisted to be accepted by the nodes you want behind the proxy (via their tailscale IP). I believe this would all be done in their ACL JSON.
Tailscale offers a super basic reverse proxy called tailscale serve. Or baring that caddy has built in support. They have the full details for both in the tailscale docs.
HN has never been unbiased. It is funded by a tech VC company and targeted at tech entrepreneurs. It has always promoted crypto and AI scams to an eager audience and pumped up one useless company that added nothing of value to the world after another.
Despite that there has been a general interest in "tech" and clever things and intelligent discussion here that appeals to a reasonably broad community so the place works.
The massive wealth concentration and power amongst a very few, the Paypal mafia, Andreeson etc has led them down a path that puts them at odds with the rest of us. Regardless of our diverse politics regular engineers aren't going to have more individual or economic freedom in a world controlled by a small group of oligarchs. They care about us about as much as we care about ants.
I wouldn't say the tech world has blessed the regime but many unquestionably revere the financiers of the tech world. We (techies) for all our talk of individual liberties have a problem with cult like thinking. Most of us aren't stupid and we can justify our positions, any position. And while some flagging of discussions might be sock puppets or bots, the truth is a lot of people still thoroughly believe the hype.
Not sure it's that HN has blessed the regime so much as it's flagging them so it can get back to tech etc rather than 527 trump/musk stories. There's always reddit etc.
As someone on neither side of that aisle I can tell you it is the smothering effect of attempting any logical discussion in those topics. The smothering effect comes from one side more often than not.
The best part of it all is that you can post like the above with no clear side chosen and the people whom it applies to will react to it negatively as well.
It is a good point, and I've long been a proponent of this, that everyone needs to flag the excessive elements of "their side" more in the current climate.
Humans are humans. Some humans are dumb and emotion-prone. Some humans who are dumb and emotion-prone think their bad behavior is justified because they're on the side of justice/righteousness.
It's not enough, in our current climate, to look the other way because someone is on a similar team...
Reinvigorating honest, fair discussion requires everyone interact more positively.
In my experience during this last Trump campaign, the most effective way to rile conservatives is not to lie, but rather to tell the truth. Meaning, taking Trump at his word and repeating the words he said, in direct quotes.
I think what's happening is that a lot of his constituents like him due to his personality, but they don't necessarily believe he is honest. So, they're betting on his dishonesty and using that as a justification for their support. Meaning, supporting Trump is really not so bad if you assume Trump isn't going to do half the things he says he is. Then, it's like you're supporting an almost normal candidate.
Well, in that case Trummp has done a fantastic job proving those people wrong. But that still confuses me: who can like this personality when it's on the world platform, and not just a TV stereotype?
Could we at least elect someone likeable like Bill Nye if we're voting based on "personality"?
Most Americans don’t care for someone put together. That’s interpreted as pretentious.
They want someone a bit stupid, who says stupid things. They want someone who’s an asshole because asshole is basically synonymous with badass protagonist.
I think there's also a reasonable proportion of readers who want "political" topics removed from HN, even if the topic intersects with HN-relevant topics.
(I'm not one of them, but I believe many are. I appreciate where they are coming from.)
I hadn't noticed that, but I believe it. Many Americans I know are in "blinders on" mode because the intensity and frequency of American political angst is overwhelming them.
I doubt it's even percentages. It may be as low as a dozen users lurking on /new (or automating the process) to flag based on keywords from the title or article.
As an engineer you should be familiar with laws and regulations. Try creating health care software without regarding HIPAA, for example, should make for lots of fun and lawsuits!
People refresh all day here and often on the new post and new and comment feeds specifically, and many earnest users who take pride in maintaining a certain character to the site are quick to flag anything that's likely to devolve into noise and vitriol, like most political topics.
It can be frustrating to have them do that when you really wish you could to commiserate, explore, or debate the community on these topics, but bots aren't at play. Many people just don't see this as the right place to have these discussions and work to keep it that way.
While almost all of are political in some way, and most of us are tracking all these same events, we don't all want talk about it here.
I really wish people, widely, would stop blaming bots. I am sure there are plenty of bots doing lots of things, but by immediately attributing this behavior to bots I think we detach ourselves from a fundamental fact: there are a lot of US citizens that are so far drowning in propaganda that they actually manufacture reason for much of this insanity without much provocation or incentive beyond it being done by their tribe.
Yea, I got tired of people attempting to make comments like this and wrote a script to quickly analyze past comment history to see if they were truly being honest.
You have consistently and reliably posted your political views here. Please don't try to pretend that you hate the political discourse now that people are critical of your guy.
You should learn more about the political landscape. It will clear up a lot of these questions. And I mean that sincerely. If you see everything as left or right it’s quite confusing.
There's this growing sentiment among some Republicans that Trump isn't conservative enough and that Democrats, a centrist party relative to most developed nations, are left wing lunatics/socialists/communists.
I hope that we were beyond first-past-the-post voting. I would like to see a ranked-choice or star voting to determine whether something should be flagged.
I would also appreciate using tools like this AI system[1] to identify and limit hate-filled posts. It's only accurate about 90% of the time, but that's an acceptable loss for me, even if my speech gets filtered.
"Political" is not a binary true or false. There are plenty of on-topic articles here that merely have "political overlap" as dang[1] puts it, and they should not be flagged. To be fair, this article seems to be more towards the "purely political" side of the spectrum and was probably correctly flagged.
I think this rule is generally followed by HN's users, but for whatever reason, anything that touches "Elon" or "DOGE" always gets insta-buried, whether or not it's tech-related, whether or not it's interesting, whether or not it's worth discussing.
I don't think it's automated bots, but there is most certainly an online Elon Defense Brigade of real users out there trying to bury anything negative about the guy. I don't know what would make someone devote so much time to defending the honor of a billionaire. It's almost religious.
It's still here, and anyone who finds HN posts by rss or other means will see the headline, url & have access to this discussion (although it might be closed to replies by then)
The reason they are flagged is precisely because there isn’t much hope for discourse, not the other way around. Also, I think per the guidelines, these types of discussions are also not welcome:
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
The guidelines also say the following, so I’ll just stop here:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
I am not calling anyone out - just pointing out this rule exists. I am pretty confused about this rule for what it’s worth. I feel like a lot of content I see on HN is political or ideological at a basic level - like articles about Trump or Ukraine or DOGE or whatever, which are everywhere since January. So if the discussion is “allowed” (like not flagged), I am not sure how to contribute to those discussions without being political or ideological myself. Maybe the rule exists because these discussions can easily become unhealthy - like aggressive comments, downvotes, etc.
I’m sorry, where do you get that communist countries negates genetically science? A quick search shows that Cuba, for example has plenty of geneticists, researchers and healthcare initiatives around hereditary diseases…
They are likely referring to Lysenkoism. This was the USSR's alternative to natural selection, partially because they believed natural selection was not compatible with Marxism. (There were other justifications, but this is the one relevant to the parent comment)
"Some Marxists, however, perceived a fissure between Marxism and Darwinism. Specifically, the issue is that while the "struggle for survival" in Marxism applies to a social class as a whole (the class struggle), the struggle for survival in Darwinism is decided by individual random mutations. This was deemed a liberal doctrine, against the Marxist framework of "immutable laws of history" and the spirit of collectivism."
Yeah Lysenkoism is what I was referring to about flat out denying genetics. But a softer version of genetics denialism has been a running theme historically.
Marxists are committed to a sort of historical determinism that requires social conditions to be more important than biology in a way that's not scientifically defensible. That's why they were the first to research classical conditioning, why they continue to support pseudoscience like linguistic determinism, why they've experimented so much with "brain washing" (e.g. trying to program prisoners of war through propaganda) etc.
Some of this stuff (like conditioning) has turned out to be useful. Some of it (like Lysenkoism) turned out to be tragically catastrophic. But all of it is an attempt to make science subservient to political needs.
Lysenko was widely discredited and ridiculed in the late 1960's following the demise of his main proteges (Stalin and later Khrushchev).
The widespread damage Lysenko had brought about upon the Soviet genetics was widely acknowledged and openly discussed in the Soviet Union at the time. What on Earth is this bloviation all about?
I can't speak for the others, but I read entire threads before engaging in a discourse. In this particular instance, the thread[0] started out as a flagrant misrepresentation of the facts, loaded with inciting terms to bait the esteemed reader into an emotional explosion. Since there was no meaningful discourse to be had, only a factual correction was appropriate. The choice to get insulted is entirely discretionary.
