It seems that at least three groups tried to replicate the study and failed (i.e., found no or little actual effect)¹.
> In contrast, other research in economics and sociology has hypothesized and found a positive relationship between SES and prosocial and ethical behavior. We review the empirical evidence for these contradictory findings and conduct two direct, well-powered, and preregistered replications of the field studies by Piff and colleagues (2012) to test the relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior. Unlike the original findings, we find no evidence of a positive relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior in the two field replication studies.
There was also this follow-up [1], pointing out that most of these 7 studies only had something like a 50–65% estimated chance of producing a significant result, yet all 7 did.
In other words, if a whole series of fairly noisy experiments all comes out squeaky clean, you have to wonder whether you're actually seeing the whole series.
The sad thing is how many people will believe this and repeat it. Kind of like the Stanford Prison or Milgram experiment, Or pretty much most anything that's come out of sociology
> We have received cease and desist letters. Awaiting legal advice at the moment, but for now expect all nitter instances to remain down for the foreseeable future.
[for all those who - like me - first check the comments before clicking on the link]
Getting legal advice can absolutely take a long time, and the first thing they'll probably tell most people in this situation is "turn it off for now until we can do more research and collect money from you."
However, C&D's don't really carry any legal weight in the US to my knowledge... but I don't see any harm in complying ahead of time just to be safe. The only "damage" I can see is just by nature of the service being down temporarily.
If there is even a possibility that a court may find the service violating a law, I think the legal advisor would likely say to just leave the service down unless you have many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to fight it... you can most likely avoid the entire lawsuit altogether just by complying with the C&D. And this kind of suit is one that can easily ruin your company or even personal life... so avoiding it seems smart.
> Anyone can send an request.
As for emails, I think BIMI has solved this for some time now, at least for large companies.
> Getting legal advice can absolutely take a long time, and the first thing they'll probably tell most people in this situation is "turn it off for now until we can do more research and collect money from you."
Normally I would agree, but Nitter has been an adversarial integration from the start. I would expect them to have anticipated this attack.
> However, C&D's don't really carry any legal weight in the US to my knowledge... but I don't see any harm in complying ahead of time just to be safe. The only "damage" I can see is just by nature of the service being down temporarily.
Which is significant damage. By complying too eagerly you give those notices power that they would not otherwise have.
> If there is even a possibility that a court may find the service violating a law, I think the legal advisor would likely say to just leave the service down unless you have many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to fight it... you can most likely avoid the entire lawsuit altogether just by complying with the C&D.
If you're of that mindset why create Nitter in the first place. And they are pretty much guaranteed public (including financial support) for any lawsuit if they ask for it since Nitter is something a lot of people want to exist.
> And this kind of suit is one that can easily ruin your company or even personal life... so avoiding it seems smart.
It's ultimately not that smart when you're in the "business" of creating Nitter because it just tells the bullies that all that's needed is a nicely formatted letter and you'll fold.
"only damage". That's the damage. Five 9s is a thing, because being down means you lose market, your brand is harmed, and no one wants to use you. No one complies with 'cease and desist' orders before seeing if there's any meat at all. No one.
And the legal system "gets that". Reasonable compliance isn't "Oh, someone sent me a C&D. I should destroy my entire business on the off change it makes sense to do so. I'll just raze everything to the ground, hoping that it's better than just... having everything razed to the ground through a suit."
Just.. no. The legal system knows that due diligence is not simply complying, but instead taking time to validate the claim, see if it makes sense, and so on. After all, if the matter were truly urgent, an injunction could easily be obtained.
I don't think anyone was making money on nitter instances anyway, I don't see much in the way of any "brand" or business to lose... and lose to who? Not like there's a competitor. This is just a side project not worth playing games with IMO.
I wouldn't consider temporarily disabling a side project "razing the project to the ground" either.
> no one wants to use you
How do you know this was ever a project goal? Most FOSS projects I talk to have no interest in actively trying to gain more users on purpose.
I was having a generic conversation about the risks to continue service, when handed a C&D, prior to reasonable assessment time. And my point was? There is none.
This helps to give optics into what to do, when served a plate of absurdity.
And if this C&D is caved to, then so will future ones, and Nitter won't have any use anyhow.
Most of the C&D cases I've heard about on HN, have been against small open source projects that absolutely don't have the legal resources to fight it, and I'm sure the ones sending that letter know it. I suspect that companies are much more likely to send a C&D to an individual or small community than to a company with a legal team.
Everyone has the resources to fight a C&D since all it takes is a middle finger. Now if they actually have a case against you then sure its harder, but that case , if it exists, existed before they ever sent you a C&D. If you are scared about X being mad at you then the sensible thing to do is to not create something that pisses them off in the first place.
> And if this C&D is caved to, then so will future ones, and Nitter won't have any use anyhow.
I don't agree with any of that but ok. It's not like they can stop instances in other countries they have no jurisdiction over, so I don't think its "use" will suddenly vanish.
Yes and it's not like there hasn't been ton of precedent for scraping recently, including by X themselves, so why would they expect to not be able to win this?
I hate how a jerk like him can tie up the courts with frivolous lawsuits while regular people have their cases slowed down for things that actually matter.
1. Permanently take down nitter.net and the GitHub repository, and delete all "X Data" in both
2. Stop all use of the "Twitter" and "X" marks
3. Cease all access to X data, including copies
4. Delete all X account credentials and session tokens
5. Confirm compliance in writing within three business days
The claims asserted are breach of X's Terms of Service, Developer Agreement and Developer Policy; the Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act; and the Lanham Act. It threatens litigation against me personally. X states it has also sent notice to GitHub and to my domain registrar.
> 1. Permanently take down nitter.net and the GitHub repository[...]
This is the one that they know they have absolutely no grounds to demand, which is why they started with it. Everything else can be conformed with without even really damaging Nitter (the project.)
> 4. Delete all X account credentials and session tokens
could be trouble for individual servers, but is on legally shaky ground, and servers can simply go down at the first strong challenge and open back up under another name. Nitter the project doesn't need to have any credentials or tokens.
I'm sure this has already been answered somewhere in slashdot hundreds of years ago, but why not just go with "free as in freedom"? And perhaps use the word freedom insted of free when possible
But in all seriousness, "free as in freedom" seems fine to me but it is replacing the already unambiguous "free as in speech". You're still stuck with the sometimes-confusing "free as in beer" and they're still cumbersome compared to gratis/libre.
Why not use those three days (or any time that can still be considered reasonable to respond to this) to contact the EFF before responding by taking down the site?
"For the forseeable future" doesn't sound very good. It's a vague phrase, but it usually isn't used to describe something that will change next week or even next month.
"For the time being" would have sounded like less bad wording than "for the forseeable future."
Yes. But in my limited experience, the practically useful fresh takes come from people who have immersed themselves deeply into a problem, not from people who spend a weekend with ChatGPT.
> winning participants had simply made powerpoints
Wow.
A student of mine told me of more or less the opposite (but also negative) experience: they attended a hackathon where the winning team spent the whole weekend playing cards - and then presented an app they had already built before the hackathon as their contribution. It was obviously much more polished than the weekend projects.
yeah, when I was attending them the trend became to have X% of code done at the hackathon, but given how many external packages are necessary-ish or commonplace to use, it was impossible to enforce
I began using hackathons as a shared focus space to work on side projects, more like a library
But eventually I got totally disillusioned by them in favor of a more higher signal
There is already a lot of research on predicting [1] and monitoring [2] wildfires using traditional machine-learning approaches.
How would an LLM be useful in predicting wildfires? A project that incorrectly claims to solve a problem "using AI" has negative value.
By proposing a solution that will not actually work, these hackathon participants make a complex challenge seem trivial and take away attention from other, more mature work.
EDIT: I checked out the project's description. It seems that they do not actually use LLMs but old trusty XGBoost.
It looks like they actually have put some thought into this - however, I'm still not convinced that it would work in practice at any reasonable scale. (Maybe some billionaires might want to invest into something like this to protect their own mansions.)
If a break through product comes out of a hackathon, that would be amazing. As far as I can see it after participating in a few of them, I think a hackathon is more than that. There social aspect of it is important, including the motivation and the inspiration of the community.
I guess it depends. While doing my PhD at a top German research university, our chair advised multiple of these projects, too (e.g., BMW, Siemens, Audi).
Yes - the downsides you mention are all true. But similar downsides apply to most PhD students working directly at the university - either you have some teaching load and administrative duties, or you work in an externally funded project and have to write project reports and do a lot of non-research stuff, too.
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if you want to have an academic career, doing a PhD in industry is not the best choice. But if you want to work in R&D or as a group leader in industry, these PhD positions might be a good stepping stone.
I know the German system quite well and know people who did their PhD in industry, people who did their PhD in an externally funded research project, and people who pursued a more self-directed PhD while working as a research and teaching assistant.
I don't think that there is a general 'PhD inflation' in Germany (though there are some disciplines with this problem). It is well understood by most PhD students that an academic career is the exception, not the rule. Most of them choose to do a PhD because they like the academic environment and want to learn more. Most PhDs go on to work in industry research labs, science-adjacent roles (e.g., museums) or as group leaders in tech companies. There is sufficient need for PhDs in most fields.
Industry-embedded PhD students are required to meet the same criteria as other PhD students. They also publish their research at the same conferences - but it is often more on the applied side. One could argue that such research has "little scientific value" - but so does most research.
The most important outcome of a PhD is not the list of publications but a person who deeply understands a domain, knows how to critically analyze a problem, and finds good solutions. Doing a PhD 'in industry' also allows you to do this. And it gives you a foot in the door at that company.
FWIW, many PhD students I knew, e.g. at BMW, complained a little bit about the side-projects they were expected to do, or the bureaucracy at such large companies. And, because you don't have to do any teaching and rarely supervise undergrads in industry labs, you are less qualified for an academic career than PhD students who work at the university.
"The most important outcome of a PhD is not the list of publications but a person who deeply understands a domain, knows how to critically analyze a problem, and finds good solutions. Doing a PhD 'in industry' also allows you to do this. And it gives you a foot in the door at that company."
Interesting though. Not sure you can have an extensive publication list without a deep domain understanding. But an extensive publication list normally assures that you have it.
My professor always said, I don't want to see you PhD thesis, just show me your publication list. Actually, while we were obligated to write a thesis, in his opinion it should be sufficient to just submit your publications.
> In contrast, other research in economics and sociology has hypothesized and found a positive relationship between SES and prosocial and ethical behavior. We review the empirical evidence for these contradictory findings and conduct two direct, well-powered, and preregistered replications of the field studies by Piff and colleagues (2012) to test the relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior. Unlike the original findings, we find no evidence of a positive relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior in the two field replication studies.
¹) https://pubpeer.com/publications/7363E2E1B57AC42EF166E0D0266... ²) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-34988-001?doi=1
reply