skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> As for the speed race, why not limit transactions so that they can only be executed on the dot, once every $TIME_STEP? You won't be able to see what orders others have been put out, so you don't gain that much of an advantage by sitting on a very low latency connection.

Sure you do, you're still first in whatever line there is; latency still matters no matter how much you try and slow execution speed down. Latency isn't about the speed of trading, it's about being first in line regardless (speed to the sales counter) of what speed the trades are limited to.
Apple is a company. Apple is not your friend. Apple doesn't care about you. Apple just wants to make money.

This is okay and this should be expected.

That people are upset about this kind of behaviour is disconcerting.
Normal BPF already worked with seccomp as well, which is outside of networking. But yes, eBPF is a major advancement, i.e. you can program eBPF code in a C language subset and compile it with LLVM. There's quite some possibilities already used in tracing and networking (here: tc classifier and actions and socket filters).
Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age
I would argue that a prosecutor's job is not about guilt or innocence, and that it is to just convict people. Just like it's the defending attorney's job to get people acquitted, regardless of guilt or innocence. It is the court's role to convict guilty people and acquit innocent people, which in theory happens when you allow a prosecutor who wants to convict and a defending attorney who wants to acquit to argue in front of an impartial judge and jury.

In theory. It's a wacky system when you think about it and there's plenty of places it can fall down. But as built, I don't think it's the prosecutor's job to decide innocence or guilt.

They do need to follow the rules, though. If they're obtaining convictions by violating the rules, they need to be punished strongly. If they're obtaining false convictions within the rules then the rules need to be reexamined.
This is pretty great! I find myself writing classes to encapsulate small bits of information, just to have this sort of functionality.
There's absolutely no incentive to ever cut costs then, because any reduction in cost would be counted as 'non-investment', and be taken as a sign that things are moving backwards.
I don't think that comparison is quite right.

As far as I'm aware, Tesla is selling cars to people who want to drive cars. Real cars, with muscles.

Google isn't selling anything, and again, as far as I'm aware, it's not settled whether they ever will, for instance there's been a lot of speculation on a rent-a-ride model.

And the prototype they have is clearly aimed at people who don't want to drive cars, i.e. more or less exactly the opposite segment.
I always thought it was left as-is to further discussions about how it should be, without having to overcome a crowd of people claiming it's good enough already.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I get the point about liquidity and traditional market makers, that makes sense.

But isn't the point about HFT (at least, the part that is described in the comic) being "insider information" reasonable? Some people are willing to sell now for a low price, and some people are willing to wait longer for a better price, but I don't think anyone is unwilling to wait 1 millisecond for a significantly better price, no? Does liquidity on the millisecond scale make sense?

> He's not willing to wander around hoping to find a better price in another cave. That's a service that the 2nd caveman is performing for him.

I can see that, and in some contexts it's a very valuable service.

But suppose I'm caveman 1. I know that CaveBob is a middleman. Everytime he comes to see me, it's because he knows something I don't, and I end up regretting my trade with him because a few hours later, I invariably realize that I could have made a much better trade. Then I'll stop trading with CaveBob, of course, and I'll naturally bump into those needing my meat a few hours later.

In a stock exchange, I can't stop trading with CaveBob's, as far as I know. If a stock market without market makers and HFT rises by 5% every year, then by participating, I can hope to make as much if I'm average at trading. In a market with HFT, they will be taking part of the 5% with very low risk (through technological advantage), so it's not clear what's left, and the decision to participate is not so clear.
Locked doors, headaches, and intellectual need
Air France, Lufthansa avoid flights over Sinai peninsula
What I'm saying is that the process doesn't matter.
When you combine namedtuples with something like simplegeneric you can write some pretty awesome functional code in python. I think of them not as just tuples with names but something akin to an immutable struct.

I tend to reach for namedtuples first now over classes because of this (and the fact that I don't do as much OOP in general).
I'm not sure. Companies are much more protective now. For instance, imagine that IBM, back in the 80s, locked up its PC ecosystem the way Apple is doing now. We would probably not have Linux now (and no BSD either), and no Google or Apple.
Philosophy will be the key that unlocks artificial intelligence
By raising the price of coal will allow for seams of coal that are less economically viable to be mined. These unviable seams are likely more environmentally damaging to mine.

I had a family member that owned property in WV. They looked into the mineral rights for the property. The seam below the property would be difficult to mine due to a near by river. To access the seam the water would need to be diverted. With a high enough price for coal then these sorts of seams become mineable.
Yes, but there are other ways to raise the price of coal which don't involve bribing coal companies to stop destroying the world. They're destroying the world, how about they pay for it? You could put a massive property tax on coal mining rights, a massive tax on profits from coal, and/or a massive sales tax on coal. Any of those would achieve the same result, but instead of rewarding sociopathic corporations that are literally destroying the world, they'd put that money in public coffers which could be used, for example, to fund renewable energy.

I really don't think we need to bribe coal companies to stop killing us.

EDIT: And don't even think of playing the "but if we tax them they'll pass that cost on to consumers" card. Driving up the cost of coal by buying mines will also result in them passing that cost on to consumers. All costs are always passed on to consumers: billionaires are billionaires because they're adept at getting other people to pay for things. At least if the money is going into taxes, it can be passed back to the consumers it was taken from in the form of public programs.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? You could make an investment now in infrastructure to reduce your long term costs. It's not about the cost of delivering service, it's about how much service is expanding, as measured by purchases of networking infrastructure.
When people demand open content, they will get it. Until then, just keep making the case for open content.
The average accident rate in the US is something like one per 250,000 miles driven. (The average driver drives 15,000 miles per year, and goes about 18 years between accidents.)

So indeed, we can't draw much conclusion about the safety of Google's car relative to the average driver yet, except to say that it's not catastrophically worse.
This should be definitely expected, but the fact you think it's ok is what's disconcerting.
The hardest part for this is going to be convincing the first set of billionaires to take money out of (gold, x commodity) and putting it into coal. Gates will probably have to be a guinea pig and convince some of his other investor friends to do the same, and everyone else will follow suit.

That is of course, if you believe global warming is a thing.
The government can just hire psychologists that don't give a shit about this policy.

I think they can probably find them.
Unless there's any reason to think the corps would have any less influence on that than they have on the laws that allow them to get people to waive their rights to sue - and why would they? - that sounds like a great way to prevent customers from escaping abusive conditions.

As a good example, the aforementioned Texas agreement seems to have a clause that states that the landlord can enter the property at any time without previous notice. Preventing the landlord from giving up that right is not a good thing.
As always, we're here if you have any questions or comments.
> The Highlanders fancied the music not because it was beautiful. They liked it, they explained, because the trumpets sounded exactly like the brassy screams of captive women selected for feasting.

And then later:

> Our social harmony was going along until the white man arrived … You intrude, and suddenly the things that used to go smoothly no longer do.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that a social harmony in which people love the cries of those they are about to eat is a social harmony which needs disruption, destruction and replacement with something better.

What Papua New Guinea needs is more, not less colonialism; it needs a governor like General Sir Charles Napier, who put down the practice of suttee in Sindh, and who upon being entreated by the native priests that it was a sacred rite which should be respected, responded, 'Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs!' (from Sir W.F. Napier's 'History of General Sir Charles Napiers Administration of Scinde').

It's a tragedy that civilised powers did not stay there longer and correct more of PNG's broken society; it would be a crime (of ethics, if not of law) if the Western energy companies aren't doing something to fix that society, rather than live on its edges.
> we need to make laws making what they are doing illegal.

In context, you are saying burning coal should be illegal. This is a weighty proposal.

You need to either a) describe, in detail, what would happen if burning coal were made illegal (bonus points for discussing how this changes depending on which countries make it illegal, since getting China on board might be rather difficult) or b) respond by admitting that your idea needed a little more thought than you've given it.
The Ethics of Self-Driving Cars Making Deadly Decisions
Also, you can verify via bitcoin address if you're dealing with a hacker who is known to give data back.

How so? Presumably they use a different one for each payment, no? Otherwise, how could they tell who paid?
Am I allowed to be vaguely uneasy with the fact that so many people put Apple in this position?
Unfortunately, changing the text on your end has no legal effect. It's not a contract unless the other party agrees to your change.
Victor Lustig – Man who sold the Eiffel tower
That is a very misleading title. More accurate would be "GitLab is used by Fortune 500 companies", which isn't new information.
Used by Fortune 500 companies != 'in the fortune 500'. Poor title
How do you propose getting all workplaces to change their schedules to 8-4, nevermind the places that don't run those hours? Legislation? This solution keeps coming up and the practicality of it seems nonexistent. Any legislation of business is riddle with exceptions, there would be end to them for such a move as changing working hours.
Can we expect to see more focus on improving merge requests within Gitlab? I've felt as though for the longest time it's not had any of the major functionality gaps filled and seems to be deteriorating with each release. I'm wondering now if Gitlab doesn't see it very high on the list of priorities for the product

(Apologies if this comes across as overly negative, I use Gitlab all day every day and it's a great tool)
Their sales must be TERRIBLE.
I use namedtuples, and am happy to have them. What I dislike is the 'rename' option and automatic conversion from whitespace or comma delimited field names.
Ephemerality doesn't truly exist without secrecy and privacy in this case. It's one reason I don't use snapchat, because the "experience" is misleading.
How would it work?
A hundred thousand times better is only seventeen doublings.

Which approach has the fastest exponential growth curve? The one with thousands of cars on the road, learning from each other, or the one with a few but more capable cars? We'll see. Just remember to think exponential not linear.
This is what companies are supposed to do by design. If consumers prefer companies with different behaviors, they will have a competitive advantage.

Companies are constantly in imbalance but heading towards what consumers want. If you were to engineer "perfect" actors, Soviet style, you'd get perfect balance in the initial second and nightmare scenarios in the long term.
Education of beginner pilots is definitely important, but I think the author makes a mistake in dismissing the potential of new safety software (e.g. prevent drones from flying in dangerous places), especially if it is formally verified (e.g. veridrone.ucsd.edu).
Not anytime soon. Java is pretty entrenched on the server side of things: There are libraries for every possible use case and more importantly for accessing almost every weird legacy system you can imagine. Those libraries likely will never be ported to Node.js. I'm talking fun stuff here such as AS400 socket services using white-space delimited payload or file-based DB2/AS400 databases. Porting those to Node.js simply makes no sense because those systems are the definition of legacy. However, they're not going anywhere anytime soon.

That said, Node.js already has a foothold on the client side. AngularJS currently is the most widely used front end framework and relies heavily on Node.js-based tooling.
Quite misleading title you have here.
The article links to the 3rd Quarter Financial Results report from Comcast. It is far more informative than the actual article is.

Comcast appears to be spending more because they had a good quarter.

Revenue for Cable Communications increased 6.3% to $11.7 billion in the third quarter of 2015 compared to $11.0 billion in the third quarter of 2014, driven by increases of 10.2% in high-speed Internet, 19.5% in business services and 3.3% in video.

6.3% is pretty great.

The increase in Cable revenue reflects increased customer relationships (see below), customers receiving higher levels of service and customers taking additional services, as well as rate adjustments.

"Higher levels of service" refers to customers opting for faster connection speeds. Consumers appeared to be willing to purchase better plans from Comcast despite whatever regulations have been put into place recently.

"Increased customer relationships" refers to the number of people they've been successful at roping back into their cable TV ecosystem. How? By putting streaming video onto college campuses.

The report later states:

Video net losses improved 40.6% year-over-year to 48,000 and were the best result for a third quarter in nine years

Why?

The improvement in video customer net losses in the third quarter of 2015 includes an 11,000 increase in net additions, compared to the third quarter of 2014, related to schools participating in our Xfinity On Campus service.

OK -- so Comcast has had a huge spike in high speed internet sales thanks to customers wanting upgrades, and they have had a huge decrease in losses in their cable television market thanks to customers leveraging their new streaming TV service. Given that some of their services have seen 20% revenue increases year-over-year, an 11% increase in expenses is not exactly what I'd call absurd.

And I don't really want to pour through this document any further, but we shouldn't forget that debt payments and all sorts of corporate nonsense can cause spikes in operating costs, investments, expenses, etc., which may tell part of the story.

Overall, I for one am a bit disappointed that Ars Technica would stoop so low towards the territory of populist journalism. They have misrepresented and editorialized cold-hard facts in an offensively blatant fashion. Let me point out that I fucking hate Comcast as a service, a company, and a concept. So I am not shilling for them. But come on, Ars Technica is really losing face by posting this kind of nonsense.
And that's why tech people don't really care about Apple. No wonder Apple devices are so unpopular in these circles here.
We're relatively new to the GitLab game, but it has vastly improved the overall transparency into our codebase and the work that's going into it. The ability to put comments in the diffs as code reviews is something that a lot of people might be used to, but we've been sorely missing as my company.

I've read other people's gripes, but I have none of my own yet. Thanks very much GitLab team.
> but I don't think anyone is unwilling to wait 1 millisecond for a significantly better price

Two things here:

1) Is 1 penny better when trading a stock that costs $50 bucks really significant?

2) The issues is that you aren't guaranteed to be able to trade at a better price 1 millisecond from now. Maybe someone comes along and takes your price or maybe the stock moves away from you and you can never ever get that price again ever (or even the price you could have gotten from the market maker). It's a risk. And it's a risk you are free to take, or it's a risk you can pay the market maker to take for you. Your choice.

> In a stock exchange, I can't stop trading with CaveBob's, as far as I know.

You can absolutely stop trading with CaveBob! You can do this, as I said, by "placing a limit order that doesn't cross the spread." So if Bob is selling $STOCK for $10, and buying for $9.95 and you want to buy you can place a limit order to buy for $9.95. CaveBob won't sell to you at that price but maybe someone else will come along later to take it from you.

But again, it's a risk.

It's also a risk with an adverse selection problem if you think about it.
>> "By raising the price of coal will allow for seams of coal that are less economically viable to be mined. These unviable seams are likely more environmentally damaging to mine."

Actually, the article mentions that purchasers should consider buying the harder to mine coal deposits first, precisely for that reason:

"Harstad thinks that his coalition should lease or purchase the hardest coal to access: In other words, the coal that’s most expensive to mine. Then, as demand for coal grows and the price rises—and mining companies start to look more more difficult reserves—they’ll find that coal is already locked up."
The feedback system in place in most countries seems to have been the press, but unfortunately that's mostly historical. In the past the press did a much better job of performing their role of the 'fourth estate' than what is on display in the present. Maybe the tide will turn and the press will find a new backbone but more often than not they are in an incestuous relationship with the elements they should be critical of and this strongly diminishes their ability to provide some much needed counterweight.
That was not what I titled it though.
I can't explain how it changed to "Gitlab is now in the fortune 500".

It was originally "Why this 'well-kept' secret for programmers is suddenly popping up in the Fortune 500", I shortened it by removing the "popping it".
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Fine to post, but you can't put Show HN on it unless it's your work.

https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
Unless the price increase puts coal power plants out of business (remember: they have to compete against oil and natural gas [and solar, nuclear, wind, ...]), and kills off demand.
Absolutely. Code review is at the core of the product and it should be amazing to use.

Coming up we will add the ability to revert merges [0]. We're also working on redoing the UI of MRs (and much of the rest of the app) and have someone working fulltime on performance now, which will also help here.

What would you like to see improved? Very curious to hear.

[0]: https://about.gitlab.com/direction/
Headline is misleading. "Its platform" implies that Apple is somehow excluding CCC's content generally, across Apple's entire product line. Which is absurd. Apple has denied them a dedicated tvOS channel for broadcasting their content about industrial espionage, etc. The content is still viewable by many other means, across all of Apple's devices.

My cat also does not have a dedicated tvOS channel.

To be fair, I do support CCC's position here, overall, but this headline is still hysterical.
The government is already accused of being in bed with commerce all the time ala fascism comparisons, NSA helping companies directly like this could be viewed as favoritism for big companies and politically dangerous. Also, NSA's offensive mission is historically to attack nation-states aligned to the federal government's needs rather than to attack commercially motivated hackers. This is blurring with national security issues like espionage and economic terrorism coming into play, but this again raises the question of where the dividing line between helping private enterprise with tax dollars should go compared to doing something for everyone's benefit.

There is also a defensive side to NSA's mission that is defense-oriented (IAD), but the most recognizable contributions that most of the HN crowd may be familiar with are SELinux and perhaps a modest body of research involving how to secure your systems (the defense side is much more open than the offensive side). The problems I see there is that these measures are all very much aimed at large corporations, not start-ups (seriously, I can count the number of start-ups outside the intelligence / DoD space I've ever heard of that use SELinux or follow NSA hardening guidelines on two fingers) and there is clearly a huge gap between how much big businesses take security seriously compared to start-ups from both a cultural and business driven set of motivations.

The number of start-ups derailed / completely wiped out by extortion attempts is rather small compared to the number that actually exist but the legions of security consulting companies around the DC beltway wants everyone to think that it's really terrible and that everyone's a target. The truth is that everyone needs to be secure "enough" to not be as vulnerable as the really stupid guys and that while it might sting a lot to be down for a few hours or so and lose revenue / trust from users, diverting your company's resources towards hardening so much is quite costly for smaller companies and it's just more practical to have really fast re-provisioning set as a priority for your devops / ops engineers (most start-ups can do this far better than larger companies).
Turning into "not a contract" is a legal effect, though, and typically it's the desired one.

When there's a EULA or similar, the company is trying to form a contract with you, usually with lots of unfair terms.

If replacing the text with your own and clicking a button that you renamed from Agree to Disagree voids the whole thing, well, mission accomplished.

There would only be a problem if the law says that not only does your modification not form a contract, but that you acted in such bad faith that you actually still somehow agreed to the original contract.
Linux TCP will have lockless listener processing 3.5M SYNs per sec
> The reduction in time was time saved not being stuck in jail for a trial to run its course.

'Excessive bail shall not be required' —Amendment VIII, U.S. Constitution

Given that your crime was such a small matter (judging by the sentence), then bail should have probably been nothing, or a token amount.