skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hash functions should generally hash based on a value's identity. Mutable objects passed around by reference have an identity independent of their value; mutable objects passed around by value, on the other hand, change their identity when they're modified.

For example, one list isn't equal to another list, even if it has the same elements, if modifying one list doesn't modify the other. If they're not the same, then they shouldn't compare as equal.

This is one reason I think Java's implementation of hashCode() on collection classes isn't very smart. I think .NET gets it right, having GetHashCode() return a consistent value for mutable collections. (Similar comments apply to the corresponding equality operation.)

But mutable objects passed around by value are bad for other reasons, such as the risk of modifying copies when you think you're modifying an underlying value.
Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs
> Except I haven't clicked on an ad in 9 years anyways. Shit, I guess I'm just a perpetual thief.

Revenue isn't always on per-click basis, it's often on simply per-view basis. For branding purposes, or something altogether else.

E.g., a McDonald's ad just wants to make you aware of a new thing on the menu.
To Quote Wladimir Palant, developer of Adblock Plus

"There is only one reliable way to make sure your ads aren't blocked - make sure the users don't want to block them. Don't forget about the users, use ads in a way that doesn't degrade their experience."
That's quite a threat. If you make me actually pay for what I consume in your store, I'll take my business elsewhere! You better watch it. I'm not kidding about this. You just lost a non-paying customer, you SOB!
The price is downloading and displaying the ads. I'm sorry if that was unclear -- I'll edit my previous post to make it more obvious.
If content producers are being paid by views, then you're decreasing their revenue.
Your argument, while emotional, leads nowhere. So not viewing ads hurts society; why should I care whether or not I hurt society? Now we are right back where we started.
The only market that might be left, assuming the replicator machine is duplicated enough, is the commodity and energy market, or the sale of extremely rare and exotic materials.

No, there would obviously be no market whatsoever at that point. The step for making most useful things to make absolutely anything will be much smaller than the step from here to making most useful things.

The problem is that without trade or mutual dependence, people might relate in the other most common manner we have - war, with new, ultra-powerful weapons. Not a pleasant thought.

There are a number steps which essentially lead to the "singularity". Once you are there, ALL the old assumptions break down. Citing what people have generally done in the past will no longer make any sense. This isn't to say that it will Hell or Heaven but it will be intense.

It's not by any means certain that the human beings will get to The Singularity . But there are a number of achievements one can specify such that if we reach these levels, then The Singularity will become virtually inevitable. A machine which produce itself and a variety of useful objects is one of these levels.
"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down."

Easier said than done.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with blocking ads, especially if you find them offensive. Some of the worst examples feature rapidly flashing animations. To someone like me they're just an irritant to be eliminated as quickly as possible. To someone with epilepsy the situation could be more serious. This sort of disrespectful advertising is what we don't want to see on the web. I'm not against advertising online, but I think there need to be changes in the way ads are served/approved/regulated - perhaps with an industry-wide code of conduct being adopted. Ads are subject to regulation when they're shown on television, and maybe there needs to be some similar process for the internet.
That's certainly an option, and I'd expect we'd see a move to that if adblock usage ever did increase to more than 0.5% or whatever it is at the moment.

We'd just have a free internet for those not running adblock, and a paywall internet for those using adblock.
I at least somewhat believe that ad-blocking is a symptom rather than a problem. Some advertising legitimately alerts me to things I find interesting, and I avoid blocking ads in general for this reason. Most, however, are repulsive and inconveniencing - I rarely watch enough of an advertisement to see what it actually sells. I generally like ad-supported content models, however, and usually am willing to let the banners ads have their place if it keeps a valuable site in business.

What offends me is the new class of ad that comes with built-in audio. I may add your site to my blocklist/spamlist for doing this. This kind of ad causes awkward social situations and trouble in the office - someone's computer randomly starts blaring out noise in what should be a quiet and focused environment. This is not a social contract - this is a trap.

I think this debate exists for stupid reasons. Advertisers and webmasters have apparently forgotten that ads are supposed to sell something to a customer. If potential customers run away from your ad, then it's time to fire the ad agency and question product-market fit.
Stream fusion for Scala collections
Don't downvote, discuss?
Actually, I think there's quite a bit of evidence for my claim. Think about it. Apparently, one month the OP approached or exceeded his bandwidth cap. Afterwards he thought, "How can I reduce the amount of bandwidth I consume? I know, block ads!"

What an amazing coincidence that his bandwidth-reduction strategy also happens to get rid of annoying ads. And how convenient that he can blame AT&T's bandwidth cap for hurting sites like Ars.

I'm not accusing him of deception. I'm accusing him of rationalizing. There are plenty of reasons to block ads. For example, I block ads because I dislike most of them. I know it hurts sites that depend on ad revenue, but I simply don't like ads and I'm too lazy to play around with whitelists and blacklists. I'm lazy and selfish, but I'm not rationalizing.
If they are making money based on views and you're using an ad blocker, then you're essentially taking away their revenue while giving yourself added convenience and/or less annoyance in the process. You're not directly taking the money (i.e. putting it in your own pocket), but you're transferring the value from one form to another, and it's going from them to you. If it's not the definition of stealing, it's pretty close.
One thing worth noting is patents are generally taken as a kind of property. But in reality, a patent is a grant by the government. Those living on patents are thus ultimately living on state handouts.

Repeat this theme to all the protectors of property rights out there...
Should work for any native code compiler, if I'm reading this right, just have to stay within what can be validated.

I think there's a very good chance of a GSoC project to modify Haskell/GHC's backend to work too: http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell_proposals/comments/b9oym/run...
The number of people browsing with js disabled is pretty moot these days.

The number of people using Javascript to deny access to their site is pretty low these days. If that increases, the number of people blocking Javascript will increase.

I guarantee you that if someone wants to see the content on your site without ads, they will see the content on your site without ads. For example, you could just draw a white square over the ads instead of blocking them completely. You could make the DOM API return "uh sure, the ad is there", but not actually display it on the screen.

You're fighting a losing battle, and because adblockers are auto-updateable, even small victories won't last long. It's probably a better use of your time to do something, anything, else. It's like DRM -- a lot of development time sunk, just to hurt legitimate users. It doesn't make sense.
I suppose "this" is ambiguous, but I was thinking about the whole situation.
> "Not at all. They're merely refusing to pay for the lifestyle that you'd prefer."

That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in denser, more urban areas. Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas. Us urban folk are paying for your excesses too - garbage generation, water usage, the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into the air... practically all resource usage on a per-capita basis is much higher in suburbs. This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.

It's hard to say where the balance lies - whether, after all is said and done, the suburbanites are subsidizing the urban lifestyle, or vice versa. Whichever it is, the truth is far less clear-cut than you're trying to project.

> "It's not my coupling - it's the new urbanists' coupling."

I've met many urban planning proponents, and none are against lawns. I think this is projection on your part, more alarmist "they hate our way of life" shit.

> "I don't know what a "hate cars, like lawns" vision would be"

Then you haven't learned enough about this. Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit. None of this precludes, for example, townhouses where you can maintain your yard and private spaces. There are many ways to be sustainably urban and maintain many of the main perks of the suburban lifestyle (backyard BBQ? check). To suggest that you can't IMHO is fearmongering amongst suburbanites who think that removal of the automobile from their life would mean wholesale destruction of their lifestyle.
Yes, but how long can it hold there?
"I submit that, if sites ran carefully-vetted ads that were of legitimate interest to their readers, were not annoying, and did not compromise user privacy, far fewer of us would use adblock."

How do you know if the site has changed if you are using adblock? If they do decide to change ads, it won't really matter because they are already blocked.

What about people that are using a computer with adblock already installed? They never saw the ads on the blocked site.

Adblock doesn't just block one site's ads. It blocks entire networks of ads, which hurts innocent sites that may or may not have intrusive ads. This is why I can't support its usage.
By that same logic Ars Technica are allowed to detect if you have blocked their ad and not deliver you the content you requested.

And you better go tell Google their business model doesn't work before we're all left without a search engine!
E.g., a McDonald's ad just wants to make you aware of a new thing on the menu.

I just want publishers that publish this kind of ad to be aware that this is evil. So I block the ads, and they get less money as a result. If the advertisers are allowed to exploit negative externalities, I should be too.
I think dubbing ad-blockers as stealing is, clearly, idiotic.

But I think it's a fair assertion that your depriving the displaying site of revenue for their content. If everyone used ad blockers would big news agencies offer free services like they currently do?

But then adverts can be a big annoyance.

Both sides have a clear point here. The problem is that the ad blockers hold all the cards - if sites put up a paywall for ad blockers they lose custom. If they circumvent the blockers they just draw fire. If they denounce the blockers they get berated.

Lets at least be a bit ethical: ad blockers are cool. But if you like a site and it's contents and your a regular visitor consider unblocking their ads :) this is what I do and I dont begrudge them it (I will still block some of the more "in your face" ads on a case by case basis)
So the "wisdom of the crowds" is that Apple is really onto something with the iPad? Or are people manipulating the market into excess optimism about Apple so they can cash in?
Then buy a subscription. Ars Technica offers ad-free subscriptions.
Maybe Adblock is updated the next day, and you basically wasted your afternoon. Time you will never get back, all for nothing.
The article starts off saying that ad-blocking is not unethical, but then goes on to strongly imply that it is. e.g.

I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website.

And:

And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads.

These sound like ethical statements to me. I may be reading more into the language of the article than is warranted, but that's how I read it: "Don't block ads because it hurts people, hurts businesses, and is therefore wrong to do."
However, by selling views to a person like me who doesn't help advertisers at all, CPM eventually goes down. So that argument doesn't really hold water. You want views to go to people who are influenced by the ads, otherwise it's just a waste.
Most sites don't get their views from people typing the URL into the URL bar. Maybe it's the "non-paying customer" that posts your site to HN and Reddit every day. By banning that one user who doesn't like ads, you lose the opportunity to serve thousands of ads.

Also, if you don't like people stealing your content, you'd better block Google. They display their own ads next to your content!

Finally, ads are not just on content sites. Amazon.com has ads, which I block. I spent like $3000 at Amazon last year. If they block me because I'm not viewing their ads, that's $3000 in tangible revenue down the toilet, all so they could make 30 cents on some ad views. Needless to say, I doubt Amazon will be banning me for not viewing ads any time soon.
And the more impressions served that have no real value, the lower CPM falls.
As I said, adblocking is extremely naive. <a href=http://www.foo.com>foo.com</a>; could be a paid advert for all you know, and the fact it is or isn't is hidden from you, and your adblocker. So I'm afraid the adblockers are firmly at the ultimate losing side. Sure, you can block intrusive flashing in your face advertising, but that's only one small segment of online advertising. (And nowhere near as effective as text links).

Well, the good news, is that you're an extremely tiny minority.

Most people like ads. Many even click on them! Loads even go on to buy products! Using money!!!!
Does it make anyone else nervous when they have to enable a hack (TMShowUnsupportedNetworkVolumes) to make their backups work?
Heh, I wonder if this is the reason why I can't stand the light from fluorescent ceiling lamps. Whenever I have the chance(few other people around to complain about the low light levels), I turn them off and switch on spotlights and table lamps instead.
That's quite a liberal definition of "need".
If people don't view the ads, the site shuts down. Maybe you don't like that site all that much, so it's fine. However, more and more sites would shut down due to lack of funding. Or, perhaps, they find different manners of obtaining money. Maybe they enforce pay walls, maybe they have product placement in their articles.

The fact is, most advertising is not obtrusive. Despite the problems that Google Ads has, it is not visually obtrusive. Hell, half of the time I don't even notice them. Does it hurt me? No. Does it help the site sustain itself? Yes. Would I notice a pay wall or product placement? Yes. Would it obstruct my enjoyment of the website? Yes.

To directly answer your question: you should care if you hurt society. If people stop being altruistic altogether, politeness and civility go out the window. An Ayn Rand style system pops up, with people being concerned how to give themselves the most power and goods while screwing others over the most. Maybe you're fine with that; I'm not.
The frequency of visits and interaction with the site is dropping and more and more profiles are left to gather dust.

Although their growth has slowed, Facebook's still growing traffic at a decent rate, having passed Yahoo for the #2 most visited site last month.

Also, according to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (ex-Googler who oversaw the creation of AdWords) more than half their users log into Facebook at least once a day. Seems like Facebook's firing on all cylinders to me.
I agree that fission is a powerful technology that environmentalist killed 30 years ago and now can't seem to admit they may have been wrong.

I think fission is another stepping stone that we can use in our climb up the energy ladder, but I would hate to see us stop there. It surprises me that lack of proponents that fusion has. I'd like to see a lot more resources thrown toward fusion research.
Ok, let's take a simple example here. Google published loads of Chrome adverts to raise awareness of their new browser.

The result of those adverts is that a lot of people switched to Chrome, making it a valid browser choice and, hopefully, hastening IE's demise.

A number of people who read about Chrome in adverts would only have heard of it a year later if it wasn't for the ads. I think those ads were perfectly well justified - they raised awareness for a product which most people didn't even know existed.

There's many more examples like this. I think your point is incorrect.

PS: I don't actually support Ars in this anti-ad-blocker thing. I think ad blockers are absolutely fair game, much like ads themselves are. Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. They shouldn't come whining about ad blockers, they should just upgrade their business models to something that works in a world of ad blockers. That said, declaring that ads are completely useless is equally wrong.
Wait, are you arguing that violent crimes are the only ones people should go to prison for? What about say, Bernie Madoff?
Except for advertisers that are doing brand advertising, or any number of other edge cases.
How many of those huge, omnipresent networks of high quality information are paid for by advertising revenue?
Why is it an exercise in futility? Hydro power accounts for a huge amount of our power already, and there's enough in wind and solar for the rest of it. Nuclear is presently quite expensive and takes a very long time to build. There are new technologies being pursued, but there are new technologies being pursued in wind and solar, too.
Mind, also, that if we are talking about ethics: is downloading and displaying the ads enough? Am I ethically obligated to actually view or read the ads? If not, is the website acting ethically accepting money for something it cannot guarantee to the advertiser its users will do? What if you are paying for a subscription of some kind? Is it ethical to block ads then? Or is it even ethical for the site to try to show ads if you are already paying them?
iPad has very little to do with it
> "So the solution is simple: start building garages."

This is about as insightful and helpful as someone telling a smoker, "well, just STOP smoking!". I've seen the sentiment expressed a lot as of late that MS needs to be overhauled - I agree, but I don't see anyone with any ideas.
You're coming out with some crazy strawman arguments. obviously amazon wouldn't block you. They don't make all their money from advertising. They're primarily a retailer :/
y'know, the fast talking one.

http://gizmodo.com/5105045/the-first-apple-tech-support-call...
By default my Android device doesn't know about zip files or what to do with them, so I can't watch the video until I get to a desktop. I think the zipping is a bad idea.
"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down."

He makes it sound easy. As though there weren't a multitude of websites facing the same problem with covering their operating costs.

TV before cable faced a similar dilemma. Anyone could access it, but how do you pay for it? Ads did. Cable TV came along with commercial-free channels, but the consumer would pay for those directly. That solution has been discussed with some websites, and it's generally ill-received (e.g. NYT, Hulu).

I think ads can work, I wish they were done better in many cases. What I won't do is criticize them for their business model without offering a suggestion of my own.
I consider ads that are served from many well known ad services intrusive to my experience, they dramatically slow the rendering of pages, often block content, or have such jarring graphics or color themes it is almost impossible to read the document.

Ads are blocked for me by default, and i choose to unblock them in websites that generate repeated value for me.

this includes the content of the website, but also the speed and how the ads complement the design of the website itself.

I will consider paying website to get content completely ad free.

I would like to also have the option to get a discount for just clicking on the Ad from the vendor, if you want my attention offer me an incentive.
Apple dominates its' own market
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm following. Are you calling brand advertisements evil?

Or perhaps in the premise that the McDonald's ad was annoying/intrusive (because they usually are)?
need, no. but fairly often, it happens that there's a class that I want to take, but think won't fit, that it turns out would if I flipped my schedule around.

I'm half trying to solve that issue, and half think it's an interesting problem to see if I can come up with some sort of "optimal" schedule given requirements (doing a double major), class time preferences, and class ratings (this one's the bigger one, esp. with electives).
Facebook is still 'new' to plenty of internet users, but it seems that facebook presence has a lifespan associated with it, my own experience was something like: "Neat, let's use this", "reconnect with a bunch of old friends", "nothing exciting happening and now that I've reconnected why bother keeping it up to date".

As for that quote above, I meant for that to be in the context of my circle of friends, not the general public. And probably there are an above average number of 'early adopters' in that small group.

Are there any public figures on facebooks 'churn' ?
While I agree with the sentiment, that's a whole heck of a love of evolution to work against. Nature (think of life on the Serengeti) is all about screwing over one creature for the benefit of another.
If you can detect ad blockers, why are you whining? Direct them to an alternative flow/business model that works.
but, poorly lit nordic countries are a lot less corrupt then well-lit southern countries.
I really don't understand this sentiment. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site.

There is a coffee shop in Tempe, AZ that I very very rarely go to. Why? Because the wifi there is horrible. It's slow; there are too many people there using pandora and not enough bandwidth to go around.

Would it be appropriate for me to whine about this while continuing to go there?

When using a website (or any service) you are basically choosing to endure a bit of inconvenience (spending money, or viewing ads) in exchange for something you want (coffee, content). I get that people want to skip the first part, but I don't get how they think that could ever work.
Please, this is a very decent blog post. For those quoting the "HN standards", I see poorer articles than this every single day.