skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They were untrusted for about a month at least. September 14 - October 19 https://letsencrypt.org/blog/
Things may get hairy if said retailer have their own brand of products that they present front and center. Or in some way play favorites with the brands they carry. But there are not really any hard and fast rules for this, similarly to how there are not hard and fast rules regarding corruption.
The CEO of DigitalOcean also tweeted at them: https://twitter.com/benuretsky/status/748508252263059456

Seems DO did everything by the book?
The way the laws are written, you can be insanely anti-consumer and anti-competitive all you want if you aren't a monopoly. Apple is a distant number 2 to Android in the phone space. So they can dictate things like: our app store and our app store alone, you can't even manually install apps from anywhere else, you can only use our browser engine and no competing engines, etc. Microsoft, for instance, couldn't pull these kinds of things with Windows because it is more of a monopoly on the desktop due to it having >90% user share.
Looks pretty cool!

I've gotta take the opportunity to plug the interactive version of Ruby Warrior here: https://www.bloc.io/ruby-warrior

It's interesting that this style of learning programming fundamentals has taken off such -- Ruby Warrior, The new swift playground announced by apple, and now this Javascript port.
There are multiple aspects at play here:

1. Fiduciary responsibility - Corporations have a financial objective to minimize their tax burden, in order to maximize shareholder value. Sure.

2. Legality. There are numerous loopholes that are technically legal. And it's remarkable how much gray area there is when it comes to tax law. This is why you have the big teams of lawyers to figure out how to best game the system and avoid taxation, while just barely staying on the legal side of the line.

3. Legal Consequences. And if they go to far and get caught breaking the law? No big deal. They can go to court and then settle. Sure, there will be a fine, but they knew that was a risk.

4. Jurisdictions and Multinationals. Countries can only make laws that take effect within their borders. But MNCs operate across multiple countries, and can effectively play jurisdictions off against one another.

5. Spirit of the Law. While lawyers may argue what they're doing is technically legal, it is certainly against the spirit of the law. The law did not intend for corporations to shift all the profits from where they are made to low tax haven jurisdictions.

Governments are trying to address these issues, as corporations will be doing their best to stay one step ahead of the law. This is why the OECD has started the BEPS movement to come up with a coordinated response. One of their initial goals is to create some transparency, so they can at least get some visibility into what's going on. That seems like a good first step.
Yet neither would be anywhere without the other.
Maybe that's a feature, not a bug? Now there's a precedent for not doing the whole jig and dance routine for the financiers that be!
Well they did build out the entire platform themselves.
Blocking remittances is probably impossible. Even if you could shut down all the direct channels for money to flow from US nationals to Mexican nationals, which you can't, it's trivial to either send easily resellable goods like gift cards or to transmit the money to some third party in a neutral country who agrees to forward it on for a small fee.

Even if it were possible, blocking remittances is probably illegal under our free trade agreements with Mexico. Any attempt short of pulling out of NAFTA is all but guaranteed to be tied up in courts for years before it could possibly go into effect.

And even if it were legal, a huge disruption to trade is all but guaranteed to cost the economy vastly more than the cost of just doing it ourselves (even assuming we actually wanted to).

All of which is before you even consider the internal politics of getting the US congress to pass a bill in the first place, or of convincing the Mexican government to roll over and accept a huge insult without requiring anything in return.

There is essentially no realistic model under which "it could certainly work". It's a feel-good idea that falls apart with the smallest amount of critical analysis. It's a childish conception of international relations, and any attempt to actually implement it is all but guaranteed to both fail miserably and make absolutely everybody worse off in the process.
You appear to be responding to things I have not said. No suggestion at all of right amounts or paying more than the law requires.
On the contrary, it would seem that Sprint has more to gain from collusion in such a situation because it allows them to use their network for bigger margins even if they don't upgrade.

See, there is no downside to collusion for parties, only upside.

And it even 'maximizes shareholder value'.

Sprint cutting their rates is a bit like pissing in your pants, as the Finnish say, it will only keep you warm for so long.

In the meantime, all carriers not being created equal, there may be some re-shuffling of name-tags and call signs but as long as carriers can get away with charging for thin air (SMS, Air Time) they've always done so, I see absolutely no reason to assume goodwill on their part without some pretty strict oversight.

And of course they have to market, just like everybody else that wishes to sell a product. But just like everybody else that wishes to sell a product, if there is no margin there will be no marketing, and if there is a way to improve the margin then surely it will taken.

Maybe Sprint is the exception, and they are really doing as bad as you say (a bankruptcy in the next couple of years does not sound like a huge threat to me, usually a bankruptcy in the next 3 months is the kind of thing you'd worry about) then maybe Sprint will go under and its assets and subscribers will end up with one of the other parties.

Such is the nature of doing business. But that says absolutely nothing about whether or not there is a profit to be made for all players by placing caps on data plans and by colluding to keep prices for data plans artificially high.
Does Google ever have DDOS problems?
Don't all businesses do that? Walmart? Costco? Verizon? AT&T? Bestbuy?

The consequence here is that you are saying a company should not be able to control what they sell in their own stores. That seems pretty extreme.
Medium – How to Make Your Publication Look Great
In the US it's more like 40 to 50%
Isn't Android running a really old Linux because they can't rebase? So they have to cherry pick... or has that stopped now?
I think the point was that he was emphasizing the bosses bosses bosses boss. Many levels of nonsense, leading to politics. Managers do need to exist, and I agree they have a purpose, but often times, even in the company I work for currently. There is more management than there is workers.
Three Management Pressures That Drive Poor Development Decisions
I wish they would announce that they've made Evernote less buggy on MacOS and that they've removed all of the unnecessary me-too add-ons like "work chat". I'm a premium user but have been contemplating a switch to OneNote since Evernote crashes about once a day.
Meh. Not so much. Too many Bigelows these days:

http://theawl.com/the-strange-history-of-robert-bigelow-who-...
Describes what I deal with every day at work!
You think HN is dominated by the radical leftists, I see it being composed by a majority of anti-statist libertarians. But neither perspective is accurate.

I think reality is what dang touched upon yesterday: that on HN you can't avoid opinions that conflict with yours, and you assume that everyone is out to get you. But if you take a look even within this thread, you'll see plenty of opinions that match your own, and even exceed it. Hell, one person actually questioned the morality of taxation itself.
Thanks for your comment...and to all the others on this thread for the help.
The reason we like Open Source is NOT because we don't want to fish out $300 for a CMS.

It's because effective Open Source projects have a large and robust community behind them, which means that:

1. They're not dropping out when the product becomes less profitable...if some drop out, others take over and

2. There are many people looking at the code and fixing bugs.

So that's why we'd prefer an Open Source product. But like I said, we are considering Craft.

Thanks.
Going to be honest, a little confused where the Bermudas or the US comes into this...

Apparently this is regarding Google reporting the bulk of their sales out of Ireland and therefore not paying taxes in Europe? This is based on maybe a loophole where Google makes sure to have Ireland staff conclude all sales contracts...
Would the better job been the first in a series of steps to even better jobs/promotions in the future? Did that job have the same pay from now until retirement? Would a year of hard work in this job yield a raise that offset the loss to food stamps? If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.
This is a PR stunt.
It's pretty awesome that you can say "one of the best security blogs for users is a celebrity parody Twitter."
".. the central issue in every trademark infringement case is the likelihood of consumer confusion" - https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellect...

The content could certainly be infringing and there's little safe harbour for an ISP.
No mention of ANSI standard efforts still. It blows my mind that literally ANYONE would bother with systems programming in a language with no standardized spec of some sort. Rust's 'whatever is in the repo is standard behavior' is the sort of perl nonsense that set them back for so many years.
I guess this would be fantastic for alternate ROMs like CopperheadOS, as they would be freed from the burden of testing on many devices.
> See, there is no downside to collusion for parties, only upside.

The downside is that collusion preserves market share status quo. For those hoping to gain market share (like Sprint and T-Mobile) collusion gets in the way of that goal.
As many women as trans people (1.6%).
Just building a kilometer-wide lens to keep it focused and a several-Terawatt power source.

Space travel. Shit's hard.
Depends on what market you are looking at. They have 2/3 of the mobile app market by revenue...
If the question is as clear as you make it sound, falsifying his statements should be trivial, with the beneficial effect of preventing anyone who cares about factuality from taking his claims seriously. Sounds like an easy win to me, if you can do it.
That's not really the issue. If anything, that's for a court battle to decide. The issue is that DO took down Surge's entire company, without a DMCA complaint, and with misleading Surge (see the founder's comment).

We're not even aware of what type of complaint this was. Cease and desist? That's an angry bullshit letter that holds no legal weight. If DO buckled over something stupid like that, and mislead Surge as to the nature of notice and the window of response; well that's just a shitty provider. I wouldn't use them for anything if that's all true.
I believe Google's Mountain View complex was their campus.
The tricky bit there is that apple both sell their own products and services alongside being a retailer for third party products and services.

In the end though, someone has to file a complaint with a relevant regulator for anything to happen. And i suspect few wants to go through the years of court rigamarole opposite Apple's legal team.
While I completely agree about awareness being a form of intelligence, professional athletes (for the most part) are really on a different plane when it comes to physical metrics. An average person will never be able to attain a 4.4 40 for instance.
+1 for NFS. I don't host controversial content, but it's a fabulous service I've used for many years. Great two-factor authentication too.
It works by not applying to everyone. If it were actually universal, it would send the value of the UBI to 0, since it's the amount you get by not doing anything. But restricted to, say, US citizens, it's a tax on US citizens who have economic worth to let those who don't buy things from outside the US.
I've been using h264ify in Chrome on OSX for some time, but lately it started having problems with seeking/rewinding. Have to switch to Safari when I want to rewind. Managed to cobble together a chrome extension that opens the current url in Safari, also pausing the video and using the current playback time (too rough to share).
If you want to say certain governments have human rights problems, and we should speak out, I agree; some are in predominately Muslim countries but most are not.

If you want to say some religion and its members promote human rights problems, I say that comment is ignorant and discriminatory. Ironically, by spreading that in our society, you are creating human rights problems.
The way to Extend battery life on any android
>If there are substantially fewer women in tech, why is it unreasonable to think there are practically no skilled female hackers?

It is true that there are few women in tech in the US and the UK, but this is not a general rule and may not hold in the area of network exploitation (breaking into peoples networks and computers without permission).

For instance in India
"15.8% of engineering and technology undergraduates in the UK are female.(4) Compare with India: where over 30% of engineering students are women on engineering courses account for over 30% of the students.(5)"[0].

and China
"In China, 40% of engineers are women and in the USSR of the 1980s, women accounted for 58% of the engineering workforce." [1]

>(And note that when I use the term 'hacker' I'm referring to the illegal, blackhat variety, not the 'I turned my oven into a WiFi hotspot!' kind)

Given the enormous government investment in network intrusion capabilities I would guess many of the more skilled hackers work in intelligence and military orgs.

Israel, which have a fairly gender balanced military, is a leader in the area of network exploitation. Given that 65% of Israeli women serve in the military and only 3% of combat roles in the IDF are filled by women it is likely that women constitute a large percentage of intelligence roles. For instance the IDF's Unit8200 (tasked with SIGINT and likely "cyberwar" duties) and thought to be responsible for Stuxnet has a large number of women[2]. I would imagine that some of them are quite skilled at breaking into networks.

GCHQ which is also considered quite good at network exploitation is more gender balanced than the tech community in the US. It is hard to determine from public sources how many women are involved in "hackish" activities at GCHQ.

"[women] comprise only 29% of new entrants to GCHQ" [3]

Mathematics is a big feeder to the Cryptologic world (as much of cryptography is math) and within the US math is much more gender balanced than engineering (between 40-50%[4]). It is often said that:

"In particular, the National Security Agency (NSA) is the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and perhaps the world. Among other things, the NSA needs mathematicians to help create and break codes, analyze intelligence data, and perform signal analysis"[5]. Anecdotally many academic cryptographers are female.

The Snowden documents show that at the NSA people move between jobs and duties learning new skills and sharing their current expertise. I would expect there are quite a few female cryptoanalysts who got interested in network exploitation especially given the enormous utility that mathematics and cryptanalysis can bring to the table.

[0]: http://www.wes.org.uk/statistics

[1]: http://www.paristechreview.com/2010/09/29/why-more-women-eng...

[2]: http://fortune.com/2015/06/25/women-israeli-army-tech-traini...

[3]: WOMEN IN THE UK INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: A report by the
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

[4]: https://www.maa.org/external_archive/columns/launchings/laun...

[5]: https://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Web/Jobs.html
E-signature is great. I am not sure what service level is across Europe, but in my country it is half-baked due to:

1) software or plugins for signing should be available for free

2)All authorities have to accept same key (here in my country is huge problem with this. Governement offices and institutions accept different keys. Banks doesnt accept anything at all.)

3) Connected systems needs to be automated. its not acceptable to have manual verification and 12 hours sync between e-private-mailboxes (not fully related to esign).

4) if i can send form signed with e-signature it has to be delivered with appropriate automated feedback (meesage delivered,accepted,rejected)

5) they force users to use windows, internet explorer and expensive software, timestamps.
Doesn't it amount to them knowing your public key?
But are they saying that it is paid for by McDonalds to run such an ad? Because that makes it sound like McDonalds would support the ad. But if they are just parodying a McDonalds commercial and not saying McDonalds paid for it then it is very different.
I know

My experience using bitcoin between addresses is the same as it was in 2013
Anatomy of an Elasticsearch Cluster: Part I
Whether it's wrong or not is debatable I suppose, whether it's illegal really isn't. Given the entire context (including who the yes men are) this is clearly parody. As such it is protected speech under the first amendment. As such it is not illegal.
Using this on earth is hard because any clouds prevents this from get into extreme temperate ranges. So, you have low utilization in the 10-30% range.

This also gets vastly harder the further you get from the Sun and the asteroid belt is not all that close. A solar concentrator + solar panel + more traditional methods may work better especially out in the ort cloud.
How can you "distort customer choice" if you're only at 15% market share? I thought that's the whole point of using antitrust mechanisms against monopolies, but customers in monopolized markets literally don't have another choice.

If Apple is only at 15% market share, it's pretty clear that people using Apple products are doing so because they prefer them to the (much more popular) main competitor.
I'm no "apalmer", but have a similar perspective...

From a simple supply and demand standpoint, how does the extra income introduced not simply cause the cost of basic* goods to rise accordingly such that you end up with your UBI increasingly falling behind what is needed to support a minimum standard of living?

* Added "basic" for clarity, I don't imagine this would affect the cost of luxury, or recreational goods to a large extent, but an extra $1000+/month per person would, I expect, have a drastic effect on housing rental rates amidst the lower to middle class residential areas
You're missing the difference here between "useful" and "interesting", the latter being a techie jargon word meaning "what the hell even is that" or "I ain't even mad, that's amazing."

Urbit is provably effective at generating techie amazement, and I can well believe it created enough for well-off people to spend money on address space for the amusement value (at least one has explicitly said that's why he bought some). Urbit is a legitimate mad art project, an untrammelled 200-proof expression of its creator's personality; that is in fact interesting.

This is not, however, the same as usefulness.
It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments". They exist since many, many years. Spotify chose to comply with them. Apple didn't suddenly change them. It's not anti competitive from Apple if Spotify NOW chooses to call them unfair.

Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. You either comply with the rules or you don't get to put your app on the App Store.
we provide more specifics on timeline here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010521
MS could be below 50% and still be in trouble if they were still the big dog of the pack.
The community long predates the crowdsale.
That guideline was total bullshit anyway. Running to the press frequently helps. Apple doesn't like it, obviously, but "it never helps" was a blatant lie.

Obviously, it's best to exhaust other avenues first, but if Apple is being stupid and won't budge, taking it public can be a great way to get results. I bet it'll work here.
> Today that would be like, "hey come out here and get a job at Instagram, and them after-hours we'll work on our own thing"

Why is it absurd? It's not uncommon today. It's basically the plot of season 1 of Silicon Valley on HBO (replace SGI/Instagram with Huli).
Rackspace Mail hosts 3 million paid mailboxes, and comes with a 100% availability SLA and 24/7/365 support. Google's not the only game in town.
I think the vision was that transaction fees were going to be a satoshi or three.
If there is enough choice for the consumer then why does it matter what a company distorts? The market will crush the company if it goes too far right? You can always not buy Apple and buy Android (outside Google Play Store). Why would they go after Apple for this?
The article is something of a Rorschach blot - mention language and consciousness and a hundred ill-defined pet theories are going to come of peoples mouth, or out of their fingertips onto the comment section.

Not that these pet theories are necessarily bad. Usually they're variations on existing frameworks but with lots of things left uninvestigated because each theory is developed just enough to satisfy the individual.
Semantics is a difficult problem. Wittgenstein once stated "Semantic atoms exist, and I will find them". 20 years later he had to admit defeat and said "Tell me, what's the essence of a chair?". Not long after that, he abandoned rationality completely.
Fail: The 7B Dollar Overflow
Scrolling through the participants list, I'm so glad they asked black people and other minorities their opinion on the matter (if you're not familiar with sarcasm, let me rephrase - this is a long list of nearly 100% white people).
There are plenty of companies that sell their own products and services alongside being a retailer for third party products. Even in that situation, I don't believe there is any legal or moral requirement that they stock competing products (unless in a monopoly scenario).

It might seem like a crappy thing to do but the alternative is completely unsustainable.
> We don't think in terms of language.

What does a thought consist of if not language?

> Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon.

It's that... plus a long time formalizing useful terms and concepts, among many other things that fall under "language".
In theory, millions or euros that should be spent in taking care of the environment and the health system are going to someone's pockets through Ireland, so they would deserve to pay that harm too.
By one experiment, you mean one actual experiment, made once, by a single group? Or one single experimental setup, replicated by different groups?

If it's the former, I don't trust it at all, but if it's well practiced and interesting, it ought to be replicated. If it's the second, well, if its results are against theoretical models, theory is wrong. No questions, no exceptions. Now, theory correction does not automatically mean a fundamental change, "hey, this approximation we used has a problem here" is as valid a theoretical correction as "ops, all of our models are wrong, everything is much more complex than we thought".

Specifically about the EmDrive, I'm not aware of anybody that could actually measure an effect yet. So, there's no experiment showing theory is wrong. There's only a lack of experiments confirming it either (or better, now there is one).
Oh come on - just as fair use remains a defense in court, the NRAs claim must also be proven in court. Unlike a DCMA, the compliant does not require DO to take down the web site.

Clearly DO choked and hurt free speech in the process.