skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're free to believe what you want, or you can go read the abundant material, starting with Church's paper. If you find a thorough treatment of the concept of computation, you can write a paper about it. Church himself explicitly writes that he's unable to give a precise definition. Church was the first (scooping Turing by a few months) to claim that a certain formalism is what we now call Turing complete, i.e., universal with respect to the "vague intuitive notion" of the algorithm, but he was unable to provide a satisfactory justification for his claim (he made a circular argument and then gave up, writing the sentence I quoted above).

Turing, on the other hand, gives a fundamental treatment of what computation is, independent of any particular formalism (in his review of Turing's paper, Church described it as explaining how to construct "arbitrary" computing systems, and Gödel said, in the quote I've given, that Turing was able to give a general, universal, treatment of what a formal system is).

While I can't argue with your claim that Turing had worked with lambda calculus prior to writing On Computable Numbers when he was 24, I have seen no mention of this, but would be happy to see a reference.
Someone will sue and then laws will be made. Whoever has the most money/best lawyers will win.
I listed the two others too, yet you focused on the one. Why did we need them in the first place?

Prior to seed companies, seed stock was bread by farmers, universities and done in a way that was more open an accessible.

We have been in overproduction of corn, grain and rice for over a decade. They haven't saved the world from hunger. Hunger still exists and has always been a distribution problem. In 2008, the food crisis was caused because investment companies started trading in grain futures and wouldn't let go (where as a food producer invests in a grain future because they plan on buying it in x months in order to make cereal or pizza crust or whatever). There was plenty of food though. The food shortage was literally manufactured.

> any compelling way for Monsanto to recuperate the costs of R&D on their engineered crops

It wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. On the flip side, now we have all this corn and grain that needs to be sold. Sure some of that can be turned into fuel, but a lot of it is pushed out in starchier food. We're consuming so much starch and sugar that we're now in an obesity epidemic. The food industry keeps pushing out advertising so people consume more of it. It's a cycle that's not been beneficial for many people.
Nintendo Switch impressions: Out of the box and into our hands
Sorry, I was using the OTMR lawsuits as a proxy/definitive example for why there isn't enough money in it. I agree, the big problem is that there isn't enough money in it, I just disagree that build-out requirements are the big reason there isn't enough money in it. I may not have made that clear enough.

It's hard to control costs when the incumbents are doing everything in their power to delay and inflate costs. OTMR is one attempted solution to one particular angle in which the incumbents have a power to delay and inflate project costs. The OTMR lawsuits are emblematic of how far the incumbents are willing to go to continue to delay and inflate costs (to years in court and years of legal fees) and how much "defense depth" they have to accomplish it (the parties involved in the court cases are different incumbents in each jurisdiction).

Build-out requirements can be estimated in the fixed capital costs of a project, assuming no other interference. The need for OTMR and the current OTMR lawsuits are proof that the interference exists and is not easily contained/constrained and quite probably not even possible to estimate as they will be different in every city in the country.

I use OTMR as an example because it is the most visible example. I mostly suspect it is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of cost issues into a project like Google Fiber.
Wirecutter is now owned by the New York Times so they can probably absorb the hit.
How technology changed dating forever
Thanks for this. I was hoping someone would cover the obvious: games are fun! Why is that we feel the need to justify fun? Isn't fun (a form of happiness) what we are all striving to be able to have more of?
> I haven't used them recently because their pricing seems so high. How do others feel about them?

I feel about them that the free dynamic DNS option with a Namecheap registration offers everything Dyn did except built in options on cheap home routers.
Its a great book, that still has relevance, amazingly. Theres also the fact that he feels like its necessary to shit on anyone who disagrees with him...or, anyone at all actually. The trolling thing is lame, and a total waste of peoples time, like, for example, when he literally ate something in the middle of his lecture at Pycon, as if he somehow couldn't find the time to eat a candy bar in the elevator. I literally worked Pycon, and I can guarantee you that speakers, and pretty much anyone else, can find the two minutes to choke down an orange or whatever before the go up to speak. Its his persona, which he uses to get notoriety, which he uses to get work.
No, it isn't elitism. It is reality and your attempts to browbeat me are laughable at best. The only one showing elitism is you and people like you who seem to take perverse pleasure in trying to castigate others so you can feel superior.

So until you start delivering bags of rice yourself or dedicate your life to non-profits and the collective good, remember that every time you point a finger three are pointing back at you.
Kubectl exec with working terminal
It's the reasoning process rather than the conclusion that you're testing for - many good ethics puzzles admit of more than one answer.
Creating Digital Solutions to Improve Traditional Brick and Mortar Experiences
See: Killer Queen Arcade. The underground competitive arcade scene you (probably) don't know about.
> The technical aspect of this that many people miss is that the same piece of cable can support very different traffic patterns AT THE EXPENSE OF other ones.

QoS isn't always a zero-sum game. Even non-interactive HTTP downloads benefit from reduced queuing latency, because TCP congestion control is more accurate when it gets timely feedback. On the flip side, explicit rules to never drop packets matching a certain signature often produces a negative sum game, and one that is easily abused.
You could do that, but you don't need to.
The ACL constraint can be any arbitrary SQLish expression that is a boolean.

In this case, say select is allowed if: req_user_id is in article.viewers.user_id. This means, if the request's user_id is in the viewers list of the article.

It depends on the fact, that you have a relationship called viewers which comes from a table that contains article_id, user_id.

The idea is to allow any ACL rule that can be represented as a constraint in your data model.
CF-RAY isn't internal and will show up in any CloudFlare hosted site's response headers.
My business (PricePlow) is obviously affected. However, due to being a niche site, Amazon is not a majority of our revenue, nor is it our top-trafficked store.

My strategy is this: At these commissions in the Health niche, Amazon will no be in our "preferred" tier of stores. On March 1, their products will no longer show up on our blog (unless they are the only store with it in stock) -- and the blog gets the vast majority of our traffic.

They will still show up in our main site (where I need to decide whether or not to keep their exclusive buttons), and they'll still be involved in our hot deals and price drop alerts.

Stores need to earn our best visitors, and Amazon is no longer deserving. Surprisingly, they're most often not the best deal on our site anyway, so I don't think anyone will be too upset.

I may try to negotiate my own rates, but I don't think we're big enough for that (not yet, at least). Everything is negotiable when you have legit traffic and other options.

Meanwhile, we've been diversifying our revenue with various industry SAAS services that can be scaled globally. This has been a big focus of mine, knowing that these kinds of things can happen at the drop of a hat.

But at the end of the day, this is still a paycut, and it still hurts. Amazon will ultimately lose more of our traffic for it, and I really don't think they'll even notice this on their bottom line compared to the explosive profits they get from AWS.

Seems like bad PR more than anything.
Holy cow, 28 000 servers, can you give us a clue to what you need so many servers for?
While I'm firmly in category A I'm not sure that is a fair comparison because the NYT is a huge organization that could very well have employees set on spreading as much biased, misleading or overblown news they could to hurt Trump politically. Also there is the news part of the NYT and the editorial which could have different quality.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it might not be that simple.
I don't think this distinction is as trivial as you think. Especially in a legal sense. Unless you want judges adjudicating in the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" sense, which can get scary.
If you fear phishing, type the wrong password and see if it takes it. If yes, it's obviously a phisher app/site/whatever.
The scenarios you're presenting obfuscate the simplicity of my point: you shouldn't blanket ban something because it's at odds with your philosophy. Exceptions will certainly exist, but that's beside the point and I don't see the value in descending into the minutiae of the exceptions and consequently not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Your view of your ideological opponents is very ungenerous. You accord it absolutely no merit, as it seems you deem it completely wrong and advocate for its banning outright.

Instead I would urge you to understand why some people and organizations have un-nefarious reasons for making closed-source software. To put the burden of justification on them so that they can be allowed to do their own thing is, well, pretty unfair. You seem to operate with the assumption that your ideological opponents are objectively guilty.

And I write this as an advocate for open source (a 100% personal and debatable belief, not an absolute moral claim): you are not being fair when you act like anyone making closed-source software has some obligation to prove to society that they're not being nefarious.

You're seriously willing to punish everyone either legislatively or through a stigma because Vizio did something unethical? The presumption of innocence is fundamental in our society, and your arguments just casually trample all over it, as if it's settled and you're right by default.
> QoS isn't always a zero-sum game.

True, I didn't mean to imply that. Just that if you have a network cable the QoS can be used in a lot of different ways to maximize the amount of information going over the cable, and that not all optimization schemes can be used at the same time.
The whole thing should be a public utility like water, electricity, and sewer.
On the other hand, in America both parties have moved to the right at a clip. The Nixon administration was to the left of Obama (and Clinton) on a good number of the most high-profile social and economic issues we face today. This country's "center" is firmly in the right-authoritarian section of a political compass.
White House: Ban on Recreational Marijuana to Be Enforced
going to be more and more of them until the people demand this president is gone.
They wouldn't be able to compete without offering a service that differentiates them from the competition in a way that appeals to consumers. "Secret network caps and slowdowns" doesn't sound very appealing, so why assume they'd all take that route?

I think it's more realistic to assume they'd differentiate through better service, faster speeds, higher/no caps, etc. That's what we want and are willing to pay for.
I think you misunderstand. My comment isn't about technical merit.

My point is that using Android means to entrust an advertising company with access to every last bit of your personal information.

Trying to limit what they can learn about you is what I compared to training a dog to guard your sausage.
It's not like this issue hasn't come up, you know. That was at the core of the controversy between Hilbert and Brouwer. But if you think that math must be constructive you must realize that the ramifications are significant and the resulting math is very different and has its own counter-intuitive results. For one, analysis becomes much harder (at least so far) and very different; for example, in intuitionistic math, every function on the reals is continuous. Some counter-intuitive results are that a countable set can have an uncountable subset; in fact, not all subsets of a finite set are even finite. Andrej Bauer wrote a nice, mostly readable introduction to constructive math, which you may find interesting: http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/0000-000-00/S0273-0979-2016...

There are numerous philosophical justifications for non-constructive math, but the pragmatic one is that it is -- as far as we know -- consistent, and coincides with constructive math in all physically realizable instances. Hilbert, for example, said that math has "real propositions" (with physically observable consequences), as well as formalistic propositions, which we can accept as they agree with the real propositions in all instances.
Thanks for the tip! Now do Windows!!
Manus VR – VR Gloves SDK Release
in todays non-televised press meeting, not in future press briefings.
Plant patents [1] and Plant Variety Protection Rights [2] are totally reasonable ways they can protect their crops without blocking at the technology level with patents. Which to use depends on sexual vs asexual reproduction of the crop.

[1] https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Very clever and a pleasing way to have some conversations. Much like a brightly painted Pet Rock. Good for the Inventor, I hope he enjoys much success! It actually kind of inspires me to make a tongue-in-cheek version as a gift for people in my close circle that would get a kick out of a cutting from "First Shiner Bock Can of Summer 2017" and "Blood splotched tissue sample from getting poked while changing guitar string" pressed between glass. Too fun.
Care to share a little about your products, or at least the product category you inhabit?
The Books of the Century: 1900-1999
Has anyone made more than, say, a few (tens of) dollars a month, via affiliate schemes? I mean in the last year or two. Things might have been different earlier, that is why the condition.

And related question, is there an affiliate scheme for Amazon India? I had checked a few times earlier for the US-based Amazon affiliate scheme, and IIRC, each time it said that it was only for the US, or not for India.
It is! When playing with other people. I find multiplayer (played locally with friends in the same room) games really fun. I used to also enjoy playing alone, or online, but nowadays the level of story telling doesn't grip me so all that's left is the challenge of the gameplay and as I got older, it feels like I am just figuring out the designer's underlying blueprint.
"Calvin's primary trade-off is that it doesn't support session transactions, so it's not well suited for SQL. Instead, transactions must be submitted atomically. Session transactions in SQL were designed for analytics, specifically human beings sitting at a workstation. They are pure overhead in a high-throughput operational context."

Is this specifically for distributed SQL only? I think there are some scalable SQL systems that don't support sessions either.
I'm sorry, but using SPLC as an source for figures is not responsible reporting. They're a known horribly biased group, and many of the so-called "hate crimes" since the election have been been proven false.

See this list for many examples:

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
“Flash Boys” stock exchange IEX launches free data API
I wanted to try this tool, but the upload requirements were so stringent (must be jpeg, must be same aspect ratio, must be less than 64KB) that I gave up. Would be nice if sample jpegs were provided on the page.
You're right, but at some point, I need to draw the line of whether I can actually do the work and be productive instead of fighting the system.
The rest of the world didn't deserve Trump.
Learn all about the urine fetish
Agreed on the importance of security, but if his credentials from outside their network are able to be used in any significant way to impact their services or systems then they're doing something tragically wrong. For that matter if his credentials can be used anywhere to impact their services it's a failure.
I had the same experience with unopenable links. I just did everything in a separate tab.
So, anyone up for getting an Uber interview and using their laptop as a honeypot?
People could be flagging this too
HR is already supposed to be an arbitrator; adding another one, external but still economically dependent on one side of the dispute, is just papering over the cracks.

This is why employment laws, with all their warts, are necessary: because the justice system is (or rather, should be) completely independent from capital. The State is the only power that can force employers to act against their own self interest, because it does not rely on their welfare.
Why not he.net?
If I were eyeballing two hashes to make sure they were equal, I'd worry about my ability to see near collisions (similar to [0]) the longer the hashes were. My eyes just start skipping ahead at some point, and would probably miss different-but-similar-looking characters in the middle.

But I think SHA-512 is resistant to near-collisions (sorry, I don't have a citation), and besides, one would probably best compare hashes using a script one understands.

[0] http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-540-286...
I was just about to mention Digital Ocean. Very simple and easy, but MySQL is eating all my available memory...
If only it was so simple. In a typical product there might be dozens or hundreds of patents. How do you decide who gets what royalty? that's a negotiation on a product by product basis and involves things like royalty stacking.
> Fourth, people use git in creative ways. Linus may think it is a cardinal sin to commit binary blobs in a git repository, but I can't imagine I'm the only one using git as a poor man's backup and file sharing solution.

git-annex (written by Joey Hess from the email) is a way to manage binary blobs using Git, but IIRC it uses SHA256.
Wow, it works! I thought this was supposed to require Google-level resources and months on processing time. Did the initial collision somehow enable more similar ones?
or, you know, this could just be fixed in git by using a proper hash function that allows you to trust your merkle tree.
What an awful article. It's like they spent 5 pages just waiting for an opportunity to called Trump supporters "Trumpists" and label people they dislike. Sad they are so bitter and angry, totally destroys any rational point they may have been trying to make.
I'm sure Trump / Bannon's ideal scenario would be to have only Breitbart report on Whitehouse news, and Trump will communicate through Twitter. They'll also manipulate various data released through official channels to reinforce their reality. This is the first president that has been arguing that the unemployment rate is higher than the official recognized rate (I know there are various measures) while he is in office.
I've always leaned towards strategy games the most. Some of the best ones are nearly as educational as entertainment. When I was in college, I honestly think that the hours I poured into Europa Universalis and Victoria and Crusader Kings were as effective for learning history as a great deal of the readings I was assigned for class.

If nothing more, you learn a lot about geography...
Uber denies involvement into Susan Fowler research
Agreed, and given there isn't a convincing answer, this 'solution' is more of a ways to insert deregulation into law on a small level for later expansion (probably when comcast complains that it is anti-competitive).
I suppose one way to enforce net neutrality might be to route all traffic through TOR.. that might mess up the caching for a service like Netflix though. (Could someone who knows more than I do comment on that?)
I think you mean that it sets a "dangerous president", as in #unpresidented [1].

[1] http://www.snopes.com/trump-sends-unpresidented-tweet/
Well, interesting:

> Initially I got a ton of offers for development help from people on Hacker News, which materialized to precisely nothing.
The fallacy he's intuiting is really the implied denial of the antecedent:

If X, then Y
!X
Therefore, !Y

As in:

Attribute X is overvalued
Object B does NOT have attribute X.
Therefore Object B is NOT overvalued.

So in other words, your statement may be true:

> When you have a highly overvalued attribute, that attribute becomes an indicator of overvaluation.

but the implication of the inverse: when you DON'T have a highly overvalued attribute, lack of that attribute becomes an indicator of a lack of overvaluation. is not.
I would go much farther than that. The attitude being exhibited here is "mind so open your brains fall out".

The "prior probability" of human nature is called history. You can't look at every event as if it's happening in isolation. This fetishization of the middle ground is intellectually lazy.
To the end customer it's not priority, consider the two cases:

customer:

GET www.site.com/images/rounded_corner.gif

first hop to ISP, then n hops to www.site.com

vs

GET cdn001.site.com/images/rounded_corner.gif

first hop to ISP, then second hop to cdn001

The overhead takes place in the routing mechanism, not in the prioritization mechanism. In both cases, it costs the ISP the same amount to send the data back to the customer. The data is not prioritized, it just happens to be available in fewer hops, which is often (but is not necessarily) faster. A CDN could exist that imposed greater latency in exchange for an improvement elsewhere, such as reliability.
If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and similar.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with, for instance, a content provider handing an ISP a box that sits on their network, mirrors/caches content, and serves it up to that ISP's customers. That helps the content provider, the ISP, and the ISP's customers. And I don't think the majority of "net neutrality" advocates want to break that.

When people talk about "net neutrality", the problems they have in mind tend to look like either an ISP extorting content providers to extract extra revenue, or an ISP giving their own first-party services an advantage by deliberately degrading third-party services. For instance, see Comcast and Netflix.

But even then, how do you draw a bright line between "deliberately degrading", "not giving an advantage to", and "not doing anything to address bandwidth problems when they arise"? (Comcast could claim the latter regarding Netflix, even though it seems obvious what it means when they don't arrange additional bandwidth on those saturated links.) What if the ISP provides the CDN infrastructure, rather than the content provider? What if the ISP contracts with a third-party CDN?

How would you suggest writing a regulation that doesn't break CDNs and similar, and that can tell the difference between "deliberately hurting" and "not helping"? How will that regulation adapt when people come up with new ideas to make the web faster?

(One angle I could imagine working: limiting the ability of one company or family of companies to run both an ISP and network services via that ISP. Still hard to write something robust, though.)