skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That board definitely looks like the better deal; especially since it has on-board 10/100 ethernet, making it much easier to communicate with.

Would a small design (or perhaps a design meant to be parallel) be able to be prototyped on the Arty and then re-compiled using the same toolchain for the much-larger FPGAs on the AWS platform?
Adults that are capable of rudimentary reading are made aware of the consequences. There are signs all over that list the consequences of pissing in the town well, a list which ends in "...or death". We collectively told you to not do $STUPID_THING_THAT_COULD_END_IN_DEATH, and you did it anyway because you think you have a special exemption, and don't give a second thought to trashing the commons. I'm not saying that the punishment should be death, but it doesn't sadden me if that's how it turns out. If they weren't killed by the sulphuric pools, a bison, or a bear, it would have been something else that involves someone holding their beer.
I wonder how this will impact their competitors (Facebook?). I assume these features will be opt-in instead of enabled-by-default. it could be pretty catastrophic if it is enabled by default. For an optin feature, it is not much different from today, where a user can install adblocker extension. Very few consumers opt to do so.

A while ago, Apple added ad blocking features to iOS 9, however users had to explicitly enable them by installing an adblocker apps. I have not seen significant impact by this move (G and FB are still growing).
> But none of the examples he gives demonstrates that, because they are not examples where the moboplist was displaced independently of antitrust actions.

IBM and Microsoft weren't dethroned until roughly a decade later, so it's a real stretch to claim any kind of causal relationship. Especially because they maintained — to this day — their monopolies in mainframes and PC operating systems. It's just that technological change made their monopolies less relevant.

There was certainly a causal relationship WRT AT&T, but the conclusion to that tale does not go "and then, American telecommunications companies became well-known for their low prices and excellent customer service."

> Antitrust action does not occur against benevolent monopolies in the US system, it only occurs when a monopolist illegally leveraged their monopoly

That's rather begging the question. The DoJ's cases against IBM and Microsoft, in particular, may have been financial bonanzas for the legal industry, but the central legal claims were Kafkaesque: the supposed "unfair competition" was that IBM bundled support services with its computers and Microsoft bundled software with its operating system. Essentially, the DoJ's claim was that their products offered too good a value to consumers, and ought to have been made worse so their competitors' products would have a better chance.

IBM and Microsoft may well have engaged in genuine anti-competitive practices (ironically, MS' sabotage of OS/2 would be a good example), but those weren't. And maybe the DoJ could have brought cases against them that actually served to the benefit of consumers, but again, those didn't.
Google's AdMob routinely shows me "virus scan now!" and "extend battery!" with full flashing yellow and red.

They've also hosted fake download ads for e.g. Skype.
Freeclimbing 40' Harding Falls
Yet another power grab from Google.
You can easily plug any native components into react native apps.
And just 20 years later they came close to becoming a single country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_Union#World_War...
It's said that the first shot fired by the British Empire in WW1 was from Fort Nepean, Australia.
perfect example of over-engineering a solution to a simple problem
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard
Is this an indication that Google isn't able to control 'bad' content ingested up stream in their ad network?
Google is an ad network, not an ad agency. All ads should meet the Initial Better Ads Standards at the very least, we're not talking about creative quality here, we're talking about reducing user pain that things like fullscreen ads, autoplays, popups... create.

It's a good start, but consumers deserve a better ad experience for approved formats too.
I find it funny/sad that 3 weeks is considered a long time between seeing an acquaintance. For me, i can easily go a year between seeing a close friend.
> An off switch on Internet-connected devices, that physically cuts heir access to the network.

Cutting off heir access might require legacy software.
Many people comments can be reduced to "Yes, you can shoot yourself to the foot. Don't do that".

The problem, however, is whether we call ourselves "engineers", and not just "coders". Real world engineers take responsibility for anything related to their project, even if it's not their job.

Flying instructors often teach "everyone is stupid for 15 minutes a day". That's why every plane control is made to prevent errors, even if other prevention measures failed. Of course, we often don't need that kind of reliability in computer programming.

But in cases when we really do "engineering", and not just "programming", we want to prevent shooting to the foot, even when user points out gun to their foot and pulls the trigger. That's why they put safety switch on guns.
> Are we to understand that 'dangerous Islamist refugees' are going to vote for liberal and progressive political parties once they arrive in the West?

As the political parties are currently configured, yes. Dangerous Islamist refugees will vote for them for two reasons:

1. "Liberal and progressive" parties are generally the parties of directly giving out money to "the poor", which gets them votes from the demographics receiving the money.

2. "Liberal and progressive" parties in the West are currently overtly pro-Islamic as a contrast to their hated rivals who are "Islamophobic".

What people often fail to consider (in my experience) is that as the liberal and progressive parties draw more of their votes from this kind of group, their party platform will change. Here is a highly stylized thought process that I'd like to argue against, as applied to the USA:

1. Mexicans, when they do bother to vote, vote Democratic by healthy margins.

2. Therefore, more Mexicans over time means a larger vote share to the Democrats over time.

3. Therefore, more Mexicans in the US means Democrats will win more elections and more Democratic priorities will come to pass.

(2), and therefore also (3), are false. The structure of the US political system is that each party gets 50% of the votes. If demographics shift, it can never happen that the parties stabilize at 60% vote share to the Democrats, 40% to the Republicans -- the party platforms will change until each party has 50% of the votes. Packing the electorate with Mexicans will tip the scales toward more wealth redistribution, a current Democratic priority. But it will tip the scales away from environmentalism, also a current Democratic priority. Environmentalism is not a priority for Mexicans in the US.

All of which is to say that "dangerous Islamist refugees" will definitely vote for the parties that are currently the "liberal and progressive" parties, but those parties will become less liberal and progressive in the process.
The project was open sourced yesterday and was only internal to Docker. Since this is open source and not anything they will sell I don't think they are using marketing speak per say.
The article and the complaint itself are rather short on detail on exactly how they're tracking now playing info in a way that's personally identifiable (which the Connect app's Privacy Policy specifically says they don't do).
There's a developer news update for April 2017:

http://www.pmail.com/devnews.htm
Not during WW1 it wasn't, calling a Scotsman English wasn't an issue at the time.
Oh I'm well aware of Bell's theorem; I'm a trained Physicist :)

Bell's theorem rules out theories of local hidden variables. It says nothing about non-local hidden variables, or even something more mundane like determinism (sometimes referred to as "superdeterminism").

In any case, I'm not sure Bell's theorem has much impact on my question: why is one of these things (transfer of information from a coin toss) not a problem, conceptually; whilst the other (entanglement of quantum systems) is a problem, conceptually?

(Personally, I don't find either particularly troubling; just curious to know what the philosophical distinction is, without appeals to "quantum weirdness")
It is interesting. It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. A strange combination.
Winning Hearts and Minds, from the Computer’s Perspective
In some sense that seems to be true.

But I just meant that while it's easy to make a reversible circuit, no tech we have today can make it as energy efficient as might be theoretically possible.
Will the feature block paid placements in search results, too? I think most English speakers would consider these to be, erm, advertisements.
There is another thing about this machine which is not recyclable: your investment in the thing itself. The second-hand value of these will be close to zero.
Did you understand the question? Yes? Then what does it matter?
At Dockercon it was all Enterprises giving talks about successful Docker deployments and I never heard mention of adoption by users. Only growth on things like downloads etc.
Rltm.js – Universal API for realtime messaging
This would probably be more efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_key#Iambic_.28dual-l...
Yeah I still don't get how cingular was let back in
You probably missed this: http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-...

Adsense has its more than fair share of low quality ads. Of course, you can't compare it to popups/sound-ads etc. but compared to the past, it's certainly way lower. (Keep in mind the experience varies wildly based on your profile. Geo etc.)
What do you consider to be a "dangerous" ad? (serious question)
I wonder if the motivation isn't a bit more subtle than that. My guess would be they're hoping to improve ads across the web so that people turn off ad blockers in general.
Now google is going to control what documents i am able to load? Why would you like that?
Doesn't this say more about the flaws of the business and/or the management than it indicates this being a good idea? Many of the most successful software companies do everything they can to attract and retain the upper end of software engineers and they don't do this because it's bad for businese. Presumably they do this because it provides more value for the company than having more programmers or trying to save money on salaries/perks.
It's the same name as the Servo porting project. I could see that creating the separate process is a first step and involves no Servo code as of yet, but how do you know either way?
It's exactly what has happened to Docker. Their one product that makes money now has massive competition with all of the other orchestrators that exist. If people want simple they use ECS or Docker CE (which is free). If they want complex they often turn to Kubernetis etc.
That'd definitely a valid point. It's all about you want to trade off risk and convenience I guess
Just out of curiosity, what are some of those "rough edges" you experienced?
Thanks, that's a very detailed and interesting reply.

Yes, a lot of those factors are most likely to have an effect. I hadn't thought about the equipment surplus coming from the Middle East wars.

It's very unfortunate and it's a problem I believe when the public learns to be fearful of the police. As soon as the police is no longer seen as public servants who are here to help, their stated mission and reason to exist is compromised.
Depends on the woman. Some don't mind as long as everyone knows their place. She's the wife. She's the one with the major assets coming to her. The mia noi is financially supported but she has no rights (or expectations) of inheriting any wealth from the man. The gik is simply someone who is available for sex in exchange for either cash or gifts.

It's not entirely unheard of for the mia noi to live with the husband and wife. Not common but I've seen it in enough Thai soap operas where it can't be completely uncommon either. Again, as long as the mia noi knows her place, the first wife often is glad to have someone to hand off her house duties to.
New microscopy method breaks color barrier of optical imaging
I know, right? That was the email client my dad used back when we first got dialup in the early 90's.
World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.
And Google App Engine 9 years ago
As long as they don't disallow other ad blockers I'm okay with it.
Or it will be seen as another power grab by google. I'm not saying it's a move that hurts consumers, I'm saying I see it as a power grab and yet more control over the web being handed over. I'm unconvinced that relying on a coalition to set standards is enough of a gap.
How about...

instanceOf x is? {
Int { System.out.println("It's an Int"); }
String { System.out.println("Hello, " + x); }
_default { System.out.println("This type is not explicitly named here."); }
}

And if you don't want the type, the value of any other method, function, or attribute could be checked by "is?" or whatever syntax token you want there.

Further tests could be saved for within those blocks to save complexity.

What's odd though is that in Java this particular example seems to want multi-method. Testing the type explicitly and acting on it is more akin to duck-typed language programming. You see this pattern pretty often in Perl for example. If I want to write in Perl, I typically reach for Perl.
I have such fond memories of the dedicated server days, when I'd contact customer support to add a hard drive, then contact them again to upgrade the ethernet port speed, then somehow they would increase my port speed without charging me for it, then after that I'd get a 500 error whenever I'd try to create a ticket, then after I reboot the machine I find the partition table got nuked. Then I'd talk to three levels of customer service people before finding the senior guy who looks at the ticket system in the SQL monitor and says "that's interesting."

Then I move to AWS and I get a call from a crack salesperson who says that "people who leave us for AWS always come back" and you know... I haven't gone back.

And that was a reputable hosting company. Back around 2001 I was working with an entrepreneural minded MBA and he would find incredible deal for dedicated servers from companies that would suddenly go out of business or have their suppliers go out of business -- we got fast at restoring from off-site backups so it was ok...

If you need reliabilty, use a virtual machine on an IBM 390.
To put a finer point on it, the limit on cell size is closer to the definitional difference between what makes something a "plant" vs an "animal" than almost anything else. Plants, due to their stable tissue structures, don't need to worry about their cell size, and therefore don't need to worry about unbounded DNA growth. Because of this, they have evolved to take advantage of having "more" DNA. Yes, polyploid plants are generally healthier, because plants expect polyploidy. But even without polyploidy, plants have large amounts of "specialized-use" genetic material, libraries of specific responses (e.g. immune responses) to specific problems (e.g. parasites) that may have only existed millions of years ago. They can just keep all these one-off solutions around, evolving to protect themselves against one more thing at a time.

(This is also why plants tend to be full of weird organic molecules like terpenes, which are beneficial to nearly every animal alive today: those chemicals probably protected them from something at some point, and the genes responsible for making them have had no reason to be shut off since then.)

But animals, with a finite limit on gene-base size, must solve problems differently. Animals evolve along different lines—polyploid mutations usually result in non-viable offspring for animal species, because animals frequently have mutations that assume diploidy, with complex machinery to favor better vs. worse versions of each diploid gene using silencing or epigenetic methylation. And more generally, animals evolve solutions to whole classes of problems that have compact genetic representations. We don't have a million custom immune responses; instead, we have xenograft rejection genes, T-cells, livers and kidneys, saliva and stomach acid, the sensation of itching, skin that sheds and skin oil that clears pores, and put together, those mechanisms handle 99% of cases just fine.

And often we don't need any of those; the primary "solution" that animals have to almost every problem, is just the ability to move away from the source of the problem. If there's a predator, you can just run away. You don't need to know what the thing is, to run away from it; you just run away! Universal solution! To do that, we need a lot of things: not just limbs, but sensory organs, to know where we are and where the predator is; and nerves, to link the two; and even some sort of instinct for what predators exist, or memory to record sense-fear associations. But all those genes still take up far less space than immune proteases individualized for every bacterium and fungus on earth.
Might I suggest .dom[0] instead of React if you are planning to use plain JS. It is tiny and has a slightly simpler API which is nice for plain ES6

[0]: https://github.com/wavesoft/dot-dom
My cynical side can't help but think that accusing Google of RICO violations is pretty silly if you don't have reason to believe that they will commit one of the specific set of crimes (which are illegal in their own right) you need to to even have a snowball's chance in hell of a RICO charge/civil suit. I'm confident that Google wouldn't need to murder or assault anyone, or commit wire fraud, or steal cars, or forge a passport, or pretty much anything on that list to use this to get rid of uBlock.

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
How so? If the ad does not abide by the Coalition for Better Ads standards then it's not displayed. And if your ad doesn't meet those standards then you probably shouldn't be advertising with Google.
Except they don't follow that standard:

http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-...
It will meet their "standards", which in the past have not prevented Google ads from being used for a lot of different types of nasty, malicious activity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
well said, bravo
That's a fair thing to be worried about, and I think if this were to move forward I'd really like to see at least one other browser implement it to the same standard, or perhaps some agreement on what constitutes "bad" ads from a few other networks.

But I don't think that's a good reason to fight it from the start.
And if they can gimp their competitors at the same time, bonus!
bingo, same thing has been happening in the US for years.
See the thread about the asymptotic penalties: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14151390
I worked on a system that performed a flaky test at run time and made it a condition that it had to succeed in order to run. Oh boy.

Basically, it generated a sample of numbers from the RNG (not PRNG: real random source). Then it ran statistical tests of randomness to validate, "yes, we have good random-numbers for security and whatnot".

Of course, these tests can fail; there is a nonzero probability that some pattern emerges which looks non-random to the tests; that's a consequence of them being really random.

How lame.
AWS Batch as well
AWS in Plain English: https://www.expeditedssl.com/aws-in-plain-english
If google does this then Firefox should ad block google ads. What's good for the goose.
Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is.

https://www.betterads.org/standards/
There really was no reason to ever believe the US would ever get involved in WWI.

On the contrary, I think it is exceedingly likely that the US will always intervene (if it has the capacity to do so) if a single military power looks like taking over most of Europe. It's why the US intervened in both WWI and WWII, and created NATO.
> It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer.

The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety".

For example, I don't expect Google to block ads that violate users' privacy by tracking them. But I hope they surprise me!
You'll have to be more specific. Quite a lot of what schools consider math is rote learning, from time tables in early years to forumalas in later ones.
While video ads with sound on and popups are pretty irritating, I think interstitial ads with a timer are more in the grey area. I mostly use the Epic Privacy Browser which already by default blocks all ads.
I have never thought that this day will come and finally we need technology to remind us about meeting our friends. Its sad.
On the side note nice little well executed project.
It would be interesting to know how this correlates with how long the test normally takes to run, versus its timeout. (Any timeout is a race condition in disguise - and yet we need timeouts.)
Yes, but there are probably other standards that Google's ads don't meet, and Google isn't using those.
They already serve in those same roles, though, when "SEO spam" sites get blocked from Google Search results.
> There is a reason there are no thousand-developer FOSS projects written in a Lisp

Yes; the main one being that about 996 of them wouldn't have anything to do.

> you can't just jump in as someone who "knows Foo" and immediately understand the logical flow of 100% of the code.

Can you just jump into the Linux kernel as "someone who knows C" and understand the logical flow of everything? USB, TCP/IP stack, virtual memory, file systems, block devices, scheduler, ...
>As far as I can tell, Germany was on track to win the war as late as spring 1917.

So did this fact provide the ground for the belief, which helped lay the groundwork for the success of the Nazi movement, that Germany had lost the war because it had been betrayed by its leadership?
Except it's your device, you can choose to block ads.
And then they can just block all ads except those provided by Google...

They are trying to be both the player and the judge at the same time.
That would place pressure on advertisers outside of Google's network to switch, yes.

Edit: though from the article it really does seem much more benign.

Disclosure: I am working on what is, ostensibly, a competing product.
Perhaps it is, but if there were the case why wouldn't they start by cleaning up their own platforms?

There are several angles to be wary of. Locking out competitors, replacing competitor ads with their own, forcing sites to migrate to, or back to, Google ad networks, etc.
"Look, I know it's an off-topic rant, but this issue is so important than it warrants off-topic rants!", said everyone who's ever posted an off-topic rant.
Call for Papers: DEF CON BioHacking Village. Deadline April 28
This isn't about controlling advertiser spend at all. It's about controlling publisher supply.

Publishers have other choices for ad supply, Google is not the most lucrative, but it's the best for high volume so it's everywhere, because people need to get their fill rates.

If a major browser like Chrome starts punishing publishers for not policing their supply, it'll only benefit the big networks.

(I'm actually very skeptical of this article's claims...)