skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If some gov dosn't like the power of those companies then the should feel free to support free software. The same goes for competitors and consumers. Regulation only in rare cases please.
Apple doesn't control all the browsers on iOS or block any web apps.

If you need a low level API, well thats when you need to follow the App Store rules. You may not like that, but the counter argument is the $21B paid to iOS developers over the last 12 months.

If you can get a product into Costco or Walmart you can make huge amounts of money. But you will need to follow their rules, and some are very restrictive. If you don't like that you can sell to less restrictive stores or setup your own. It's no different with iOS and the Web.
And yet to protect your precious rights and freedoms from the greedy and evil corporations, you turn to the government - the biggest monopoly there is...
I wonder if it could be the case that 5.0 will end up shipping mostly in HPC configurations to compete with various proprietary connector offerings, while 4.0 is what the consumer space sees for some time.

It's also possible that the timing is a result of them expecting far more stalls in the process for 5.0 than cropped up, though there's obviously still plenty of time.
The way to compete with big companies is to make new ones, and create an environment that fosters new ones, like making affordable healthcare.

There is no reason for breaking up Google or Facebook. Their only monopoly is over advertising, and most people don't care about that. Advertising isn't a thing people crave.

If anything, break up the ISPs like Comcast!!
To my mind, something as subjective as consumer experience is difficult to objectively measure. I'm not sure what would count as valid evidence.
If there's a "next Zuckerberg" out there, letting them go hungry would probably be the best course of action. It seriously concerns me that people aspire to be like someone who stole an idea then turned it into a global mass surveillance, manipulation, speech supression and propaganda machine.
With the major difference that the ultimate decision-making power would be more widely distributed.
Show HN: Georaptor – Geohash Compression (Considerable reduction in data size)
The big difference that I see from juries, is that juries only choose from a fairly limited selection of possibilities, and they have a few specifically identified professionals (the judge and the lawyers for each side) who guide them through the process. With an actual government, there are only a few constraints and everything else is open to them. There are also thousands of interested parties trying to influence them instead of just two. That would make their job much more challenging than being a juror. It could potentially end up handing more power to lobbyists because of the inexperience of the people in power and resulting in more corruption because there are no longer have to hide it to ensure re-election.
I don't know people who like verbosity per se.
But I can symphatize with people who think that if removal of verbosity introduces other burdens that possibly affect the understandability or refactorability of the code, it is not clear-cut if it's worth it.

Say, with Scala implicit parameters, you get to remove code from call-site. Does it make the code better? Depends on the case, in my opinion. So I don't get the point to say some people categorically want verbosity. They may prefer explicitness and unsurprising code which may require verbosity. Or perhaps the removal of verbosity requires code that allocates more memory -- in that regard Kotlin seems to be a good citizen. It has ways to make code concise without making the byte code entirely different.
True, and startups seem to be where most of the innovation is happening right now. I think universities (and the Internet) do a pretty good job when it comes sharing the deep domain knowledge required to innovate.
Hacking my way to a Jupyter notebook powered blog
Ask HN: What is of more importance, the invention or its globalization?
On the one hand if we take the Wright Brothers as an example, they were the first to invent the airplane, but they didn't make too much progress in making airplanes accessible for everyone.
On the other hand, Facebook
weren't the first to create a social network, but they are the ones who globalized it in the most successful way.

There are many more examples, but I was wondering what should be considered as more valuable / of more importance, and what is more difficult to accomplish, and why?
Anything "big" causes me to pause and count the concerns. The bigger any entity is the more damage they can cause. I tend to support "small" things as best I can.
The location is within a city, so the cost should be comparable to Europe, especially as this looks like a light industrial zone.

The only power lines I see nearby 200 Polaris Avenue look fairly normal voltage, the type the supplies the 'last mile' to homes and businesses. But, I'm not used to seeing cables above ground (except above railway tracks) so maybe I have the wrong assumition (see [1]), and this is actually a medium-high voltage.

In either case, these cables are routinely buried in urban areas in Europe. You'd need to go somewhere rural, very poor, or with weird geology for them to be above ground.

(Even the mid-sized village my mum lives in has buried cables; the last power interruption to the NAS I have there was 9 months ago.)

Polaris Avenue: https://www.google.dk/maps/@37.3981048,-122.083163,3a,75y,27...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#/m...
245 Days Later; Still Live Control Robots in Some Guys House
Huh??? What does prop 65 (or any California state proposition for that matter) have do to with someone on a tourist visa getting in trouble with the federal government for buying illegal drugs?
Best part is that your boss doesn't blink when you ask him to approve legos sets and lego boxes bought by the pound to build the boring tapping, sliding, dropping, shaking robot of the week that they need.

Edit: second best part is take your kid to work day when you get to show the 8 year olds your cabinets full of spare lego parts.
i believe that happy customers would count as valid evidence.

when i use google or amazon, im usually pretty happy with the service they provide.

when i have to stand at a walmart cashier for half an hour while the lady has to yell for the manager because she needs to issue a $1.20 refund, im not as happy.

when I have to go to the library of alexandria to find a piece of infomration that im looking for but then they tell me that it burned down 2000 odd years ago, im not as happy.
Researchers at Oxford University Prototype AI-Powered Nanoscale Neural Implant
If the employment market is equivalent to slavery, it not obviously so. Saying it was designed for our exploitation implies a level of conspiracy and central control that I find dubious.
>No, we invented programming languages so that our code can be smaller and less arcane, not less proportional

Smaller also means less proportional to the work that it's doing, since the abstraction, sugar and techniques we use to make code smaller do not yield the same compression ratio from the underlying instructions in all cases.

So, smaller = less proportional -- unless you suggest we should also strive to artificially constrain how succinct we make our code so that there's a constant ratio everywhere.

That is, so that 10 lines of code in a language always are (or at least, always strive to be) 10×n times of machine code. I don't see how that's feasible -- some abstraction could yield a 1/100 less code than machine code in one line, while another can yield a mere 1/5 or 1/10 less code.

But even if we could achieve that, I don't see it being even useful. Having higher level code strive to be more proportional to machine instructions is not necessarily telling us much about the cost of such code. It might tell us that it's complex and slower than another, but that doesn't mean much. It only matters what role it plays in the overall runtime of our program. Just because something A 5 times bigger than something else B, doesn't mean A needs more optimizing. A could be just fine as it is, e.g. if A is called rarely, and B is in some tight loop.

Gauging code by "code proportionality" (the only semi-legitimate use I could think of such a feature) is bogus. We should always profile.

>The article also states (and I agree) that if your code is wildly variable in the amount of semantic content per line of text, it's much harder to properly grok and (more importantly) to modify what's going on.

On the contrary. The part of "What's going on" that matters when it comes for modification is the high level stuff that goes on -- which a more terse code shows better, as it doesn't hide it with boilerplate.

In the end, that point seems both trivial and non-sensical: yes, boilerplate is easier to modify. That's because it doesn't matter much -- it's the stuff that you want to do that's hidden inside the boilerplate that matters.

e.g. I can write a loop to filter 100 numbers in tons of ways. And I can always modify it from one to one of the other ways.

But something like:

value = filter(my_array, (val) => val > 5)

Just does what it says is does, and since it encapsulates the intention 100% there's no much room for wiggling.
I find it amazing that Python 3 is almost 10 years old and it's still not been able to replace Python 2 everywhere. I mean, legacy is one thing, but from what I see lots of people still start new projects with python 2.
The master plan is very easy to explain by any long time Windows developer (back to 3.x days).

The political wars between WinDev (Windows and C/C++) and DevTools (Visual Studio and .NET) divisions.

With the mismanagemnt that happened with Longhorn, the WinDev gained in strenght Vista and Windows 7 happened, pushing aside all .NET related plans into DevTools alone.

Then with the failure of the initial store model, the DevTools kind of won in strenght got some of the ex-Midori devs, MDIL compiler became .NET Native and at the last couple of BUILDs you very barely see any talk about using C++ for UWP, rather portability across Linux/mobile OSes and ANSI C++ compatibility, everything else is shown in C#.
I find it hugely improbably that ex-admin's situation entailed being wronged by all of the customers whom he impacted by this action.

You are basically justifying the 'killing of innocents' here..
Right, but what if I want Google Home or Alexa to make the decision for me because it can make more informed decision than me. Assuming, Alexa/Google has the pertinent information such as user reviews and has approximate data on how many people visit the store.
Any links to what's being shared?

How are the content crawled?
> More specifically, because of the RSA dependency on prime numbers, the RSA effective key space is very sparse (which is why going from 2048-bit RSA to 4096-bit RSA only increases the effective key space by ~16%). With elliptic curves, the key space is very dense, which reduces the key size for an "equivalent" encryption strength.

This isn't correct.

The reason RSA (and classic DH) keys are gigantic is because index calculus techniques yield efficient attacks on systems based on finite fields. We need big keys to make them impractical.

EC systems are not susceptible to these attacks because the points on a curve comprise only a group and not a field. Counterintuitively (to me, at least!), they're safer because they have less structure.
Maybe. Depends if they set themselves up as a co-op. They could instead essentially start as a highly focused VC. At that point the control will probably rest in the hands of the board and management.
Which is why as full stack developer across native and web stacks, I try to avoid web projects as much as possible.
Shouldn't it be a giant red flag to a reviewer when the app is focused on an entirely fictional premise?

If the app was claiming to grow a dinosaur in your backyard after you pay $400/mo would it be treated any different?
You've made a lot of claims. Do you have any evidence to support these:

- Facebook's 1% owning 99% of its wealth

- The economy of nation states mirrors that of its corporations (and not the other way around)

- Social environments of corporations somehow influence the general public

There are many reasons why mega-corporations are bad, and I personally don't think these are them.
Show HN: Neural Japanese Transliteration
Unless one has Windows 10 Creators edition/.NET 4.7.
TLA+ in Practice and Theory, Part 3: The Temporal Logic of Actions
I think you have rose colored glasses on about Netscape around the time that IE was given away for free. I remember an article that came out in the late 90s comparing how badly NS crashed on every platform that it ran on.

Why is it anti competitive for MS to give away IE for free but not anticompetitive for Google to give away Chrome and Android for free or Apple to give away IOS/MacOS for "free". Every tech company "commoditizes their complements". IBM supports free operative systems to sell hardware and services, Apple gives away IOS updates to sell hardware, Google gives everything away for free to sell ads, etc.

Is it also wrong for open source software to be free?
The sunk cost fallacy fallacy: you have perfect knowledge of what other options you have, all specific knowledge and experience acquired in your current course of action is worthless and persistence never pays off.

Given how prevalent the so called sunk cost fallacy is in humans, you would think smart people would give a bit more thought to its darwinian origins.
El Capitan, My El Capitan
Just found this and was surprised it's been live for so long. It was posted here almost a year ago. Here's the original Show HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12665069
We can't measure it perfectly but there exist statistics that we can at least say approximate it. One of which is price and currently there are price wars occurring all the time between the tech giants.
Right, but how to measure that?

For example, do we know a company's customers are happy because the company has grown to be large?

Like Comcast. Comcast has a lot of customers, maybe they're happy ones? Otherwise how did Comcast grow to that size? (See what I'm hinting at?)

There are different interpretations of Comcast's success at customer growth and retention.
It's not clear that the learnability results about formal grammars are useful for describing what can be learned by practical algorithms, where the grammar does not have to be identified with perfect confidence.

As an example, it is possible to induce a counting algorithm from examples with high probability: https://colala.bcs.rochester.edu/papers/piantadosi2012bootst...
"I’m no longer hosting a fork of the main repository, instead favouring a fresh clone of the upstream repository on each build, and applying patches and overlays where needed to make the code build for our targets. The hope here is to make our build system more resilient to changes in the upstream repository so as to avoid manual intervention as much as possible."

How is this better than a fork? Git seems like it would handle merges much better than this DIY patch pile.
Apple can't censor the programs you run on iOS. There is jailbreaking, and Apple's Testflight even allows developers to distribute up to 10,000 copies of your app with minimal review.

One of the reasons iOS is so popular is the inherent safety in Apple's sandboxing and app review. If you don't care about that Android has app stores that are far less restrictive and it's easier to side load apps on. That's real consumer choice, you don't expect Nordstroms to allow all of Walmart's clothes vendors to dump their crap on it's shelves.

As far as our phones and PCs are concerned, we live in a wonderfully free world. You can distribute software to anyone on a web page, or native apps to billions of people by following a few app store rules. If you don't like either of those options, you can actually build your own smart phones to offer consumers what you think is a better choice, there are multiple operating systems that are entirely open source.

The only pressure on platform owners is customer expectations. They don't like viruses, malware, etc. Some don't like their kids downloading apps that might lead them in ways they don't like. Giving customers what they want isn't censorship at all.
Can we vote on the governance of facebook and google like we do with the government? (where every person's vote is equal)

if so, where can I register to freely vote

edit: since it doesn't seem clear, my comment is sarcastic
Not really. Search engines, Warehousing infra-structure, operating systems, compute clouds, marketing to achieve critical mass are pretty expensive.
Yep, you are right, this will serve him well I hope, not to mention I especially got him an external drive for backups few months back, but he told me he didn't bother, because he didn't think his laptop can fail :-)
They don't have a boss, they can't be fired, they don't generate wealth that someone else keeps. On the other side there are huge material benefits to coordinating with many people, even if that coordination is done via a system that exploits you. Not a good comparison.
>This is a civil matter. My tax dollars should not pay for a criminal lawsuit. Screw that.

So if an aggrieved ex employee does enough damage that the company has insufficient resources to sue, or has enough resources themselves to make that difficult, it's all good?

Individuals and companies should not be vulnerable to attacks like this based on their resources. It's in all our interests to ensure this sort if activity is dealt with severely because we are all vulnerable. Mutual defence in the form of criminal prosecution of offenders is the way they go IMHO.
Are the existing laws enough to regulate them though? The anti competition laws don't apply here as all of them are competing in the same space and all of them are huge.
That's not necessarily a good feature.
Here’s what the top accelerators in North America are funding
Show HN: Free WSJ Access via Read Across the Aisle
Agreed. People can talk freely. People can also be dismissed freely. Freedom of speech, freedom of market.
The avalanche has already begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
On the question of whether it's intuitive or not: NP-complete problems tend to have fairly little structure. A problem like boolean satisfiability has basically no structure: all you have is a soup of clauses. The "tricky" problems that have solutions in P get their solutions from clever exploitation of structure.

At least, that's how it becomes more intuitive to me.
Our new Chrome extension offers free access to the WSJ, in addition to filter bubble tracking. Feedback appreciated!

The back story on our WSJ access: I was interviewed by Neiman Lab (a journalism foundation), and they asked about how we were structuring our media partnerships. I told them that we had ongoing discussions with several media outlets, but that they were all confidential.

So instead, I offered a hypothetical: we'd love to work with the WSJ, for example, to bring left-leaning readers to their right-leaning site. The day that Neiman Lab published their interview, I got an email from the head of partnerships at the WSJ, asking to talk about doing a partnership together. It's not always true, but sometimes: "ask, and you shall receive"
Sure, it's called the stock market. You buy a share and you get a vote.
The hell you do.
Yes! We swiped the idea from the military. In certain dangerous places, they require two people to be there or nobody. One person is not allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule
I can't take it anymore! I have to speak out.

>The top 1% would own maybe 99% of the wealth of the country and everyone else would earn a minuscule fraction of the total value that they produced.

What is up with all this egalitarian nonsense? There is an obsession with equality that I just don't get. Where is all the envy coming from(because that's what it is)?

This is an affront on capitalism which has served to lift so many out of poverty. It is unacceptable in my books.
In my case the first obstacle (and I haven't looked into it too much) is we have a lot of Lambda functions written in Python and Scala.
> If we go to war with China I don't think you or anyone else will care much about your company.

Why? We went to war with Europe and Asia a few times and businesses kept chugging along here in the states.
Tired of Looking at Bad Sawhorse Construction
Many ideas.

- What's stopping you?

Money.
Time.

Or have a partner that is capable of survive without money from some time.
It depends on the perspective of what "large" means.

If "large" means "rich", then you are right.

However, if "large" means "comprised of many employees", then this is not necessarily true.

So perhaps a first good step is to put a limit on the number of employees. This also enforces a "modular" style of working, where companies can more easily be swapped for other companies, and more reuse of "company-modules" can happen.
If the Justice department hadn't bungled the antitrust case over the wrong target (focusing on IE instead of their OEM rebate strategy used to corner the market) Microsoft might not have existed today in the same form.
Thanks, testdisk couldn't help me, but I am going to try again... Right now I trying to take an image from the disk with r-studio, but getting constantly Read disk Data errors...
Oh, I'm not surprised at all that it's in the law, like so many other flights of fancy.
The Strange Brain of the World’s Greatest Solo Climber
http://nautil.us/issue/39/sport/the-strange-brain-of-the-wor...
I kept looking at the sawhorses that were strewn about the landscape. I decided to draw what I thought a sawhorse should look like. There are plenty of better ones out there. But I wanted anyone to be able to build one.
its because comcast is a monopoly.

google was not a monopoly when it became popular. it was the idiot 12th search engine that nobody needed.

i get what youre saying, but its pretty obvious why a company gets big. its either holding some form of monopoly or people want it. there are not many other options to be honest.

you dont become the most popular car manufacturer by producing a bullshit product that people neither need nor want.

besides, why is comcast even a negative example? why did you pick that? its because you KNOW FOR A FACT that everyone hates comcast. even I know that. and i have nothing to do with america. people hate comcast. that may as well be a dictionary example sentence for the word "hate". how do we know that everyone hates comcast? because people say so every single day. just measure that. if you want to know whether a company is loved or hated, just ask their customers.
But the investors have the power to replace the board. This is called "representative democracy" and it's widely considered, despite its flaws, a better way to govern human affairs than dictatorship or oligarchy.
And what will happen to these companies as more people start blocking ads? Apple introduced an ad blocking framework into iOS a year or two ago and this year they are going even further with blocking tracking cookies and letting users default to reading view.

So sure the "unwashed masses" will see ads but ad buyers are going to start losing their most affluent audience - the people who are willing to pay not to see ads whether it be buying an iPhone or subscribing to ad free services.
How to Implement GA Enhanced Ecommerce via Tag Manager