skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
did you read [2] ?

here is a snippet of the case he makes for why net neutrality is bad and his argument for why it is presently having a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

From Ajit: and reference 2 above.

"

Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that
Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more
heavily you regulate somethin
g, the less of it you’re likely to get.
Now, when you talk about less infrastructure investment, many people’s eyes glaze over. But it’s
important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. Reduced investment means fewer
Americans will have h
igh-speed Internet access. It means fewer American will have jobs. And it means
less competition for consumers.
So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment
declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Inter
net service providers, domestic broadband capital
expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the
Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
I expect it would depend on what other evidence there were. I tend to agree that taken by itself it's a pretty thin reed to get to beyond reasonable doubt as would probably be needed in a criminal trial in the US. However, it could certainly help a case.

It's not unusual to have trials where there's no unassailable smoking gun but rather a number of facts that strain credulity to explain away.
Frida Codeshare: Building a Community of Giants
The article is interesting because it gets a lot right but then it fails to clearly state the problem. It's not clear that this group groks it.

It's funny because I just wrote this comment[0] this morning. To sort of repeat myself:

- An extremely slack labor market which is causing a thousands of young men to drop out of the labor market and play video games. [2]

- An extremely slack labor market which is causing unprecedented decreases in labor mobility and entrepreneurship. [3]

- An extremely slack labor market which is causing enormous increases in household debt. (What the Great Financial Crisis was really about.) [4]

- An extremely slack labor market which leads to corporate profits and inequality not seen since the Gilded Age.[5]

- An extremely slack labor market which has led to what is probably negative wage growth as prices rise. [6] (That's just the UK but I'd say the US is probably 2-3 years behind the curve.)

Add in the rise of China and you've got a perfect storm for a severe economic dislocation in the West as most of the population is tossed to the wolves of unemployment.

The problem is that in America you can't simply say the labor market is the problem. People will call you communist or a socialist. So I guess you have to dress it up with terms like "innovation" and "dynamism." This confuses other people and instead of fixing the actual problem -- the labor market -- you get people arguing about cutting back environmental regulations. (Seriously, see elsewhere in the thread.)

So, probably, words do matter. If this group called themselves the "Labor Innovation Group" it would be a sign they understand the issues. But as it is now it's probably a good idea to be a bit wary.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14751019

[1] https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are...

[2] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~nwilliam/Econ702_files/abch.pdf

[3] http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Dec...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/dealbook/househo...

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/wage-inequality-i...

[6] https://www.ft.com/content/6d248d02-4885-37d6-b00d-c6117c0dc...
You kind of have to do that stuff, though. There's no getting around understanding linear algebra and feeding vertices into the GPU. It's kind of like the bare minimum you need to swim. Yeah you gotta learn it and there's some funky techniques, but you gotta tread water somehow, yeah?

It is a lot to learn at once, but no more than web dev where you are learning html and databases and HTTP and god knows what else at once. And like you said once you grok it, it's pretty easy.

Graphics programming terrified me for the longest time because people acted like it was dark magic and hard. Figuring this stuff out slowly but surely it shocks me how little there is to it and I wish someone would have told me sooner.

I've gotten rendering a cube down to an art (gotta start somewhere). You're talking ~100 lines of JS and double that of C++ but no more than that in any decent language. And that's a cube (or multiple) and a basic camera.

A library like regl shows how simple this stuff can get without lots of boilerplate.

https://github.com/regl-project/regl/blob/gh-pages/example/b...

Boom a triangle in 40 lines, but the underlying process of vertices, buffers, shaders, etc is apparent. Cool stuff.

Those asking about Vulkan - Vulkan only increases the boilerplate by design.
YouTube would rather you fall into a trance of continuing your recent viewing habits rather than providing a personalized library. It just makes better business sense.
It's more that the people implementing and reviewing the feature (cough) didn't expect about:* pages to end up loading frigging Google Analytics.
It's really annoying on mobile. Fortunately, my Firefox already has HN on the "quick dial", so it's two taps for me - address bar and quick dial link.
Genuine question: do people believe that public utilities hold back innovation?
I hate this. Several years of nothing but a single genre of music in my history but watch one video about something different and get nothing but recommendations based on that. I have to clean up my watch history daily.
"The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now."

In what ways do they not "match the internet now"? The Communications Act of 1934 (in my opinion as someone who is very much not a lawyer) seems to have been intended to regulate all telecommunications, even if it has language specifically addressing AT&T's then-monopoly on a specific form of telecommunications. Its various amendments appear to be consistent with that intent.

If these repeal supporters can cite specific reasons why Internet providers shouldn't qualify as common carriers (and thus be subject to Title II) just like how telephone network providers are classified as such, then we have a proper discussion on our hands. Else, it really just reeks of more whining on the part of cable companies and their ilk: "no no no, we're totally different from this other subcategory of 'telecommunications' because reasons".

Personally, I ain't buying it.

"The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better."

The FTC isn't the (only) right vehicle for enforcing the terms of the Communications Act of 1934; the FCC would be better.

The FTC should by all means be involved here, don't get me wrong (ISP's behaviors are definitely characteristic of coercive monopolies), but that doesn't mean the FCC gets to stick its fingers in its ears saying "LALALALALA Title II doesn't apply" when it very obviously does.

"The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed."

Depends on who you ask. If you're an ISP, then no, it didn't need fixing. If you're pretty much anyone else, then yes, it very much did (and still does; Title II is still insufficient in really addressing the abuses of modern-day ISPs, in particular because the Comm. Act doesn't really do much about price gouging AFAICT; this is - like we've both suggested - the purview of the FTC).
I have a virtual mobile operator here in Czechia that has boasted about its offering of zero-rating (not counting towards data cap) traffic to Facebook and Messenger. They also have very competitive prices, which is why I have migrated to them once they launched.

Because I am a poor student, what I use now is a plan where I pay an equivalent of 3 euro per month for 80 MB. After I use these up, the internet gets slowed down to 32 kbps (really more like 128 kbps). That is enough to send chats, find buses and receive notifications and it prevents me from procrastinating too much.

I am an avid user of Twitter and browse only Twitter when I am on WiFi. However, on mobile data, I browse only Facebook (Facebook runs fast even when I have hit my cap). I also watch videos on Facebook on the bus very often since they are free. I usually use up about 1.5 GB of data per month.

Next month, because of a law (they say it's because our regulator told them to) , they will no longer be allowed to zero-rate only Facebook. What they are doing is overhauling their plans: the smallest one is 500 MB for general use plus 250 MB of data for social media for the equivalent of 4 euro. (https://www.mujkaktus.cz/kaktusite) Social networks include Twitter, FB, IG, Snapchat. Before the changes, I could get only 200 MB for the equivalent of 4 euro (with Facebook).

I love that. I can finally use Twitter on the go and I'll get more freedom and mobile data for the buck. This clearly benefits the free market. Their customers are complaining, however, because they use mostly Facebook given the choice and they switched to them because of it.
How can you say this when the EU aggressively pursued the EU-US data shield, has net neutrality enshrined in its laws (with many countries opting to build even stronger regulations on top of that).
America may be the biggest hard power, but the EU is the biggest soft power. They have the most influence on international law/rights, politics, progression etc; not to mention that they are also the #1 economy in the world.
I can't say anything good about Vulkan, because I am not going to buy a new laptop or a Google Pixel just to try it out.
> "Smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles, claiming of the order of 200,000 lives.

And in fact air pollution kills about 7 million people per year.
If I had to guess, I would say YouTube is attempting to get you to watch new types of videos you've never watched before. By focusing on recent videos you've watched, they can try to convert you from a 1-off to a regular viewer of a particular genre.
You're off your rocker - a "hobby of the .01%". If you can't see the potential of a decentralized cryptographically secure store-of-value/currency then you are incredibly short sighted.
Does your comment add anything productive to the discussion?
Any single member of a collective may not be a good representation of the collective as a whole, or its actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Species extinction is 100 to 1000x the baseline rates due to humanity.
Bounds checking is not customary because it is more work. It is more work because arrays in C degrade to pointers, which do not know their length. This is because C was designed on a PDP-7 with 8k RAM. Original Pascal had only fixed size arrays/strings and it was a problem.

http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html
ZFS Is the Best Filesystem For Now
Please also check out and share the video recording flow we've built at https://video.battleforthenet.com
> Isn't prevention better than cure?

I can easily think of opposition rebuttals to this:

1. It's a solution in search of a problem.

2. It's a premature optimization.

3. The cure could be worse than the disease.

etc...
Anonymous and you only accept CC payments and no cryptos like Bitcoin or Zcash?
My supposition is that this is a response to changing tastes over time. However, I think 10 videos or less it probably an overreaction to this problem.

For example, let's say they have a user who watches 100 videos a week, for ease of math. 50 of those videos are in "core" areas of interest - these do not change over time. An additional 35 are in areas of secondary interest: topics which have piqued the viewer's curiosity, but not deeply interested them. We can expect these topics to change every [1,4] weeks. The remaining 15 are referrals or clickbait from other websites.

How can YouTube differentiate between these three classes of videos? The first class will be heavily represented in their subscriptions. Presumably, the viewer will prefer their recommendations to ignore the third class (clickbait). The second class is the hardest, as the user may want these videos surfaced, but then want them to decay over time as their interests change.

I think this is the problem that they are attempting to solve, with varying degrees of success.
That’s all fine and nice, but how did Mozilla Legal approve this in the first place?

It’s obvious this violates both the so-called "Cookie Law" and the Google Analytics ToS, as both require any page with tracking to specifically tell the user that they will track the user. And the so-called "Cookie Law" goes even further, and requires it to be directly done in a modal.

How did Mozilla, a company saying they fight for privacy, approve something that does not even meet the absolute minimum bar for privacy, the actual privacy laws?
"All I have to do is to close a few tasks, fix a few bugs..."

This reminds me of a joke (or real event??) where an expert sent an invoice listed with the following items:

- Item: Fix xyz part : $50

- Item: Knowing what and where to fix: $1000

So as developers, we supposedly create value. Yes all jobs create value but the argument is that to become a good developer, it takes a lot. So you get paid the big bucks for knowing what to do. Same with any high skilled profession.

On a different note, I will actually argue that we are not as well paid generally. Yes compared to a receptionist, we get paid a lot more. But compared to the C levels or execs, we get paid peanuts. So, it depends where you see it from.
Tons of good developers never get to 200K (even in places such as CA or NY). I know a lot of them personally.
I see what you mean, but in reality miners are constrained by mining hardware production speeds, and mining hardware pricing which charges a 10x more for a 10x more efficient machine. It is almost always a margin call whether buying a new machine will pay for itself, so the 100x elastic response you are describing seems unreasonable.

There are also 2 factors to control the growth of miners, reward halving and the end of this weird period of high fee transactions. After transaction fees drop down, a lot of older mining hardware will be unprofitable and come offline.
Microsoft Launches iPhone App for Low Vision Community: Seeing AI
> 1. impersonate your light bulb, because they both have the same key

Definitely don't give both the same key.

> 2. impersonate my light bulb, because you and your browser can't tell the difference

Who cares if you can impersonate your own lightbulb?

> 1. each certificate is signed by a unique CA

This doesn't change either scenario. If they shared a key then custom CAs don't stop impersonation. If each device has its own key and CA then they still can't impersonate your device, and they still can impersonate their device.

> 2. each device has a globally unique domain and you type this domain into the browser

Typing in "jzhf.hue.com" sound easier than figuring out what IP has been assigned to the device.
To quickly address this:

For number one: net neutrality doesn't stop that from happening. You can pay more for a quality of service connection. Net neutrality doesn't regulate quality of service. It's the idea that what traffic goes over those pipes should not in any way be denied from going over those pipes, essentially. It's so that Facebook for instance can't pay ISPs to ban all Mastodan traffic or effectively filter it from showing up on say a search for social networks. It's so that the ISPs can't favor one service over another so they can extract fees from competitors.

Has nothing at all to do with quality of service Of a connection.

2) I don't believe those plans were being floated in the United Statss but developing nations. How does policy in this area they would be implemented in West Africa or India have anything to do with net neutrality in the United States
A truly obfuscatory browser: one in which everything sent to the server looked the same, regardless of which user, region, etc.
The Sierra Club in California opposes urbanization, transit, and carbon free reliable power. It would be counterproductive to put them in power.
Scatteract – Extraction of data from scatter plots
"Guys - we don't need to pay for S3 when we can just use pastebin et al. - I'll get someone on HN to build the reverse service."
a distributed built-in password manager (a password-less web)
It's also much easier to switch ISPs than governments
There's nothing stopping the shared-hosting providers from handling the Let's Encrypt process for their clients themselves, and then either just using the resulting certs for client sites automatically or exposing an interface for generating and applying a cert through their Web control panel.

They don't do that currently because customers aren't asking for it. If customers start asking, some will start. And once a few shared-hosting providers start providing HTTPS hosting, market pressure from educated customers can push the others into following suit.
> Seriously, the whole FTC vs FCC thing is deeply confusing to me.

It's also deeply disingenuous, as the anti-neutrality camp doesn't want the FTC to actually act for neutrality, either, and some of the people pushing it also have been in favor the lawsuit (focussed on FTC internet privacy regulations) which (successfully through the Ninth Circuit panel Decision, though it's up for en banco review) resulted in the ruling that the FTC can't regulate many ISP (those that are also Title II common carriers in at other aspect of their business, such as traditional telcos), whether or not the function the FTC is regulating is one for which they are a common carrier.
And so are the professionals.
Exactly same here.

Macpass for osx with browser plugin works awesome for me.
The History of Artificial Intelligence [pdf]
Game developers used Assembly to write games when it was the best tool for the job. They then moved to C when it was feasible and then to C++ when that was feasible. For their engines, they never moved on to anything else, because there still is no better tool for the job, all things (tooling, SDKs, platform support) considered.

Unity, Unreal Engine and CryEngine are all written in C/C++. They have sometimes elaborate script bindings, but the engine remains in C/C++.

There's a lot of people leaving college that have never learned how to use C/C++ and immediately they want something they're comfortable with, which is Java/C# or Javascript or maybe even Python. These languages are not good choices for a game engine, for the reasons I mentioned. Will there never be a better language? I did not say that, but it would be an uphill battle.
Electricity and transportation, which you often see in the headlines about progress about moving to renewables, are not the only GHG emitters.
Agriculture, deforestation, heating are also big sources. As far as I have read there has been a lot less progress in that area.
I did this thinking that I don't want to share semi-private pictures of family with strangers, or to spam my family and friends with programming stuff.

Do you know there are friend groups you can use to eliminate that problem? "Family and school," "Programmery Peeps," if you post using either of those groups for visibility then it seems like the issue is moot.
- Make client-side certificate authentication mainstream. Fix the UI, UX

- Standardize on some sort of biometric identification that actually works. I HATE two-factor :(
Once people see others walking towards a platform (particularly if they just checked something on their phones), they tend to do the same.
Dell Launches Latitude 7285 2-In-1 Windows Tablet with Wireless Charging
Surpreme? Somebody fix the title please.
How Market Power Leads to Corporate Political Influence
I agree that healthcare and employment should be decoupled, but it would then increase individual taxes, which is poison to Republicans. All our significant competitor nations have nationalized healthcare/insurance (NHCI). Thus, the existence of NHCI alone doesn't give us a disadvantage over such nations. You could argue that HOW we do NHCI is no good, but that's a long and thorny side discussion.
If you can't figure it out, you're not really a seasoned technocrat, are you?

Sure, it requires some tech expertise right now. But so do ALL emerging technologies. Bitcoin will probably not be the dominant cryptocurrency forever. I foresee whichever one is able to be quickly and secured transferred and stored on smartphones changing the global economy. Think about how many people in developing countries have phones and need a way to securely transact and store currency.
YouTube is weird. I made the mistake of watching a flat earth video last year in order to get a handle on that growing weirdo fad. Well it turns out that flat earthers are really avid content consumers (presumably because of the enormous cognitive reinforcement requirements to maintain such a belief) and YouTube really wanted to help me with that. It took a couple of months for it to stop offering me a portal to a better, flatter world every time I refreshed a page.
I wonder if there's any correlation or way to know based on where a train is arriving from to know where it's headed. If that were the case, you could potentially either look for that data, or if it isn't available, have a Waze-like app where commuters can report which train they are on and which track they are pulling into.

As an aside, I wonder whether the OP considered charging a hefty price (>$20 or so) for the app. This would lessen the number of users and page requests.

Having travelled from Penn many times and having had to deal with the massive stampede that ensues when they suddenly reveal the track number, I would pay dearly to have this info available to me. Even if I used it once every year, not having to fight crowds or look forever to find an available seat, that would be money well spent. Additionally, many of the peak travelers are business travelers who probably have more money to spend on an app. I realize this isn't the most democratic solution, but it could be a way to lessen the crowds nonetheless.
curl -H "" -o stuff.html && elinks stuff.html

I've been looking for a site I can run this on over TOR at random times for reading news but I haven't found one.
Wont the french appeal this?
I totally agree but the rub is that I don't understand the FCC's previous action or the implications of the latest foray by Congress. Most of what I read or hear has that "john oliverish" smugness and non-specificity that a previous poster mentioned and you can't really learn anything from that unless ignorance is bliss to someone.

I'll be seriously disappointed though if I end up having to pay for Internet like we do for Cable channel packages today. I'll be seething with rage most likely. So if Net Neutrality keeps that at bay, and still allows ISP's to profit from the top 100 bandwidth consuming websites, I'll be happy. Like many others though, I have little actual clue as to what is going on due FUD, political natures, grandstanding, and the ignorance of the media themselves.
Patents are an offensive weapon by design. Getting a patent does not allow you to make a gadget; it allows you to sue someone else so that they cannot make a gadget.

It shouldn't be surprising or unexpected or frowned upon that they are used to kill competition - that's basically their raison d'être.
It's only a false equivalence because you just moved your goalposts from "no tracking/analytics" in the original post to consent.

If Mozilla devs adhered to the ethos of the company they took a job at they simply would not have implemented this feature.

It looks as when the problem was reported, this was in fact the reaction: make it respect DNT. Using GA by itself rose no red flags because Mozilla has a privacy-enforcing deal with Google about it.