skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We do have Net Neutrality regulation, but it's under threat of repeal. That's what this article and the gray bar at the top of Hacker News are about.
Electricity is fungible. The clean hydropower would be used somewhere else if not wasted on BC.
In this case it seems the author is writing about the concrete results they've already obtained, not about something abstract.
Do you consider accessing Facebook as 'understanding computers'? If not, this number hasn't changed that much...
"Rewrite it in Rust" is the new "Stallman was right" thread.

Its an echo chamber of fandom. Over time I've come to despise "evangelism" or any kind. I'm sure Rust is great. I just don't think it's news every time a Rust fan says that its great.

YouTube lectures of people actually using it? That would be interesting. Interviews of people actively porting a large C project to Rust. That would be interesting.

Rehashing its feature sheet? Not so much.
As possible given what constraints? There's no requirement that they have equal population; it seems like your rule would always require districts to cross zero county lines.
I'm not an expert on net neutrality, but just looking at your claims, the obvious rebuttals are:

> 1. The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now.

The point in time and original intent that something was created for has little bearing on its current suitability. Hammers with handles were invented in the Stone Age to break wood and stones. They still work just fine for putting in nails today.

If the Title II Regs effectively accomplish the high level goals of network neutrality, then it's irrelevant what original goals it had.

> 2. The FCC isn't the right vehicle for addressing anti-competitive behavior in this case; the FTC would be better.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Is there any ongoing plan to have the FTC regulate this? Who is driving that? Is the argument that if the FTC does not do this, then having the FCC do it is worse than doing nothing?

Politics is always a game of compromise and incremental improvement. There are no perfect laws.

> 3. The internet didn't need fixing in 2010 when the regs were passed.

I'm not sure what this is even claiming. Is the idea that the law was passed to early so should be repealed now? We started agreeing to nonproliferation treaties before we had multi-state nuclear wars. Should we have waited until after that before doing those?

Isn't prevention better than cure?
I'll jump in and take the hate.

Reddit is framing the issue like this: Net neutrality ensures that the free market—not big cable—picks the winners and losers

This seems like double-think to me. The net neutrality regulations actually prevent me from negotiating an agreement that models my priorities. It forces me to accept everything one-size-fits-all, explicitly preventing a differentiated market from developing in the commodity of bandwidth.

There are a couple of examples where I think this is relevant.

1) I imagine a hospital that performs surgery via telepresence. This seems a pretty clear area where I would really want the opportunity to pay more, to ensure that the connection between the surgeon and his robot never even suffers the slightest amount of jitter. This is life-and-death, and I can't see why people would object to a right to pay more for higher-priority for this traffic.

2) A few years ago I recall reading about a cell phone provider who wanted to provide a very basic service level that would allow free use of Facebook and a couple of other apps, but going outside of that narrow box would cost much more. Providing to poor people a way that they can participate in the online community seems like a positive, even if what they get is rather hobbled. The idea that we would say to them, "no, you're not allowed to save your money by buying a lower level of service; if you can't afford the whole enchilada, you can't have anything" seems awfully unfair.
I did. FTFA, "In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC)."

What they leave out is the rules never took effect. That's a lie by omission. Trump put in a new FCC head that blocked the rule changes before they took effect.
Thanks for explaining the downvote. But this is not exaggerated nor a strawman. It mirrors the extreme "screw your website" reaction and investigates whether the logic for such an extreme disregard holds.

So a website allows you to "download some bytes". Yes you can do anything you want with THOSE bytes. Does this mean you should make an app to let people scrape the website in an automated way and possibly overload it?

If airlines, restaurants give something free or discounted, does that mean you can make an app to systematically let millions of people take advantage of the arbitrage?

XKCD even has a comic for exactly this situation: https://xkcd.com/1499/

I wasn't the one who said "FUCK WEBSITES". I used a nicer word and questioned the logic. Yet I get downvoted while the parent comment with expletives is upvoted.
I was always relatively at ease with math even though throughout lower education it was mainly about memorizing rules or formulas. In college it became about proofs, which was a completely different ball game and not something I'd been prepared for from preschool.

To me the real important thing is the attitudes imparted by your parents and peers. As noted in the article, it's acceptable to fail at math. Parents who have their own history of math anxiety probably don't really push their kids to excel in that field. Just the notion that I was expected to "get it" and keep trying until I did (perhaps helped along by some natural stubbornness) may have made the difference in my case.
Hear stories of perseverance, trauma, and matters of the heart
Apple Releases Second iOS 11 Public Beta to Beta Testing Group
Sorry, but I think you're being naive if you think that the people complaining most loudly about an "FCC power grab" are attempting to achieve anything other than deregulation.
if only someone would invent docker-compose as a generic solution to this problem. alas
Okay. I return to my earlier point, "black people commit more serious crimes" suggests there's a genetic or cultural explanation while economic status is likely more relevant; i.e. poor people commit more serious crimes.
See also: https://stallman.org/facebook-presence.html
This picture - making the rounds on reddit - hits the nail on the head: https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/w...
How can one view the HTTPS certificate nowadays???

The feature got removed recently from Chrome and Firefox - why?

In older FF, Chrome and still available in IE11 you just click on the "secure" icon next to the address bar.

I am really the only one who misses this feature?
So what's your language of choice that is not eventually built on unsafe code?
Basically, because one is being printed faster over time and and the other is being printed slower over time.

Also boom/bust cycles and the increasing mainstream sentiment of crypto as a safe-haven asset.
D? GC is optional so don't even :D
"It's a two pronged attack on the internet. The ISPs data collection is going to be more valuable than Facebook or Google simply because they have everything and most importantly the ISPs can verify physical identities."

Third prong: lawmakers advocating "closing the VPN loophole".

Because terrorism.
The linked article claims that a PWA is appropriate for a blog or a marketing site, or any content basically. I strongly disagree.
I hear good arguments on both sides. The worst-case scenario of different levels of internet service for access to different sites is troubling. And if you could convince me that it's likely to happen without the FCC's regulation, I'd oppose repealing it, at least without a replacement. But it does seem unlikely, especially in a market like the US where there is the demand and willingness to pay for unrestricted access, and where political pressure could always stir regulatory agencies back into action. But I agree that it is a bad end result that should be avoided.

Here's my big question: weren't things fine before Tom Wheeler's net neutrality regulation? So why not go back to that? Am I forgetting something about that state of affairs?
Continuous Discussions Podcast, Episode 73: The 2017 State of DevOps Report
Insomnia June Recap – A Roller Coaster
Barbie doll manufacturers don't want to use electricity, and barbie doll manufacturing isn't zero sum. It's fundamentally different.

If someone learned how to make a barbie doll which used 1% of the current electricity usage, a couple extra dolls would get created, but electricity usage would drop a lot.

If someone learned how to make bitcoins with 1% of the current electricity usage, _miners would just mine 100x what they do now_. Fundamentally, the amount of electricity that will be wasted on bitcoin mining is driven by the price. So as it gets more efficient, it becomes worth it to waste more to match the price in the race for mined blocks.

It's horrible, and it's incredibly dishonest to compare it to any other kind of manufacturing.
I really don't feel like auditing this entire install script (https://s3.amazonaws.com/webdigi/VPN/Unified-Cloud-Formation...) but a quick glance leaves a lot to be desired. Weak authentication and crypto, lack of isolation mechanisms, etc. You're much better off with Algo, and it'll take the same amount of time to get it going.
Wouldn't it be possible for a browser to implement js but simply not implement any functions that can be used to track you?
I have no idea how that sentence is relevant. You're overly concerned about procedure and ignore the substantive concerns.

To repeat myself, the entire premise of NN advocacy that things will change, for consumers and businesses. Not that some procedural fact will or won't change. Not that some rule will or won't be implemented. But that ISPs will change their behavior and that will hurt consumers and businesses. Here's where the site makes this claim:

> But if some companies can pay our ISPs to have their content load faster, startups and small businesses that can't pay those fees won't be able to compete. You will kill the open marketplace that has enabled millions of small businesses and created the 5 most valuable companies in America-just to further enrich a few much less valuable cable giants famous for sky-high prices and abysmal customer service.

> Internet providers will be able to impose a private tax on every sector of the American economy.

> Moreover, under Chairman Pai's plan, ISPs will be able to make it more difficult to access political speech that they don't like. They'll be able to charge fees for website delivery that would make it harder for blogs, nonprofits, artists, and others who can't pay up to have their voices heard.

edit: also, this debate has been waging a hell of a lot longer than 2015.
Thanks! I didn't know such thing existed.
same thing on the subway, with an extra dimension of starting on the local, switching to the express, then transferring at another station. Pretty quickly you get to know where to stand to get on the most efficient end of the train to be closest to the stairway up to the transfer platform, etc. Makes an otherwise tedious trip somewhat interesting as a puzzle.
Thank you, I will give it a try!
> 4 hours figuring out an undocumented bug deep in the source code

For me at least, this is the real issue. Gluing together random libraries isn't fun, but it's fast and productive and lets me spend my energy and attention building something bigger than I could have solo.

Gluing together broken libraries, though... Well, I thought encapsulation and black boxing were genius from the day I learned about them until the day I actually tried to build something nontrivial. Now I just think of Douglas Adams: "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

Finding myself 5 pages deep in Google trying to fix a fundamentally broken Android API is way less pleasant, and ultimately slower, than working around the API altogether. It's also why all the people I know maintaining long-standing Rails projects have heartburn - using someone else's tools only saves time when those tools are trustworthy.
His mom is enjoying his content. However, facebook assumes that since his mom enjoyed his math or programming blog post, the blog post must have been baby pictures of his child uninterested to friends. Therefore, his friends don't get to see his programming articles.

Basically, your posts about work/hobby etc get penalized if your family likes them.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Ada/SPARK's memory safety guarantees only hold when all memory is pre-allocated? My memory is that dynamic allocations aren't visible to the proof system (this may be in plain Ada without SPARK, now that I think of it).
Not a complete list, but doing what twitter does, fetching the latest and adding a notification to the top when there's a new one.
When I say everyone, I mean all the major Linux distros - Debian, RHEL, SuSE, Arch.

Obviously Yggdrasil isn't using systemd and that doesn't change anything.
I would love if all my Bluetooth devices used nfc to set up pairing.
> Take 10 or so trusted people or organistions worldwide, get them to each run a node, each of which coordinate via the Raft protocol or whatever. A distributed ledger is agreed on by each of those 10 nodes.

then I'd argue it is still centralized - you have this 10 nodes acting as the traditional bank.
Not yet, but this will happen soon in Navalia: https://github.com/joelgriffith/navalia/issues/16
> Copyright covers implementations, not ideas.

Patents cover implementations, not ideas. Copyright covers "artistic works" like text (files), audio, and video.

To further clarify: The purpose of copyright is to grant control over who can copy it to the creator/owner so that it can't be reproduced or embellished/modified without their permission (which was a big problem at the time serious copyright laws started being written in the US). Exceptions such as fair use exist but that's the gist of it.

Profit was a secondary concern to control believe it or not. The fear being someone would publish a copy of your work with a few damning sentences changed or added here and there with your name attached. Ruining your reputation/career which was much more important to the controlling elite (land owners) at the time than the pittance one might make from sales of their writings/art.

The purpose of patents is disclosure. Don't let anyone state otherwise because the founding fathers were pretty damned clear about it. In exchange for disclosing your invention to the world you're granted a monopoly over who can use or manufacture it.

Patents never have and never will be about something as ambiguous as, "ideas".

Considering that software can only exist as ether it should never have been considered patent-eligible. Sure, you can implement software in an FPGA and claim, "it's hardware now!" Go ahead and patent that particular configuration of an FPGA... Which would be a tangible, physical thing. You should have no right whatsoever to claim a monopoly on the mere concept of such software which is exactly what software patents are.
I think it's great there is an authoritarian government in china hellbent on destroying the environment and the world, destroying manufacturing in other democratic countries, destroying their social fabrics and society and jobs. And we keep buying short lived shit from china to help them do so.
It's not The Search for Andy Cunningham.
> As far as I can tell there's no major package manager accepting or even ready to accept programs written in Rust yet. Am I misinformed?

At least Debian, Fedora, Arch, and Gentoo have rustc and cargo in their repositories. Oh and Alpine, recently. FreeBSD (IIRC) has it in ports.

In the not-too-distant future, there's a pretty important package that will require Rust: Firefox. HEAD already does today.
The relatively low portability of rust programs is definitely one of its largest shortcomings.
Agree, I'm not sure that there would be this big an outcry when the government actually tries to ban encryption here in the UK.
Why not just get a big computer screen?
Confirmed for the trackpad. It can indeed be used solely via USB. I'm doing it right now.

EDIT: added 'for the trackpad'.
There is https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium and also the tor browser.

There is also netsurf and dillo but they are not as compatible due to the lack of js and incomplete css support.
Species exist whether they've been discovered yet or not. According to this article, scientists believe they're going extinct at rates resembling an ongoing extinction event rather than stable periods. The rate at which species are being assigned names by humans is irrelevant.
Why don't you calm down a bit before getting all jumpy?

There are lots of details that could be helpful. What kind of limitations are there? What does it convert? Is anything discarded in the conversion process? What does it do with items where there isn't a 1:1 conversion? What does it do to features that aren't available in Sketch? You know... the things that are included in the description that OP provided in response to my comment and that he updated the main thread with... There is a lot of technical info that would be helpful. I didn't have a .PSD file handy to test so I was asking to try and be informative and helpful.
These questions happen with the "black bar" that pays respects to a recently-passed tech luminary. Sure would be nice if there was a mouseover, tooltip, extra paragraph, HTML comment... something to tell the user what was up.

This is better than the black bar, as at least the link is changed. Otherwise it's: the bar is black. Somebody passed away.
I assume this is why the title bar has changed? Curious, since there doesn't seem to be a definitive statement about that.
Maybe so. If so, here's some thoughts I don't see anyone else saying - The economist in me says that with deregulation of the Internet, we may see net prices, costs, and weight of data-transmission go down, and total value creation go up.

Poor consumers may get cheaper options subsidized by firms like Facebook and Google. Wealthy power users will probably wind up paying more to get out of subsidized channels. (Does Usenet already kinda do this?)

I stopped watching cable because I hated paying for a service that made me a product that channels could sell for advertising.

I really should take more control of my online habits anyways. Maybe this would help me do that.
I'm not sure if these are the best data to use but can we go with this?

1990: http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?in...

(Mt CO2 emissions direct / with land-use)
U.S.: 5,866 / 5,550
China: 3,154 / 2,833
India: 1,188 / 1,142
Brazil: 556 / 1,447
World: 23,541 / 33,823

2013: http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?in...

U.S.: 6,279 / 6,213
China: 11,735 / 11,422
India: 2,909 / 3,031
Brazil: 1,017 / 1,317
World: 48,257 / 46,445

Of course the U.S. is worst per capita, both then and now, but the U.S. could have cut emissions to zero in 1990 and CO2 emissions would be higher now than they were then.

How could a 1990s U.S. put substantially more pressure on other countries to curb hydrocarbon use when their economies were (and many still are) "developing"?
Sounds like a bug to be filed. I'd encourage people to try the webext versions of those add-ons so we can catch things like this in time for 57.
> There's a page on the wiki aboit various forms of data collections [1].

The page you linked to starts with "Firefox sends various data back to Mozilla".

Nowhere does it say "Firefox sends various data back to Google Analytics" on that page.
> We've been using our official Page just like our mail listserv, assuming all our subscribers are getting all of our announcements.

They will get it if they access your page directly, or subscribe to notifications from your page. It's the same with a personal profile, I believe — not everyone will receive your posts on their news feed unless you've interacted with them a fair bit.
The author is actually using it, to actually rewrite portions of C projects in it, and writing about their experience doing this in practice. For example, the linked paper is about using Rust at the I/O boundary in an existing, complex system.
Supply and demand. As an employee you very likely still get paid a lot less than the value the company you're working for extracts from your work or otherwise that company wouldn't be around for long.

It's a common fallacy to think that people - regardless of income bracket - are paid for their time and inconvenience rather than the value they create with their work.

This widespread attitude in turn probably is at least partially responsible for a lot of waste: Things like excessively long but utterly unproductive and meaningless meetings. Activities like answering emails all day while really accomplishing nothing.

Work is often perceived to be something that has to be cumbersome and awful in order to be real, worthwhile work. If it doesn’t suck it can’t be work, can it? Conversely, if it feels like 'work' it must be work, even if you're not creating any value in the process.

So, no unless you're cutting corners by intentionally creating low-quality work you're not an impostor.

Judging from the parameters you mentioned I presume you live in the Bay Area. Keep in mind that's probably one of the most expensive places to live in the whole world. A developer elsewhere might not earn half of what you make but he or she probably also has a much lower cost of living.

Finally, everyone who has the opportunity to work as a developer in an industrialised country certainly is very lucky but that doesn't mean you're overpaid or your work doesn't matter.
First -- that's even worse because VISA powers probably 1/3 of all modern commerce. Bitcoin is a hobby of the .01%.

And even if that wasn't the case, it's not comparable because bitcoin is _fundamentally backed_ by the willingness to waste electricity. This is very important, and I feel like people gloss over this.

If VISA figured out how to run their datacenters without electricity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and it would have no impact on the amount of processing being done -- they'd just do the work cheaper, and it would be great.

If bitcoin mining got more energy efficient, THERE WOULD BE MORE MINERS BECAUSE COSTS DROP. The amount of money miners are willing to waste on hardware and electricity is fundamentally tied to the price, and as the costs go down, it's easier to fight for the fixed-sum payout. This will never change. As bitcoin gets more popular, a proportionally large amount of electricity is WORTH BEING WASTED.

It is a fundamentally broken model, if you are trying not to rape the environment.
Well I am sad to hear your teachers made it boring for you. Mine did too but I found a way to make it fun when I learned how formulas worked and was able to teach myself BASIC on a Commodore 64 and make video games
, etc.

I'm not sure why my parent post was voted down. I've been trying to get more people to learn programming even women and minorities.

I tried to teach my son, but he isn't interested and would rather work on cars. So one has to have an interest and passion for learning programming as well.

I am glad you finally learned and worked for 20 years or so. Good for you!