skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes. We actually implemented this later. Chrome Beta (or dev/Canary) filters them out by default, with a checkbox to opt-in. Screenshot: http://imgur.com/zSfShm1

_Edited_
I think you're mistaken. I believe that the communication between your computer and a web server is 100% as secure as a Signal communication, assuming that your browser and the server are using the latest TLS standards and large keys.

What is insecure about a browser is that you can't be sure who is at the other end of the communication. That includes man-in-the-middle attacks, which are basically a variant of the case where you are not talking to the person you think you are.

That problem with Signal is solved by proving the identity of the person you are talking to out-of-band with the application, for example by linking up with your friend while you are standing next to each other, or verifying the link by a phone call.

I hope you can see that there's no directly analogous way to secure a web session for the consumer web, since the process of verifying the identity of the server manually would never scale. The solution to this problem -- ta da -- is to create authorities who you trust who will independently certify the server's identity -- certificate authorities, if you will. And yes, once you add CA's in the middle, the line of trust becomes an n-tree of trust, and you have a much higher risk of things going wrong.

If you want a fully secure Web experience -- delete all CA's except any that you independently audit. Then manually validate the SSL certs of every server you want to talk to and add it manually to your cert store. Now you have a Signal-like experience for the web. Good luck.
How do I get the webextension version of uBO?
Outside of the hardcore code required for doing stuff in OpenGL there is more that can be done in the general realm of graphics for us programmer types to do.
However I find few takers in the programming community once some artistic ability is needed. My advice for people is to not fear art and design but to go there with maths and coding skills.
In doing so there are rich rewards and your coding competency has to be so so, not amazing.

A lot of images need preparation and classification, there is a whole world of fun algorithms for that. If you can handle raw images in code then you can get that automated. This opens up a whole new world of possibilities that would be tedious to do in Photoshop style tools. Again with SVG in code editors you can write code that makes images in a way that is not so easy with Illustrator. Because you are not constrained to the same possibilities as the classically trained art guy you can see ways of achieving results that are creative solutions as seen by the rest of the team. Code therefore can make you apparently creative. Along the way you can work with the best creative talent with you becoming an asset rather than a cost on the company ledger.

Given the narrow definition of graphics programming I would urge others to have a go at 3D in the real world. For instance, 3D for TV might not be what it was but it is relatively easy to be the 3D guy for a client base of a few really good producers, to have great fun doing 3D graphics. Entry into that world is considered hard but isn't if you do have the technical chops. In this scenario you are gold dust, not one of many but if you go reasonable on the salary request the job is yours.

At the bottom of the 3D food chain are morally dubious things like fracking, the opportunity for someone interested in real world application of cool graphics is a good one with a low bar. There are many other industries where being able to step out the safe world of tech to embrace a non scientific discipline is the way ahead in graphics, to cut your own career.
Some of the basics - Khan academy is easy to understand and gives a good foundation. Don't even try to compare the advanced stuff. Just don't. Takes a lot of work and takes years. Even grad students run away from some of the stuff.
The login problem was attempted to be solved by Mozilla's "persona", now deprecated. I like the general idea that I strongly authenticate to my browser, which can then "vouch" for me to various sites using cryptographic tokens that are otherwise useless (so no cracking/stealing passwords, etc). The devil of course would be in the details.
I would love to see similiar sites set up in other disciplines of various knowledge bodies: Politcal science, economics, philosophy, computer science, etc
Tethering iPhone to my MacBook over Bluetooth? Forget it, never works.
German Enigma Machine Found at Flea Market Fetches $51,000 at Auction
Receive over the air channels
Generating Images in JavaScript Without Using the Canvas API
why does it start off low for the youngest?
If you include cable, DSL, and wireless providers most non-rural consumers likely have 2 or three to choose from.

If there is need for antitrust action then an ISP behaving in a non-neutral way would seemingly provide the perfect evidence that intervention was needed.
If you have such strong feelings about it, you can set your browser to only load fonts you like.
There's no such fiduciary duty to internationally minimize tax liability. Shareholders might push for it, but it's not a legal fiduciary duty. The board of an American company could perfectly well choose to repatriate all foreign income, pay U.S. taxes on it, and then pay out a dividend using the repatriated income. That would even be the more traditional course of action, rather than sitting on a ton of overseas cash that you never pay out to shareholders.
What kind of numbers are we looking at?
Working version without javascript (unless it's crucial for the website). No opacity 0 animations, javascript only menus etc.
While I agree, there is definitely movement and recent movement [0][1] , I just wish I had the knowledge to contribute. I am great and figuring out how things work, breaking them and understanding them. Building from scratch is a bit above my head, albeit I have a few ideas....

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14708783
[1] https://magmadaemon.org/
> SCOTUS turns based on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on (on most issues).

I think this is a little bit misleading. Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous.
I wish ARIN, and IANA would just blacklist any companies that actively work against net neutrality.
5 Resources for Crafting a Mind-Blowing Pitch
This is exactly like what I've been looking for -- a bit of a roadmap leading up to [hopefully] returning to school. I've started, but have meandered a little. And maybe less on the theoretical side, but who knows.

Thanks for this.
That's not a valid comparison. Different websites can and already charge different amounts of money for their services. However, we do not have Premium Luxury Highways where rich people can drive their Ferraris at 100 MPH while regular plebs sit in traffic all day.
Ada. Algol-60. The much maligned Pascal.
But there are lots of trains leaving at any given time going to different places. There's no way to know which train somebody is heading to without asking them.
If humans really had "unlimited energy", we could air condition the entire world, and send the waste heat to space with large infrared (or even visible light) radiators.
Nope, it simply gives you an assurance that the DNS entry you receive hasn't been spoofed and is coming from the DNS server that you expect it to originate from. See their homepage explanation.
There are dozens of platforms going to different places. Picking a random stranger and following them isn't going to get you where you're going.
It cost money to run a finance system.

What you are arguing, effectively, is that if you care about stopping global warming, then lets cut the electricity to every single bank in the world.

Some finance systems cause global warming because of the air conditioning systems running in their buildings. And others, like bitcoin, cause it via mining.
If the app has the ability to mess with the traffic light timings, what is stopping hackers?
I think the net neutrality case would be more like getting a $10k discount when you opt in to buying a Prius that goes half speed when you try to drive to any large store other than Walmart. And imagine that there was a law saying that in your city, you were only allowed to drive cars made by Toyota.

That's more like how the internet is in the USA: there are local monopolies restricting who you can go to for internet service, and now your ISP also wants to restrict what websites I go to (or with what speed). That's why this strikes as so objectionable.
The certificate business is only about 10% of Symantec's revenue. (But probably more of its profits)

They have consumer and corporate anti-virus, Endpoint Protection, and they now own Blue Coat and Lifelock.
Nice comprehensive list. Scares the heck out of me. The only stuff I recognize are the ones I learnt in college (math and some basic physics like EM and stuff). The rest is just plain scary. Makes me really respect Physicists. If this is just to get started then being a physicist is a lot of hard work.
Dunno, Iiyama has a decent 40" 4k for 400-500€ that does the job for me.
The only foster parent in LA County who takes in terminally ill children
That's the procedural reason -- the case ended up in the SC because the lower court sent it up the chain, but that's still not an explanation for why they chose to accept it. As far as I know, they still had the option to refuse it.
But there ought to be no reason for them to be unable to at least roughly cluster users into segments based on viewing habits as well as topics.

Of course it's possible they have, and realised they still make more money by focusing on the more recent videos.
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.

This is false. Net neutrality doesn't prevent the provisioning and purchase of high QoS connections. More specifically, the relevant position of net neutrality is that a content provider cannot collude with an internet service provider to pay for blanket privilege of their connections over other connections.

Example: If User A and User B are both paying subscribers to BIGISP, at the same service level, it's downright insane that User B's traffic should be degraded over User A's, just because User A is streaming Netflix (who has a paying deal with BIGISP). Another viewpoint: allowing this sort of collusion means that small entrants in the content provider space will have a much harder time making inroads because they simply lack the capital to make these sort of deals. Probably THE greatest innovations of the internet is that it has reduced the marginal cost of distribution of many kinds of media and services to near-zero. So now we want to throw that all away...? For what, exactly? That's the question that needs a strong, well-reasoned answer.
Larcen C ice shelf breaks
I see everyone framing this conversation around Comcast charging customers to access websites. I feel that's just a talking point, not the real meat of the issue.

Regarding Backbones:

If I recall correctly, this originally came about over a peering dispute between Level 3's network and Netflix. The internet backbones work on settlement-free or paid to peer. When there is an imbalance, the party with the imbalance pays. When there is the balance, no one pays. This system has worked well for a very long time.

Regarding Personal Internet Access:

Consumer Internet connections are overbooked, meaning you may have the 100Mb link to the ISP but the ISP doesn't have the capacity for all users to use 100Mb at the same time. In short, they aren't designed for all users to be using high capacity at the same time. These networks expect users using bursts of capacity. This is why tech like BitTorrent has been an issue too.

There is a fundamental shift occurring where users are consuming far more network capacity per user because of technology like Netflix. I know I'm streaming 4k Netflix :D
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

uBlock0.webext.xpi
I thought Vizio was an private brand not related to Samsung.
This has been working as a great alternative-noprocrast for me today.
Do rich people pay more to get priority access to water and electricity during high usage periods? I'm not talking about just paying higher rates (i.e. poorer people will ration their usage while rich people will just pay more and no care). I'm talking about "rolling brown-outs" or "water usage rationing" scenarios. Do rich people get to pay more to not have to ration usage during those periods?
Ah, that explains a lot. I know very little about social media marketing and wondered why my attempts to launch a few pages related to art projects were drawing such little attention from my social circle. Being me I assumed it was because my art is shit and largely abandoned a project I'd spent months developing. Zucked again.
It's a hard problem that states and localities should sort out. High fixed costs, regional monopolies, etc. I get it.

I'm just saying that almost this entire, complex discussion can be reduced to that crucial point.
Well in a sense Ubuntu did by proxy. A big proponent of systemd within Debian works for Canonical, and Canonical had already stated that if Debian switched they would switch.

After all, Ubuntu is basically for Debain what RHEL is for Fedora.
It killed Spinoza, but that was a long time ago.
indeed. here is an article that was posted here not so long ago : http://m.nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/what-does-any-of-this-hav...
But isn't that gerrymandering for democrats instead of republicans? I am open to the idea that districts could be drawn based on more than geography, but to me this just sounds like "helpful" gerrymandering simply because it assists the democrats instead of the republicans.

There's no reason for congressional districts to be based on race, IMO.
From the article: > We don’t know why people stopped
moving and became more settled in their
work arrangements. We don’t know why the returns to incumbency have increased.

What if the answer is the obvious one? What if the incumbents in the big cities are full of more efficient, better educated, richer, and smarter people?

A lot of big companies suck. But the ones that have concentrated wealth in the past decade or two -- Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon -- are remarkably good at what they do. And the people I know who work at those places are, on balance, remarkably smart/educated/efficient. There are equally good or even better people at smaller shops in smaller cities, to be sure, but the sheer number of great engineers at Microsoft and Google alone is mind-boggling. And even among small shops there's an enormous geographical concentration of talent.

I don't know a lot about other industries, but maybe this is true elsewhere in the economy as well.

If that's true -- that incumbents aren't just big but also better -- then I fear our only hope for increased dynamism is access to new markets or new technologies. Both of which are identified in the report as contributors to decreasing dynamism. Hm.
I was writing up a response to your initial guess of 10% by 2060, which was... Pretty dire. Past-the-Paris agreement, 2.5C to 3C warming dire.

20% by 2070-2090, on the other hand, is a lost cause. That would put atmospheric at 580 PPM by 2080. That's >4C of warming, if we don't hit any positive feedback loops.

I'm not particularly concerned about plastics. They can be synthesized from biomass.
Your #1 is about QoS, not net neutrality. You want to prioritize the remote surgery protocol above all others...net neutrality allows that. If, instead of protocol, you prioritize by source/destination, how can you ensure that the remote surgery protocol isn't disrupted by the transmission of high-resolution X-ray scans between the two hospitals? We already allow (and even encourage) ISPs to prioritize real-time protocols above those that aren't. VoIP is the oft-cited example because late packets are useless packets. Remote surgery can be handled the same way.

Would you really want your hospital to prioritize remote surgery from one hospital over another? When patients are choosing their remote surgery doctor, do you want them to have to worry about finding one at the top-priority hospital instead of one at a lower priority? What if the surgery is the result of an emergency and the doctor is on vacation? By using protocol as the prioritization instead of source/destination, that doctor can find a local hospital from which to perform the operation and doesn't have to worry about having a lower priority during the surgery.
Nothing is as decentralized as proof-of-work when it comes to cryptocurrencies. It ensures you can know what the right chain is as long as only a single node you connect to tells the truth.
I can't help but feel like the site would be more effective if they removed https://www.battleforthenet.com/how-we-won/ - "we" didn't win, we just got a short reprieve from losing.
On the "other scenarios", he made these projections before the EPA came into existence in 1970. Regulation DRAMATICALLY dropped levels of pollution, very rapidly.

https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning...

He can be counted on for reliably projecting the worst case scenario if nothing changes. If something changes he pats himself on the back for saving the world by sounding the alarm and does it again.

This doesn't mean that he should be entirely ignored as an idiot. But it does mean that his projections should be doubted.
Why do the ISP's even care then? To get that extra $10 or $20, they will with 100% certainty raise everyone's prices then instead of just the high consumers. I absolutely hate the idea of having to pay extra for bandwidth-intensive sites but let's not be under the illusion that we aren't already paying for it, including someone's grandma who only emails and very light browsing, so she's subsidizing my use of Youtube and Netflix already today.
> Can someone please respond to the actual pro-repeal arguments

Assume for a moment that we had effective competition for ISPs, and almost everyone in the country could select among three or more ISPs. In a world that looked like that, restricting how ISPs can structure their networks is both unnecessary and potentially harmful, given the historical precedents of law tending to encode outdated assumptions about technology. (As a random example, some proposed versions of Network Neutrality rules I've seen would also stop CDNs from handing ISPs a box full of content or arranging fast links to their caching servers.) If we had effective competition for ISPs, any ISP engaging in any of the terrible behaviors NN advocates are genuinely concerned about would find themselves with an abrupt loss of customers.

The main problem is that we don't have effective competition for ISPs; many people have only one choice, or two choices where one is also incredibly terrible for other reasons.

Personally, I'd like to see some focus on regulations to break ISP monopolies, and in particular to ensure that there's an independent source of fiber to everyone's door, with a wide selection of ISPs willing to light up that fiber. But until we have that, we need Network Neutrality to stop abuses by the current ISP monopolies.
In Germany (no net neutrality) you can pay some ISPs extra to get unlimited mobile data to WhatsApp or Spotify.
Would you mind sharing your text editor?
MOSDEF: https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-federal-03/bh-fed-...

Core IMPACT: http://seclists.org/pen-test/2006/May/9
> surgery via telepresence

A point to point connection with guaranteed latency the entire way doesn't sound like a connection to the internet to me.
You can still use LE without shell access, you can manually upload the verification files and have your domain validated that way.
You can even use DNS to verify the ownership of a domain.
This is assuming the value that the VISA system provides is the same as what Bitcoin's does. Bitcoin is being used more as a store of value these days. The ratio of the value it provides to electricity requirements is much, much greater when taking this into account.
The abstract is more informative than the press coverage:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.201700345/ab...

The cell is assembled in a mini-module with a geometric concentration ratio of 744 suns on a two-axis tracking system and demonstrated a combined module efficiency of 41.2%, measured outdoors in Durham, NC. Taking into account the measured transmission of the optics gives an implied cell efficiency of 44.5%.

Since this is a concentrating cell, compare to the concentrator cell records tracked on NREL's PV efficiency records chart:

https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/efficiency-chart.png

The current record for 4-junction-or-more concentrator cells is 46.0%. This isn't a record-setting cell even if the implied efficiency holds up under standardized test conditions.

This cell like all high-concentration cells is unlikely to see mass market acceptance on Earth. The module needs precise two-axis sun tracking to work effectively even under perfect clear-sky conditions. That's significantly more expensive than fixed arrays or single-axis sun tracking as used by conventional large scale PV. And there's a vicious feedback loop: since two-axis tracking is significantly more expensive, it doesn't get developed/scaled, so the cost gap gets even wider over time WRT its competitors.

But that's not actually the worst problem of high-concentration PV for terrestrial use. The worst problem is that HCPV can use only direct normal irradiance. Ordinary non-concentrating PV cells produce very nearly 25% of its rated output if it receives 25% of test-condition illumination under non-ideal conditions (due to some combination of clouds, air pollution haze, dusty glass, etc.) Concentrating cells will produce close to 0% of rated output under the same non-ideal conditions. Few regions have clear enough skies to work with HCPV, but those same regions tend to be dusty, which the concentrating optics cannot tolerate. Mechanical and optical complications make HCPV higher-maintenance than ordinary flat PV and more expensive to install initially.

That's why there were a dozen+ companies working on concentrating PV in 2008 and all of them are now bankrupt or have exited HCPV manufacturing. Eking out another cell-level improvement wouldn't have rescued the value proposition of their complete systems. The refined polysilicon price spike that made exotic technologies look briefly promising only lasted a few years and then it became clear again that crystalline silicon is very hard to beat.
First of all, I'm talking about game engines, not games. Both Unity and the earlier Unreal Engine (afaik) used GC-ed languages for scripting.

However, if you want to make a quality game, you can not afford long GC pauses. I know that lots of people make games with GC pauses in them anyway. It is a value judgement, for sure.

It's certainly possible to work around GC pauses, but that effectively means you are manually managing your memory manager (instead of the memory), which can be surprisingly difficult.

It's also possible that whatever you do is so "small" that GC pauses never affect you. Enjoy your free lunch then.
I love the encryption ideas.

Do you know if PGP public/private key pairs can be used for ephemeral keys? I'd hate to rely on the same secret to store everything throughout time.
I wouldn't call it a business per-se. It seems about once every month or two I can organize a connection, but I have thought about making it a bit more commercial.