skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is an interesting article, but the headline is deceptive. The article doesn't answer that question it poses. The reason the Supreme Court granted cert is because the court below, which in this case was a special 3 judge district court panel whose opinions skip the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the challengers.

If the Supreme Court had not granted cert it would have meant that this lower court opinion would have in effect (but not technically) stood as a nationwide precedent modifying existing Supreme Court decisions.
If it is... Well, it works!
Facing New Rivals, Amazon May Open Up Alexa Data for Developers
I really think it's amazing that we have this authoritarian China that is hellbent on destroying the environment in the world, destroying manufacturing and jobs and society in other democratic countries, and guess what, we keep buying crap that don't last long from China.
My site is a local webserver listening to localhost. Please give me the free certificate for 127.0.0.1 so I can use webworkers. F*ck you google, I know whats secure for me.
Kabam to publish Chinese hit Wartune on mobile in the West
Other games with interesting/different visual “looks” and custom 3D engines are Reset and The Witness.
I agree with documentation, but detailed "plans" are different. Its a doc about what my product/feature/quarter/sprint will entail and almost never matches up to reality because things change. Documentation, on the other hand, it written after or during the code and has nothing to do with planning.
What aspects of support are you missing today?
Performance regression in glibc getpid()
We are experts at UX on HN, every one of us hence the intuitive black bar. I was wondering who has died? It could have been anyone. Fortunately it wasn't.
One argument I've heard made against net neutrality generally is a neoclassical/liberal economic one.

To put it into practical terms, consider the "free data" plans prevalent in much of the developing world. You get free data to access a limited set of services who have agreements with your mobile ISP. FB pay (presumably) the ISP to be The (or part of the) restricted set of internet services provided to the consumer at subsidized (by FB) rates. Many people cannot afford the "real" internet access at full rates. But FB is willing to subsidize partial access for their own reasons^. The individuals who choose these plans (assuming competition^), are better off with cheap restricted access then none, or the more expensive full access.

^I don't agree with this reasoning. Adequate competition does not exist in ISP markets and FB's reasons for participating in walled gardens are anti-competitive, especially when it comes to new/small services that cannot negotiate with ISPs.
The rumours of email's death have been greatly exaggerated. To the author: please take your own advice and step away from the keyboard.
Isn't this just the nirvana fallacy? You're basically arguing that because Rust can't solve all security problems, it's not worth using it to solve some security problems, and the better option is the status quo of using languages that expose all problems.
Using Ethereum and Swarm to build a decentralized programming language
Maybe my users want to do more things with their computer than just display a website. And maybe they don't want my website to prevent their processor from entering a sleep state because it does unnecessary background work. Maybe my users pay for their data, or maybe they have a poor connection.
How much of the standard library works without GC enabled? How many community libraries do?

D has a lot of great things (I am incredibly jealous of their metaprogramming facilities sometimes), but it doesn't seem like many people are successfully using it in the "fast and SAFE" sense as GP defined it.
Scientists Used CRISPR to Put a GIF Inside Living DNA
I feel it's not limited to family. Empirically I've noticed liking of a post factors in how much someone likes the poster then just the contents of a post.
There used to be a Feed API, but it was removed for privacy reasons... people (understandably) didn't like that their friends could allow another company to read their posts.
Only paragraphs, code literals, italics, and URLs.

https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
MiniION review
>"This particular solar cell is very expensive, however researchers believe it was important to show the upper limit of what is possible in terms of efficiency. Despite the current costs of the materials involved, the technique used to create the cells shows much promise. Eventually a similar product may be brought to market, enabled by cost reductions from very high solar concentration levels and technology to recycle the expensive growth substrates."

We will end our reliance on fossil fuels not by forcing masses of people to change their lifestyles and inconveniencing them, but by developing green energy tech that is simply more efficient and cost effective than fossil fuels. Once this happens the transition away from carbon based energy sources will be swift.

Given the rate of progress, I believe we'll see widespread adoption of renewable energy far before climactic conditions on earth become dire for humanity.
I'm aware of that, having personally spent countless hours combating it, and dare say I know more about it than most people here. But the situation is much worse than you describe, because in addition to the real problem of some people trying to manipulate HN, we have the real problem of people destroying the community by insinuating astroturfing whenever they see something they don't like.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR...
> with normal syntax

what does this mean?
same poster, new throwaway - call me naive all you want, but bear witness to the fact that they did it the wrong way, and people are now fucking with it. I didn't make a moral proclamation, so I'm not sure why you'd think signalling a virtue would be a response. If you set up regulation in a way that can be easily repealed on a power switch, you fucked up, regardless of how you perceive the morality of the situation
Khan Academy's new lesson: learn how to draw like a Pixar artist
Why not just let the government run its own neutral ISP like they run the postal service? It could be independently funded by its users, since obviously being an ISP is profitable (especially so when you don't have to deal with obtaining access to public land and poles). Then we wouldn't have to regulate these other ISPs because it wouldn't matter. They'd always have at least one competitor offering (likely subpar) internet access.
But how big it is in football fields?
Microsoft Research AI
Please don't convert your website to PWA before thinking if it really adds an value to your visitors first. Some sites are just great as they're now. I understand you spent time "pimping up" your website, but No I don't want to receive push notification from your site, or ability to visit your website offline. Maybe I'm visiting your website for just single article and you'll never see me again. It reminds me AMP situation. Those who stepped into hype train, are now those whose starting to realise that maybe it wasn't such a great idea at first place.
Import your own CA into the browser?
That's a great illustration of what happens when you let the market be owned by only several entities. Long time ago, there were more, with time centralization happened
and now you have to bow to the survivors.

Similar situation but at an earlier stage can be observed on the Cloud horizon - see Google, AMZN, MS, and maybe FB. They own so much traffic, mindshare and sales power, in theory they are not monopolies, but together their policies and trends they generate shape the internet world.

I'm not saying this current situation with Verizon et al is OK, just saying that if you intend to fix it, consider addressing the next centralization that is still happening.
The problem here is that GA is quite frankly Telemetry For Websites.

Frankly, Mozilla are shooting themselves in the foot by sending any data from any of their products or web properties to their primary competitor.

This ship sailed a long time ago. Mozilla negotiated stricter privacy in their contracts with Google, and Mozilla Legal clearly believes Google will uphold those agreements despite it being a competitor.
It is about Net Neutrality, the black bar links to https://www.battleforthenet.com/
There are other species thriving as well, largely due to human activity. This is because of decimation of their predators, elimination of competitors, or introduction to new environments where they are more fit than indigenous species. But global biodiversity appears to be in a nosedive.
Dynamism in Retreat: Consequences for Regions, Markets and Workers
> `OsRng` in the rand crate (go ahead, try to write a function that safely reads urandom in C).

Nowadays, you should just call getentropy (http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/getentropy.3.html) instead of trying to read from /dev/urandom, unless you have special requirements.
They're failing their own requirements though (IMO) by not respecting the "no telemetry" flag, and by not disclosing the use of Google Analytics.

Telemetry not associated with GA is generally considered to be different from telemetry collected via GA.
> The Title II Regs were designed during the Great Depression to address Ma Bell and don't match the internet now.

This is simply false. The regulations under Title II that would apply to broadband were designed by the FCC in a short period of time leading up to the reclassification order, and are a further evolution of boradband policies that have come out of the FCC in case-by-case actions and earlier orders under Title I since the late 00s.

The statutory authority on which those regs are based is earlier (but newer than Title I), but the whole reason the statute grants the FCC fairly broad regulatory authority within specified parameters (for both Title I and Title II, with different parameters) rather than specifying detailed treatment is to allow the details to be adapted to changing market conditions and technology landscape.

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

Neutrality opponents also oppose FTC regulation, and some of them (notably AT&T) won a Ninth Circuit ruling prohibiting the FTC from regulating common carriers like telcos even when performing non-common-carrier functions.

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

The regs passed in 2010 were different than the ones being discussed, and in any case the internet did need fixing then; monopoly ISPs blocking of particular protocols and applications was a thing that was happening then, and the FCC attempt to deal with that through case-by-case action without general regs was stopped by the courts.
You might want to specify that you are the author of algo, otherwise people might assume you are the author of the article.
Hey guys,

The Trump administration expressed interest in having the FTC regulate ISPs. Does it really matter who enforces net neutrality as long as we have it?

It's not secret that ISPs have local monopolies, and that's an area of expertise the FTC has successfully regulated in the past (look at how the Gas station economy works).

It's really time to move past the 2016 election and put petty political arguments aside. We're failing because we're divided. I beg everyone to please stop being smug, and push collaboration with the powers that be rather than confrontation.
Sweet! It's taken you some time. If you had the ability to entirely delete this account, too, that'd be nice.
Sexism is alive and well in SV, but life for female founders is changing
> I easily have 3 good ISP choices and those are local to each market, so worldwide there are hundreds or thousands. That's exactly my point.

I think your missing the point. You already have Net Neutrality (by your own admission) so that seems like a solved issue for you.

But the Americans don't have what you have -- almost nobody in the US can claim to "easily have 3 good ISP choices". Most Americans have 1.5-ish ISP choices or less (usually a shitty-but-usable monopoly cable provider, and occasionally a shitty monopoly DSL provider that is often so slow it not really competitive).

The Americans are simply trying to create regulation that would allow them to have a situation closer to the ones most Europeans already have.
> There is no repeal.

The whole discussion is about repeal of regs the FCC already adopted.
Bandwidth cost? Uploading a TB of VPN'd data would cost you $90 on AWS and a bit more on GCP. There are VPN providers that will let you do that for under $5/mo.

Also, if you want your public IP to be in a specific country, the cloud providers don't have regions in a lot of the smaller countries where VPN providers have servers. Or perhaps you if you want to jump around periodically (today I want my internet traffic to look like it's coming from Peru, tomorrow France, etc). To do that with VPS, you'd need to provision a bunch of them.

My VPN provider also has a features like nodes that route traffic through TOR or something they call "double VPN" where the VPN server connects to the internet through one of their other VPN servers. These are, perhaps, gimmicky features from a security standpoint, but if they're doing what they claim to and they've been implemented without introducing any vulnerabilities (big if), they could offer protection that would be expensive and complicated to setup yourself.
I feel like this site is missing context - what recent events have caused all of these organizations to protest? I found this NY Times article gave me a better idea of this context: "F.C.C. Chairman Pushes Sweeping Changes to Net Neutrality Rules", https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/technology/net-neutrality...
Pixel densities, and price are major factors here (computer screens being far more expensive per inch than a TV).

Computer screens are meant for sitting very close, and TV's are meant for sitting back aways... so the viewing experience will be "off" a bit (due to pixel densities) if you use either for the other purpose.

Also, most computer screens don't have COAX inputs, usually only have 1 HDMI input, etc...
For Debian at least, cargo isn't even in stable yet AFAIK.

And even then, having the compiler and package manager available is a step along the way, but insufficient. Anything non-trivial depends on libraries, which with C programs are typically also packages... which for my project means I need to create 73 Debian packages to distribute my software. That's a big hurdle.
> Net neutrality ensures that the free market—not big cable—picks the winners and losers

There isn't a free market. Near-zero interest rates have flooded the Valley with VC capital in an incredibly inefficient arrangement, and it's distorted the market. The market is thus dominated by a few grotesquely large conglomerates that stifle competition. "Net neutrality" does nothing to restore that competition and provide an actually free market. If net neutrality really provided advantages to smaller Internet players, then why are all the large conglomerates backing it to the hilt? This is a fight between the big cable providers and the big Silicon Valley firms -- Facebook, Google, Netflix. A large cartel is what wins either side of this fight, not the "free market."
Mt. Gox CEO Denies Embezzling Millions of Dollars of Bitcoins
Proving that a patent's claims cover disparate implementations is how you successfully defend yourself against patent lawsuits. If a patent's claims are ambiguous enough to cover multiple, novel implementations it is by definition "overly broad" and will be ruled invalid.

See: https://www.law360.com/articles/608579/overbroad-patent-clai...

So no, patents (and their claims) are not "ideas". They are disclosures of how the invention works and they're supposed to be damned specific!
As a rule of thumb, the notable product manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, have extremely capable RF design teams.

Your run of the mill bluetooth headset, mouse, or keyboard likely does not spend the time on the RF design beyond "does it work".
Arch Linux.
Solidarity with government regulation.
>the free market is economically more efficient

You never specified your definition of "efficient." I can only assume that "value-generating at a high rate" is your working definition. If so, there is no connection between a high efficiency and a lack of exploitation. Exploitation of people via coercion, exploitation of a lack of regulations leading to concentration of wealth, etc.

> You're using your own personal definition of "voluntary" which is not inline with the conventional definition.

My definition of "voluntary" is equivalent to that of "non-coercive." I'm not sure that yours is the same. You speak about people choosing to use Uber as if they have a choice, and not as if they are coerced by the circumstances (lack of jobs in their field, outstanding debt, mouths to feed...). Your choice is to ignore these different scenarios and focus only on those who voluntarily take part in driving for Uber. This is a dishonest practice and does not reflect reality.

> Someone being poor is certainly capable of engaging in voluntary economic interactions, and there's no evidence at all to suggest otherwise.

If you have no money, then you cannot spend money. You have no value to contribute to an economy, and can only participate by receiving value at no cost, which never happens. The evidence is not needed, and is in fact impossible to provide, because this is a clear-cut deduction. If you think differently, you need to clarify your standing.

> How is it apparent that the poor are unable to engage in such interactions when wages for the poor are growing at their fastest rate in history?

Because poor people are poor... Having more than a tiny bit of something is still not very much. They can participate in more, sure, but is that enough? Depends entirely on the context: where they live, what services are available there, etc. To put things a bit bluntly, most of the places in the world aren't very fun to live in for the reason that there's not a lot available and not a lot of earning potential to pay for what is there. Globalization still fails at the "last mile," with the exception of some supply chains such as Coca-Cola's.

I don't disagree that some regulatory restrictions are making things hard for your everyday Jane, but the solution would be instead to regulate those at the top more, rather than regulate those at the bottom less. Using your hedge fund example from Brookings, the problem is not that other types of funds are not allowed to do the same things as hedge funds, but instead that hedge funds are allowed to do things that others aren't, leading to a massive concentration of wealth that wouldn't be possible otherwise. This is an uneven playing field but deregulating it only gives power to those who use force, physical or otherwise, to get what they want while leaving those at the bottom with little more than crumbs.

I'm not sure why you are linking to those biases as I don't believe to have expressed any of them. Again, you will need to be clearer if your message is to be understood accurately.
> For --some people-- all firefox users that won't be enough.

The only reason people use Firefox nowadays is because they don’t trust Google. The intersection between "Trusts Google not to abuse data they get access to" and "uses Firefox" is the empty set.
> Who are you to determine which ideas carry weight, especially without debate?

I'm just an average, under-achieving person who tries really hard like most people here.

In a word, the thing that tells me which ideas are worth debating and which to ignore? Ethics.

Immigration policy is already a hot topic for many reasons. There are reasonable positions to take on various questions. Should we increase the number of allowed refugees this year in order to meet our international disaster relief commitments? A reasonable position would be, "No, the recent economic downturn has forced us to cut funding to essential services that are already operating at peak capacity; allowing more refugees in might put them into more harms way as we struggle to find out what we can do with them." What about the question, should we incarcerate and mass-deport people of X ethnic minority because they're taking our jobs and using our under-funded healthcare system? That's not even a debate worth having: the question is based in nationalist protectionism and racist ideology. It is unethical.

How about the "all lives matter" debate? Bunk. The only reason to argue against BLM is to continue stealing the spotlight from a very noble and necessary cause.

Don't even get me started on the anti-feminist rhetoric of MRAs. "Debate," there is just a trollish tactic to harass people.

There isn't a leg to stand on for these ideologies and positions. They're ethically and morally reprehensible and completely unreasonable. There's no debate to be had. The people who insist on debating in favour of them do so without a credible argument or position. They only want to continue the "debate" to keep attention away from the real arguments. It's a waste of time.

The only reason the Metzger interview was interesting to me was as a demonstration of just how weak and pathetic these people are. There's no reason for anyone to take the Metzger's of the world seriously at all. Rather we should take the proliferation of their ideas seriously and should stamp them out everywhere we find them.
Thanks, this is what I was looking for. More coverage at SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/
Knowing in advance which kind of layers won't be converted successfully sounds reasonable to me.
I think the internet should be made a public good. Basic access (e.g. a default ADSL of 5 MB/s downstream and 1 MB/s upstream) should be provided without any kind of restraint or caveat (e.g. your data sold to the highest bidder, facebook access only, etc.) in every household or citizen in civilised societies, without any kind of authentication, authorization or identification.

IMHO that's truer as more public offices and services offer or will start offering Internet-only services.
A proportional representation voting system would also largely solve the gerrymandering problem (no district would be dominated by a single party anymore so exploiting the gerrymandering system wouldn't help much), along with having many other benefits for democracy:

http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation

> They complied with the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement

That line is interesting. How is the electoral college system not in conflict with the Constitution then, if a person's vote in one state is much stronger than another person's vote in another state? Or is it enough that it satisfies the requirement technically (still "one vote"), even if not in spirit/based on a (I would think) more common interpretation of the Constitution?
Like not implementing cookies, LocalStorage, screen resolution info, font enumeration, canvas, WebGL, WebRTC, etc etc?

It's probably realistically possible to disable those with the existing browsers. Problem is, that will also break sites that expect you to have all those available. And it's said that there are too many of those (I never saw a proper analysis, though)

Just consider: there are sites (one of my favorite pizza delivery sites does that) that break if you just block Google Analytics ga.js (or their newer versions, whatever they're called) scripts. Just because they have stuff like `_gaq.push` hardcoded into click handlers and if those raise exceptions, they fail.
They used to do that. They had two different news feeds, one with their algorithm and one that was just a real-time feed. Then they scrapped the real-time feed in favor of their algorithm-based feed. It's not that the real-time was hard to do, it's that the algorithm is more easily monetized.
iOS Indoor Localization Using Magnetic Particle Filtering