skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here is the the original paper that caused the article on CNN that caused thid blog post:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/05/1704949114.full

Abstract:
The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation immediately. That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees of range contraction (indicative of population shrinkage and/or population extinctions according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature) using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal species. We find that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates is extremely high—even in “species of low concern.” In our sample, comprising nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851/27,600) are decreasing; that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals for which we have detailed data, all have lost 30% or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40% of the species have experienced severe population declines (>80% range shrinkage). Our data indicate that beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.
Interesting. I played with ZFS years ago on opensolaris, I don't remember there were atomic snapshots. I definitely need to dive into ZFS again.
Kickstarter has a full screen homepage takeover for users based in the US. If you're not seeing anything, it could be down to issues determining location.

https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/885140707866017798
This is correct. I am not a fan of net neutrality and the level of "protest" that has appeared today already makes me uneasy. It's easy to claim that google is so monolithic that blocking its services for a day would be a crippling blow to the anti-net neutrality crowd, but it's really just blackmail. I don't think the public would be responsive to such a threat, and there are plenty of alternatives (even if the quality isn't quite the same). I'm sure one of those alternatives would be content to not force its politics on its customers.
Real Men Might Get Made Fun Of
- Being able to prosecute any company that stores passwords in plain text

And the death penalty to any company that emails you your plaintext password (and even worse, the email tells you to "protect your password").
I once wrote an OAuth client library for a language that didn't have one and learned so much. Now any time I do anything OAuth related I feel that I have a better understanding.
Ah yes, Google should definitely punish end users because of what ISPs are trying to do.
When math screws you over
I'm assuming a 10 year payback equates to an annualized return of ~7%. Would you be paying cash for the panels or using financing? If the former, do you have other investments paying that much? If the latter, at what interest rate?
A bit of hyperbole, but here's the reference: https://github.com/mozilla/addons-frontend/issues/2785
I know it doesn't work with OpenGL ES, but RenderDoc works well on regular OpenGL apps, from my experience.
Yes. The C64 also had more RAM.
Then you don't really understand how analogies work. And he isn't imparting any useful information just talking points.

https://literarydevices.net/analogy/
Thanks for adding facts!
Private Keys on Web Servers
>And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access.

The ISPs wouldn't be so well off once you make their main product free. Investment in network infrastructure would go to zero in this system. They would all go bankrupt pretty quickly actually. The only way to keep the internet running with a mandate to offer it free would be to nationalize it. And once it's nationalized, forget about improvements to the network or new generations of mobile internet tech.

Internet costs <$50 a month. You want to effectively nationalize an entire industry because that's too expensive in your opinion.
Digital Media Forum: Related Information and Events of DMF
This makes sense; if you were building a service that served bytes off of disk, with an in-memory LRU cache, you wouldn't have two separate pools of memory, with one for writes and one for reads.

Did the ZIL and L2ARC concepts come up before SSD was widely available? Especially the ZIL seems very much optimized for crazy enterprise 15k rpm spinning rust. Memory and SSD access characteristics are so different from spinning disks; I don't know why ZFS separates ZIL and L2ARC.
Clojure Toolbox (https://www.clojure-toolbox.com/) lists libraries for both Clojure and ClojureScript.
A lot of these things are solved, or at least there is a tremendous amount of experience to draw from now. It's more a problem of packaging the different pieces together into a cohesive system.
Even aside from complicated questions like the Newsfeed algorithm, when a friend started hitting Like on nearly every post of mine I appreciated their caring but mentally discounted the meaning of their Like in terms of being a reaction to the content of my post. It's like "Like Inflation". So the algo should probably do the same about indiscriminate likes...
>Right. A choice of ISPs (in my opinion) is actually better than net neutrality, for the things that matter most.

They're orthogonal, you can have net neutrality without choice of ISPs and vice versa. I also think net neutrality is much more important than choice of ISPs because ISP monopolies are unstable over the long term. Technology advances fast enough that today's monopoly will not hold once new access technologies are deployed. My ISP has already felt the heat from LTE providers to upgrade me to fiber for example. And Elon Musk is working on high-speed satellite internet for everyone. Over the long term ISP monopolies crumble. Content monopolies are much more long lasting because they have the copyright law hammer and net neutrality is a freedom of speech issue. Of the three topics ISP choice is by far the least important even if it's the one that currently inconveniences Americans the most.

>I agree that you have a valid criticism of those video services. But your comparison of it to Net Neutrality feels forced. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of Net Neutrality -- it's seems like a clear case of comparing Apples and Oranges.

I'm not discussing net neutrality at all. As far as I'm concerned that discussion is a no brainer. I'm saying that Netflix is complaining that ISPs are using their monopoly in one area (internet access) to condition another market (streaming services) while at the same time using their monopoly in one area (streamings services) to condition another market (playback devices). If that's not an apples to apples comparison about business practices I don't know what is.

>If "Netflix is a hypocrite because they don't support 4K on my Linux laptop", then your basically upset with the entire tech industry, where every product has a list of platforms they've chosen to support, and a list they do not support.

This and your other comparisons are disingenuous. I'm not saying Netflix needs to write a custom app for every platform under the Sun. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to actively disallow platforms that would otherwise work fine if they didn't arbitrarily restrict them. That's how Youtube works for example. Anything that can work with it's webpage gets to stream video and anyone can implement an app that works with their API.

Google Search's interface is a standards compliant web page. Do you think it would be ok for them to implement software to make it so their web page only worked on some browsers, didn't work for FreeBSD users and only provided low quality results to Linux users? Because this is exactly what Netflix does today.
Some Management Advice
> Plenty of startups that make it big, Comcast doesn't get to add their tax on that success

That's one way of looking at it. Note that I do not think Comcast would successfully turn off youtube for any customers without creating a major uproar.

On the other hand, suppose I invent a game that mirrors the contents of every user's hard drive to every other user constantly, utilizing 99% of available upstream and downstream bandwidth. Suppose this game goes viral and becomes the next Youtube.

How should ISPs deal with it? Should they be required by law to allow it?

I think it's reasonable for ISPs to create a definition of residential bandwidth that prevents against unexpected bandwidth utilization trends. I want unfettered bandwidth, but I realize that there is additional cost associated with provisioning it.
It is rare (Ramanujan), but happens! [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts
Late response: I assume you've done the calculations right regarding the minimum wage, and that you've taken into account the additional payments not included under the label of pension.

To get an accurate view of the value of the pension though, you have to take the dollar face value and apply both pensioner discounts (practically everywhere in Aus, you will get discounts on your rates and utilities at the very least, in practice substantially more such as transport and consumables). In addition most also get to consume their imputed rent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all pensioners are "living it large". It is miserable to be a pensioner that doesn't own their home. But their true consumption possibilities are several multiples in practice of all our other social security payments, say for the unemployed or people on minimum wage for example, who don't own their own homes.

Given the demographic boom of the boomers, we are effectively paying living wages to the group that statistically hold the most wealth of any age group, and that we don't means test against the primary store of that wealth, I predict this system cannot last.

The government can enter into a defined pension scheme that proclaims it will be summer forever, and people can complain that they were promised that it would be summer forever, but a wise man knows that winter is coming...
We're just doing ads now?
Singaporean here. Wow, I've never seen nor heard about this before! Thanks for sharing.
Did some digging in on our local newspaper:
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-locations-for-sch...

Looks like the proof of concept was started way back in 2009!
So my options are another technology that intentionally and arbitrarily only works on some devices or move to Germany?
I really tried to read it before whining. Glad to see it's much more readable now.
The biggest problem we have on the Android side of things is the steaming pile that is Broadcom's bluedroid. The codebase does its own allocation tracking, threading, scheduling, and has state machines with call ins, outs, and backs (none of them used the same way). In my time on Glass, bluedroid was one of the biggest headaches we had with Bluetooth, not to mention the Bluetooth chip firmware. We tried to clean up as much as we could (and did a fair amount) bit the stack truly needs a rewrite from scratch. Some things you just can't incrementally fix -- especially when new features are continually dropped into the codebase from afar, without regard to the damage they do to the codebase.
Bluehost Brasil supports SNI - http://cp.br.bluehost.com/kb/answer/2643

Bluehost US doesn't seem to, as you indicate -
https://my.bluehost.com/cgi/help/473

I'm not sure whether they just don't support SNI yet, or whether they are artificially enforcing this restriction so that they don't have to deal with IE6 not working.
I've read that the FTC vs. FCC distinction is important because the FTC has a strong history of trustbusting, e.g. AT&T in 1984. Your comment is an interesting political ramification that certainly weakens the above argument.
I think the only way this can happen is zero-knowledge password proofs, i.e. browsers implement a mechanism by which password fields submit a proof that the user has the password, rather than submitting the password. This way the server can only verify the password if they've implemented the proof system correctly, and they can't leak the password because they've never had it.

The basic idea is, the server gives a unique nonce with the password form. The user enters their password. On form submit, the browser stretches the key space of the password using a slow hash, then uses the digest to generate an asymmetric key via a referentially transparent algorithm (no random salts). Then the browser prepends the URL (obtained from HTTPS) to the given nonce (to prevent man in the middle attacks). The browser then checks to see if it has seen this nonce before and displays an error if it has (to prevent replay attacks--this forces servers to generate new nonces, although the browser can't force them to verify that the nonce that is signed later is the same one they sent). Finally the browser uses the key to sign the nonce, and sends the signature to the server. The server uses the public key (which was generated in the same way and given to the server at sign-up) to verify that the user has the password.
It turns out that satisfying the author's definition of "major" requires more than 10 years.

Is it so shocking that a company like Uber is not as valuable as a company that's been around five years longer (and happens to be wildly valuable)? In other news, humans born in the last ten years are not as tall as humans born more than ten years ago. Is there something wrong with today's humans?

For the giants, the author describes them as being able to "launch with modest amounts of money and reach profitability within a few years." Seems like quite a few companies have done the same within the last decade. Time will tell if they grow to be behemoths.
The devil is that the corporations able to influence this change directly benefit from current identity systems. Google for example has huge infrastructure in place linking its products together and includes tracking and other features that would only work with the current system.
Looking good, thanks!
Can Regenepure the Hair Loss Shampoo Really Stop Hair Loss?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14753546
The hydro plant, which predates the bitcoin mining operation, creates far more noise than some electronics churning out hashes.

Why don't you let the residents decide what they want? Maybe they want access to the internet and cell phones, which the mining operation helped provide.
Why I Don’t Regret Moving Our Android App to Scala
> > We should require that Californian politicians and senior civil service send their kids to public schools. They need to be aligned.

> This would be a game changer...

I'm sceptical. Some public schools are great, and what happens is rich people pay the high prices to live in those districts. The parents where I work definitely choose housing based on what schools their kids will go to, and it drives the property values of those neighborhoods.

Forcing politicians' to send their children to public schools won't help the low-performing schools that rich people already can avoid by choosing expensive. It will help ensure public education for wealthy families is good, and little else.

(Disclaimer: I'm mostly familiar with school districting in Texas. Maybe California is different, but this seems like the normal case most places in the US.)
> I made a claim of zero runtime overhead after directly quoting the context of automatic memory management.

And that's what I was referring to. BDDs inherently require Rc<T>/Arc<T> (as long as you want to be memory-safe, at least) and therefore incur significant overhead (reference counting is one of the most expensive forms of automatic memory management). I use BDDs as an example, because there's no way to work around the structural sharing, as it's a requirement for an implementation.

In addition, aiming for zero-cost abstractions is hardly a Rust-only thing. That's more of a Java problem because it only has polymorphic methods and no value types. Outside functional languages, lack of zero-cost abstractions is not a particularly common issue.
I designed my own Lisp dialect that is very influenced by Common Lisp. It has the cadar functions down to five levels deep. They are awesome. I have about 17 years of Lisp coding experience. Only in the last few years, I have come around to using those cddr cadr and so on. They express the right thing when the subject is tree structure, rather than a flat list which contains items.

Suppose that we have used (cddr x) to test whether the list
x continues after the second item. It is then unnatural to have (third x) to retrieve the third item! It is like "faulty parallelism" in your English essay. :)

If the condition (and (cdr x) (consp (cddr x))) holds, then the proper way to get that item is (caddr x). This is easy to verify: If cddr is a cons, then its car is given by tacking on an "a": caddr.

In any case, car, cdr and the rest are an absolute must in a Lisp dialect. They are instantly understandable; there is no good reason to break with this important convention. A Lisp dialect will not achieve anything by breaking cultural compatibility with other dialects in this regard; it will just be shunned by Lisp people yet still disused by everyone else. Although CAR and CDR come from IBM 704 machine language, which means nothing to pretty much anyone over fifty years later, the people who allowed these names to infect the higher level language weren't idiots. They discovered that the names just work and so used them. Borrowing some mnemonic that works from the IBM 704 is no worse than borrowing some equally arbitrary greek letter like lambda from a branch of mathematics. If the mathematics of anonymous functions had been called "Tau Calculus" we would be writing (tau (x y) + x y) instead of lambda; it's just a historic accident. All names are historic accidents: one person calls it water, another one aqua, a third one mizu.

I also love the star convention and have used it in many places. for instance mapcar* is a lazy mapcar: it can take infinite lists as its arguments and returns the resulting lazy list immediately. Leslie Lamport picked up on this star notation in LaTeX; that's where I first encountered it. When I got into Lisp years later it was like, hello, is that where Lamport got it from?

I don't like verbosity, so I made my dialect slick and ergonomic. It can "code-golf" side by side with the so-called "modern" scripting languages, while remaining clear.
Part of the reason we're in the shitty everything-is-text/worse-is-better state we're in now is because we haven't invested a lot of effort in the top-down design of systems that work really well.

This is in contrast to the current state of development, which was driven by Moore's law and the rapid improvement of single-core processors to consist mostly of imperative programming. As soon as we started hitting a wall in single-threaded CPU improvements and moving to multi-thread and multi-cores, the imperative programming model began to rapidly show its limitations. After all, Von Neumann meant for his architecture to be a prototype, and we went ahead and built an entire industry on top of it.

Leaving everything in the development ecosystem up to market forces has left us in a state that is entirely too complex. There is far too much accidental complexity in developing even the simplest applications today.

If we purposefully design smarter systems, maybe we can cut out layers out of the stack entirely, so worrying about things like distributed execution is a thing of the past for 99% of programmers.
> That AMO is using GA (and has been for years)?

They should stop that now after this PR disaster.
IMO the reason Google doesn't do much here is that they are in a very good spot here. They are not in any danger, and if anything ISPs would probably pay them to provide their service.

So I doubt Google would ever do anything at this point.
I think history shows that the distinction is important; some agencies are well-adapted to handling these issues, while others are not. I'm still undecided, but I've read that the FCC's action in 2010 was a political power grab by friends of the administration (e.g. Google). On the other hand, the FTC has a strong history of trust-busting, e.g. AT&T in 1984, making it the stronger contender for actually handling net neutrality in essence. Whether or not that's true (see other comments), I'm not sure.
You're objecting to one example of an implementation when you should be focused on the idea. You can clearly define it in such a way as to not rule out multi-party representation as needed. Many other countries have cracked this nut (see Elections Canada). Of course, the history of the US political system seems to be one of NIH...
I've mentioned a number of times before, but I'm actually advocating to my friends against their participation today for the reason that I believe, if the Evil ISP acts in a crumby way, that it will create demand for better service. And I think that's the only way to get to a Mesh Internet For The People, By The People.

My position is that: We don't need big pipes (or millions of hours of television piped to us every month), we need the interfaces and hardware for connecting with each other.
I find this design clean and appealing. Compared to the current fashion of all these Python libraries, it's a breath of fresh air. But I wonder if it can work. Python has going for it: kitchen sink of tools, easy to learn, tooling that took 20 years to develop, you already know it.

Question: What's wrong with Matlab? Is it that it's closed and costs money? Other than that it seems clean, purpose-built, complete and not really expensive. Why all the open-source attempts to replace it?

I really thought Julia was going to do that, but it's been years and they never got the tooling. They never solved the ridiculous, self-inflicted problem of having to recompile the entire system every time you run it. You're code will execute in 300ms, but only after 10 minutes of compiling. (Or did they make progress? I haven't checked in in a while.)

Anyway, serious question: Why not Matlab?
Greetings from Europe where we have er neutrality. Good luck to my American friends with voting for a sane government in 3 years. Maybe there are some remainings of the country you could have been.
It Turns Out, 2017 Is the Year of Simply Secure PHP Cryptography
An Overview of Object-Oriented Programming Using Python
A logical issue that I have with the existence of such filesystems as ZFS and BTRFS is that the problem of "bit rot" should be addressed at a lower abstraction level - hardware or the driver - rather than at the level that should be primarily responsible for user-visible organization of files, directories, etc.
What's the prevent ISPs from reducing their bandwidth offerings across the board to force people into buying more?

My local ISP could triple their prices or slash their bandwidth offerings and I'd have no choice but to pay it or not have internet. They could - very neutrally - extract very large amounts of money from me because of how valuable internet access is to me. That isn't a neutrality issue, that's a lack-of-alternatives issue, and before Title II is mentioned, the FCC reclassification explicitly specifies that the rate regulation clauses of Title II are subject to forbearance (ie, not applicable).