skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In this example, it states that because of this enployees were rewarded for reducing the unit cost of the product, which meant cutting in to quality. This led to sales declining because custoners were less interested in ab inferior product.

If management had looked less at the "how much profit can we squeeze out of 1 gallon" angle, and more "how much profit can we make overall", they might have made different decisions, such as preserving the quality of the product, they may have done better overall.

Unit profit is one factor in overall profit / revenue, but # of units solds is equally as important...it's a balancing act.
If beating up a kid on a playground is free speech, then that is where my tolerance of free speech ends and I will go and stop the production of pain from a simply ethical harm-minimization standpoint
Isn't working at a key role in an acquired (= successful) startup the ultimate job interview?

My thought was always that job interviews are only the second best option, as opposed to simply working with someone. So the startup does all the filtering for Google.
It's pretty easy to detect the number of external scripts, media objects, fonts and images a page attempts to load.

But that wouldn't give google control and importantly, a sure-fire run around same-origin privacy protections.
Excellent ideas except for the last one - strengthening courts undermines democracy and puts too much power in the hands of unelected officials. Everyone loves courts when they are stacked for your side. This effect is magnified the more powerful the court. It also further politicizes what should be an impartial system.

Courts are already vastly powerful today.
It isn't supported by any of the prominent developers that participate in Bitcoin's open, consensus-driven, transparent development process.
Most of the more serious ones, I'd imagine. A hospital can't refuse someone because of their political beliefs. A public school can't refuse to teach their children.
I'm not super familiar with this space, can you explain further why everyone needs to switch from PhantomJS?
Two reasons:

1) Because I need to buy things with dollars to
a) not starve, freeze, etc.
b) not get thrown in jail for tax evasion

and

2) because I'm not comfortable with that level of investment risk, and prefer a more diversified approach of mutual funds, bonds, and real estate.
are we resorting to ad hominem attacks now?
Also from the article:

> Your CEO has in the past publicly defended providing services to websites hosting dangerous material. Would his position change if one of his own family was hurt or killed in an incident that could be reliably linked to the [controversial website]?

In a word: no. As a way of proving that point, rather than speculate on a gruesome hypothetical, let's discuss a concrete example. About a year ago, a young hacker broke into my email accounts, rummaged around, and caused a significant amount of damage and embarrassment to me. At the time, the hacker was a CloudFlare user. He even used his CloudFlare-powered site to publish details of the attack. I was furious. It was a direct attack by one of our users specifically targeting me. Despite that, we did not kick him off our network nor should we have.
> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.

Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. Do you really want to set the standard that if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint? I guarantee you this won't play out how you want.

> Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.

The US has strong protections on free speech and other fundamental rights because "our European brethren" didn't, and therefore treated their colonies so poorly as to almost universally engender armed insurrection. Nothing much changed in this regard then or in WWII, so I'm not really sure what "lesson" you think you're referring to; that Germany should have more aggressively censored anti-incumbent sentiment in the aftermath of WWI? Yes, what a lovely lesson.
The reason you can think that is that you are in a society where the threat of right-wing radicalization is real, but not Islamic radicalization. If you lived in a Muslim-majority country, you would see that Islamic radicalization is far more dangerous.

Don't forget that even as WWII garnered many atrocities, one of the goals is in reviving the caliphate, a religio-political entity that has had a very real presence as a political institution in the past, that had been able to unite squabbling desert tribes into a powerful entity that had been able to defeat two ancient and prestigious empires—both the Persian Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.
Sure it is, ISIS wants to kill all infidels. How can that not be considered an existential threat?
Me too. Not sure why using an immutable mountpoint is better than a possibly broken symlink, both result in a write failure. I like the symlink, because it's visually obvious when it's broken in the shell, and I can keep my real mounts under /mnt or /pool etc while also putting the target (symlink) in /home/user.
You don't need new js-required-to-render markup to make a page lightweight
Reinventing the wheel when new management come in, i.e. don't check their ego at the door. The new management think they have to make their mark/impact/whatever in the products/processes by throwing out the old's. I've seen new VP/CTO came in, canceled a release pending product, and promised to rebuild the product quickly with his oversight. As with any rewrite, the project dragged on and on. The product ended up delayed for a year and half. The company bellied up shortly after.
The title is misleading. This is not an "upgrade", its a new altcoin that's being pushed forward without wide community consensus, just like BCash.

Recommended read: https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-model-97b8e52...
Stressing and emphasizing employees to give trust to a company but not giving any in return.

Loyalty and "Do it for the team" sentiments are commonly paraded, but if you hide company performance and important developments, you not only have employees making decisions without context, but also sow seeds of distrust and signal you don't see your workers as capable minded adults.
Were socialists calling for the eradication of a class of people based on race or born characteristics? No. These neonazis were, and it breaches the barrier of free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, light years tamer, also is.

Western society, including the Supreme Court, has decided free speech ends where harm to others begins.
I think that private companies like Cloudflare that claim to uphold free speech whatever the circumstances are fooling themselves. In this case it wasn't the Nazi propaganda of TDS that tipped the balance, it was them claiming that Cloudflare supported them. That made it very personal to Cloudflare and it's management in a way Prince clearly had not anticipated could happen.

The reality is that private companies and individuals, unless compelled by law or regulation, have no obligation to facilitate the free speech of others. None. They certainly don't have an obligation to facilitate speech that falsely smears or defames them themselves. Trying to believe or claim that they could do so in all circumstances was naive.

The principle of absolute moral neutrality is simply untenable. Choosing not to choose is itself a choice. Given the existence of repulsive opinion and content, choosing not to exclude it is simply a choice to publish it. It doesn't in any way dodge moral responsibility. It's time companies like this did the truly hard thing and set actual policies they believe in and can follow as a matter of conscience.
> Why would anyone accept any money if it's worth less tomorrow

I mean they sort of don't, in the case of rapid inflation. See e.g. Brazil decades ago, with payment delays abound all over.

But that's not what we're talking about for a healthy economy, with a relatively small steady inflation rate. Very different.
Evidently the line that was crossed here was defaming Cloudflare itself?

I tend to agree with CF that they're a bad place to invest with censor power, but I also tend to agree that if you defame a company you do business with you shouldn't be surprised if they decline further business with you.
> The fast, non-blocking content loading is the main feature.

You don't need requires-js-to-render markup or a cache operated by a privacy whoring ad company to make a page load quickly.

Edit: also, comparing to react or whatever js framework is like saying "look at my new cast iron shoes, they're so much lighter than those old lead ones".
I guess it depends on your hardware/internet. Last time I tried it it was 4+ hours on my non-devbox (aka <16G RAM, etc) laptop.
Having 100M revenue with 10% profit is better than 10M revenue with 20% profit.
Hi Kelsey, thanks for replying. You are definitely k8s secret weapon ;)

I know about this. However, ultimately the question is that Kubernetes is not a gradual scale up solution for most people. I have to be prepared to deal with building my own load balancer.

Basically, I cannot do an on-metal deployment very easily. Most of the questions on k8s slack for metal deployments were - how do I set this up with few tweaks like ssl pass through and source ip preservation.

It is not easy.

Either you build your own load balancer or you use a cloud provided one. Now, Ingresses are not pleasant. I'm not sure about the state of source ip preservation, but last I remember that the nginx ingress had still not surfaced ssl_preread_server_name to the ingress configuration.

Now, what would have been nice is if it was ingress-all-the-way-down : ingress with something like istio/linkerd, maybe it is possible.

Tl;Dr - I'm not github. I can't build my own load balancer. Give me something that works out of the box. Yes, I know it may go down - I'll survive. Docker Swarm does this.
Lite clients (also called SPV clients) don't fully validate the network rules, but instead follow whatever the miners say blindly.

That's unlike a full node, which fully validates every block and transaction on the bitcoin network on his own. Full nodes will insist on following the network rules they're familiar with, regardless of what the miners say.
> No, that would require everyone to be a credulous idiot

Of which there appear to be plenty of these days:

https://twitter.com/markos/status/896760610242912260

History is replete with examples of how this happens. For a recent example see the Cultural Revolution in China. It involved public shaming for wrongthink, destruction of statues and other artifacts, desecration of graves (e.g. of Confucius and others) and worse. The parallels going on today are worrying.

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/15/16150176/watch-protesters-topp...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173456/Vigilante-pr...
Go dev.boringcrypto branch
Eli, I think you started with a reasonable question, but then followed it up with an unnecessarily passive aggressive question.
But that standard is consistent across every group, so you can hardly argue it's unfair when it's universally applied.
Some people like me, find the very idea of god intellectually disgusting.

Some people also avoid stepping on excrement, and that doesn't mean they are afraid of it.
One thing that I've learned over the years is that evaluating your own performance and the performance of others is in itself a skill that needs to be developed. Being able to reward high performers requires them to first be identified! In absence of the specific knowledge needed to assess perf, people fall back to likeability and other biases.
I would suppose that at the moment CloudFlare's policy would be defensive; to refuse service to groups that are clearly defamatory to CF.

To assume censorship on greater moral principles would mean 1. a greater degree of arbitrariness and unfairness, and 2. a drain of resources on an unpopular policy.
Well yes, but mostly because things that are licensed under the GPL are generally done so to allow someone to read and learn from them while still acknowledging their commercial value. Also, software licenses are often standardized and available in common language.

If I use a GPL-licensed library, I'm going to be reading it pretty thoroughly. I need to deeply understand how to work with it. It's fair to expect that a developer look at 'LICENSE.md' as well as 'README.md,' when the license generally falls into one of about a half-dozen easy-to-understand categories.

But hey, that's me. 'People' as big as fucking Qualcomm ignore the GPL in the same way that I ignore a TOS, and nobody's cut off their service yet. I'd appreciate if they did, because following the metaphor they are abusing the service in a way that impacts other users, but c'est la vie.
>The GPL isn't a contract (in the FSF's opinion anyways), it doesn't restrict any of your rights, it simply grants you a few more. (E.g. to make copies as long as you follow certain rules)

Didn't a court rule a few months ago that it was a contract?
-> slippery slope vs whataboutism vs sanity: can we, for just a moment, not pretend that we're unable to distinguish between self-professed nazis calling for the extermination of jews and blacks, and legitimate speech in opposition of the government?

Yes, if you're drawing a line there will be, by definition, cases close to it, on both sides. But this isn't one of them. And it's not like this is some sort of new problem that we haven't successfully navigated before. Courts have always had to make binary decisions from continuous facts: pornography vs. art, or just naming that single grain of sand that makes this stretch of coast a beach per California regulation 343 etc.

"Free vs nice" is an insidious way to delegitimise the concerns of those actually targeted by torch-wielding nazis. People aren't asking for a "nice" country. They're asking for the freedom to peacefully walk around without the fear of being splattered onto the pavement by the next terrorist's car attack.
How about literal neonazis waving swastikas, calling for violence to exterminate Jews and blacks? Ones literally identify with Nazi facists.

Do you not accept a line where free speech threatening violence harms other free individuals? This isn't a thought excercise, the Daily Stormer is a group calling for the extermination of people based on race and religion.
> What if they propose a 100% peaceful process? Imagine something like apartheid, i.e. segregated schools, restaurants, etc. There is literally no violence here.

Are you kidding? A 100% peaceful process that will segregate society and return to the days we have fortunately left behind us and you believe that the perpetrators would not use force?

Majority decides that all people of color have to leave and they will just have to abide?

You're going to be in for a rude surprise if you think that would be without violence.

> Are people allowed to believe in a different set of political axioms (isolationism against multiculturalsim/diversity)?

Yes they are, but unfortunately for those people their beliefs are generally against the laws of most or all civilized countries where equality before the law is a very basic principle. What you are advocating is to create classes of humanity that are not equal before the law.

Even if you were to get a majority of a society to accept that there will be an immediate and violent response from the minority that you wish to dis-enfranchise. So there is no '100% peaceful process' to achieve this, that's a pipe dream.

> Note that I'm talking about what stance government and its institutions should take against such rebellion, not who you invite to your private party.

Yes, I got that.

> Also, these are not my political beliefs.

Then you're going to have to be very careful with how you express yourself lest someone mistakenly holds you to account for beliefs you don't have but wish to throw out there as some kind of academic exercise.

> Just trying to see where the line is being drawn here.

Where I deem it to be reasonable: the right for one group to exercise their freedom stops where that group attempts to limit the freedoms of others that they would like to claim for themselves. Symmetry is key.
The fact that these guys can't find anyone (out of hundreds if not thousands of options) to host them is useful feedback about how opposed our free society is to their message.
I have held management and non-management careers in roughly equal proportion over my career. My list would look like this:

1) believing you can dramatically change the performance of an employee -- it's very rare to save someone and less experienced managers always believe they can.

1.5) corollary to the above: not realizing the team is aware and waiting for you to fix the problem and won't thank you for taking longer to do what's necessary.

2) believing that people don't know what you're thinking -- people see you coming a mile off.

3) thinking you can wait to fix a compensation problem until the next comp review -- everyone waits too long on these.

4) believing HR when they tell you that you can't do something that's right for your team -- what they're really saying is that you have to go up the ladder until you find someone who can force them to make an exception.

5) not properly prioritizing the personal/social stuff -- at least this is my personal failing, and why ultimately management has not stuck for me.

6) believing your technical opinion matters -- I've seen way too many VP's making technical decisions that they are too far from the work to make, trust your team!

It'd be fun to see a list of these from the non-management point of view. I'd start off with the inverse of #6 above:

1) believing your technical opinion matters -- the business is what ultimately matters.
TOMS has a long and storied history, mostly on numerical codes. I was looking through it in grad school in the late 80s/early 90s for better saner methods in numerical software.

Better PRNGs for simulation is definitely in its bailiwick. Crypto ... maybe less so.
Notably, that page doesn't list Jeff Garzik.
I got burned on this once. I was the most senior engineer on a team and spent a lot of time coaching and reviewing the work of college hires, which meant I didn't output as many raw task points as everyone else. I was called out on it so I stopped helping as much. My task completion shot up, but team productivity and quality went down. Overall a negative.
Great stuff, good to see again
Others have touched on this: the concept of a protected class seems odd when faced with the idea that all people are to be afforded equal protection under the law (14th amendment)
How is the parent comment's guess about 100% of people having email useful?
>> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.

> Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test.

I think it's an essential question about where to draw the line. Obviously there must be limits to speech: You can't shout 'kill all the X' to a group of people with baseball bats threatening a group of X (or commit slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc.). Generally, it's almost always hard to find a clear, simple rule that applies effectively in all cases of reality - morality and law are like algorithms in that respect. That's why we have judges, juries, and sophisticated laws.

But here's a proposed, relatively functional solution that is simple: Draw the line at intolerance - the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. A few reasons: 1) Intolerance is a parasite on the rule of tolerance and free speech; it tries to stop others from having those rights. 2) It violates the basic social contract: You tolerate and respect me, and I'll do the same for you. If you break that contract, why should I keep tolerating you? 3) Look up the "Paradox of tolerance".

> if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint

I didn't see anyone mention violence.
You don't choose to have a certain ideology.
On the other hand, it seems to me that minimum censorship is vital to CloudFlare's partnerships and business. It probably has many datacenters located in questionable regimes, and any hint that it performed moral discrimination would probably attract attention from govts. wanting to pressure censorship on CloudFlare, which would be an avoidable drain of resources.
People don't share google result links.

People absolutely share amp links.

Also, amp being google.com hosted means no more pesky same-origin privacy protections like limiting cookies.
More than anything, I appreciate the distillation of significant reform ideas without a partisan agenda. With the exception of the judiciary change, all of these ideas would be widely popular with the larger public.
Are you saying that intentionally driving your car into a group of peaceful pedestrians and killing someone, for political reasons, isn't terrorism?
Surprised no one has linked this back-and-forth discussion at Blackhat 2013 between cybercrime investigative reporter Brian Krebs and CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince regarding CloudFlare's hosting of "booters"/DDOS marketing sites. I will put a bit of the conversation here, but please do listen to it in context.

https://youtu.be/wW5vJyI_HcU?t=45m17s

(quoting CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince below, aka eastdakota on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=eastdakota )

45:52 "Where would you draw the line?"

47:25 "It's really tricky when private organizations act as law enforcement"

47:33 "We try to follow what is due process"

47:56 smart-ass/sick burn re: Krebs's journalism

48:46 "We comply with any court order that we receive" (both takedowns and to not take things down) "unless we feel that it's truly abusive in these cases we [interrupted/unintelligible, maybe: would] ..."

49:00 "There have been some hacking-related sites that we have been asked to take down"

source: HN user kefka https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14654680
because wanting to do something and having the capacity to do something are different.
Following the theme of the article, how much did Bi-Rite pay you to post this?
Here's how I think about protected classes:

In a democracy, the majority has limitless power. They can vote to oppress or kill the minority, which survives only due to the majority's good will and whim. Democracy is the angry mob. 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner', goes a saying.

The solution is constitutional democracy, which includes rules protecting the minority, via civil rights. In the U.S., these rules are the Bill of Rights. The rule of law also is essential.

But it's very clear that even those rights and laws are not sufficient: In the U.S., slavery, segregation, lynchings of blacks, and oppression of other politically vulnerable groups, including women and LGBTQ, has continued in varying degrees for over 200 years despite the Bill of Rights and rule of law.

The politically vulnerable groups - the groups the majority can oppress and kill and destroy - need additional protection. (That's why when people try to make some logical inference that oppression of white males is the same thing, they miss the core factor: White males are not politically vulnerable to the majority;, they are the majority (in terms of power); a quick look at a group photo of the people in power in every domain of American and European life will show you that.
Any hints about the architectures used?
Free speech is largely an American thing. You may believe it's universal, but you would be wrong.

It's not uncommon for religious people to think that the principles of their religion are so obvious and universal.

This seems like a very similar attitude. But really, you're just used to it. That's all.

As a person who was not born into western culture, I find the concept sort of weird in some way. Although I do accept it as a given in western cultures, I can't see it as either obvious nor universal.