skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> What have changed so much in last 5 years or so that now you have to get all this data?

To be honest, a lot. Once again, this is my personal take on the matter, not Mozilla's view.

First off, browsers were a LOT simpler back then. The sophistication and complexity in a browser has grown significantly in the last decade or so.

Secondly, browsers have matured. Remember that this software category has only been around for 20 years or so. Compared to the code quality in browsers today, browsers of 10 years ago were crude and simple. As a software category matures, the low-hanging fruit dry up, so it's harder and harder to improve your product.

Lastly, competition. Firefox has the luxury of being released when the biggest competitor (Microsoft) wasn't putting real effort into its browser product. Google will not make that same mistake with Chrome.

Basically, the information we needed back then was less, because the problems were much more obvious, because the whole industry was still pretty young. Now browsers are much more mature, the ecosystem is much more complex, has a much wider user base, and the problems are becoming harder and harder to pin down.
What's so special about the Node community then?

I've been doing open source work for 15+ years and I don't recall any of the projects I worked on having a CoC. Nor did it ever come up as an issue. I did see aggressive list moderation be abused to distort the technical path of a project though.

You talk about a "mass exodus". I find myself skeptical of this claim. If the NodeJS contributors are so dependent on a CoC then it seems like they went badly wrong somewhere. Somehow other projects thrive without one.
>Totemic Labs is building a device that resembles an Amazon Echo that uses sound to identify and respond to falls automatically.
Hotmail and Windows Update used to be hosted on FreeBSD, yes.
Income inequality has been a visible problem for more than 10 years.

Income Progress across the American Income Distribution, 2000-2005 (https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/income-progress-across...)

"Finally, incomes are growing less equal. Over the past quarter century Americans at the top of the income distribution have seen much faster income growth than people in the middle class. If average income grows 1% a year and top earners enjoy gains of 2% a year, many people in the middle and bottom will see their incomes grow much more slowly than 1% a year. Top income earners experienced sharp income declines in the last recession, but in the last couple of years their incomes have rebounded strongly. This reinforces the impression that the gains from prosperity have flowed disproportionately to people at the top rather than in the middle of the distribution."

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows
(https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html)

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.'
So you re-write the code from core ideas and get a different result. Now what? Did you make a mistake? Did the original author make a mistake?

If you have original dataset and .Rmd file, you can then bisect both analyses to find the bug.
>Within the new European GDPR framework, IP addresses are to be considered as personally identifiable information,...

My understanding is that many of these details are yet to be settled with GDPR. The case referenced above was not interpreted under GDPR, which has yet to take effect. The definitions of personally identifiable data data rather vague, and precedent has not been set. A quick search showed conflicting opinions, but one perspective to consider is quoted below:

> In addition, businesses should note that Recital 26 to the recently adopted EU General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") states that the test for whether a person is "identifiable" (considered in detail above) depends upon "all the means reasonably likely to be used" to identify that person. The CJEU in Breyer did not directly consider the issue of likelihood of identification. If the BRD was not reasonably likely attempt to identify Mr Breyer from his IP address, this could potentially give rise to a different analysis under the GDPR. Consequently, it may be necessary for the CJEU to revisit this issue after enforcement of the GDPR begins on 25 May 2018.

This is a few years old, so if you know of some new decision or regulation that clarifies it would be great to know!

https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/court-confirms-...
Seems to be it. The issue is he didn't fall in line with the SJW agenda of the TSC and was in support of free speech.
Ask HN: What are the best MOOCs for Data Science and Machine Learning?
It's not needless censorship even though it might not have been requested by Rod himself. The question before the TSC is "hey should we take action against Rod for shit like this: ________" and necessarily that blank is filled by a lot of stuff which makes Rod look like he's not a community player. Meanwhile the members of the TSC are able to contextualize this -- they are able to say "Well I have worked with this guy on this and that, I have seen more comments than just these, and I get to make a holistic evaluation of what's going on here."

Now if the original post goes public, it makes sense that the details be blanked as "not fair to Rod", since the rest of the world's eyes are going to look on just these things and might not have full context.
Relevant: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_...
The ‘Apply for a passport’ you linked to service is pretty old now and doesn’t reflect GDS’s current recommendations; as far as I understand it it was more of a reskin of an already existing system than anything done from the ground up. However there’s a newer service available from https://www.gov.uk/apply-renew-passport that is much more modern and actively developed. I’m not sure why they’re both still up (although HM Passport Office could probably tell you), but I’m also not sure how you got to the old one because all of the generic ‘passport’ searches I did on GOV.UK took me eventually to the newer version.
>If the milestone is not met, the smart contract automatically returns the funds to investors.

That can't work that way. The only way the smart contract can return the funds is if they are locked somehow, but what's the point of raising money then? People raise money to spend them, so they by definition don't have that money and it can't be returned, much less "automatically".
Maybe.. I can completely change a reasonable answer to any moral problem just by adding another maybe.

But it doesn't really matter. The analogy is flawed, that's the point, because it's not how it works in the real world. In the real world, people are not getting 1000000x higher income just because they do 1000000x more of the same work.

The main problem is in how we value things that are collectively produced (via cooperation of different people, especially in different points in time). There are basically two main solutions to the problem, both of them wrong. One is the neoclassical solution, which is to deny that we cooperate. Then there is Marx's solution, which is labor theory of value.

I don't believe it has a good solution.
From the archived details it looks like the issue was less posting anti-CoC material (though that was part of it) than putting personal public advocacy outside of project processes ahead of engagement with project processes and representing the project more generally.

That's certainly something that a member of the community is generally free to do, but it's, in pretty much any organization regardless of domain or left-right position on the ideological spectrum, something that is viewed as inconsistent with membership in leadership committees except where that membership is an entitlement through, e.g., equity ownership.

EDIT: but it's also worth noting that the sanction votes in both proposed sanctions were 60/40 against sanctions, and the final outcome was to work to clarify expectations. (And clarifying expectations seems sensible since it is clear that there were sharp divisions within the community in the expectations here.)
Depends on your view point.

You could argue that the process was never really "yours" in the first place.

Society, our laws, our armies and natural resources, our roads, bridges, power lines, telecoms structure, are 99% of that process and you added 1%.

You simply took advantage of a lot of luck, a little bit of hard work and probably a bunch of your parents' money to end up owning it.

Maybe you should get a chunk of the rewards, but all of it?
It would be interesting to see their technology. As I understand, many falls aren't what we think of in the general sense of "fall". Many are slow fall to the ground, for example struggle to get out of a chair and go down on one knee, then to the floor.
"how the proposed tax cuts mainly benefit the richest Americans"

Did you gather this view from reading the tax reform?

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/trump-tax-reform.pdf
I think that everyone would be well served by stepping back from this and thinking carefully about commenting, before inserting snark and derision at either side.

I see a number of comments that trot out a lot of tired "anti-SJW" talking points, and these do not add to the dialogue and only create unnecessary animosity. I didn't see any negativity on the "pro-SJW" side yet - the responses to the former seem calm but are being downvoted - though I would advise the same.

If your immediate reaction went to taking some sort of partisan stance on the issue, either for or against this decision by the author Myles Borins, or by the TSC's vote, or by Rod Vagg, then I urge you: please step back, psychologically, from this. Reflect on your thoughts before you resort to believing that any of these folks are part of your in group or not and basing your judgment on that quality, as opposed to the facts, which it appears few of us have.
Speaking as a former quant myself (1 year), I believe that there are transient patterns in the market.

The challenge is that those patterns appear and then they disappear mostly forever because they are frequently created by someone else's mistakes like Nassim Taleb buying way out of the money put options that never really created any significant profit. Free Alpha, get your free Alpha, right there.

To tap into those patterns while they are profitable, you need a lot of smart people, and a great deal of infrastructure for experimentation and delivery of strategies that can tap into those patterns before they disappear. While you're right that it is possible that they cheat, it's also possible that they have a sufficiently sophisticated infrastructure to actually make this work. It's kind of like how Nintendo only ships 1 out of 3 video games they develop. All IMO of course.
>A sum type `T = A | B` means that a value of type `T` can be either of type `A` or of type `B`. Such a type is used to express polymorphism.

Taking this example (in English / pseudocode):

Define a class Animal.

Define Dog as a subclass of Animal.

Define Cat as a subclass of Animal.

Case 1) Now if we have a variable a1 that can, at runtime, contain (or refer to) either a Dog or an Animal instance.

Case 2) And if we have a variable a2 that can, at runtime, contain (or refer to) either a Dog or a Cat instance.

Referring to your quoted sentences above, would you say that Case 1, Case 2 or both, are about sum types?

Just trying to understand the terminology.
What would improve for the end user, when it was in SVG?
> I'm assuming there will always be an opt out which I shall add to my list of things I have to do when installing Firefox.

There will be. Sorry for the hassle :(
We are having an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere right now. Using it to generate useful stuff looks ok to me. Water could be a problem.
The committee has lots of jobs, yes. One of them is the maintaining and enforcing the Code of Conduct:

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

I think it's totally fine for a member of the group to disagree privately with the decided goals of the group, whether this is "CoCs are good" or "this promises spec is good" or whatever, and recuse themselves from that goal and contribute productively to other goals. But that's different from actively undermining the group's decision, which is (I think) what is happening here.
I know it is intentional. It is the easy way out to minimize friction, potential litigation, social backlash. All short term cost.

Alas, the long term cost of being opaque is lost trust. I much rather have Google give a straight answer. Especially when there is publicity around a case. That way a lot more people would see that Google actually is mostly really reasonable, and that there is another side to the story.
Isn't the entire point of a Code of Conduct to restrict speech and behavior? Those who are Free-Speech extremists should be staying away from CoCs anyway.
Cheers, thanks for the support and words of encouragement! :)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that CoCs magically shield and help people. I simply meant that having a CoC and then removing it or ignoring it will make people feel like there aren't any "consequences for harassment" as you put it. When a CoC is removed or ignored, it makes people feel like there isn't any "unambiguous rejection of toxic behavior", so people don't feel like they're in a "welcoming environment for new or otherwise anxious contributors"

Your wording is definitely better than mine, but I hope that doesn't detract from my point
>>Society has been telling people to shut up for a very, very long time.

Does not make it right when it occurs

>Stepping down from a position because you disagree with someone != "Free Speech"

Attempting to, or actually forcing someone out of a project on the basis they liked a article on the web you believe they should not have liked, then responded with "incorrect words" is in fact a Free Speech issue

>If you really think disagreeing with someone and expressing it constitutes as limiting Free Speech, then aren't you limiting Free Speech right now?

where did I say that?
This isn't a democratic system. My understanding of how it's organized is that it's more of a politburo.

Election of a new member, or eviction of an existing one, is done by existing membership and there's no public voting to elect any of the members.

I see nothing wrong with having a private vote for something as sensitive as kicking someone out. It's no different than keeping jury deliberations private.
Everyone in my family growing up was a lawyer, and the saying I always heard was "in class action lawsuits only the lawyers are getting rich". I've also heard this from many other lawyers outside my family. So it's at least a widely held belief.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that he's misunderstanding the purpose and value of class actions based on the content of his comment, and am not impressed by attempts at arguments from authority. Appellate lawyer or not, his points were not good ones.

I mean, the very article he's commenting on directly refutes his points about class actions resulting in less compensation for consumers and only or largely benefiting lawyers.
"mass exodus" = exaggerated figure to create the impression of a crisis in an otherwise healthy community, in order to increase the drama.
Google launches YouTube Go in Nigeria for free offline viewing
4 Essentials of Operating Computerized Embroidery Machine
The correct, proper, and original formulation by Max Weber is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence.

Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state.

Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.
There are already plenty of companies in the UK at least that rent furniture and home electrical goods to people who can't afford it

We have those in the states too. The interesting thing is that their business model isn't renting furniture and appliances, their business model is providing credit. They are more like banks than they are rental stores.
COUNTLESS - High Performance 2x Downsampling of Labeled Images with Python/Numpy
Alot of cities have camera's at intersections which could potentially do the same thing before a stolen car reached my neighborhood. The police dept. in my city is asking now people to register there webcams with police so they can ask for video I guess when crimes occur, but I can see scenarios where that could wrong. Even with home webcams, criminals have no issues just walking and stealing UPS boxes right off the porch and there face clearly identifiable. HOA's are pretty stingy about increased neighborhood costs, I'd tend to think this be targeted to cities and justify it less police manpower needed. The smarter criminal will figure out ways around a camera anyways.
The culture has changed, and many projects have codes of conducts now.

Could you cite evidence of aggressive list moderation being abused to distort the technical path of a project? Is the project in question the Node.js project, or another?
People Start Hating Their Jobs at Age 35
I agree with you in principle that you shouldn't be forced into binding arbitration a priori before any dispute arises. I disagree with you on the point that I think binding arbitration can be a useful alternative remedy to the traditional legal system.

Binding arbitration serves to resolve the dispute. If you can go through binding arbitration and then still go on to sue in court, then it isn't really very binding, is it? So, in order for binding arbitration to be binding, it has to be possible to legally contact too resolve a dispute by binding arbitration. In doing so, you contract to abide by the judgement and waive your right to pursue further legal action (with potentially a handful of exceptions). It is often beneficial for both parties to go through the accelerated process of binding arbitration rather than drag disputes through the overworked court system.
It is more a problem of large volumes of traffic using roads that were never designed for this purpose.

In the UK, it is fairly common for people to have to park on the street rather than have their own driveways. Some local authorities also require each household to have 2 or 3 refuse bins and, because homes were not designed to accommodate them, these are also often placed at the roadside.

All of this is just about manageable most of the time but imagine the chaos when you get 100's of cars using your street as a short cut twice a day?

Also, your typical 'rat-runner' tends to be a bad tempered person with a tendency to drive over the speed limit (typically 30 mph in the UK, which is quite fast enough for a residential street). Needless to say, if you are unlucky enough to have to live on a rat-run you can expect your car to be damaged two or three times a year.

And, of course, the guilty party always drives off without reporting it.

Oh, and if you have kids - you can just imagine!

Furthermore, the supposed efficiency saving is, at best, negligible since a busy rat-run becomes congested much more readily than the major road everyone is avoiding.
They're only allowed continued existence in prison. /s
I'd rule out the gray ooze scenario. Those bacteria will replicate but they won't be able to generate new cadmium based semiconductors. New bacteria outside the tank will be just normal bacteria.
The link you posted redirects to original UX disaster after answering ten or so questions (each their own page and a click next). Seems you will only stay on the new site for booking and paying for a traditional walkin appointment.
What did you think of first?
> > almost inevitably that means keeping garbage around for longer, which means using a lot of memory.

> This ... is not at all how garbage collectors work, especially where real time is concerned.

Hmm, I'm certainly no GC expert, but is it really not the case that GC tends to be memory-hungry? Not exotic academic systems, but the languages people use day-to-day.

Most of my experience with GCs is in languages like Java and C#. Java in particular can be very fast but always seems to be memory-hungry, using like 4x the memory you'd need in C++. I haven't spent a huge amount of time fine-tuning the GC settings (it seems like Oracle is working to simplify that -- good!) but the defaults seem to assume at least 2x memory usage as elbow room for the GC.

That's on the server. On mobile, I've worked with iOS and Android and iOS undeniably gets the same work done with much less memory. Flagship Android phone have 4GB of memory and need it, whereas Apple hasn't felt the need to bump up memory so quickly even after going 64-bit across the board.

The last I heard about real-time GC, with guaranteed space and time bounds, it sounded like it was theoretically solved, but not used much in practice because it was too slow. That was a number of years ago though. Has that situation changed? Are there prominent languages or systems with real-time GC?
But that's the point: what does that comment mean? Class actions, like any court action, isn't meant to make the plaintiffs rich. It's to obtain restitution for their harm. If they were ripped off $10, then they should get something around that. The lawyers who got them that compensation should of course be paid for their work.
Public funded research in Norway to be published in open access journals by 2024
A simple and powerful React framework with minimal API and zero boilerplate
Also, Firefox has been adding things like Pocket while removing simple options that have been part of Firefox since the beginning claiming that it should be part of an add-on (like the option to disable javascript) and they are also adding privacy invasive options like "Block dangerous and deceptive content"... Firefox is still my favorite but that can always change...
It's more that a lot of people really don't care one way or another, and will neither go out of their way to opt-in or opt-out.

Additionally, it's not that Mozilla just disregards user privacy here: differential privacy being used would mean that no user has to reveal their private information, but looking at all the data in aggregate would still allow Mozilla to gain useful information on how to make Firefox better.
@macNchz

Why is it okay to push even more of these costs on people around the main route, don't you think that people in all areas should take on their share of these costs.

Also struggling to see how a guardrail could be burdensome.
But we're not making "bad code" run faster. We're making code run faster. The original counterpoint was that we shouldn't be, because improving the performance just gives leeway for bad programmers to use it as a crutch.

We don't prioritize bad code for optimization. See usage of 'with' in Javascript. We don't actively try to make it worse, but whenever a decision is presented which regresses 'with' performance for gains somewhere else, it'll probably be taken because we don't care about 'with' running fast.

But the example I mentioned: histograms of max GC pause times on a particular website. Or particularly bad janks, or long amounts of time spent in JS which might be the result of poor JS execution..

None of these optimize "bad code". They're just standard platform performance optimizations that help all programs. That will include "bad" programs as well.
Roads are designed and constructed for a certain amount of throughout and vehicle type. The increase in through traffic means greater damages and more expenses.
Stripe Sigma: Deleted code has no bugs