skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For embedding either as source or as a shared library there are a bunch of Common Lisp implementations:

ECL / Embeddable Common-Lisp -> Can build standalone executables and libraries ->
https://common-lisp.net/project/ecl/main.html

ABCL / Armed Bear Common Lisp -> Embed Common Lisp into JVM applications ->
http://abcl.org

Commercial CL implementations like Allegro CL and LispWorks support the delivery of shared libraries. That way you can compile your CL program to a shared library.

There are even more options (like WCL, mocl, ...).
I wonder what this means for wikipedia? Will they be migrating to a hack only stack now?
>DRM certainly has kept some (power) user-friendly features off the market.

Is watching Netflix at 1080p or more a power user feature? Because currently that's heavily restricted by DRM. Not possible on any open-source operating system, restricted to a few browsers on Mac and Windows. 4K is only enabled on Microsoft Edge and only if you also activate a bunch of hardware DRM features. So I have to watch 720p content on a 1440p screen which is ridiculous.

>But I don't see a lot of evidence that those limitations, if genuinely important to users, can't be competed away.

Amazon Prime imposes similar restrictions and is only slightly better at providing 1080p. Meanwhile piratebay still has more choice with more quality and is the only hope at "competition" to make them change their minds.

We are in a world where picking your devices freely is blocked by Amazon/Netflix and the content providers while at the same time those same companies want us to help them push for net neutrality. Commoditize the industries you depend on and capture the ones that depend on you seems to be the play and we should fight it wherever we can.
What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. Firefox staying relevant in the browser market is a better strategy in the long run than a hard line stance against DRM.
DRM works! It's very effective at giving control of the playback environment to the copyright cartels.

Unfortunately, a lot of people mistakenly believe the purpose of DRM is to prevent copying. That is the justification, not the goal, which has always been about maintaining control over playback device.
The boring answer is that if you have a graphics card with good Linux support, you're going to have a good experience. Otherwise probably less good. So without knowing the specifics of your graphics hardware it's impossible to give a clear answer.

People generally don't fault MacOS for not supporting whatever hardware they bodged together, yet they expect Linux to work with anything because hackers and magic. I guess that's a good reputation to have but it's not very useful if you want something that just works.

In the case of Linux, what just works is generally the drivers that are built in to the system, with vendors that take an active part in Linux development. And since Intel started to make both network and graphics cards, that's usually your best bet. ATI is generally usable too, but performance and power consumption generally lag their Windows equivalent drivers.

With that said, it's quite easy to test. Download the latest Fedora (or Ubuntu) live DVD and boot it. If that works with your display, a native install is going to work too.

Just don't install Linux as an almost-Windows or cheap-MacOS. If you want Windows software then that's what you should run it on. Run Linux because you want a UNIX desktop and the kind of software that goes with it (gcc, bash, rsync, native TCP/IP utilities and those things).
>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it?

> Not really. If it's available to view, it's available. Full stop. Best case: you make it marginally more difficult for a mom&pop computer user to copy your content. Anyone with a lick of understanding and 100 dollars to buy some hardware will be able to get it without any problem.

You literally just agreed with my point though.
FireFox included closed-source DRM back in 2014. They've already picked their side.
Brave and Opera both use the Blink rendering engine from Chromium/Google. Therefore, you may see this new DRM W3C standard in Brave and Opera.
That is basically the serverless main "point of sell" you are just one step away from automation (if you aren't already doing it) and it will be virtually the same as serverless
I would still put this into the cultural camp. But I tend to see culture as a reflection of many factors including social, genetics, generational (which includes technological which is itself influenced by the overall culture), evolutionary aspects, and competition factors (which positively influence evolutionary and social aspects vs -say- a dormant passive society), not just social factors which culture is typically view as a product of.
I don't know a lot of software security people who work on browser security that agree with this. The prevailing sentiment is the opposite: that standardize DRM reduces the attack surface of proprietary DRM down to that of a CDM, rather than full-featured browser plugins. By doing so, EME is improving security, not damaging it.
Standardized DRM also makes it much easier to break and distribute the content. Break it once and you're done. When any vendor can build in whatever kind of DRM they want, it requires a virtual toolkit that can overcome whatever DRM approach the vendor happens to have chosen that day.
> the alternative isn't simply a world with no such limitations, but also a world with less content made available online.

I don't buy this. Do you have data supporting this claim?

Disclaimer: I am totally biased and think IP laws are morally wrong and a huge regressive tax on the poor.
> Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM?

I have never installed any plugin for DRM and don't know anybody who has.* I also warned people about the dangers of DRM all the time. In this sense the pushback was always there - but since browser plugins were hated anyway this was a rather easy fight.

* OK, to be 100% honest: I am aware that Flash allowed some kind of DRM - but I never seen or used any application which used it and I don't know anybody who used any application where Flash DRM was used. So the statement still holds.
If you're capable of actually consuming it (by seeing it with your eyes and/or hearing it with your ears), then it is possible to pirate it. Exactly zero DRM technologies today actually prevent piracy, and exactly zero DRM technologies ever will.

Meanwhile, user-hostile DRM can and will (and already does) push users to simply pirate the media in question instead of putting up with the DRM. Users lose, publishers lose, browser vendors lose, and pirates are entirely unaffected.
Former top manager of VKontakte sues the Durov brothers
Did you think to walk into a Turkcell store and buy a SIM card + prepaid bandwidth? 6GB LTE + 500 minutes/texts is 50 lira (~$15)
We offered to open a discussion about a covenant, modelled on the W3C's own patent covenant, that would mean that W3C members would agree to only prosecute those who had broken the DRM within a W3C standard, if they had another cause of action. That's to say, those companies could prosecute you if you broke the DRM and used it infringe copyright, but not if you only broke the DRM for lawful purposes -- such as security research, for accessibility, to protect privacy, and so on.

There was a sizeable component within the W3C (I am still unsure as to what degree I can reveal how much, given that the W3C holds members to a confidentiality agreement.) who felt this was an important step to take before making EME a standard. In the end, the W3C executive team overrode those objections, and decided to go ahead without any such covenant.

You can now for the first time be prosecuted for revealing a flaw in a W3C standard, overriding a browser "feature" on behalf of its user, or making a HTML video accessible without first asking permission of the DRM vendor who obfuscated it.
Safari supports DRM, it just uses FairPlay instead of Widevine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
>How easy is to embed this?

A minimal Lisp is really easy to embed because writing a Lisp interpreter is simple. See for example the "MAL" (Make A Lisp) project.

If you want a feature-laden Lisp, like Common Lisp, you may want to try Embeddable Common Lisp (ECL).

The other main dialect of Lisp, Scheme, also has many options for embedding.
It's funny how the feature description is exactly my firefox setup.
Tree style tab, mouse gestures to close and switch tabs, ability to suspend tabs…
Well, being fluent/conversational means you can still hear what words the translator chooses, and can verify it means what you meant. It's just that their word choice would be more precise.
How difficult is it to find an Aristotelian Friend?
Sure, but if those nails are also causing structural instability, then it might be prudent to do the investment. It seems now, no one will be using your type of nail anymore either, so now you have to have them custom made at expense.
Komik Japon Şakası
This is my favorite dark sky finder site. [0]

The light pollution overlay is the highest resolution I've seen outside more advanced tools, and it has clickable markers for registered dark sky locations, and more locations than any other map I've found as well.

[0] http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/

Good luck! It's definitely worth doing!
It took the iPhone to kill Flash and even then not having it was one of the biggest complaints about the phone. And they killed it for reasons having nothing to do with DRM.
Tips for giving your first code reviews
Nobody said scientists couldn't be wrong. I'm just against the idea that philosophy is as rigorous as maths in most of the forms it has taken until today.
I remember I has signed up for Audible - and was completely prepared to pay their subscription fees, despite a lot of content being available on pirate sites for $0. But I am old enough to value my time and pay reasonable fee for just mere convenience. And also it's the right thing to do, right?

Turned out, however, that I could not play this content on most of my devices, because it was DRMed into something awful, despite being regular sound files that anything can play underneath, and those devices did not support it.

So, I did two things: a) I downloaded the DRMed files that I had on my subscription, and spent an hour (probably should have taken less, but I have never done it before) on extracting regular MP3s from them and b) I cancelled my Audible subscription. So DRM wasn't just pointless to me, it was bad for both myself and Audible (I started with thinking they are awesome and now I low-key despise them).
mid six figures would get me to work 70 hours a week because I could retire in under 2 years.
> but it feels like not having the EFF on the committee at all is going to do more harm than good.

Well, having them on the committee did no good. I fully support the EFF's decision to jump out of that septic ship, and have shown my support by making a donation this afternoon to thank them.
Indeed. There are tons of things that happen in real world lidar. For ex, if object is too close it may not detect. When you are going at high speed, returned light ray may arrive early or late giving bit of error. Also, think about multiple reflections, noise, cone size and so on.
Assuming you are correct that utilities would not have done it freely, then those farms should not have been electrified. It would have sped of the consolidation and industrialization of farming by 100 years by forcing small farmers to either die or sell their land and move to the cities.
Of course it is. When you see a mistake in a reasoning, it's not called a proof anymore. It's kinda the definition.
Bought my AirPods from Apple in the UK: no ID required.

Bought my iPhone 6S from Apple in Ausralia: ID required under Australian law.

Very likely the person also bought a phone with a sim/service, hence being asked for ID (under Australian law.)
> Can you tell me why Taler cannot be used for money laundering?

Can you tell me why cash can't be? My point is that money laundering is a crime of intention, not instrument.
Last time I checked into philosophy, we couldn't prove that philosophers exist, so I'm going to call this question premature.
> No, the W3C is the web.

"L'etat, c'est moi" - until a new state comes to power.

The web is its users.
Status Development Update for 13th-15th September
Whole Foods “free-range” chicken supplier in overcrowded miserable conditions
> We reserved a number of team names for known tech companies

I think this demonstrates the problem of creating completely new namespace from scratch. One way to solve that would be to couple the team namespace to DNS namespace; to claim a team name you'd need to demonstrate the control of corresponding DNS name, same way as you do for DV certificates. Of course I can understand that you'd want to support teams for organizations/groups that might not have their own domains, but you could support such cases by creating a "pseudo-TLD" (or just straight up buy your own TLD), for example .keybase.
Aaaand now billions of dollars are DMCA'd out of existence ;)
I think the most untenable part of the DRM model is the trust required. All user hardware behind the visual part has to be secure. That is, the manufacturer has to correctly implement any protocols.

This goes (if I'm not mistaken) for the Screen, HDMI cable, GPU and OS. It's a hard balance between keeping consumer happy with their choice and only accepting compliant and capable producers.

The downfall of the DRM is either going to be stripping the legal protections, or competitors without DRM being able to offer a better experience. Sadly, whilst cutting DRM gives a massively better experience, it comes at the cost of control over the customer. I think Netflix really doesn't mind that I can't watch Netflix on Plex. Heck, they might even prefer that.

This is what really scares me about DRM, it enables the building of walled gardens for much more than just media content.
The problem is that being "hard to save and distribute" means it doesn't work. It has to be more than hard. Piracy release groups enjoy "hard", and you only have to do the hard part once for a given title (or usually, for a given DRM technology). Once you strip it of its protection, you throw it online and anyone can download it. And now that you've broken that particular DRM technology, your results are repeatable and can be automated, making future releases available even more quickly.

Fundamentally, I can read or write to any byte in my computer's memory. That includes whatever is coming out of the piece of code that reads in the protected file and then passes it to the video decoder or the display.

Until we have computers that can read and write bytes in such a way that not even a user with full privileges on their own machine can access them (keeping in mind, this user can control the kernel and even the hypervisor), this can't be made to work.

The people pushing for DRM, in my experience, really do have no idea what they are talking about. They tend to be industry lawyer types. People who do understand DRM are usually aware that what they are implementing can be broken, but their VP told them to do it anyway so they can make a deal with content distributors.

Also, the DMCA forbids circumventing copyright measures, so they like to have that as a legal tool as well. As long as they tried something, they can go after anyone disabling it, using the legal system.
Write once, never write again
Sounds great :)
I like the project, I've got high hopes for it!
i imagine you need to convey a few important things: (1) effect of CO2 on atmosphere per what tlb said below and (2) magnitude of CO2 emissions (like telling people 1 part per billion is a eyedrop of water into a swimming pool, etc.)
Interestingly enough I've been asked a few times to start coming in on weekends. I've also heard the phrase thrown around: "We'll have to start putting in extra hours during nights/weekends".

I don't think these sort of things _work_ for companies, but to appease a manager they likely have to be done at some point. Long-term I don't think this is a viable solution, but sadly it will keep happening for the time being :/
> [A name] can be visually or verbally reviewed without effort.

Have you considered the possibility of typo-squatting, look-alike Unicode characters, and other such tricks (basically all the same tricks people use for domain names)?
Same thing here.

Yeah there are some `if (SDK_INT > x)` but I can't really say that the code is littered by those. I can spend weeks (maybe months) without having to make such a check.

We also have some OEMs specifc bugs that need addressing from time to time.
Again, this is very annoying but not a 'significant' part of the effort.
Firefox has included support for EME DRM since 2015, despite it not being formally standardized.

I don't see them dropping it even if the HTML standard Firefox follows drops them, unless other browser vendors drop EME too.
> The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM.

If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary.

DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.
Probably not while Mozilla Foundation is a US organization.
I'm willing to bet there are quite a few zeroes between the decimal point and the other digits of the percentage of people who will actually practice what you're preaching here.
I applaud you and anyone else who does this but I fear too many people sit on the other side of caring more about having Neflix now than maintaining the open internet. I know I won't be able to persuade my partner that we shouldn't watch Netflix anymore because of an issue she doesn't care about.
Amazon Can't Just Preach to the Whole Foods Choir
Ah, that's too bad. I want to get the T470 with the i7 7600U and that is my main concern :(
> This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google.

This was absolutely NOT wanted by Firefox.

They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight.

Don't put Mozilla in the same group as those other traitors.
Why is this DRM standard a bad thing?
Flash and Silverlight plugins have been used by Netflix/Hulu on desktop browsers.

I highly doubt nobody you know has installed them. It's much more likely they simply don't tell you they did or it never came up in conversation.
Its always been this way. I can't remember a time that open source software was front of mind even for those who Ould have had a vested interest in knowing about beyond computer scientists/engineers or their academic counterparts. There are exceptions, no doubt. I think generally though, this has always been the case. End users in particular usually don't know the difference nor do they care to (though as the allegory goes, sometimes they do when its too late. )
Haha - I copied the wrong version and couldn't tell the difference! Rookie mistake.
I disagree that browser vendors are the only ones to matter. The web is used for many things, like legal documents between private parties, by the government(s), for education, personal notes, literature/cultural heritage, the entire way we consume and perceive written information in this age. Do you want to leave all that to an ad company? Because that's what you're effectively doing when you give WHATWG this role.

You are of course right that browser developers/vendors get to decide what they're implementing. But web authors, OTOH, can decide which format their works are published in. Browser vendors and WHATWG have shown no interest in simplifying the web. Rather, they're piling up monstrosities of unnecessary complexity, with the effect that, willingly or not, it is becoming infeasible to develop a new browser from scratch.

Most of all, WHATWG seem uncapable to come up with any privacy protection mechanism; instead, we're getting DRM. Honi soit qui mal y pense
It makes me sad that, as a Mac-based developer, installing & updating HHVM takes half an hour (via Homebrew). I imagine that has taken the wind out of many people's sails, when contemplating migrating/updating codebases to HHVM's (superior) syntax.
> If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.

Well, a broad-based pressure group making them think they'd lose office if they didn't support such a thing is the only way anything like that ever gets passed. A lot of folks in Congress didn't want to see JASTA passed but felt they had no choice but to vote for it, so there's a model.

But yeah, this conversation, talking about how maybe if we ask Google nicely they'll act against their financial interests, strikes me as pretty naive.
Take the same building, reduce the space dedicated to toy sales, open up a series of indoor playgrounds and gymnasiums. Heck maybe carve out a daycare facility.

Maybe some sort of toy lab for kids to try before they buy.

Refocus the concept on being a real place for kids to grow and I think you'd see customers coming in the door again.
Is it content creators or content distributers?

I thought most pushback against easier access to content was from publishers / curators / distributers. They are being made obsolete by digital distribution and are using 'but the poor artists' as an smoke-screen to delay their obsolescence.
I've never gotten the hang of the ThinkPad nipple unfortunately, so disabling the trackpad would make me quite a bit slower. It's actually a nice trackpad, just perhaps a bit too large for the device.
OK, I might have to fight past the nausea VR headsets give me and pick one up, along with some more dramamine (22 years old and still can't fly without it). That was a well-produced video!
I do like Jade, but my HTML ETN is not Jade either. The little tiny details have big downstream implications for parsing and static tools. My language has a pure Tree Notation grammar.

The benefit of that is tools written for an HTML ETN also work for a C ETN or a Swift ETN, and vice versa. So as we get more ETNs and more ETN tools, the network effects will be quite large.
Exactly. I'm glad to see people arent absolutely shitting on it here like they have been over the past year or two, which is when I started using it,
The article strongly implies that this is a new development. What it talks about is government agencies who start a lawsuit instead of granting or denying a FOIA request.

> State freedom-of-information laws generally allow requesters who believe they are wrongly denied records to file lawsuits seeking to force their release. If they succeed, government agencies can be ordered to pay their legal fees and court costs. Suing the requesters flips the script: Even if agencies are ultimately required to make the records public, they typically will not have to pay the other side’s legal bills.
the market allows the DRM because people keep buying the content even when DRM is included, standardizing it may just mean less clunky implementations of DRM

but if we were to ban DRM from the market would something else crop up to replace it? would content creators stop making content?

what about IP laws? if we got rid of them, there would probably be more content AND more DRM? or would it be more content and less DRM since it would only be a matter of time before someone legally reproduces your work so why bother with DRM?
He signed off on this...