skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you're discounting the opportunity cost here.

In a world where browser manufacturers, as a block, refused to implement DRM, it's seems obvious that sooner or later visual media producers would be forced to the table, to gain access to paying consumers. We could be in a DRM-free world, without the inconveniences of elaborate technical restrictions on pass-through and mutual device compatibility, or black box binary blobs on otherwise open source operating systems.

With a look on TPB, it seems evident that DRM doesn't work to prevent piracy. Any technical means that would be used to download a rate-adaptive video stream and save locally in the absence of DRM would seem to me to be more involved for the end consumer than downloading pirated media directly - so I don't think DRM even works as a speed-bump.

A standards body is a great place to achieve consensus around a negotiating position. I don't think the consensus that was reached was the one that leads to the best final result. The distance between where we are now, and that final result, is the cost of this decision.
It's inherently ineffective because for content to be viewable, information about the DRM is widely spread. Consider Blu-ray. HDCP is a huge hassle for anyone trying to do anything with their video content, and it offers next to no security: Every Blu-ray player, TV, and disc producer has to hold the decryption keys, which means it's trivial for the keys to leak out to the public.

And consider the number of hands a piece of media goes through during the various stages of content production. Movies get stolen from anywhere from postproduction studios to the factories that produce the discs.

Adding a layer of DRM on top of the consumer-facing product does almost nothing to prevent the content from reaching pirate sites. And once they're there, the rest of the distribution problem is easy.
This was the story of my entire educational career. The gifted underachiever who instructors took a special interest in.

However, teaching people life lessons in the form of a permanent black mark on their record isn't exactly for their own good. For better or worse, those high school grades do actually matter for college admittance.

Yet, maybe they did me a favor. I was able to underachieve to my heart's content at a college full of dummies. Who really needs a prestigious college anyhow.
A recent video of the evidence session in Parliament, see link: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1abfcd7e-b43f-4995-...
It is already very difficult to distribute your own content without subjecting it to some other entity's distribution system, and soon it will be impossible. Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete.
> Why can't it?

They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail. This is a nontrivial problem.
The digital method of proving identity is a digital signature, not blockchain.
DRM can't work because the math doesn't distinguish between receiving and decrypting content for a legal purpose like viewing it, and doing the same for an illegal purpose like copying and distributing it. If nothing else, there's the analog hole of recording the screen (which could be done in software).

If it did work, that would be a legitimate reason to include these potentially dangerous, un-inspectable DRM features. But it fundamentally can't, so foisting this security risk on everyone seems misguided.
My point is that perfection is not required. So, calling something a proof does not mean it must be accurate.
> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already.

Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.
>will never work

As in it can't be secure? Well it's tied in with trusted computing, see this Widevine document:

https://storage.googleapis.com/wvdocs/Widevine_DRM_Architect...

If all of the decryption takes place in a "trusted zone" on "your" device, then it's pretty secure.
Downvoted because of the straw man comparison of a dying child to venture investments.

Your comment sounds like some HN parody.
I think the most simple reasons to tell that DRM can't ever work, are that:

First DRM proponents have gone very far to protect their content. It costs them a lot of money and from a economical point of view it is difficult to see how DRM help them making more money.

Second: The guys who use pirated stuff would anyway not pay if DRM was working, so why the media industry would bother to struggle with them?
Twenty-First-Century Alchemists (2016)
OP's position is:

"I'm valuable, just ask my boss. He sings praises for me"

It is a very naive position that needs to be eradicated If it is not, then "take 50% off your salary and be happy about it" would be a norm. In our society money and power are proxy for the value.

People get promoted to one level above their competency because at the top level of their performance they do well which means that they are promoted one layer higher. That's the last promotion they get.
What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins?
"The very existence of subteams are hidden from all who aren't members of the subteam. Thus, if you wanted to create the team `lets_fire_bob.just_kidding_fire_bruce`, then Bruce would have no way of knowing his number is up."

(from https://keybase.io/docs/teams/design)
Ionic Framework users won't come into contact with Stencil at all, just with the custom components built using it. The old `ion-textarea` (for example) will be replace with a new one that was compiled with Stencil.

So no, this is not a new JS framework that will be relevant to framework users.
I agree, though it's not clear to me what we should use for identity security. Any piece of information related to a person is going to get out eventually.
> why people here are so determined DRM can't ever work

It is just that you can not have a video for watching it, and not having the video for distributing it. Computers don't work that way, you either have the video or don't.

That said, things are more insidious than what is on the above paragraph. It's computers that don't work that way, so the solution that many people thought about was making computers illegal, and replacing them with closed controlled machines that resemble them in many ways but aren't as powerful.
@malgorithms is there any support to change usernames? Before teams, I had a company PGP key under the company name, but with this launch I can't create a team with the defacto company name since it's already in use.
There are some blockchain based systems in the works that may help with this mess. If a middleman can be removed, content creators could publish directly to p2p networks without losing the ability to earn money from their contributions. Instead of relying on some rights mgmt company to authorize content they could create a smart contract to programmatically allocate earnings to all parties involved. Time will tell but check out http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/music-and-the-blockcha...

This also has the side effect of eliminating curation bias / censorship allowing for all sorts of new content to become available that might not otherwise be allowed on iTunes/Netflix etc.
I'm perfectly fine with it. Including license-plate cameras on every street corner. 24/7 aerial surveillance and cell-phone tracking, too.

Why do I need privacy, exactly? Sure, privacy from being spied-on without reason by random low-level government employees, sure. But I don't care about privacy from automated systems, or systems that are used in criminal investigations after the fact, or during the fact. Also, I'm fine not having privacy from detectives and criminal investigators that are investigating crimes.

That distinction is an important one, though, and is usually lost in discussions of tech and privacy.
In practical terms, DRM obviously can be made to work.

People ideologically opposed to DRM tend to have two blind spots about the DRM service model.

First, they assume that DRM users demand that DRM prevent any copies being made. But that's not true: obviously, any video you show a user in the privacy of their home can be cam-copied. It has even been the case (though it will be less and less the case moving forward) that you could obtain a high-fidelity digital copy. DRM users have always understood that to be the case; what's important is not that copies be impossible, but that they be difficult for ordinary users and, ideally, incur a quality hit. If copies are inconvenient and/or of lower-quality, most of the market will pay for legitimate copies.

Second, and more importantly, DRM opponents assume that the restriction DRM users are seeking is indefinite. But for the most part, content owners are much less concerned about long-term restrictions than they are about the new-release window when their content is most in demand. A DRM scheme only has to survive for a couple weeks to generate immense value for content owners.

From a security and cryptography perspective, a scheme that can be resilient against expert adversaries for a few weeks, or even a framework for minting such schemes on demand, is a commercially reasonable proposition.
> But Keybase teamwork is end-to-end encrypted, which means you don't have to worry about server hacks. Alternatively, you can lie awake at night...fearing a breach of your company's messaging history. What if your team's history got stolen from Slack and leaked or published? The legal and emotional nightmare.

I think it's great that this is an e2e solution, and obviously the path for an attacker from total compromise of keybase, to total compromise of user data is one step removed - it needs to go via pushing a backdoored keybase client (or, ahem, a secret entity needs to force that to happen).

But either way, in terms of a targeted attack for a company's data - surely the clients (phones, workstations) are the weak point? In other words, I think the paragraph oversells the benefit of e2e a little bit?

This isn't really keybases' fault - consumer computing is pathetically insecure and hard to secure (with the possible exception of iOS devices). That's just how things are right now.
> Deleuze (or Leibniz, Nietzsche, Heidegger...) are not out to persuade you of any particularly easily-digestible position.

I'm not asking about the writing of Neitzshe, Heidegger, nor Leibniz.

There was a claim that Deleuze's writing is difficult, which I assume to have meant on top of the normal difficulties of working out the cogency of philosophical arguments. Otherwise the response would have been "philosophy is difficult," rather than referring specifically to "Deleuze's world."
I think it's ok-ish to make that tradeoff (the one the Swiss make). You really can't have everyone see the best doctors without the atrocious wait times of the Canadian and British systems. You could have a lottery system in place of paying for healthcare to distribute available healthcare to people, but I think most would agree it's fairer to just sell healthcare. Your other option is spending maybe twice or thrice what Canada spends and having that many times more doctors on staff to keep wait times low. But I have a feeling it will work the same as widening roads - the wider the road, the more cars drive on it and the congestion doesn't improve; similarly I expect wait times to remain high even if you have one doctor per (say) 100 people, as long as everything is completely free.

I agree that it feels cruel to tell people "You must pay this much money for that amount/quality of healthcare", but I don't see any other working system. Maybe if you keep the price affordably low and give additional subsidies to the poorest individuals. As long as people have to pay, even if it's within their means, they'll try to be intelligent with going to the doctor.

I'm also a bit surprised they didn't also look at the Japanese system. I've heard it's good and the life expectancy figures match. However, I admit I haven't researched it in any detail.
Am I the only person that noticed the hover on the lisp code blocks? Surprised me at first. Can't tell if I like the idea or not.

Rather, I know I like the idea. I can't decide if I like the execution. I'm leaning towards liking it.
Ask HN: Why do most 3rd party recruiters scale with worsening quality?
My experience with most large recruiting agencies with offices operating in several cities has not been mostly adequate. And from what I read from other people on many different websites, I am not alone. They state equally subpar experiences, and many times it's because there is not much consideration targeting candidates to jobs appropriate to their skillsets.

I've learned that any agency that makes you put aside a couple of hours to come in for a face to face meeting at their office is a huge red flag. The best third party recruiters (very few of them exist) won't make you do that. The best recruiters also tend to be small in reach.

But with a larger size and reach, how does it survive operating so inefficiently? Is complacency by management to blame?
Dijkstra seems to be overstating the Swift opposition to a very Modest Proposal.

n.b. this is a very certain kind of satire. It's not a literal retelling of something that happened.
Math relies just as much, if not even moreso, on proofs and logic that came beforehand.

It is not like every math paper starts out with the axioms of Peano arithmetic.
Totally! We're going to have to start by making sure we never standardize it. </sarcasm>
Information Doesnt Want to Be Free
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/09/05/gab-now-under-th...

According to this. Scroll down and you can see the post says INTERNET FATTIES something or other. Unless im missing the context it seems pretty ridiculous.
For the record, the EFF only joined the W3C to fight EME in the first place. They're not resigning in protest, they're leaving the group because they didn't win the single battle they joined for the purpose of fighting.
But then where would we put these millions of non-violent drug offenders? /s
DRM can't work in theory, but it is working in practice.

If someone writes a piece of software that allows downloading of DRM-ed content (without losing quality, and playable anytime) from the big names (Netflix, Amazon, etc), then this battle would be won.
I hear (but is it true?) that for a philosopher to build a career, it is important to be thought as very smart by other philosophers --- and that this is much more so than in other fields, such as the sciences. If it's true, it would explain why appearing smart is stressed.
How to read this headline:

Apple -> a change in the app store guidelines

kill -> make more difficult

Government as Platform -> development of municipal apps
Can anyone explain what are the possible implications of this?

I am imagining a bunch of annoying add-ons to access news articles and what not, but is there a potential to carry over to smaller or niche spaces?
Apparently one of them is Tim Berners-Lee?!?

He's the Director of W3C as far as I know.
> What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins?

What is supposed to be happen is a zero-tolerance and active fightback against anything DRM-related in the web - be it in the browser or be it a plugin.
A Beginner’s Guide to Repurposing Earned Media for Your Content Marketing
Not sure that will happen anytime soon. It's the same with Local SSD. The virtualization of this environment is very challenging, maybe beyond a point where it makes sense for them to do so.
I couldn't agree more, and on top of that it is getting harder and harder to use open app stores. More and more devices are locked down.
You should do well if you slapped a photo of the night sky on that web page and a form to collect email addresses.
Maxis (the SimCity people) made such a thing as a game 20 years ago: SimHealth (https://obscuritory.com/sim/simhealth/).

It's long out of print, but (ahem) I imagine you could download a copy that would run fine under DOSBox if you looked on the right Web sites. Hypothetically speaking, I mean.
Rowley also believes that there is a problem with Silicon Valley's culture, which pushes an unhealthy view of business. He explained that investors and inventors aren't bothering to pay attention to what came before, "to understand what their technology should be doing." But the collective blindness to this is a result of the "hype around getting funded" and "stories glorifying founders like Mark Zuckerberg and other college drop-outs." He adds that Silicon Valley deserves "all of the criticism that it gets." Because, fundamentally, "it does a lot of great things, but it's also a culture where people get away with some ridiculous things."

Interesting last paragraph. I am often disappointed by the lack of acknowledgement to history, but some ridiculous things really do need to be tried once in a while so they become commonplace and boring.
Is the EFF a big enough presence to "fork" the W3C standards? I hope so.
The really insane part is that the DRM is pointless anyway, you can go onto any file sharing/streaming site within minutes of a Netflix release dropping and it's there in HD.

I still maintain my netflix account 1) because my mum uses it with her Roku and 2) because they should be paid for providing value and good TV.

I have the technical skills (like nearly all HN readers I'd imagine) to stream whatever I want with essentially 0% chance of getting caught but I don't because NF has most of the content I want to watch and I don't watch that much anyway.
Continuity of government
I'm afraid of this becoming the status quo. Everything is going to be a binary blob that you either download and run or you don't. It's really shortsighted to say "if Hollywood doesn't get DRM, you won't get Netflix". The market is there, it just wouldn't have been as easy for Hollywood to do so.

Now we have made it easy (and even standardized it!).
How so ? Don't the binary packages work ? (http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/5.9/5.9.1/)
It is indeed a puzzle, but not yet an exoneration.
But there's already 'planned sales' forms for this sort of thing and well, I hear these weren't.
If they where in the US.
I have a Dell E6540 for exactly these reasons. It feels like a real computer. It's 1080p, but I prefer widescreen personally. People are always making comments about how old my laptop is, but it's an i7 4810MQ with 16GB RAM!
You should look into distributing an AppImage. Its author has a very nice script that you can use to ship Qt apps that works on all linux distros: https://github.com/probonopd/linuxdeployqt

Also, is there a particular technical reason you went with CEF directly instead of QtWebEngine or QtWebkit ? It would be interesting to know about it.
I see how that gets us to a DRM-free world, but not so much why ordinary consumers would care. To a first approximation, no ordinary consumer uses TPB. Unauthorized copies are less convenient (especially since mainstream playback devices won't play them) and frequently of lower quality. The price point for legitimate copies is low enough that the purchase decision isn't that hard.

A standards body is a great place to achieve consensus around a negotiating position, but a pretty big chunk of this standards body doesn't want the negotiating position you want.
So let me get this straight...

My graphics processor supports this encryption. My monitor supports this encryption. My kernel supports this encryption. And we're going to draw the line at EME-- the glue that sits between my web browser and all of this infrastructure? That's the line that we just can't afford to cross?

It's not the fault of the consumer for purchasing hardware that supports this stuff? It's not the fault of the OS developers for supporting it? It's squarely on the W3C and browser vendors for making it accessible?

Seems to me like the EFF is going full Stallman for no actual purpose, and to the detriment of their reputation and role in future W3C discussions.
Or you could just ditch HTML and XML, and use only JavaScript and CSS. You still use elements like input, button img, but under an abstraction layer.
Wealth Inequality, Signs of a Broken Economy
The article talks about a compromise that the EFF proposed and saw rejected.
Great, I'm sure the enterprises on the W3C who voted for this will jump on board.

Oh, you mean I can't get Netflix on the forked internet? Welp, back to mainline.
The philosophy I studied in college was not a 'historical study of great men' or any sort of literary study. It was study of the ideas, with the various works (usually short works, not big things but excerpts and such) used as clear explanations of them. And then study of what responses were made to those, what their merits were, what the flaws or strengths of the idea are, etc.

And philosophers DO consult the original sources. Those would be basic logic and rhetoric. Then they take those and they first build epistemology. Then they use that epistemology to build a framework of metaphysics. Eventually they build the most abstract, highest level piece - ethics. At each step there are varying options, and it is rare that you can point to any of the options as 'clearly true'.

We already know mathematics and similar cannot address everything. A 3-body system of perfect sphere interacting solely under universal gravitation is already in itself so sensitive to initial conditions that the error on any prediction you make grows faster than anything computable. So how is humanity to deal with things that happen on the scale of trillions of trillions of entities interacting in non-linear ways constantly? That's the world we actually live in, and the tools to address it won't come from math. And probably not physics (although maybe).
Right, but you're still investing time in doing that switch. No matter which way you cut it, you're still replacing every single nail.

"We'll just update as we go", you say. That's fine, but it means that some parts of the house – normally the oldest and most integral to the entire structure - will use nails for years to come. And your developers will need to be trained in both hammers and screwdrivers to be able to work on the house in totality.
Capitalism at work - a handful of ultra-rich guys winning even more ground over common folks again.
You can't really expect companies like Google, Microsoft, or Apple to take up that mantle -- why would they, when it's not in their interests? If you actually want to fix the problem you probably need to hit the regulatory levers.
Can these agencies be counter sued for using tax payer money to sue tax payers seeking "their own" data?
Tim Berners-Lee must be rolling in his grave.
Thank you for that insightful reply. It's like you were reading my mind or something. I have been considering moving out of CA and Seattle, New York city, and a few places in Canada have been at the top of my list. If I can figure out remote work I'd like to add Europe to my list as well.

I definitely concur that California in general is pretty great for motorcycles. With 2 jackets you can ride year round. People are well conditioned to lane splitting so they make room for even the largest of bikes. Where most people I know went down was turns in and out of strip mall parking lots. All very avoidable from the drivers side.

I ended up selling my bike a few months ago. The same commute I've done for years is just ever increasing. I've been considering going public transport for a while to regain my sanity.
But how long will it take for websites to be delivered with DRM so they can't be archived,scraped, saved to disk, screenshot, etc?

I agree that it's "only" a step in that direction, but this can snowball and get ugly pretty fast.
>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it?

> They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail.

Any evidence that they haven't had any success whatsoever in making it harder to save/distribute?