skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Multinationals already comply with a litany of different market-specific regulations, so the country listing is more rhetoric than substance.

Civilization depends on rules. Some are written, some aren't. The best rules are the ones that have evolved through trial-and-error. Trial is the first part. We've stopped doing that out of fear of offending the invisible hand, so we end up with guys like Schmidt just dropping a site off the face of the earth without any form of due process.

China has already shown that capitalism is not the guarantor of freedom, so now it's either the rule of law or bust.
>Neither lawyers nor programmers are legally liable for such fuck-ups.

Lawyers can be held liable if they do a horrible enough job. Likewise for programmers, and there are a lot of people advocating for strict liability for software defects in commercial products/services.
There are multiple articles readily found about complications of using positive pressure:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581344_7

http://www.mdedge.com/ecardiologynews/dsm/5224/hospital-medi...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199002

To my mind, this is actually related:

https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/54084/Why-I-m-Not-a-Fan-...

One of the problems you run into with any lung related mechanical devices is the need for proper sterilization. From what I gather, this is much less of an issue with negative pressure ventilation.

People in iron lungs are people with fundamentally compromised immune systems. Exposing them to germs forced into their lungs by positive pressure while potentially damaging their lung tissues in the process strikes me as a great way to give them a deadly infection, sooner or later.
How many people are using IPv6 in the first place though?
is it possible that there are tools available that do the job with minimum energy consumption but they are not out in the open yet?

i wonder what tech military has that we dont know is even possible today?
I have had a suspicion for a while that "Flat Earthers" are trolling everyone into giving them a free ride into space in order to prove them wrong.
I would not want Fred Wilson within 100 miles of the board of any company I cared about. There are many reasons Twitter is a mess as a public company today and Fred Wilson as a disastrous early board member is one of them.

People learn from their mistakes, but apparently Fred has not.

"I have heard from quite a few founders that they read the book Hatching Twitter and came away thinking that they would not want to work with me. That sucks for me but I don’t regret anything I did or said in the events that were described in that book." [0]

[0] https://www.quora.com/What-does-Fred-Wilson-think-about-Hatc...
They claim the edge of the world is at the south pole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsOz_J6tJVU&t=1332s
I wonder which modems are most problematic that is commonly used.
>You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing.

Makes total sense as an engineering tradeoff if you're not in the business of saving the web but publishing a magazine.
I wonder how he thinks satellites work... just hovering above a flat earth?

It’s just all so stupid that I hate that NPR is even validating this by publishing it. There is no bar anymore, or any level of critical thinking. Ugh.
Write code that is easy to participate in.
> While I don't know the specifics about the hosting situation of TDS, I doubt what happened there was "a small number of private companies decided to exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read", like the author claims.

Actually, that's exactly what happened. I think it involved Google, GoDaddy, Cloudflare, and a couple others. Yeah, Cloudflare, Champions of Free Speech -- until they're not.

> For example, the claim that there's "nothing illegal" about it, which is factually wrong as lots of the content on Daily Stormer would easily break a couple of German laws, and probably laws of a few other countries, as Germany isn't the only country with laws in regards to Holocaust denial.

And somehow that means it's something for the FCC to regulate with regard to an American company? I'm pretty sure that it is actually Germany's problem to keep it from coming over the wire into their country. And if that sounds agreeable, then I don't expect we'll hear any more complaints about the way China censors the Internet inside their borders.

Oh shit, that's actually coming true already.
There's also the it's all about how you react explanation: brands blanket people with advertising which you wilfully ignore except for those rare instances where it coincides with something you want or something that happens to resonate because you were talking about it moments earlier. And maybe your friends were making fun of Juicero at the time after being prompted by being bombarded with ads for it, rather than you being bombarded with ads because your friends made fun of it...

I think I've got a lot of Facebook ads blocked, so I'm looking at a right hand column which is recommending me pages of random companies one of my friends has once liked and suggesting translations into two languages I don't speak which are spoken in countries I've never visited and have minimal connection with. Which I guess is an upgrade on all the dating ads which didn't even bother to match my "interested in"...
> Lawyers can be held liable if they do a horrible enough job.

They can be but it rarely happens. The most likely outcome is that another lawyer (or even the same one) will send you another large bill to try to fix the problem. This too is roughly analogous to what happens in programming.
>And a true form of democracy is mob justice.

Only if a state's citizens are unwashed mobs. In which case representative democracy is not gonna fix things either.
Understanding predictions from xgboost models (in R)
That's not even half of it. It's just a complete misunderstanding of the problem.

> Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs

The difference is that the markets are entirely different. It's possible to have a Facebook-like system with no Facebook-like entity in control of it, the canonical examples being email or the web. It's not a natural monopoly.

It isn't even a real monopoly at all. There is Twitter, Tumblr, the Google thing(s), the Microsoft thing(s), actual unaffiliated web pages, email, etc. Most people use Facebook and Twitter. Basically nobody uses Comcast and Charter.

There is a fair argument that we should adopt policies to bolster open systems like web/email over closed systems like Facebook so there is more vigorous competition. But the idea that we should enshrine Facebook as a permanent monopoly and then have the government regulate its content is the complete opposite of that. It's ludicrous.

And that isn't what network neutrality is anyway. Network neutrality doesn't regulate content. It says nothing about what anyone can print, it just says that everyone can buy ink on the same terms.
> And how would you regulate Google, by whom? [...] Who is in charge of the internet, and why would the rest of the world obey that?

But we're not talking about Google. We're talking about ISPs and Net Neutrality.

- The absence of solution to problem B (Google & Friends are hugely influential) does not imply the existing solution (Net Neutrality) to problem A (ISPs can be hugely influential) is moot.

- An imperfect solution is better than a less-perfect solution.
There seems to be enough room in the enclosure to solder on some pin headers to both sides of the ESP-12. That would make getting access to them a lot easier than trying to rig up a custom 3D printed pogo pin setup.

Other than that, this is exactly what I've been looking for. I have an old wireless outlet (controlled by a RF remote) that I rigged up a Raspberry Pi Zero to, but that is a lot of effort compared to soldering some headers and flashing a new firmware.

Now all we need is some good software to securely integrate this with other IoT systems.
Segwit2x was only "anti-developer" if you only consider the "bitcoin core" developers. There were many developers quite interested in larger block size for many years, since before the February 2016 "Bitcoin Roundtable" in Hong Kong. Segwit2x had over 90% of the hashpower of the bitcoin world voting for it, at one point a couple months before it was to activate. Hashpower is heavily tilted towards large mining pools, many of them in China, but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has. That's a major tenet of Bitcoin in the first place. (Though I wouldn't say "only miners matter" nor "only users matter", the network really needs both to work.)

I think that the survival and modest success of Bitcoin Cash eroded the initial overwhelming support for Segwit2X. Though if you mostly read /r/bitcoin I'd say you have a very warped view of what happened ;)
I would like to see a version of 1Password that
1) did only passwords - no fishing licenses and secure notes, which adds UX complexity
2) did not distinguish between passwords and logins, which causes endless confusion for my users
3) knew and managed the text requirements for the top 1000 websites so the app could generate legitimate passwords and not ask users to manage password complexity
Helping out where their money really can make big difference.

First do no harm. We don't necessarily know what works. We have rich folks who are pro UBI and that ticks me off. I don't think it is a good solution. I think it just helps salve their guilt at helping to destroy jobs. I don't want their guilt salved. I want them to focus on redistributing work. We should view the trend towards automation as the Second Industrial Revolution, not the start of making most people charity cases dependent on a handful of "generous" rich people or some nonsense.

I was homeless for nearly 6 years. Most programs to help the homeless are completely sucky. I am against growing more homeless services. I am trying to come up with answers that shrink the problem of homelessness.

But a lot of people are not interested in shrinking the problem. Many are fine with growing it, because it serves some sick emotional need of theirs.

I recently talked to someone who wanted to 'share their vision' of taking over an entire downtown block with homeless services. I cut them off with "I have an appointment. I gotta go."

This person said they had "a heart for the homeless." Sounds more like some sick hard on for the homeless. That isn't actually caring about the welfare of other people. That's some twisted desire to make them feel good about themselves. If you care about other people, help them get off the fucking street. Come up with solutions that shrink homelessness, don't build more soup kitchens. Geez.

But solutions that shrink the problem of homelessness are hard to create. It is a hard problem to solve. In contrast, programs to "help the homeless" (like soup kitchens) are easy to dream up, but often help entrench the problem rather than resolve it.

No matter who you are, trying to find something that actually works is challenging.

Bill Gates said that automation of an efficient system magnifies the efficiency. Automation of an inefficient system magnifies the inefficiency.

I think that same paradigm applies to throwing money at problems. I would hate to guilt rich folks into throwing more money at programs that actually make the problems worse and entrench them. They can just keep stuffing it under their mattress or whatever until we have some concepts for how to actually improve things. Then someone can go try to convince rich folks to invest money in real solutions.
Wow, I thought this one had just disappeared into the void. Glad to see I got people's attention and provoked debate, even if it seems much of it disagrees with my underlying assumptions.

For what it's worth, one thing I don't cover in the article is whether this is a good idea in the first place. It obviously isn't ideal, and as I say it is a difficult situation to be in. From my perspective, I think a non-technical founder is obviously better looking for a trusted former colleague or friend to join as CTO. Proven mutual history is the best thing you can lean on here.

But if this isn't possible, I would definitely espouse an interview process - however formal you prefer that to be. My post is therefore really intended as a how-to guide for someone in this awkward spot, looking to identify the skills and experience for technical leadership without the background to do so.

Of course other soft skills and fit are just as important. But any decent founder will need to identify those in all people joining the founding team. This is just intended as a step-by-step guide for those specific skills needed for a technical co-founder or CTO. I hope it is helpful for someone!
Is nuclear safety actually dependent on individual people not making calculation errors? Because that might be the scariest thing I’ve ever heard. I’d hope that many people would have to screw up in the same way for a mistake to cause real-world harm.
This seems to be very similar to the concepts of "induced demand" and "jevon's paradox".

Essentially, these principles all seem to be saying that if something becomes significantly more accessible (whether by decreased price, increased efficiency, and/or increased supply), it's not uncommon for demand to increase in kind, as new uses become economically viable.
I seem to recall that most of these people believe the "edge" cannot be reached by sea or land due to hypnotic waves, or magnetic fields, or something like that; when you get too close, you become confused and turn around, fooling you into thinking believing that you've circumnavigated a sphere.
I've read a fair bit about functional programming but the right-associative nesting of -> still bothers me.

(first precondition IMPLIES (second precondition IMPLIES (implication))

is inherently harder for me to understand than

(first precondition AND second precondition) IMPLIES implication

even though logically they are the same. The first version carries more mental overhead because it seems to indicate that there is some sort of hierarchy/assymetry to the two preconditions.

It's the same thing when I try to read a Haskell function type signature:

f :: a -> b -> c

f is a function taking a and returning (a function taking b and returning (c))

vs.

f is a function taking two parameters a and b and returning c

There is no hierarchy anyhow because the parameters can be swapped:

f' = \b a -> f a b

Curious to know if it's just me or there are others who experience the same.
I've always wondered if it were possible to express legal things via code. I imagine that there's a lot of ambiguity that needs "filling in" by a human, but there must be some set of legal arguments that can be literally codified.

Being able to run test cases through such a construct would be immensely useful - for example, how would changes to health care law impact someone? They could have unit tests that compare different outcomes and make it easier to understand how a new law would change things. People could ask very precise questions about how things would impact them.
Conceptually these machines are simple. Seals, diaphragms, a few moving parts. Doesn't seem that it should be to difficult to fabricate parts that are no longer made by the original manufacturer.
Extensive discussion a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15741019
From Lexington MI I can see a lot of wind turbines across lake Huron in Canada. You can see the blades rotating below the horizon. I'm sure if you drive over there they stay a good 50 feet above the ground.
I'm all for not giving citations if it's:

(a) something well established that one can look up,

(b) not a matter of hard science (I could care less for "soft science" citations, most are BS ideology du jour + whatever pays for grants),

(c) the other side gives actual arguments (in which case I can evaluate them)

(d) the other side puts the issue as a personal preference

(e) if it depends on perspective / worldview / morals

For other cases, if one insists something is objectively better/worse, they can be useful.
> It's possible to have a Facebook-like system with no Facebook-like entity in control of it

The same is true of the general topology of the internet. We don't need any of these layers (CAs, Room 641As, long bus-runs to carry messages seven times around the country before arriving at their destination).

There are distributed solutions to all of these problems (examples for the above, respectively, including NameCoin, CJDNS, and mesh networking), but legislated "net neutrality" enshrines the current model and blocks these decidedly non-"neutral" alternatives.
The mechanics of the damage Polio causes to the nerves that operate the diaphragm means it is a tiring process to use a positive pressure ventilator.
The Sonoff S22 is a good candidate for reprogramming, with the bonus option that it supports external temperature+humidity sensors.

You can definitely achieve the same functionality cheaper with a ESP8266 breakout + shield, but this way you get a nice case that can just sit on a socket.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Sonoff-S22-Smart-Wifi-Power-...

https://github.com/arendst/Sonoff-Tasmota/issues/627
China bikeshare graveyard a monument to industry's arrogance
I meant it was one of the reasons why tmux was written, not why I (partially) switched. Not that I see a big difference in the first place, but if the BSD folks want to play the GPL cleanup game, good for them, at least we're getting some software out of it and it doesn't just mean that Apache 1.3 will never die…
> our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook

Exactly why we need to keep net neutrality.

It helps keep the marketplace fair by preventing carriers from charging extra for preferential treatment; something that Big Tech Co. will effectively set the price of, but most upstarts won't be able to afford.
No argument here. I've been using Linux as a developer system since about 1996.
Yeah, if only I could have the same thing for ssh tunnels, I'd be in suspended heaven.
My point is that if you are a capital-B business, but you also have majority control and do not need additional funding, you can make tradeoffs against your bottom line if it fits your values.

Outside funders may give lip service to it, but they don't care shit about your values, and honestly I think it would be better if all sides acknowledged this instead of pretending this wasn't the case.
This post was built to influence the largest number of people possible. The title is worded to reach people that don't click with the suggestion that the accepted view in the community is that they aren't spying. It's also by a newly-created account made by a Facebook Ads employee.

The microphone privacy invasion rumor has spread so far without evidence because people are tired of the 1000 other privacy invasions for which there is evidence. They don't care whether or not this specific instance is true. People are tired of FB being openly scummy at every other turn. FB is the least respected tech company for a reason.
The most popular esp8266 based relay from Sonoff is designed for friendly reprogramming - http://randomnerdtutorials.com/reprogram-sonoff-smart-switch...
To give some perspective about these numbers: currently there are 13,587 medaillons in NYC alone.
New in Datasette: filters, foreign keys and search
Original downvotes possibly because your source is your interpretation of information collected from laypeople who were about to take money for silence. That's not strong evidence.

Further downvotes likely because your tone is defensive and you throw around wild accusations.

In other words, you presented weak evidence then violated community norms in responding.

However, I would love to check out your site, to see if there's useful information regarding this thread on it. Can you share a URL?
I am very much in favor of large, generous subsidies to new parents. For many people, having a child effectively means their ejection from the workforce for a decade.
> Those regulations [Title II common-carriers] were more concerned about things like controlling market power than, say, promoting innovation.

Why is a strength of the approach being presented as a weakness? The only kind of "innovation" that could suffer is the kind that involves extortive payment plans and anti-competitive business deals... exactly what people were worried about.

> Those of us old enough to remember the telephone service looked like in the 1970s, before the FCC unwound a little

WTF? It's not that the FCC "unwound" from some kind of pro-consumer zeal, it's that the breakup of the "Ma Bell" mega-conglomerate began.
With negative pressure the force is distributed over the entire body, with positive pressure it's forced right into ones lungs. Imagine lying on a bed of nails versus lying on a single nail.
One very interesting experience for me was recently relearning set theory from a textbook. It talked a bit about the history of the Schröder–Bernstein theorem, a fundamental (and relatively "simple" sounding) result in Set theory.

What I found interesting was that this originally stated, but not proved, by Cantor. Then a few semi-flawed attempts at proofs were made (flawed in the sense that they relied on other axioms like choice, or that they had errors).

These are leading mathematicians, including Cantor, who basically invented Set Theory from scratch. And they went through many years of struggle to arrive at a proof of a result. Which you now learn in an introductory class.

It really put into perspective for me just how hard some of these things are, and made me feel less bad when I struggle with some mathematics.
Something like Sonoff-Tasmota (and many other similar projects) provides MQTT support, which works nicely with pretty much any IoT setup.

https://github.com/arendst/Sonoff-Tasmota
I /really/ wish HN understood markdown blockquote format syntax.
It's a rule-of-thumb. The fission of Uranium and Plutonium results in an incredible diversity of both isotopes and nuclear isomers.

Most of these isotopes exist on distinct decay chains. An unstable nuclear state may decay in more than one mode, each with a distinct time constant. Many of these decays occur as groups of decay chains that occur on extremely short time-scales, and may temporarily remain in metastable states (isomers).

So this general rule results from the superposition of many thousands of reactions, that proceed stochastically with distinct time constants and energy released.

There is a mathematical rule relating the time constants and energies of these reactions, but it is not simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%27s_golden_rule
Quite. I have stopped recommending 1Password to non technical family and friends. Not one of them ever managed to figure it out for themselves, so I had to run through it with them on their PCs, Macs, iPads and phones. Then they forgot how to use it, and none of them continued with it. Then I had to remind them to cancel their subscriptions —- most would have continued for life paying but not using.

Many ordinary people have no idea whatsoever of the relationships between clients and servers, and less still of that between different clients (what is a web app? Is gmail my search engine?). Throw in an interposing piece of software that not only manages but duplicates login credentials for these various mysterious entities, and they are completely and utterly despondent, hopeless and lost.