skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The FTC has signaled pretty clearly that they will not enforce net neutrality; their statement on the FCC proposal[1] focuses almost exclusively on data privacy and security. Their mention of antitrust authority is maybe the one glimmer of hope:

> The staff comment noted that the FCC’s proceeding also would restore the FTC’s antitrust enforcement authority related to broadband providers. The FTC has worked to prevent unfair methods of competition since its inception more than a century ago, and the agency’s activities in Internet-related markets demonstrate its ability to preserve competition and promote innovation for the benefit of consumers.[2]

FTC Commissioner McSweeny, in a comment opposing that endorsed by the chairman, points out that the FTC may lack the authority to enforce net neutrality at all:

>...ISPs are free to change their terms of service regarding nondiscrimination on their networks without violating the FTC Act’s ban on deception so long as they provide clear notice of changes. If these disclosures are truthful, there is no deception for the FTC to police. [3]

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_document...
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/07/ftc-s...
[3] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
I live in a fairly tech heavy area in the PNW and still only have the choice between fiber or super slow dsl. Not really much of a choice if you ask me.
This would seem to be a fairly monumental breach of the duty Google owes consumers.
I think it makes plenty of sense to criticize the consistency of the DOJ.

What I'm saying is that "Trump doesn't like CNN" is a silly explanation for DOJ wanting either AT&T to spin off DTV or for Time Warner to spin off Turner Broadcasting.

Maybe the latter scenario somehow influences CNN's coverage, but it's an extremely tenuous link.
What's the endgame to this? If we assume that corporate lobbyists eventually manage to buy enough entertainment industry democrats and cult of free market republicans to end net neutrality, then we'll switch from public internet highways to toll roads.

Except we’re already using toll roads. Instead of having free-ish municipal wifi, we’re already paying upwards of $100 per month to one of the cable/DSL duopolies in each city.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, does it have to be this way? What are the alternatives? I see two possible futures:

1) Work towards keeping the internet free and open through civil discourse, working at city, state and national levels to keep our elected officials honest in how they represent our interests.

2) Roll out the darknet - use onion routing, mesh nets, blockchains and other p2p technologies to effectively circumvent the internet, under the assumption that it’s been compromised.

There is a third option, which I think is the least likely but is all anyone seems to talk about. That’s the status quo option - the loss of net neutrality leading to a doubling or tripling of prices every decade or so, poorer a la carte service like with cable TV, maintaining the illusion of second class netizens as only consumers, and so on. But I think it’s not going to happen because technology doesn’t stand still. Look at what smartphones do today compared to even a decade ago. Technology will always.. find a way as they say.

So I don’t know about you, but I am deeply concerned that the loss of net neutrality will lead to option 2. I don’t think that corporations have the foresight to know the lengths that technology will go to to give people what they want. And I think we in the tech community only barely graze the surface of how far the intelligence community will go to track everyone as more and more people go dark. So what we are really talking about here is dystopia.

Maybe we need a new phrase for net neutrality. Net freedom? Net survival? I don’t know.
What Erlang 101 questions do you want to be answered?
We're working on an Erlang 101 series with some of Erlang's MVPs and want to ensure that we're covering all of your burning questions. Please share what you want to see and we'll try and make sure it's included!
Net Neutrality being repealed is a symptom of the telecoms owning all the infrastructure.

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but if you guys have publicly-owned/municipal internet infrastructure, then I wouldn't worry about Net Neutrality.

If your infrastructure is owned by a few big companies like in the US, then my recommendation would be to start fighting for public control.

As far as helping people in the US...Net Neutrality is a loaded term now. We need to stop convincing people why Net Neutrality is a good idea and start convincing them why municipal broadband is a good idea. Maybe approach it from that angle.
They will all go up in price until your cable companies monopoly price strategy is maximized.
It might be lots of overdraw in the general web case, but for a text editor almost everything the app renders is going to be shown on the screen. The exception is a bit of stuff just outside the scroll viewport, so it can respond instantly to scroll requests. This feels like a good tradeoff to me.
> ISPs will start charging content providers to be on the fast lane. Now if you are a big co this both good and bad. Bad because you have an additional fee to reach your users. Good because it is a small fee to block out the small guys still in garages who could completely take you out.

But also bad because the ISPs are also your competitors, and not only will you need to pass the additional costs on to your customers (making your service less competitive), but they'll also.b able to use the money to subsidize their competing service.

It does Google no good if startups that might compete against YouTube have a harder time, but Google is forced to subsidize competing ISP-operated streaming video services that already exist.
1) Do you think it would be okay for a hardware store to price a shovel differently depending on what the customer wanted to dig?

2) The telcos never seem to reflect on the fact that the only reason people want broadband at all is because there are services that they want to access. So just by existing they're already getting their cut. It would be just as reasonable for Amazon and Netflix to ask Comcast for a cut of their revenue, since they're providing these attractive services that Comcast isn't paying a dime to provide.
How would that work? The "location" was the cell tower ID without which you can't be connected to the cell network.
For the top 10 million sites examined by w3techs (which looks at sites to see if they use technologies like PNG, WebM, embedded fonts, whatever) HTTPS went from under 15% to almost 50% since they started measuring. Less than half that growth is Let's Encrypt, their growth is still spectacular, but to put things into perspective, if they had the _same_ growth and the whole HTTPS market didn't grow they would now control 110% of the market, yet in fact every other major CA grew at the same time.
A "lot" of resources would be 1% IMHO.

If society is burning up not just a lot, but a majority of its effort in servicing its model (resource tracking), it seems to me something has gone very very wrong.

You need to keep track of who owns what. You don't need to make that such a complicated thing that it takes vast portions of available human effort to track, and sucks in vast portions of the fruits of said effort.

You don't have to be an anarchist to think that that's ridiculous.

We can do that with trust and the vast majority of people don't care.
These ISP companies use legal shenanigans, coupled with the unavoidably large startup costs of creating a new/competing ISP, to effectively run regional monopolies. Google kind of gave up their master plan for Fiber after they were litigated in multiple jurisdictions essentially over bullshit that they were legally within their right to do, such as use shared lines - and that was Google, which had a ton of cash to throw at the problem.

These monopolies aren't so bad by themselves; we have similar monopolies with power and water. But those are regulated so that their monopolies can't be blatantly abused. ISPs are trying to roll back regulations that, in the minds of pro-NN people, will allow them to abuse consumers using their monopolies.

The problem with what these network providers are doing is that they own both the lines and the content. For example, if your ISP is a shareholder in Hulu, they're going to charge way more for Netflix to stream than Hulu, so they can essentially use this new ruling in an anti-competitive manner.

I'm not sure what most of the anti-net neutrality side's supporting arguments are aside from the fact that the regulations are unfairly limiting ISP's abilities to make money. They will mention that these regulations are affecting the free market, but in my opinion other existing regulations are much worse about limiting the effects of the free market, except those would make it easier for ISPs to be competed against, not harder.
And new competition will become less possible as ISPs barrier to entry becomes enournous.
Or charging extra, per-page-view if the ISP felt like it, to visit FoxNews.com or NPR.org since they're not the ISP's preferred news networks.

THAT is the reality we're about to enter with this FCC change. Who gives a shit about Netflix being slower? Using that example to fight for Net Neutrality is a guaranteed way to lose.
Don't kid yourself the cable companies will act like a cartel.
They are not forbidden. They are just not done yet. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447

Edit: better link https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/TabHiding
And then Gnome goes and builds on that by hooking the mouse pointer up to the redraw...
Years ago, I remember CyanogenMod advertising that their "Privacy Guard" feature had something like a data spoof feature, where if an app surreptitiously requested your location or info, the guard would feed it a dummy number, garbage location, etc.

I've dug around and it seems like this no longer exists, if it ever did. Privacy Guard now seems to just allow granular controls on what the apps are allowed to request.

If it doesn't exist already, someone should definitely work towards implementing something like it.

EDIT: I see that the related XPrivacy app has a menu option for "Fake Data", so maybe this is what I'm thinking of.

https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy#features
In theory that makes sense but if you build a network and actively fight to prevent any one else from also running lines, thats where we have a problem.
0.63 approximately equals 2/pi

Not too surprising considering what we know about Buffon's needle.
That sounds like a much better idea; any reason this hasn't caught on as a replacement for drug testing? It opens up for a lot of good workers who'd otherwise be rejected, and it is more robust against the thing you actually care about preventing.
> There's no evidence for any of that.

Have you heard about PRISM? Have you heard about Lavabit? Have you heard about the FISA court and its practice?

> But that's rather better explained by incompetance instead of evil.

Have the ME in all products, not deactivatable, and not replaceable is not a trivial thing to do, so it surely isn't incompetence. What is it then?
Check out bitUSD (a stable asset on the bitshares platform).

bitUSD is backed by a liquid-market peg and has generally held up fairly well since 2014.
I think that would be too slow for it to be doable.

Caching would only work for a subset of content, and anything large that is not cached would take exponentially longer to retrieve.
The Orwellian standards of not censoring? I am not a fan of hate speech - but I'm also not a fan of corporate oligarchs deciding how it is defined.
this. 100% this.
When I'm at work, I use my work computer, which has a long lived static IP, to log into my personal Google account. I have configured all of my browsers to clear cookies and storage upon closing. I never use signed-in Google Maps, but I sometimes use it from that computer, from fresh browser while logged out.

A week ago, I moved from my previous home that was close to my work, to a different city about 20 miles away. Since I wasn't sure where all the points of interest are, I've been turning on location on my Android phone and using signed-out Google Maps on my phone.

Yesterday, my work computer's signed-out Google Maps has centered its default view on my new city, on the exact highway interchange next to which I now live.
BeyondCorp Outside of Google
I have a friend who is a general manager that deals in part-time, odd hour unskilled labor who spoke of a similar story.

What do you think, time to build and monetize a solution to solve this problem?

I think I have some ideas to help with this type of worker onboarding and retention, personally.
The internet got on fine because there was a somewhat unspoken (but generally followed) rule that ISPs are neutral carriers. In the last 5 years or so, ISPs have started overstepping these bounds to attempt to squeeze profit out of their customers.

Net Neutrality is a response to that overstepping. If the ISPs had just continued making ridiculous amounts of profit without upsetting the balance this never would have happened.
If evaluating stderr, the first step should be determining if a line is of a known format before treating it as an input.

I'm not sure how well that'd work due to the lack of buffering. But I wouldn't want to go anywhere near stderr in production code.
The usecase mentioned in Jesse's talk (linked in my root comment) is displaying a notification from some other app while playing a game. They added the "flip_discard" swapchain effect so that the OS can paint the notification on top of the game content before flipping it in hardware. This is something of a hack; I think you're right that the endgame for this is that the hardware can indeed implement the full compositing stack. I'm not sure how far away we are from this.
>How? What actual change are you proposing here that utilizes short term profits to produce more scientists than criminals?

I'd make it much easier to expel students. Some bad kid brings a gun to school in elementary school? They're out for the rest of their life - freeing up resources to spend on better kids. Some bad kid molests another? Gone for life. Some bad kid punches a teacher? Gone for life.

I'd bust the teacher's unions just so I could align pay with performance. They complain about being underpaid, but they have Cadillac health insurance and defined benefit pensions - both of those have astronomical costs and make their compensation much higher than their salary.

I'd also give teachers top cover to conduct the classroom how they like. Teachers shouldn't have to waste time talking to idiot parents about dumb topics. Ideally, teaching would be a six-figure position (albeit with an HSA and a 401k) so we would want to respect teachers' time.

I'd fund it by cutting the administration and special education departments to the bone.
Blink isn't very embeddable. In fact, removing the "ports" system that facilitated embeddability was one of the main goals of the Blink fork.

The alternative "Blink" UIs, and Electron, are really just forks of the entire Chromium browser, soup to nuts.
> This is specifically about calling a non-member that is already in scope, as if it were a member.

I understand what you wrote. `with` is reserved, but disused, however. And it wouldn't be the first reserved word that has different behavior based on the actual construct it appears in. Loops and switch statements both use `break`, for example. The language does this because the semantics are similar enough, and there's no point in polluting the list of reserved words when pulling double-duty with the one would do.
Let's Encrypt isn't interested in S/MIME. You are, of course, welcome to try to repurpose their software and/or the ACME protocol to provision S/MIME certificates.

Although S/MIME isn't a real Wild West like some types of X.509 certificates, it has seen much less oversight than SSL/TLS ("Web PKI") certificates. There's also not really a great appetite for cleaning it up. If you want to be the hero in this story there's definitely an opening for that.
I wouldn't say that there's no evidence of this behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
We also have a fair amount of evidence that there have been attempts in china to implement hardware back-doors
> There's no evidence for any of that.

Oh there is: Dual_EC_DRBG, and that took years to get proof. Also, NSA and AT&T room 641A, plus the packet interdiction programs of the NSA - and I mean physical packets containing DC hardware, that then was modified by NSA.

And we don't have any overview what the US government forces companies and people with NSLs to do... only the sliver of info we got with the Lavabit case.
i thought this was already known.
This may be an unpopular opinion around here, but...

When do we get to the point where we recognize that the internet is officially holding up massive portions of industry, commerce, education, and communication. And that it should maybe not be in the hands of a few conglomerates?
I'll never see 400K, not even if I do tons of overtime through my own S-Corp. If you can do that, I'd like to know how. 200K is hard enough and not easy to maintain.
Yes, but you lose access to any user interface components you don't paint yourself, and you can eat some lag/flickering when switching out of the app as control is returned to the compositor. If you end up needing to show the Open File picker from the OS or pop up the Print dialog you'll need to exit exclusive mode.
i thought this was common knowledge
I live in New York City on the island of Manhattan. I have 1 (one) ISP choice. Would you suggest I switch to cellular?
LISA17 – Managing SSH Access Without Managing SSH Keys
Because people would have to move to change ISPs, there isn't any incentive for them to compete with each other. Network infrastructure is a natural monopoly, afterall. The best you ever get is a duopoly between fiber and cable, if you're lucky.
> first 20 years of the internet without these regulations

Those regulations existed for most of that time because ISPs then were dial-up over phone-lines, and the phone-lines were under Title II, so de-facto all internet was.
100 GB/month doesn't tell us much if you don't include a date for context (the Ars article is from 2011).

I think that if you are in a market with caps, and you go offer a subscription without a cap, you end up with a bunch of subscribers who will saturate their line. So it makes more sense to slowly compete on increasing the caps, quite like we see in the mobile industry as well. Plus, network capacity goes up (hence I said date context matters).

Personally, I got nothing against caps, as long they're clear and the subscriber is informed about it beforehand. A FUP has a cap as well. If you download 24/7/365.25 on broadband then many ISPs will complain. Not all, but many will. Although nowadays less than say in the 90s or 00s.
Web Extensions have nothing to do with DRM.
Roomba will do this as well.

https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/roomba_cl...
That's weird, I don't have that problem. What build of Win10 are you running? I wonder if it depends on the kind of keyboard you're using.
Baloney. Pre-AppStore, you could only download a Windows binary version of Skype, and it was not the official Skype version. I didn't have Windows, but the download looked pretty sketchy. You can bet your last dollar that the Chinese government could listen in on your conversation. When Microsoft bought Skype, they de-P2P'ed it. You can bet all the dollars you wisely didn't bet earlier that a condition of Microsoft continuing to operate in China was that they enable the government to listen in. So now you just can't Skype at all. Doesn't have anything to do centralized app stores, and everything to do with a paranoid Chinese government.
The crux here is that consumers typically have choice between Comcast and Comcast or Spectrum and Spectrum.

That's why we need NN.

I actually think (and this should be done in addition to NN, not instead) is to encourage local city government to provide Internet access and even allowing smaller companies to lease the infrastructure to them. This would bring back competition again, and the money from leasing would cover cost of maintaining the network and maybe even bring income to the city.
Makes me think of the "smooth scrolling" option that you can find in most web browsers. Never liked that, and first thing i hunt down after a new install.

This because using it feels like scrolling through molasses for whatever reason.
To be more precise, they were not outright forbidden: a Nazi era law just gave Deutsche Bahn a veto on all bus routes. (If memory serves right.)

Berlin was a special case before that, because of cold war stuff.
People learn new words and then begin to use them any time they can in an attempt to appear "more smarter".
How new do you think the phenomenon is? And, which policies are you referring to?
From the ISP lobbyist she works for?
Except Citizens United wasn't about an individual human writing a book, and a ruling on corporate speech can easily be crafted that doesn't affect individual humans in any way.
The Problem with Representative Democracy
> I'm thinking of ditching my iPhone for a flip phone

If you are in any longstanding 100% iMessage group chats you will be silently excluded from them if you switch away from iPhone. Disabling iMessage will have no effect on those chats.
Wasn't this the reason we started the net neutrality bill in the first place, I thought this was pretty old news.
If you think taking away resources (which people are not entitled to) is tantamount to murder, then every regime that collects taxes is murderous.

Your definition of 'killing people off' is asinine and lacks nuance. I'm not strong enough take your points seriously, so allow me to take them to absurd conclusions:

Right now, you're taking oxygen out of the air and depositing CO2. Right now, people are dying from polluted air and lack of oxygen, are you responsible for their deaths?
It's because you're already charging the end-user the rights to access all of the Internet. It's paid for by the user, not the taxpayer.

Limiting websites they can access is a violation of that agreement with the end user.
> live in some mecca of ISP options like the Valley

Oh man, I wish. I live in the heart of SF and the only option I have is Comcast. I suppose I could try Monkeybrains, but I'd have to get landlord approval and that may be an issue.

The point is, in the US, even in the tech capital of the world, we are still encumbered by private ownership of internet infrastructure.

It's fucking pathetic.

To be clear, I'm a supporter of Net Neutrality, but more so a more built-out municipal fiber system across the US.
Is that an auto-correct typo or do you say "of"? It's "quarter to 2" in the UK. And "quarter past 2" means 02:15/14:15. It's also perfectly normal to just use "quarter to/past" without an hour, I might say "let's meet again at quarter past", referring to 12:15 if the time were 11:37.
25mbps is an arbitrary limit that leaves out ATT and Century links ADSL2+ service, which is fine for most uses.
It's 00:30 and not 00:01 for example because she says "Half past twelve" at the beginning of the song :) (Also, it sounds like Half-assed whale :D)
> And FFS, firmware should not persist once the operating system boots.

Generally I agree with you, however there is one thing that cannot be done without a RAM-persisted firmware: any kind of power management. It's highly dependant on the specific chips (sometimes, chip revisions) on the motherboard, and while integrating even ultra low level stuff into the Linux kernel might help there, we see the consequences of doing so in the Android world: manufacturers do not have the time/money to get their code in a shape that's going to be accepted by the kernel community, so they fork it and the users are screwed.