skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The reason you know that a function won't modify locals is not because of limitations on what a function can do, but because of what has not been done locally: your lexical scope has not been captured in a lexical closure; or else, that closure has not escaped; or else, if it has escaped, its body doesn't contain any code which mutates variables.

The space of things that a function won't do is tiny compared to the space of what it may. You've taken a vast universe of possible behavior and eliminated from it a few possibilities like mutation of a local variable in the caller; that still leaves a vast space. Generally, to maintain code, at some point you have to grapple with understanding what it does more than with what it doesn't do.
> how is it possible that they are not able to find / detect it ?

The ocean is a very large thing, especially when it needs to be searched in three dimensions.
> The reason why I bought a Pixel from Google directly is because I do not like the adware and bloatware that comes pre-installed on phones from other carriers.

Bloatware mandated by google on all android phones:

1. Google+

2. Google Duo

3. Google hangout

4. Gmail

5. Google play music

6. Google play games

7. Google play movies

8. Google play newsstand

9. Google drive

10. Google sheets

11. Google chrome

12. Google maps

13. Google assistant

14. Google app

15. Google photos

16. Youtube

Seems like the author made a decision diametrically opposite to his desire. I literally use 4 of these 16 pre-installed apps. Keep in mind that these are non-removable too. You can disable them, but they will forever sit in the flash storage you paid for.
Spotlight indexes continually, it doesn't run at intervals. (it uses fsevents to subscribe to changes to the disk and processes those as they come in)
But the beneficiaries of your "net freedom" are a handful of regional monopoly ISPs who are protected by regulations that realistically won't ever be rolled back.
During college I wrote many essays and half a novella in Scrivener. It fit my style of writing, which is horribly non-linear. My novella required a lot of world-building and I appreciated Scrivener's dedicated section for notes and images relating to each story.

I think my best use of Scrivener was to take notes on taxonomy in biology class, making good use of nested documents. By the end of that class I had a huge chunk of the tree of life filled out. I think something like workflowy would be more apt at this task right now, but it was fantastic at the time. That said, workflowy has terrible support for images.
Right, that's the key. Even in some larger cities there are usually 2 or 3 providers to choose from. In some rural areas there is only 1. If it decides to throttle Youtube and charge extra to access Facebook, there is no competition to go to and bargain for a lower price.

So in an abstract world where there is ample choice of providers, Comcast would be dead if it continues with the practices it is engaged in now. In the real world that's not happening until someone comes in and slaps it on the head and tells it to behave.
This is the exact problem I have with bureaucratic regulatory frameworks. The ones making the regulations have essentially zero accountability to the people.
Not just Ruby, Python too.

Was doing some work of converting [0,1] signals to 16-bit PCM data with 550Hz tone in numpy.

Python version took ~15 minutes to generate 5,000 4 second files. Broke out the inner loop into Rust with FFI via ctypes and cut that time to ~10 seconds with nearly identical code.
OP: Is that your actual tracking number? If so, I'd blur it - it may leak your info
A lot of proponents of what you call "net freedom" lie about fast lanes or wave their hands and pretend that won't happen, though, because they are deeply unpopular with a huge majority of internet users.
Anecdotal evidence - I have seen kids grow up nicely on daily bowl of milk and cereal. I suspect it's because cereal also contains minerals and vitamins, which, in time, help.
Nationalize the internet.

I'm not kidding. We paid for it in the first place, and if it's such a critical piece of economic infrastructure that market intervention needs to be mitigated, the solution is to nationalize it.

How? Take the municipal broadband idea, and scale it up. It's not really hard. Net neutrality only privileges one set of multi-billion-dollar corporations over another set of multi-billion-dollar corporations. Nationalize the lot of it.
the way i tell great developers from good developers is from how willing they are to dive into someone else's turd and make changes to it.
Ajit Pai's home address is:
4868 Old Dominion Dr
Arlington, VA 22207

That is public information.
Even more so when the thing you're searching for is intended to be hard to find.
>if Comcast decides your videos are hurting their cable TV business and start dropping packets

That's already illegal under existing anti trust law.

Zero rating is a different issue but doesn't count as paid prioritization which is what they're asking about.
Not for me. See this screenshot.

https://imgur.com/a/yBqfm

It’s start playing recently played. Errgh... what are you seeing?
Those companies contribute a significant part of their margins to deliver content to you, including paying for servers, programmers, sysadmins, and so on to actually make the product. And then by colocating, peering, or other arrangements that pay for their own connection to the internet. I pay for my connection, they pay for theirs, that seems entirely fair. It's not my fault I have to pay more than they do because of no competition in last mile service -- that's the FCC's fault.
That's not actually true. NN is something we've had since the foundation of the internet. The FCC has only been enforcing it the current legal framework for the last two years.

Prior to 2 years ago, the FCC enforced NN without stipulating that ISPs were classified as "Title 2" communications services. Because ISPs really, really didn't want to be classified as Title 2s, whenever the FCC asked them to change their practices and thereby enforce net neutrality, the ISPs nearly always conceeded.

Two years ago, Verizon refused to do so, and the matter went to court. Verizon argued that unless the FCC explicitly classified ISPs as Title 2 communications services, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to enforce NN the way they had been for the previous 20 years.

The court agreed. Verizon was banking on the fact that, quite simply, they had made enough donations to Washington that the FCC wouldn't be willing to reclassify, and NN would die a quiet death.

But then a giant public backlash happened, and Thomas Wheeler and the two Democrats realized they DID have political support for Title 2 reclassification, and they did exactly that. So for the last two years the FCC has been enforcing NN the way it always has been before.

So in short, no, NN is what we've always had. Removing NN would be a MAJOR change to how the internet is regulated.

And while I am all for free market solutions, we can't have free market solutions for last mile ISPs, when last mile ISPs have local monopolies on (I've read as high as) 90% of the US. If you both remove NN, and allow ISPs to continue being regional monopolies, you haven't created a free market, you've just hurt the people and the economy.
Could see the argument that Windows is as user-friendly (I would disagree, but I could see it), and as consistent (all OSes have their weird UI hangups) but not "far more".

Last time I used Windows it was more inconsistent than ever, with two completely separate environments (metro and whatever they call the classic one), and three control panels (to which their answer is to shrug and say "just use the search box")

Microsoft does have good UX though - in the Office team. Just not in Windows.
both parties don't make decisions i consider sane or particularly clever yet those are the only two parties i may vote for with any chance of success. the voting system is broken by outmoded/gamed structures (gerrymandering, an electoral college), and all-or-nothing outcomes (if i vote for one candidate and they don't win, i may make no second or third choice with which then to put my voting power behind).

i simply feel an unrelenting despair when engaging in the realm of politics. it's two devils on a stage lording over minions who condemn and pollute the miracle of human life daily with short-sighted greed and a stunning lack of ethics.

a revolution is out of the question because the very tool that was meant to fight back against such sloven corruption no longer disbands after war but simply persists against an invisible Enemy none of us can touch, see or feel. what is this insane existence we find ourselves in where the only choice i have is to acquiesce or ineffectually protest?
>ISPs do not operate in a market, consumers have little to no choice amongst providers

The market being discussed is between companies and ISPs, where companies can pay more for priority.
That's a meaningless statistic on its own. Does it shorten 5.4% of people's lives by 5 minutes each? or does it kill 5.4% of people while they're children? The reality will be somewhere between those extremes but the number alone tells us nothing interesting.

You can use something like years of life lost instead:
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006YearsOfLifeLost.pdf
Ah yes, the Arab Spring, that beacon of hope and light for the world.
Ask HN:Why isn't nobody talking about the thread that EME poses?
The same companies that support EME are supporting net neutrality! Hypocrites much?
>> comments by Agree and Strongly Agree respondents indicate they don't understand the subject fully
> So according to this reasoning no matter what answer you give, you don't understand the issue.

I'm not referring to their responses, I'm referring to the comments quoted in the table below the charts. Some indicate clear ignorance of the subject. Others acknowledge pitfalls while handwaving them away.

This comment is ignorant and hand-wavy:"Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable." The question posed is whether content providers should pay ISPs, but this first sentence talks about those who cause congestion, it's the ISP's customer causing the congestion! Then he acknowledges ISPs playing favorites but assumes it's preventable. It is preventable, by having regulations that require net neutrality, what else is there?

Some economists are experts in the domain of regulation. These economists were not picked for that specific domain knowledge and clearly not more specifically the sub-domain of regulation of this kind of service (utility or at least utility-like).
"a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling"

That arguably describes Freenet, which I think actually predates both Tor and BitTorrent. It's languished in semi-obscurity for a variety of reasons: performance issues, a dearth of popular content, the possibility that your node caches illegal/unsavory data (this is implied by its approach to resisting censorship, which has been harshly criticized but which has no established alternative besides abandoning censorship-resistance as a goal)...
Pre-2015 - keep the govt out of our internet!
2017 - save us government we need your kind regulations!

No thanks. It’s amazing what a little bit of polishing a turd and renaming it will do.
FCC FACT SHEET: Restoring Internet Freedom [pdf]
Your solution needs to be refreshed with each election, we need a permanent solution that won't be reversed 2 years later.
This just makes me hate the god people involved in his demise.
EME is supported by the same companies that support net neutrality. Is there something amiss?
Hypocrites much?
It almost feels like satire; he trusts one of the world's largest advertisers to not advertise to him?
Tl;dr we didn’t have NN but we didn’t need it and now we do because.

The FTC and FCC can still enforce anticompetitive regulations. This is so much FUD.
> China has net neutrality.

China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now.

> I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.

The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission.

> You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues.

I don't think the above commenter was claiming NN is a solution to censorship, rather that without it, content is more silo-ed and access becomes more difficult, adding to the censorship problem. Censorship is a human problem that tech can help with.
Sideshow by Sheri Stewart Tepper.

This book changed the way I think about what is right and what is wrong.
EME supported by the same racket that wants neutrality. What is going on?
I am a Chinese and I am curious starting when we had net neutrality? Every major sites has to pay all major ISPs to connect into their network so that all ISPs' customers can access the site. When you rent a server, you need to make sure that the server is connected to at least two of the major networks otherwise ISPs will throttle traffic from other competitors. It is also true that connecting servers outside the country is terribly slow if it even accessible
It has many peers. Even if it's throttled on each one, they could distribute the load.
Singapore to use driverless buses 'from 2022
Wasn't sure what being a "member of the FCC" meant:

https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/jessica-rosenworcel
> That's already illegal under existing anti trust law.

Comcast and others have already done exactly that and it was the FCC that went after them, not the FTC. And how does anti-trust apply when it's the actions of a single company? There's no collusion between businesses to drop packets, one business just does it and other businesses may decide to do it also, they don't have to all agree to do it for it to be effective (from their perspective).

It's true that the question posed in the survey was specifically about content providers paying ISPs for access (or better access) to us, the people ISPs think belong to them. But the article and the overall debate is about far more.
I knew Bill. He was such a sweet guy. I was so heartbroken to hear what he had been dealing with, posthumously. It sounds like he carried a crushing weight around, but he did it in a way that was effortless from the perspective of people like me. And yet, it eventually became too much to bear.

I can't help but think that professional help might have made some difference. Who knows. But if you're in a similar boat, I hope you try to find a way not to bear the weight alone.
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me. Can you attempt an argument for why the two are comparable?
Considering donating to fairvote.org, I do. I should confess I don't know much about how they actually use my money but I support their stated goal of improving our voting systems.
Yeah, but this works only as long as only few people want those :)
Not all Dems support Net Neutrality, not all Republicans oppose it, which contradicts your point.
Mining coins (and hype).
Would you rather color it underground? Do you expect that piano piece to be obscure and stylistically uncommon?
Wow so a nicely named govt policy has the opposite effects it’s intended to have? I’m shocked!
Ah, ok.

Hm, in that case...

It is true that those holding bitcoin are incentivized to cause the price to increase (though this is also true of other currencies.)

But I'm still not sure how it behaves "acts" particularly intelligently towards that end.

Do you mean maximizing the total value of bitcoin, or the price of 1 bitcoin?

I don't think bitcoin is able to incentivize people to increase the price of one bitcoin if it comes at the cost of them having less value overall (e.g. if there is an action that would lead to everyone having 1/3 as much bitcoin (with the rest becoming unrecoverable) and it also resulted in the price of bitcoin doubling, the people holding bitcoin wouldn't be incentivized to collectively take that action.), so its ability to maximize the price of 1 bitcoin doesn't seem like a goal it could achieve maximally ruthlessly.

Maximizing the total value of bitcoin held...

hm, I'm still not seeing how modeling it as extremely intelligent helps.
If a company uses a monopoly in one industry to benefit them in another industry that can be an anti trust violation. No collusion is required.

The famous Microsoft anti trust case wasn't about collusion, but about using OS dominance to create browser dominance.
There are lots of advantages in general, especially around multithreaded code, and doubly so for anything with relatively simple data parallelism, where you can just use the rayon library.

Another advantage is that there are Rust packages for Ruby interop -- the article ended up using ruru. There are similar libraries for Python interop -- I believe the most actively developed right now is PyO3.

I'm sure people are sick of Rust evangelists on HN but it really is a wonderful language, and in certain cases it really does seem to empower people to do things they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise.
I tried it back in the day while talking about the results on reddit with jayfoxrox.

HL2 ran much faster, (the GUI "widgets" and loading bars were nearly as fast as an XBOX) but the graphics were scrambled.
From any given viewpoint, both parties may not be ideal. But within both of those parties are numerous different ideological groups. On the right, the major wings range from evangelicals, libertarians, neoconservatives, "traditional", and so on. On the left, the parties tend to fall into a mix of "Blue Dog" democrats, Clintonians, progressive caucus, black caucus, and a whole bunch of single issue and identity issue groups.

No matter what your particular viewpoint is, one of those groups likely aligns with most of it. During primaries, those different groups hash out against each other, and then redirect the party as a whole.

So the key, then, is to find the smaller groups and politicans that more closely reflect your beliefs, and lend your support to them.

Yes, our two party system doesn't allow for second and third choices on a single ballot. But what it does allow for is for you to vote for your preferred candidates (the above caucuses) in primaries as your first choice, and then vote for your second choice in the general if your favorite candidate didn't win or run in a specific primary.
> But even with murder, the law doesn't stop murders before they happen

At least in Germany planning a murder is illegal. Just like preparing a terrorist attack is - otherwise the police wouldn't be allowed to stop it.

Also Wiki: "In some jurisdictions, the very act of preparing for a crime is a criminal offense in itself" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_preparation)

For the US, interesting read: https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-bas...
Sorry for my ignorance, but since you already doing Rust, why not just use Rust?

I mean, what's the benefit you could get from FFI Rust code into Ruby that you cannot get by directly writing Rust?
HLE sucks for the XBOX, there is many low level stuff which can be replicated well without hacks.

You can't compare Xenia to the 1st XBOX, at all.
battleforthenet.com and democracy.io are two much more direct alternatives.

Battleforthenet will be over the phone (and therefore be a bit more influenential), so I recommend it. But democracy.io (from the EFF) will have you contact all of your representatives directly, via email, within a minute or two.

I highly recommend them.
I don't think that's clear from how the comment is written.

I just realized the presumption embedded in the original question, "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service."

It assumes companies paying ISPs to reach consumers is normal. It's not. So even the people asking the question don't understand the subject.
“I thought I could ship at least 700 units to stay in business”
Network providers can effectively filter and manipulate traffic regardless of TLS. Look at China.
5-HT1A stimulation results in decreased aggression, increased sociability, and decreased impulsivity. Sounds like a lack of 5-ht1a activity might make you a jerk, and it's stimulation might cure it.
Can you give examples of economic studies that support banning paid prioritization?

There's some links in http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutrality-economics-says..., but I had trouble finding studies saying the opposite - it's surprisingly difficult to find anyone going into technical detail at all
That would be nice, but a lot of cities have contracts with companies, which I'm pretty sure have a clause saying the city will not create their own network.
To be fair to the author, the only other option (iPhone) doesn't even let you disable the bloatware or replace it with better alternatives. Recent Android phones (including the author's) install most of the bloatware from the Play Store on first use instead of storing them in the system partition with the OS, so you actually can remove them.
I don’t quite follow. Peanuts and macadamia nuts have the same amount of sugar per one cup serving, so on what basis are you avoiding peanuts?
it is. I can't recall seeing a well reasoned argument against it, but one can presume there is one.

but this process seem pretty perfunctory. in this corner the open exchange of ideas and the free market, and in the other...the idea that if we allow service providers the ability to package and toll all the content in the world, somehow that will be better for all of us.

maybe this decision is too important to delegate to appointed commissioners.
It is asking whether paid prioritization should be allowed.

Companies usually pay some ISP to send them traffic, maybe not the same ISP as the last mile but "paying more" does seem appropriate wording.
Those are a lot of ifs. Keep in mind China is still by far a net emigrant country, they still have brain drain problems that work in the USA’s favor.
Post append: According to [1], a simple activated charcoal cabin air filter is better than the stock one in removing diesel exhaust particles.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24621126
Write 20 different variants of mapping elements in a slice from one type to another. This will give you a fairly reasonable approximation of golang development.
What sort of idiotic nonsense is this? The law absolutely provides for law enforcement intervention to stop a murder from happening, and to charge the perpetrator(s) with attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder.

And I'm sure some people think murder is not a problem, but most of the rest of us think they're also crazy.

You know, if the ISPs were better at selling this particular turd sandwich, or turd polishing it at least, what they'd do is say they intend to charge astrometric tons more per unit of spam, email and crappy ads, that slow down people's machines and disproportionately suck up internet resources. But they aren't. So why do they want this? To do exactly the same f'd up shit they've been doing with cable TV.
Nice website for coding
> I think the FCC needs to work for the public

Unfortunately Pai and Co, think that FCC needs to work for ISP monopolists and not for the public...
The comments on this article are clearly a "safe space" for anti-NN people. Others are engaging with them and they're not all being downvoted to hell.