skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I understand libertarianism. But I can't see an argument for or against net neutrality from a libertarian point of view. You'd be talking about the political liberties of state created corporate persons. From the Libertarian Party platform:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Yeah, they do mention corporations:

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association.

But corporations are created and recognized by the state, particularly for reasons of non-liability of their owners. That is a decidedly non-libertarian bargain. It isn't a libertarian space to argue in.

Really, someone has to explain how to argue for+against net neutrality from a libertarian POV, from first principles.
Aksd
Mobile
All we need to do is just give everyone some bitcoins. Since they appreciate every day, all our needs will be solved within a few months.

jeez, make a joke and get downvoted right away?
they added an asset to the market that has no intrinsic value other than to help the company that created it and to fuel the market making bots that run rampant on exchanges. There is some social utility to this
That photo caption was a joke.
I am not a lawyer. I was not using a specific legal definition of "crime". I was using the word colloquially and my usage is perfectly fine according the generally accepted definition of the word. [1]

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime
I suppose one has to know calculus and topology to navigate Earth. Worth a smattering of quantum physics and wave physics.

Oh wait. Those do not fall under such narrow definition of intelligence.
I live 15 miles from Google HQ and those are the choices, DSL/cable/satellite and I don't want to support the cable company so it's DSL for me.
I choose my lab workstations. Institution discounts factor in to my decision, but I choose.
Did not happen to me, but it's really baffling! https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html
Good information. I'm pretty happy with the consistency of the calorie counts on Strava (Apple Watch has HRM built in) vs Peloton bike (with chest HRM strap), so I'm assuming you're referring to Strava's estimates without HRM (not sure if they even take into account gender/age/weight).
Ceausescu was killed on Dec 25 1989, after widespread protests.
Still Exchanges need to have two things:

1) enough coin to satisfy coin withdrawals, even in the middle of a panic run

2) enough fiat to satisfy fiat withdrawals, even in the middle of a panic run

I think maybe that's what the author meant, not sure. But if the exchanges fail to show their customers' assets, they will reinforce any panic feedback loop that might be happening sometime in the future.
The moderators deleted my comment about socialism killing 100M people in the 20th century. Reposting because I won't let what happened in China and Russia happen here in my country.
Ridiculous. Over the past 15 years, I have lived in Phoenix, Houston, Salt Lake City, New York City, Cincinnati and NOT ONCE did I have a choice.
We earn in Bitcoin and pay many suppliers in Bitcoin. The appreciation between earn and spend is quite nice.
Except government money has nuclear aircraft carriers ensuring it's value. But yeah same exact thing!
Are you suggesting that this new Time will be willing to run an investigative series on some other subsidiary of Koch brothers?

Or that in case some editor gets the bright idea to write something critical about cause near and dear Kochs that a call from that equity development arm will not change editor's mind?

People of all political stripes buy media to have influence first. Making money is a bonus.

PS It would be interesting to see how WaPo changed stance after Bezos bought it.
As I suggested, if you look at these incidents individually, there's very different perspectives you can glean:

Netflix gets free colocation from ISPs through Netflix Open Connect. (Hilariously, Netflix claims it "offers this for free to ISPs", whereas if you realize it is colocation, it is obviously Netflix should be paying for it.) Net neutrality cripples ISPs' negotiating position with Netflix (since it prevents ISPs from controlling their traffic in other ways), which protects their special treatment, ironically, since only Netflix has the market share to dictate terms to ISPs. If you made a startup video competitor, you'd have to pay for the service net neutrality guarantees Netflix gets for free. ISPs must host Netflix's boxes for free, or get hit by a deluge of upstream Netflix traffic.

FaceTime is an excellent example of a reasonable reason a provider may wish to get involved in content for performance reasons: Everyone switching to video chat would have a massive and immediate impact on that ISP's network traffic. With "unlimited data" models, ISPs don't necessarily get increased revenue to offset massively increased bandwidth use and network congestion. It's understandable why AT&T moved here. I actually prefer a pay-as-you-go data model, because it incentivizes carriers to provide neutral data as fast as possible: The more you use, the more money they make.

Verizon blocking Google Wallet stands in a long line of incidents where good PR has reversed the blame. ;) Google refused to allow competitors' payment systems from using the secure element in phones... a market Google has monopoly control of. Eventually, Verizon's hardline stance on being able to offer a competing service forced Google to rework Wallet to be more fair, and not get an exclusive security feature everyone else was prohibited from using. Of course, Google just moved to kill their competition another way: They bought out Softcard/ISIS and turned it into Android Pay. (And kicked Windows Mobile Softcard users to the curb too, hurting a second competitor in the process! Efficiency!) NFC payment competitors to Android Pay on Android phones like Samsung Pay only exist today thanks to Verizon's hardline stance.
Money and power (and the accompanying freedom they bestow upon the holder) have always been their own reward. Even in Communist systems, money was just replaced by "party capital" -- even if you were poor on paper, your power will lead to your children having more power.

Multiple incentives to be wealthy -- or worse, feedback loops to ensure the children of the wealthy maintain their advantage -- are just redundant.
New Zealand's latest police recruitment ad goes viral (and it's funny)
And in good part provoked by the regulations you are in principle protecting..the people that put money into the ICO's most likely cannot legally invest in any startup in the U.S.
> A static local variable in an extern inline function always refers to the same object.
> 7.1.2/4 - C++98/C++14 (n3797)

(functions are by default extern, so, unless you specifically mark your function as static, this applies to that function)

What the OP did should be fine and not cause an issues. The only way it could cause issues if they also made the function static.
> Any time you "manipulate a computation" you are doing "higher-order" computation.

Ah, this is something I specifically address in my TLA+ post series, probably because I heard it come up from you and others. Higher-order is strictly a formal property, i.e., it is a quality of a description of a system, not of a system itself. The best example is from continuous dynamical system. If the derivative of a system is a dynamical system itself, using one formalization you get a higher-order ODE. But people usually prefer describing all dynamical systems using first-order ODEs. The system of equations is first-order, but it still describes a "system that modifies a system". How? Because the "higher-order" function composition can be expressed as first-order composition of a different kind. Instead of writing:

x'' = 2

you can write:

x' = y ∧ y' = 2

So this first-order composition corresponds to a higher order system in a world with only one variable.

You don't even have to take my word about TLA. Robin Milner, who was one of the leading advocates and theoreticians of functional programming, moved in the eighties from the lambda calculus to process calculi. He still insisted on algebraic composition, but process calculi are "first-order" yet still equivalent to the lambda calculus. Instead of a function taking a function, you have two processes composed in parallel.

> Now it's possible that the models you are describing do not allow you to abstract over computation and thus are not "higher-order". If that's the case then either they are weaker than needed to talk about computation in general or they are very remarkable demonstrations that higher-order computation is generally not needed in practice!

Not only do they allow to abstract over computation, they organize all computations into a lattice. I.e. if computation b is an abstraction of a (or a is a refinement of b), then a ≤ b in the lattice. So instead of saying that b is a parameterized computation, and that there exists some x s.t. a = b(x), we have that nice order relation; order and nondeterminism are used instead of parameterization. In fact, in TLA this is even used for first-order computations. Instead of saying that F is a computation parameterized by some natural number parameter, we say that F has a "degree of nondeterminism freedom" of a dimension of natural numbers.

That's one of the greatest strengths of such formalisms, as this greatly simplifies formal verification (and one of the reasons why synchronous languages are the languages most amenable so far to formal verification).
All you need to do instead is regulate or even nationalize the last mile infrastructure and then allow anyone to start an ISP and use that infrastructure to provide service anywhere in the country. If you do that you don't need Net Neutrality. It's not clearly a good idea because it creates a disincentive for ISPs to lay down last mile infrastructure and there's no way you'd be able to do it in the US anyway.

All in all net neutrality is just good regulation. It's basically disallowing ISPs from abusing their natural monopoly to extract rents from other companies. If you're going to regulate anything in this market at all that seems like a bare minimum.
The different between an ICO and a regular old "creating a new alt coin" is that the Altcoin already exists, here and now.

And ICO does not exist yet. It is a promise that you will recieve something in the future, but that you can't get now.

Once file coin actually exists, in the here and now, and works, THEN it is totally OK for regular people to buy and sell it.
This is something I expected to come from a company like Medium. Basically a 'build your own content' portfolio using a block chain type currency to make the market.

User's pay $x per period (or merely periodically) in exchange for some amount of currency, which they 'spend' by consuming (viewing/reading/listening too) content offered by people creating things for them to view/read/listen to. Each month the artist can convert their accumulated currency in a $y payment. The platform lives off the difference between the $x -> C -> $y ratios.

If you can reach critical mass it makes for a very interesting twist on the existing model, sort of kickstarter meets bitcoin meets ebay. One way to finesse it would be for users to 'bid' on creative projects as well so a creator could say "I can do a video about kittens, free for anyone who contributes $.5C or more to the campaign, it will cost $C for non-backers to view it once it is complete."

You set up a virtuous loop where people willing to spend are advising the creators to the things they should work on, reducing risk on the creators part, increasing satisfaction on the users part, and overall creation/consumption overall.
PCI -> PCI-e?
Companies invested heavily in Avid/Protools hardware that is still perfectly fine, but doesn't work on newer systems.
Is there any place that has said how much Youtube lost due to operational costs?
Is it really cheaper or easier to buy BTC, transfer them, then sell them than to transfer money through a traditional service?
This is exactly why I think it's dangerous to have a company like Facebook censor people, even in the name of "fake news." It's within their right to do so on their platform, but I don't think they should. You'll never get it 100% right, and real/legitimate people will end up silenced because of it. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
> Using humanity as the basis of comparison is not sufficient, since human life expectancy and other requirements for survival are not a factor in artificial superintelligence.

Doesn't electrically-driven silicon hardware also have creation and operating costs? Any AI will theoretically need spend electricity convincing its human masters to give it even more electricity. Even if it can use its robot army to build wind farms or whatever, that's time its spending marshaling its robot army and futzing around with aerodynamics instead of contemplating the cosmos.

Its hard drives will expire and need to be replaced. Sure, it could solve that by always having backups of everything it knows, but who is to say that purely lossless backups are actually a more optimal solution to the hardware decay problem than our human lossy strategy?

> AGI can simply clone itself, and begin from exactly where it left off.

Cloning isn't free.
I was enthusiastic when I saw the title, I'd love to read an impassioned plea by someone against net neutrality.

I don't think this article is it.

Net Neutrality would guarantee ISPs that blocked access to union websites would be fined[1].

Yes Net Neutrality would stop cheap plans like those offered in Portugal. But it would mean that a new messaging app would have a chance of finding traction, since it wouldn't need to convince every prospective user to start paying more for their Internet first.

Net Neutrality would not solve the problem of consumers having 0-2 choices when it comes to ISPs. Solving that would require laying millions of miles of new copper/fiber or somehow relieving those ISPs of their buried assets and making them communal property. Most problems can't be easily solved, so we settle for managing the symptoms.

[1] - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-t...
Predatory investors love people like you. They get higher returns and much better negotiation power because some people advocate to take down their competition!
The net-neutrality rules are put in place in 2014 by Obama administration. I am pretty sure, without so called "net-neutrality" regulation this site existed and been read.
Sure, and you don't have the choice to get another ISP, because of, as the author notes in his article, the problem of regional monopoly created by local gov't regulation.
Bitsquatting NPM Packages
Woman offers WaPo false tale about Roy Moore in effort to discredit the paper
\> Automated TL;DR to save global hacking time

wew. yes our precious "hacking" time for making web apps
Then we have cheap bitcoin and people hop right back on.

It's not going to go to 0 ever, unless its replaced by another de facto crypto as the face of the entire industry.

It's a deflationary, uncontrolled currency in a world that prints wealth, its easy to see why people want to hold some money here.
I feel like this should be part of the stipulation. If we repeal net neutrality and you're caught degrading the internet further than it already is, you should be forced to pay all of that money back to the public. This seems to be the only incentive that may work from within the new framework.

The existing ISP infrastructure is not something I opted in, even though I fortunately get to enjoy gigabit speeds via AT&T. I already have "buyer's remorse" but can I be given a clause, a lot like our "lemon laws" that state that if they, free from the shackles of regulation, make things arguably worse for everyone involved, that we can get some of that money back? I feel like there needs to be some sort of "upper bounds" to deregulation that to use a metaphor says something like "We'll give you the Wild West but it's still illegal to murder people." in whatever highly damaging thing "murder people" turns out to actually be.
WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. are the popular networks now.

Tumblr naturally declined regardless of Yahoo (which definitely failed at integrating its adtech and never made any money). That's how it goes with social networks, it's a cycle of latest and greatest, and the whims of the public can change in a few short years.
Telerik gets Fiddler unlisted from Chocolatey
FWIW, basic habits like you're describing will get you pretty far. Then something changes. For me, it was kids. Because of kids I couldn't get outside for the 5-10 hours I used to, and I started putting on weight. That forced me to rework how I approach eating and nutrition from the ground up.
I agree with everything except the target date fund. They have shown to perform horribly.
Thanks for providing your thoughts on this, much appreciated!
Managing the multicloud is among the less-obvious practical uses for analytics
Ask HN: Is there a way we can prevent down-voting for disagreements?
My biggest gripe with HN is that it appears to me that comments are often down-voted over differing opinions rather than an issue with the comment as per the HN guidelines[0]. As someone who has unpopular opinions, this often leaves me fearful of participating in discussions. Maybe this fear effect is the very thing keeping our community more cordial though? :)

I like HN a lot and it really is the only site where I regularly read comments. Keeping that in mind, I wonder if anyone has any ideas as to how we might improve this aspect of the community without also ruining it in the process? It is quite possible that any solution will wind up with worse adverse affects than benefits.

One small idea I had was to add a section on "When Voting" to the HN guidelines[0]. I may have missed it but I do not believe there is anything pertaining to what one should be considering when voting.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
yes. from the article:

"The most obvious way, in my view, that Bitcoin mania will turn into Bitcoin panic is when a Bitcoin depositor goes to sell their BTC for dollars – and there are no dollars available to satisfy that sell request."

coinbase has to have the dollars to let me withdraw those dollars from coinbase to my bank account. They may not have enough on hand.
By having a nest egg that can keep you and your family going for a few years.
> regional monopoly created by local gov't regulation.

Lol.
I never get this argument. A trade always has 2 parties.

Maybe you want to get rid of your dollars first, but the guy selling you the pizza doesn't. He wants bitcoins.

As far as I see in practice, it's the seller that decides the means of payment, not the buyer. Can you pay with dollar bills, euro bills, visa, paypal, bitcoins,..? That's not up to the buyer, but the seller.

So the question (but maybe I'm missing something) is not "why would I buy something in Bitcoins?", but it seems to be "Why would I not sell my product or service for Bitoins?".
I got one half a year ago just for fun (and because I wanted integers to be represented in memory the proper way round for the first time in my life. ;-))

I set it up at my workplace because my wife would kill me if yet another desktop PC appears at home, although the design might have appeased here enough. My colleagues just called me crazy for getting this useless old heat producing rubbish. I managed to install debian on it, which was a bit of a hassle (protip: If you only install one HDD, put it in the primary drive bay, otherwise openfirmware and debian will disagree about the disk naming/path and you'll have a bad time) but worked reasonably well in the end.
Also, when upgrading RAM I must have mixed ECC and non-ECC (or buffered and unbuffered?) because I just grabbed the first DDR sticks I could find at work. The machine still worked, but memory bandwidth was cut at least in half or so, notably slower. After I made sure I had matching sticks, everything was fine and I could enjoy the incredible speeds of DOUBLE data rate memory.
When I read this and realize that I am not on Facebook. This IS really disturbing and should be a huge red flag for all users.
You can have many Bitcoin wallets. And yes, at least one online, to pay stuff from. But you don't keep substantial balances in them.
Not really, at least in all the places I've ever lived in, there's only a single ISP available, you have no choice.

The only way this will get any better is by WISPs to become more common, which will take a lot of time and money.
> The ability to stream the internet differentially is only now and in the future becoming more serious technically

What? Providers couldn't do traffic shaping before 2015? You can't be serious. And could you provide a source a bit more serious than junk clickbait site with article starting with "worst lies"? I mean, I am ready to consider serious arguments, but not somebody who deals with it in terms of "beltway bullshit". I know a lot of swear words too, I just also know they are not argument.

> The capability is only in the past decade

What changed in the past decade? I am not aware of any changes in internet protocols, hardware or software that made it impossible before and possible now. If anything it's not harder due to proliferation of SSL and VPN (10-15 years ago almost nobody cared about SSL and VPN wasn't exactly a household technology that anybody cared about).

> One of the most high-profile examples of abuse was Comcast throttling traffic to Netflix

Netflix is not exactly a small business, is it?
Back in college (1998-2002), I had an old, white-bearded CS professor who kept (and actually did work on) an old NeXT Station in his office. He was a little... off.
RIP, Time Inc., It Was Fun While It Lasted: Joe Nocera
At first I was wondering how I could turn your citation into a referral to an actual provider!

But thinking about the technicals, the unit of a census block is basically meaningless. DSL can easily achieve 10MBit+ when close to a central office. There will tend to be a CO close enough to somewhere in each census block, making that class of speed technically "available". But this is ultimately meaningless when it comes to the actual distances involved for most of the people within.
> I ran the trial version of Geekbench 2, an older benchmarking utility that runs on different platforms.

Hmm…doesn't the trial version run as 32-bit? I don't think this would be an accurate representation.
Samsung MU7000 40" is also excellent.
That's a completely uncalled-for comparison, and it has no place here.
Doubtful. Net Neutrality (at least in its topical compulsorily form) has only existed since 2015.
I think it is unclear. For example Apple has HealthKit which collects health related data.. That data is probably HIPAA protected. If it's not (and if Facebook is not) then I would imagine we will see legislation and/or lawsuits to clarify things.
Who's losing their life savings or ending up in financial ruin in this scenario? Also I've never even heard of a "predatory investor", I'm pretty sure you just made that up.
I'm not OP, but the same thing happens to me - UK, Virgin Media, even on their highest tier truly unlimited 200mbps bundle. Steam will start downloading at close to 20MB/s and then slow down after 10-15 minutes. When connected via VPN it runs at full speed all the time.