skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is not overblown. Many of us powerusers / influencers stood by Firefox because of privacy. Latest failures have damaged my trust considerably.

To add insult to injury I don't see an apology or anything similar from Mozilla (or callahad here on hn) that would show me they understand the extent of this issue - how badly they f* up on how many occasions.

It's ironic, right when browser can finally stand next to Chrome in terms of performance...
And yet no surveillance cameras captured it? No cameras at the gate? No cameras near or around? This was 2006, well after the days when the idea of 24/7 eyes everywhere was considered a conspiracy, it was the days of bush and the Patriot Act and consistent airport watch. And we get... no actual real evidence?
I am one of those misfits (not an evil or unempathetic one i think...), and people like you are just the shitty bullies all over again.

Tech has an abundance of non-nerdy types now, and arguably those are the people with enough business and social savvy to have made it into the force it is today. The VCs who choose what to fund, the advertisers that shape content platforms, the founders who care only about engagement..

These socially "well-adjusted" people are just as culpable (if not more) for the evil tech has done, but yet people like you point the finger at nerds and only nerds. There are many, many socially competent people who do evil things, but they have good social skills so you don't care. Its just a trash regurgitation of the hierarchies of high-school all over again.

Its oh-so-convenient to believe "evil" ties in perfectly with your intuitive sense of "well-adjusted", to divide the world so easily into "misfit = evil" and "friendly = good", but truly evil people have to blend in as "good" to get anything done. The sociopaths are running the show.
This is more like a money transmitter than a Costco. Paypal pull this shit all the time, if you want a non crypto example
I actually never felt unsafe...it was more just a feeling of pity. I was on the "edge" of the TL next to UC Hastings/City Hall and a block away from a Philz Coffee.

The TL has some good things going for it. Good Vietnamese/Thai food, some cool bars. But agreed, I lived there because it was central and relatively cheap, not because I enjoyed hanging out there. But a 5-10m Uber ride in any direction made it much more bearable than it would've been 10 years ago.
my point is a simple observation
macOS is Unix. That's the big difference for me.
Isn’t IM considered ephemeral anyways? Email is a different story...
Wind and solar are complementary -- so that's not a reason for solar to be less popular.
Actually, that's pretty much a perfect use case. "This environment is nothing like where I want it to run, and may even actively conflict with it". It's not really hard to take a chroot and make it an image, either.

For building, you can create an image that is ready to build your application, then run it as needed. After each run, unless you've set up some persistence, it goes back to the pristine state. If you create lots of almost-identical environments, you can use layering to save space (but space is cheap, so...)

If you want to ship an application that way, you just take that a step further. Create an image ready to run the application. Just remember that storage is, by default, ephemeral. It's a config option away, but annoying if you forget it.

I like that I can just ship an image to someone and it'll work on their machine. Great for our OSX developers.

The interesting functionality is the use of namespaces, which are ways to create isolation of {IPC,networking,users,filesystems,processes} between the containers. Docker didn't invent them, they've been in the Linux kernel since forever, but Docker has made great use of them.

Volume mapping is useful too. Most of what it does is achievable via bind mounts, though, volume mapping is just cleaner, IMO.

That said, I've found the most usage out of Docker from the networking side of things, as extraordinarily convoluted as it can be. I have a legacy application that cannot run on any port other than the one that's hardcoded in the application. It tries to connect to itself immediately on startup, too. Obviously it prevents itself from running another instance... by killing the old instance when the new one starts up. Putting it in a Docker container let me run 12 of them, side-by-side, with the ports mapped externally to different ports, invisible to the application.

Just an FYI, I'm not one of the converted. I think the current fad of "Dockerize all the things" is a bit silly, especially when I start seeing people doing things like putting ssh access for the host machine in a container. I have no interest in their tools other than Docker itself. I'm not a fan of their whole "one process per container" suggestion, and basically ignore it whenever I want (you should make sure you have something running as the init system in your container if you do this). But it has pretty much replaced chroots for me, no small task.

Finally, if you want some good examples of what it can do, look at the images from https://hub.docker.com/u/linuxserver/
Honest question -- how do you buy crypto with cash?

Wouldn't it be simpler to partner with various retail outlets to let cash based consumers load their amazon accounts with cash (via gift cards or other means), or even issue Amazon branded debit cards that these people can top up in store?

I mean cash on delivery and cash on delivery to a convenience store are both real and very popular options in Japan (the former with pretty rampant delivery fraud issues, but that's another can of worms), an affluent country where many consumer can get credit cards, but one where culturally people are skeptical of financial products and prefer to deal in cash.
There's no sending involved with this add-on.
Beijing is the opposite: red lights are merely advisory for drivers. Cars just cross the pedestrian crossings. That has trained pedestrians to be very attentive.
I had a Captain while doing my service in Finland he was convinced he had seen a UFO while aboard in Europe during the late 70s, he stood by it even when he was showed the spirit and claimed we must have copied it.
This is a mentality that humans have had since the dawn of history. Not necessarily towards rape specifically, but to things the broader popular society finds morally reprehensible.

Your line of reasoning is totally normal for the human condition and has been used for thousands of years now. Here we are today without any lack of morally reprehensible problems. Don't you think it's time we changed our strategy and rose above this animalistic, purely instinctual nature? It's time we got out of this mess.
Err... No. The first time around (Pocket), yes. The second time (changing my explicitly set default search engine) - maybe. But this? Bundling ads with my browser? Not acknowledging it is a problem? No.
Short of a vote there’d be a sudden case of collective amnesia on the part of said politicians the first time voters connected some suboptimal outcome to lack of regulation. It’ll be crazy how such a move had occurred when everyone supposedly had concerns.
You shadow banned my account? In case you, a mod, can read this:

Repeatedly? I was questioning if certain accounts are corporate PR drones and downvoting bots, yes. (At least two companies employ very visible a bunch of accounts, and use them to flag/votedown articles and add troll comments to get articles hidden, while they publish "good news" in the very same moment. It's visible on the web, you are in partnership with those companies, and one can guess YC profits from the partnership). But beside that not so much. Unfortunately, two admins never found any evidence, they said, and just said shut up or we ban you. Yeah free speech isn't something on HN. News get marked as hidden every single day, that have many comments and/or high votes, and the two mods never found any evidence and always said "it's the users faults, they flagged it", yeah right, not.
"The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run." - Henry David Thoreau
Why would the CIA use Howard Hughes and a barge large enough to house a stealth boat to recover a Soviet sub?
The main reason is that Tesla -- and only Tesla -- is switching business models from having investors put solar panels on house roofs and selling the power to the homeowner, to the homeowner buying panels. This transition has been going on for the past 4 quarters.

The article discusses it here:

> SolarCity’s rapid growth was fueled in part by a no-money-down offering that enabled residential customers to pay a monthly fee to go solar. The business generated huge sales volumes but led to investor concern about debt.

and it's easy to see, from the published financials, that this is a large effect.
I don't think that would be your logical next step as it doesn't logically follow from the earlier steps. My post started with "Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money.". So my post presupposes that interest. You don't have that interest (at least not in the same way) so your point is moot. You can't say "Say that you have an interest. Your next logical step would be not to have the interest".
Jeff Bezos is no idiot....he knows he can let this run until it starts to become truly scandalous, and then Amazon can have a big showy come to Jesus change of heart, and all will be forgotten. Rinse, repeat.
May be the spotting is actually not that great. One way to test it is to find a popular, known-to-be good product that you have and see what the result is. The example I tried was the Instant Pot (which is rated D):
https://www.fakespot.com/product/instant-pot-ip-duo60-7-in-1...

Oddly enough, the same product listing on the US site is rated as A (the above is for the Canadian site):
https://www.fakespot.com/product/instant-pot-ip-duo60-7-in-1...
Agreed on"Bodega". Until your comment I assumed it was a California thing. I had never heard the word before the scandal broke.
It's not so much paranoia as a very human inability to recognise how much risk a threat truly poses.

Americans seem very very concerned with terrorism. Terrorism hasn't actually killed many Americans. The chance that you'll die from a terrorist attack are incredibly low, far lower than say heart disease or a traffic accident. Yet still you have these crazy privacy invasions, stupid security theatre at airports, wars in the middle east etcetera, etcetera.

As an Australian, after moving to America I had a similar feeling about guns, especially at first. I'd moved from a world where the risk of being shot was lower than being struck by lighting, into a world where shootings actually happened. It was a brand new threat that I didn't understand and basically all of my knowledge came from movies. Do the homeless people on the streets of SF have guns? Were those loud pops on the 4th of July fireworks or people celebrating by firing bullets in the air? Is the news I see about police shooting people online hype or a real risk?

Similarly, it feels wonderful to go to a place where I have less worries. When I'm in Australia, I don't have to worry about getting shot, being bankrupted by medical bills, ending up homeless ever, tipping or a variety of other problems. There's just nothing like feeling a bunch of burdens evaporate, even if, when I think about them, they're very minor.
"Due to the unbalanced pricing policies of the United Postal Union and subsidies from the U.S. Postal Service, it costs people in China virtually nothing to ship small packages to the U.S. That, combined with the super cheap price they pay for the junk they ship, makes brushing a quick and cost effective way to move up the sales rankings -- which means everything for e-commerce merchants."

I simply can't fathom why Western companies aren't freaking out abut this.
Why do you think that the transportation speed is inversely related to density? I can ride my bike at approximately the same speed in the city as I can in the countryside. It's just that in the city I can reach anything I need within 30 minutes.
The problem as highlighted by PR is that the people most in need of that kind of help can least afford o adequately stockpile in case of emergencies. If you can afford to stockpile months of food and water, that’s great, but only if you can afford it.
It's in the works: https://www.popsci.com/poland-develops-bulletproof-liquid-ar...
Money. Nothing else matters.
One would think Amazon could trace it back if they tried hard enough, but we can't assume they would do that. After all their margins on commingled items are probably better than when they buy the items themselves.
> Facebook, the greatest startup success story of this era, isn’t a merry band of hackers building cutesy tools that allow you to digitally Poke your friends.

This is kind of how I feel. Both about Google and Facebook - on one hand they are large companies, Google for example lobby the government [1] more than Verizon, Shell or say Goldman and somehow the irrational part of my brain is still telling me "Oh but they are just the cutesy little startup with colorful letters and a nice search feature and their motto says they are not evil and such".

For many people especially in some countries being on the internet is effectively being on Facebook. I like how India fought back against Facebook's "free internet". There was a collective push-back. There should be a similar one against Google and others.

These companies are holding more information about people than any state security service out there. It's not just people who volunteered the info (even then sadly Zuckerberg called them Dumb Fucks, a "thank you" would have be nicer I'd think...[2]), I for one never signed up for Facebook, but I have no doubt they know who I am and have a profile on me. How is Facebook going to use that info? What if some repressive government wants it and subpoenas Facebook to give it to them or they simply get hacked like Equifax. People should at least be afraid of them more than they are afraid of the bankers and the oil or tobacco executives like the article alludes to at the end.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientagns.php?id=D0000678...

[2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
The author is simply reflecting the rising anger in the community. If you don't believe me, look for public polling on trust in Si valley and social media companies, look at politics, or just talk to anyone outside the bubble.
Nerd types are no better ethically then the rest of population. Not worst either I would say, the major difference is lack of influence.

Thinking that being nerd implies good and does not help anything ethical. It makes it worst, because it removes doubt.
What Each Myers-Briggs Type Is Smug About – Astroligion.com
This is similar to the "like graph" in FB.

FB definitively know a lot folks' "political leaning" base everyone's "likes" in global scale and has profit from the info in the last elections.
I think what seems to get overlooked a lot is location. Location is the most important part of the kind of survival the preppers expect to need. I mean that if you're near a large number of people who aren't preppers when that type of disaster strikes, and who aren't killed immediately in whatever the disaster is, they're going to come looking for anyone who has food. There will be millions of them, and they will have guns too. If they don't at the start, the strongest will find some and come for you. A couple of rifles won't keep you safe from that. There's no way you won't be overrun unless you have hundreds of miles of distance to any big population centers and more like a small town's worth of people behind defensible barriers with a well-organized militia.
You mentioned two places which have troublesome levels of both amphetamine abuse among workers, and in the case of Japan, has a word for “working oneself to death.”
What's funny about that particular link is related to my comment about online serials. After their publisher went under they did the original version of Fledgling as a donation based serial on their web site, and I bet a bunch of the oldest reviews for it are from people who donated for it then bought the hardcover when they signed with Baen and it was re-edited and published.

Those would be the loyal readers who go to authors' websites looking for news and new releases.
I don't know how your year 2000 was, but in my year 2000, I had broadband, no AOL, and a functioning web browser (which was not IE or Netscape), that could:

* Display web pages
* Show images
* Play songs and videos
* Deliver applications (via Java instead of Javascript, granted)
* Download files, and more!

Almost anywhere outside of NYC and SoCal, $400M is still an epic shitload of money.
People commenting here are negative about the article, saying "yes, the industry has its share of douchebags but...".

And that's exactly the point of the article: we as tech people still think we're doing good things to change the world. But as a whole, the industry has mostly produced tools that have eroded privacy, that have isolated people from one another, that have created the gig economy, and that's about to disrupt a whole bunch of jobs.

Of course, some good things came out of it, airbnb has lowered the bar for traveling, transfer wise has made currency exchange fair, coursera brought quality college classes to a large audience, etc.

However, it looks like its giant companies can't manage to keep themselves from becoming evil. The business model of giving free service until people are hooked, and then monetizing the service by selling data has been a big part of the problem. The "if it's free, you're the product" meme was the first sign of a broad acceptance that tech wasn't there for the people's good. And now after theranos, Uber, the election's Facebook problem, it's only normal that the general public distrusts big tech companies.
Loaris Trojan Remover 3.0.33.165 Crack Full Version Free Download
The researchers should be open to the idea that the main problem is the boring, standard idea that violent criminals have little empathy for their victims, and little impulse control.

Even so, perhaps having little empathy and little impulse control is not the root, but actually a byproduct of something else.

A programming analogy would be like this is a bug in their code, and our current method of dealing with it is to kill their process or filter their "standard out" to avoid/ignore the unpleasant buggy output. What if instead, we could come to comprehend a deeper architecture problem that we could then prevent or fix by refactoring?
You missed the interesting part. She also interviewed 65 convicted murderers, and most of them showed some remorse, while very few of the rapists did. There's more to this than violent criminals lacking empathy.
Thank you for your response.
I wanted to add to what I'm sure is a chorus of commentary that your team is currently dealing with. But I don't know if this specific point has been made.

Your team has just ruined a huge amount of trust by not appropriately reviewing and documenting this feature. This goodwill is the most important capital Mozilla has.

Your team is continuing to make this situation worse by not posting any official response on Mozilla's communication channels, and by arbitrarily censoring incoming comments.

It would be appropriate for all members of your team to question the processes that led to this, and drive structural changes to ensure this never happens again. This includes the continued inaction of Mozilla's communications team.
I can't be the only techy who got more and more technophob over the last 10 years, which many of my friends find so funny and if they ask me why I usually respond with "because I know what's on the dark side"
Well, I'd had access to their physical catalogues when I was younger through my parents' subscription, so I had good memories of their reviews.

Their site has TONS of tracking and marketing scripts, which I consider anti-user. Furthermore, if you block or disable any, the site breaks. For a service claiming to be pro-user they seem to be engaging in a lot of dark patterns.

Aside from that, I found their reviews lacking in detail. For many categories they have dozens of options marked as recommended, with prices ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, but no explanation of why one might prefer certain models. I subscribed because I wanted help narrowing down my options.

I wouldn't suggest subscribing for more than a single month. They have some useful information, but not enough to justify a long-term subscription.
> 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not.

Leaving aside the question of whether net neutrality was a "complicated" thing for people to understand for a moment, I don't even understand how this is an issue with the polling. The subject or policy under question is whatever it is. You can't call the poll biased just because the subject it is polling about is complicated. (And you would need a citation for this too. I would expect the split to be closer to 50/50, perhaps with a slight bias in the direction you claim, but nothing like 80/20.)

2. The wording of the introduction is phrased in terms of ISPs providing more access (yayyy!) and being forbidden from charging "extra fees" (booo!). Here is a different phrasing: "Currently ISPs are forbidden from offering customers discounts if they do not use certain sites or services. ISPs are also prohibited from optimizing latency or bandwidth according to the nature of the content. Removing these restrictions could allow for cheaper Internet plans and faster speeds for some content. Should this regulation be removed?"

Uhm... you talk about the FCC prohibiting discounts and speed boosts the entire time, and not once do you mention that this regulation also prevents ISPs from charging extra fees and throttling speeds for whatever sites they like. You really think your version of this is less biased? Seriously?

> One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen.

IIRC other countries have already tried this and observed its effects. So we have some real-world evidence that would seem to suggest some outcomes are not merely hypothetical. But in any case, you don't get to accuse someone/something of being biased and then bias them farther in the reverse direction. That's just dishonest.
You aren't wrong, but neither is the GP. In the US, we have the legal rubric that "ignorance of the law is no defense." But, yes, intent matters and we make distinctions in the US between premeditated murder, crimes of passion and accidentally killing someone (manslaughter).

Law is complicated stuff.
Possession of large enough a quantity means you're automatically considered a dealer, and we're not talking huge quantities either: 30g (1 oz) of cocaine translates to a mandatory death penalty. This extends to things like having the key to a locker containing drugs.
> Remorseful ones, if any, may have chosen not to participate.

Conceivable, but then why were most of the murderers she interviewed remorseful? Why would remorseful murderers be willing to talk but not remorseful rapists?
Everyone US seller is, sort of, and Amazon is as well. Customers still expect their stuff in 2 days, expect easy returns, and expect QC at the warehouse, and that's something China cannot replicate.

Fake reviews have been an easy exploit for sellers for a long time, and sellers will often buy from competitors just to leave verified bad reviews. It's an ugly game I don't have an answer to.

Amazon recently introduced Vine: https://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help
There's Bikies/Gangs who do drive-by shootings.
But why would that only apply to rapists and not murderers? She found plenty of repentant murderers, according to the article.