skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sorry, I may be incorrect here, but from what I understand net neutrality only came into effect two years ago in 2015. All three of the companies you mentioned were up and running prior to that. So net neutrality enabling them doesn't seem to be correct to me.

EDIT: As for my country.. c'mon, low blow. Most of the people in my country are having some difficult problems with simpler issues than video streaming. We're getting there though, hopefully!
Discovery of new planet reveals distant solar system to rival our own
In America, you can criticize the government but cannot talk at all about controversial social issues. Many Americans abide by the rule: "do not talk about politics and religion among polite company." I've known people who have legitimately ended friendships over political opinions. Such a thing is almost unheard of in China.

In China, you cannot criticize the government but you can talk all day about social issues, and you will actually hear a diverse range of different opinions on hot-button issues. I've heard all sorts of wacky and very interesting opinions, many of which have forced me to think deeply about my beliefs, when talking with people in Beijing.
"We wouldn't have services like Netflix or Facebook or Google if NN had not been in place."

Facebook was founded almost a decade before Net Neutrality regulations were in place in the US.
> I wonder if the onion network will counteract this.

How, exactly?
> A religion, as opposed to other forms, usually has postulates you may not doubt, words you may not say, etc. That is, it constraints rational approaches in the area of what's sacred for that religion.

"Religion" is a confusing, misleading term that has a lot of baggage that isn't helpful in discussions like this. Most religions also have supernatural beliefs and a literal definition of sacrilege such that certain things are bad in the eyes of God/the universe itself. Progressivism (whatever you mean by that) doesn't.

A better word for what you're describing is "culture". A culture is ready-made collection of best practices and anti-patterns for human behavior. You don't need a religion to have forbidden practices. A cultural more says "Don't do this." but doesn't follow that with "because God hates it as attested to in this book".

The benefit of culture is that it's efficient. You don't have to figure out every single action you perform from first principles. If the people who came before you did it, it becomes part of a culture and you do it too. That's why when you're hungry, you don't go out into the woods and start sampling plants one at a time to see which are edible. You pick one of the many known-good plants that you were brought up eating.

The risk is that, like all technology, it can become outdated when the constraints that led to it change. For example, many in the US have a cultural idea that pork should always be cooked well-done, even though it doesn't taste very good. That was a good rule back when trichinosis was common. Now that it isn't, that cultural norm is technical debt.

If that was a religious belief, it would be unchangeable. Pork would be cooked well done because Important Old Book says it must. That constraint never changes (unless you revise the text of the Old Book, which does happen), so the rule never changes.

In a culture, it can change. We both absorb and affect the culture we live in. That's why I think it's important to not call things like "progressivism" a "religion" even though it makes for a fun, provocative claim. It obscures the very different mechanisms around how those belief systems respond to change.

One of the fundamental beliefs of progressivism — the thing that gives it its name! — is that change is good.
Socialism != Communism.
In the US we have socialized fire departments, police departments, water departments, highways, and things like Medicare.
Satellite internet is coming fast and and from people who want you to hate your local provider and their PR will say 'we will give you free access'. Hope it will work out, the plans SpaceX and OneWeb have announced are pretty crazy.
So doing QA is a crime now?

Edit: adding context.

I'm doing QA to validate information collected by my recruiting company, both acting within Linkedin's terms of service for a paid subscription, and violating their terms of server by improving my own company's process. Like the article said: Linkedin wants to participate in an open internet and also abuse CFAA.
1) You get the government you deserve. If you're worried it would be mismanaged, become active.

2) I would absolutely rather have an unbiased and fair agency installing utilities than a rent seeking public company that is beholden to shareholder value.
There is so much more overhead with bare metal.

There's an entire other side of building a web server that devs, thankfully, never have to see. OpenCompute [1] aims to standardize what that process looks like. To think that you can run bare metal, and do better than industry standards is naive IMO.

In the end, if you're worrying more about anything than business logic, you're not really delivering value -- you're solving engineering problems. You can sacrifice that control and solving problems for greater abstractions, i.e. serverless, fargate, etc.

Unless you have some extreme security requirements (which most don't) you probably don't have a good reason to run bare metal.

[1] - http://www.opencompute.org/
Operation cost is only one side. There are more things:

* Well designed security / encryption may cost a lot.

* Compliance may be a pain.

* multi-DC and HA

* Surge resource usage over holidays.

* "Sleeping" resources at night or wasted.
This is expected to be the long term outcome of (at least) Google and Mozilla's current trajectory.

Google specifically says (without naming a date) that their long term intent is to put a UI like a red triangle plus the phrase "Not Secure" in the URL bar for all HTTP sites on their desktop browser. This is the same treatment you get today for a site with a bogus SSL certificate and similar to the treatment HTTP sites get now in Incognito mode.
> I also don't see how you can draw a distinction between disinviting speakers and censoring the ideas they came to talk about.

Milo is perhaps the best example here: Milo comes to campuses to cause a spectacle, not to spread new ideas. Sure, he's talking about some ideas. But that's not his primary motivation.

Milo is not an academic. Would he be happy with letting some academic go in his stead and present his same ideas in the form of an academic lecture?

> There are absolutely things you can't talk about freely at universities, for example: immigration, gender differences in personality, variations in IQ across races, etc.

Do you have any evidence for this?

(Note that you can't talk about things like variations in IQ across races as if they existed more strongly than they actually do or mean something they don't, and expect to be taken seriously. But that's not universities censoring dissident politics, that's universities expecting basic scientific literacy instead of people pushing a political agenda in the guise of science. The concept of IQ is an idea that came from the academy and has been refined by the academy; using an old understanding of IQ and what it means is essentially an abandonment of science.)
You should definitely read it and make up your own mind: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
https://archive.is/gDJXE
I'm having trouble finding it now, but didn't the FCC overturn the rule that says ISP's have to sell bandwidth to other ISP's? If they do not, or they are able to make it to where they do not have to, they could pretty easily prevent people from doing this or charge some huge amount for a contract to connect directly to a backbone.
I don't think I said that. Emotions seem to be running really high today! I admit my comment was a bit rash. I'm not against all government regulation of the industry, your comment is a bit lost on me. DoJ anti trust enforcement isn't the same as net neutrality debate, so I really don't disagree with your point.

Yea I don't think it will be realistic for everyone, especially folks outside of the city. I understand the concept of the Shannon limit. But I still think there is still plenty of opportunity for it to be useful in real world applications. I think you need to do some more research on some of the wireless breakthroughs going on and start ups in this space if you think otherwise.
ABEM. A more useful adaptation of BEM
Playing at nuclear war
239 r's 193 d's. the point is that house is gerrymandered to hell and favors r's.
Based on this alone?

Etsy seems to be fine for the most part. The only criticism I have of Etsy is that they've moved away or diluted their core business (small business/home business sales) by allowing mass manufactured goods to be sold on the site.

Etsy still has a place, and I've ordered several items from Etsy vendors this last year. They just need to keep a check on what they want to be otherwise they'll be subpar eBay clone.
> This doesn't appear to be a problem in any other industry. If I am a farmer, I don't have some inalienable right to have my produce on the shelves of the local grocery store. If am selling widgets through a catalog, I don't have some inalienable right to have my catalogs delivered to customers without paying a fee.

You are paying a fee: for your side of the Internet connection.

Can you make the same argument about a telephone? Should business be able to call their customers and their customers them without having to worry about who has which phone provider? Should the business have to pay the customer's provider?
You can think of this a bit differently, that the network is asynchronous and is effectively always partitioned. This helps to highlight the trade offs between CP and AP, since it becomes obvious that you need to wait to get consistency and if you don't wait you can get it only eventually. Also becomes obvious that CA systems cannot actually exist, and 5 9s availability has absolutely nothing to do with any of that.
The problem with Net Neutrality is when I signed up for Direct TV now and using ATT U-Verse Internet (owner of Direct TV Now). I was forced to leave ATT U-Verse because they didn't have an unlimited (bandwidth) option (at the time). So I switched to Cox Internet. If Att U-Verse was less neutral they could have allowed to stream the Direct TV Now without limit instead I had to switch providers to use AT&T's own product.
Not necessarily - they're being censored because of their refusal to engage with the scientific community and insistence on presenting their views as scientific when they're not (e.g., Murray) or because their purpose is antics and not ideas (e.g., Yiannopoulos). Both of those are things that a university should disinvite speakers for.
They're for less regulation when it benefits them.

They're for more regulation when it benefits them.

It's pretty obvious when you contrast their stance on drug legalization and abortions vs. environmental protection or consumer protection laws.

The Republicans have absolutely no consistent principles or values. Other than "whatever keeps us in power".
True, but net neutrality is also broadly popular. Granted, they won't lose any votes but I know several staunch conservatives who are pissed about losing NN. I don't know if they are pissed enough to change their voting habits though and thats probably the real problem.
Or we could do both...
IMO the way to go if the ISP monopolies start getting unreasonable is to start single-issue voting for free municipal broadband. Possibly also run a campaign or grassroots organization for it as well. Comcast can't screw with you if nobody is using Comcast.
I am sorry for that but to be honest your comment suggests that you do not have tiniest idea of how hard medical research is. Not only are the topics you suggest much more complicated than rare diseases (i.e. we do not know the exact molecular process but they are certainly much more complex and in the case of eye color, entirely developmental, so changing the genetic background would not switch your eye color), but also much more expensive (for these are nonmedical applications and therefore side affects would kill your drug). So we are talking in the order of 10 billion in R&D expenses. And then, unlike in case of orphan diseases, your patents will be weak and the margin will be low (compared to cost).
I'm sure it's quite obvious to those who work intimately with Amazon services, but for the rest of us, and because it's un-googlable, this apparently is referring to a specific service, AWS Lambda. Would be helpful to include any explanation at all on the landing page.
Demand for Cisco SCE and similar will explode. These boxes are specifically tailored for per-user traffic management on carrier scale, and can throttle and account traffic per URL per user. Network vendors producing carrier grade equipment should profit.
Actually the voters elected a Democrat. The electoral college elected the Republican.

Not your issue? I've followed your account for years. This is exactly your issue, and everyone in this community's issue.

Without the Internet you have no chance of fighting against things like the new tax bill. It takes away your voice. It takes away all of our voices.

This might not be 'your' issue, but make no mistake, it is more important than all of the issues you mention, in that without a free and open Internet, your free speech is essentially gone, and that severely handicaps any efforts to organize and protest against the other issues you talk about.
the cost of manufacturing a gene therapy would probably exceed what most people are willing to pay for changing eye or hair color. why use gene therapy when colored contacts or hair dye work, and much more easily reversible in case you dont like it?

also, it is incredibly expensive to get a gene therapy through fda trials. there hasnt really been a "true" gene therapy approved in the us yet (excepting car-t), and the first two approved in europe were pulled from the market because they werent profitable even at a price of $1M per patient. thats why these companies go after severe rare disease -- you can charge more for saving a kids life than you could for changing hair color, and you have to charge a lot to justify the expense and incredibly high risk of developing a gene therapy. and with a rare disease, you can go to market with a 20-30 person sales force to cover all patients, whereas to market a hair or eye color thearpy youd need thousands of people calling on every hair salon and eye doctor in the country. as of now, the success rate in terms of fda approval for gene therapy is 0% -- thats an important input in financial calculations.

further complicating things is that you generally cant dose these drugs more than once bc your immune system rejects the vector after the first dose, so you have to get all your economics upfront
There must be a stronger argument than observing that worse places exist in the world.
| So I think Sam lacks empathy... But the unreasonable people saying "gay people are evil" are not even pretending to be joking. They have killed.

Sam is both gay and jewish...

| Replace the word "gay" in Sam's essay with "white" or whatever group you belong to. How does that make you feel? Would you want to work with that person?

I don't think "white people are evil" is a controversial statement is SF.
I would be shocked if Etsy/Spotify/whoever else wasn't cutting a deal for a significant discount, getting these name brands on GCP is great PR for the platform.
> Are you asking me for specifics?

Yes, because there's a specific example in the article that your solution doesn't do anything to address, and when I brought up that your solution doesn't do anything to address that example all you did was show me more examples that are irrelevant. So yes, I am asking you for specifics.
Betamax is better than VHS
Unfortunately FastPath and SQM (traffic shaping) are mutually exclusive.
I would bet part of this has to do with the support cycle of the hardware they currently have, and other contracts: they have warranty/service/support on their current hardware, and contracts in place for their colocation facility, so they'll keep using those until they're (near) the end.
I removed the FB and Messenger apps from my phone about 2 weeks ago, and I've mostly managed to not open it on my desktop until after 6PM, which has drastically reduced my usage. What finally did it for me was trying to turn off notifications for messenger and realizing there is apparently no way to really do this. You can "mute" them for up to 24 hours but in 5 minutes I couldn't find a way to turn them off permanently. Whether it is possible or not is besides the point. It's an obvious feature and should be easily accessible. I decided to start actively avoiding software that doesn't respect my agency. I'm moving to open source where possible and paid products where not. I'm sick of software designed for engagement rather than user experience.
I disagree that laws that can only be enforced against US companies / people are worthless.

Requiring a human would increase costs and it doesn't seem like a good argument against anything.
An Intro to X86_64 Reverse Engineering
But going after Netflix, for instance, will result in a price increase for the consumer, no? When Netflix's costs for bandwidth go up, they are going to pass that cost on to you.
look and feel is not copyrightable.

Images and display code, however, are.

https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2016/02/05/website-html-is...
On AWS Lambda you could copy the Powershell Linux binary into your project and call it from wrapper code in NodeJS, Python, Java, C#, or Go.

Over in Microsoft land, Azure Functions natively supports Powershell according to this blog post: https://david-obrien.net/2016/07/azure-functions-PowerShell/
They all look identical with autocomplete - is that all it takes to make a good search UI? The mouse is used in every single demo, which seems unnecessary to me. It's cool, but this is clearly just a product plug.
And also because costs are relatively predictable with Auto Insurance, unlike Medical, where costs skyrocket very quickly. Also, Car Insurance requirements also stipulate clear minimums that the insurance must carry.

IMO Auto Insurance is a lot closer to Dental than Medical.
Public commissioners could include it as a requirement for RFP
There was a discussion about all this during NPR's Morning Edition.

The FCC chair talked about how there was very loose regulation of the Internet back in 1996 during the Clinton Administration. And this should be a model for regulation of the ISPs going forward.

Except that the world was quite different in 1996. You actually had a lot of competition with ISPs, because most people were doing dialup. If I didn't like AOL, I could just switch to Prodigy (yes, I know), or one of the local ISPs. That was easy.

People like me can and did switch ISPs on a regular basis. In my case, looking for a reliable Net News feed.

Compared to today, where there is only one (or if you are lucky) two ISPs for the area. You don't have a choice, so these ISPs are defacto monopolies.

The reasons given for repeal are just wrong, and this is a transparent attempt by the big ISPs to make more money, without benefit to the average citizen or even the other Internet companies which made the Internet awesome to begin with.
I stopped using FB because the feed was full of promoted posts, which made me really mad. And when your interested in finance/fintech/investment you get some really suspicious(most likely some scam) ads for promoting some X crypto-coins.
I think all comments so far have missed the point. So called "net neutrality" is really just a big government handout to Google, Facebook, Amazon and others who want a free ride on the infrastructure built over decades by private company investments of billions of dollars. Putting a chokehold on the telcos has made it so these large companies don't have to make similar investments and put large infrastructure assets on their balance sheets that would depress their stock prices dramatically. If Google, FB, etc. want a free rider internet, they can go pay for it themselves. All of these companies have enough cash on hand to make the investment right now if they wanted to -- it would just make the billionaire ceos a lot less wealthy. I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.
This is essentially how cable worked in the beginning[0]. In lots of rural areas, it is still the case that communities band together into co-operatives to provide power, cable, and broadband[1].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television#History_in_th...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cooperative
Similarly, Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial only earned a B in her architecture class at Yale.

https://www.biography.com/news/maya-lin-vietnam-veterans-mem...
I don't know about the specific rules in the US. But in Eurpean hacker circles when talking about net neutrality the strong definition is used. Meaning the provider should not be allowed to change quality at all.

Some think it would be fine as long as the user indicates the quality level he wants, others are against it completely.

There have been a number of debates of the years, at the Chaos Communication Congress for example.
What type of competition do you have among your ISPs? I think this is a fear in the US because many people are locked into a single ISP because of geography.
> >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities?

> Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with.

Not OP, but it's easy to come up with examples: in Spain it's very probable that after interviewing two candidates with otherwise the same qualifications, the one without the gipsy accent will get the job offer over the one with a gipsy accent.

The same has been shown to be true in the US for resumes with typically African-American names vs the same resume with a typically Caucasian name. I don't really know where your skepticism is coming from, as it's not even surprising that these things happen.
I was about to agree that robots.txt prohibitions should be considered a form of authorization.

But I think what is being argued is that "if it's publicly available on a URL, it's available for any client to download and use." I think the latter argument holds more water, as since they are making it publicly available it is implicit authorization.
Just a guess, but it's probably because PS and GIMP are huge projects with years of work put into them -by teams of people. This is one guy. Not saying I don't welcome some competition in this area, but there are already tons of PS clones, all with their own niche.

Put it in the context of operating systems, and the guy was saying "This is the next Windows." That would be laughable.

Again though, good for him, fight the giants. But, he's got to expect some eye-rolls and giggles when making such lofty claims.
1: Let us know when you start working 18 hour days and consent to getting nickel and dimed by grubby companies who continually raise rates because they know you don't have a better option.

2: USA/Canada are great, but that doesn't mean they can't be improved.

3: You whole argument is doing nothing = everything will be fine. That's ridiculous.