skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Depends on how you spin it. Yes it was a conservative plan originally. The reasoning went something like:

"Too many poor people are showing up to hospitals without health insurance and getting treated for free, driving up the cost for everyone else. We need to FORCE them to buy health insurance or else there is a penalty!"

Doesn't sound that great in those terms, but that's exactly what you got. Change the way you talk about it, sprinkle in a couple keywords like "affordable", mix in some coverage for pre-existing conditions, and suddenly its more palatable to liberals.
This isn't exactly true. There is a reason that the FCC must accept submissions from the public before it makes a major decision -- it's part of the FCC charter to consider the input of the public. If a prosecutor can argue that the FCC did not take the public's comments into account (or did not take them seriously or the public commenting process was not done properly), then a court should overturn the FCC's decision.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-com...
> Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies.

This is precisely why she did not win.
I thought it was because of all the law suits brought about by the likes of former Sen. John Edwards.
The municipal ISPs I've heard of (from AMA's on Reddit and such) still have to create a peering contract with Comcast/AT&T because those companies own the lines. And granted, RIGHT NOW, it's not that expensive to peer with them. However, it's my understanding the new FCC just relaxed the rules on how much Comcast can charge businesses that need to use their lines???

"The two specific items to be voted on Thursday include a plan to make it easier for broadband providers to charge other businesses higher prices to connect to the main arteries of their networks." - From a pre-vote article. The vote passed. It includes a link to the document.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/technology/ajit%2Dpai%2Df...

Ok, so assuming the monopolies aren't just going to let you steal away their business by creating a municipal ISP that uses their lines... You could try and lay your own lines to get around this. However, that's the exact problem Google ran into. Google required cities pass ordinances that allowed them to move Comcast/AT&T lines on the utility poles so that Google could add their own, but the existing ISPs sued saying that the cities did not have the right and won in court. This means Google had to wait for Comcast techs to come out and move the lines for each and every pole, a process which could take months and the ISPs were dragging out just to make Google's life miserable. This battle over the utility poles is something you can research.

So, assuming we're not better than Google, and that laying new lines will be a regulation nightmare, we're left with the option of renting the existing ISP's lines... of which I already stated I don't think would work either because the same anti-regulation mentality that caused the FCC to deregulate NN has also caused them to deregulate pricing protections for business peering.
If this is the case, why do ISPs spend millions fighting against municipal providers?
If anyone finds this sort of thing interesting you might enjoy Jordan Peterson's lectures on the Old Testament. (podcast or youtube)
Maybe you're running on non-AWS cloud or on-prem. Maybe you want to run a function that is written in a language that isn't supported by Lambda. Maybe your function is too complex for Lambda or would be too expensive. Maybe you already have a Kubernetes cluster running so deploying OpenFaaS is trivial and comes at no additional cost.
How often do we see a person from a 3rd world country being installed at the top of an organization with the intent to subvert it? I have seen it happening in at least 3 corporations that tanked a year-two after that. It seems like natives don't want to do dirty work (nobody wants to be Elop), so external ones with a different philosophy and conscience are brought in.
This is true with some caveats. "The judiciary" can overturn a decision in some cases. See [0] for a very detailed explaination. Comments to the FCC do MATTER. If half of America says that Net-Neutrality is good and then it gets repealed, then the judicial branch can accept a case examining the decision. Or something, IANAL, but the the dude who wrote [0] is.

Specifically, the paragraph which starts with "Another way they'll drop their deference" is roughly the section which covers the caveats.

[0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_uni...
"Unpopular opinion: Title II is not a great solution to Net Neutrality."

Do you have a compelling reason why? Tittle II worked fantastically for phone calls. I see zero reason why it wouldn't work for internet as well.
>In terms of complexity, it can be placed next to Adobe Photoshop or GNU GIMP.

This must be a joke.
Well I think bank tellers where I live are instructed to comply with robber's demands for money even if they are not visibly brandishing any weapon
Pre 2015, the FCC was enforcing NN through other means.

In late 2014, a court case declared the method they were enforcing didn't fall under the scope of their powers, but strongly suggested, while noting that the ISPs could and would be a danger to the internet if left to their own devices, that they had other means to enact the same regulations.

The other means was Title II classification.
Did you read the wording of that survey? It's very deceptive to link responses to net neutrality.

"Should companies have to pay more for faster internet speeds?" "Probably yes"
Your claims are outrageous with no supporting evidence.

If you just want to throw out anecdotes I'll give you my own. I collected data on all the pointed stories at one previous job for three years and found a negative correlation between story point and time from a story being started to being completed.

Sure, you might claim that it all averages out in the end, except that our velocities were wildly in flux for that entire span as well. But we were just "doing it wrong" right?
The mistaken concept that startups would have to pay "for the same" seems to hinge on not understanding that bandwidth cost is relative to bandwidth use. Nobody else even sits on the same order of magnitude as Google and Netflix: These are the only two companies who will need to pay extra. (Combined, Google and Netflix together account for up to 70-80% of all US Internet traffic.) If anyone else was ever to be charged extra, comparatively, it would be ridiculously minimal in comparison.
All three monad laws and all monads. Just use `seq`.
Hand waving and saying the government will correct the market (and not create new problems or itself be a source of problems) is unhelpful.
> ISPs already do incredibly unpopular things

Have they pissed off the entire tech industry and attempted to fundamentally change how the internet works?

Having poor customer service, high fees, etc seems like a far cry from completely changing how internet billing works and whitelisting websites/throttling the entire internet.
Considering that 50% of the people in the Bay Area are foreign born, and have no experience of the South, I find your comment "a self-righteous, smug and viscerally hostile attitude to other parts of the country" to be hyperbolic. May be you are projecting based upon a few interactions ?
"allow people to say disparaging things about gay people"

tolerating [this] different ideas excludes [gay] people
Buying every domain name that could possibly be confused with yours would be unnecessary in this context if you fixed the issue of an attacker being able to redirect to another name.

(Banks should also protect against easily phishable domain names but that's a also losing game, and in that case the technical solution is not as simple or complete).
Thanks! I write my code in Notepad++, then I merge all files into one file pp.js and minify it with SQZR.js (my owm minifier, performs the same thing as Closure Compiler, but is about 50x faster).

The result is here: https://www.photopea.com/code/pp.js
They are required to have public comments, which Pai said he would ignore for the most part.
Woman offered refund after iPhone X facial recognition fails
The general point being: it goes back to elected officials.
I like how you think donating to politicians is the answer. Money in politics is why we're in the situation we're in. Those with insufficient money to donate should be heard as well as those with money. The system needs a change. It can happen peacefully or not. Seems to be going in the not direction.
Not disagreeing with you - I'm taking issue with the parent poster who wanted to blame this on trump. There's plenty of blame to go around in our government, but it doesn't all fall on Trump (as the post I replied to implied)
I used to use "visit" flags in relational projects to incrementally scan trees. You start by putting the top node in a node inventory table, scan it, and add any new nodes (branches) to the inventory table, with the "visit" flag initialized with False. (Index the visit flag.) You keep querying and scanning nodes until all the visit flags are True. Pseudo-Code:

1. Add first node to inventory, set node.visit=false.

2. Query for 1st of any nodes with visit=false. (Order doesn't really matter in the end.)

3. If none found, stop.

4. If the found node has branches, add them to inventory with visit=false.

5. Process current node.

6. Mark current node with visit=true.

7. Go to 2.
It also means due to personal whim. I don't think it was this either. Pai has reasons for his choice. Many, of course, disagree with these reasons or think they are bad reasons but they are reasons nonetheless. It wasn't an arbitrary decision.
> I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco.

Ideas about what? Did you try discussing free speech or democracy? Did you try to show a flag of Tibet or Taiwan?

It's true that a lot of people in China are free from the same political concerns of Americans, yet, how has that turned out for them in the long term? Per capita GDP?
So, tax payers pay a government agency to get screwed over..?
Thermal Design and Analysis of Electronics
From everything I've seen, net neutrality seems to have broad voter support, regardless of party, and even many Republicans in office have voiced concerns. So are they really acting the way voters would expect?

Voter support (a couple of instances here, but there are many), (PDF): https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/American_Pu...
Let us agree that what you said is True. Let us also agree that this statement is true, and perhaps becoming increasingly at odds with our federal government:

> Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Today, the OP question was about a future Mac Pro.
Hey HN,

I posted a Show HN for EnvKey awhile back--lots of good discussion there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15330757

This library makes it work seamlessly with Python. All you need to keep API keys, credentials, and config in sync securely for developers and servers is an environment variable (ENVKEY=p9WYzzHefy33gzgDdvPJ-EKdh4jgBsRBBNerK) and an `import envkey`.

I've been a Pythonista for a long time, so I'm excited to get this live!
They are not legally beholden to follow the feedback, but if the FCC is supposed to be an unelected dictatorship, why even require feedback?
In Common Lisp we can use macros to bring about a reasonable tail calling system without relying on TCO support in the implementation.

In the Lisp source file below, I provide a tlet operator whose syntax resembles labels, but which compiled to a tagbody in which the "functions" are just labels.

There is also deftail for tail calling among global functions, which is based on dynamic non-local returns and a dispatch mechanism.

http://www.kylheku.com/cgit/lisp-snippets/tree/tail-recursio...
The FCC was not against net neutrality under the Obama administration
Yes, some ideas are inherently dangerous. An idea of atoms splitting leads to an atomic bomb, for instance.

Some substances, tools, machines, etc are also inherently dangerous, and can't be made not to be.

Does this mean that we should never use a saw, light a fire, or discuss [insert a controversial topic here]?

Somehow people came up with protocols to work with inherently dangerous material things that lower the risk of a serious injury to acceptable bounds. I don't see why this would not apply to inherently dangerous ideas.

I'd hazard to say that for the last 2500 years quite a few devices were invented in this space, allowing to think much of the previously unthinkable without turning into ravaging monsters or becoming insane. I suspect that we could just continue using these devices (e.g. "freedom of speech", "critical thinking", separation of author's personality form their ideas, etc), instead of running in terror from "dangerous ideas" while swinging a banhammer.
So if am I reading this correctly.

Previously you said "any self selected polling is meaningless"

Now you are saying "Self selected polling is meaningful when people who didn't self select had the opportunity to do so" .

Ok. So by that definition the poll I linked, everyone had the opportunity to participate in the debate, theoretically. What makes it meaningless ?

PS: Fixing democracy ect is not interesting to me in this context, I want to focus your claim self-selected = meaningless.
You can't just throw 'probably' in clearly inflammatory statements and expect the reader to pick up the burden of proof.
There's a good JustForFunc episode on testing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFEV-ieeew
I understood what you meant, I was wondering if you noticed that you, as a self-proclaimed open-minded Houstonite, made a broad brush stereotype about "Rural people".
That sounds like it might be a disaster for Netflix. But for the rest of us?
Is this going to be a textbook? I can't find it in print, but it looks like a great text.
Agreed, especially upon the final point.

I try to engage in commerce with entities that do/make good things.
That was my point, we are playing "what if" here regarding future Mac Pros.

Given the move away from OpenGL/OpenCL into Metal, I don't have big hopes for future models.
Resell Microsoft or Amazon APIs? I don’t see why not but it sounds a bit like misrepresentation to me.
Apple Positions New iMac Pro for VR Development, Available Starting Thursday
I want my next side project to use machine learning. Not sure what to do though. Thanks for posting your project. I'll be checking it out. Feature engineering sounds interesting.
How about this beefier mobile CPU, which supports up to 64GB RAM? Maybe they'd have needed to make some of their pro laptops a bit less thin, but they are _Pro_ laptops after all. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/...

Also, I wish Intel would just list the maximum supported memory configuration for each memory type, instead of just having a worthless "(depending on memory type)".
Want to link to that specific factual error? Someone here could probably fix it.
Can someone explain if this will affect anyone outside of the US, and how..?
They will change the world, just not in the same way Google's PRopaganda team would have you believe.

The main change will be that Google gets to record and analyze even more of the world's private interactions than they do now.
Every FCC vote on net neutrality since the 2010 rules has been straight party-line. The Republican majority is a direct result of having a Republican President. It's pretty clear that a Democratic administration would have been different on this issue, whatever other areas there might be where that question would be murkier.
2017 Engineering Gift Guide
If we were to compares ourselves to actual animals. Personal anecdotes wouldn't matter as fatality rates would increase without modern comforts not afford to animals. The child doesn't crawl or start walking for another year, child would die as the parents wouldn't care for weak off-spring.

It sounds harsh when discussing humans but the differences in development occur because our death rate is low compared to wild animals. Thus allowing weak genes to be passed e.g., not being able to crawl or walk for 3 years double or triple the normal would not be tolerated in the animal kingdom.
That's because you don't get to choose your issues one at a time. You get to choose a basket of issue positions at the same time as a legislator's personality. Normally from a choice of two.
ML's Biggest Advantage Will Be Superior Coverage, Not Superior Analysis
Honestly, I don't care either way.

Even after the NN rules were in place, I saw absolutely no difference in my area (I live in a major metro area in the midwest) and saw no advantage either way. The gloom and doom stuff people talked about prior to NN I never experienced, and post NN being enacted, I didn't experience any of the benefits either.
The fact that a Republican can run unopposed in a state-wide election of national importance is probably the best evidence it'll turn back to red at the earliest opportunity.
Can you expand on your experience as a brown man in Denmark? Where did you live? I would like your take on it.
America is not a direct democracy.
AJIT PAI FULL ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON (12/11/2017)
Nobody owes anyone else a "reasonable discussion."

One person's reasonable discussion is another person's interminable sea lion. http://wondermark.com/1k62/
"its" is not the problem, the word "worse" is incorrect.

EDIT: The original misguided pedant has now changed "worse" to "worst" in both instances; after downvoting me, of course.
>How quickly we forget that Bill Clinton was responsible for dismantling welfare in the 1990s.

No one forgot, it's just not relevant to this conversation. The choice was between Hillary Clinton and Trump. Whatever Bill did can be discussed on their merits.

>Nor does Hillary Clinton think she could get universal healthcare done

And she's right by your very own admission: the Republicans currently control Congress. Universal healthcare isn't happening anytime soon. What could have been done is limiting the damage the Republicans could do while working to take back the legislature. You chose to exchange that real chance for idealistic fantasy.

>Step 3 is in progress. Step 2 was beyond our control due to Republican majorities.

But, again, there didn't have to be a Republican President to implement their policies. It was very much within our control. You are, again, ignoring reality.

>Excuse our dust while we fix our country.

We who? The Republican majorities you seem to oppose are now both in power and have a President who works with them. The "dust" is the human misery currently being caused by them while your glorious Golden Age beckons just over the horizon. I'm not happy calling that suffering "dust" or accepting it as the price to pay for some nebulous future, and I don't think "you have to break some eggs to make an omelette" is very principled at all, especially when those affected in the meanwhile are the poorest and most vulnerable, exactly the people you claim to want to help.
It's "arbitrary" because Pai, on multiple occasions, indicated he will not take the comments into effect. Even after the reports of the faked comments, the calls to delay the vote by some senators, the faked DDoS attack, he still went through with it. There's also allegation he violated the FCC's process. He was determined to ram this through no matter what. That's arbitrary.
You've got it backwards -- FB is for staying in touch with people digitally (i.e. the pictures of their friends and family). There are a plethora of other sites better suited for reading political and tech news (HN being an example)
Good catch, I did say it wants to provide all the answers, but I guess that wasn't exactly the idea I was trying to get at. I think the more fleshed out idea is that some people want science to provide all the answers. These people, like Sam Harris, advertise science as capable of providing the answers, but Sam Harris is not exactly a practicing scientist, although he does have a PhD.

It seems we are mostly in agreement. What I am trying to get is many people do look towards "science" and "reason" as sources of salvation. Regardless of whether or not science advertises itself that way.
As noted in this thread, the entertainment industry is almost single-handedly responsible for the draconian Copyright laws in the US. So the harm caused by consolidation can extend beyond entertainment (think software).

Also, there is almost no alarm being raised by consolidation in healthcare, such as the CVS/Aetna deal.
He means the Verizon Fiber throttling, not Verizon Wireless.
TLDR: Re-imagining automatic text summarization
Probably because you work in the tech industry which is negatively affected by the decision.
But I feel like you're blaming the victims. It was actually people like Rupert Murdoch who set up the whole "our culture is being destroyed by PC run amok" thing, and they did it to gin up ratings for Fox News and to gain power.

We're all vulnerable to cultural brainwashing. I think that's part of what the article is complaining about. It's hard to be an iconoclast, especially when you're treated as an immoral person if you dare to think for yourself.

Again, the way to save the country is to call out all demonization of "the other". Of course I call it out when I see it, to the point where my liberal friends think I'm conservative and my conservative friends think I'm liberal.
Alabama didn't prove anything really. It demonstrated that the bar for getting elected to a national office in Alabama is a minuscule amount above "accused of sexually assaulting minors".
Sure, the actual movie part - but the 20th century fox fanfare at the beginning? (I have heard nostalgia expressed specifically for that)
This is why I question the idea that large social networks should be able to remove whatever they want. It would be nice if there were consumer protection laws to help balance the scales a bit. For example, some of YouTube's censorship and demonetization seem pretty aggressive.
I appreciate the feedback. That wasn't intended to be an exaggeration, that is often how I perceive the situation (look at Brendan Eich), but it is certainly fair to consider whether that perception truly reflects reality.
Thank you for illustrating my metaphor
Amazon to Start Selling Apple TV and Google Chromecast
The FCC has dismissed the public's feedback[1]--they never considered it and did a poor job of soliciting it in the first place. The servers went down during the feed back process, the interface for solicitation was confusing and there wasn't much effort to prevent spam. There were 22 million replies (the previous record was 3.7 million during the last net neutrality debate). Even if you write most of that off as spam or duplicate, form-comments, that's still an immense amount of feedback. To dismiss it all is misrepresenting it.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-igno...
Ongoing discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924794.
I think there is a decent argument for regulating ISPs. But Title II is a telephone regulation. It's not narrowly targeted at ISPs.

The fact that the FCC had to suspend most regulations under Title II sort of proves it.
Are they really more free, or do they just seem more free because the taboos don't quite match up, and you see them violating yours without thinking about the fact that they have their own which they're avoiding?

You say it's common to talk about weight or salary without people taking offense. Fair. On the other hand, in the US it's common to talk about the misdeeds of the President, express disagreement with the legislature, or question the government's policies. These are day to day conversations too. I don't think I've ever heard anything like that in China.
Is this unbiased?