skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I did not vote, and I see that as a "vote of no-confidence."

At some point, a president will be elected with only like, 10% of the population having actually voted for them, and that'll be a crisis that forces us to overhaul some things.
I believe he was referring to constituents, rather than politicians.
It's been mentioned already in this thread, Ajit Pai was appointed to the FCC by President Obama, a democrat.
For hacker news I expect people to be a lot smarter but apparently no one in the entire thread realized I said Tulipmania. Not Tulips.

Tulips as a financial instrument were only used for 6 months.

Here's a fucking chart since you can't be bothered to look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#/media/File:Tulip_...

From November 12th through May 1st. Almost exactly 6 months. Period.

Counting anything outside of this period as part of Tulipmania is not only ignorant but also plain stupid at face value.

I'm not one for making hyperbolic statements but when people can't read there's really no other explanation other than:
- You lack reading comprehension.
- You're below average (hey not everyone is smart, it's okay).

Bitcoin is now on it's FOURTH bubble.

Tulipmania never had a 2nd or 3rd or 4th bubble.
Here are the salient quotes from the repeal which, I think, indicate the tech reaction to it might be overblown and might be "encouraged" by big tech players who aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. The key here is that the repeal allows the FTC to regulate things, and it's better at breaking monopolistic practices. (I'm still not sold on the argument that this will push innovation, though.)

> 500-504 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable. The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”

> 507-508 Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content. These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.

> Invokes Sherman Antitrust acts

FCC also reserves the right to return to Title II classification, which AT&T tried to block in this:

> 176. We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.

Edit: the vote also keeps the government from classifying the internet as a public utility. I think that's a good thing because the govt could otherwise step in and "regulate" content it doesn't agree with.
It's interesting that the word "liberal" has morphed so much in America to mean the opposite of its original meaning.

Liberalism is rooted in liberty and freedom, and yet here we are in 2017 discussing how non-"liberal" ideas cannot be freely expressed in the most "liberal" cities.

I say we stop calling these people liberal, because they're anything but.
They're free to do so; companies exist to make money. Cable internet carriers probably will attempt something like this.

The next thing that will happen is, when Comcast goes too far, another provider (cable? wireless carrier? satellite broadband? something new from a startup?) disrupts the market by offering an alternative to Comcasts' egregious policies. Comcast loses subscribers and is monetarily forced to be more consumer-friendly.
> You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody.

Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system.

> And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?

If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.
Whenever I become angry about something here in the US and look into emigrating (mostly looking at first-world English speaking countries: CAN, UK, NZ, etc.), my research usually turns up compelling evidence that no country with any sort of socialized health care system (which is pretty much anywhere in the developed world) will accept a person with special needs children.

So I'm stuck here, for good or bad.
Back when FB didn't exist... Friends didn't just talk about that kind of stuff either. That's like the typical smalltalk you make with people you don't really know, not conversations you have with friends.

To me FB just seems like an extra dose of that unnecessary smalltalk mixed with self-promotion with the only real benefit being basically an address book.
Is Qualcomm's NanoRing the Transistor of the (Near) Future?
The FCC is required to be split with the Executive Office filling in the gap for the Commissioner. 2 R, 2 D, and 1 whichever party wins the Presidency.
If you adjust zoom you're given the option to search that area but it doesn't do it by default and by default it zooms into a narrow radius around your current location.
Common response on HN for the past two months has been nothing short of hyperbolic. "The world will end if NN is repealed".

Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse.

I have no reason to believe this is "the beginning of the end" of anything. Life will carry on as normal.

Disproportionate reactions (like HN is doing right now) is not good for anyone. Take a step back from politics. Take a deep breath. Take a walk outside. This isn't the end of the world.
Japan Plans Big Corporate Tax Cut, with Strings Attached – Fortune
Soliciting and addressing public feedback is; ignoring and/or misrepresenting it is not (and may, in fact, help support a finding that the act was arbitrary and capricious in the light of the information available to the agency at the time of the decision, though that's—even with that fact established—a fairly difficult case to make.)
Yep, entire continents like Australia and North America ;)
Huh, wonder why they didn't make that clear leading up to today.
This is how democracy crumbles. No, both parties are not to blame.
It is not clear or obvious that allowing people to live longer is unethical. Resorting inmediately to an ad hominem is not an appropriate form of debate.

No individual has a moral obligation to debate ideas. However if debate is shut down with fallacious arguments it limits the ability for the idea to progress.

If this happens too often then progress will be slowed. That is the point of this post.
Yes, the intent is to let the public weigh in, help the committee make an informed decision as opposed to a capricious and arbitrary one. The decision is clearly arbitrary, as Pai has stated from the beginning he's going to do this, has blatantly ignored everyone, and is now on record as having insulted us. In terms of capricious, that's harder to prove. Between the EFF and the various attorneys general, this will be tied up in federal court.
I'm in the same boat as you, but this just means you should check Facebook less. Obviously not good for Facebook, but it seems great for us.
Which is exactly what cracks me up... Republicans, moreso than Democrats, are always talking about government screwing over the people and yet this vote was completely on party lines. I wonder how they're going to figure out that dissonance.
Even more relevant passage from the article:

"Childbirth is difficult for many reasons, she writes—among them the 19th-century switch from birthing in the upright position, which allows the pelvic girdle to expand in response to contractions, to the supine position (still common among women in the West) which often requires the use of forceps."

There are correct times and places for all tools. But comparing two interventions that both bring risk is an odd way to approach the topic.
It's more of an issue now just because our usage of the internet has become increasingly fundamental to day-to-day life. It was, of course, already on this trajectory pre-2015, but corporate and government understanding of the internet was still very much in its infancy.

Few providers abused the privileges they had, because of some combination of uncertainty about backlash, historical precedent, and lack of organization and understanding.
All 'big' isp's use both private peering-points as well as public. Problem is, if Tier1 operators was not allowed to manage private peering, connecting to services oversees would be a 90's experience at best. With DDOS attacks on strategic nodes outtakes that could disconnect entire countries wouldn't be unusual.

Im not from the USA and do not have a detailed understanding of what 'Net Neutrality' means for you in terms of laws and practice. For me it seams quite sober to separate T1's and T2's peering with each other and data-centers vs T3's censoring end users by capping access to selected services. If anyone could clarify the 'scope' of Net Neutrality as the term is used in the US press that would be greatly helpfull.
You could have said the same about Arizona

And there's "no difference" for the average candidate, not for outliers.
7 solid reasons to suppose that chatbot interfaces will work in learning
They are required to solicit comments and to consider them. Many comments are cited in the Order.

Could you give examples of them "misrepresenting public feedback"?
It's wrong to take a hard line either way. It depends on a variety of factors such as the form of consolidation and the industry.
The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods.

As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican laissez-faire regulatory strategy (at least, once we got past 1991 or so), it is more than a little aggravating to see us as a community winding ourselves in knots over market-based regulation of telecom at the same time as the (largely unprincipled) Republican congress is putting the finishing strokes --- literally in ball-point pen --- on a catastrophically stupid tax bill that threatens universal access to health insurance, not just for those dependent on Medicare but on startup founders as well.

If you care deeply about this issue, stop pretending like filling out forms and putting banners ads is going to persuade Republican regulators to act like Democrats. "Net Neutrality" isn't my personal issue --- I worked at ISPs, have backbone engineer friends, and candidly: I think this issue is silly. But if it's yours... sigh... fine.

But do it right: get out there, to your nearest seriously threatened D districts or to the nearest plausibly flippable R district (the suburbs are great for this), open up your damn wallets, and donate.

The FCC may very well be right that it's not their job to impose our dream portfolio of rules on Verizon (certainly, a lot of the rules people are claiming NN provided were fanciful). It doesn't matter how dreamlike the rules are: Congress can almost certainly enact a law, which the FCC can't revoke.

But otherwise, be clear-eyed: elections have consequences. We elected the party of deregulation. Take the bad with whatever the good is, and work to flip the House back.
I think we're on the same page here - you shouldn't claim to know the content of something you never read.
Entrepreneur wants to put a chip in your brain
One of the things often overlooked is how our (American) culture is very much driven by religion. Note that the religion is not necessarily some version of Christianity. The overwhelming religious movement rarely named could be called "progressivism".

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.

Well, I don't mind religious people. People are free to believe and practice what they believe — as long as they do it without pressing other people into compliance.

And this is exactly what happens. Faithful people who see something from the list of "progressive" sacred cows being discussed, especially at some critical / unorthodox angle (as opposed to praised in a canonical form), become furious: it's a sacrilege!

Now Mr. Altman notices that SF tech circles have turned into something of a Mecca (or Constantinople) of "progressivism", and raising a voice against the predominant religious views becomes unwelcome and downright dangerous. Well, yes. Sorry about that. Maybe you've been noticing signs of it for a few decades already.

The irony is, of course, is that "progressivism" often writes "reason" or "science" on its banners. I suspect the more ardent adepts will notice the discrepancy and suggest to remove them soon.
No, net neutrality just makes it so ISPs can't throttle/block/charge-extra-for particular websites, like they do in Portugal: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088
The headline doesn't seem to fit the story but thank you for sharing anyway. Yellin never seemed particularly hateful of the Japanese so I'm not sure that he needed to "learn to love them". I guess the headline refers to his daughter in law?

Based on the headline I was expecting this to be the story of Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigle...
Did you submit a comment on this proceeding, beyond just clicking on some site that auto-generated a comment?

I spent several days working on my comment; it was a dozen pages long, it included relevant citations, and it addressed specific questions asked in the NPRM. I took the time to correct a few falsehoods in the NPRM's technical analysis.

Now imagine what it is like to see that comment being specifically cited and totally dismissed in the draft rules that were just approved. In a way it is worse than just being ignored -- someone took the time to read my comment and comments by like-minded experts, saw the part where we corrected falsehoods, and then replied with, "Well, ISPs say $X so $X is true and your comment wrong."

I am not going to give up on civic engagement but I am sure some of those like-minded engineers and researchers might.
> Remember Google's original premise was to do something about 'ads that were destroying the internet' and to 'do no evil'.

Well, during that time they did replace the obnoxious flash/gif ads of the day with unobtrusive text ads, and iirc mostly did no evil.

> We ignore the middle aged lady down the street who volunteers at the Salvation Army two days a week about it and doesn't say a peep about it, doesn't put it on her resume.

The problem with silent altruism of this sort is that Angelina Jolie donating a few million to some cause will be less effective (in her particular situation) to that cause than Angelina Jolie donating a few million and also running a social media blitz to raise another few million from fans. I understand that as a side effect she might become more popular, which might lead to more lucrative movie contracts, etc. But I wouldn't even begin to be cynical about this until it was pretty conclusively demonstrated that her net benefit (from increased popularity, or whatever) actually exceeded her own interest (e.g. what some despicable televangelists do.)
I'm excited to have been involved with this project! Docusaurus already powers the documentation of Relay, React Native, Jest, Prettier, Reason-React and many more

Huge congrats to the hard work of the core team: @JoelMarcey @ericnakagawa @hectorramos and our former intern Frank Li.

Hopefully your next open source launch will be made a bit easier with this tool, and allow you to focus on writing great documentation!
If there was ISP competition then a Verizon customer could switch ISPs if they disagreed with the throttling of Netflix. I would compare it to wireless which never had these net neutrality rules. Is wireless a disaster? It seems like mobile plans are constantly including more data at faster speeds at a cheaper price. Some (all?) of the carriers have various anti-net neutrality policies but consumers at least have the option to pick which set of policies they are willing to agree with.
If you're going to that sort of event, you're intentionally going out of your way to be around people who are interested in, as you said, big, bold, and challenging ideas.

The issue is that the next day, when you're back to your 9to5 at BigCo (or even a random startup in the area), you are not back among people who support authoritarianism and will shoot you down (possibly getting you fired) for not having the same viewpoint as they do.
Coincidentally, the last 150 years corresponds quite closely with the Industrial Revolution and the age of fossil fuels.
With the damage they are doing to the oceans (plastic, acidification) and the atmosphere (global warming, respiratory illnesses etc), it no longer seems quite so robust.
edit: made
Oh please. Y'all campaign against San Francisco values. Pelosi is basically a code word for it even though she's from a Baltimore political dynasty.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=644311...

San Francisco values gets repeated by Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, ... at every opportunity. Sorry to link to Breitbart, but here's Roy Moore ranting on about San Francisco.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/03/hes-said-...

Who exactly is he ranting to?
And it is your right not to work with that person, whether that means you choosing to leave or take internal action depending on circumstances (e.g. threats). However, who is entirely exempt from ostracizing others for their beliefs? For every person there is some universe of beliefs that are seen as such a threat to their reality, principles, or well-being that they will fight those beliefs and their representatives. That universe of beliefs may differ in size or relative merit on the basis of evidence for each person, but it exists.
Democracy at its finest!

One minor positive is the requirement for disclosure, but time will tell if this is actually enforced.

As an Australian, I feel a mounting sense of fear that we’re next...
> The only reason the rule got put into place was because Verizon was found to be throttling Netflix.

No that's inaccurate. Title II reclassification happened in 2015. Verizon Netflix "throttling" (controversial what actually happened there) happened in 2017.
You couldn't have continuously operated OiNK without the intention of enabling mass copyright infringement, which was clearly the raison d'etre of the site.
> > If the government spends and the economy responds productively to that spending, then you're fine. Taxing is a separate issue. You should only really tax when you want to remove money from a specific part of the economy.

> Or when you don't want your government to run a deficit.

Why wouldn't you want to run a deficit? What do you feel is the downside? Are there times when it's appropriate to run a deficit and times when it's not? Which times are which and how do you tell the difference?

I have my own answers to these questions. But I'm asking for your opinion.

> Or when you don't want to finance your government by printing money.

What do you feel the difference is between deficit spending and printing money?

> That always ends badly, no matter how clever the mechanism is this time, or how many people say "it's different this time".

Does it? Why do you suppose it is that many developed nations are running budget deficits? Do you feel that this is a mistake? What do you think would happen if all governments balanced their budgets?

Again, I have my own answers to these questions and I'm looking for your opinion.

> I don't think the economy works the way you think it works...

How do you think it works?
This isn't a democracy, this is a republic. While we have some power in who we elect, those elected are representing us, and can choose to vote how they want. Whether that screws them in future elections is another story.
This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds. However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables. Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we should pursue antitrust legal and foster competition in this space. Comcast didn't realize it, but net neutrality was their own safety net.
> Both parties in the US are to blame.

This thread is about Net Neutrality. The rules being rolled back by the current Republican administration were put in place by the previous Democratic administration.

Not voting is just a vote for whoever wins. You voted through inaction for the candidate that supported removing these protections.
If you're interested in further reading I found this analysis [1] of the gap between GOP policy and GOP public positioning pretty interesting. However, it's certainly couched as a screed. Depending on your politics that may make it difficult to wade through.

[1] https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift...
The people involved felt they had to leave town. That's pretty substantial.
Because Facebook is uniquely positioned to show you news that aligns with your views (or is opposed to your views- is there an option for that?)
Arbitrary means random. I don't think that Ajit Pai flipped a coin to make this decision.
Except everyone you listed is for net neutrality, and yet the decision still passed
If an opinion isn't important enough to affect what politicians you vote for, you shouldn't be surprised that the government you elect doesn't represent your view on that issue.
If you look at the first Central Limit Theorem slide in the original article, it compares story precision vs precision of unestimated bugs. The short answer is that if your stories are big, not estimating them causes more error (weeks or months) than most people are willing to accept. Not so with small tasks (bugs) which average out, as you suggest.

However, it’s hard to make long-range estimates using only many tiny stories/bugs, because you don’t want to break the job down with such granularity for months or years into the future - plans will change by then, and all that design work will have been wasted. That’s what makes big stories useful; you can estimate months of work in a few minutes. But because they’re so big, you can’t treat them all as equal sized.
What can I do now to help?
He was designated FCC Chairman by Trump.
Tangential, but there was actually some interesting work put into the Harry Potter translations. Puns like Diagon Alley need to be turned into something meaningful in the target language, and they have to be careful not to change any of the clues dropped in early books so that they'll still work later on.