skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Perhaps you could factor in something about cold-start?

I know that in my context, this has been a key issue. Another odd one is that our organization has only certified RHEL and Cent OS running server-side code.
The current NN repeal is working out exactly the way Pai said it would. As he cited, the problem is lack of competition. The solution is competition. All the discussion happening today is about how to start an ISP to prevent cable monopolies abusing their position.

The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.
​Net neutrality: The eve of destruction, what comes next
It's unclear if the Requests/minute is per instance or total. I tried putting in 500k/minute (total) and got a $40k Lambda bill vs $2k EC2 bill (which is roughly what we pay). If I switch it to 20k/minute (per instance) then it's more-or-less the same price for either.
https://www.calebthompson.io/ is running on this setup.
Because this one would serve the interests of the rich and well connected?

I tend to agree that the FCC probably won't be able to ban states from enacting their own form of net neutrality, but I've seen the courts side with business interests with weak arguments more times than I'd like.
> but then what's the advantage for women to have a higher pitched voice?

Living in a neighborhood with a lot of teenagers, I will dare a guess; this loud, high pitched scream was probably a very efficient call for help.

But I see your point, and I agree that the answer could be just as simple as randomness of genetics. It just feels rather unsatisfactory for a change who must have taken far more than one single mutation to be that common. Feels like someone winning the lottery a dozen times in a row.
Cool. Thanks for the clarification & details.

Do you think the "monopoly" concept may still apply when looked at through the Net Neutrality argument that ISPs may throttle/block services which compete with their own (possibly franchised) services?

I too live in the DMV area and am on the lookout for an apartment with decent internet.
To my knowledge the WHATWG specs are the backbone of the W3C specs, but nobody follows the WHATWG specs. Browser vendors prefer to follow the W3C specs precisely because they are versioned and perform against a slower and extremely thorough review process.
If the thrown-together design of TWC's official app is any indication, I find it more likely that the previous leadership knew that software wasn't their specialty and (rightfully) shied away from building software businesses before they became worth prioritizing in the first place. Now that they can amortize the costs of such development over the entire Charter-TWC group, it may very well become worthwhile... not to mention that they'll be looking for new profit centers given the demise of cable [0]. So our insulation from this may be short-lived.

To your parenthetical point, I actually find it fascinating from a psychological perspective that someone like Ajit Pai can present himself as, and very possibly believe himself to be, a "man of the people" while simultaneously literally making a mockery of their interests [1]. Someone with a mind so ungrounded that it can function under that level of cognitive dissonance is as deserving of pity as they are of ire. (Or perhaps that's what I tell myself about most politicians so that my veins don't burst.)

[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/chart...

[1] https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-b...
I'm Argentinian.
It sounds like a pretty unforgiving system for someone who is a rehabilitated criminal or anyone who fights against popular opinion. You can arbitrarily remove trust and never have to add it back again. You can remove trust as retaliation for anything.
its the same with US polls, everyone having an opportunity is merely theoretical. Lots of people are unable to votes for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps explain how you are defining * opportunity to participate* .
Everyone has done something that caused harm at some point. If that is the bar to declare a person unethical then we all are. In this framework you are right but it makes the label useless.

Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person.

In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotionally charged subjects. Which is why they don't have a place in honest debate.
Commitstrip: the end of net neutrality
Check this out: https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/pricing/

> The Lambda free tier includes 1M free requests per month and 400,000 GB-seconds of compute time per month.

> The Lambda free tier does not automatically expire at the end of your 12 month AWS Free Tier term, but is available to both existing and new AWS customers indefinitely.

(emphasis added)

That is awesome. Providing you could get your application compatible with lambda. This application may help for WSGI-based (python) applications: https://github.com/Miserlou/Zappa

More on AWS Lambda: https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/
Amazon caves to Google, will sell Chromecast hardware
Check out Nick Szabo and Elaine Ou's talk from Scaling Bitcoin about broadcasting Bitcoin blocks over shortwave radio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkYXPJMqBNk&feature=youtu.be...
>The Rasch Model is a specifically simplified case of item response theory, but I'd argue that it may not be the best one for stitch fix.

Hello fellow IRT nerd. I was going to come post something similar! I love yours but I hope you don't mind if I flesh out a few details.

I think the biggest takeaway is that one of the underlying assumptions of Rasch is a set of observations of the phenomenon that collectively work to make an estimate of a uni dimensional trait. In this case both of those assumptions are germane. For starters, I would be really concerned about the assumption of unidimensionality. I definitely find variances in fit in more than one dimension for clothes.

I totally agree that ignoring discrimination (Rasch sets the discrimination of each item to an arbitrary value, 1) is likely problematic here. Rasch constrains discrimination because of the idea that the test (i.e., all the questions) discriminates (to be clear, discriminate == sort). If I was developing this model I would want to have that discrimination parameter. It would be informative as to what clothes are more effective at bridging different sized people (i.e., how flattering they are to differing body types). It would also get me away from the internal assumption that the model basically necessitates multiple 'observations' (i.e., pieces of clothing) to make an effective estimate of fit.

Similarly they might also make use of the 'guessing'. That parameter is effectively one to track randomness in a model. Maybe you have a piece of clothing with a weird shape or a different relationship sizes in the cut than others.

All of this model also ignores other variances between people and between brands or items of clothing. You can't really introduce these with strict IRT, but there are more generalized forms of IRT that can deal with multiple dimensions. If you want to get into predictor variables you can do things like multilevel logistic modeling (also known as multilevel measurement modeling) which are becoming more widely used in education. Those tolerate nesting of data which can be very useful. Maybe banana republic clothes fit me better than they do lsiebert because of where the arm holes are even though we both wear a L from every brand. That is a nested effect/interaction...it is not specific to banana republic, but specific to me and that brand. You can't get that out of IRT or Rasch.

General description:
1 paramater IRT/Rasch estimates 'difficulty' varies, akin to general size assuming size is a single linear dimension

2 parameter IRT estimates difficulty and discrimination (i.e., how 'sharp' the logistic curve is)...maybe a piece of clothing that fits slightly different shapes and sizes beetter or worse.

3 parameter IRT estiamtes difficulty, discrimination, and guessing. helps identify a garment with a random influence...maybe people tolerate the item less well because its a known brand
Unless I'm missing something, you're proposing criminal penalties for tort liabilities.

Yes, if my crappy software costs you money by knocking your site offline by accident, I should make you whole.

I think it has to be something substantially more impactful, clearly intentionally malicious, or in some other way much worse than aggressive timeouts before we start thinking criminal penalties.
I watched the overview video below and the tldr for me is that although serverless is doable now and can be done well, the tooling is not there yet, and you're also locked into AWS. So check back in back in 2-3 years.

For me, I think Kubernetes + virtual kubelet (for container instance creation, with per second billing, only on Azure right now) is the safest option. It gives the benefit of easily scalable compute with no need to move to an event driven model or constraints on function duration and resource usage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fBbSgJJV_g

https://github.com/virtual-kubelet/virtual-kubelet
In what way did Net Neutrality prevent people from starting an ISP? Please be specific.
My point was that the innovation from NN was a HUGE deal for the US economically and all the innovation came out of that, i.e. Netflix, Google, Amazon. If a country like yours has no NN protections then you probably won't see innovation like this in your country.
Snow can be effectively invisible to a beam when wavelengths are larger than snowflakes (i.e. microwave range: broadly defined as lengths between 1mm and 1m.)

What confounds line-of-sight isn't "until it snows" but "until something/someone has to move around". :)
Apple is an interesting case. While they may have flirted with 'legal' music as a revenue stream, the big bucks came from adding utility and simplicity to the ubiquitous collections of 'stolen' music. A very small subset of iPods were filled up with the plus +$10K cost of 'legal' music.
No strong opinion, but it's a somewhat unique situation in the economics of IP.
Your reasoning is an example of failing to understand the difference between a random variable and an exposure to a random variable.

Experts are almost always right when the outcome is irrelevant. Economists can accurately predict next year's GDP growth most of time, sure. Except that time they're all somehow wrong at the same time and it's a massive miss and we enter a recession. This is really the only time we care about them being right ("Housing can't be in a bubble").

Until economists are financially harmed or benefited in proportion to how bad or good their predictions are, they won't understand this idea either.
I didn't actually read the article, so maybe you're making a point specific to the article, but in response to

>For example, if StitchFix offers a belt with a number of different holes...

surely the solution is just to model belts shirts and pants separately. Just because there's a correlation between those things doesn't mean you have to use it, and it fucks with your convergence.
Protecting code integrity with PGP
> liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly against homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near the same level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get.

This is because American Muslims are nowhere near powerful enough to write their prejudices into law, whereas conservatives control all three branches of the Federal government and 31 state legislatures (see https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_houses).

You will always find that people consider your opinions worthy of much closer scrutiny when you reach a position from which you can impose them on everybody else.
This is cool, thank you for explaining. It never occurred to me that it would be so different for commercial offerings. The main question I have with ideas like this is where the shitty pricing scams are going to be happening—if it's the residential companies, then yeah, this is perfect. But if it's Level3 that's shaking down Netflix for more money, for example, then the "fork" isn't happening high enough up the chain. Do you have any insight into this part of the equation?
I don't have a good answer for you. But I'd say think about when you need "distributed consensus/agreement" (no central authority).
How do these companies know who to contact for a given IP address? Do ISPs just cooperate with them?
Most of robotics is about reinforcement learning.

EDIT: Oh, and expert systems/rules. Lots of em.

EDIT2: Well, an engineering, obviously... :-) Heck, just check Wikipedia on the topic...
Wow, that's amazing! Is it open source?
Archive.org link? I don't trust some random imgur screenshots.
In my experience, the "logical response" isn't an accurate description of most liberals. The original statement is.

The fact that a liberal thinks that "conservative" should be replaced with "intolerant" is a symptom of the problem that I describe.
Motherboard and VICE are building a community internet network
That's the argument. The power utilities are tightly regulated.
Classic Amiga Gets Modernized with Custom Amy-ITX Motherboard Project
Coconut is a compile-to-python(2/3) language, not just a library, so if you use it you have to be OK with using a transpiler in your project.

Here's one way you might write one of the examples in Coconut:

([1, 2, 3, 4]
|> map$(-> _ * 2)
|> filter$(-> _ > 4)
|> reduce$((x, y) -> x + y)
)

You may freely mix Coconut and Python in a project, even in the same file, but any Coconut code still needs to be run through the compiler.
Title II is an 80 year old telephone rule that was stretched and deformed to fit the internet. Congress needs to pass real legislation that's specific to the needs of the internet.
I work for Chrome, as an editor of the HTML Standard. So let me give you my perspective on this.

In Chrome we ensure that all features we ship to the web go through a public standards process. This allows them to be developed by a collaborative community, including other browser vendors and web developers who would use them. It ensures that if we happen to ship a feature sooner than other vendors, there's a specification and a shared test suite (https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests) that allow others to quickly follow. Note that a specification is better than requiring them to read the Chromium source, because specifications are at a higher level that doesn't depend on individual browser architecture details.

In the WHATWG we don't only write descriptive standards. But we do ensure that whatever standards we write, are ones browsers are willing to implement. And we ensure that standards accurately describe how browsers operate, even for legacy features, because that is all part of the mission of allowing browsers to compete on an even playing field and build themselves from scratch without having to go through the kind of costly reverse-engineering that Firefox 1.0 did to catch up to IE6. In practice we've found that algorithmic specs are better for this than BNFs, as it's harder to specify error-handling behavior for BNFs while still staying compatible with the web (i.e. while still producing a standard browsers are willing to ship).

And yes, we're not interested in just creating a standard out of thin air, with no vendor collaboration, calling it "standard", and then hoping some magical power would force browsers to implement. It is indeed much more collaborative than that.

But the fact that we require standards to be developed in tandem with implementations doesn't mean that implementations (such as Chrome) just go ahead and do whatever they want, and we at the WHATWG transcribe it into the spec at some lower level of detail. Instead, the public, collaborative standards process helps to extract out all testable and observable aspects of the feature into a codebase-agnostic description others can use, and provides a forum for them to comment on ideas before any final shipping decisions are made. And, per our working mode (https://whatwg.org/working-mode#changes), changes and additions do require multi-implementer support before they're ready to graduate to a WHATWG Living Standard; proposals not yet at that point are said to be in incubation, and are often developed elsewhere (see https://whatwg.org/working-mode#new-proposals) such as the W3C's WICG.
That misses the point. NN protections were enforced even if they were not codified by the FCC, through the courts. Once they were hard coded it made it a lot harder for ISPs to cheat. That's all 2015 was about, making it harder for ISPs to throttle so we didn't have to sue every time. It wasn't about putting practices into place that weren't there before, it was about hard coding practices that were enforced for years so that it was simpler to enforce. That's all.

The new ruling by the FCC does the opposite. It encourages the ISPs to cheat in a blatantly obvious way.
Meh, people like to downvote instead of coming up with a rational counter-argument. In another thread I got downvoted multiple times for merely stating a fact.

I just see it as opportunity to hone my subtle trolling skills.
Of course he has to be careful what he says in the Bay Area: there he's a widely known and respected figure with a powerful public presence. Anyone, anywhere in such a position would be in the same boat.
This. Facebook is going to have to make efforts to present a better UI/UX if it wants to be a content portal for videos.

Their entire UX is based around the algorithmic feed, which obfuscates the true quantity of actual content on the user's timeline, thereby allowing a higher density of ads and other sponsored content without the user necessarily being able to tell or prove [1]. But the sliding window of the feed still moves forward in time, so content that you don't interact with enough to be recorded in the activity log just falls off, never to be seen again.

In 2014, Facebook Paper was an effort to reimagine how Facebook surfaces content [2][3], but despite rave reviews it fizzled and was killed in 2016. It was part of a wider effort to pivot into being a publisher of original content and not merely a social aggregator, and although Paper was discontinued prematurely, the effort faced several hindrances, including news publishers' pushback against Facebook's content framing [4] and Facebook's role in the dissemination of fictitious clickbait.

Facebook is so multifaceted that its current way of presenting content is woefully inadequate, and doesn't fit their ambitions.

[1] Reusing an old line: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=niftich+true+quantity+of+actua...
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/30/5360358/facebook-paper-ip... [3] https://www.wired.com/2014/02/inside-look-at-the-creation-of... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14126073
> I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home.

> Restricting speech leads to restricting ideas and therefore restricted innovation—the most successful societies have generally been the most open ones

There's quite a difference between 'I feel uncomfortable discussing topic X in location Y' and 'location Y is restricting speech'. The only concrete example in the article of the former is a 'toxic reaction' to work in 'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension'.

What exactly does a 'toxic reaction' mean? Is there a meaningful distinction between it and 'strenuous debate about ideas'?

Based on the examples given, this article seems to hold 'mainstream' and 'heterodox' ideas to different standards. Criticism of mainstream ideas is (rightly) described as 'necessary to get the really good ideas', 'what drives the world forward', etc. Criticism of heterodox ideas, on the other hand, is a 'restriction of speech' and a 'toxic reaction'.

I wish that Altman had provided more a single example (the reaction to 'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension') instead of vague references to 'controversial ideas', 'casting the people behind the ideas as heretics', and 'heresy.
For anyone using Facebook as a messaging/group/event service, I cannot recommend the Facebook News Feed Eridactor more. It literally just blocks it all. Not perfect for all users, but it has really helped me spend less time wasting away scrolling out of habit.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicat...

PS: The daily quote feature can be toggled off.
FinTech Is the New Oil in the Middle East and North Africa
The FCC's Ajit Pai now openly mocking net neutrality protesters with new video
I like to say Elon over promises and eventually delivers.
This might be intended behavior. If you try to print the deck, it shows the Goole Drive access request page.
They do, if I open the photo on the fb website and download it, I get the original size. If I download through their takeout service, I get around 800x600 (exact dimensions vary slightly) with no EXIF data.

They actually go the extra mile just to make your life shittier. Such a great company!
Currently using a early generation Yubikeys. Guide from here is quite easy to follow.

https://developers.yubico.com/yubico-pam/

I do like the solution as having no ongoing costs.
Truth. This[0] is how we did it for the NYTimes Crossword platform. It took a year and a half, but was managed with a team of only 2 people (myself being one of them).

[0] https://open.nytimes.com/play-by-play-moving-the-nyt-games-p...
Government Is the Cause Of, Not the Solution To, Online Censorship
It's either amusing or sad that the party that ran on "states rights" in 2000 is now exercising whatever power it can to limit states' authority.

Where is libertarianism?
Repealing NN benefits the Telecom companies and the large content companies (ie. Disney).

We know the telecom companies were dumping money into the republican party to repeal NN, but I think if the Democrats were in power then Content companies would be dumping money into them. The dems just have the option of playing as sheep because they don't have enough voting power anyway.

I'm cynical that either party cares that much about the public and think that pointing fingers just allows the elites to continue their games.
Here is an example of the "good bot"/"bad bot" nonsense in action.

This is an article about the LinkedIn v hiQ case at AdWeek.

curl --user-agent INSERT_ANYTHING_HERE http://www.adweek.com/digital/rami-essaid-distil-networks-guest-post-linkedin-hiq-labs/

It seems AdWeek can distinguish a "good bot" from a "bad bot" irrespective of the behavior of the user^W bot, i.e., whether it is one single HTTP request or 10,000 consecutive requests is irrelevant.

How do they do it?

Pattern match against the User-Agent string.

Effective shibboleth.^W engineering.

Clarification: If a user, not a "bot", makes the "wrong" choice of user-agent string (e.g. in the browser settings), then they will be labeled a "bad bot", even if their behavior is no different than other users who are not labeled "bad bots". For example, they make one HTTP GET request just like any other user. There are databases of "acceptable" user-agent strings available to anyone. If still unsure about the point I am making, see this post from several days ago: https://www.sigbus.info/software-compatibility-and-our-own-u...
Instead the "last mile" should be a non-profit funded by ISPs who lease the channels. The non-profit is responsible for installing the "last mile," upgrading it, and repairing defects in it.

Yes, that's called "government".

We do that with roads and mail, we can do the same with communications.
Layman's Guide to Elliptic-Curve Digital Signatures (2014)