skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I watch far more original content from Netflix and Amazon than Disney and Twenty-First Century Fox. Disney's market cap is only double that of Netflix. Considering Netflix doesn't own theme parks or run a merchandise machine, I'd say they are more well positioned with content than you portray.
Unfriend or unfollow people? If you want to see photos and updates of your son, only follow your son. I genuinely don't see the issue.
Funny, the "brand equity" of The Pirate Bay is really something. After over 10 years of use, there's almost a nostalgic bond to the site for me now which makes the downloading of material a familiar ritual with only positive associations.

Not necessarily proud of this, just something I've noticed.
I removed offending message. Now all browsers are supported, but those without webMidi can only listen to peer's playing (+recordings) via built-in synth.
Netflix on net neutrality: ‘This is the beginning of a longer legal battle’
either I read it wrong the first time as well, or he edited it, but reading it now it clearly says "while opening it" which is a criminal act, in context.
> Where is libertarianism?

Largely still arguing about what it means to be a libertarian.
5 Freedoms That Just Died with Net Neutrality
I think everyone (including me) agrees that you shouldn't arrest or legally stop people from expressing their opinions, no matter how morally reprehensible those opinions are.

However, that isn't what the blog post is talking about. It is saying people SHOULD tolerate it personally, and we shouldn't call people 'heretics' for their ideas no matter what those ideas are.

I think it is ok for people to say "If you say gay people shouldn't get married, I am going to immediately respond that you are wrong and that it is immoral to hold that belief. If you say and hold that belief, I do not want to be friends with you and I don't want to support your business."

Boycotting people and businesses that hold views that go against your moral beliefs isn't wrong, and should not be condemned as blocking progress.

Now, I do think we all have the responsibility to make sure we limit the things that we respond to in this way. For example, we shouldn't have the 'shun the person' response if you disagree with what the tax rate should be, or if you think that raising the minimum wage will cause rampant inflation. Those aren't moral beliefs, they are implementation details.

Now, it would be different if your belief was "I don't want to raise the minimum wage because poor people don't deserve help", we might run into more issues. It becomes a bit tricky because a lot of horrible, immoral, views are hidden behind false justifications. Sometimes we make mistakes, and people with legitimate beliefs might be caught up in the crossfire, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasons into account when determining the response to an opinion.
I don't have any data on this, but to me this seems like a case of confirmation bias + survivor bias.

I don't see skills related to getting good grades vs skills related to innovation as being at odds with each other.
Why Netflix Was Less Outspoken on Net Neutrality This Time
ISPs, like power network companies, and road and rail network operators, are natural monopolies. There is no theoretical or practical reason to believe that free markets are the appropriate tool to organize them.
Anecdotal, but the only time I've ever hear that phrase in the past 3 years is for my college meme group (one of the few reasons I am still on Facebook). As far as I know, nothing happens on Facebook for anyone under 25. As you get older, life event announcements are about the only thing I can imagine would be useful.
The FCC and Ajit Pai have done a truly shit job of managing PR on this. Instead of addressing concerns and actually speaking to the angry. He went on The Daily Caller to make... this... http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/13/ajit-pai-wants-you-to-know...

The pro-NN crowd have turned this complex debate over an imperfect policy to a good-versus-evil battle over flipping a single legal switch and Ajit Pai is completely fueling that.
Do you have any examples? Or any reason to believe that the startup ISPs will bother with anyone outside of a major metro area?
It's trivially easy to imagine this from the opposite perspective.

Imagine you worked in a 90% gay office, and it was tolerated to disparage you and remark on the vile nature of your heterosexuality on a daily basis.

Only an exceptionally strong willed person would stay very long and it still probably would reduce their output of novel ideas.

The argument is not, and should never be, that we should fire people for their thoughts. If someone is strongly socially conservative, that's their right. But is is perfectly reasonable to require people to leave those conversations at home when they head into the office.
> Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?

I don't think Bill Clinton was generally thinking of much at all. He wasn't a terribly good executive, but was in fact a failed governor of a poor state who got doubly lucky: first, that he was the challenger during a recession; and second, that a third-party challenger siphoned votes for the incumbent.

Fortunately for America, clueless disinterest worked pretty well for eight years, allowing the Internet to take off. Unfortunately, cluelessness also set the scene for the geopolitical worlds of 2001 & 2003 …
my browser is a robot that renders your page.
AI helps millions of ESPN fantasy football owners make better decisions
Principled doesn't mean stupid. You can research and calculate all you want to show someone that it's cheaper to euthanize their retarded child instead of raising them. Some people will still never do it.
You forgot about Ripple, which I think is about $0.0003 USD or so.
Sure. You can have market power in the antitrust sense without being a legal monopoly.

I don't know where you work, but I'm personally loving the Annapolis area. (As I like to say, VA won't let you have weed, DC won't let you have guns, but MD will let you have both.) I also have two fiber providers to my house, and the state is building municipal fiber in the more rural counties that don't have FiOS.
Introducing augmented reality for e-commerce
Except you're conflating a person thinks with what they do. It is still entirely possible for your hypothetical coworker to give a more honest evaluation of a female colleague's tech work than for one who was a women's rights firebrand and perhaps prone to overlook poor female performance because of his or her own biases. You are right to demand impartiality where judgment affects another person's equality. It's unfair however to assume without evidence that someone is incapable of impartiality because of what they think.
I've read elsewhere that the professor had a rule that you should not write a paper about anything illegal. That was because during the 1960s at least one idiot wrote a paper like "I'm gonna start a marijuana farm and make millions!!!!!!" So the professor had a rule, no papers about starting marijuana farms, or any other illegal idea.

The FedEx that became successful in the 1970s was borderline illegal a few years earlier. Regulations were reduced during the 1970s and then finally phased out when President Jimmy Carter deregulated the transportation industry in 1980. So Fred Smith's idea was in the same category as starting a marijuana farm. Both ideas faced hostile governmental overview. This is indirectly acknowledged in the quote from Esquire:

"His skeptical professor didn’t think such a business had a ghost of a chance, considering the airline industry’s intense competition and heavy regulation."

Right, in the 1960s the idea would have been very difficult, but regulations changed a during the 1970s and largely ended in 1980. FedEx's big success in the 1970s and 1980s was made possible thanks to the change in regulations.
Diversify your digital currency with litecoin and other cryptocurrencies
> Remember that America is a republic, not a democracy

Republic. Aka, Res Publica. "Thing of the people". A form of government where all political power originates with the people, directly or indirectly.

Democracy. Demos Kratia. "Rule by the people". A form of government where all political power originates with the people, directly or indirectly.

These two terms are not about how decisions are made. They do not discuss who elects whom, and how, or if everything is directly chosen. They exist to differentiate the systems from previous feudalistic rule, where the power came from the fact that the leader had the power to protect you from other leaders (the power was justified through the strength), and from monarchies (including both earlier ones, e.g. the ancient egyptian dynasties, and later ones, e.g. french absolutism – both justifying their power as being chosen by a god, or descended from one).

Now, the US itself has a governmental form called "Representative democracy", meaning that all choices are made by representatives, chosen by the population, and whose power comes from the people, who have to respond to the people, and who have to represent the will of the people.

Also, what you’re thinking of is the question between direct nation-wide rule, or a federal rule.

Germany is a federal republic, and also representative democracy. Yet it manages to solve this exact issue – by electing the first chamber of parliament, the Bundestag, entirely with MMP, meaning it is chosen independent of states, and the second chamber of parliament, the Bundesrat, represents each state.

This guarantees that all decisions have to be backed by > 50% of states, and > 50% of population. This guarantees both the democratic principle, that power has to come from all the people, and also the federal principle, ensuring that states also have power.

TL;DR: You’ve misrepresented everything you’ve said, and your argument isn’t even conclusive. You can have a more representative system without losing the power granted to the states, e.g. the German system.
Ha, I was in class with Rexford today and this is exactly what she thinks.
I would suggest you read what Mr Pai said. He went into this subject.

https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a...

Small internet services were being shut out due to the Title II regulations.
PVS-Studio 2018: CWE, Java, RPG, MacOS, Keil, IAR, MISRA
Credit cards are unsecured debt. Hence they have very high interest rates because there is a fairly high risk that the debt won't be repaid.

Mortgages are secured debt. If the debtor fails to pay back the debt, the house can be seized and sold to cover the debt. That makes it pretty low risk, but there is still some risk because house prices sometimes drop precipitously, so it might not always cover the whole loan.

Apple's debts are secured by cash sitting in a bank account. There is literally next to no risk of default. They will get an even better interest rate than someone very creditworthy will get on a mortgage.
No, that is a failure of the developer of the scraper. I am definitely pro scraping, but you have to be a good neighbor.
NBA Stats and Info (Telegram Channel)
This. I wish something was done about the regulations that are de-facto monopolizing franchise agreements and such at a city level for telecom services. Not much better in Canada either.
They're dying, it may be a very slow death but the process has begun. They will become like Yahoo, Myspace, Aol, etc. They are not a Google that can pivot and do a number of different things. Also I've come to realize that Google has a much different relationship with it's users, Google doesn't try to suck up all your time it just tries to give you what you want when you want it, Facebook tries to gamify everything so that you're constantly checking it's useless drivel.
Will it be resource heavy for facebook to make the ads unblockable?

I remember when ublock stopped preventing spotify ads. It was when I stopped using the service for about 2 weeks, until the blocking functionality was reinstated.
Congrats I guess.
> And yet, we don't get things like that changes page from the WHATWG version. (Unless you want to dig through the whole commit history)

So far we've done our best to keep a really readable, tidy Git commit log, which should help with understanding changes: https://github.com/whatwg/html/commits/master

If you omit the "Editorial:" or "Meta:" commits, I think it's actually at a similar level of detail as the W3C fork's changes log. (Not completely; scrolling through I do see a number of commits that wouldn't be relevant.) But the W3C fork has only managed to copy-and-paste a small subset of our changes, so indeed, the changes log for the last year of work at the WHATWG will be somewhat daunting compared to the small subset they managed to copy over.

There may be room for someone to compile a higher-level "this week/month/year in the HTML Standard" or similar; before I started working in the WHATWG, that actually used to exist: https://blog.whatwg.org/category/weekly-review (also in very amusing YouTube form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bg5BPnmj68). So far we haven't had the bandwidth to restart that, but if you or someone else wants to contribute that sort of thing to the blog or elsewhere, I'd love to help you get started.
> I think everyone (including me) agrees that you shouldn't arrest or legally stop people from expressing their opinions

That simply isn't the case; definitely not "everyone".

> and we shouldn't call people 'heretics' for their ideas no matter what those ideas are

Indeed, those people are wrong; if you want to publicly call someone a heretic, or whatever, (in a non-harassing way), that's just your freedom of expression. You don't have to like the fact that someone thinks controlling women's bodies is a good idea, and may call them a backwards idiot or whatever.

> Boycotting people and businesses that hold views that go against your moral beliefs isn't wrong, and should not be condemned as blocking progress.

Right as far as a personal boycott goes; but now suppose you don't want to let such a person into your restaurant, or give them a job in spite of qualifications.

Also note that if you belong to some religion A, then people from a certain other religion B almost by the respective definitions of A and B hold views that go against your moral beliefs.
Excel team considering Python as scripting language: asking for feedback
Folks, Microsoft is officially considering providing Python support in Excel (finally). If you are interested in this, please visit their uservoice page and let them know what you think. Thank you!

https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304921-excel-for-windows-desktop-application/suggestions/10549005-python-as-an-excel-scripting-language
Eloquent ruby was one of my favorite technical books to read. Short and concise(10-20 pages each) topic chapters with motivation opening, explanation of the subject and ending with a real world example from rails or ruby or some other opensource library.

The writing and clarity of explanation is the top quality I look for in technical writing though.

Edit... Looking at your past submission I would go with project based layout that focuses on one topic at a time but touches on the other topics as needed. With questions at the end of each chapter and project ideas / part lists for home exploration. Sounds like a fun project, good luck!
It's hard to imagine a less ethical company in silicon valley than Facebook so it's not surprising
In winter, 60 generally.
Looks pretty clean. The floor is just scuffed up from heavy things being dragged on it.
Right, because what Pai has to say on the subject is going to be neutral, factual, balanced, well-informed, and honestly informative...
Comcast to Customer Who Noticed Secretly Injected Code: Maybe It’s Your Fault
The city/state/D.C handgun bans got overturned by the Supreme Court not too long ago on constitutional grounds.
> It's awfully judgmental, and even a bit privileged, to assume that you're doing social life right and they're doing it wrong.

There is no right and wrong, but the fact remains that watching a carefully curated TV program featuring your friend is not keeping contact with your friend. It is watching your friend play a role on TV.

Hey, if that makes you happy, I'm not here to judge. It makes no difference to me if someone likes watching TV and is able to feel a connection to the players shown. But I think for most people the novelty of seeing their friend on TV starts to wane over time. I think for most people friendship requires mutual reciprocation and involvement, not glimpses of the person appearing on their TV each night.

Maybe I'm way off base, but from a business perspective, it seems Facebook has to maintain its attractiveness in spaces where competition is already high, and where there is little barrier for users to switch to on a whim. The network effects that have allowed Facebook to become what it is do not seem to be there long-term.
Like everything else, it's been trampled on and buried deep in the mud as everyone races to the "us versus them" false dichotomy. We won't get over this ridiculous pro-big-business wealth redistribution project until people can think beyond fighting for their favorite color.
I actually bought litecoins the other day.

I want to point out you can invest in something that you think will end up giving a good return even if you personally disagree with what the company or security does. I'd love to be wrong on my investment and see Facebook crumble and society free from it's harmful influences, but if that doesn't happen, at least the money I get from it's ever rising stock price will give me some comfort for a while. It's a win-win scenario, and pre-empts me from taking any stance in favor or against Facebook, which actually has some present value for me.
Thank you maxsilver, this is one of the most informative posts I've seen on HackerNews.

Question, you said: This is usually a phone companies central office

Are there risks involved with that? Like for example, they could start playing games with you by saying 'sorry we're doing construction for a week, you can't access your office' ? Maybe a bad example, but I mean, would it make more sense to do it outside of their office?
Escrows for a few months. I thought it would be in terms of decades...
Actually as long as the people only hold the power to veto by direct vote- that idea is not that horrific.
> Sure, if the server and customer are both in Ca but if the server is elsewhere and they do their traffic shaping outside of state lines there isn't much that can be done.

Ignoring the around the world latency and assuming CA has a trans-pacific pipe to asia they could route all CA traffic out of country first. Would this disregard the "interstate" premise?

(talking hypothetical here)
I've heard about it many times (looking for hemp history) but I forgot. So thanks
I was under the impression that the majority voice in this argument (i.e. mortal American citizens) was completely against this. Yet it still ended up that they dismantled net neutrality.

If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool.

Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?
Back when the last mile was a real problem, people got pretty inventive with using directional antennas to establish links over vast distances using unlicensed spectrum, which as far as I know is totally legal still.

Here's a Cringely blog from 2001-ish:

https://web.archive.org/web/20011215000823/http://www.pbs.or...
Sometimes you can do SQL injections just by loading a URL
It also cuts to the core of property rights. If somebody is building something according to local laws, why should neighbors be allowed to stop that legal construction? That is what happens now, and it drives up construction costs dramatically, further driving up costs of the very very little new housing that gets built.

What rights go along with property? Does it include the right to stop your neighbor from changing and improving their property?
As a Webpass customer in Boston, you really hit the nail on the head. More than twice the speeds of Comcast's best offering at less than half the price, better reliability and none of the bullshit - no outages, no slowdowns, no rate hikes, no forced modem upgrades, no shitty customer service, just 500Mbps up/down for $45 a month.
I am trying extremely hard to not purely lash out at you, but to civilly converse, here. But you're completely wrong.

Yes, competition would absolutely be better for everyone. There is not a single NN supporter out there who would not love more competition. But we still have to live in the real world. And in the real world, there flat out is no competition. And in many places, particularly rural and inner-city areas, there likely is not enough of a customer base to support multiple ISPs. And, as I said, we do not have competition now. Repealing Net Neutrality is this environment is nothing more than an anti-consumer move. It absolutely is required now, to protect consumer interests. If we were in an environment where market forces could work, then you would have an argument that NN is not needed. But, once again, to stress the point, we do not live in that environment. Getting rid of NN before that environment comes is utter foolishness, and does nothing but serve to turn the internet into Cable TV.
I don't quite get the argument here. Is the author saying that net neutrality is a terrible idea because it doesn't prevent google from controlling it's own traffic?
Oh it's a much older phenomenon than that. "States' rights" has always been a figleaf, going back to 1861.
But isn't network reliability a necessary condition for distributed consensus?
For me Facebook fills the need of a centralized place to communicate with my close friends via Messenger, a place to keep track of niche interests via groups, and a place to get invites to events by friends that I don't see or talk to as often. I also use it to keep track of a few news sources.

I get it that some people don't want to use Facebook, but you really can't understand why other people make a different decision?
Obviously, as you get closer to the edges of situations, you are going to run into differences of opinions. There is nuance, and I don't think you should dismiss people who disagree about the details of that nuance.

However, no one is arguing for a woman to be able to abort a fully healthy baby at 9 months. That isn't an operation that happens, so it is a complete straw man to try to argue it.
POODR (Practical Object Oriented Design in Ruby) by Sandi Metz is my favorite. Each idea in every chapter is backed up by a very specific example of refactoring. I can't really put a description on the type of structure, but I love the book structure.
I think Google realized this a long time ago and it's also part of why they failed with Google plus. They just weren't willing to go down into the gutter the way Facebook is and try to suck up people's time to a ridiculous extent. They have remained too concerned, if you will, with providing actual value and Facebook, from day one, has never had that as a concern as their only concern is getting you to use the app as much as humanly possible.
I agree that speech should be totally free, but, really, are we supposed to treat overtly racist ideas the same way we treat any relatively non harmful but perhaps mistaken theory?

If person A is a white supremacist, and person B thinks ether exists, am I supposed to treat them equally because otherwise I would be "ostracizing" person A?