skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The first net neutrality rules were implemented in 2015.

This is patently incorrect. The Open Internet Order of 2010 established a set of rules based around 3 concepts[0]:

1.) Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services

2.) No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.

3.) No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

From 2010 until 2014, that was Net Neutrality. In 2014, in Verizon vs. the FCC[1], the appeals court struck down the No blocking and No unreasonable discrimination sections of the Open Internet Order. The court at the time noted that as long as ISPs were considered under Title I, those sections could not apply to them. However, the court also noted that, in general, the FCC did have the power to enforce the Open Internet Order using Title II, and that the FCC had the ability to reclassify the ISPs under Title II.

Thus in 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband providers under Title II, thus making the No blocking and No unreasonable discrimination sections apply to them once again.

The history goes:

2010-2014: Transparency, No blocking, No unreasonable discrimination

2014-2015: Transparency, blocking ok, unreasonable discrimination ok

2015-now: Transparency, No blocking, No unreasonable discrimination

What the FCC wants to do now is to repeal the action taken to classify broadband providers under Title II, and move them back to Title I. This would again eliminate the ability of the FCC to enforce the Open Internet Order's No Blocking and No Unreasonable Discrimination sections.

If you believe that Net Neutrality is something that the FCC made up in 2015 and that for 25 years the internet blossomed without net neutrality rules in place, then you are believing an obvious, and easily researched lie.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
Or you can write a native app and get 10-20k installs for free from a feature on the app store. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nice one! Now, can we get a terminal with tabs? Will that be a thing with the new windows tabbing approach?
Close call?
Not sure right now, but I'd say follow me on Twitter and Medium and I'll definetly let you know! (both in my HN profile)
What’s the background on this? Did I miss something in the news?
I don't quite understand, how is allowing people to invest in ICOS any different to allowing them to play the lottery?

I am not trying to be rude, I honestly am just trying to understand your concerns.
Yeah I should clarify, the fact that msys had built in package management was just the most pleasant surprise ever. I use windows when I have to, not by choice. :)
It's really hard for me to maintain two separate personas (which is why I have always highly valued "Friends Outside of Work") so I'll do my best to keep it as real as I can in my newsletters. Thanks for giving me a chance!

Re: too many tags, I get really mixed feedback on this. In some ways, my goal with Key Values is to expose people to the diversity of engineering cultures that exist! While it may be overwhelming, it says a lot about what's out there and will hopefully provide encouragement for people and help them get excited about changing jobs (when it is otherwise a pretty dreadful experience). Woops, I'm rambling! tldr: you're right. Some day, I'll A/B test this.
To build an actual comparable PC costs $4,600.

http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is...

And it isn't a svelte all-in one, won't have Apple's build quality, or warranty, or run MacOS, and you'll have to spend your own time building and maintaining it.
While the implementation and effectiveness are cool, what this is doing is effectively data mining at the expense of "mere" personal users, who cannot even disable intrusive data collection, to the advantage of business Enterprise users, who can disable data collection. What happens if Windows Defender decides a PDF of sensitive health or financial records _might_ be a virus, and uploads it to Microsoft?
Former Facebook Exec Chamath Palihapitiya on Social Media, Bitcoin, and E. Musk
Well, if your home internet connection's TOS prohibits running servers then it could be a CFAA violation. It would involve exceeding the allowed access (of the ISP's routers) of a computer involved in interstate commerce (the ISP's router is almost certainly used to buy things across state lines, someone has gone to Amazon or such).
San Francisco passes regulations to cut down on delivery robots
why not implement post-quantum crypto now if there’s already a plan in place? this seems like a situation where “better late than never” isn’t true
Unlocking the bootloader makes the device permanently fail the strictest SafetyNet category.

Apps can and will refuse to run in that situation.

Modifying /system will make every SafetyNet check fail, as result Netflix, Snapchat, Google Play Movies, and most banking apps will refuse to run.

I can decide to install the app or not? How do I go about replacing Google's system apps with my own, without preventing above mentioned apps from running? I can't. And I can't buy reasonable devices withou Google Android, due to the non-compete clause in the OEM contracts.
It's comparatively safer than holding millions in government-controlled banks, property which can be seized with the stroke of a pen, physical wealth like gold which is tough to store and move, and has value anywhere in the world (not many people in Europe care about your franchise holdings in Riyadh).

In contrast, if you buy bitcoins, when you flee the country you can bring your wealth with a memorized 24-word code or a slip of hidden paper, and people in other places will accept your Bitcoin.
Per se. Latin.
VISA max transactions per seconds around 65000 right now. With daily average 1700 per second and daily high around 25000 transactions per second during holidays and such. I just don't see any cryptocurrency to be able to handle that.
Ask HN: What’s your list of sideprojects?
1 store of value
2 new economic shift
3 blockchain revolution
A TCP/IP stack isn't a stringent litmus test for a systems PL. So you can loosen your own standard for what comprises a systems PL, but Go fails more rigorous standards. Everytime. Even Rob Pike says you're wrong and he's certainly a sympathetic character towards Go.

All of this was hashed out years ago upon Go's release, and the Go team took down the "systems language" moniker. That was the end of it. Google knows it's not going to fulfill stringent litmus tests for a systems-language. We'll review the subject again if the folks at Google are brazen enough to ever add it back to the website.

Now Rob doesn't have to call management and let them know it's not for systems programming, Rob & Google already know it's not. He said so himself. You're the only one in the dark on that front at this point.
If you have the choice, yes. You'll regret React for many reasons but you are so, so much less likely to be featured with a React app, even a great one. Suck it up and learn Swift/Kotlin (not that hard) and if you can get your app featured that's a cool 10-20k installs for free.
The Open Internet Order of 2010 established a set of net neutrality rules based around 3 concepts[0]:

1.) Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services

2.) No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.

3.) No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

In 2014, in Verizon vs. the FCC[1], the appeals court struck down the No blocking and No unreasonable discrimination sections of the Open Internet Order. The court at the time noted that as long as broadband providers were considered under Title I, those sections could not apply to them. However, the court also noted that, in general, the FCC did have the power to enforce the Open Internet Order using Title II, and that the FCC had the ability to reclassify the ISPs under Title II.

Thus in 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband providers under Title II, thus making the No blocking and No unreasonable discrimination sections apply to them once again.

The history goes:

2010-2014: Transparency, No blocking, No unreasonable discrimination

2014-2015: Transparency, blocking ok, unreasonable discrimination ok

2015-now: Transparency, No blocking, No unreasonable discrimination

What the FCC wants to do now is to repeal the action taken to classify broadband providers under Title II, and move them back to Title I. This would again eliminate the ability of the FCC to enforce the Open Internet Order's No Blocking and No Unreasonable Discrimination sections.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
> The Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth...

I was reading like two days ago the Antarctic was warming faster than any other place on earth and shedding icebergs like crazy. Some sort of runaway effect from warm South Pacific water eating them away from underneath. Sea level to rise like 70ft.

Get your story straight people...
If US loses net neutrality, people from other countries are also fucked, other governments are likely to follow the US path.

Besides let's be honest, 90% of the useful and interesting internet sites, companies, innovation originate in the US(from my personal experience). If it changes, that's bad for everyone.

It will affect startups as well. If you're interested in building an online business based in US, you don't want your site to get throttled.
How is that any different from allowing someone to pay more to use more of a plane (e.g. first class seats)? Is this just a general argument that everyone should pay the same and get the same?
Basically, net neutrality prevents ISPs from using a form of price discrimination to sell a lesser internet, where certain sites are blocked or throttled, or where certain sites have to increase service charges to pay back costs imposed on them by ISPs. Eliminating this would enable ISPs to charge lower prices to segments that currently go unserved. This is considered a bad thing because:

- In modernity, not having internet is considered untenable. Essential things like applying for jobs, interacting with friends, or performing political activism require the internet. Moreover, a free internet is important for these tasks, becaue only then can the tasks themselves be performed freely. Imagine an internet where the only social network is facebook. This would be extremely limiting, and facebook would love to implement this.

- Many ISPs would use this price discrimination to steal customers away from other ISPs, rather than unlock new customers. This is hailed as "competition". The problem is that all ISPs would steal customers from each other roughly equally. Therefore, the effect would be merely to lower prices (for a lesser product) for certain customers. Without a corresponding lowering of costs, ISPs would have to raise prices for the rest of their customers. To get the same price as today, you would have to purchase a non neutral package. Rather than it being merely grandmas and poor people with a limited version of the internet, nearly everyone would have it.
What you describe is already being done by the likes of T-Mobile and other wireless carriers such as their BingeOn program, to little fanfare.

The average consumer unfortunately has little to care about net neutrality. But in the long term it will hurt the tech economy as they have all risen from net neutrality.
What are the negative externalities of accreditation?
Who needs https when you have barbed wire?
The part of their sentence where they wrote "commercial" was important. As in "for commercial purposes".
Just wait until XRP gets into Coinbase, if it makes it into Coinbase. Many people will make bank!

Of course, that's assuming that don't end 2017 (or 2018) with a massive crypto bubble burst!
The subject Distinguished Name can repeat fields, yes. Some aren't supposed to repeat but I don't see any obvious harm for those that basically just form a human readable postal address.

Note that for a real criminal enterprise these values are not likely to be useful. Best case they're a company doing secretarial stuff for thousands of clients they've never met. Worst case it's a building site.
> in fat client apps it's all about event handling and data flow, co-rotines are not very useful there.

I would suggest that coroutines can solve event handling problems quite nicely. This is not exactly a novel idea either. There are toolkits in the wild that are designed to work exactly like that. From what I understand, there hasn't been any serious exploration of building UIs in Go, but I think its native coroutine/channel support has the potential to provide some interesting ways to handle events that are generally shied away from in languages where coroutines are not as easily used.
There is one launching check out theqrl.org
If you're a low level hacker a reading knowledge of these events is useful but really we should be using VTune as our PME tool. Still, it's possible that a particular event may shed light on a particular piece of code and using an API like PCM.

https://github.com/opcm/pcm
Amazon changes its review policy
Glancing at the paper, I see the biggest dataset they used was MNIST. So it's hard to quantify how much error they preserve for larger, more useful networks in more complicated tasks.
> Maybe a better analogy for this audience

For this audience, try load averages. Your 1m load average will be significantly more volatile and unpredictable than your 15m load average.
"I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption."

I feel you really, really do need to make yourself familiar with that before chastising everyone for not agreeing with your position on these regulations. And if you want to argue that they shouldn't apply, then you need to think long and hard about what makes this situation different, and not just because it's "on a computer".
Ebay is 'seriously considering' accepting Bitcoin
Declaring BTC and paying taxes will not bring it down. It will legitimise it as an asset
"Well, sir, if you look in our terms of service, it says quite clearly that if most of your traffic goes to a set of services that we have determined are most likely VPNs because we control most of the end-traffic on the internet, well then we can disconnect you. I know, sir, machine learning is wonderful as I'm sure you've read on Hacker News that you visit regularly. What's that? You swear it isn't VPN traffic? Ok, can you provide any evidence to that effect? You can't? Ok, well, you have been disconnected sir, and if you like, you can pay a $300 fee to get reconnected and rejoin our new VPN plan at $150 per month. If you want to use our VPN plan that will be $30 per month on top of all the other services you will need to select"
> The part I’ve never liked is that Satoshi Nakamoto only mined for 10 days

He took the risk initially so he gets to enjoy the spoils.
What a shame!
The FCTC has ruled that bitcoin is actually a commodity, not a security, mostly due to the limited number of bitcoins and "proof of burn" required to acquire new bitcoins via mining. On that note... how is gold (or any other commodity, like oil or corn or wheat) not a security? Seems a little broad.

I'm honestly not sure what the answer is, hopefully you (or someone else) can clarify.
As a City native, but one who grew up in the East Bay, SF means a lot to me, even though I don't live there anymore. A lot of my major life events have taken place there, and I would like to eventually move back in one day. I technically could, but the financials don't make sense, and since I don't work there, my commute wouldn't be any better — so I'm staying put for now.

You're right about being able to enjoy the city in many ways. I regularly enjoy it at my leisure, it is 45min door-to-door Bart ride away, and relatively cheap to Uber/Lyft back at any time (Compared to the premium of actually living there).
Ive never understood how such a system is profitable. Surely it costs them money to provide streamig service. How is it that they are able to sell it for free? Perhaps it is provided as a loss leader?
Depends on the VPN. Https handshakes are very different than say openvpn. But you can definitely hide your vpn behind the https protocol.
As long as GitHub doesn't abuse its control of the portal, it's okay.
They don't have to inspect the traffic for this scenario. They can do it purely based on the routing requested.
Thanks for the reply. Don't you negate some of the advantages of CRDTs by mandating casually consistent environments? Can you speak to that more?
Nothing you say contradicts.
No, we have data that goes back millions even 100's of millions of years. The granularity of much of that is rather coarse.

The data for 1000s of years is quite fine grained. There are trees that are over 1000 years old and ice cores that give near monthly data going back a very long time. There are also a lot of other clues as to climate from other sources.

The UK's Met. office was established in 1854 and I'm sure that several others are just as old. That's simply when weather prediction became interesting. There is loads of data (temperature, wind speed etc) from before then, from ships and land based sources.

We even have data from ancient civilisations and this can sometimes be corroborated and hence other things be reasonably inferred. More modern, we know that people were ice skating on the river Thames in the 18th century - that's quite a big river and it does not freeze these days - that was a mini ice age.

Anyway, we have a lot of data and it goes back a long, long, way (with a few gaps)
There is no need for the condescending "Son, "-style discourse here.
My slightly aged but in my opinion still relevant general advice is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12744624 , in addition to this more elaborate blog post referred to in that comment: https://bjoernkw.com/2013/04/28/starting-a-software-consulti...

I also can't emphasise enough that you're in the business of solving problems, not in the business of creating software: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15761354

Focus on particular industries or categories of business problems rather than specific technologies.
> Having strong "net neutrality" means that all bits are equal. t's like imagining that your ISP can't see where the bits go, they just come read the meter.

No, it does not mean that. I explained why here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15910389
It's how Whitney's always done it:

http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum
Well, at least you can easily get your and other people's data out of GitHub (unlike e.g. YouTube and Facebook).

It would be easy to create a giant mirror of GitHub, for example (once you have a distributed storage system).

Also, GitHub doesn't control what users are viewing (unlike YouTube and Facebook), which makes the platform less of a threat to internet freedom.
"Are you good enough to be unpaid and overworked?! Then boy do I have the job for you!" - Recruiter who can't understand why they only get replies from entry level people
You can take the crypto out of the above statement and it's still true - yet I know plenty of funds that speculate on currencies.
Add Dogecoin also. It keeps producing blocks indefinitely adding 10,000 coins each time.
Do you speak any other language besides English?
So, I think we, as a community, have just been nerd sniped, big time.

Every time the topic of net neutrality comes up, there's a top level, completely reasonable sounding post that says "why is this bad", and completely derails the vast majority of the discussion away from the topic at hand and into arguing back and forth about what is reasonable and what isn't.

Articles then disappear as these discussions trigger HN's flamewar detectors, quite effectively burying the topic. For example, right now there's 140+ comments on a story with fewer than 100 upvotes. I mean, just look at the number of responses the "Would anyone care to explain to me pros and cons" has spawned, and not a single one talking about the actual article.

Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but derailing topics with arguments is a well explored method of stopping productive discussions.

TL;DR: Someone, at this point, who claims they have never "understood" net neutrality and wants a "thoughtful discussion" is lying to us in an attempt to derail discussions.

[EDIT] No, this is not a charitable view of someone's potentially pure motivations. But after a few dozen iterations of the same thing again and again, you stop being charitable. Sorry.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15852481

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15750166

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749926

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749674

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15749642

Edit 2: Moderated out. Guess I should have expected it; these kinds of posts do technically follow the rules while calling it out does not.
How Silicon Valley Kowtows to China
That doesn't seem to address the natural follow-up: what stops me from claiming all my traffic is VoIP so it gets processed faster? Is there some offsetting downside that disincentivizes someone from labeling it that way? (something like "any request for lower latency will also reduce your throughput, so don't call it VoIP if you really care about the overall transfer rate)
This argument is not valid.

What about the drug dealers selling their stuff for cash?

I can do the same argument about fiat money.
What about the tax dodgers crossing borders with suitcases full of cash that will end up in some offshore bank never to be seen again?
The fact that some people use bitcoin to launder money is no different than a government paying a ransom to free a hostage in a hostile country.

`The banking system, for all its issues, makes collecting and moving large amounts money around very difficult`

That is why cryptocurrencies exist in the first place!

If I have money, that I have already paid taxes on, shouldn't I be free to do whatever I want with it without having to answer to a bank or a government like I am some kind of child that needs to be chaperoned? Why can't I use what is mine without restrictions?

Banks don't mind doing their dirty business deals behind closed doors and will deter anyone to look into their questionable business practices but for some reason, me, the average Joe who doesn't have lawyers on retainer to keep everybody at bay, I should be required to leave my money in a bank and hope that the banks are not going to lose it all like they did in 2008?

That doesn't make sense to me.
I don't understand why you are being downvoted. Pointing out the difference between productive and non-productive assets is exactly what is needed at the moment.

Everyone is talking about what if scenarios where huge offshore money or sovereign wealth or whatever comes into Bitcoin YUGE. Well, ok, do you think that money is just parked somewhere or is actually invested somewhere in a productive business?

Most dollars which aren't spent on consumption are converted into equity in productive businesses. In this case, dollars are merely the unit of account. You aren't invested in dollars, you are invested in businesses that produce the things that people need and those investments are measured in dollars.