skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is this an Onion piece? Or something from the Beaverton?

They want to land on the moon... To set up a billboard? And here I thought that the Silicon Valley model of startups making money by advertising other startups that make money by advertising other startups was insane.

Oh... They want to start a space economy. That's great, but there is no mention of what will that space economy do. They will maybe consider mining water, for a potential future human settlement that will... Do what? They will put up a billboard, to advertise... To whom?
Chrome extension called Personal Blocklist (by Google) There's a Firefox port, I'm not sure where the data goes.
New accounts, strange traffic, weird vote behavior, comparing similar thread behavior, etc.
I normally don't let social media affect me, I barely even use it Facebook or Instagram anymore (just a few minutes of scrolling a day before feeling annoyed and logging out), check Twitter a few times a week at most, don't use Snapchat at all. It's had a positive impact on my well-being for sure.

Fair point about only betting 'fun money', I feel that I should trust my gut and accept that the best time to 'get in' was a year ago and best time to cash out is probably in 2018.

We'll wait and see.
In the only jurisdiction where I've actually read the trespass law, it stated that a "legal fence" was sufficient to indicate no trespass, and that a "legal fence" was any number of acceptable structures that were at least 4 feet high.

In that context, a wall of a house being at least four feet high, would carry an implicit "No Trespassing" sign on it, but the picket fence would not. However, if the property had an obvious path to an entryway, then walking up that path to the entryway was not trespass. So walking through a picket fence with a low-latch would not be trespass, unless the pickets were four feet high, or if the latch was locked.
> As a private citizen, can I purchase a bunch of land between me and, I dunno, a DNS node or whatever and just lay a super long fiber cable straight to it?

I'm sure you can, the issue is do you have a couple million $ in your bank account to do this?
https://infostormer.com/fcc-ends-net-neutrality-despite-secu...
Taylor Swift’s new app, the Swift Life, is out now
Sam Harris just realised an episode on his “waking up” podcast that discusses the concept of experts -

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/full_archive
Well, I’m a sucker. I just read your very lengthy first link and learned absolutely nothing. The entire statement is questionable anecdotes, unreasoned conclusions and baseless declarations of what is good.

What about this text did you find valuable? Please share.
I agree that this is the best line in the paper. I interpret it to mean that while a second transaction is in progress, if a commit log comes in it's an extremely cheap operation to check the timestamp and ignore it.
Assembla Launches First iOS App for Enterprise Source Code Management
> "If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment"

This one has been around FOREVER but he was surprised to hear it this year? doubtful. I think Sam actually picked safe examples for his contrarian essay. e.g Notably absent Damore.
> Yet someone who's open about being a communist won't really be ostracised in SF. Communist flags are available on Amazon. Communist subreddits are not banned. So no, I don't buy this new wave of censorship as a defence against dangerous ideas.

Try flying a rebel flag off your SF apartment balcony. Or even something not as inciteful like saying you support the current sitting president.
Thankfully we don’t live in a democracy. America is a democratic republic. As the public is naturally under-informed, this is arguably a good thing; regardless of your views on Net Neutrality.

E.g. has Trump been able to build the wall that arguably half the population approved of? No, because his budget approval process has been checked by other elected representatives.
The Federal Communications Commission just ended net neutrality by a 3-2 vote despite a security threat that temporarily disrupted the proceedings. All this does is return things to the way they were back in 2015. You would think that with all the hysterics coming from the Jews, Silicon Valley and a variety of Marxist terrorists that this was the end of the world. It is not the end of the world. In fact, it is better that net neutrality regulations are repealed.
It is interesting that the 3 men on the panel voted to repeal it and the 2 women on the panel voted against it. Women are by and large a bunch of idiots and don’t know shit about technology. Women who have tried to run large technology firms have failed. It only took Marissa Mayer a few years to destroy Yahoo and she got paid many millions of dollars for her efforts. The fact that we have women at this high of a level within the FCC is dumb beyond imagination.

Either way, it is good that net neutrality regulations are repealed. Net neutrality regulations have not prevented Internet censorship from the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley firms. Of course, we didn’t see any of those leftists crying as these sites banned all sorts of people from their services for political reasons.

Repealing these rules also gives more incentive to new players entering the service provider market. More competition means more choices and more options.

The Internet was a better place in 2015. It is far worse now. This is just one step that will hopefully help improve things.

These leftist retards are going to look awfully silly when they’re still able to access the web like they did prior to this decision. It is funny to see the hysterics though. There’s a community meltdown happening on Twitter, Reddit and the other safe space social media sites as we speak.

Keep crying faggots!
The Supreme Court has decided that in this country money=speech, so ...
I didn't say the free market is a problem. I'm not a communist; I like the free market and I agree with your comment.

However, like you said, it's not a free market and it won't be for the foreseeable future. Fantasizing about that changing isn't a solution either. At the moment, government regulations are the best tools we have to protect consumers.
I think the use of the word "tolerance" here muddies things.

To the extent that tolerance is a virtue, it refers to tolerating other people for what they are, not what they do. There are gray areas here of course, but there are plenty of places where that distinction is clear.

I don't think political tolerance is inherently virtuous. If a coworker tells me they don't think women are suited for technical work then I don't feel any moral obligation to be "tolerant" of that viewpoint.
You're complaining about servers going down while acknowledging that the number of comments was unprecedented?

And your link doesn't support your claim:

>The Pai staffer who spoke with reporters acknowledged that there were legitimate comments from both sides in the net neutrality docket. In Pai's draft order, the FCC comprehensively addresses all the serious comments that made factual and legal arguments, the official said.
Chromecast is back on Amazon
Well, I didn't say it definitively. But I suppose you can say that. But this whole thread is one giant stereotype to begin with, so yeah. From my observation is what I should have said.

And I'm in Dallas, way better than Houston ;)
Any way we could build this into something more large scale? How can we do this in a way that doesn't fall afoul of harassment laws?
Fox News dates to 1996. Newt Gingrich (Atlanta suburbs) was already Speaker by then and had been recruiting and training candidates on his methods for close to a decade. He started as a pro-environment wonk Republican back bencher but saw this perfection of Nixon's Southern Strategy as his only path to power.

It worked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fox_News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

To be a real iconoclast, and I don't see Altman as any sort of iconoclast, you have to take your lumps. You have to be indifferent to your lumps.
This W3C recommendation is essentially meaningless. The W3C's "HTML 5.x" specifications have never been considered normative by browsers.

The actual HTML specification which browsers follow is maintained by WHATWG at:

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/
I'll disagree. Gold once mined will be there for us forever. Bitcoin once mined will need us to perpetually mine it to exist.

Gold will survive a nuclear war. EMP blasts, Hard drive failures, viruses, quantum computing and the lack of an internet connection aren't real risks to gold.

In the throws of WWIII, with buildings burning to the ground off in the distance, as you cross the border to mexico with just the clothes on your back, which would you rather line the seams of your jacket with: gold? Or a piece of paper with some numbers that unlocked your 'virtual currency'?

Let's see how well that shared belief holds up then.
In this analogy, who is Duck Duck Go?
> taxation is theft

Please keep generic ideological tangents off HN. They lead to angry-samey discussion rather than thoughtful-curious. Fortunately that didn't happen in this case, but then not all sparks lead to wildfires, even in a dry forest.
I expected this article to be at least tangential to C programming. Glad to C otherwise, I'm almost grateful. I know C pretty well, though, and would miss or reinvent it if it wouldn't exist.
It costs around $50k (Singaporean) to buy the right to own a car for 10 years.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsR...
The effort's appreciated. I'd commend you for it even if I disagreed with your position — to take the time to directly express concern and raise issues is key, in my opinion, to enacting real change.
Coding Dojo predicts the top seven programming languages of 2018
Tell HN: We need an ISP for the consumer
Who wants to start one?
It's pretty much exactly what paid prioritization is, which is a major part of what NN bans.
A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy.
In this instance, it's working as intended. Based on the election results, this is pretty much expected.

I suspect it's more that all the people of significance who have stated their opposition also share the same core political ideology as you, which doesn't match that of the party currently in power. So you view the system as not working because you didn't get what you wanted by having everyone on your side yell louder.
Good question. I'm honestly not sure. I just stumbled across it while looking for linalg resources. It appears to be legit, since the author is with UPenn and it's on a upenn.edu site. But I don't see an explicit license notification or anything, so not sure if you're even allowed to print it out yourself or not.
Are you sure that the time to be involved wasn’t say... a couple of decades ago? This feels like the terminal end-stage. It was time to be involved when Reagan was ending the hope of public education or mental health, during three or more decades of scientists and environmentalists screaming bloody murder, or at some point during our decades of failed adventurism abroad.

This isn’t new, this is the sharp end of an edifice people have allowed to be built underneath them, complete with extralegal security apparatus. It’s only when an orange clown is in charge and his henchmen are sharpening their regulatory knives, or 75% of the insect biomass vanishes that people start to notice.
The examples given are for societies that are both incredibly smaller than the U.S as well as not yet reaching industrialization. I'm not sure they are applicable comparisons.
Not in a country where a Toyota Corolla costs upwards of $100,000.
It doesn't matter until it does.

As an example, take Wisconsin - it was a blue state for 8 cycles before swinging to Trump in 2016. Democratic turnout was paltry, in great part because Democrats assumed that Hillary would win without them.

https://www.270towin.com/states/Wisconsin
So let me get this straight: This (potentially) means that whomever pays the most money to the ISP gets special privilege?

Sounds right in line with how the rest of America works.
Yes. Mandate theory is a convenient fiction with basically no basis.
> I also believe that all the societes that had slaves were capitalist ones.

German POWs were kept as slaves until, IDK, the 80's?
Facebook Will Introduce Ads as Videos Start, a Move Long Resisted
> Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that's exactly what happens in the US. People in rural Nebraska or Wyoming's vote is often up to three times more "effective" than someone in NYC or LAs.
When Should Startups Pursue Partnerships?
The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.)

Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one of them. I should know, I grew up there.
> And if forceps are used by inexpert doctors, the results can be disastrous.

"N of one", but I have a cousin who was mentally retarded/disabled during birth when forceps were used on his head.

Obviously I don't have proof of the cause (that would require a counterfactual birth), but he is disabled, has an abnormally oblong head, and this is the stated reason of the family (also not incontrovertible facts).
The problem with that "logical response" is that it is wrong.

Here is a simple demonstration. Consider the conservative argument that when you raise the minimum wage, elementary economics of supply and demand results in fewer jobs for poor people. I guarantee you that if you present this argument to 10 liberal friends, more than half will have a strong emotional response against it. While responding, some are likely to turn an interesting shade of red. Yet there is no intolerance in that argument.

Furthermore the argument is fairly well grounded in reality. Supply-demand curves are well-established basic microeconomics. And furthermore if you play around with https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/#pa... you will find that Republican policies (which include low minimum wages) are consistently better for creating jobs. Just as Democratic ones are better for increasing GDP.
Same goes for the recent Virginia election. Democrats outvoted Republicans by a wide margin in November, yet they might not even gain control of the house of delegates.
I do; want to come and hang out on my compound?
I think you are ignoring the main financial motive for this change - ISPs want to shake down Google, Facebook, and other successful internet companies. Customers won't see this directly. It will have indirect effects by increasing costs for the companies they use, but not in an obvious way that will cause a revolt. In financial terms, this dispute is mainly about these giant companies battling over who gets the fat profits Google and Facebook are currently taking home.
In the past, people getting really mad at ISPs has not changed anything. I don't see any reason to believe that people getting really really REALLY mad is going to change anything either. There's no mechanism for it to.
What do you suppose the purpose of government agencies is then?

Looking at their mandate it seems pretty clear that they are there to serve the interests of American citizens and should be acting in citizens best interests.

I think that's pretty clear in the use of the phrase "the people of the United State" here:

The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
Can someone clarify this for me? Perhaps my assumptions are incorrect:

> 1. Bandwidth is limited

> 2. Real-time streaming services, such as video, consume much more bandwidth (by sending more packets through the pipeline) than non-streaming services

> 3. Net neutrality guarantees that each packet is delivered with the same priority

Say Netflix takes up 20% of the bandwidth through its streaming services - each packet must have the same priority as any Netflix or non-Netflix packet. That leaves 80% for everyone else.

People begin streaming more Netflix and it now takes up 40% of the bandwidth. This means 60% for everyone else - fewer of their non-Netflix packets are making it into the pipeline. This means their download speeds slow down.

ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of non-Netflix packets get through, (2) throttle Netflix or (3) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in non-Netflix content slowing down.

Is my analysis incorrect here? Perhaps I am missing something obvious?

To me, it looks like Net Neutrality is (3). In this case, streaming services (and those consuming them) get a free ride to due to the rule mandating that packets must be delivered at the same time (so you benefit if you simply stuff the channel with a ton of your packets, a la Netflix). It would also make sense why Big Tech would support this (they receive the benefit), while Big Telecom would oppose this (they incur the costs). In an economic sense this would seem to be an inefficient market (as regulation tends to do).

However there are always noble reasons behind regulation (even if they are not implemented properly). I don't see (2) as particularly bad in an economic sense, but because these telecoms are notoriously anti-competitive, perhaps the ideal of a competitive market goes out the door?

Would greatly appreciate if anyone could clarify.
The nicer car2go vehicles are $0.45/min in Seattle ($0.35 for the smartcars that they are deprecating). I'm not sure how the traffic in Singapore compares, though.

In my experience, car2go is usually 2/3 the price of an Uber/Lyft
They can screw them over by refusing to touch an area that needs it. By opening the door to allow abuse by corporate interests.
I sincerely think we are in the gene therapy renaissance. Delivery has always been an issue, but there are new tricks coming out with regard to cell-specific targeting. We can piggy back off the work done for RNA-based therapeutics (mRNA, ASOs, RNAi).

As for the CNS - Voyager therapeutics has had some great readouts in September in gene therapy for Parkinson's. More data coming out in Q1 to see second part of study.
I won't comment on everything, but:

>changing leadership principles to remove 'vocally self-critical'

This wasn't removed, it just got moved under Earn Trust. It's certainly still something we talk about when interviewing and in debriefs, and when discussing LPs day to day when reaching decisions, at least in my org.

For the rest... I can't say I agree or that I've seen that behavior, based on my experiences over the years I've worked here. I have my gripes and complaints, but nowhere is perfect, and I honestly believe it's the best company I've worked at, which includes some other industry giants.
can someone flag this please...
Companies have always been expected to take stances on social issues. Within living memory, companies in many parts of the country were required by law to segregate their customers by race. In other parts of the country, many companies were expected to do this as well, although it wasn't a legal requirement. Similar things were true for companies' treatment of same-sex couples, unmarried heterosexual couples, single women, and non-Christians.

The main difference I see is that the expected stances are more liberal than they used to be, and the penalties for failing to conform tend to be much less severe.
What value do the ISPs actually add to the market?

It seems like a government granted middleman position to me, where I'd rather just purchase service from the government or the government's selected infrastructure manager.

Presumably there's already some base price for service that this infrastructure provider is charging everyone (a controller monopolist), what are you gaining on top of that by having a second middleman that is presumably also making a profit?
Keep in mind that this is from Indeed, which doesn't really tell us what startups are using.
"Robots don't get anywhere near the effectiveness of boots on the ground, even with the most advanced robotic explorers we have today"

Yes, that's why I said we accelerate the research into robotics.

No one wants to fund NASA to go to Mars. It'll cost $200 billion to get a dozen people there, then it'll cost even more to stay.

The DoD can spend a few billion in R&D, and that's a small project. We can give tax credits for R&D to private industry. The research doesn't even go on the NASA budget.
Are you also in favor of bundling when it comes to TV/Cable?
That has been tried in a few places, and I'm not sure that it has succeeded anywhere. Municipal fiber was laid where I used to live in Provo, UT and it had huge funding problems. ISPs could compete, but all the value is in the last mile not in the gateway.

Eventually Google bought it out, but the city had to increase taxes to help pay for the current bond, and was looking at more bonds to pay for it before Google stepped in.
So let me get this straight: It (potentially) means that whomever pays the most money to the ISP gets special privilege?

Sounds right in line with how the rest of America works.
> It's up to the individual browser makers to innovate.

This seems to make the most sense because the browser is the end product by which people consume their internet.

It seems to me, they have been and always will be years ahead of the governing bodies that make these part of their "standards" decisions. By the time something finally makes into the spec, we're already onto a dozen new things the browsers are capable of and implementing.

At this point it just feels like the spec is an afterthought, not necessarily keeping up with how fast the industry is changing.
> He could've found a republican that was pro-NN, but he didn't.

Any such appointee would not have been confirmed and thus would have been a waste of time.
That's capricious, not arbitrary. If Pai wanted this to go by the book, he would have pushed the vote out until the investigations into the fraudulent comments was completed, at the least. Someone who was determined to see this go through, but not in an arbitrary fashion, would have waited until the various issues with the process were resolved, and then held the vote. Pai was determined to hold this vote no matter what, that's arbitrary.
Disney to buy Fox film, TV businesses for $68B in stock
We could sit here all day and argue about net neutrality regulation all day. But "let the market decide"? I don't know how someone can say that with a straight face.
Maybe there could be a case for a YC startup focused on relocation. The idea is to simplify the process for non-tech people to discover options for employment, housing, culture, community, etc. in the various smaller towns and cities in the US.

The ability for people to do any product discovery (where the product is the city/town) prior to relocating is quite limited with huge ramifications/risk if you get your selection wrong.

A bit like a Lonely Planet/Tripadvisor/Yelp but for real life. It could crowd source ratings of cities by some basic quality of life score based on various attributes - housing costs, openness to new ideas, food scene, etc. It could verify residency by requiring you to provide GPS coordinates for a month before letting you rate. It could even be monetized by apartment providers, employers, restaurants, etc.