skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, you are all very, very different. So are we.

But it remains that really starting with Gingrich that conservatives have mounted a long media campaign against liberals which has been personified as Pelosi and codewritten as San Francisco values.

The reverse is not the case. This was one sided but it was also Gingrich and Republicans only path to power. It worked as an election strategy but not as a governing philosophy. So if you are complaining about the cohesion of the country, you really should start there.

I lived in the South. I have family in the South.
You're very much right.

I recall Facebook arguing that Peter Thiel offered diversity to their board, and I don't think anyone was fired for it.. sadly, though, they're also arguably the most frightening behemoth when it comes to tracking users.
You just classified a statement that includes "probably" as absolutist. Perhaps you should reexamine it and consider whether your own context is causing you to interpret it slightly differently than intended.
But why does that mean the loss is bounded by how much money he happens to have made running the site? I'm not seeing the link.
You're thinking too small. Disruptive technologies are disruptive so often because they bypass the current infrastructure. Ford didn't need horses, Lyft didn't need a fleet of taxis. Maybe the next disruptive broadband company doesn't need to lease existing wire infrastructure.

As for internet service options today, yes, it's not great. But it's getting better. We already have several options; here are two examples. Some wireless carriers already allow unlimited tethering; no cables needed. Broadband via satellite is available virtually everywhere in the US; again, no cable infrastructure needed.
Sure, it's easy to drown people with a link and a 210 pages document, but can you briefly explain it with your own words and voice your opinion for us?
It was called a "book"
“We lost”: Peter Sunde at transmediale 2015
Those things are already retrofitted. Ukraine already refurbishes old tanks and sells them to other countries, e.g. Thailand, under «Oplot» brand to fund line of 8x cheaper «Bulat» tanks for their own army.

Eastern Europe has much lower salary, so USA and Western Europe can fund 3-4x larger army using their soldiers. War simulators are proven to be very effective to train crews and commanders. I, personally, use «Hetman: War Stories» for Arma3 to improve my skills, with all helpers turned off, with weakest army against strongest at highest AI level. 1 life and no saves makes me wet and exhausted like real combat because of high price of error.

Of course, this is only one piece of defense, but important one. And, of course, local lobbies will try to steer money to their own defense projects, so such decision must be done at NATO or EU level.
That's a different case I believe; parent is correct, see https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-show for various relevant articles from 2014.
What's a person to do if you're generally for the concept of net neutrality (knowing the mendacity of outfits like Comcast), but you're also generally against regulating ISPs like telecoms (knowing the slowness, quantity of bureaucracy, and general incompetence of the federal government when it comes to tech)?

The FCC's Open Internet Order was damn good, and had it survived legal challenge, was one of the better and realistic options (aside from local loop unbundling which is never gonna happen). I think that legal decision was one of the worst ones in recent memory.
>We just had an election in Alabama that proved this view incorrect. Even in seemingly "safe" districts your vote can matter. That's how safe districts become safe.

It's kind of counter-intuitive, but the election of a Democrat in Alabama actually provided a lot of discouraging data about gerrymandering. While a Democrat won the state-wide popular vote, if those votes had been cast in the House districts, Republicans would have won six of the state's seven seats. Gerrymandering doesn't really help as much in a Senate race, but in House races, it's everything.
How is this comment not an ad hominem?

Many-to-most "blockchain experts" are hazy on where, exactly, the line between blockchain and not-blockchain falls (or, at least, there's enough ambiguity that drawing a sharp line is difficult to impossible).

To use that uncertainty to call out someone who professes skepticism about the general concept, while explicitly confessing that same uncertainty, as a means of disqualifying her perspective is therefore literally a fallacy of irrelevance.
Why don't you consider T-Mobile's "Binge On" plan to be a violation of net neutrality? I recall it being something like: Netflix data is free, other data is $10/GB.

It seems exactly the same as that widely-quoted Portuguese example, which also let you pay a data rate for sites that weren't in their special packages. This happened in the US because net neutrality was weak and never really applied to mobile carriers.
No, I very specifically meant socialism. Communism is a child of socialism, not the other way around.
That's a danger, for sure, but once you're paying people you can generally be more choosy. CVs can be reviewed as can previous review work.

No one suggests that paying programmers to program results in shoddier work. There just needs to be an accountability and feedback system just like in any other industry.
Good. this is good
Bubble can be overused and become meaningless, but it can be a useful concept to consider when deciding if this is where you want to put your money. In my opinion, irrationally motivated valuation is key here.

People buying Bitcoin as the future are taking a leap of faith that only comes true if enough people take that leap and do not abandon it. There is no underlying asset or intrinsic value, there is no government force backing it up. There is nothing people can point out to express why this particular cryptocurrency has value.

This isn't an argument against the underlying technology, just the valuation of Bitcoin.
VEGA64 has a 300W TDP and can pull over 400W underload.

The Xeon-W has a TDP of 140W and can pull 200W under load.

Add in cooling, most radial fans are 4-6A @ 12V which means they can pull upto 80W.... The Delta radial fan on the Vega 64/56 air pulls 60W on it's own at full speed.

High end motherboards consume 40-80W, memory also will consume about 5W per DIMM.

And you have the built in screen which can easily consume 200W or more at peak brightness.

So I hope you have a tasty hat, because there is no way that the iMac Pro isn't coming with a near 1kW PSU.
Speaking of the Metamorphosis and its translations: https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/may/13/kafk...
Sure, we could treat all stories as being of a single size and rely on the central limit theorem, but that takes far, far longer to converge. On the order of years, I suspect, not weeks or months, which is what you get out of pointing. "We should have this done sometime between now and 2022" is not a useful metric for a PO.

We add story points because given consistent incentives, estimates tend to be consistent. Maybe consistently under or consistently over, and obviously there's a bit of wiggle room from estimate to estimate, but they tend to converge quite quickly, and to within a week or two's uncertainty of what we'll have done at any given point within the next six months, and within 6 weeks within the next year. Quite a far cry from not using them.

Meetings? Some, sure; you'd have them anyway just defining what it is you're doing, the additional burden to assign points takes up maybe half an hour per person per week or two. Training to get consistency right? There's no training involved. The hardest thing is to get people accustomed to picking a number, relative to the others. But that's not that hard either; we basically just took the first sprint's stories, organized them into a line (much like his rectangles) going from least to most complex, then discussed where to draw three vertical lines, separating them into four distinct sizes, 3s, 5s, 8s, and 13s. We then made sure the largest didn't feel too large compared with the other 13s (or else it might actually be a 21, just compared to what we had agreed a 13 was, and so we had to split it up), and from there we always had 'reference stories' to decide whether it felt more like a 5 or an 8, say. And while we sometimes differed, we could always hash out why we differed and come to an agreement on exactly how large the story was. Again, per the OP, so long as you are consistent with how you address those discrepancies, your overall estimates will be consistent, and give you predictability.

One half hour per week or two is hardly a huge cost to pay when it gives the business the ability to accurately predict when we'll have something delivered.

I don't care if the argument is convincing. I've seen it work. You're free to do whatever you want; I know what I've seen work, and what I've seen not work. I've yet to find something that works so well.
On machine learning enhanced software systems
The main thrust of the argument seems to be that we should do our best to stop censorship. I'm arguing that we probably shouldn't. Our society is not really equipped to handle the free exchange of ideas at this point.
As someone who doesn't live in the States, I can't follow the article. It's strangely abstract. What are the controversial ideas he is discussing in China but not in the States? Did I miss those examples in the text? I think that would help a lot to understand problem.
In no particular order: Berlin, Lisbon, London, Paris (might need a little bit of French), Amsterdam, Dublin.

Each one has different pros/cons depending on whats important to you: type of work, money, work/life balance. All of them are good (and, aside from London soon, easy to move between once you're resident in Europe or here on a long visa).
How Cards Against Humanity Sent Checks to Their Lowest-Earning Customers
> When did a fiat currency win out over gold?

It happened gradually. But wars usually put stress on the gold system. They caused the fault lines to slip, so to speak.

The US Dollar was the last major currency tied to gold and we finally severed that tie in 1972 when the Bretton Woods system ended.

And the reason it happened is that in order for prices to remain stable, we needed to be able to adjust the amount of money flowing in the economy to an extent greater than gold would allow.

> It requires government manipulation by price fixing, outright debasement and mechanisms like legal tender laws for worthless tokens to win out over a precious metal such as gold.

Yup! With the rate of economic growth outstripping the rate at which we could mine gold or spend new gold certificates into the economy, gold just simply wasn't going to cut it anymore as a stable basis for a currency. In order for markets to function smoothly, we needed a currency that could be actively managed.
As European bystander this is amazing and scary. Does anyone have any insights if/what this means for trans-atlantic traffic?
IIRC, this also means that the first litter systematically dies off.

I vaguely recall a guide explaining this during a SafariLive stream[1]

1. https://wildearth.tv/safarilive/
You're assuming that the values of the culture you're living in are necessarily better or more ethical than those held by an individual. But even assuming that is true, the inability to voice ones opinions without ostracism doesn't solve disagreement, it just hides it. Whilst there may be a tremendously pleasing and unproductive perceived homogeneity of opinion around you, that facade is pulled with the curtain of the voting booth.
Agreed, every page should be encrypted.

And the user shouldn't need to check the certs - if the CAs are trusted (yes there are problems there) then the domain name is enough.
> The result is, as I've heard it put, Liberals are tolerant of anything except being conservative.

That's a clever slogan. But the logical response to that would be to say that liberals are tolerant of everything except intolerance.

Which as a factual statement is of course arguable, but as a premise is certainly internally consistent.
There's a single democracy. There's no shortage of random polling websites. Telling me "You are ruled by this person, who was selected in a process you knew about since childhood" is one thing; telling me "This is likely true because people on this website you've never heard of say it's true" is another.

(And yes, governments where there are ad-hoc rationalizations for who gets to vote or where the procedures aren't publicly announced are in fact illegitmate and widely recognized as such.)
I will sue to stop the FCC’s illegal rollback of #netneutrality
Ask HN: How to get around “net inequality”?
Net neutrality has been repealed.

Now that companies (like Comcast) are ready to defile the internet even more, how do we get around it?

Is it possible? What solution do we have?
When you explain what Net Neutrality is, an overwhelming majority of people supported it, including republicans. This isn't just a tech-literate liberal issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
Wireless is the only plausible competitor. Currently, the costs are still too high and the reliability too low. However, looking 1-2 years forward this will be a very attractive option.
when you think about it, it's a bad simulacrum of the social encounter and experience. i use mine as a blog for issues and feelings that have provoked a big response in me but it's far from ideal
> Spanner’s external consistency invariant is that for any two transactions, T1 and T2 (even if on opposite sides of the globe):if T2 starts to commit after T1 finishes committing, then the timestamp for T2 is greater than the timestamp for T1.

This is impressive. But what exact point in time is when 'T2 starts to commit'? Is it when the user pushes the submit button on their device? When the request reaches a Google server? When it reaches a Spanner server within Google?

The point I'm getting at is given the uncertain 'delay' between the time the user interacts with the system and the 'time of commit', is time based linearizability a useful property? Could it be made simpler with actor based linearizability? Or revision based?
Fysiurgisk massage aarhus
Edit: I'm having multiple people reply with basically the same thing which is: look here's what happened in 2014. I'm just going to reply to all of you here:

What happened in 2014 was not throttling in the last mile, which is what the 2015 Title II re-classification protects against, so this would've been legal even without the repeal (and more importantly did not meaningfully contribute to Title II classification, like parent is implying). What happened in 2017 probably wasn't either, but could more reasonably be construed that way because it was all happening inside of Verizon's network.

The Netflix Verizon case illustrates what makes Net Neutrality law so difficult to describe in technical terms. Verizon was not slowing down netflix packets, netflix was so big that it fully saturated multiple links. You can argue about what this implies for the peering agreements that are setup, but regardless this area is simply not something that net neutrality covers. Net neutrality says the last mile needs to treat all content it receives the same way. If the congestion is further up the network, NN has nothing to do with it.
The structure is such that people elect representatives and those representatives sometimes appoint other people to roles because it's not feasible for people to elect 10's or 100's of thousands of public employees with decision and regulatory making power.

Also, all of these people are still humans. Meaning that they have their own closely held beliefs. If you are honestly expecting non-elected officials to violate their own beliefs based on public feedback simply because "majority rules", you aren't living in reality. That virtually never happens. When it does happen, it usually happens on issues that are not hot-button issues and those being hounded by the public don't have a strong opinion so they are willing to switch sides if necessary.

And the US is not and has never been a majority rule democracy. It's a constitutional republic and that's a critical difference. Part of that structure is ensuring that in some cases (like the electoral college), the majority don't get to make the rules simply because they decided to band together or live close to each other. The electoral college exists precisely for the situation the US is currently in - where the more liberal areas are all clustered in relatively small, high density areas. They now account for more than 50% of the population but far less in the electoral college because the system was built to prevent that density issue where these small areas by land mass could force feed laws upon the rest of the country, enabling those areas to effectively have control over money and resources which they otherwise would not.
I an pretty far away from you guys, but from where I’m sitting trump seems like a utter maniac, lying even when people can clearly prove it is lies. Alternative facts etc etc. I have a hard time understanding how he can be compared to pretty much anyone and come out on top.. I know the Media paints their own picture of him, but still?
Could be worse; could be @taviso.
On November 15, 2017, all TechShop locations closed, employees were laid off, and an impending Chapter 7 bankruptcy was announced. Then, a windmill entrepreneur from Kansas, Dan Rasure, proposed to buy the chain.

Despite optimistic PR, the deal just fell through. The proposed buyer didn't have enough cash and TechShop had too much debt.[1] TechShop apparently owes about $21 million.

Currently, the business is in limbo - bankruptcy has not been filed, but the company isn't operating and debts are not being paid.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/1555642407859618
What's wrong with W3C again? Are we on the same train we were with the ill-fated XHTML 1 strict and XHTML 2.

Anyway what's going on anyway with Google+Microsoft+Apple+W3C, why is there such a big push to HTTPS and HTTP/2, and declaring old HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1 and HTTPS/1 and HTML5.0 as legacy!? And why is Mail still sent in plain text completely insecure, and no adoption hype to support SMIME/etc? It is beyond fishy. Or is it just pure greed, no one cares about non-walled-garden-open-web (aka everything has to live in LinkedIn/FB/AppStore/PWA) and there is no money in mail?
Stopping Fraudsters by Changing Products @Lyft
I already have suggested to base the W3C snapshots on the WHATWG web developer edition.
From 0 to OpenVPN is 30 Seconds – OpenVPN Tutorial using easy-rsa
> Arbitrary means random.

This is false both in mathematics and in everyday language.
USA democracy is failing and this is something to freak out about.
WEF – Is the age of management over?
A biologist can explain the workings of the mantis's vision system, an artist can imagine what it might be like to be experience it. What does the philosopher contribute? (I'm not asserting there's no contribution, I'd just like someone to explain what it is.)
Ben Shapiro Breaks down net neutrality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBrZ_CPgm7o
It looks like some markets have gotten the message more quickly than others.
> Sessions won the seat in 2014 with 97.3% of the vote

Which sounds impressive, except that he was running unopposed (not just no Democratic opponent but no other candidates filed for the election at all) in both the primary and general election.
In a fully capitalist market for broadband, I would indeed feel net enforced neutrality is not quite as necessary and would agree with the pro-market economist comments more. Generally speaking, I would expect that consumers could have a choice between various tiers and qualities of service. I'm fairly sure a "net neutrality" type tier would be one of the options here (there's enough for demand for it.)

The current marketplace is a different story. In many places in America, Internet service is a defacto monopoly. And the current legal landscape is anti-competitive and protects the big players. States can't experiment with their own net neutrality policies [1]; heck, legislation is in place in many states to defacto prevent municipal broadband alternatives [2]. And even with private players like Google Fiber, the "big players" show every willingness to use nuisance lawsuits in attempt to delay that pesky capitalist competition from coming into play. [3]

I did notice that a lot of the comments in that survey of economists brought up both the anti-competitive nature of the current broadband market, as well as the worry about vertical integration (which also is a monopoly concern). So it's not like they aren't aware of some of the strongest reasons (MHO) for needing net neutrality style regulations at the moment.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or...
[2] https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/brie...
[3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171101/10474538530/att-b...
Perhaps this will only spur the global do gooders of the world to come up with better (more permanent) solutions for promoting privacy, free speech and innovation.

As a reader of HN I feel like there is already great work being done here (eg/ lets encrypt).

ahem pineapple fund, if you are a real thing, maybe you can put something under EFF's tree for xmas?
The hyperbole around NN on here and reddit has been annoying. My network carrier already does some anti net neutral things that I like.

I do think the market for ISPs has failed. Regulatory patching won't always be able to stay up to date. The government should make it easier to start an ISP.
Ben Shapiro BREAKS DOWN Net Neutrality
Somehow I think it's not ok to post pictures of your children on Facebook. Maybe, in hindsight, they don't want that once they're grown-ups. Then again, maybe that's just me thinking that
I see. I always thought it was just, "swamps are smelly, okay?"
Notice no 64GB LR-DIMMs. I even sent an email to Cook and Federighi about that one today.
> In no particular order: Berlin, Lisbon, London, Paris (might need a little bit of French), Amsterdam, Dublin.

Thanks, I'll have to take a look. Still debating whether I'd want to move across the pond from my family, especially with a 5 year old in tow - but I've thought about moving to the EU for roughly 10 years at this point.

> (and, aside from London soon, easy to move between once you're resident in Europe or here on a long visa).

That part's pretty easy for me, my wife inherited Italian citizenship through her bloodline - we just need to get all the paperwork taken care of to get it recognized.
"The Republicans believe that the market will take better care of Internet users than any regulatory agency. On this one issue, it's possible they're even right."

There is a pretty significant problem with this reasoning: what market are you referring to? Most Americans have zero, one, or two broadband ISPs they can receive service from. In most cases where there is any choice, it is between cable and DSL, which have very different technical characteristics and are not always interchangeable.

I could get behind a market-based approach if there was some kind of proposal to foster a market. What happened to the line-sharing requirements that gave us competition among DSL services in the late 90s? That was a market-based solution and it worked well; that approach continues to work well in other countries.

Instead, the current approach is to leave the monopolies and duopolies in place, and to do nothing to reduce barriers to entry for competing services or otherwise foster a competitive market.
> Do you really think they'd be opposed to a plan that basically subsidizes their bandwidth?

no it's not subsidizing.
Basically I pay X amount to the ISP to ACTUALLY VIEW NETFLIX.
Basically the ISP gets more out of the deal by having access to netflix, not the other way.