skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Speaking as a conservative: When Obama was president, I got told the same thing about the ACA. The world will end, the sky is falling, America is finished. But eight years later, here I am, nothing's that much worse.

(You need to find better people to listen to.)

And when things get bad, what do you expect that will look like? Mad Max-style desert hellscapes?

No: It'll look pretty much like now. Except things will be a little worse. You'll have less money. Less freedom. You'll find yourself making a few more trade-offs and concessions than you were before. Harder work. Less money. And you'll wonder why there's a small ruling class that seems to get all of the gains of society. You'll wonder why things never ever seem to break in your direction anymore. Always towards them.

Oh, and fun fact:

Much of the country is already in this position. Especially in minority communities. You just happen to not be feeling it. But make no mistake that that is the future the Republican Party has envisioned for this country and is currently enacting piece by piece. Breaking net neutrality -- something that will affect the poor and downcast of society much more than it will affect you or I -- is just a piece of the puzzle.
Pretty sure that's more like 1789.
It does remind me a bit of the trickle down economics. They are making it sound like that the only thing holding them back from massive innovation is profits lost to regulations and as soon as we get rid of those the floodgates will open - but they never do. The ISPs are going to use that money to consolidate their power, buy more companies that depend on their infrastructure and shovel money back to their shareholders and drive their stock price up. This is exactly what is going to happen with the tax bill (and is already happening due to the expectation of a tax bill), we're being sold that companies have been right on the cusp of increasing wages and hiring if it weren't for those pesky taxes they had to pay. When the jobs and wages don't come, they'll blame something else and down the road they'll take away another important thing, like labor protections or something. And we'll fall for it (collectively), its like a mystery box or something, we can't resist the idea of the free market as this chained beast that just has to be released and it will solve everything with no oversight or maintenance.
Data Science – Unsupervised vs. Supervised vs. Reinforcement [video]
Bots being legally protected as a class or not, using robots.txt as the ultimate test of what distinguishes normal traffic from CFAA violations is a very flawed mechanism. It turns your website into a minefield.

As a property owner, a no-trespassing sign won't protect you from the lawsuits that result when a toddler drowns in your pool. You're expected to do more (like putting up that gate).

Equifax's systems are peppered with "no-trespassing" motds at login. They also have a robots.txt file. We expected them to do more.

Same for leaving keys in your ignition, guns unlocked on your nightstand, etc. "Don't touch" signs won't absolve you of responsibility when either gets stolen and used in a spree killing.

So yes, as the owner of any sort of asset, in most contexts it is your responsibility to implement access controls to keep unauthorized traffic out.
Pai focused primarily on those in his comments today. From Mr. Pai's comments:

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

"The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It’s that they don’t have access at all or enough competition. These regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, investment in high-speed networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."

"The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules."

"the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”"

"a coalition of 19 municipal Internet service providers—that is, city-owned nonprofits—have told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because [they] cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”"
That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies

Holding it as "under regulating" seems like it's falling for the doublespeak. It is also Republican governments at every level that are almost universally responsible for the (over) regulations that led to the current monopolies of providers in most areas (often a single `choice'). If a city or region or even second party looks to install alternative feeds, overwhelmingly opposition comes from Republican governments, and there is already threats that this federal government will prevent States from passing their own rules on this (it would be too obvious if red states lived in a shitstorm while blue states lived in the modern world). It is profoundly corrupt.

I'm not trying to be partisan, but the Republican party in the US are the voice of a oligarchy. This FCC decision is the perfect example of it -- something they are profoundly incapable of building the slightest justification for, and that can only possibly benefit already overwhelming providers.
serverless is the shake weight of tech.

in all seriousness a very useful and cool tool. thanks for sharing!

i'd have picked a more informative domain; maybe serverless.info?

nice to know that is currently not cost effective for my workload.

- lambda = $3,327.05

- ec2 = $1,1146.24
I viewed sports as a major obstacle for people ceasing their cable television subscription. I think YouTube TV offers a viable option for this now.

So, work on that referral from your ISP to YouTube TV!
So what's the strategy here re: security? I assume it'd be a fairly stripped-down version of Python ... or will you just design the UI to say "you probably shouldn't execute files from people you don't know" etc?
DOJ says Trump inauguration 'rioters' are 'hiding behind the First Amendment'
I used to like Facebook a lot. I would argue about politics there like a lot of people did in 2016. Facebook wss where I got my news for a while. Nah, I have unfollowed those toxic pages (e.g “Now This”)

I was bothered by my mental illness this year and I live streamed my suicide attempt twice and it was not pretty to watch. Friends all freaked out and tried to get someone to help me. I guess I did that because “that’s where people get to see me”.

A few months ago I deactivated my facebook for about a month and I maintained my relationship strictly over WhatsApp. It worked great. There was no pressure. I eventually reactivated it so I can spend some more time with a really good friend.

Now, like my Instagram, most of the pages I follow now are about cats, some cultural stuff, and a number of youtubers.

I still get to see what my friends are doing and that’s great. I still share pictures and updates with my friends. But I am not so attached to it anymore (and the stupid iOS app has been crashing every 30 seconds for no freakin’ reason) - Facebook team please fix it.

You don’t have to deactivate the account, but please clean up your newsfeed first. Unfollow pages you don’t want and clean up friend list.

Use the good part of Facebook and you will be fine.
Nah, it's both-and. States feel less pressure to fund colleges because of easy availability of student loans.
Interesting article, I have a few comments/questions

Story points - there is a lot in theory I like about these and you hit on those points. But in practice where my teams have struggled is still in the definition of a point. People understand the relative sizing concept but they still want a definition of what one point means and that invariably winds up being some kind of a time unit, which means all points get thought of in time units. What techniques have you used to solve this problem?

Defects - some good points were made but you never really discussed how these are managed as work. Stories and defects are getting worked on at the same time, but how exactly? Are defects just lumped in with stories and the PM prioritizes them? I do not think so, but you are not clear in this area. If a PM prioritizes a story but the team spends all of its time resolving defects then how is value being delivered as expected? You seem to have left this out completely, or I missed it.

Finally, also on defects, while your points on not estimating them makes some sense, someone has to decide what to work on, and generally you need some idea how long things will take to make that decision. Even in your wording, you acknowledge some defects take a long time to fix, where as others are super-quick and in the end they all average out. Still, someone in the organization still cares about dates and delivery. It made a lot of sense to me where you indicated that the story point estimate can be valuable to the PM in terms of prioritizing. When they see a story with a high estimate that might cause them to lower its priority compared to other stories they can get delivered quicker. But seemingly defect fixing would have to factor into this somewhere too, and then wouldn't the same concept apply? If defects are not estimated, how can the time it will take to resolve the defect inform the decision making process?
Those are fair counterexamples. Perhaps I should be distinguishing between the Blink team and the rest of the Chrome team. I realize that distinction isn't very important to an outsider, but at least realize that that there's a large portion of the Chrome team that cares very much about the web evolving through an open standards process.

The URL Standard was designed in the open with input from many different constituencies. The cURL author has chosen not to participate, for reasons of his own, but e.g. Node.js, PHP, Google's GURL (used by Android IPC, I believe), and others are quite involved.
Best Free Stock Photos for the Holidays
I think you could be sued for damages, but that's not the same as a criminal case.
That’s not right. Browser implement the WHATWG specs.

That said, validity changes don’t matter to the browser’s ability to render old pages. Changes to remove support for an element entirely are very rare.
What's the play here? Let's assume the NSA or CIA has archives of everyones emails. Would the IRS troll that to try to find out who has all this money so they can properly tax it?
This. Being a republic does not preclude also being a representative democracy (or even a direct democracy at some level for that matter).
> These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we should be very concerned about this.

That's just like, your opinion man.

If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else, who will benefit from them most? (hint: probably not people living on welfare)

These issues are fundamentally political, and there is no reason that they should be above any form of discourse or criticism.

If someone's feelings are hurt because there is a backlash against their technoscientism, that's on no one else but them.
Depends a lot of how much mass you plan to land on the moon. Also depends on if you want 80% chance of success or 99% chance of success.
I honestly don't care if Disney owns all of media or not. What the market does is little of my concern as long as it doesn't conflict with my own interests.

I assume you're a strong proponent of laissez-faire, then?
Verizon fought against those loose regulations and won. IIRC, a judge on that case said (I'm paraphrasing) that the Obama-era FTC couldn't use legally achieve what it was attempting to under those rules, but might (wink and a nudge) under Title-II.
So are you saying that there are no bus drivers and cleaning people in California, or are you saying that bus drivers and cleaning people in California make $100k per year?

(As for your request for proof by claimed authority, I used to live in the Bay Area. It's been about ten years since I left. I was doing fine on $60k back then. Maybe prices have doubled in the meantime.)
> If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not?

This is a common moral principle; it is found in, for instance, the classical Christian doctrine on homicide, where directly willed killing is (leaving aside war and capital punishment) categorically prohibited, but killing (even when it is a certain result, or as nearly so as practically occurs) incidental to some act with a different end is not categorically prohibited, but judged according to the proportionality of the risked harm of the act with the harm it was avoiding. (Self-defense doctrine in American, and some other, law is ultimately strongly influenced by this principle, though it diverges a bit from it.)
This is an extremely anecdotal post, and if it had been written by anyone but the CEO of YCombinator it'd have been either ignored, or derided.
It’s also worth noting Lambda still lacks a formal SLA.
If Comcast re-enable Sandvine and start tinkering with P2P and VPN traffic, will that be enough to start the conversations around anti-trust? Or is there already a precedent?
Artificial intelligence is guiding venture capital to startups
>If you're a startup who wants to minimize capex and quickly spin up a reliable, secure infra to host your app on to get it out of the door ASAP, you would go with cloud.

But that's exactly what Etsy isn't. They've been around for years. It's a stable, mature business (at least by the standards of the sort of business they're in). What possible advantage could they gain from switching to this cloud?
Pai's comments are not "an example".
Google Fiber did some variety of this:

> Google Fiber works better when communities are connected together. So we’ve divided Kansas City into small communities we call “fiberhoods.” We’ll install only where there’s enough interest, and we’ll install sooner in fiberhoods where there’s more interest.

https://fiber.googleblog.com/2012/07/how-to-get-google-fiber...
Who knows how much of the recent price hikes relate to it too...
Well, some domain registries are not under US control. Consider that TPB and Sci-Hub still have domain names.

And, if push comes to shove, one doesn't really need a domain.
> That is censoring and shutting down the argument. Who are you to make that call?

If people aren't allowed to state that 'behavior X makes person Y unethical', then how are we supposed to determine what is 'objectively unethical'.
A close friend of the family had hallucinatory voices. He thought he could read minds. He decided to play Texas Holdem poker in the casino to take advantage of his mind reading inner voices. After a painful period of not having any money, he figured out that the voices weren't real nor could they read what the other players were holding in their hands. He is totally normal now.
> @ msft

Well, I guess that explains why you care about Office in 2017.
If you're into Clojure, there is a fast linear algebra library Neanderthal (I'm the author) that covers both GPU and CPU, is easy to use, and comes with lots of tutorials that cover a linear algebra textbook chapters, as well as more advanced numerical computing uses (solvers, factorizations, etc.):

The list of guides is here:
http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/guides.html
I think the comment was a jab at net neutrality (or our newfound lack thereof).
I don't doubt it. The winds change often, sometimes quickly. People going to move to the cloud, people going to move back to on-prem, as sure as the sun is going to rise.

My hunch is you'll see a lot of move back on-prem during the next downturn when hardware providers need to move a lot of hardware under duress while businesses look at cutting their opex (you have to pay for cloud compute/storage forever, whereas you can run on paid gear for the cost of power, network, cooling, space, and the tech people you need anyway).

To quote Warren Buffet, “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out."
Not a lawyer but I believe a lot of the argument there hinged on municipalities legally being creations of the states, with only the powers the states choose to give them.

Courts are wary of letting the federal government regulate how states organize themselves.
Does anyone know about grassroots efforts to provide internet in major cities? Any links to follow updates or just for more info?

Being completely ignorant, it should be feasible with so many people in a few square miles.

I would absolutely contribute to an internet coop in Chicago were such a thing to get going. Even just to avoid the annual two hour phone calls to Comcast when I discover they added $100 worth of shit I didn't order to my bill without asking me.
Not to mention the fact that linkedin was scraping private data in the case of contact scraping.

Linkedin is the biggest case of "we've got ours fuck everyone else" I've seen.
The Damore case has nothing to do with the validity of the science. If the scientific interpretation had been perfectly reasonable there would still be a flip-out and would have also been fired.

Thats what's scary.
I took Prof. Gallier (the author of this document)'s class when I was a graduate student at Penn.
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/home.html

It is one of the class I enjoyed the most when I was there. Some of his other books are quite enjoyable as well.

Dr. Gallier's PhD work was focused on logic, but his current research has a lot to do with computer graphics and computational geometry. He spent a long time study graduate-level algebraic geometry and algebraic topology while having the duty to be a professor at computer science department. His stories is always an inspiration for me to learn more.
To answer your question, people get discounts just for negotiating, no PR required. I would guess the conversation went something like this: "___ is how much we pay to host Etsy on bare metal right now. Can you match that?" "Yes."

I'm oversimplifying - there are a bunch of other considerations, like guarantees about future prices and capacity availability and whether having more flexibility makes it worthwhile for Etsy to pay more, but fundamentally Etsy looked at their current costs and asked Google to make an offer. (I would assume they actually had all three major players bid, and Google won.)

Also to your point, the announcement specifically called out Google's AI and big data capabilities. Those are workloads that can involve a lot of bursting, so the cloud might be especially attractive. Imagine trying to implement BigQuery in bare metal - you can do it, but you have to have a lot of extra servers lying around just in case someone tries to run an analytics query. The same goes even more strongly for something like a model training workload. For bursty enough workloads, running in the cloud can be cheaper than bare metal even given the cloud provider's profit margin.

Depending on how much model training Etsy wants to do, something like TPUs might have also given Google a fundamental edge in costs over bare metal or other providers. I don't know enough to know exactly what factors went into Etsy's decision, but I think these are reasonable ideas.
This is not (uncontroversially) true. See the long discussion below or on any other W3C post on HN.
Why is it so hard for people to take the other side at their word? Republicans push deregulation because they think it's the right thing to do, because they believe the market is a better regulatory mechanism. Perhaps you think this view is mistaken. Good, great, fine! Then argue against it.

But there's no crazy hidden motive here. Republicans just disagree with you.
Racism, then?
Price breaks would be my guess. Famous names can get discounts in exchange for going public with the transition. I don't have evidence to back this up, but I get the sense that Google offers the deepest discounts, possibly because AWS and Azure have more mindshare and Google wants to catch up.
New release of CodeTrack – The free .NET profiler now supports your own plugins
Just delete your account and don't look back. I did years ago and have no regrets. It's junk food.
Designing personalized clinical trials
Wireless can give you gigabit speed with sub 10ms latency, for sure! With a few assumptions and caveats. You have to work out a compromise involving spectrum width, power usage, transceiver positions, etc. etc. etc. to get optimal performance, for all the various definitions of optimal.

And there are lots of games you can play with QAM, channel-hopping, frequency division, and I am sure that future DSP experts will invent still more ways of getting more data to more people faster with less power. But the basic compromises still need to be dealt with. Using a wired link, you can blast data as fast as you want to yourself without messing with other people, on wireless things are more complicated.

But enough of that, to answer your question: here's a product that can get you 20 Gbps and 0.2 ms latency over hundreds of kilometers:

https://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber24-hd/

https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-airFiber-AF-24-Worldwide-Lic...

Easy as that! ...but you're not about to mount one of those on your cell phone.

In an ideal world, all wireless access points could adjust their configurations as required. They'd share information on their physical locations, transceiver capabilities, power status, and bandwidth usage, with the data flowing across the landscape like electrical current in a sheet of metal or water in the shallow riffle of a stream. And of course all these devices would contain unimaginably brilliant and complex software that would manage all this with high efficiency, and they'd all interoperate seamlessly. And since this is the ideal world, no one would ever use the transceiver information from the network for nefarious purposes, and we'd all share the burden of keeping adequate transceiver power available, and the power would be generated from renewable energy sources.

But that ideal wireless world would still have far less capacity than the ideal wired world. The question is whether you think a user-driven wireless setup can be superior to the crappy wired situation we have now.
The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality).

The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service.

If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality.

An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.