skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think this is where I err.

My analogy of us all using a shared pipeline (eg. the ISP infrastructure) is not a great one. Rather, that pipeline is partitioned based on how much people pay to access parts of it - the more they pay for their bandwidth, the more of the pipeline they get.

And how they choose to fill their part of the pipeline is their right, and should affect only them. If the latter part is true (that it affects only them), then I think my questions are answered.
Why would they include the T1 option but ignore the nearly equivalent bandwidth of a pair of tin cans connected with string to some acoustic modems?
I'd imagine that the move would require some re-engineering of their services to make the best use of GCP. I'd also imagine that their would be a non-trivial migration process to ensure uptime is maintained and customers are not impacted during the move.
Having worked for two companies that have shifted to cloud providers, multi-year timescales is fairly usual even just for like-for-like migrations. You can’t just shut down the servers, image them and start them in the cloud, you need to have a plan to progressively migrate services while maintaining site operation.
I wonder if this would be feasible at the neighborhood level via Home owners association. The neighborhood gets a tower and microwave link to a backhaul station, and provides internet via wifi or wires to the neighborhood.

I think our neighboorhood is about 130 houses. probably not enough to make it cost effective.

On the flip side, maybe starting a local company to provide LOS microwave hookups to the various neighborhoods in the area could make it work.
Depends on where you live. Every city has different laws about how to run cable underneath the ground. The first cost you pay is figuring out where everyone's cables are. The second cost you pay is convincing the city to let you do it. The third cost you pay is doing the digging.

If you spin it off as a service to your block, then it might be possible...?
I so desperately wanted to use either of those, but MonkeyBrains would require me to mount something outside my building which wasn't going to be possible at either place I've lived in the city... and Sonic... well I got Sonic.

Sonic runs on AT&Ts lines. It was slow and had lag spikes. After about a year it got to be where the modem (and Internet) would cycle for a couple minutes about once every 2 hours. The (Sonic!) tech came out, found a fault on the line, and his advice was to get Comcast.

I also tried getting Wave, but couldn't.

I went through a similar runaround with my previous building (also in SF), where I tried to avoid Comcast. Eventually I caved.

Comcast was terrible and shady from the very beginning. They sold me an internet package they later claimed didn't exist(!) even though I had the offer in writing from the sales guy. So they just adjusted my bill to what they thought I should pay.

They eventually backed down after I kicked up a huge fuss (and took it to social media), but they also threw a bunch of free stuff I didn't want in to my package as "compensation", and guess who was paying for that when my promotional rate expired before they promised it would? My rate was constantly going up if I didn't fight them tooth and nail. I had to check every bill and almost every one had a new surprise. I have never worked with such a perfidious organization.

So after all that I wanted Anything But Comcast, which I already disliked before that experience. I've seriously considered tethering to Verizon Wireless as better...

But I like to do online gaming and Comcast is the only vaguely reasonable option at this point. They're a little less shady if you avoid ALL television service.
As an Spanish speaker (from Mexico), I hate reading anything translated in Spain. They make absolutely no effort in translating the idioms, or cultural references. Latin American translations are better IMHO, but I almost always read in english.
This is awesome. I have Crohn's and am looking forward to an eventual cure.

One thing I don't understand is why big pharma and VCs seem to focus on rare diseases instead of a gene therapy for changing eye color or hair color. With eye/hair color gene treatments, patients could undergo the therapy multiple times (if desired) and the pool of patients is all humans (not just rare diseases sufferers). This allows for amortization of the R&D expense over substantially more treatments. Plus the advances in gene therapy technology could then be applied to therapies for rare diseases
Facebook is more and more just a cesspool.
>The company also wants professional creators to post more videos to the site and make the platform a content hub on par with YouTube, a unit of Alphabet Inc.’s Google.

That's interesting, because I've never been able to find a second time a video that popped up in my feed. For my experience, videos on Facebook might as well be ephemeral. forever vanishing the moment my feed refreshes itself automatically.
So we shouldn't worry about the monopoly because it should "go away soon". How does that make any sense? You know, these same companies started out as multi-decade cable monopolies before they were providing monopolized internet service. You really think that will change? If it wasn't for the DoJ blocking mergers 90% of the country would already have a single internet provider.

Wireless internet for everyone will never be realistic. There's a theoretical limit to how much data you can send wirelessly, the "Shannon limit". On many bands we're already close to it, 90% of "5G" is just about using the rest of our bands more effectively. Once we're using all the frequency bands that penetrate far enough to be useful theres nothing you can do in increase wireless bandwidth. Theres more hope with satellites and narrow beams but these technologies are a decade away. 5G isn't going to do anything noticeable to ISP competition and I think you need to do more research on how 5G works if you think otherwise
They're being censored because of their ideas though... I'm not sure how you can draw that distinction.
Its not so simple. NN is not political, its commercial, and partly technical. One main sticking point is that ISPs don't want to pay for asymmetric peering. If you're sending more traffic on my network and I'm sending you almost none, I need to have larger 'pipes' to accommodate your traffic, but you don't, for my outgoing traffic. So, If peering were 'settlement free', as Netflix wants, that is beneficial for Netflix but not for Comcast. Also, any network, already has several routes for any given packet. By default, you HAVE to do some prioritization. Traffic internal to the ISP will always be prioritized. So if I were an ISP and I became a content provider, obviously my packets will be "cheaper/faster" to route than incoming NetFlix/Hulu, etc etc.

The above is just a supersuper simplified summary of some points off the top of my head. There are tons of nuances, which are more suitable for a detailed blog post, and not a comment. I'm sure someone has done that already.
> This must be a joke

How so?
Says because "test conducted by major South Korean and Japanese banks."

Wait for this Alt run to cool off before buying in. Still a few months away before coming online.
Not necessarily. It depends on why the offspring couldn't crawl or walk for longer. If it's associated with something that increases survival in mature members of the species, it might be tolerated, even selected for.

For example, if the child is delayed in walking because more metabolic resources are being channeled to larger brain development, that could be a survival benefit. I use that example, because that's essentially the theory of what happened in humans, in comparison to chimpanzees. (Obviously not 1 child randomly taking 2x or 3x to develop, but a slow evolutionary process.)

Chimps are relatively helpless when they are born too, relative to most species. They nurse for years, stay with parents for years, are totally reliant on them for survival, etc. But they are not so helpless as humans. It's estimated human gestation would have to be about 18 months for newborns to be at a comparable stage of cognitive development as newborn chimps.

So, from this perspective, we do take 2x the time in comparison to chimps, and yet it was tolerated. I guess my overall point is that evolution is more complicated than how quickly an offspring can crawl or walk or be independent.
Parolu project management desktop app for macOS, Windows and Linux
How long did it stay blocked? I bet they unblocked it as soon as customers complained.

Definitely an interesting example though. Nothing like that has ever happened in my country without net neutrality, but then we have a fairly competitive market where a single carrier trying that would lose their customers very quickly.
I know founders who've tried to do a relocation-financing startup. They failed to get traction and ended up running out of money. AFAIK, so did most of their competitors, as well as startups in the general "here are some nice other places to live" category you describe. (It was a pretty crowded space...you can bet that any market where there are Internet commenters saying "Why isn't there a startup doing X?" actually has several startups doing X.)

The root problem seems to be that the decision to move is basically emotional, and usually depends on life factors that no startup can influence. I'm here for two reasons: family and startup (my wife's family all lives around here, and I have a nascent startup where if it takes off, it'll be really handy to be close to investors). Among the other people I know who are thinking of leaving, or whom it doesn't really make economic sense to be here, what's keeping them is always similar things. They work for Google and there's no Google office near where the rest of their family lives. They grew up here and have sentimental attachment to the place. They really love the warm Mediterranean climate and can't imagine living in a place with snow or rain. When you dig into their lives, usually staying is actually the right choice despite the high expense, and it's more "Well, I wish I didn't have to put up with the cost of living and massive traffic snarls."
If by "large scale" you mean "lots of people doing it," the only way I can think of is making it easier and telling people.

Making it easier: https://www.mailmygov.com/

Telling people: Turn to your right and tell your coworker, I guess. Make a twitter post?
The server component sounds really promising - will it do Powershell? Windows command line over SSH will be much more useful than RDP....
America is not a democracy. It's a representative democracy.
Doesn't it depend on how strongly your belief about the ethics are? We all place ethical considerations on a scale - murder is worse than littering. The exact placement of an action on the moral spectrum, however, is subjective (e.g. some people place eating animals very high on the spectrum as being very immoral).

Everyone is going to have some threshold where they think 'an act that is this immoral means the person doing the action is also immoral', where actions that are below that threshold are treated as 'this action is unethical, but the person doing it could still be good'

Most people think someone who murders is a bad person (the act is immoral, and the person doing it is immoral). However, as the we move down the line, EVERYONE has to 'make the call' as to where the action becomes something that doesn't immediately make the person doing the action immoral. It isn't wrong that we have to make that call, it is the only way.
$10 a month? Perhaps you missed a 0 there... Americans pay a lot more per month to watch ads on the Internet.
Did company resist X?

Does company need to generate more revenue?

Company will give in to X.
The Truth About Net Neutrality
Same. Ad starts playing? Skip to whatever is next in the feed. Ad at the start of a video, not even going to wait. As it is, after turning off all notifications from FB I maybe open the app once a week.
I love GCP but honestly have no idea how these big internet properties can make the $ case for “the cloud”, unless they’re also planning to fire 90% of the Ops/SysAdmin team (ala Evernote).

We run on bare metal and to move to GCP would triple our hosting cost, not including bandwidth (which is free* for us).

Do people get discounts for doing PR? I’m really curious.
10 Examples of Well-Designed Search UIs
It can give you that. Unfortunately, it can't give everyone that.
> 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? Who do I have to pay at the node to get to "plug into" it or whatever?

You'll have to buy transit from someone, which will most likely be terminated at a neutral internet exchange / data center. You'll pay the transit provider (e.g. Hurricane Electric) for the bandwidth, and monthly fees to the data center for colocation and the cross-connect.

To get that transit back to a point of presence from where you'll branch out service to end users, you'll either have to bury your own fiber (very expensive - tens of thousands of $ per mile even in rural areas not to mention maintenance costs), lease fiber through someone else (e.g. Zayo) (also very expensive), or use wireless backhauls (cheaper but wireless comes with its own set of headaches).

Also you'll have to get a CCNA yourself or pay someone to manage your network since a carrier network is nothing like a home network.

Now by the time you get service back to your point of presence, you'll have to figure out how to get it to people. Burying fiber is extremely expensive, no way around it. Fixed wireless is a simpler option but getting a line of sight to the customer isn't always feasible, and you'll never have the bandwidth of fiber.

That's assuming people even want it. Out in a semi-rural area there may not be much competition, but the population density is so low putting up a tower or burying fiber may not be viable. In any city you're likely to have cable or DSL companies already there, with a price point that may be difficult to convince people to switch. Most people won't care about philosophical arguments about net neutrality, or be willing to pay a lot more for higher speeds.

In my opinion your best bet is to rally a coalition of people in your area to petition the municipality to bury the fiber and provide it as a utility. If you're uncomfortable with the gov't being an ISP, there is a very interesting model where the city provides an open access network which lets private ISPs plug in as virtual network layers, letting customers easily switch providers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-...
Maybe the play is to get people using it quickly and get bought by Adobe as a way to resolve the legal problem. The owner is putting themselves at a huge disadvantage in negotiation doing this.
Its a very intersting issue and sadly the debate is always very limited.

Fundamentally it makes absolute sense to have different priorities for different packets. Just like in any logistics you have different priorities for different application. In logistics usually the costumer demands some level of services and if he pays the needed amount he can get what he wants. Most people don't think this is bad. So fundamentally there is nothing wrong.

The IP protocol has this idea backed in already, and inside controlled organisation this is already pretty standard.

The problem happens when you have ISP who without their costumers input make arbitrary choices about the importance of packets. Not only because they don't really know what my needs are also because it requires the ISP to open up each package and analyse what is inside.

Even that might still be OK if there were a truly competitive market in ISPs. If one ISP does not suit you you can move on, enforcing discipline in the whole system. That would still be problematic because applications would then have to make specialised deals with the ISP to get high quality service for specific application rather then making that choice when you send a package.

In practice however ISP for historical, regulatory and economic reason are in a monopoly position allowing them sit in the middle and make money on both sides. This primary what Net Neutrality tries to fix. Providers that are in these positions, like Comcast, would like nothing more then to have Net Neutrality removed. Providers that are in a highly competitive market have far less to gain.

Even worse, then strictly about net neutrality, once the technology is in place ISP also start to act in other ways, for example injecting advertisements into your websites, breaking TLS and so on.

So really I am against Net Neutrality in general, but I would still not have removed it in the current situation.

The solution for me is actually a different one. Quite simply, ISP should not be allowed to open up your packages, just like the post office is also not allowed to do so. They should be allowed to sell you different quality of service in whatever pricing model they wish but it is the costumer who makes the choice about what he wants to do.

Monopoly would still be an issue in that case the potential damage would be way lower.
Fair enough, I should not be saying North America when it includes so many other countries, I should be saying USA and Canada which is what I mean.

Look, it's not an oligarchy, it is a democracy. It seems to me that everyone thinks that just because Trump won the election that it is somehow not a democracy. I fear that the heavy anti-republican, anti-business sentiment will morph into a call for communism which will absolutely destroy the future of the human race.
It is true, if you do not have memory (memoryless chanel with a memoryless observer;)

But if you do have memory, then you are free to chose to see "92 consecutive throws with a fair coin" as one event.

In that case the Kolmogorov complexity describes perfectly well why you should be suprised at low entropy outcomes - simply because those are rare events (using our new definition of 'event').
Every example I gave in my comment you are replying to are things that a US ISP did prior to the implementation of net neutrality. Even during net neutrality multiple ISPs were caught artificially throttling Netflix to attempt to get payouts.
Slowly but surely, our open internet will get choked. This is just one step in horrible path that will lead to our largest corporations controlling almost everything in our lives with very little competition.

I am blaming the tech giants for this ruling. They are the only ones with enough power to challenge this horrible ruling and they sat idle and watched it happen.

They may have given lip service to net neutrality, but their lack of enthusiasm and almost zero effort speaks volumes on their true opinions.

Microsoft crossed over to the dark side a long time ago.

Now, Google, Apple, Facebook join them in completely abandoning the ethos upon which the companies were founded.

I have been skeptical of their true intentions for years, and facebook has probably been corrupt since day one, but I thought if they were able to keep net neutrality, then I would think there was a chance for them.

No longer. They are gone. Truly sad day for the world.
Ask HN: Where can I learn how lawyers think?
I'm a developer increasingly getting interested in privacy and compliance, or the intersection of IT and law.

I would like to understand better how lawyers think. What are the fundamentals of law?

Can anyone recommend me an introduction resource aimed at the layman? Preferably some engaging MOOC, but a good book would also be valuable.

Many thanks
This is what American voters chose last year.
> How long did it stay blocked?

Nearly 2 years.
This reminds me of something my local credit union used to do. They had something where you picked an image during signup that they would always show you during subsequent sign-ons so that you knew you were actually signing into their site.
Fox was for sale. Either Disney or Comcast was going to end up with it.
>A major internet site had a URL that went something like somedomain/group?id=xxxxx. It turns out that a simple scraper, that called id=1, id=2, id=3, ect, ect, caused a major problem!

This is a failure on the part of the developers at that "major internet site". Using a guid instead of consecutive IDs, a rate limiter, hell even just a cache...or all of the above. There are lots of solutions here.

You have to take robot scraping and indexing into consideration, and assume people will ignore robots.txt. (Certain bots, i.e. msnbot/bingbot are quite aggressive!)
Must be a push for ARPU growth
Hehe, you know, line of sight solutions like lasers would be epically cool here.
You can't prevent me from looking in your window though, at a sign you put up for people to look at none-the-less, with a C&D.
I remember that watching the same HBO episode via Amazon was flawless while via HBO's website it was often buffering.
Telecommunications are rolled out either on poles or underground, which incidentally is exactly where our other utilities like electricity, phone, and water/sewage are laid out. We used to have hundreds of wires overhead everywhere and roads being dug up all the time to add new pipes. Our society has decided that the benefits of competition are outweighed by all of destruction and blockage done to the limited space of our roads. Additionally we have decided that those industries are too important to deal with outages that would come from competition and having companies go out of business. Telecommunications have reached that stage in the US at least, and given this space constraint and need to keep the service running 24/7 they should be regulated as utilities. If we split the actual ownership of the wires off into a separate utility and had different companies selling the bandwidth and services like the UKs setup, then leaving the service up to normal regulations would be fine.

As long as they own the physical network they should be a utility
Not OP, but I would like to see JS on the web die entirely. Executing code without review just by clicking on a link? no thanks.
Disappointing salad of ideas.

Apparently I should be allowed to say that gay people are evil, but not that radical life extension is a really really bad and yes, in my opinion, truly evil and selfish idea.

Should I be allowed to profess that humanity would be happier and less taxing on the planet if there were less of us? And should I be able to research methods to sterilize most people, and seek funding to experiment, without ever discussing the moral and practical consequences? What about radical life reduction (for others, of course)?

The consequences of radical life extension should be discussed prior to implementation; I can't see what's so frustrating about that.
> Doesn't sound that great in those terms, but that's exactly what you got.

Imho, many solutions don't benefit from a partisan branding. Some things are just good ideas. If research shows it's simply cheaper to hire a bunch of people to offer the homeless free apartments and a simple job no-questions-asked than to keep cleaning up after them, keep designing the city to be anti-homeless and keep paying for the all the police time to deal with them.. Well, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid not to put that idea into law. But if you put a partisan stamp on it (‘We have to help people’ or ‘We need to keep poor people from bothering us’) all of the sudden you have the other camp against you.
Where are you going with this?
I'm not very familiar with their history, honestly. But aren't you excluding two very good examples? Abstractly, I consider their effectiveness as separate from whether this should be under their purview. If they're ineffective, they should be fixed instead of having other agencies subsume their responsibilities.
If Lambda supported Powershell, I'd already have moved hundreds of small Active Directory management scripts there.

And I'd move at least a couple personal projects there, instead of porting them to Node.

I know I'm in the minority, but there are dozens of us.