skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not that simple.

In an ideal world, people vote in the government they want, and the elected representatives follow the will of the people. We all know such a world doesn't exist [1]. In practice:

* Most voters don't even know what net neutrality is. How will they care if they don't understand that they should care? It's a complicated, nuanced subject even for tech people.

* It wasn't part of the Trump/republican platform at the time of the election. As far as I can recall, it didn't even come up during the presidential debates. Voters might want net neutrality, but they might not have known that voting for Trump/GOP would cause a repeal.

* The last couple of decades show that Congress (and politicans in general) overwhelmingly goes where the money is. There's a huge amount of money and lobbying power on the pro-repeal side, and the current FCC is a classic example of regulatory capture [2], with every indication that the FCC (and the Trump administration) is now stocked with industry insiders.

[1] http://www.bartleby.com/73/417.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Not really. HTML rendering by email clients has never been especially standards-conformant; the publication of a new HTML standard (especially by W3C, as mentioned elsewhere) isn't likely to affect that.
> Source? Because you likely don't have some magical crystal ball

We don't need a crystal ball, we have the statements of the candidates during the election. Trump was, from the beginning, anti-Net Neutrality. As for Clinton:

2015:
>Hillary Clinton is vowing to enforce strong net neutrality rules if she is elected president....

“Closing these loopholes and protecting other standards of free and fair competition — like enforcing strong net neutrality rules and preempting state laws that unfairly protect incumbent businesses — will keep more money in consumers’ wallets, enable startups to challenge the status quo, and allow small businesses to thrive,” she wrote in an op-ed in Quartz.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/257569-clinton-touts-ne...

2016, during the election:

>Hillary Clinton has indicated support for net neutrality. She gave two thumbs up to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal for strong net neutrality rules, though admitted it was only a “foot in the door.” Clinton has expressed concern that regulations could mean stagnant competition among service providers, saying “we’ve got to do more about how we incentivize competition in broadband.” And she’s committed to fighting broadband monopolies, citing Google Fiber in Kansas City as a perfect example of what she wants to see everywhere in the US.

https://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-o...

2016, after the election:

>Hillary Clinton gave a shout-out to a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission for her rallying call to "raise a ruckus" to save net neutrality, which the Republican-led FCC is poised to dismantle next month.

>"Time to call foul. Time to raise a ruckus. Time to save #NetNeutrality," Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the five-commissioner FCC, tweeted Wednesday.

>In response, Clinton tweeted: "You go girl! This is important; costs will go up, & powerful companies will get more powerful. We can’t let it slip through the cracks"....

>Net neutrality was not a major issue often brought up during the 2016 campaign. However, Clinton, who served as former President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, has shown support for net neutrality in the past. She said she would vote for it back in 2015, calling it a "foot in the door," and characterizing it as a starting point in the broader Internet regulation discussion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-we-cant-le...

It's simply a statement of fact that the FCC would not be repealing Net Neutrality right now, or ever, under a Clinton administration. You can argue about the nature of Clinton's support for NN, but she has always consistently voiced support for the policy.

You've so committed to your fantasy of both sides being the same that you've become unhinged from reality.
This is like me talking about dollars and you go "paper has existed for much longer than dollars".

This is why I (almost) never comment online. Too many idiots posing as experts.
Can we have a black bar on top?
I think you are on to something here.
>although local situations obviously have tragic effects (Syria, Venezuela).

These and many other crises in the world today can arguably be traced to the very kinds of resource challenges the Club of Rome discussed.

The 'Arab Spring' in particular has it's roots in (among other things) a decade of poor harvests caused by drought, aquifer depletion and topsoil erosion, which made people move from rural areas to the cities in huge numbers. Once there, persistent unemployment was the fuel, political repression was the accelerant and the spark came from a spike in global food prices caused by bad harvests combined with speculative grain hoarding[1].

We should be especially wary of triumphantly declaring that everything's allright in the world from the position of one of the world's richest societies. When negative changes come they hit the most vulnerable first, whilst those with the most power and wealth use it (perhaps unknowingly) to ensure that their bubble remains as optimistic as ever.
We see this demonstrated as the very poorest are hit first (eg. young, black males in the USA), then the working class, then when it hits the middle classes the 'crisis' becomes part of media discourse; throughout the elite remain largely oblivious (eg. Silicon Valley salaries).

These are simple narratives and we should perhaps be as sceptical of them as the idea that "Facebook caused the Arab Spring", but they illustrate how we should consider how resource constraints interface with all the other systems of human civilisation.

[1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-an...
Don't forget to diversify with some bitcoins
It works for car insurance because it’s actually, you know, _insurance_. Health insurance is more of a weird discount club for an industry where there’s zero price transparency and competition.
If there was one company that was making 30%+ of calls at peak times, you bet there would be negotiations.
>I've lived in Boston and Atlanta, and Atlanta is a much more tolerant, friendly place.

Care to say what you experienced in Boston?
That's an interesting point.

As someone who grew up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood of Boston, I'm also familiar with tension, and I remember it being far more racially-defined within the poor communities than elsewhere. Upon moving to nicer areas, however, the tension felt more like rich vs poor, with race (very sadly) often signaling to someone's level of wealth. They also seemed less tension-prone overall, in comparison to the poorer communities.

What I mean to say is that:

1. Tension between races seemed to primarily exist at the poorer levels, and that at the wealthier levels, the tension between classes very much overrode any tension between races.

2. Wealthy communities just seem to be more educated and accepting, as they see the better [1] individuals of all races of people.

I haven't spent too much time in the Bay Area, but would you possibly say that:

1. The wealth inequality in the Bay Area creates enough of a class divide to where the racial divide isn't noticeable?

2. Alternatively, does the racial diversity in the wealthy of the Bay Area remove stigmas that result in racism altogether?

I'd be interested in your thoughts! I'm not aiming to counter either, but just curious.

[1] By 'better,' I don't mean to pass judgment on any people; just that people in worse conditions in life will often be forced or incentivized into worse actions. For example, a child's friend is far less likely to steal their toy or game in a wealthier community than poorer. It's not evil, it's just worse conditions resulting in worse actions.
Please don't turn HN threads into partisan fights. That leads to information heat death, something we're all here to avoid.

This topic is already highly partisan, of course, so it's all the more important not to make it more so. This is very much a collective responsibility.
Correct, thanks for pointing that out

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/at-it...
Isn't that already the case? You don't have two electrical lines running into your house.
(I work for Google Cloud)

Half this paper covers what happens during a network partition, the other part talks about the historic data backing up the claims that they are super rare. There is even a whole section called "What happens during a Partition".

On the first page:

> The purist answer is “no” because partitions can happen and in fact have happened at Google, and during (some) partitions, Spanner chooses C and forfeits A. It is technically a CP system. We explore the impact of partitions below.

And the conclusion states as a fact that outages will occur:

> Spanner reasonably claims to be an “effectively CA” system despite operating over a wide area, as it is always consistent and achieves greater than 5 9s availability. As with Chubby, this combination is possible in practice if you control the whole network, which is rare over the wide area. Even then, it requires significant redundancy of network paths, architectural planning to manage correlated failures, and very careful operations, especially for upgrades. Even then outages will occur, in which case Spanner chooses consistency over availability.
The year of machine-to-machine Journalism
I unapologetically still use the font tag, because most of the time I have no desire to bother with CSS.
Since they design their own NIC, Google certainly has the capability to include whatever features they want. Yet Andromeda appears to be implemented in software.
So we have an unclear "standard" that is only a de facto standard (and still varies in more advances directives between few big bots) that you're "pretty sure" about but that's seemingly not written down in its entirety anywhere and it'd also be enforced selectively depending on whether or not "someone particularly cares". Truly perfect and foolproof law that would be.

And all this to protect some corp's business model of not letting others collect automatically the public information they provide, while they are free to use outdated or buggy software, store passwords in plaintext, etc. and get away with leaking data of millions of customers that should never be public.

And it'd fail to stop anyone except benign, private and low fund actors because instantly Indian (or other low wage country) services for "scraping by human thus not a bot ignoring robots.txt" would pop up, just like there are captcha solving services that employ humans already, and malicious bots wouldn't care anyway just like they make 0 effort to respect it now and run from servers in some country that isn't friendly towards USA so there is 0 potential for catching the perpetrators.
Death of Man in Skyscraper Fall in China Puts a Spotlight on ‘Rooftopping’
Yeah, and instead we've got huge Empire of Europe which left Russia behind. And more assertive USA than ever.
There are ways, like buying a put option on Overstock for June of 2018, or January of 2019, if you think it'll take more time:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/OSTK/options?p=OSTK&date=152...

One look at their performance graph this year, and you'll see it's almost correlated with bitcoin prices.
If you want context, I'd recommend reading books.

There's one in particular that has an excellent bibliography, and which I've cribbed from extensively: William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, published in 1977. I'm linking the 1992 update (which might be found online via LibGen or Bo-ok.org), which doesn't depart much from the original, does extend some observations, and should include the references of the former. Both books are based on Ophuls PhD thesis (political science, Yale), published ~1972.

In particular, Ophuls looks at much of the literature of the previous 25 years or so, both on the limits side and the cornucopians.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/ecology-and-the-politics-of-s...

You might in particular be interested in The Next Hundred Years, a view from 1950:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/next-hundred-years/oclc/12006...

Or Charles Galton Darwin's The Next Million Years. Yes, grandson of the other C.D., and with a ridiculously qualified biography of his own.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/next-million-years/oclc/14145...

Richard Meier's Science and Economic Development is also fairly mainstream:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/science-and-economic-developm...
Pretty sure you'll find the causation was the other way around.
Certain industries are regulated, although the regulations are not consistent. It is not uncommon for jurisdictions to require by law protections on electric grid control equipment. For example, in some places in the US, servers that can ultimately affect a large scale change in power generation equipment (such as switching the configuration of a power plant) must have anti-virus installed on them (NERC-CIP).
I dont hold argentina as the standard of free speech, its just how a short stay outside of the U.S. made cultural changes very noticeable for me, and for the worse.

----

If politicians in Argentina had to resign the way they do in the US for what they say, anarchist would get their way.
That a Republican incumbent could run opposed for a Senate seat that Democrats had written off based on decades of losses, in a midterm election (which is generally bad for the President's party) under a Democratic president is not a strong sign of how a Democratic incumbent will fare six years later in a Presidential election year.
Microsoft quietly snuck an ssh client and server into latest Windows 10 update
I thought the same was preparing to humm Sabaton’s no bullets fly....
This is objectively true. There are studies that show that the opinions of American voters have a near zero, statistically insignificant effect on policy:

http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
The fact that GP discards intent as a relevant point makes his/her whole argument invalid - that's the whole point, in our society and law intent matters a lot, it's one of the most important things in determining whether something is a violation and if so, how severe it is.

An argument based on intent is an argument about the reality we live in, an argument that ignores intent might as well be about a fictional world and isn't relevant to ours.
This doesn't appear to be a problem in any other industry. If I am a farmer, I don't have some inalienable right to have my produce on the shelves of the local grocery store. If am selling widgets through a catalog, I don't have some inalienable right to have my catalogs delivered to customers without paying a fee.

So why don't the results you predict occur in those industries? No one worries about grocery stores capturing all of the excess value from farmers because grocers have plenty of competition. No one worries about postage carriers refusing to deliver their goods because the government has promised to provide that service as a public good for a small fee.

It seems like you could solve your concerns by increasing competition among ISPs or by increasing the number of government run ISPs. I think this is still a "there's only two ISPs where I live and they both offer the same deals" type of problem.
Obama still made the decision to nominate him. Plain and simple. And Trump did renominate him for another 5 years. Yes, he elevated him to chairman, but he still gets the same 1 vote, so it doesn't matter. Not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
W3C has absolutely nothing to do with mail, they never touched anything mail related.
exciting times :)
> HBO is hamstrung by its lucrative cable tv deals in the US, which prevents it from competing effectively with Netflix in the streaming market.

HBO's library is far smaller than Netflix's (though average quality of titles is higher). Their streaming service is also objectively terrible: slow, unreliable, bad UX. On top of that it's 50% more expensive than Netflix. I'm not sure it's just the lucrative TV deals keeping them from competing with Netflix in streaming.
Even if you avoid the last mile cluster F*, you still need to rent physical space to ISPs for setting up their network equipment. With multiple ISPs, its not clear who should "own" the space. I doubt individual homeowners want to deal with that headache.
Here's my question: why was such a momentous decision decided by a board of five people? A decision that will affect hundreds of millions of people was decided by five people. Isn't that insane? Whatever happened to democracy in America?
Yeah the reactions here and elsewhere are absolutely ridiculous. It’s almost as if these people have no idea what life before NN was actually like.
...I guess we'll have to see, won't we?

But first the ISPs have to actually do the things that we were warned they would do if the FCC scraped these laws. No ISP has yet announced or even proposed any specific future changes.

I'm not even sure what being "wrong" here will look like in practical terms:

- Are average home broadband internet plans going to have their internet filtered unless they pay more for 'unlimited'? With TV-style "grouped" packages?

- What websites (tech companies) will be included in these hypothetical filtered packages?

- Will they (Netflix/Disney/Facebook/Google/etc) let the ISPs include their brand(s) in marketing these new non-neutral plans? Will they let the ISP include their website in any throttled package in technical terms?

- Will ISPs be launching the new plans perfectly in sync with other ISP companies, for the 80% of Americans who have more than one ISP option, so they won't hemorrhage customers to competitors when they completely revamp their billing? Will they grandfather existing users?

...there are far too many questions to properly give you a answer about how the industry will respond.

When/if that actually becomes a reality then it will be easier to guess how the trillion dollar industry will react and if the ISP customers will sit idly by with no recourse... at the moment I'm confident there will be plenty to do to make business/life for Comcast/ATT shareholders uncomfortable if they ever were dumb enough to mess with how the internet works for the average American.
Postman releases a directory for public APIs, API Network
You're not wrong. But when you open the door to private companies throttling, then scenarios like this become possible:

www.comcasttube.com - like youtube.com, but faster... because we're slowing down youtube.com
The paper suggest that the more time you give Alphazero, the stronger it becomes too.
No way, man. People hate their ISP's, and would love to be able to switch.
MarketWatch has an infographic that shows the relative sizes. It's originally from 2015 but it has as been updated for 2017.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exi...
Enerconics: The Relationship Between Energy and GDP
> Would you suggest they not vote?

Of course not. As you say, it's clearly not a significant issue for most Republican voters.

However, I think a lot of voters assume that the party reflects the values of the voters though - clearly that is not always true.
Also this essay is relevant: http://www.paulgraham.com/wids.html. This was the start of souring of Paul Graham's relationship with the CA political correctness, I guess (do a search on "paul graham sexist" and you'll get a ton of articles from Dec 2013.
>So it’s no surprise that 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.” Remember, these are the kinds of companies that are critical to providing a more competitive marketplace.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially not on divisive topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> ISPs can either (1) increase bandwidth in order to increase the amount of packets that get through, (2) throttle Netflix which they can't do under net neutrality, (3) charge Netflix (and Google, Facebook, etc.) to not get throttled which they can't do under net neutrality either, or (4) neither increase bandwidth nor throttle Netflix, resulting in all content slowing down and them losing customers to ISPs that will invest in new bandwidth as they should.

FTFY
A. The rule isn't that packets must be delivered at the same time, the rule is that you can't shape based on source (but you CAN shape based on other things - so, you can prioritize VoIP for example).
Basically it means the telecoms can't favor their own streaming services over Netflix.
B. The clients are literally paying the telecoms in order to get access to Netflix. That's what they use their internet connection for, that's what they pay the monthly bill for. Why shouldn't they be able to stream?
is it a flat fee ? could make a lower cost for long rides (doubling as incentive)
> No one in the previous administration had the spine to make Net Neutrality permanent

The previous administration spent all their political capital passing Obamacare. After that, they lost the house and senate and were stonewalled at every opportunity by Mitch "Let's make him a one term President" McConnell.
cars cost "tens of thousands" yet personal automobile ownership has been feasible and has a huge positive impact on the economy. If that 10-90K ballpark cost estimate is accurate then accessing the information superhighway could be a similar situation.
Singapore seems like the most likely place where self driving cars will take off first. Easy to imagine them banning human drivers altogether, making it much easier for autonomous cars to coordinate between eachother.
Missing from your equation is the important fact that people usually pay for the bandwidth they use, and that that's how bandwidth is split amongst people. Once they paid for it, I'm sure you'll agree it's really their business how they use it.

Net neutrality prevents the ISPs from selling bundles where some sites are discounted, and from throttling or blocking some sites.
> is doing something against their will

kids have no will, legally speaking, until they are not minors.

going to school is often 'against their will' as well, few argue that forcing them to go is an abuse of parental power..

that said, this is a different topic and of course you have a point.
Have you considered using appcache or service workers to allow it to launch while offline?
Isn't it silly to ask a question without knowing in detail the meanings of the terms in it? How would you confirm the veracity of the answer? When you really understand the question you will see its answer. And if that's too cryptic for ya, I doubt this is the venue for a lecture on why bitcoin was invented and the meaning of value. :)
No, it's unlawful, not illegal.
Probably because of political leaning, but statements Trump made like wanting to incentivize companies to return to the US, deporting illegal immigrants, and decreasing military spending. Were some of the main reasons I thought Trump was even worthy of being considered.

Trump has been wishy washy on his immigration and military spending statements since being in office.
This would be a valid concern if, and only if, the growth of the bandwidth consumed by the streaming services exceeded the growth of the available bandwidth, which is not the case.