skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If competition is working effectively, then government management usually does more harm than good. The question is, is competition working effectively in telecommunications? In much of the country, I suspect that the answer is no.
That's what the article is about.
Consumers tend to cast votes in favor of pro-consumer policies
But with NN in place, we still have caps. So what the heck are you talking about?
>I woke up this morning and was astonished to see that LTC was about $380. This was in the course of about 5 hours. Had I not sold it last night, I would have made almost $40k.

I can relate. If I'd done the exact paired trades i did this month (only between btc, bch, eth, and usd), only at different times than i did, i would have doubled my money yet another time, for a life-changing sum.

Instead I've been sleeping well every night for a month on a healthy exit. Even with hindsight, I don't have any regrets.

I didn't get into the space to get rich and sweat at night, I got in to socialize monetary control. Now crypto doesn't even want to be money. Once this bubble cools off I can start dreaming again.
I wrote my senator who is in favor of the repeal and this is his response (which I don't endorse - just forwarding as a view point):

"However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style regulations to the internet. This inappropriate regulatory framework was intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s. Instead of leaving the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to change from one administration to the next. This is an issue of great importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path forward."
We already know that b) is not going to work in practice, because of the population curve. So, there's that. Why should you pay for something you will never get yourself?
You mean a third party can do this for you.
Unable to access private NPM packages
> I can see the argument for terseness

The argument is that my programs are shorter and faster and more correct?

> I don't think it's a good idea to use this extreme single-character, single-line style in languages not designed for it.

You think if I need to write C, that I should do things that make my program larger and slower and less correct?

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Con net neutrality argument: The first net neutrality rules were implemented in 2015. For 25 years the internet blossomed without any net neutrality rules in place. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that if this rule is repealed, Verizon will force me to pay extra for Netflix or will prevent me accessing websites they don't want me to see. There were instances in the past of ISPs behaving badly but they were resolved on an individual basis. If you're worried about freedom of speech on the net, edge providers such as Google, Facebook and Twitter are for more of a threat to free speech than ISPs.

A longer article that details some of this: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/
I've started following @SethAbramson for his analysis of the Muller investigation and a recent thread of his was over 130.

To be fair, even he hates it: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/940658870808186881

> 1. I hate Twitter.

> 2. No one should be on Twitter.

> 3. I can't wait to no longer be on Twitter.

But using it gets him the reach he wants shrug.
Thank you. That's very succinct and a good framing of the issue.
> I admit I am not that knowledgeable on possible history where too many did fraudulent filings requiring this individual-lawyer-review preemption.

So youre criticizing an institution while being ignorant of the conditions that caused that institution to come about? I suspect you’re not alone in this thread but this kind of ahistoricity makes it impossible to have any kind of reasonable civic discourse. Democracy demands that we educate ourselves. Read about the Great Depression, the creation of the SEC and why it was needed in the first place. The current situation with ICOs where you have some legitimate businessses and some scams advertising themselves to Main Street investors is very similar to the situation with securities before the SEC.
Sorry, I edited it to indicate that those were things that may or may not constitute an NN violation.

>all of those are things that are prevented by the presence of net neutrality.

How is 2)? If you're penalized by total usage [A], irrespective of source or type, that seems pretty neutral. Whether it's a good policy in general is debatable, of course.

(That's another problem with the debate: that "NN violation" is casually equated with "imprudent policy". If an ISP throttles everyone to 1 KB/s, then, yeah, that's a jerk move, but it's definitely content- and source-neutral.)

>If ISPs could prefer some traffic over others, they could let do any of the things that you suggest, enabling censorship.

That doesn't follow. Let's say they lay down some new expensive pipe for some link in their network, on top of what they already have, and then allow anyone to pay for access to the faster pipe. Data continues to get through at the pre-existing speed if you don't pay. How is anyone being censored?

ANd if you find that objectionable, how is that any worse than toll roads or even e.g. convenience stores, where you pay more in order to have a shorter checkout time.

[A] In this context, I have in mind something like "charging more for users who download more than X bytes, weighted by time of usage" or "slightly reallocating the pipe in favor of lighter users at times of peak usage".
The UAE have no income tax. Does not strike me as a country looming into anarchy.
I think the overall point of the article is solid, but this sentence is laughable:

"Again, zero-rating is not explicitly a net-neutrality issue: T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money."

Right. Interesting definition of "same".
At the risk of splitting hairs, Thompson actually argued in favor of mandating net neutrality, but against the stringent Title II regulations. He also argued that re-classifying ISPs would not necessarily lead to the end of net neutrality.
Are you saying you can't do the equivalent with FP?
I think you are just trolling but for others reading this here's a list of bad things that were net neutrality violations: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...

There's also lots of examples from other countries that don't have net neutrality like Mexico https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6x6izw/guys_m%C... (certain websites are not available on the lower tiered plans)
It's a serious abuse of the site to post like this, and we're quick to ban accounts that do. Please read the guidelines and never comment like this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Paying for a "fast lane" is anti-net-neutrality

Who is paying for "fast lane" in this case?

Please do correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand it, video providers don't have to pay T-Mobile to be part of binge-on.
of course the average HN user won't relate to that. But anecdotally my mom gets by fine (somehow) with an old ipad. She can pay bills, check email, watch videos, browse sites - that's enough. So I can believe Phil here.
I was an early employee of Quora and can vouch for it being a good place to do content marketing! I really love that site.

The idea that you should have a small scope and narrow focus is the one very common piece of startup advice I struggle with. In my experience at Winnie, whenever we "thought small" growth would stall out. I think if your product is just better with higher numbers of users, get as many people into it as you can.
The biggest argument for maintaining net neutrality is so that ISPs don't provide worse service to websites competing with their own products. The most obvious case there being Netflix vs your cable company's streaming service. If you get high latency and frequent video stutter when using Netflix but not for your ISP's version, you'll use that. Even if the cause of that stutter is your ISP.
Aren't the NT system calls also just a personality module above the actual NT kernel? The kernel was originally designed to provide multiple kinds of user spaces so that it could run OS/2 programs alongside Win32 ones.
Economists favor paid prioritization (one of the things net neutrality bans) by a weighted factor of 3-1 (excluding those undecided) http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15909261

on (somewhat?) related front page discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15908107 (ADSL over wet string)

also linked there: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/barbed-wire-telephone-...
> Simply net neutrality is your ISP ignoring the contents of your packets and simply routing them to their intended destination.

That doesn't make sense. ISPs have long blocked "dangerous" or "premium" ports, like 445 (SMB) or 25 (SMTP). Those are parts of the contents of your internet packets and yet even the net neutrality regulation didn't prohibit doing that. And you can't argue those are "headers" rather than "contents" because then throttling packets based on IP addresses would not require looking at packet contents. So I think your definition is incorrect?
Can confirm. Most crypto millionaires also lost "millions".
Unfortunately there are unmarked trucks with backscatter X-ray scanners inside them in major cities around the world, as well as fixed backscatter X-ray scanners in many places outside of airports.

If you want to know what the trucks look like, google "ZBV": https://www.google.com/search?q=ZBV&tbm=isch
Airmash 1.0.1
I had the honor of meeting Ed Lee recently. This is very sad. Ed was a truly kind and humble man, my heart goes out to his family.
"most corrupt ever" lmao dude. hyperbole is not welcome here. go back to reddit with that. HN is for facts. this administration is succeeding at so many things for true americans. please smarten up
> Patreon is methodically trying to burn that payment aggregation to the ground and call it a feature.

Patreon is one of the few places where it actually makes sense to give $1-2/month such that it's not all eaten up by fees. This is one of their most important features, and it's baffling that they don't seem to understand it.

The impact is already clear, and that's without any major creators jumping ship yet:

https://graphtreon.com/patreon-stats

If they're absolutely dead set on this decision (for scary legal reasons, I guess?), the only useful compromise I can think of would be to allow an annual pledge; let me transfer $12 or $24 at once.
Of course there are CPU bound web-app's. That the OP thinks otherwise is just ignorance. But most web apps are not CPU bound, most are IO bound.

You can start with things like Cython which will give you a modest boost over plain python. I agree it may not be useful in your case, but doing full-rewrites are generally awful, abysmal and a nightmare all combined. Sure, there are cases where you must for various reasons, but they should be avoided if possible.

That's the beauty of doing something like an FFI with C/Rust/etc. You can iteratively move that direction, get code deployed faster and get your performance gains, while also slowly moving into a full-rewrite, but it can happen gradually and you get all the perf enhancements during the re-write, plus you get code deployed in production faster, so you can get all the code tested, and make end-users lives much better in the process of your re-write, instead of making them wait until the bitter end and then finding out that X, Y and Z undocumented features customers were using didn't get included in the re-write.

Anyways all that said, it sounds like you know what you are doing for the most part, so my advice here may not apply to you directly at all, and that's certainly plausible. But I think in general it's fairly obvious to experienced devs that re-writes are an awful plan.
I've tried to get noobies to use SourceTree on OS/X, with Mercurial or git, and it never goes well. Version control is just hard the moment you want to do anything other than linear commits. The moment you want to undo something partially, it gets ETOOHARD on most non-developers, and especially people like my mom.

On the other hand, when explaining the git model to sysadmins and developers, not sugar-coating it has worked best for me. I explain the bag-of-commits+nametable design. I explain the workspace and staging area. I show how one does things. This works for me.

Maybe git's UI "needn't be this complicated", but I do find that Mercurial's heavy-duty branches lead to hell very quickly and it's always difficult to recover -- and Mercurial is supposed to be simple! The lesson is that simplifying isn't easy, and not every simplification works well generally.

With git I can simplify in that I show users a small amount of abstract concepts (bag-of-commits, nametable) and a small set of common usages and then let them learn by experience and osmosis as they reach out for help when they stray past those usages. I can't do this with other VCSes. At some point it just becomes painful.

One of the nice things about git is that I can push users to make very linear history. This is nice because diving into the history of a tangled mess of merged branches is not easy, and it's actually very confusing to non-professionals. But even for professionals, linear history is far superior to a tangled mess of merged branches, and only git really gives us that power today.
It’s actually illegal in most locations to run commercial servers on your home electric line.
There’s a delay between observed phenomena and the literature being updated - hence I surmised there’ll be papers published on the topic next year.
>Simply net neutrality is your ISP ignoring the contents of your packets and simply routing them to their intended destination.

So then, concretely: say I have an expensive, faster link in my network. I don't look inside the packets, but I allow them to specify some flag in the header that indicates they want to use the fast link (and I keep track of which peer is requesting it to compare to how many such usages they've paid for).

Is that a NN violation? Is that harmful to the internet? Do current or proposed regulations allow it?
It absolutely follows.

> 1) Throttling sites the ISP doesn't like

Is the definition of censorship. ISPs could just choose to not let anybody access their competitors' websites, for example.

You're correct that data caps don't fall under this, however.
That’s new to me. I knew they were going to fix it but I didn’t know anything had changed yet. Thanks.
But the "bits are equal" argument still doesn't work. You can easily run your own VPN and then what?
This isn't really true though. NY AG Schneiderman had a good response to this in the earlier AMA (which I've pasted below).

"As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize that net neutrality principles and protections in different forms have actually been around since 2005 and even earlier. So the flourishing of the internet and everything relying on it during that time occurred under the protections. A few years ago, however, the courts struck down one form of net neutrality protections (those that had relied on Title I of the Communications Act), so then in 2015 the FCC put net neutrality protections back in place under Title II instead (they also expanded the earlier protections, e.g., to include protections against abuses related to interconnection, which had not been the subject of net neutrality protections before 2015). Now, in 2017, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to repeal net neutrality protections altogether (and the courts’ earlier decisions effectively foreclose a return to net neutrality protections under Title I). So that would be entirely new territory for the internet.

Why do we think that’s bad? Well, as I explained in my own public comment in the current proceeding (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717583023587/FINAL%20RIF%20Co...), we’ve seen how companies behave in the absence of net neutrality protections, specifically in the area of interconnection before it was regulated in 2015, and their unregulated conduct harmed consumers. In essence, they made a deliberate business decision to let the quality of internet access degrade, knowing that it hurt consumers, to try to squeeze revenue out of edge providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. Plus, we know that many consumers have few ISPs to choose from, so competition isn’t as effective a check as in other markets. So I believe strong net neutrality regulations are needed to avoid harms to consumers."

The AMA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853374
Most ICOs are probably securities, yes.

> Can anyone provide an example where an ICO would not be a security

Well, if it's purely a "utility coin", and people are buying it in order to exchange the coin for some service (like, basically, car wash tokens but on the internet), and there's not really any speculation in the secondary market, and people are buying them for their own use and not to resell or speculate on, it's probably fine. On the other hand, if the product that the coins would be used for hasn't been built yet, it's probably not fine (since you're gambling on the founders executing properly, yet have no real control over whether they do so).

...but no, I don't know of any examples that fit that criteria.
ICOs don't make a lot of sense for things that aren't securities; the most common purpose (at least for the legit, non-fraudulent ones) is to obtain investment to build a product. That's obviously a security, and one of the core purposes of securities law is to protect people being asked to contribute an investment that will be used to build a product.
> "corrupt, craven, citizen-hostile and spiteful"

For the record, I'm not much different from a stereotypical commie pinko in my views, but I agree that this administration is cynical and "for sale" on a whole new level, and would vastly prefer dealing with actual libertarians or conservatives. I'm actually somewhat conservative myself, in the sense of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But pick your favorite issue, and there's a good chance that the Trump folk are on the wrong side.
There's even humorous anecdotes once you rip those elements out via inspector. Got a good laugh out of it. Try it out.
I can't see where they handle prices of stuff correctly. As far as I can tell, they are treating prices as floats. You shouldn't treat prices as floats, or you get weird rounding errors sometimes. This is unacceptable when dealing with money.
In case anyone is wondering (like I was), I think this is the site:

https://wishy.gift
That was hilarious. You, I like you.
[IanaA] If your liquidated positions are open for over a year, you can do 15% long-term capital gains in the US.

The exchanges have an export history feature, which I'm planning to put into a spreadsheet to calculate profit. That's gonna be a fun weekend project.
You couldn't get me to pay a cent for air now. But please let me know when the air futures exchange opens.
We aren't doing this, and we definitively should! I've added this to the todo-list, and will work towards having manually curated lists up first, and try to make it a bit more automatic when we have a bigger user mass. Can't give you a specific date for implementing this, as Wishy.gift is both a sideproject and - at least for now - very seasonal (36 of the 53 new users since March signed up in November/December), but I'm hoping to have this up for August/September :)

To be honest, I wish I had this two weeks ago when I was making my own wishlist!

Thank you for taking the time to suggest a feature!
Repeal NN => youtube/netflix no longer counts toward cap => cap no longer causes problems.

Some ISPs (verizon?) do similar things, where if you use their app then you're allowed to stream as much as you want. But I'm not sure whether that runs afoul of neutrality laws.

This is admittedly a weak argument, since companies would end up eating the cost, further entrenching the existing monopolies. But they were looking for arguments in favor of NN.

There are other contexts where non-neutrality might be useful: A local startup once tried to roll out a lower-latency service for gaming, based on intelligent routing. It was unlikely to succeed, but even if it were technically possible it would definitely violate NN to be prioritizing/rerouting certain classes of traffic.
How to Hijack Amazon Prime Now for Good
Perf counters are super useful. On linux the perf tool (and perf event api) make these usable: https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

The counters vary per Intel CPU, though the most useful ones are universal (e.g. cycle counts). AMD has similar counters.
Here's a list of bad things ISPs did that have violated net neutrality: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...

pros: all of that becomes legal so ISPs can increase profits through anti-consumer practices

cons: ISPs disrupt commerce through anti-consumer practices
Please explain how you build a scanner that's accurate enough that an AI can read the output and recognize specific models of guns, but is still not accurate enough to take clear pictures of an individual's body.
Probably not. The Windows Subsystem for Linux was introduced with Windows 10.
Everything about this is excellently done. I was about to call out the favicon but { key : values } is clever.
Brought to mind this post for artists about how to accurately draw power lines: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-artists-need-...
The European Quantum Technologies Roadmap
Emmanuel Macron says the world is losing the fight against climate change
My dad did CS in the 70s then got into sales. So our tech talks usually go right to, "do your languages do recursion? That was a big deal when I was doing Cobol on UW's PDP8" or something along those lines.

Always with the recursion.
The funny thing is I have my router setup to violate net neutrality and my ISP also violates net neutrality (we dont have net neutrality in Canada) and it all works wonderfully.

So here's my router setup:
Outbound is capped at 90% of my plan's theoretical max.

TCP ACKs to the front of the queue

UDP after that

HTTP(S) traffic after that

The rest

Here's what my ISP does:

VOIP to the front of the queue

Non Bittorrent traffic to the front of the queue

BT soak up the rest of the BW.

What this does in practice for me:

When BT / other uploads are saturating my upstream my latency stays somewhat sane.

When BT is saturating my upstream my family can watch netflix.

When BT is saturating my upstream or I'm uploading files / app releases, my web browsing is still awesome.
Yeah, it's a tough one. Like most startup advice, the right answer should be "it depends". For me, I try to gauge whether the product and customer acquisition can be generalized. If both can be, which seems to be true in your case (and hopefully mine!), I think going wide is the right choice.
You can decide to install the app or not.

And you can put your CA into the system CA store if you have root. (You can make an Android image, so technically the requirement is unlocked - unlockable - bootloader.)