skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Random and serious question, how many people use this kind of stuff?

It seems extremely niche

>ETH crypto and its language

>Library/tool for a single purpose

>Used for decentralized apps

The decentralized apps are my biggest confusion, but I'm looking for feedback from people actively developing apps for ETH.
You mean the text file in the home directory when installing? I found it very educational and easy to follow. It tells you how to configure e.g. the locale, the timezone, etc. as bare metal as possible, which makes it more reliable, and useful for other distros. Much more flexible and transparent than having an install wizard like they did before. Installing in a directory with pacstrap also made it very clear that it could be used for making archlinux containers. I love it.
Sticking to the supply-demand theme...decline in union participation could also come as a result of bad experiences with unions over leveraging their positions causing business to prefer non-union workers.

At the same time, as working conditions improved the benefits of participating in a union could be much less pronounced.

Meaning that demand for non-union workers increased, which were in ample supply.

To truly make a case for union participation you have to also make a case for how hiring union workers benefits a business. If that isn't plainly obvious, then the demand for union workers themselves will go down.
They need to move those damn barriers. This is happening alot. /s
East End Functions
You are right but they were not mentioned by Soros in Davos 2018 :)
Does Hacker News really delete your comment if you delete it?
Every ISP offers DNS servers. Those DNS servers cache the requests, usually for hours if not a day, for all the requests they get.

For example, at the ISP I worked at for many years, we had ~30,000 customers. As an exmaple, Google specifies a SOa timeout of 10800 seconds (3 hours). Across the 4 resolving nameservers at the ISP, the most times they would request google.com in a day is (24 hours/day / 3 hours cached) * 4 servers. That's 42 requests a day, to service 30,000 people.

If all the customers were requesting it directly, it's a different story entirely. Say 80% of the customers access google regularly through email, or their phones, or whatever. Let's say they do it for an average of 8 hours a day (before work, after work, while sleeping and some random update/email comes in). In this case, the math is (8 hours/day / 3 hours cached) * (30,000 * 0.80). That's 64,000 requests a day to service 30,000 people (even though only 80% are actually visiting that domain).

That's over a thousand-fold increase, but it only gets worse if you look at larger ISPs, like Comcast and AT&T. Now, this is a pretty bad case, but there's plenty of very popular sites that are used by our devices on a regular basis, all day long. Doing direct requests from customer networks instead of using intermediary caching DNS servers is a horrible idea and would cripple the internet as the root servers fell over from massive load.
That reminds me the story about how Russian counterpart of the Zuck messed with one of his developers message history:

https://medium.com/@anton.rozenberg/pavel-durov-sued-senior-...
this is absolutely untrue.

Venmo requires a bank account, and presumably some proof of citizenship, to have been setup far ahead of the point at which "money" goes into or comes out of Venmo.
Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
> they can indeed see which IP addresses you connect to

They can see the hostname, actually, because DNS isn't encrypted. And even if you run DNS over TLS, it doesn't matter because of SNI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication).
Why NASA Just Sent Human Sperm on a SpaceX Rocket
https://github.com/trobanga/pifidelity
Audioplayer with touchscreen display that shows blinkenlights while playing music :)
Do you have data on this? Because I looked and couldn't find anything reliable going past ~1964.
If the problem it solves is "I need a way to buy illegal drugs, weapons, and fake IDs while evading the police," I think you can see obvious problems to mass-market adoption. I also wonder whether a system with a permanent, publicly accessible ledger is truly ideal for this application.
http://store.irobot.com/default/braava-floor-mopping-irobot-...

also janitors with large areas to clean have been operating mopping machines for 30+ years.
It's well known, not the poster's personal claim:

https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.html

FB goes so far as to buy your data from others, which is why I block all trackers. I'm sure I still leak data to FB, even though I never joined, and never will.
I never understood that sentiment. What exactly is bad about banks? Banks are a trusted middle-man that controls, insures and manages my transactions, and in contrast to arcane technological blockchain solutions is actually a legally liable entity.

I also don't understand how banks cost me more money than bitcoin. A bank transaction costs me very little to no money, a crypto-currency transaction is extremely expensive.
I had the opportunity to interact with Prof. Might when I was in grad school; hearing about his son and the struggles has been heart wrenching at times, more so after hearing him speak about it in person.
Not that I know of, I've seen similar situations in previous workplaces (emails from a CEO) and retention was only required under certain circumstances, such as when undergoing a lawsuit.

And that was emails, vs. social media messages. So not sure how it would apply in this case (IANAL).
It's pretty hard for ISPs to do that on a large scale: ISPs are only regional monopolies, in the areas they are monopolies at all. There's likely a relatively small percentage of your communications where both ends of the communication are using the same ISP.
Cars have been around a lot longer than home computers have, and yet most people don't change their own oil.
Far from it, but this is in response to a comment which explicitly said "These jobs that are worth less than $15 per hour are going to be the first to be replaced by machines". I don't think they'll necessarily be the first, and in some cases will come well after much more highly compensated positions have all but disappeared.

For example, waiting tables is a classic minimum wage job (in fact, in most states in the US, the minimum wage for waiters is actually less than the standard minimum wage because tip income is assumed to make up the difference), and I'm not seeing waiters being replaced in any significant capacity by robots in the near future.

And on the other hand, a difficult job like being a machinist is becoming increasingly obsolete. A master machinist will always be able to find high-paying work, but the market for apprentice or journeyman machinists is drying up very rapidly, because a single master machinist can set the template for a hundred CNC mills and lathes, to the point where the pipeline for master machinists is on life support.
You should really link to the actual cartoon page instead of just the image. Not only do you get links to the rest of the site but the hover text is almost always worth seeing.

https://xkcd.com/979/
And people wonder why trust in academia is being eroded...sad.
Even just the concept of the blockchain itself is based on a massively inefficient use of resources to have a public ledger that can't be tampered with. This wouldn't be an issue at all if people just didn't have incentives to tamper with it!
Meatless Recipes-Best Weight Loss-Eat for Mushroom
I think there's some rose-coloured reviewing going on here.

> It was fast [...] easy [...] you were in control [etc.]

Not that I recall. It was slow, and could take from hours (local organisation or same city) to days (rest of the world) for an article to be propagated on Usenet. Yes, it was all cached locally, but often systems would download new articles only once a day, often at night when bandwidth (scarce and expensive, costing 'hundreds, if not thousands of dollars' as the rn warning went) was available. Conversations didn't take place in anything near real-time, but over days.

It didn't have history, or archives, either. Binary newsgroups would be kept for days only (due to their size) while the 'alt' hierarchy was kept for longer and the 'big 7' longest (eventually multiple years, but originally only months, causing the loss of many early Usenet postings that were never archived.)

As for moderation and accountability, moderated newsgroups were controlled by people who could choose whether or not to accept articles, and the creation of a new group, even in the 'alt' hierarchy was at the whim of some news administrator, while the 'big 7' required the 'Usenet Cabal' to agree, after a voting process that while democratic was complex and confusing.

Actually getting access to a group required your local news administrator to decide whether it was worth the disk space and bandwidth, so there was no guarantee that you would see every group or message.

As for full-text search over the entire newsfeed, Kibo was famous for this because it was rare. Searching news was difficult and time and compute resource hungry; most people did not have the resources to accomplish this.

The Web is a "version of Usenet, with encryption, authentication & Unicode, and capable of scaling up to 7 billion people" plus interactivity, colour, images, video, hypertext, programmable extensibility, you name it...
Is it not shocking to you how blatantly Facebook breaches people's expectations about the use of their data?

People share data with Facebook for a particular, immediate benefit to themselves. I share my location so my friends can see where I am, I post my photos so my friends can see what I'm doing and who I'm with, I share my contacts so I can find my friends, etc. In and of itself, this should be fine and safe to do. The problem comes when Facebook takes the data that was given to them for one purpose, in one context, and they use it for another purpose now or in the future.

I can't make informed consent when it comes to data, because the real value of data only comes from when it's aggregated with other data -- either my own over time, or other peoples'. I can't know what incremental effect this datum has when it's combined with everything else Facebook knows about me, and all their other users, and run through their current or future machine learning algorithm. So, it's impossible to know whether it's in my interest to disclose any particular bit of information to them.

Details that are innocuous to human eyes can be very salient to algorithms. I might disclose a set of data points and never make any connection between them. I might mention I feel tired on one day, and write with a negative tone on a few other days, and wake up (i.e, open Facebook for the first time in the morning) later than usual. Without knowing this, that's enough information for Facebook to make a confident inference that I'm depressed, an inference that amounts to discovering private information I never intended to reveal. Of course, they don't disclose that they know that about me, but they do use it against me. They may target ads for anti-depressant drugs, or they may invisibly bias my news feed to have more negative content.

That's even assuming I'm aware that I'm disclosing information at all. If I log into Facebook to see what my friends are up to, then close the tab and start browsing the web, Facebook knows where I go on the web any time I visit a page with Facebook comments even if I don't post any comments. The content of the page, combined with other data they know about me and the other visitors to the site, can be combined to make inferences about me, my interests and hobbies, my sex or sexual orientation, race, socioeconomic class, medical conditions, vices, and so on.

We can't expect every person to become experts on data analysis so they can fully understand the implications of disclosing their data.
> admission of using it to spread false information . . . weaponizing my data

Can you link me to what Cambridge Analytica actually did with the data? I've been really curious about it but I can't find anything concrete.
I think you are taking my response as in the context of Bitcoin. It's not. It was outlining the ways Venmo makes or seeks to make money. Some of which could be considered hidden costs to the user (e.g. transfer delays and the associated opportunity cost/time value of money).

I did not mean to make an implication about crytpocurrencies one way or the other.
That is only one way to fund UBI. Another is redistribution.
> but I think I understand who he is targeting

anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him.

> This happens on both the left and right

oh cool, "both sides".
New rules of dinner parties: don't be on time, bring more booze than you need
This is nearly entirely my opinion of blockchain.

If you were a logistics company would you rather-

>Total control of fees and servers

>Directly working with companies to solve their problems

or

>Writing something open ended so other companies can develop their own uses

>Get paid with supporting software

>Big cost increase because of miners

I completely understand Bitcoin and currencies. But I think most blockchain is going to be bad for the environment and not needed. Centralized servers are superior for most uses.
>They can't see what you watch on TV unless you configure your TV to tell them (or use a set-top box to choose your channels for you),

cable providers can legally encrypt all channels, even basic/OTA ones[1], which essentially makes set-top boxes mandatory.

[1] https://hometheaterreview.com/fcc-rules-to-make-it-harder-to...
There was also the Kalthoff repeater[0], which is thought to have been used in two conflicts in the mid 1600s, and designed/manufactured around that time. These were demonstrated and documented at least a hundred years before the second amendment was drafted, along with copies and demonstrations of similar mechanisms. The only question might be whether they could be considered "semi-automatic". In that sense I guess they're about as automatic as double-action revolvers.

I think I'm wrong in calling them semi-automatic then, but there is little practical difference between DA revolvers and semi-automatic firearms, except that one has a chamber for each cartridge. The Kalthoff mechanism is a bit more confusing with these definitions, since it uses a single chamber, but has separate magazines for charge and bullet, but reloads, cocks, and fires through a single manual action. I should probably have said self-cocking repeaters.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
Ask HN: How to self-learn electronics?
If I'm forced to use the official Twitter app, I think I'll just top using the service. I have no need for all those ads, and the hard to follow out of sequence ordering of tweets.
> Comcast, AT&T and Verizon don't have a single bit of data on me, I'm not a customer.

That's likely incorrect. You're traveling across their networks in routine use of the US Internet and its services/sites. In addition to consumer services, they all have substantial business services. They probably have less data on you than Facebook & Google.
I can't say much about the Compact Merkle Tree, but Merkle Trees generally have had widespread uses in databases[1] and filesystems[2]

[1] http://distributeddatastore.blogspot.com/2013/07/cassandra-u...

[2] https://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/zfs-end-to-end-data-integri...
I trust that they do, which is more than can be said for Facebook at this point.
For me, the question is not about whether it's harmful. I believe the central question, especially since we're talking about freedom of speech, is whether the state is the proper tool to use to reduce the harm. From my point of view as a 40 year old american, it feels as though the present discourse is much quicker to default to the state to solve problems, than it was when I was young. I don't think using the state to solve everything is unreasonable on its face, but I do think history teaches it tends towards disaster in the limit.
As a next step, check out this guide which dives in details within the multitude of AWS components and their purposes, strengths, weaknesses, and alternatives:

https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws
I think you mean "bawled", as in to cry noisily, right? Right?
HAProxy and Consul with DNS for Service Discovery
> Fox News is ridiculous and everyone

> Fox News/HuffPo/Breitbart/TPM don't scare me because they're somewhere between junkfood and supermarket tabloids

and yet fox news was the most watched cable network for how long?
Brilliant!!! Absolutely brilliant!!! So much detail and functionality. Recognition to James Yoder for this amazing product!! But also consider what this represents: From 1957 to now... how much our world has changed.
What a nonsensical article. It's clearly written for those who want to find populist reasons to frame capital as the enemy, all while ignoring basic economics or arguments.

#1: UBI is a dramatic potential restructuring of demand generation. It impacts markets, regulations, and all of the above the author stated as being ignored.

#2: Demand generation economics mostly comes from Keynes. They have been studied extensively and implemented across the board post WW2. How capital is distributed to education (free college), is a matter of public policy & not economic principle.

#3: This author needs to read more into basic economics and approach writing about such matters without a clear bias. Yes, we live in an era of massive inequality. But no, not all successful capitalists are out to create an economic system against "the people." I know multiple techno-capitalists with massive success, and many of them are interested in donating the majority of their wealth. They see UBI as an experiment that can help stabilize our domestic wealth & reduce inequality. This author is using misinformation to create a negative reaction, and her economic reasoning is weak at best. It's propaganda.

Recommended Reading:

- "Super Imperialism" by Michael Hudson
- "The War on Normal People" by Andrew Yang
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econ...
Exactly, supply and demand is pretty easy for people to grep (including myself) when explained in a simple cartoon or econ 1010 class. It’s current application in a globalized market is anything but transparent, which makes it even harder to properly identify manipulative forces in the market.
Lodge a complaint with Pai’s FCC!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
That's the normative thing to do in HN, so it's their fault, basically
A Piece of Internet History – Duke Today
> On the other hand, there's still an information leakage from the volume and timing of communications, like inferring that two people are communicating with one another in real time because their traffic flows are correlated

Yes, this is a problem. But it is also totally inherent to the role of being a provider. And as long as the internet is roughly structured the way it is today that will continue.
My pet peeve with tagging systems in general, but especially community-based tagging is false negatives. If I search using a tag, there's no guarantee at all that it will display ALL the items that qualify for it.

I'll use my favorite porn site as an example, without going into any specifics and especially linking. I just skimmed the HN Guidelines and I don't think I'm breaking any.

Suppose I try the tag #bigtits. It is highly unlikely that I will get all the pictures with women who have especially large breasts. It's because no one will review all the images and verify if the tag #bigtits applies to them. That would be very time-consuming even for the most motivated individual who uses both hands for typing. So if I were into that particular fetish, I would need to try #bigtits, then #busty, then #nicerack, #slimandbusty, #ygwbt... because each tag has its proponents, and there's definitely overlap between them. You could - and I've seen non-porn sites doing that - use a program for automatic tagging, but then in my opinion you are defeating the purpose of tagging, which is grouping things by interesting categories. Machine-generated tags tend to be lifeless.

As I've said it is a pet peeve of mine, and I will likely start a project or two to implement my fixes for a web framework or a static blog generator. I mean that I should have confidence that a tag has been considered for all content in the collection. Program-assisted tags can help, such as keeping track of what tags existed at the point when a picture was added.

Then there are almost identical tags. #cat vs #cats, #tortoise vs #turtle, #color vs #colour.

Overall, in practice, I think tagging, as usually implemented, is the most overrated feature of the Web 2.0 era.
I'm sure this is an oversimplified view, but doesn't it seem like, because black holes are more dense, they'd naturally tend to fall toward and gather around the center of the galaxy? Sort of like how more dense objects tend to be found at the bottom of a pond? So then perhaps it makes a lot of sense that the galactic center would contain a lot of black holes.
Lets see proof of work be used for 9+ years and millions of people.

I worry about russian hackers(spamming) stakes or pulling off attacks.

It took me long enough to believe that BTC wasnt going to break.
I think laws and enforcement are the wrong way to look at it.

A small business doesn't have to spend money developing tooling and a framework to, e.g., make asynchronous database calls and update page data without a refresh. The community developed that because the community cares about it. The community has shown significantly less caring about persons with disabilities being able to use websites. If the developer community had developed the accessibility version of AJAX we would use it just like we use AJAX.
So what would you characterize the "trustless argument" as being? Would you say that an analogous argument could be made for TLS?
I'd wager that during the time that all these things were written, the common themes and archetypes would probably have been more apparently and obvious to the people, even if they seem kind of like a stretch to us.
It doesn’t. Giving everyone a billion dollars devalues the dollars they had previously saved/inherited/extorted. It doesn’t create new wealth but it does redistribute it somehow by changing the value we attribute to different assets.
And they are totally wrong because there were all sorts of machine guns and powerful cannons available in those days, even some used in the Revolutionary war.

Projectile weapons have been improving throughout history, it’s silly to assume the Founders weren’t well aware of that. I mean, there were medieval weapons that were pretty devastating by even today’s standards and the first amendment makes no mention of that. These were enlightenment thinkers well versed in the history of governments and technological progress.

The 2nd amendment is a principle meant to transcend all time and cultures. The people have a fundamental right to defend their rights.
Indeed. They can know you're at WebMD, not that you looked up erectile dysfunction symptoms at WebMD. Only the ad companies get that kind of detail.

And beyond that, we're so centralized these days that most websites people spend time on are generic. For example, you have no idea what someone's interests are because they connect to Reddit, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, nor who they might be communicating with over those domains.
PS- My default position is that smart contracts are a malware vector.

But if there's some meat on those bones, I wanna know about it. I think of it as a constraints satisfaction problem. If the "vocabulary" can be kept simple enough, where our current theorem provers are sufficient, that could be cool.
Wouldn't it mean that everyone now effectively has the same amount of wealth? That seems like a significant change.