skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To offer another perspective.

I'd say the W3C wasted a huge amount of time pursuing quests of purity (XHTML) over actually making the web better for users. I see the value in what they were trying to do, but it wasn't letting people do the things they wanted to do on the web.

As browsers started just implementing features outside of standards in completely disparate ways because everyone was desperate for them (leading to plugin hell, apps rather than websites, etc...), WHATWG was created to try and ensure that the web remained a single thing and not a mess of things that would only work in one browser.

The web platform sprang forward massively as a result of this, with browsers implementing much more consistently and with new features tending to be implemented in compatible ways, with real progress being made.

This lead to the W3C specs becoming totally redundant and the only way for W3C to keep up was to lamely try to copy from WHATWG into a "spec" at random intervals and claim it was something people could work towards, when it reality it offers no real advantages over working to the living standard, because no browser offers better coverage of that spec than any other random point of the living spec.

People want features. We saw what happens with a very slow moving, rigid standard: plugins. Flash was popular because at the time you simply couldn't do good video, animation, games on the web platform. Likewise, mobile phones shifted to apps because websites couldn't do notifications or use location information. You can bemoan a living spec, but you get one anyway, because people will work around the web if they can't do what they want. If you want to use a subset of that living spec, use it, but at least keeping it together and agreeing on roughly how to do these things is better than plugins or abandoning the web entirely.
Survey: Performance Testing Maturity
These situations happen not because of any particular cases of mismanagement or lack of overseeing from the voting public. They are a fundamental feature of how incentives are structured. The idea that people can just "manage politicians" better is ridiculous.
True but the DoD has a very long planning horizon. So it will take time for them to react.
> 3-4 POS is ridiculous for a small business. Why hasn’t this been solved yet?

My guess is that the companies would otherwise have trouble enforcing their cuts if the customer chooses to pay when they pick up
That's largely already happening with the shift from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans.

It is not necessarily a better outcome for the employees but it has better alignment of incentives and doesn't create obligations for future taxpayers.
It’s not just what you wear and how you look. There are many more ways for AI to identify you: the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you move your hands or tilt your head, etc. Keeping track of all these subtle giveaways of yourself would be relatively easy for AI, much harder for humans to keep track of or to hide.
The Sophomore's Dream
Regarding your specific problem, maybe it's not as grim as you see, you just have to think bigger and farther ahead: I am talking of course about Robot Kitchens. After automated driving this will probably be the next big frontier.

This seems to be the state of the art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNcPVvIs_tk
http://www.moley.com/about-us/

They state that the consumer version is set to launch in 2018. It will probably take several more years to work out all the kinks. But this is likely the actual future of cooking, not the local outsourcing.
Including the R&D tax credit?
> In general, I don't think I want the government to be in the business of stamping out the best deal that individuals have available.

That's interesting framing. What if the "best deal that individuals have available" is objectively bad for them, exploitative, or one more step down in a "race to the bottom"?

IIRC, The Grapes of Wrath described several "best deal[s] that individuals [had] available."
I think you're downplaying the shit show that was XHTML.

It was the epitome of standards people chasing the ideal of a perfect platonic ideal of a standard at the cost of actual usability. E.G. a single parse error in an XHTML document and it doesn't render at all. That all by itself was a deal breaker for many people.
Finding a client crashing exploit in World of Warcraft
One day it will. And there will be a reckoning...
> the W3C, still being relied on by the other actors on the web that aren’t the 4 largest browsers

Why do other actors need to rely on the W3C? Why can't they use the WHATWG specs as well? You say they're more complicated, but if that's what the browsers do then that's what they do.
My original comment say

> If backwards compatibility is important, Windows is the only sane choice for a desktop os.

So I'm not saying anything about a server, for which there is multiple choices of long backward compatibility.
Trying to understand your argument:

Are you saying that you think banning perfectly normal everyday things "because terrorism" is ok,

... or did you miss the invisible sarcasm tag?
YES!

It is so. Damn. CLEAN. I’ve hated the concept of littering since I was a little kid and it pisses me off to see peope who don’t respect their environment.

I was able to spend two weeks in Japan last year and boy, it was glorious. I also like how it’s illegal to smoke while walking. You have to go to a designated smoking area.
This is ridiculous.

I see the reasoning, but if you want to ban targeted advertising you might as well ban advertising, because what exactly is advertising? You're showing of your product in hopes that your target audience will see it. Any advertisement is made for a target audience and if you can't even limit your ads for specific region or country, what use does it have unless you're selling generic things intentionally?

I'm fine if you set some degree of how far targeting can go, like no personal data digging - however far that goes - but when you can't target for a certain region, country or even gender, then ads only become interesting for big international companies.

Besides I'm really not a fan of regulating everything all the time and adding laws on top of laws on top of laws.
Neither of them did, both plan to.
Wouldn't a simple noise generator using a reverse-biased diode wired to an ADC be pretty good?
Because I deleted my account immediately upon learning about the disclosures. I assumed the notifications would come via email or SMS. They've never had trouble doing that before now. For FB to turn this into yet another data collection vector, as well as tricking people who may have “deactivated” their accounts into logging back in and stopping the deactivation process, is just the height of evil absurdity. This is beyond the pale even for them.
Also note Apple has added PWA support in iOS 11.3

https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-her...
see wikipedia page for state credit rating. all aaa states are gop led
NATIONALIZE HEALTHCARE
I believe it also works at a subconscious level to build brand recognition. When you need or want something, your mind references your memories to find suppliers and determine which you want, etc. This is based on what you know of the product which is also heavily influenced through consumption of advertising.

An example would be - I need car insurance. I know some vendors are All State, State Farm and Geico (via endless commercials and ads). I will call them and compare prices. Any vendor that isn't in your mind is less likely to get a call.
> This lead to the W3C specs becoming totally redundant and the only way for W3C to keep up was to lamely try to copy from WHATWG into a "spec" at random intervals and claim it was something people could work towards

So why don't they just disband the W3C? It sounds like it's not needed any more if WHATWG are doing the work?
That's the one. I think it's one of the coolest houses out there.
I don't know of an article, sorry. A brief history from memory would be that during XHTML days the W3C essentially let the HTML spec languish and people weren't moving to XHTML (at best they were moving to XHTML-like HTML).

So the WHATWG came along (mainly organised by the major browser vendors) and started the HTML spec moving again. This became part of what's known as HTML5.

However WHATWG doesn't exactly make a "standard" it makes a "living standard", which is a constantly shifting document which aims to describe where browsers currently are and what they hope to implement. The W3C decided to keep publishing its own HTML specifications and, as the WHATWG does describe what browsers are trying to do, the W3C's spec has to build at least partly on that work. There are differences though. For example, the W3C requires at least two implementations of a feature for it to be included in their spec.

The WHATWG has always opposed the W3C's spec. They see it as confusing to have two "official" specifications.
Because the XHTML spec would have made a lot of things easier.

I can write an XHTML1.1 parser and renderer in about one month.

Writing an HTML5 parser takes thousands of developers 5 years.
Why not something more modern, like Matrix?
You'd be surprise how much common sense people pay to hear in some different form and name. Yin/yang, ayurveda, etc. We love creating symbolism for things grandma said to their children for 1000 years.

Beside, most reason to go to the doctor go away if you have a healthy life style.
Starlink is intended to provide 1Gbps service to end users with low latency, especially if you’re accessing sites on the other side of the world.
Reform (open source DIY ARM laptop) beta kit available for limited pre-order
Twitter Bots: An Analysis of the Links Automated Accounts Share
What a depressing way to spin what are otherwise reasonable questions and comments seemingly addressed by the report. Just as depressing is to see that a microbiology PhD is making her living by recycling clickbait content written by someone else (Mole's article is more or less a facsimile of the original CNBC article).
Is "duh" really a meaningful statement here? We're discussing this because Facebook is already in "trouble" for scummy tactics. Doesn't "duh, of course they want you to login" sort of accept one of those tactics?

Imo, yes - email should totally be possible, without logging in ideally, if they wanted to truly save face. The fact that they aren't is, of course, a clear indication that they aren't being honest, instead they're primarily concerned with using this as a scummy tactic to get their hooks into your brain again.

So.. no, not duh, imo. If we accept "duh", we start lowering our expectations, in the same way that American politics has as of late. We lose our base position, indicating when we should be outraged/etc.
I think there's a potential policy play in this. There is already a class of drugs, known as orphan drugs, which are targeted to rarer diseases that currently have no gold standard treatment. Companies are incentivized by the US FDA to make drugs for these conditions. Maybe the FDA could also make a policy space for "cure incentives" which would provide additional economic benefits to companies willing to make drugs or protocols which attempt to cure disease.
This summary glosses over several events that alienated browser vendors and web developers from the W3C and makes the W3C sound like the good guys.

One that springs to mind is the complete debacle around XHTML 2. The link above ( http://diveinto.html5doctor.com/past.html ) is worth reading to understand things from the WHATWG's perspective.
Not the parent commenter, but I've often thought it's the government's job to prevent the tragedy of the commons. That's pretty much explicitly "stamping out the best deal that individuals have available".
How about setting up a new company to own each new machine, thus shielding the parent corporation from liability for that machine's mistakes (beyond the value of the individual machine)?
I think there's a lot of survivorship bias in play here. Whatever company that makes the most money will grow the most relative to others.

The big companies will always be the most greedy one's but most companies may still have slightly different priorities. Companies that survive must be long term economically sustainable. Consequentially most companies that exist will likely prioritize economic sustainability because those are the one's that survive.

However, it might still be that it makes sense to start and work with temporary companies that are not long term sustainable if they do fix a problem?
SH: I made a leaderboard for birthdays
That would be my guess. It was probably expensive so they are looking to sell it.
It's fairly easy to draw a line -- if at any point in the pipeline you are basing advertising decisions on data that can be linked to any one particular individual, that is targeted advertising.

If it can be shown "Bob was shown this pasta ad because he as an individual Googled 'spaghetti recipes'", that is targeted advertising.

Now, I don't agree with the article either, because I don't really see the intrinsic evil of targeted ads, but it's not hard to draw a clear line.
The People Part of Design Systems
I mean, reading that GitHub thread, it seems to me that everyone involved is saying that's exactly what should happen, and the people invested in the W3C are trying to force through new work just to justify the organisation's continued existence (and presumably, if I were being cynical, their paycheck).

The bone of "you could set specs based on snapshots of the living standard" was thrown to them, but the reality is no one cares enough about it to actually do that well, so it's just being done in a bad way that will hurt everyone.

That thread reads, to me, as "we tried being nice, but now you are causing problems, just stop please".
TSLA shares gain after Musk rules out capital raise in snarky tweet at Economist
you should probably look into "Zero-Trust Authentication".
> There's a serious moral hazard for politicians. It's easy to give constituents services today at the expense of benefits in the future, when they'll be out of office.

Moral hazard? That's the backbone of politics
It does exactly answer the question. It's just that the answer is not what most people expect: an algorithm. Some problems have simple solutions, or simple explanations. Other problems require deep consideration and almost philosophical shifts in one's mind. There is no algorithm for this problem. This requires creative process. Creative process is impossible to describe in a couple of sentences in a way that will be enough to teach it to someone.
Not really a question that can be answered.

I'd suggest looking at Elixir/Phoenix if you have a problem with Rails that you think Elixir/Phoenix might be able to solve. Could be scale problems, reliability, real-time communication, etc.

I wouldn't suggest replacing your entire Rails app with Phoenix right away. If possible start with a service that may be having issues and migrate that over if possible.
TV advertising is very very targeted. If you don't think so, spend ten minutes each on commercials from Disney channel, the Food Network, ESPN, and CNBC. You will see very very different ads on each.
It seems you forgot about the little obstacle called the English Channel
The states could raise property/land taxes and eliminate corporate tax cuts and tax loopholes.

That wouldn't be a 1% friendly solution though - too much of their wealth is tied up in land and equities. It might mean that landlords in the Bay Area couldn't collect rents of $6,000 a month for doing nothing. Most of that unearned cash would flow in to state coffers instead.

It's ironic, because the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer foundation (the group behind prop 13) tried to justify prop 13 by saying that raising property taxes would hurt the elderly. Californian voters believed them.

Now that their actions created a massive hole in California budgets, they advocate for stripping California pensioners of their money as the "fiscally responsible" solution.

People believe them now too.

Edit: For those erroneously believing propaganda that hiking taxes leads to an automatic exodus:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-tax...
Ask HN: How is “offshore” banking affected by blockchain?
If you read the thread there's an exchange with the CEO of W3C that is a touch 'flamey'. I think the title perfectly describes what I was reading, really interesting peek at the machinations behind the tech standards we use every day.
That’s great if you’re either an existing browser vendor, using a browser, or developing a broken website.

But if you actually try to write a new browser from scratch, or a tool to scrape websites, you’ll learn to love XHTML, and hate HTML5.

The same that applies with human languages applies here as well. Writing a vocaloid for japanese is a high school programming class project. Writing a TTS for english takes thousands of Google developers years. Writing an XHTML1.1 parser and renderer takes a month. Writing an HTML5 browser takes thousands of developers years.

The WHATWG specs prevent the web from ever evolving further – we’re stuck with opaque websites and no way to build new technology on top of it. Building a crawler is a task of years, and semantic data tags are impossible to parse, because no one uses them right.

The only reason we can automate any parsing of websites is because either browser vendors spent billions on crawlers for their search engines, or if we run a full browser, or if we use the opengraph tags that Facebook forced on websites.

With XHTML1.1, Chrome and Firefox headless would never have been necessary. Imagine how much time and computational cost you could save.
Shouldn’t the title be “Chinese man”
Opposition activists use mostly Telegram. WhatsApp is not so convenient and not so popular among them.
It's really nice to see Clojure syntax being adopted in newer lisps.
Tom's Explains: What Do RGB+W and RGB+WW Mean?
> I wonder if a law that clawed back these government official's pensions if they were found to break from good accounting practices, would be a deterrent?

No, the officials making these pension decisions are politicians who mostly, while they may have government pensions, have lots of other resources, so that the pension doesn't matter much. The only thing it will deter is non-independently-wealthy people from becoming politicians, but there are barriers to that already.
Implementing Product Processes in Organizations That Don’t Like ‘Em
Several different types of these physical deterrents to FR have been available for several years, and this is after state actors employed them for their own operations. The FR industry has multiple methods to mitigate, as well as recognizes that FR is merely one biometric of many possible identification methods. The passive nature of FR is great, but it is not the only technology with passive identification capabilities. FYI, I'm at a leader in the FR industry, writing the FR applications used by many. (www.CyberExtruder.com)
Voedingsproducten die je best niet eet als je gezond wilt afvallen
I wonder whether these systems do work when people wear masks to protect themselves against smog.
We just need cash that works online. We can already buy gift cards with cash and use those online, maybe a similar process could be streamlined and designed specifically around anonymity.
That's not true, while technically true in a legal sense, practically we had privacy via anonymity in the masses. It took a large amount of effort to track a single person.

Of course governments and bussiness don't want this to change because they can take advantage of this with the new technology.

But it doesn't mean that the previous laws are appropriate for today, nor imo should any legal precedents apply any more because the situation has significantly changed.
I suppose I can't definitively say that the subconscious thing isn't happening, but if it is, I don't see much evidence of it. Whenever I need something like insurance, I'll usually start from companies I've heard advertised, but I always compare rates and I'm open to other companies too.

I suppose it gave them a marginally better shot at my choosing them, but I didn't pick any based on their ads. In fact, the company I ended up going with I didn't see any ads for recently as they don't advertise very hard in my area.
We collectively set aside one time pads for the same reason. I’m sure the NSA or GCHQ will implement this for some practical purpose eventually since they use one time pads, but this concept is madness. It’s telling that proposals for information theoretic guarantees come from individuals and institutions utterly disconnected from mainstream theoretical cryptography research. That’s what it would take to propose something like this, because the modern foundation of cryptography is explicitly computational for reasons established decades ago.

Basically every reputable cryptography textbook rehashes this discussion alongside a nod to elementary complexity theory. It’s hard not to be cynical about the sincerity of research like this when there is an abundance of literature indicating that it’s conceptually untenable.
This is the most clever "No True Scottsman" fallacy I've ever seen.
When the country does indefensible things.
New DUI policy: Refuse breath test, cop will seek instant warrant for blood test
If people have money in "tax havens" couldn't it make sense to move some of that to the blockchain to become "extra jurisdictional"
Sounds like Ender’s Game for social skills :) love it!
Once a technology becomes pervasive and mature enough, it is no longer a question of finding hacks, workarounds, or tricks to fool the system. You might be able to do it for a time, but eventually your luck or attention will fail you and you will lose. ("Losing" may or may not have serious consequences for you, depending on how far you fall outside of social norms.)

When a technology becomes powerful enough, the only real solutions available to you are political, or in other words the so-called "four boxes of liberty". Or you can drop out of society, which unfortunately most often requires joining a tiny niche community full of weird social dropouts. Or you can just accept it. None of these are ideal, but hey, at least you have options...
NASA Posts Stunning 4K Tour of the Moon – ExtremeTech
I've been getting into OSINT since I started talking with the arms control community (over my concerns about mass cyber attack and autonomous vehicles) and you'd be floored at how shitty the tools they use are.

If you're even a halfway decent data scientist or cyber security professional you'd be 10x more effective at actually munging through data and finding people. Even simple things like munging through millions of records with regexes are hard for them.

It's not surprising to me that they think low tech ways are the most effective. The tools they use are really horrible and pale in comparison to basic shell scripting, let alone scipy.
The difference is that shareholders lose something (the value of their shares) when they drain a company of its assets. This might still be short-sighted, but there is at least a balancing force.

In public services, where making a loss is o.k. this is just included in the loss, and there is essentially nothing that encourages the 'parasite' to not drain the system.