skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Careful, there, it does say that in Article 12, (5):

"Information provided under Articles 13 and 14 and any communication and any actions taken under Articles 15 to 22 and 34 shall be provided free of charge".

(Article 15 is the Right of access by the data subject.)

You can only charge for subsequent copies or when "requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive".

--

See also the ICO FAQ on the subject: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
CI/CD on Google Cloud Platform Using Container Builder and Cloud Functions
> I don't think that model will work, honestly. There's friction anytime you ask someone to spend anything, even if the price is de minimis.

The price is so low that there is little friction. You also get a full refund if you are disappointed, further reducing friction.

Furthermore you don't pay every time but you pay from an account with Blendle.
Hm, while I agree that there are some gotchas serving static sites via AWS, the one you mention seems to work fine for me. See e.g. https://visidata.org/releases/ which is definitely served via CloudFront and definitely does not use a Lambda@Edge request function.
I'd like to throw in my pay-per-minute concept for video content. It's been tried before but I think it's the business model for media monetization that will win in the end. Basically a platform like Youtube could charge users a penny per minute and distribute to content creators after taking a platform percentage fee.

Starting something like this would have a huge chicken and egg problem though because no content creators would join a platform without a large existing user base. And I think Youtube and others would have trouble trying out a new business model because they might lose the confidence of their ad customers.
Where do you see Google is free and unlimited for mobile apps?
Agreed, I guess we as a community learned the hard way that threads, and what they imply (shared state) weren't a good idea after all.
> Did you know that when you play chess, you are not actually commanding real knights and bishops to fight each other?

You reminded me of a game called "Battle Chess", in which bishops hold glaives, the rook is a stone golem, pawns carry short swords. And yes, they do battle to the death in accordance to the rules in chess.

I played it years ago, and found that the death scene was different for each thing attacked. It was quite entertaining :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKcZwPb7C3k
Avoid that altogether and tax energy production equal to the economic cost of its damage. Redistribute the funds gathered to all citizens since they're the ones impacted by the damage. Buy solar panels, pay the steep tax, take whatever steps work for you, where you live, etc.
> A 5-star safety rating doesn't
> mean anything to the pedestrian
> or cyclist in front of you[...]

It does, the Euro NCAP now includes pedestrian and cyclist safety in their assessments[1].

1. https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-media/press-releases/new-l...
It seems to me there is a reasonably low cost solution to demonstrate safety: SpaceX should load and unload the fuel multiple times for its human-qualification spaceflights. If SpaceX is correctly confident fuel loading is safe, the extra handling won't result in incidents. This would be a fairly minor expense given nothing is consumed or destroyed -- just handling costs and incidental losses due to evaporation and so on.
Yes. Surface chemistry ("nanotechnology") seems to attract this sort of hype.

"The prototype manganese-hydrogen battery, reported April 30 in Nature Energy, stands just three inches tall and generates a mere 20 milliwatt hours of electricity ... The researchers are confident they can scale up this table-top technology..."

That is a really puny battery. It's 1/10th the energy capacity of a typical watch/hearing aid battery, which is about as small as you can buy retail. And it's 3 inches tall. So system energy density is currently something like 0.001 of commercial batteries.

They should have scaled it up a bit more before turning on the hype machine. It's embarrassing to see this out of Stanford.
> consumers price goods by value, not by costs

But the point is he's a consumer and he isn't pricing by value - he's pricing by costs.
And the queen had a duck!

http://pud.com/post/59851751577/the-duck-technique
>Honestly, I don't think it would be a great loss to forgo most of the advertising funded content.

Since you clearly haven't put much thought into this comment let's just start listing things that are funded by ads

- News

- content creators on youtube

- music

- twitch

- search

- blogs

- websites with tutorials

- a thousand different things which I have missed

and then facebook, snapchat, instagram, and twitter which of course you are too good for
In software there are unfortunately a lot of people who disagree with you.
nope, individuals making their own decisions on risk tolerance is not how we as a society live. We all make _collective_ decisions.

/sarcasm
Not really. You can blow in insulation into walls and attic. Air seal the house. Replace the windows with better ones. These regulations do not drive up the cost to upgrade existing houses.
Weather and wind direction variance prevents traditional sails from being practical. They barely even need a crew on these ships, and can pretty much ignore the prevailing wind direction. There's insufficient economic incentive to incur the significant costs of operating with sails.

There's a reason the age of sail is in the past, it couldn't even compete with steam.
For those who doubt the validity of initiatives aimed at encouraging minority/women in STEM, here is an example of why they exist.
They never became more expensive. They were extremely expensive to begin with and now they’re a lot cheaper. Previously it was like 500€ or so? That's too much for the casual user as well.

Here’s the reality. I used to pirate Adobe software because there was no way I was going to pay 1500k or whatever Photoshop was. Adobe got $0 from me.

Now I subscribe to get access to Photoshop. Adobe now gets £100 from me a year. I’m not the only person I know who went through this.

Of course, cheaper alternatives always existed. Adobe’s adoptance of subscription pricing hasn’t changed that.
> There has been a LOT of effort put behind micro transactions for publishing, from companies that have all the resources and incentive in the world, like Google.

I feel I used to follow Google quite closely before and I cannot remember seing any hints of this.

My feeling has rather been that any form for paying has been looked at as second class compared to ads at that company.

Youtube Red still isn't available here and I haven't heard a thing about the idea they had last year that we could pay to avoid ads.

Do you have any pointers?
The best explanation for monads I have seen until now is this one:

http://adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,_and_...

Enjoy! :)
I have been a happy Emacs user for nearly two years now, but I still don't use eshell. Is it only me, or is it really painfully slow?
>They win because they make more money.

You have no data to back any of your hand wavy assertions. You are not smarter than the people that decide the business model for these publications. People are not willing to pay 10 or 20 cents to read articles that they clicked on a whim. We already know this from the app economy.
>It's common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of life.

This isn't common knowledge at all among non-scientists. Most people have no clue that CO2 levels were many times higher than today, and that earth and the ecosystem in general were just fine. Scientists may be aware of this fact, but why don't they inform the general public of this? Take the submitted article for example. Instead of publishing an article stating, "CO2 levels are higher than 800,000 years ago; but are likely lower than they were at any point from 20-200 million years ago" they only leave in the scary, doomsaying first part and neglect to inform the second part. It is the equivalent of looking at a 24 hour geological clock and only telling people about the past minute while neglecting datapoints from minutes or hours ago. Why aren't scientists informing the public of the historical data?

I understand why the climate change community may not want to bring up this point (it detracts from other issues) but people should be aware of this fact. Humanity, and life in general, will survive increased CO2 levels.

>The question isn't whether [X], it's whether [Y].

I am paraphrasing, but that's largely what your comment is saying. The article premise and its title, is about [X], where [X] is CO2 levels. It seems like the response to historical CO2 levels is to change the topic.

Edit: I don't want to reply to several comments, so I'll respond here.

Why do I believe the discussion should inform people about historical CO2 levels? Largely because I firmly believe CO2 emissions will not decrease through 2040. The incentives to cut emissions are just not there. Petroleum is simply too useful as a resource. The current projections I have seen predict 500ppm by 2050, and likely 600ppm by 2100. Given those numbers, I ask myself the question, how likely is it that humanity will face extinction in the next century? How should I interpret these numbers?

Given the geological data, I find it reassuring that biology and life on earth survived for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. It means that increased CO2 levels will not cause the extinction of humanity.
Have you ever been sailing?
His book /Men of Ideas/ is a set of conversations with leading philosophers (among them Searle, Chomsky, Quine), accessible to non experts. I read it as a kid and whenever I happen to revisit it I find just as inspiring. It seems to be out of print, though the videos from the BBC show are ironically on youtube,

/The Great Philosophers/ in which prominent philosophers discuss the major figures in the canon of Western philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, etc.) is also enticing, though less than /Men of Ideas/.
That's crap is not exactly a great reason for why one can or can't do something. I'm reading a lot of people with strong opinions, but I'd like to see the reasoning behind them.
35 so far. Keep 'em coming!
Thanks to all for the answers!

I want to make sure that I'm understanding this bit correctly:

>A better metaphor is to think of values of type IO a as fragments of a script in some other (imperative) language. The Haskell program merely computes the script, and the runtime then takes care of actually executing it. In this sense, effects in Haskell are not "side" -- they are first class citizens. What order the fragments of the imperative program are computed in (or how many times) is independent of the text of the final program.

In Wadler's paper, the monadic output example looks like this:

type M a = (Output, a)
type Output = String

unit :: a → M a
unit a = (“ ”, a)

(*) :: M a → (a → M b) → M b
m * k = let(x, a) = m in
let(y, b) = k a in
(x ++ y, b)

out :: Output → M ()
out x = (x, ())

where each function, instead of returning a simple numeric value, returns a tuple of a string (the output to be printed) and a number (the value to be returned). If you wrote this function out in Haskell, you would have access the output text in the form of a lazy list of strings.

If we can think of IO values as fragments of an imperative script that are handled at runtime, then that makes me think that the Haskell compiler doesn't use the strategy presented in Wadler's paper (in the case of printing output, returning a lazy list of strings to be printed), and instead just performs the specified side effects directly, knowing that semantics of the IO monad guarantee that things will be sequenced correctly. Do I have this right?
Flip a coin 50 times and get 50 heads, it's almost impossible it's a fair coin. Does your BetaDist function work in that case?
Releasing new features and improvements is highly incentivized in the *aaS model. It’s the main way of boosting ARPC, and as you mentioned, if you fail to do it, you’ll be very vulnerable to competition. It doesn’t alway suit every situation, but in those that it does, it benefits both consumers and merchants.
Ulysses has a custom markdown feature that I thought was great. The only problem was that you couldn't use it without opting in to use their own file based storage schema. So if you wanted to store your writings in "regular" files and sync them yourself etc., you couldn't use the custom markdown feature.

I thought this was absolutely ridiculous since the custom markdown would have simply gotten written as plain text. I asked why they're limiting the user like that and got even more ridiculous response: apparently they didn't want other people to get confused in case I ever shared the files that were outside their own file based schema. This non sequitur infuriated me enough to ditch the software.

None of it made any sense until they announced the subscription model.
Using rsync to back up your Linux system
>If people stopped buying things from far away that aren't really really necessary, maybe that will also reduce fuel use.

From what I understand, shipping long distances is super efficient per unit goods transported; the ship that drags whatever it is you buy across the ocean produces less carbon (per unit transported) than the truck from the port to your store, which emits less carbon per unit transported than your car going from the store to your home.

If you want to save fuel, argue for good public transit, higher density housing and mixed use zoning. Or, more controversially, perhaps look into efficient delivery services that deliver a lot of groceries to people in the same area.

I mean, to be clear, I'm not saying that pollution caused by larger transport should be ignored; it's probably easier to deal with pollution on a giant ship than on a thousand little cars, but my point is just that you should go after the biggest problem, that we live in low density areas and drive everywhere.

Note, people say there are a lot of economic arguments for buying local, though I personally think that is harder to analyze than simple carbon emissions, and I'm not addressing that here.

http://www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ch9_0923.pdf

"Figure 9.3 also shows that the most energy-intensive transit link is often the last one–driving to the store. This is not surprising, because other studies, such as those by Browne et al. (2005) and Van Hauwermeiren et al. (2007), find that this link canbe the most carbon intensive even in European countries where consumers are tra- ditionally more energy conscious than their U.S. counterparts."
> Also, people don't always make good decisions; they shouldn't die for it, we shouldn't exploit them, and we don't want a system that attracts and promotes people for making bad decisions.

So, your alternative to letting someone else make their own decision is you (or someone else) making a decision for them?

All of the examples you just listed cut against your argument as much as they cut for it.

Bosses, peers, communities, priests in catholic churches or penn state employees _all_ have a history of abusing power as much as anyone else.

So, since abuse of power exists, and people can make good and bad decisions, it seems reasonable to expect a certain amount of bad decisions.

it seems safer to let individuals make their own bad (and good) decisions, rather than centralizing decision-making in a group of people that we hope will make good ones, but we must expect that a centralized group will make a certain number of bad ones.

Enshrining bad actors in a position of power is likely to have much worse outcomes than letting individuals occasionally make bad decisions.
Allwinner VPU support in mainline Linux status update (week 18)
You’re not running vanilla Kubernetes
> Tangent: why hasn't there been a breeding program to make domestic cats... more domesticated (i.e. friendlier)?

I've wondered this myself after reading Bradshaw's book on the domestication & psychology of cats, _Cat Sense_, where he points out that not only are cats not nearly as well domesticated as dogs and this seems to be the root of a lot of cat problems (such as the urinary idiopathic cystitis which nearly killed my cat last year, or the cat bites which are extremely dangerous and send countless people to the ER with blood infections, including my grandmother), they also are probably de-domesticating as cat reproduction is increasingly carried out only by feral strays. Cat personality and personableness definitely are genetically influenced, and this has been demonstrated by the usual methods like crossfostering (the offspring of feral fathers are less friendly even when raised by friendly mothers with zero contact with the father).

I'm not sure why, but it seems to be that most people don't regard it as a problem that can be affected, it's "just how cats are", and the scattershot cat breeders are almost all entirely obsessed with coat color/appearance and to a very limited extent, the worst inherited diseases. In addition, there is an incredible lack of cat research compared to dog research, despite being such a popular pet, which has even drawn comment from outsiders: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/science/dog-science-cats....

(My favorite example of this: for 60 years, if you asked any reference source like Wikipedia about why some cats respond to catnip and others don't, you'd be told this is because catnip sensitivity is controlled by a single autosomal dominant gene, based on 1 small Boston cat colony pedigree done back in the '60s. Turns out this is entirely wrong, it's highly polygenic, but it took until 2011 for a grad student to demonstrate this, and it took another 6 years until I stumbled across her thesis and added it to Wikipedia.)
The complexity and the number of dimensions is exactly why the APA decided to delete AS as a diagnosis and create a single diagnostic label. Do you know why, out of all the many dimensional, we ended up categorizing based on the one specific aspect? Basically, it's because it determined what triggered the initial referral - it was an artifact of how our health system is set up, not anything actually intrinsic to the condition itself. It's not even clear what an actually-meaningful diagnostic classification would look like.
If they didn't have to give anything up to get their wealth, then it can't be worth anything? Hardly.

I don't think opportunity cost is really relevant in the case you mention.
Way to make it even harder to construct new housing in California.
I look at something like Overcast. Great software that I subscribe to and give him his money. Almost by definition, and through great pains from the developer, there’s almost zero lock in for a podcast client.
Who Are These Economists, Anyway? (2009) [pdf]
the physics involved must be really interesting. Visually, the "sail" looks incredibly tiny compared to the size of the ship and the size of sails on sailing ships of earlier ages
In the Bay, sure, but this is a statewide regulation. What about a $200,000 home out east that is now 15% more expensive?
Thanks. I wonder what See's Candies brand reputation trend-line looks like. While I remember viewing them being premium back in the 1980's, I view others more favorably today. (Godiva).
That just splits up the task of application server & git executor into two, it doesn't get rid of the dependency on a monolithic storage backend.

I understand that this is something gitlab.com is working towards and excited about, presumably because it'll allow for provisioning web workers unrelated to the CPU you're spending on running git, but for us I don't see it being useful.

I hope GitLab eventually gets something like GitHub Spokes[1] which'll allow for provisioning the entire setup on a bunch of dumb boxes with RAID 0.

1. https://githubengineering.com/introducing-dgit/
In that case why not just make a webapp?
> some way cross-apply the license purchase price to a subscription

They did do this. From the footnote to to their original announcement[1]

Recent purchases of the Mac app will unlock up to 12 months of free use, and purchases of the iOS app will unlock up to 6 months of free use. Your individual free-use duration is calculated from your actual purchase date, respectively, and if you bought Ulysses on both platforms, we will add together both periods.

[1] https://ulyssesapp.com/blog/2017/08/ulysses-switches-to-subs...
Well that's interesting. An AWS blog post from October 2017 says:

> CloudFront does allow you to specify a default root object (index.html), but it only works on the root of the website (such as http://www.example.com > http://www.example.com/index.html). It does not work on any subdirectory (such as http://www.example.com/about/). If you were to attempt to request this URL through CloudFront, CloudFront would do a S3 GetObject API call against a key that does not exist.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/implementing-default-di...

A request for https://visidata.org/releases (no trailing slash) also results in an HTTP 302 to https://visidata.org/releases/ (with a trailing slash). Is there something other than Lambda@Edge functions handling this on visidata.org?
$15k here, $20k there, pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.
Demystifying Differentiable Programming (2018)
Which is moving the goalposts and changing the question. He's asking if a "hypothetical human time traveler" could survive hundreds of millions of years ago, and based off historical CO2 data, it could be possible.
Why this stuff so complicated? Previously AWS has a link on the homepage where you could run a static website in couple clicks [1]. Now they removed it.

[1] https://console.aws.amazon.com/quickstart-website/home
On my iPhone it simply showed a picture which covered the text and refused to move. Thankfully reader mode allowed me to read the article, thought the same thing as you - how did we get to this point?
Adobe has had cheaper competitors for ever - basically the only move it’s competitors have is to be cheaper. Adobe still exists.
I posted this because the writing is so excellent that I found it a pleasure to read.
Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. If you are grid tie you are subject to whatever rate they will pay you for your power and charge you for power.
The reason for this hell is that it's so incredibly important for companies in this winner-takes-all world to be information gatekeepers. The eyeballs have to go through them first, so that people can be controlled into buying more of their content.
> What makes a translation great?

A publisher that gives you a lot of time to work! I have done some literary translations out of certain European languages into my own, and there is not much time to sculpt a really powerful translation when the publisher wants the whole novel done in 3 months or so, and of course during this time I will be juggling this job with other jobs, because literary translation by itself doesn't pay the bills. Most other literary translators I know have the same complaint. Words like "sweatshop" are used to describe the industry, and you definitely feel that publishers, at least in my country, don’t believe that the general public really cares about quality; the publishers just want to crank out the content as fast as possible.

Often the classic translations across European languages – Joyce’s Ulysses, or verse translations of Dante’s Commedia, or Shakespeare, or the Greek playwrights, etc. – were made over the course of a few years, and I envy anyone who had a secure relationship with a publisher where they could take their time on the translation but still know that it would be published in the end and they would be fully paid for it.
You Write Just Like Their Twitter Account. G T F O Spammer.