skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
" I pay based on consumption alone, as it should be. Why do you think Internet access needs to be treated any differently?"

I didn't.

You are saying what I am saying: You pay for 'Quality of Water Service'.

What if you need 5x the flow that the water company normally provides?

What if you needed, for medical purposes 'unflourinated' water (whereas all of their other customers use flourinated).

With water:

+ If you want more water monthly - you pay for that.
+ If you want higher water pressure - you pay for that.
+ If you want different kinds of water (hard, soft) you pay for that.

That's 'Water Neutrality'.

What you do not pay for is a higher rate because you're a hospital. Or because you are wealthy and the water company knows they can scam you.

If you do not allow the water company to charge for 'high pressure' or 'hard / soft' water types - then they cannot justify in the investment and no such services will exist

As for networks:

+ If you want a dumb pipe, you pay for that.
+ If you want a faster pipe, you pay for that.
+ If you want more data, you pay for that.
+ If you want higher service level guarantees - you pay for that.

It's like buying AWS, or a new computer, or whatever.

What you should not have to pay for is: $X for Netflix data and $Y for HBO data. Or $X for Facebook and $Y for Linked in data. That's raw price discrimination and it's a problem.

Internet providers have massive equipment and support costs to support streaming video, so if you want amazing streaming at 4K super high quality, well, they can provide that if you're willing to pay. But - they should charge the same irrespective of content (i.e. HBO, Netflix etc)
This is all true, but one problem that is not widespread is cars strewn all over the sidewalk. The aesthetic problem that you mention is indeed minor; the accessibility problem for people in wheelchairs is not.

Cars have all the problems you’ve mentioned and more and I’m also dissatisfied with how much public space we’ve set aside for them, but they also mostly stay off sidewalks and wait at street crossings, so at least we’ve also set aside space for pedestrians to get from one place to another that is usable even for those in wheelchairs.
This is amazing. I've been wondering of using such technology in training tennis, so that you get a real-time feedback loop on where you should correct your movement. Will definitely explore it more.
> It's not that I have something to hide. I have nothing I want you to see. - The Girl (Anon) [Netflix 2018 Movie]
Or to flesh that out a bit with more context from the article, I think it's likely you're a "typical tech first-adopter" since you're commenting on Hacker News:

>> your typical tech first-adopter may have no problem checking multiple apps to catch a quick ride, but I suspect most riders would prefer to use the same app they already have on their phone.

Then again I'm more in the latter case. I only use Lyft because a) it's not Uber and b) I already installed it and set it up on my phone.
"...With V9, we will begin to enable full self-driving features," he said.

"...begin to enable..." - bit of a jump to "full autonomy"
You can give the illusion of edge-learning by shipping datasets to large number-crunchers in the cloud and receiving altered nets from it. That even gives one the benefit of learning from the collective experience of fellow devices.

I wonder if we could (of course we can, I'm wondering if someone already did it) split the training workload across a number of small embedded devices with their tiny NEON units and have them share the resulting trained models. Making nodes self-coordinate the shared workload and assemble the results would be interesting.
Or, you know, it's a typo.
What kind of input do you want? Do you think telling the person will reduce the chances of being drawn into something you may not be able to escape? You did what you could. Start bouncing those emails.
In other words, Ajit Pai is blatantly lying. These rules were put in place in response to abuses by telecoms. I'm disappointed at how little context is ever given by the media on these issues.
Design is a very broad topic. When I read the title, I thought it meant software system design, whether for backend or front-end or scientific computing or any other domain.

As a person who cares a lot about taking a craftsmanship-first approach to business software, and in fact I believe this for cost-effectiveness and speed-of-delivery reasons such as discussed in Peopleware, my biggest question about design is:

How do you get product managers, business managers and executives to understand that by caring sincerely about first-principles craftsmanship and design and by creating policies in which managers and executives give up their ability to supersede craftsmanship with short-term or reactionary thinking, the business outcomes and customer satisfaction, even in the short term, are likely to be better, and especially compounded over time?

I'm not saying to take an ivory tower approach and try to build a "perfect" system before you ever start testing it in the market or analyzing how customers react to it.

But I am talking about the way that important work for the sake of extensibility and maintainability, or important aesthetic judgments from engineers who have experience with what features succeed in businesses, often get superseded for poorly thought out and reactionary short-term business goals, leading to wasted effort when sprint work gets deprioritized midweek and everyone has to pivot onto poorly articulated new goals all of a sudden (and then it happens again two weeks later, and again, and again).

If management took a constrained design approach, and bought into the idea that engineering aesthetics are a legitimate reason for teams to turn around and say 'no' when they are asked to engage in an obviously dumb pivot that wastes resources on unfinished work and context switches, I believe the evidence (written about widely, e.g. even just start by reading Peopleware) shows it would lead to better results even in terms of the outcomes that the managers and executives want.

Overall it makes me feel like other questions about design are just not important unless you work for bosses who happen to "just get it" and think in this quality-oriented way. Otherwise, you can learn all kinds of cool things about design ideas, you can hire great people to advise on prototypes and design approaches, and it all just goes in the trash can because of short term, reactionary management practices.
Ask HN: Is it stupid to buy from domain resellers?
I am trying to buy a domain name (for an example site as part of a book I am writing). It could be anything - but I have plumped for cheerypanda.com

However cheerfulpanda.com is taken by a reseller called buydomains.com - for 1300 USD.

The .net and .org are still new at a few bucks

Has anyone bought from anyone like this before? Any thoughts?
That will be very difficult to do with Warren Buffet because he assumes that people will already be trying to do that. Mr. Smith, on the other hand, knows that he is low profile enough to be ignored among the masses. I fail to see why anyone would spend the time stalking someone who is not wealthy; the return value of finding information on Mr. Smith is not worth the trouble.

If anything, Ad companies would more aggressively target the wealthy because they have more money to spend.
But then you have to carry a scooter around with you and remember to charge it. It seems way more useful to just have one that is charged always available. Especially at the price point.
Well my car from 93 needed to warm up :(
> "Historically speaking governments have always been the worst perpetrators of violence on their own people."

Yes, when people talk about deaths and dangers it's amazing to me that just about every other cause of death is so tiny compared to the numbers our own governments have produced.
I mean, they pretty clearly are doing their own Manhattan project for semiconductors, and are currently catching up.
Oh yes. Sometimes they also don't like the garden flamingoes, or people drying their laundry. There is a simple joy to be had, I suspect, in buying a shed load of the flamingoes and planting them all over the lawn :)
>It's actually established science that your fluid intelligence drops after hitting 30's, and the skills for certain tasks even earlier. It's sad, but it's dumb to deny biological reality.

Maybe you did not mean it but using the phrase "biological reality" when discussing a demographic of people is a common refrain of people who want to discriminate those groups. If I misread your message, I apologise
Aka "omnipotent moral busybodies"
I don't think the issue is just one that young people experience.

There's an active fight against entry-level entrepreneurship in terms of fees just to start a business that may not be profitable enough (at least in the short term) to justify the fees.

I get why some of the laws exist - for food, fear of health risks, for business more generally, fear that taxes won't be paid or people will be inconvenienced by street vendors. But they are onerous and we'd be better off without them, in my opinion. Let people start small businesses and don't require licenses or fees until they make a threshold above a living wage (30k or so / year).
I was also wondering about possibility of infecting USB key using web app
The example is a coin flip but it could be any random based game by using a different algorithm than "number mod 2". You're correct that it can't act on real world data.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I want these vectors as standard types. First class data types, not part of a library or typedef. The example given in the parent comment is spot on with typical use.

I like that GCC defined their own way to declare these that is independent of x86, ARM, and Altivec intrinsics so your code is portable (so long as you use GCC). Geometrically relevant vectors are common enough to be native types, let's get there.
"Because in order to sell you onto these bullshit packages they will end up making your regular connection hellish.
So you have an issue connecting to netflix... oh sir for just $14.99/mo you can get our Netflix QoS package"

No.

A 'Netflix QoS package' is not a QoS package. That's against Net Neutrality.

A 'Video Streaming' package that offers high quality video streaming with low latency, but doesn't care about things like picking up dropped packets - and doesn't discriminate between content sources - this would be 'net neutral'.

"Because in order to sell you onto these bullshit packages they will end up making your regular connection hellish"

This is a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with NN really. They can (and probably do) this already today with their regular package offers.

Let's not confuse general ISP stupidity with actual NN.
The way you felt taken advantage of seems extremely similar to the way Americans feel about "big corporations". Maybe it is less face to face, it it's the same concept.

And of court in a country with such a huge legacy of slavery, taking advantage of people is very American.

And there's the classic American activity of the "confidence scam", used car sales, MLM, crack/heroin/meth dealers, fake rehab clinics and fake debt counselors... Anywhere there are more clever people than accessible valuable problems to solve , taking advantage pops up.
I think your prices should be in ethereum by default. And then converted on the fly to USD or EUR etc.
What It’s Like to Be Part of Bird’s Scooter-Charging Workforce in Atlanta
Only today. In the 19th century, with the development of germ theory, people became obsessed with cleaning. Cracks were seens as dirty because they could not be cleaned. Even today, health codes for many businesses have rules against cracked tiles/walls.
I've seen plenty of numbers, and I see it being talked about less some places, more others. I don't see any evidence that it is dying. I see evidence there's less hype surrounding Rails, which is great, as I don't like Rails. In any case it is irrelevant, as what matters to my use of Ruby is that my "bubble" keeps expanding and paying more, and producing more software that I benefit from. If it's "dying" outside of that, then that's not a problem.

This idea of languages "dying" to me indicates bubbles of your own - if there's one thing we've seen over most of the history of software it is that programming languages have remained incredibly persistent for decades even after they stop being used in new development, and we're certainly nowhere near that point for Ruby.
I would say we don't care enough. There hasn't been any real blow back from the nsa vault leaks.

The government has and still is monitoring all forms of internet communication in the US en masse. Now they want to implement camera surveillance programs that use AI to track movements of people.

Where are the protests? Where are our political leaders? Our DAs, Supreme Justice, and what have you. You hear about these leaks almost monthly at this point and there are no repercussions. It will continue business as usual.
Right, but many areas have entered into township agreements where only one provider is allowed to provide service to residents. These agreements carry fun legal print like requiring the town to reconvene with the provider before the agreement can be terminated... at which point, the provider will give whatever benefits the smaller provider was intending to provide and then some.

I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be.

If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?
I don't have an opinion on whether the subject is a case of gene selection or gene expression, but your binary caricature of evolution is misleading. A trait can be weened from the gene pool simply because it costs energy without providing a benefit, causing those with that trait to underperform compared to those without it. Even if individuals are living and passing on their genes, a trait might fade from the gene pool over time because competitors are able to claim a bigger proportion of resources, reproducing quicker and more often.

The human appendix is like that: it isn't directly harmful, but it's shrunk simply because it's a waste of energy.
The average consumer may just buy a smartphone over a PC. The average tech savvy consumer may just build the PC over buying off the shelf ones. In either case most people won't be buying these 28 core chips unless they are reps for enterprises in which case they will most definitely have done their HW before buying this.
Nvidia chips power the world’s fastest supercomputer
Top 5 tips for how to avoid the spam folder
I mean it more in the sense of different social worlds. For instance you might relate differently to your relatives than with your friends. You might act in a certain way with some friends and not with other circles without it being duplicitous, but rather different facets of your identity that could not find an adequate expression if every aspect of your life was socially interlinked with every other.

Even if norms change to be far more permissive, there will still be issues with this. Besides, norms are never that permissive in absolute terms since some form of hierarchy quickly sets itself up in response to changing circumstances. For instance in some past contexts a young man might want to hide his promiscuity and adventurous experiences, whereas in some modern contexts he might want to hide his lack of promiscuity and adventurous (instagrammable?) experiences.
Yes, since GDPR only applies for non-regulated areas where no other law is effective. In the EU government there a bunch of other laws effective which overrides GDPR.
> I'm wondering if it's really beneficial for me as a programmer

I'm biased since I love programming in Rust, but I think learning the ownership model (the trickiest part for most people) is beneficial for programming in any language. It builds up a really good intuition: If only one reference exists to an object, or if shared references exist but they're all read-only, then that's "business as usual". But as soon as you have shared references and mutability at the same time, then you have "very interesting code". Even in a language other than Rust, where you don't need special types to let you do that, the situation probably deserves some beefy block comments where you warn everyone to pay attention.
I like the spirit. But oh my do food vendors have a perfect front for cooking the books and never making 30k.
I see your point:

" Are paywalls ok?

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. "

So, I am off topic, and behind a paywall :)

Once again, I need to find a new place to read great news.
Do you think Netflix gets internet access for free?? They pay for their bandwidth fair and square like everyone else.
There are some efforts underway to standardize using SIMD but this is really a separate problem to providing a short vector math library suitable for the kind of linear algebra useful for 3D graphics and physics.

Making your vec4f type a SIMD register type is not a good way to make use of SIMD hardware. The best approach is generally an SoA (Struct of Arrays) rather than an AoS (Array of Structs) and the best CPU programming model for that is something like ispc[1].

Nathan Reed has a good summary of why "naïve" SIMD libraries after not the way to go for short vector math: http://www.reedbeta.com/blog/on-vector-math-libraries/#how-t...

On some platforms alignment issues become a big problem for naïve vector math libraries too, though this is less of an issue on current generation x64 hardware.

[1] https://ispc.github.io/ispc.html
"Why do we keep accepting this ridiculously bad thing if we are now conscious of bad things?"
Do you suggest people should conceal their skin color?

Privacy is unfair because it highlights characteristics that are difficult to conceal. If someone wants to discriminate you based on your height, there's not much you can do.

Rather than coming up with strategies to help people hide aspects of themselves, such as lying, we should help people to be more tolerant and understanding. A good start is transparency and openness.

In a world where everyone can hide their differences, failing to do so exposes one to all the discrimination.
People complaining about dockless scooters strewn over sidewalks makes me wonder how we ever got people to stop littering. If the primary reason why people leave scooters in the middle of the sidewalk is out of empathy-lacking convenience, then why don't people throw food wrappers and plastic bottles all over the sidewalk in the same quantities and for the same reasons?

The answer (supposedly) is due to widespread anti-littering campaigns and the new ubiquity of trash cans. Why can't there be similar measures for scooters? Painting lines on sidewalks saying "it's OK to park a scooter here!" (painting lines being an option that costs almost nothing and is completed extremely quickly) combined with signage saying "you must park dockless scooters only in the lines or else $250 fine" (akin to only throwing trash in trash bins or else fine).

Scooters aren't inherently problematic, it's the sclerotic municipalities which refuse to adapt to changing circumstances who are the real culprits.
When does this level of rhetoric approach criminal negligence? From the previous HN discussions about Tesla’s,s running into stationary objects, the problem seems like a fundamental design issue not likely to be fixed with software. This has already killed people. What happens when some poor person relies on Musk’s ‘full autonomy’ and gets killed?

Elon Musk is the Elizabeth Holmes of self driving cars.
Is India the Best Destination for IT Outsourcing in AI and IoT Services?
The point you highlight is true, but you miss something that perhaps the way I worded my example didn't make clear.

Data doesn't know what colour you are by looking at you. It only knows what colour you are when you or someone you know specifies that.

For example - your car insurance company doesn't know that you're black... unless you include that on the form. And it doesn't matter. Black people are no more or less prone to having an accident than Hispanics or Chinese or Whites. It's irrelevant for the purpose of car insurance. But insurance companies will ask whatever they can get away with and claim to use it to provide discounts based on statistics. They then often package up this information and sell it to other companies who now know you are black, just because you provided that information when it seemed advantageous to do so. But they will equally use that information against you if they have the opportunity to deny your claim.

I might look at you and know immediately that you're black, but what if I don't know you? What if I've never seen your picture? The only thing I can glean from your data is what data there is to sift through.

So just because something may be visible in person, doesn't make it less important when it comes to privacy.
You got to remember why these rules were put in place: because assholes and scam artists abused the rules and ran rampant in neighborhoods in the 90s. I remember having to fend them off often times felt like multiple times per day in the summer -- always coming to me with some pyramid scheme, MLM pitch, or simply hounding me to buy garbage I didn't want. Naturally, those homeowners that came before you petitioned their local governments to do something about it, and so now maybe we have overcorrected some and it's time to bring it back to balance.
Are there bot rings on hackernews? I've gotten over 40+ upvotes but no comments. I've seen the behavior on Reddit, but never on hackernews in the few years I've been here
"Big company subverts local ownership of governance with massive amounts of money."

I'm not sure if this is a feel-good success story or a case study in the flaws of capitalism in an increasingly-connected global society.
This. It shouldn't be too hard to carve out some exception that covers 99.999% of toy businesses run by kids.

Normal people doing normal people things shouldn't have to ask the government for permission.
I'm not sure it's terribly surprising, though. That Times Square location was mostly for tourists. Tourists, having come by plane, are probably not going to be terribly inclined to buy anything other than fairly small items. Nothing that would be a bother to try and pack home on an airplane.
Just like SF has microclimates for weather it also has them for compartmentalizing the city's various problems. Fidi and east cut (or whatever realtors are calling it now) don't have feces, needle, and tent problems. It does have scooter litter problems. The city population swells 2x every work day and the majority of those workers interact with scooters parked haphazardly.

If it's one thing entitled early adopters and east bay commuters have in common, it's that they DGAF about the sense of community in SF. So they park these things in the most selfish ways possible. I swear some of them have to be doing it on purpose. I've seen them blocking turn styles at embarcadero station before.

I had a friend visiting from out of state and usually the first criticism of SF I hear is something about homelessness as we pass through the 'loin. But this time we were by embarcadero and it was "did a scooter gang of children all get raptured at once?"