skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is why I've never liked curated app stores and I hate the whole app store concept in the first place. I mean, what did people expect when you can't develop apps for devices unless they're "registered" by some company. The same goes with stores like Steam. They all write the ToS so they can do anything regardless of whether its enforceable or not and it requires a long list of legal battles just to fix it.
Not only is that an extremely overly simplistic look at how globalization actually works, but ignores that we can't just blame globalization while doing everything in our power to kneecap growing industries in favor of ones that are dying or in the process of being automated.

We should be adapting to the fact that a lot of these jobs will be automated in the near-future and/or the fact that most of these companies are more profitable than ever yet demand more and more from local and state governments.
Fornite isn't even remotely near first. They took good ideas from other games and executed them very well.
> he combat/controls/graphics/hitboxes/animations are kinda dirt

This is just wrong. The game became popular because its a pretty damn good game and quite fun. Yes, it is somewhat derivative but most things are. People forget that Epic is an old school titan of the gaming industry that pioneered a lot of what we see in FPS titles today. They know what they're doing, even if they lifted some inspiration from other titles.
> Think about the cookie law

The one that approximately no one follows?
We should all start doing everything we can to economically harm google and reduce their power.
If someone can snap their fingers and turn off your business,it’s not your business. Porters five forces (and ubderstanding the sixth force) is one of the most important lessons in business.
Yeah exactly, for my use case (mobile device, frequent state updates) I couldn’t justify the overhead of state-tree after doing some profiling. Shame as it looks great and would have been a good fit ofberwise.

Thanks for the pointer to serializr - I hadn’t seen that before!
Never launch a mobile app before you have launched a website.
Who says you have to upload your code directly to the deployment directory? Upload files, switch symlink. Done. You are talking about a deployment technique that has nothing to do with PHP.
It's an early-access prototype for engineers to use to develop software for the cheap products that will come in the next year or two. It's not intended for hobbyists.
control for poor and ethnic minority communities and the counterculture

But if (certain) people were left totally uncontrolled, that would be... a problem how?

Out of control people... running amok?

Is that what was really happening?

If there’s so much verrry important effort being expended to “control” people, then wouldn’t there be a good reason to control them?

Taken one step further, if it were really about taking control, wouldn’t murder be a cheaper means of control?

Except wholesale killing isn’t the outcome, so it’s probably not about ruining lives for the simple benefit and fun of control.
Well, see, you just have to thoroughly investigate holding companies, paywalled court filings, online security breach notices, and legal documentation conveniently available on the other side of the country in a locked filing cabinet in the unlit second subbasement, and do it every time you buy groceries, pay for gas, receive a shipped gift, or spend time in the vicinity of anyone who takes photos with the Facebook app. I don't see what makes it so difficult.
And PUBG jacked the idea from DayZ
FYI: "giant corporations" are dictating this copyright law.
Facebook collects data on people that never even use or touch or go near facebook. How exactly do you stop using their product?
> One question I had in the back of my mind when reading the book was whether any of it applied to teaching at university level. I’m still not sure what I think about that. There is a reason to think not, because the focus of the book is very much on school-level teaching, and many of the challenges that arise do not have obvious analogues at university level. [...] I think at Cambridge almost everyone would get this question right (though I’d love to do the experiment). But Cambridge mathematics undergraduates have been selected specifically to study mathematics. Perhaps at a US university, before people have chosen their majors, [...] More generally, I feel that there are certain kinds of mistakes that are commonly made at school level that are much less common at university level simply because those who survive long enough to reach that stage have been trained not to make them.

Note the "I think [...] almost everyone would get this question right (though I’d love to do the experiment)". This is a familiar state. Widespread. Call it, teachers who have not yet had their "oh shit!" moment.

One of the blog comments points at Eric Mazur's (Harvard, physics) oft-repeated talk "Confessions of a Converted Lecturer". Who describes the first time he gave students a Force Concept Inventory. Worried about wasting their time with such easy questions. :) Unaware physics education research was about to become a focus of his career.

Many have been surprised by "Minds of Our Own" (1997) https://www.learner.org/resources/series26.html The short (3 min) introductory video shows MIT and Harvard students struggling to light a bulb with a battery and a wire. Full episodes are below (by clicking on "VoD" buttons).

Harvard Center for Astrophysics has both first-tier astronomy and astronomy education programs. When meeting a new CfA graduate student, I've a little drill, prompting for the color of the Sun, and then of sunlight. They almost always get the first wrong, and then get a conflict, often with a nice "oh, wait, that doesn't make sense does it" moment. The collision of two bits of non-integrated and flawed understanding. Of the few who get it right, halfish (but small N) learned it from CfA instruction on common misconceptions in astronomy education, rather than from their own astronomy education.

But perhaps mathematics is doing better at robust integrated understanding than are astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and medical school. It seems possible at least.

It's not just people who have had, or not had, their "oh shit!" moment. Professions too. Medicine realizing that medical errors were a major cause of mortality. Realizing even cheap easy universally-approved interventions (aspirin for ER chest pain) weren't consistently being executed. Realizing other industries had decades of experience on how to pursue quality, to which medicine had been oblivious. When the New York Times babbles about "Truth" and "The Journalism You Deserve", I shake my head and think, there's a field that has no clue how badly it's doing, how much work on process quality it's unaware of; a field that has not yet had its "oh shit!" moment.
> Furthermore, the C++ programmers, being performance minded, have learned something the Lisp guys still don't seem to grok: on modern architectures where cache is fast and RAM is slow, the big-O inefficiency of using vectors vs. linked lists is usually more than made up for by the speed gains of cache locality, to the extent that for real-world data structures it almost never makes sense to use a linked list rather than a vector.

Contrary to your claim, that's nothing new. Memory hierarchies have existed decades ago, too.

Lisp users have found that linked lists as a primitive data structure were fast enough for many applications. Other native data structures like vectors, multi-dimensional arrays, hash-tables, etc. have been supported in Lisp for decades.
"it was generated by machines"

No it wasn't.
Can you imagine the reaction if a user's post on HN were edited by YC?
I guess it'd be the instant death of the network.

No. It's moderated and we love it that way. I might even have been shadowbanned and I still love it. Moderation rocks!

(Not being sarcastic btw. I really do like HN moderation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodynamic_therapy
If they weren't taking mone from each of their app developers, that might be an argument. But when you are making Google scale profits, which are INSANELY high, than you can afford the humans to provide support.

And if you don't, than your monopoly should be broken by the government. And Apple's high end garden barely scratches Google's monopoly.
They don't sell your private messages. What they actually do is just give them away to business partners.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva...

> Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages.
The European Council needs the approval of 16 out of 28 member states, representing at least 65% of the total EU population, to pass the legislation to the directly elected European Parliament, which will vote on it by a simple majority.
"Quit expecting governments to save you. The easiest fix for this problem is to stop using these products! "

No, this is why we have regulations for cars, food, and everything else.

Free markets don't work well in most of these areas because information can't flow properly. If it did, markets might work quite well.

But they don't, and players cheat, so we need regulations.
I've found this [1] other tutorial as a great basis to keep a good lab notebook.I love how he tried a cromatography of different pens to find something that can survive any accident.

[1] https://colinpurrington.com/tips/lab-notebooks
Let's say someone really hates Facebook. What exactly is their recourse for them to say 'I don't want you to keep a shadow profile and I don't want you to sell or use that in any way shape for form'.

In that case, they're directly monetizing data about me as a person.
>Is personal information really a kind of property, that can be stolen? If it is, aren’t we doing this all the time, any time we perceive anything about anyone?

We are flexible and smarter than Vulcans. Something doesn't have to be necessarily expressible into a single, unambiguous universal formula to be made illegal.

We can e.g. allow people to perceive things about other people in their brains (or even notebooks) as we've done for millennia, but not allow them to compile them into large aggregated digital databases of thousands or millions of people without their consent, or give them to advertisers.

>How is this different than taking a picture of someone? The image is owned by the photographer, not the subject(s) according to current laws.

Depending on the jurisdiction, taking an image of someone can be illegal. Sometimes, even if it's a public space. And using an image of someone to advertise stuff without their consent is illegal, including in public space.
I... Never heard of JavaScript modules. I feel very out of date now. Anyway, yeah, I'm using the latest Firefox that still supports real addons, some of which aren't even possible to reimplement using the latest APIs in nightly.
I would have to re-arrange my call stack so that the read or write functions would be inside the open statement, then it would close it at the end anyway so its kind of pointless for my uses.

I try and totally avoid panics and never throw them unless its at some initial parser stage. But this is made me rethink the structure of how some of my tags operate in my interpreter / transpiler.
A few days ago there was a discussion about Google listing PWAs in the play store. I would hate if they were somehow able to exercise this level of control on webapps/webpages...
The problem, as always, is externalisation of costs.

If they don't pay for the consequences of the risks they take (such as prioritising profits over security, etc) market forces demand that they take those risks.

People talk about the market fixing things, but that only works if it's not possible to externalise costs.

Unfortunately, the only practical way to enforce that is through government regulation.

The government is also a system which seeks to externalise costs...
> How is this different than taking a picture of someone? The image is owned by the photographer, not the subject(s) according to current laws.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

Meanwhile, advertisements and depictions of people who have unlicensed but copyrighted images tattoos on their person open up those who distribute media with their likeness to lawsuits by the owners of the copyrighted material.
I'd love to see the source code of the uploaded app.
Like mentioned in another comment, if somebody used a GET http link to logout from a webpage, you would end up with a ton of surprised users. People who read articles by highlighting the text with the mouse would also probably hover over all of the links and would end up wasting bandwidth for no reason.
How to Improve Content Editing for SAP Hybris Commerce?
There is no such apparatus. Any property used in comission of a crime is forfit, no matter of original owner. Stolen guns, cars and cert are all treated the same under the law.

On the other hand, I get great deals at police auctions and never lend out my keys.
The first test in U.K. common law is whether or not the case has any merit; not a losing case, not mistaken, but without merit. The kind of case we’re typically talking about are either fraudulent, or completely bonkers, and that’s what this is meant to prevent. Second, the vexatious litigant is a serial offender, not just some fool who doesn’t understand how the courts are meant to work.

Someone claiming their livelihood was impinged on by termination of their accounts by Google, given said termination actually occurred and not in the context of a criminal enterprise won’t meet that standard. Not a chance. Now if you made dozens of accounts and sued over each one, or were a spammer, drug dealer, etc... that would probably annoy a judge.
Amazon and Hulu's algorithms are recommending conspiracy theory films
The economies of scale say that the larger companies can better afford to hire representatives per client tahn the mom and pop stores can. If Google were to have as much staff - proportional to their amount of products [ie apps that they are making money off of] - as a mom and pop store did, we'd be fine.
In fact, if they had even a thousandth of that, we'd be fine.
No, that's the way I took it. The fact of the matter is that Google isn't primarily an Internet company, but a media company that happens to deliver over the Internet. Would you call Time Magazine a "Postal Company" ?

(They do interface with several early Internet protocols such as SMTP. But that's better looked at as mining content from non-web protocols, which they'd have no intrinsic problem deprecating like XMPP)
When the Tools of the Trade Are the Keyboard and Mouse
> There is no reason why any person on Capitol Hill should vote against this.

If I were an elected official, one reason why I would be very cautious about voting for this is that, if we make allowing a data breach a felony punishable by imprisonment, it is likely to have a somewhat chilling effect on the likelihood of engineers to start new companies where they as founders would be potentially prosecutable for such failures.

I share the author's stated frustrations, and agree that jail time for gross data-related negligence would be right at least in some cases, but it's not the simple problem-simple solution issue he's making it out to be.
The italy-france kerfuffle can be explained by the current Italian government needing an enemy for electoral reasons and has nothing to do with any specific EU policy.

The France government ran with the ball for the exact same reason.
Yeah, I agree, but do 120, not hard 80 limit for every language. I remember C++ and JS code where you wouldn't fit even the for() definition in one line and that just becomes crazy
It’s more like you lend your truck to someone who committed a crime sometime in the past and now you’re banned from ever driving again.
Try some gel ink pens. I'll concede they are awkward to write with without staining the paper with your hand, but they resist almost any common solvent, and can't be erased by cherrypickers.
Not commenting on the specific merits of this case (as I would want to hear both sides), but a few general thoughts:

a) Maybe it's just the nature of social media, but I think we're seeing a massive uptick in issues like this being brought to Hacker News and their ilk. Not just Developer Accounts, but DMCA fraud and Adwords account issues as well.

b) An incumbent like Google can be built entirely on automated algorithms for all they do (I think this is one of their core precepts), but at some point (like now) this breaks down. This sets the stage for a rapidly building snowball of first small/minor litigation (e.g. Small Claims) and then catches fire until much larger litigation starts happening.

c) As evidenced over and over in tech / large corporate history, often issues like this (that snowball), open up opportunities for new upstart players who come up with effective solutions to these problems, to displace the incumbents. (Cracks in the corporate armor.) As such, it wouldn't surprise me to see upstarts using this as an opportunity to chip away at Google's market share.

d) Small claims court can be a very effective way to get matters resolved, and I've found them to very much not be biased towards any party and to consider the merits of the case. With that said, there are some restrictions - including the amount of judgment, and the kinds of judgment that can be issued. One of the most interesting aspects here is that: "Unless a judge grants permission, Attorneys and paralegals are excluded from appearing or participating with the plaintiff or defendant in a small claims suit." This makes it really interesting when the defendant is a company like Google (or really any large entity).

e) I attribute some percentage of success to building a good cadre of attorneys who work for me, or with me. As much as I cringe when I think back to some of the invoices, it is my humble opinion that they've been worth every dollar paid out for their services, especially in cases just such as these.

Best of luck resolving your issue.
>There’s a qualitative difference between a general threat that’s part of the play and singling someone out for a threat based on their behavior.

And both are OK if that someone is behaving like a jerk.

Beyond some point even actual violence is OK.
I doubt Facebook is eager to pay that money either.
Check out the net neutrality battle in the US. Not only did many corporations have opinions about this Internet argument, but a lot of passionate individual people had opinions. Including a ton of my friends in the Silicon Valley.
Keep G Suite, but buy your own domain (whatever.com) so you are in total control. If they ban you, just change DNS records to point to zoho or some other provider.
Cause and effect are simple to discern with one variable (like pushing a ball), with multiple variables everything becomes increasingly complicated.

Kind of why drugs don't work in the same way with everyone. Too many subtle differences (blood type, chromosomes, dna, age, hormone levels, deficiencies etc.)
Prosecutors don't make civil cases. I mean, all this is silly, but start there.
The one thing Fortnite did do better than everyone was getting mobile to work well. F2P, good mobile controls, and the community of streams is what made Fortnite take off.
How would Clojure be a Lisp, given that it runs zero Lisp code?
The saddest part is that such behaviour will bring full power of regulation on all of us, just like GDPR did. Sooner or later lawmakers will come after all of us because of neglect of that sort.
Good money can buy a good chunk of 0-day exploits from black hats.

I wonder how many companies rely on in-house exploit research and what would be the turnaround related to buying from 3rd parties.
Absolutely. First thing I did when I landed was view source code. Regardless, nice piece of work.
That's why you buy a lawyer to craft the letter - so it looks indistinguishable from threats with actual funding behind it.
I feel like we need an amendment for the inverse of bills of attainders: Just like it's unconstitutional to pass laws that solely hurt a single individual/company, it should be illegal to pass laws solely to benefit a single individual/company.
> it is likely to have a somewhat chilling effect on the likelihood of engineers to start new companies where they as founders would be potentially prosecutable for such failures

You seem to think that's a bad thing, for some reason.
Yeah let's restrict, ban and kill every new idea in it's crib, that'll surly make the world a better place, I'm happy you're enjoying your time in this entrepreneur community.

Let's also make sure all future gains are made by the lawyers and other middle men so that world peace will finally be at hand.
This is great, but the man page for pipes is probably not helpful to the kinds of people who benefit from this tool.
Maybe the beginning can be great like observing mold failing to grow in part of a Petri dish. But the greatness comes after that.
This also happened to me, and I have no idea why. I'm making a Healthcare app using react native, and got banned spontaneously as well. No recourse, nothing. No ability to change anything.

I'm making sure all of my resources are spent on AWS and Microsoft services. Never again for Google.

And thankfully, physicians prefer iPhones over Android by a large margin.
At least Condé Nast is a privately held magazine publisher. Separation of church and state is already part of their DNA.

> how does reddit look like a good investment for tencent? The size of the site alone?

Good question. It's either user count, betting than an IPO is soon, a bet that it can have Facebook-level appeal (and ad targeting), or dumb money that's tired of sitting on the sidelines. Not sure if I buy any of those stories.
When would you do a rewrite instead of a strangler?
In case anyone hasn't seen the original Space Jam website.

https://www.warnerbros.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm
Yes. That's why antibiotics are erroneously given for infectious mononucleosis. It looks similar to a strep throat.
A Title Wave of Mud
That second half of my post was not in relation to a civil case, which I think was painfully obvious given the reference to MS. Did you really misunderstand?

As in the case of MS back in the day, it can seem like the law is just disinterested, but the law is merely unbelievably slow and equally inevitable. The day some prosecutors can make a career out of taking on Google, they will, and by then Google will be fully on the wrong side of public opinion.

That is pretty damned unambiguous, unless you found as in the case of MS... confusing. If you want to explain what you found “silly” I’m open to reading your perspective of course.
How to Start Your Car in the Freezing Cold
I remember playing a lot of TF2 because it felt almost like socializing compared to 'better' games. I think open, but also somewhat selective (vote ban, mute) communication is the perfect app for our increasingly socially disconnected population. The game is not just the game anymore, it is the whole Arcade!
That would be surprising. Typically Lisp implements lists in terms of cons cells and the empty list.
You are correct and I wasn't trying to criticize what you wrote. gizmo686's post (the one I responded to) indicated a sense of insight into these issues. I wanted gizmo686 to feel justified in his/her thoughts. Namely, that what we call modules are natural objects and they look at feel like vectors spaces on the surface.
This agreement requires 30 days notice if your agreement is not terminated for breach of terms. So in the case that you have a dispute, they could in fact be in breach of the terms without that 30 days notice. E.g. They can't just say "we don't want to do business with you anymore starting now," at least from this clause.