skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
> I don't think any content-sharing platform should profit from copyright infringement

That is not a requirement to fall under Article 13! Are you maybe mistaking "copyright-protected material" for "copyright-INFRINGING material"? Every creative text and photo is "copyrighted material", so this covers any for-profit UGC platform.

MEP Reda proposed making the above change in the text, that proposal was rejected. So the broad coverage is intentional.
You crowd source it, and eventually you end up here[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
Status of Godot at GDC 2019
>For one thing, am I wrong to assume that relatives don't actually appreciate the son in law being the man of the family?

OP is the son-in-law. The man who has power of attorney over OP's father-in-law is the son. Unless I am misunderstanding your post. It would absolutely be an odd mistake to make if wrong though.
Yep, I appreciate that there is a time/space tradeoff, see this [1] from ~25 minutes ago. I agree it's not exactly the same thing. I just wanted my original comment to not be misrepresented.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19495509
Can't do that. The party that mostly voted agsonst it are crooks. My best bet are independent candidates that voted against it, provided they will run again. As far as I'm concerned with, voting doesn't work, the democratic process in the EU doesn't work.
The fact that so many people who otherwise care about things like privacy, freedom, and competition all flocked to gmail anyway always seemed completely bananas to me. It's like a case study in how principle (or even long term self-interest) always loses to convenience.
NUnit to xUnit automatic test conversion using Roslyn and custom DSL
Primary reason not to use Skype back then. Ts/Ventrilo existed longer than Skype however. So a money issue then? But public servers were/are available too.
> We need to get past the idea that people on the low-end of income choose their jobs.

It seems this is never accounted for in peoples' simplistic supply and demand view of employment opportunities. Let's be charitable and assume there are better employment options out there than Walmart for a given subset of their employees. Let's say they have unused salesmanship skills that could potentially earn them $80k a year at something like a car dealership that requires no additional education.

Now we're talking about commission-based income, or perhaps an extra two weeks without a paycheck just to switch jobs. How many low income people can afford to miss a paycheck? It's not just the lack of alternate opportunities... it's also the lock-in of having no savings after basic necessities are paid for.
To be clear, we are talking about a map that drew horns on Moses because he's Jewish, not usury laws.
> humankind consumes all the natural resources it has and beyond

The system will collapse well before the limit of all available natural resources is reached. We're well on our way already.

Amazon isn't the machine it's just part of the machine. Think about Sears being perhaps the first significant iteration of the machine and Amazon removing one of the "bottlenecks" and being the current phase of evolution.

It's very clear to me that there's no going back to the way things were "before" without a significant drop in human population. The problem will solve itself far better than we're willing/able to.
This mantra can be used to attack anybody for any reason, as long as you call them "evil." It's a road you can go down, but I wouldn't.
> On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success.

For better or worse, this is how it has to be for the market economy to function well in a society. A company can be successful up to a point - they cannot be allowed to win. The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large.
Microsoft of the 90s/early 2000s was a much different place then it is now. The closest example today would be a trading floor (but not quite as aggressive). It took a certain type of person to do well there - but if you survived your first few months the open communication was amazing. You were allowed to express negative emotions instead of pretending everything is great all the time. If you thought a decision was bad you could say so.

There's nothing quite like seeing someone who rarely gets angry say, "If we don't fix this we might as well not fix another F'ing bug ever again" to make you reconsider your triage decision.
When going through a similar event, I was able to find resources at the hospital that helped a lot. In life and death situations they often have patient advocates on staff. I was able to reach out and had a patient advocate, either a nurse practitioner or doctor, that helped sort out the communications. A lot of the stress came from doctors' reluctance to put things in simple terms. The patient advocate was able to basically come in and say, "Look, they can put a pacemaker in, but your loved one only has 12% heart function and is still dying." It was received differently than a family member saying it. After all, their job is to advocate for the best interest of the patient. Ours actually got pretty angry with the doctors for how things had been allowed to progress. Hospitals usually have grief counselors and social workers as well. Just getting the brother extra support might be enough to open him up.
...and peloton, CMU's NVMe-first db

https://pelotondb.io/
anyone receiving a local monopoly from a municipality has to agree to make service available in the entire city.

This is not true. Manhattan, for example, had multiple cable providers for a very long time, until they were merged/bought.

Chicago currently has multiple cable providers: Comcast and RCN. Possibly a third.

There is no requirement for a city to give all of its territory to one company other than poor negotiating skills.
Unfortunately, the documentation doesn't need to be open source, and often isn't. (For example, in the building industry.)
None of those "Advantages" were advantageous to the end user. This only benefits Google or other corporations, and anything that benefits them harms me.
PrefectHQ/prefect: The Prefect Core automation engine
Inside Google’s Rebooted Robotics Program
View > Message Body As > Plain Text
I wouldn't say this is a rewrite of existing technology. They borrowed concepts from other well-known open source projects, but this is substantially a wrapper around Mesos, not a competing project. The technical overview of Peloton[1] is more clear about this than the open source announcement, which is what's featured here.

_________________

1. https://eng.uber.com/peloton/
>...then you're free to enjoy the "advantages" of "stricter borders" together with messed up copy right laws that will stop you from creating and sharing on open platform websites, you deserve them both :)
Have fun with your totalitarian nationalist utopia

Sorry, but you have it backwards. It isn't some "totalitarian nationalist utopia" that passed those laws, but the "European union".

And nation states are not by any definition "totalitarian". If anything, the rise of democracy in the modern world came along with the rise of the nation states.

What we had before was feudal kingdoms and autocratic empires. People revolted, spilt blood, and fought, to have their own nation states and be able to govern themselves directly, according to their will, custom, and local interests.

European Union, which nobody asked for, wasn't a grassroot movement, but a high-level top-down project (from rich industrialists, diplomats, and others post WWII) that was imposed upon Europe's nation states step by step. It has met longstanding popular reaction long before today (from the late 70s, onto Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, the Euro-constitution being discarded by popular vote again and again, referendums from different countries ignored or repeated (repleat with propaganda) until EU bureucrats got the results they wanted, etc, and so on, to today's Yellow Vests.

EU is a bureaucratic regression to empire-dom, only instead of an emperor there are private interests and bureaucrats ruling it.

And the popular vote is so removed from the actual decision making, and so diluted among dozens of states with different interests (some of which have big economies and influence, bribe, or threat a number of satellites and dependents for their political alliance) that might as well not exist.

That's what we're "enjoying" today with this vote, not some "dark" national dystopias...

(A united Europe under common government was, incidentally and ironically, the dream of a famous German firt-half of 20-th century state figure...)
Zhihu/griffith: A React-based web video player
Don't assume anything.

They are not using GPUs and from the paper it looks like they haven't thought about it. I think a GPU cluster would be a speedup, but big number multiplication is relatively slow on GPUs, so maybe not as big speedup as with other algorithms.
By having more kids you are increasing the demand for remedies to climate change
RSS or just directly on the webpage, either are preferable.

I use my inbox as a todo list, and something like Feedly for my article consumption. It's hard to mix the two successfully.
Eight Sectors That Could Benefit from Open Source Programs
True, I guess for many it was for Google around the time they removed “don't be evil.” from their code of conduct. But obviously brewing before that point.

But then, does the business or more so - shareholders drive these types of directions. As it is a trend we see play out over and over again.
It sure does: http://kparc.com/b/b.c
This line of thinking that someone owes you a single sweeping opinion seems to reject any form of nuance that could exist in the world.

Maybe somethings could help sometimes and are net counterproductive other times.

Maybe some ideas could help in one aspect but are net counterproductive when considered as a whole.

I didn't read a contradiction in the parent post.
It's a privilege sure. Except the US is really good at building dysfunctional cities that require a car to live.
I studied this code for a long time. I have lots of notes, going through everything almost line by line. I would be embarrassed of making them public because I never finished (at some point, I was just rewriting the x64 reference), but if somebody is interested I do not mind sharing.

I would recommend everyone doing C to have a very careful look at this. The code is full of nice tricks and you start appreciating the terse style after a while. I understand why this style is not more commonly used, but I really like it.
I do think there are going to be more and more use cases where having more than one or two replicas is necessary, even if there aren't that many right now. IoT strikes me as an example. But even so, I'm with you. I'd much rather have two companies that I know will maintain the software long term than a plethora of competitors that might die out at any time. And while being open source is helpful in that regard, there's no guarantee that the open source community will maintain it after the backing company is gone. Databases are too important to gamble on imo.

On the other hand, a little competition to make sure the big guys stay on their toes is a good thing.
That's if you're oriented on policy goals like getting the debt where it's owed by providing consequences that aren't crippling and keeping the individual who owes it in the best position to actually repay.

There are people who think in very different terms, where the primary goal is protecting a moral norm they have in mind, and the focus (possibly even "obsession") is going to be doing that by exacting a punishment as a disincentive and example. Taking away a privilege is an obvious choice. Whether it's related is unimportant; what's important is whether it hurts. If the cascading effects are considered at all to someone who thinks like this (and I want to stress here that involves a level of analysis that may be second nature for you but is quite likely actually a stretch for many of the people I'm talking about here) then those cascading effects may well be considered good: the fact of making a debt less likely to be repaid is secondary to making it harder for the subject deserving of the punishment. The pain is the point.

Now, you might respond "is there evidence that this kind of punitive approach actually leads to overall better outcomes?" And that's a very good question, but again, it's the kind of question someone who cautiously approaches the question of punishment with considerations of counterproductivity in mind would ask.
I'm sure it works great in some areas, but its completely unrealistic in others. Try running errands in Metro Detroit on a bike and come back and talk to me.

With that said I would prefer if the municipalities were more bike friendly in the first place. I like driving, but I was certainly happiest when I lived in a different town and could bike to work.
If American creditors are materially interested in efficient ways of modelling customers, and so are Chinese creditors, eventually they should converge on technique after having tested and eliminated more superstitious predictors.

Basically, if social network analysis helps creditors, then it will be done unless the state or some external force provides sufficient counter-incentive.
this sounds like consilient from the dotcom daze. wow that was a long ass time ago.
Here: https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/
I doubt that paying a middle-class psych to run experiments will do much to improve the lives of homeless.
Not sure if this is "recent", but I moved to the midwest during the end of 2015/beginning of 2016 to be with my, now, wife. In the Bay Area, I was getting paid relatively poorly compared to other peers and lived in an area that wasn't the best. I had no real desire to work the startup life like so many other grads; it just kinda happened once I graduated college, so I took the opportunity to check things out. The lack of social connections and not minding what type of job I was working at made it equally as easy to leave.

I now work in a completely different part of tech (from web/mobile SPA dev to embedded dev doing defense work) and make more than I was making in the Bay Area. I live relatively comfortably in a gated community, but I honestly cannot stand the weather here. It is so bad that it is affecting me mentally to the point where I think I have mild Seasonal Affective Disorder. The Bay Area had some financial hardships, but the weather was nice, and I wasn't dreading six months out of the year like I am living here. I was healthier there thanks to always jogging outside in the awesome weather, the scenery was better, the roads were better, the food was nicer, there was more intermixing of different cultures and values... I'm looking to head back to the west coast, or maybe even the southwest, but family reasons are keeping me here for the time being and preventing me from moving.

You didn't really list why you're asking this question. If it's purely monetary-based, sure, you can possibly do better elsewhere. However, I have found that it easily has a hard salary cap real quick. I haven't come across many people who make more than $160k all in after they worked 20+ years in the industry, and the area I live in pays higher than other Midwest areas. Housing prices are quickly getting into the $400k+ for nice houses, and the price of a lot of goods is very similar I have found (most big purchases like laptops, cars, TVs, etc are the same whether you're in CA or in the Midwest. The main difference is the tax. I actually pay more for car insurance here than back in the Bay Area). Utilities are basically the same, it seems, so that didn't go down. Internet price is the same, too, and those cost of living calculators don't always tell the whole story. It's just some stuff to keep in mind if you plan on moving for solely monetary reasons.
It is a very american thing to say. I mean "it is bad, because it is regulated". Why? I suppose that social credit system of China is abused to make life of political opposition harder, but the article discussed is not about it. It shows case of a failed debtor. And for him it doesn't matter if social credit system is regulated or controlled by the market. What does matter for him is what impact this system has to his life. What opportunities to repaid his debt this social system closes for him?

In some ways US credit system seems worse for me. The only way to get into it is to get a credit. But what if I do not like to pay interest rates? If I'm higly conscious and I can put down my impulses to buy things, to consume for the sake of consumption, to live on pennies while building a capital from scratch? It wouldn't work, because of this system. There are no way to demonstrate your credit reliability and trustworthiness to a system except paying interest rates. At the same time in China a person has non-financial ways to build up her social score. There are a bad sides, of course, like brutal punishments to those, who've hit negative scores, and it completely makes China's system unattractive for me, comparing with the US one.

Seems that China's system is less tolerant for a risky behaviour, while US system just put you on rails of debt and gives you no other way. The latter seems less disgusting for me, but I'm glad that I have not to deal with any. And as outsider for both I really see no big decisive difference between them, they seem for me very similar.
Please keep the "whataboutism" trope off HN. It's a tired cliché that's only used to delegitimize discussion.

Your comment would be just fine without the last sentence.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
The switch from crowdsourced supernodes was mostly about link quality with:

- asymetric links (ADSL)

- WiFi

- usage-based plans

- people shutting Skype down on varous occassions,

- suspended laptops,

- bandwidth competing applications (video).

I remember past Skype had lot of quality issues, sometimes connection was very choppy, dropped unexpectedly, or took long time to establish.
No, a solo founder is someone who starts a new product business. That is very different from consulting, freelancing, etc, where you sell your time.
Note that BART has gotten a lot quieter recently. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/BART-rides-quiet...
>When free expression enables disinformation campaigns, when false rumors get amplified into mob violence, when stochastic terror organizes online

Society (and humanity) at large doesn't actually need the internet to do this. You already know about the LA riots in 1991 (and civil unrest before that); that wasn't organized over the Internet and yet was much more destructive than any riot in the US since then.

Cults (Jonestown, scientology), domestic terrorism (the Oklahoma City bombing, among others), and anti-woman violence (Polytechnique) all predate the rise of the mass-market Internet. Meanwhile, as opposed to the crime waves of the 80s and 90s the planet is a significantly safer place than it was then.

Contrast what China did 2 years earlier; they didn't need the Internet to murder hundreds of peaceful protestors in Tiananmen Square. Or the concentration camps jailing people simply for existing (and chopping them up for organs), or the Great Leap Forward that managed to kill more people through starvation than there were casualties in WW2 (and other disastrous and unprotestable policies).

That's what policies of censorship and social control get you- people who can't speak up or forget how to cause catastrophe after catastrophe. People who actually have to think once in a while perform better, and people who are better at that tend to bring prosperity wherever they go, so they concentrate in countries where that ability is rewarded the most. Even though members of a more tolerant society mess up, they don't tend to turn into institutional mass murder (whereas that's exactly what happens in unfree societies like China's).

>the side effects of unlimited free expression are too severe for a modern civilization.

This has some truth to it; the 24-hour news cycle should be regulated because the direct result of its existence deludes members of society into thinking it's more dangerous than ever before when the exact opposite is true. But that's about all the truth it has.
But many companies and workloads don't "go viral" because they aren't VC funded social networks. They're big, stable companies in mature markets where competition means everyone is always looking for cost savings.

If your workloads are predictable and you care about cost savings, AWS/Azure/GCP aren't great deals. They're expensive; why do you think these firms love them so much. AWS made Amazon profitable for the first time ever. These are the new big platform plays but many firms don't need them. Modern hardware is reliable and if you don't need thousands of machines or really complex proprietary services (AI accelerators etc) the overhead of renting a bunch of dedicated machines in a cheap provider isn't that high.
Yes and the problem here is that people who are not okay with proprietary forks choose an BSD license in order to seem cool, attract users or provide their own proprietary fork based on contributed code.

The controversy is not that some companies migrate to GPL or AGPL licenses but that some companies want to take a two sided contributor/maintainer relationship and turn it into an one sided contract by adding clauses that lets them prevent forking the core into product that compete with their own proprietary derivatives, which no OSI aproved license does.

As the FSF did actually release open source license that deal with the issue of cloud providers forking an opensource project without contributing code back in 2002(the actual current AGPLv2 license is from 2007) it's nonsense to say that you cannot close that hole with a OSI approved license.
Almost 50% of the car-owning US population relies on debt to purchase their vehicle [1]. There isn't any data on this, but I think it's safe to assume that younger people that also have student loans don't own their vehicle outright compared to older people that are well into their careers or retirement.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/01/03/the-nu...
Intel Blasts Nvidia for ‘Inferior’ Self-Driving Technology
How Google Is Challenging AWS (2016)
TLDR: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said the plane experienced an engine problem.
The other person might feel the same way: “in the end I did most of the work of getting actual paying customers, the other cofounder just wrote some code...next time I’ll just hire someone to do the coding”

Not saying you should do things any differently than planned next time, but we coders have an outsized view of our value sometimes. You can pretty easily hire someone to write code if you have the cash. But being able to bring in actual cash for a brand new product (especially one that doesn’t exist yet) is actually pretty rare.

I’m a coder myself, but if I could wave a magic wand and make myself an awesome sales person instead, I’m not sure what I’d do. I’d sit and contemplate that wand for a long time.
Why does it matter? If your startup has 12 or 200 people, it has lots of clients and vendors who you aren't friends with, just like people in a different org in a large company.