skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not stealing because it's not zero-sum. Nothing is exfiltrated from anyone else's possession. It would be another thing if people were abusing a hack on Netflix directly, impersonating strangers' accounts, using customer service, and increasing their CDN bill. No money is being lost with piracy, only potential money. And not all lost potential money is the same. A coffee shop loses potential money if you barricade the entry, but that's very obviously ethically worse than using the coffee shop's recipe at home 2 cities away and maaybe losing them potential money. Someone losing potential money does not always mean theft occurred. Doubly so for potential money from rent-seeking.
Abstracting out of planes to software on general - this is what happens when your testing surface dramatically expands. You can have a product that has been working just fine, generally, but when you start adding tests for new situations, you can suddenly get a LOT more tests....with most of them failing.

TDD advocates (and I'm a fan) will be feeling smug, be that doesnt apply here - the issue is not the initial tests, but explicitly tests after the fact, on criteria that werent in the initial tests. Be it by oversight or deliberate choice, TDD is in the same boat here.

All of which underlines how hard complex software can be. Boeing made lots of mistakes, and many of us might recall happier examples from our past (new criteria, but a well-written suite passes it all with minimal effort), but such examples are selection bias - if we exclude the code we know is a mess, the remaining mix of did-well and did-poorly code looked GOOD before. (Here I'm generalizing from my experience and the war stories I've heard)

Which brings us back to the Waterfall vs Agile issue. We know that we generally stink at anticipating all the requirements. We also know that the better we do at anticipating those requirements the less likely we are to have a sudden spec change derail us (not because we can prevent the spec change, but because our code tends to work)

Anyone asserting that such problems are simple to resolve hasn't worked on enough such problems. We are learning, but this field is still in its infancy and we've not even finished understanding some of the earliest principles the pioneers in the industry laid out.
Japan schools rethink draconian student rules
> It's interesting that the strategies described in this post lean so heavily on theoretical program correctness; as I read it, it felt super useful to me as a Go developer, and less directly applicable to my assessment work.

It's an artifact of the type of clients we tend to get: microservices, blockchain software, and Kubernetes (itself an amalgamation of many loosely connected components). These tend to be easier to test (less code, less state) and require higher assurance so we hit correctness properties a lot more commonly than, say, a monolithic web application.

> (somebody feel free to put me my place over that! maybe I should use more property testing!)

There is a part 2 to this blog post that you will enjoy! =D
> tuition + fees/books/supplies

This is normally what I consider the cost of a university.

> mandatory dorms/meal plans, and if not dorms/meal plans then rent/food/car/etc

That's not fair to lump in, because all of that needs to be paid for just to exist. While I don't like the trend towards mandatory on-campus housing and meals, you still have to live somewhere and eat something, so I don't really think tacking the entire cost of those into the cost of a university is fair.
Going back to what spawned this discussion.

> There are plenty of people who don't consent on a daily basis. The actions range from peaceful protests to traitorous acts. How does a democracy deal with them? Force.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I am an American citizen and that I do not consent to the tear gassing and pepper spraying of college aged young adults, nor do I consent to Chelsea Manning being jailed and Snowden being in exile. Does that make me a sociopath? I'm only scratching the surface here.

In any case, I recall saying that "much" of the consent was manufactured and not "all" of it.
Netflix's terms of use support sharing within the same household. It even has profiles for separate users within the same household.

I don't even know what 'paid in full' means here. It's a specific service with specific terms of use that include not sharing passwords outside one's household. You are free to reject the terms of use and not subscribe to the service. It doesn't make sense to justify breaking some terms just because you don't like them but keep the rest of the service because it's convenient. Would you sign a contract and then break specific clauses just because you didn't like those clauses? The contract is the contract. You choose to give your word to abide.
I understand your point, but it's not about "any crime", it's about a very specific variation of a crime. Imagine DUI having a much more severe punishment and zero tolerance limits if the driver was caught between 10pm and 11pm. Now, it's 10:30pm and you've just had half a pint of beer. You need to drive back home. What do you do? Heck, you wait half an hour! Will it decrease total DUI? No. But 10pm to 11pm will be the safest time in the streets.

Poisoning your spouse now leads to a mandatory death penalty? Good. Now you'll just strangle her.

A gang is defined as 5 people or more? Excellent. All robberies are now performed by strictly no more than 4.99 people.

Crack is being cracked down upon? Fantastic. We'll smoke weed/tobacco/soap/whatever.

When there is an alternative, not using it is just dumb.
> the ability to pump blood to the brain

I'm not sure if such an assertion is rooted in directly measurable and observable science (I somehow doubt it is).

It would not be unreasonable to assume that the ability to get blood to the brain of men is significantly reduced compared with women because of its constant redirection to inflating the penis.
You're ignoring the history.

Disney for years resisted selling films on videos because they had no way of controlling how many people would be in the room watching the content. And they investigated single-use tapes (these had a latch that prevented rewinding, you'd have to send the tape back to the factory to be re-wound) and 24 hour DVDs (these would be sealed in an oxygen free case and would start oxidising on contact with air).

This short time we've had of "owning content" has been an anomaly and it's something they've wanted to stop as soon as possible.

> My Plex server is full of DVDs and BluRays I paid full retail price for (that's $20 to $30 USD each), it's not stealing to use it,

Format-shifting is not legal in all places. It's currently not legal in the UK. And if it requires circumvention of technical measures (which ripping DVDs and BluRays does) it's probably not legal because of DMCA.

If you want to change the law you're going to need a better argument than "I bought it", because you haven't bought it, you've licensed it, and they control the licences.
“If you ask any cohort of young people if they will ever pay for Netflix or video services, the answer is unequivocally no,” said Mike McCormack, an analyst at Guggenheim Securities.

Ah, yes, "young people" are the problem here. No one born before the 90s has ever stolen cable...

Growing up, tons of families had chipped cable boxes in my neighborhood (including cops & judges). My dad calls me once a week to ask how to stream this or that for free.

What a joke.
Straight out of William Gibson's "Zero History"!
Interesting story, not knowing about Hide the Pain Harold I was surprised when it was revealed that the guy is actually 74.

"I’m 74 now. I spent 40 years as an engineer. I did a bit of public speaking then, at conferences and lectures, but that was very different from appearing on television talkshows and YouTube videos. As an engineer, it was really me. Now, it’s role play: I’m Hide the Pain Harold. But I’m not actually a sad guy – I think I’m rather a happy one."
Big "disagree" alarm for the pilots and let them decide to keep either computer or go direct. Airbus has the concept of flight control laws, surfaced and changeable by the wet backups.

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm
Is there some sort of data you require from your user? I guess there's a preferences algorithm you may have cultivated, but that's really it. Unless you really care about having handcrafted the Netflix algorithm, it kind of feels like that's just an excuse.
One of the worst things that ever happened to the internet it's called Google. This rogue CIA backed crap that violatates every single day your privacy data. I was one step from buying a Fitbit watch and spend $200 but after Google made it's move I stepped back.
How do you approach people who doesn't have trust in science? It feels so surreal that the science is settled, but some people still don't believe climate change is real.
So, I'm getting a sense that we're in the throes of an interesting revival of some long overdue reaction against software.

I'm torn in many ways; I don't believe constraining what people can build in their own time or for personal use is just, or grounds for moral censure as long as the process of doing so causes no substantial harm.

What I have issue with is applications of a tool with intent to harm. I can get behind some censure if the guy is providing support for users one can reasonably suspect of employing the tool to cause harm, like the Syria use case.

I don't buy that his production of a R.A.T. fundamentally makes him a horrible person just because he made it. Then again, I'm also in a way excusing the people who made industrial scale production of poison gas possible; but, as of late, I'm learning more and more that truly standing up for one's ideals, and everyone else's freedoms/Liberty often makes for rather uncomfortable bed mates.

So I guess in the end, I'm willing to accept that no matter what is made, there are people who will find ways to use something to cause harm; demonizing the maker as if that will "unmake" what you disagree with only serves to chain the development of humankind in very real ways. Sometimes, we have to face horrible things to develop the cultural mores to cope with a world in which a thing is possible.

So in conclusion, I suppose I'm throwing up my hands and saying it'll be what it's going to be, and there but for the Grace of God go I.
Tracking needs to be illegal. Period. As long as it's legal, even conditionally, we will be playing whack-a-mole. There's a helluva lot of trash on the internet that's there only because somebody is trying to game the advertising industry.

If you allow conditional tracking, and invite workarounds, we are in a race to the bottom. Ethical players are caught in a position of play dirty or die. When growth/profits sag a bit, they will have no riposte to the board member who questions their unwillingness to engage in cutting-edge gamesmanship to get around the law.

On the other hand, if you make it strictly illegal, and make the penalty an existential threat to the company, then everybody can play a fair game. The board member who pressures the company to do such things will be putting the company at risk, and the ethical folks have their response.

Advertisers don't need to track people. They don't need our personal information.

Case-in-point: Alphabet just bough Fitbit. Fitbit knows your most intimate details. They know when you sleep, when you are awake, where you are. They know when you go up and down stairs. I'm guessing they have a pretty good idea of when you make love, where you make love, and with whom (if you're both wearing). And they just sold their data-collection to a company that exists to exploit your data.

This needs to be stopped. Now.
"Glib talk of ‘intellectual property rights’, then, concedes polemical ground to the monopoly rent-extractor by granting a certain perceived virtue to those who hold licences and rights. The rest of us are merely greedy and grasping grubbers for someone else’s property. But in so conceiving the domain of ‘intellectual property rights’, the notions of borrowing, reuse, reworking, remixing and constructive enhancement – all of which are needed for culture and science and art to grow – are lost in the semantic mire created by ‘property’. Things that are owned in the exclusionary way that the indiscriminate use of ‘intellectual property’ suggests cannot sustain art and science and culture."

- https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-of-intellectual-property-is-...
The physicality of a book is something that can't be totally replaced on a kindle or an iPad. I feel the bulk of the push to pure digital is coming from publishers trying to lower costs. Which you can't blame them for that.
Huawei Reveals USD 1B Developer Incentive Program at Web Summit 2019
Ask HN: Who Uses SVN in 2019?
Respond if your team still uses SVN in 2019. Format:

- Primary reason for using SVN

- Team size

- Organization

- Location

- SVN ecosystem feature wish list
His TEDx talk [0] about the same subject.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FScfGU7rQaM
>The reason we don't provide homes is you can never just provide homes to the ones who would have abused the ER' but instead have to provide them to all homeless.

The reason we don’t provide homes to the homeless is they it’s a direct challenge to Capital’s control and capture of land rents and undermines the ideology used to pull the higher-earning segments of labor into alliance with them. Homelessness functions as both an implicit threat against the “middle class,” should they step out of line, and likewise as evidence of their moral superiority and judiciousness relative to their “lessers.”
Or maybe don't. Let a Netflix deactivation serve as a passive-aggressive way to get them to call you.
How do you measure the level of the sea at the mm precision? It is highly doubtful we are able to do that with any kind of instrumentation, more so around the whole world at the same time.

EDIT: they say they measure everything with satellites, but that does not mean there is no incertitude in the measurement. No measurement is 100% accurate, and I'd certainly like to see the error range of satellites, when even GPS can't do better than +/- 30 cm precision.
Not until we finish raking the forest floors.
It has one massive advantage though. It's perceived to be "hated by the greenies". That makes some circles really love it - and that could make it very viable where those demographics wield enough power.
Necessary but insufficient.
Isn't all this coming really close to arguing that free will doesn't exist? We are headed for a situation where our moment-to-moment conscious decisions are completely at the whim of whatever "systems" lurk in the background defining every parameter of our experience.

In that world, maybe I will finally admit that the nutters who say we are living in a simulation might actually be onto something.
I's nice that the article mentions Codd and his relational model of data but what it doesn't mention is how badly SQL parrots relational algebra. The language is inspired by the idea ("based on a real story"(c)), yes, but it takes a really clean and sound model and makes an unbelievable mess out of it.

SQL is just an ugly historical accident. Unfortunately, this how it often works...

NoSQL are a different story, of course. BTW, I believe that they predate Codd's work. There were many examples of non-relational DBs in the 70s.
That's forgery, or fraud. So also not stealing.
PHP Flat-File Blog Engine, Basic and Simple
Conversation with Anne-Laure Le Cunff, Founder of Ness Labs
A Rapid Cloud-Based IDE to Build Mock APIs and Prototypes
>at high speeds, coordinating alternating keystrokes between hands is very difficult

It's for this reason I believe the traditionally wide spacebar should be split up into a number of different keys. Having two sets of Shift, Control, Alt, and the Windows key on either side of the keyboard seems less sensible than one set that can be accessed by either thumb.

I for example use a custom layout that splits the Spacebar into both Space and Shift. Now I don't have to shift my hands to the left/right to capitalize a letter, make an exclamation/question mark, make a double quote, etc.
Who says we want it free... There's only so many $8-15 services you can get before it's just too painful to use.

I have Hulu+live, Prime, Netflix mainly. I've tried CBS all access and DCU. The later two are the same company.

CBS is a pain in a few ways and not worth it in others. Most of it is on Hulu live TV. The fact that DCU is missing so much content it isn't worth it either.

Disney+ is in for a shock too. Unless they have all of their back catalog and their new content is really compelling, I probably won't choose it over Netflix.

In the end, I'm left feeling like CBS is trying to sell be several of what should be a single service. And the rest are getting to be too split.

Netflix was the first good option... Hulu was the media industry's response. That was plenty. HBO and others wanted in, and now it's just too segmented.

As for comments in not wanting bundles. If the pricing were competitive and you could as a la carte in the interface of your choice, sure. Even then, offer bundle options.

As it is, having content strewn across a dozen apps, and finding a media device that supports then is downright painful in practice.

My advice to Disney is to also offer their content as a Hulu and Prime addon like HBO and Starz.

Hulu and Prime aren't going anywhere, but the rest, I'd rather just pirate at this point.
That is incredibly misleading. The Dow is not representative of the entire stock market anymore. The S&P 500, which is only the 500 largest public companies by market cap, has a combined market capitalization of ~$25+ trillion. Boeing has a market cap of ~$200b, so that represent 0.8% of the total. If you include the top 3,000 public companies (i.e., the Russell 3000), the combined market capitalization is over $32 trillion. The idea that regulators at the FAA are going to let them fly a dangerous plane "because of the stock market" is absurd.
One major issue with counting the number of people who are homeless is that most of them are not on the street, but are instead relying on friends and family for shelter. The people who live on the street are the spear tip of a much larger and broader group of people who are facing various degrees of crisis in finding housing. It is difficult to come up with a method that captures data about all the people who, for example, were evicted and spent several months living on couches and in their car.
> A quantum computer is not like a nuclear weapon: it’s not going to directly kill anybody

This is, of course, not the only problem with nuclear weapons (and by extension the science and technology that created them). First, there are several indirect ways that a single nuclear detonation could kill people. Second, the realization of nuclear weapons create a world in which nuclear war is possible -- one where mass detonations could alter the planet so radically that there would be innumerable indirect threats to everyone. Third, consider the way that the amassing of nuclear weapons so altered the geopolitical landscape, and what the effects were.

This is precisely what the letter-writer is hinting at -- that we should be competent enough to strongly consider possible unintended consequences. Despite the prominent stream of thought on this site, no particular technology is in itself "inevitable." We have the capability, collectively, to choose whether or not to pursue something.
Care to elaborate? What you've said resonates, but I lack non-sql relational understanding with which to really evaluate.
If your issue is that NYT can get its entire article indexed even though people will hit a paywall when they go to view it, I can see what you're saying.

But you have to balance these concerns with what's practical. After all, a search engine is supposed to help people find things.

If an NYT article actually answers your search query, I don't think the greater good is for Google to not show you that result. I don't think that's what most people would want, either.

I feel the same way about Google hypothetically only indexing the part of the article that is shown above the paywall fold. What if the rest of the article can answer your search query? I don't think you're better off not knowing such an article exists.

There are only trade-offs.

The other things that Google bans are more obviously deceptive with few upsides to be found for the end-user, like cloaking a malicious website. I don't think you could enumerate the other sorts of things that Google blocks and compare them honestly to NYT's paywall, but I'd be curious to hear you build that case.
I’m referring to massive consistent usage from the same IP. Most residential IP addresses are dynamic but remain fixed for weeks or months at a time. It’d be easy to see that the same IP not associated with the actual customer account has streamed every day for the past month.

Hell I bet they could go a step further and identify the exact person as well! There’s so little competition that it’s likely the account holder and sharer are on the same ISP (ex: you both have Comcast). They would know the name and account on the sharer’s source IP and, more importantly, that it’s not the original account owner.
A lot of it has evolved into including a single strong woman who demonstrates her skills, often in fighting, early on but doesn’t actually add much to the plot.

I’ve been pretty pleased with the last several years of children’s content though. A lot of it feels respectable of kids intellect and aware of where we’re trying to get culturally. Inside Out and Zootopia come to mind.

Frozen is an interesting one in that I felt it was mostly in line with previous Disney film tropes but it had a lot of plot points that allowed them to say, technically, it wasn’t.
Yes. I had the same thought: https://twitter.com/jgrahamc/status/1192813088950702080
I don't agree with the vilification of NoSQL, but I do agree that SQL is a great query language.

That's partly why I wanted to create a tool to query various databases (NoSQL ones or files too) with SQL. We're still in an early stage with OctoSQL regarding the variety of databases, but take a look if that sound appreciable to you: https://github.com/cube2222/octosql/
And what do they have “power” over? Movie creation? Movie distribution? What part of the antitrust law are the five movie studios breaking?

What “power” do they have?

The difference between corporate power and government power is that a corporation can’t forcible take your money, property and liberty. I can choose whether to give my money to a corporation. I can’t choose whether to give my money to the government.

A corporation has a lot less “power” than the government. If a corporation makes a decision I don’t like, I don’t give them my money. I don’t have that choice with the government.
Social housing in the rest of the developed world? It’s more or less the norm relative to the US’ punitive deprivation.
Why would I define wealth? I am not proposing anybody does anything with, for, of, or in any way related to wealth.

"The goal should be to remove loopholes in those definitions"

So, define income, without loopholes. Your plan depends on this.
If anything is disproportionate in your examples, it’s the reactions of those against merging the pull request. Using “he/him” in technical documentation is as tone-deaf as using “she/hers” when writing recipes. Men, women and non-binary engineers exist and we should not hold principles that prevent entirely innocuous changes like changing “him” to “their” in a readme, period. The only reason that GitHub PR thread and the Joyent blog post escalated as they did was the strong reaction by the individuals who were against the change. If the PR was just merged, there would’ve been no controversy.
Business is inherently competitive, you can't ask others to be nice, capitalism simply doesn't work that way.