skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The article is written as if Mozilla is making a mistake. I think Mozilla's stand is perfectly reasonable and pragmatic. Mozilla must adhere to all the web standards.

I think the war for an open web was lost when EME became W3C standard. We should have fought it at that time.
Well, there's also Google cache. If the web site (source) disappears, I can still find it on Google for some time thereafter.
The development of web browsers has pretty much always been about chasing what everyone else is doing. You can introduce your own technologies, but unless you want your entire user-base to leave, you had better make sure the content they want to view works on your browser.

P.S. John Legere is full of shit. He's just rebranding a terrible company in an industry where all of the companies are terrible. Its a matter of survival, not ideology.
The dirty secret about D3 is that almost everything cool you have seen it used for was built by Bostock.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and thought github finally understood the value of a "git for data". Github really needs to be data repository, with "Code" being only one type of data. But then they become a hosting service for large data files, and that is a headache and a different business. I dont see how academics who work with reasonably large datasets would move to github as long as they have to manage their data on another platform. Perhaps Github could have deep integration with AWS / DO and collaborate to solve that pain point.
It may be time for a refresh in any case.
The users. If all browsers implement DRM, what reason is there to stay on Firefox?
Maybe is more like NaN than an exception, but the nice thing about it as opposed to NaN is that you can isolate the particular failure. Sure, I can check for NaN in my doubles, but my types can't make sure I've checked for it by point X. Running a huge program to solve a problem, and getting back NaN with no explanation, is horrendously obnoxious.
Jason Davies also: https://www.jasondavies.com/
Yeah, I wish the EFF had done more, and I wonder what would have happened if the EFF had taken a more aggressive strategy to fight EME a while back.
Does this mean we should accept and ignore character smears, witness protection, cyberbullying and libel? Is it okay for someone to surrender the arbitrary association of content to their name which may not be true?

The solution might not be beautiful or scalable but removing search results could seriously improve some people's lives'.

I'm not talking about allowing people to remove information pertaining to trying to hide poor behaviour online or bad reviews online. I'm talking about the life ruining things.
It’s the paths. You can see another example of a maze here:

http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/11357811

I made the paths thin (1px instead of 4px) to make it easier to see the tree on top of the maze. But to avoid the path/wall ambiguity, maybe it’d be better to start the paths 4px wide, transition to 1px, and then transition to the tree layout…
Please just admit that you can't answer my question.

You assert that A) is harmless, and B) is harmful, but you can't explain the difference between A and B.

YOU'RE the one who said that A is harmless, and B is harmful. NOT ME.

If you conclude from all of this discussion, that it is inherently HARMFUL to operate a word index algorithm on the internet's data, that's fine. I disagree, but that's at least a coherent position.

But for some bizarre reason, you claim that operating a word index algorithm on the internet's data is not harmful... but that what Google does is harmful.

I'm sorry you're incapable of defending your own thought process.
> There was essentially no boycott of EME-shipping browsers (Chrome and Internet Explorer).

Or most users weren't aware of their choices. Mozilla could have campaigned to make users aware of it and go back to Firefox. Instead they chose the other direction. :-(
All video will now have DRM. We have lost video that did not have DRM.

It will now be almost as easy to implement video with DRM in production as it is to implement HTML5 video without DRM. Every provider will now use DRM. Netflix will use fancy DRM, which mostly works. Everyone else will pay $19.95 for theirs.

Never thought we were going to bring back the age of Realplayer (and the million others.)
I think it depends on the Ivy in question(re your first point). On your second, absolutely agree. But again, say you want to do research work, or take a graduate course. In a "best in the world" environment, the average of your opportunity set there is going to be higher than a non-best-in-class environment.
To me, Dropbox is "over". Moved to ownCloud, never looked back.
Oh, I don't know that they made the wrong decision - I have every expectation that they thought about this as well and decided it was too likely they did not have the clout. I said as much.
It's not just "having to think about floating-point"--it's that a number of other things break. Easy function memoization doesn't work with NaNs because NaN!=NaN, so the function arguments look different, so the saved memoized value is never used.
Give me one site whose videos you can't watch on Firefox for Windows or Mac currently.

The only real contender is Netflix but only once the Silverlight plugins reaches EOL. At that point Netflix will have to choose if they want to risk loosing 16% (est.) of their Firefox customers. Of course if Mozilla decides to implement DRM right now it won't be an issue for them.
This is a very insightful comment.

It's hard to imagine most high-school seniors having the sophistication to make good choices here without the guidance of sophisticated parents or supporters, let alone imagine younger students making them early enough to have good options.
That differs on a case-by-case basis. The lawsuit from the submission was apparently about a local paper publishing about the guy losing his home. The problem should have been addressed by local laws regarding whether such information may be published in the first place (or at least without last name).
The functional programming guidelines I've seen (including, for example, Paul Graham's "On Lisp") have in effect said that if you need to mutate local variables you own, that's no big deal, as long as you can encapsulate that within one function. As far as consumers of that function are concerned, it is "pure," regardless of the fact that it uses mutation within its definition.

That much seems fairly obvious to me, but I'm somewhat new to functional programming. Is that all that is at stake here?
She's saying that, in her view, people should own their information. Where Google (or anyone else) chooses to store it, should not be an excuse for denying what she sees as the right to manage that information.

At a high level, I imagine she would support a law that requires all information that can be associated with an individual (google account, ip address, etc) to be stored with metadata tracing it back to that identity and require that companies be able to remove all the data by metadata.

What do people find confusing about the quote? It seems like pretty standard politician to me.
I mentioned to a friend an article on /. He said "buh, I mostly read HN, /. jumped the shark a long time ago".

He was right. Been here ever since.
You might want to try popcorn time. I have found the UI to actually exceed Netflix's while giving me pure piracy unencumbered by any DRM. I just read that they have added TV shows to the new version.

If the content industry is going to keep doing this shit, they don't deserve our money. Don't worry about the artists, if these are the people they have chosen to sign their lives away to.
I'm just sad that DRM is in the HTML5 spec at all. That's the real loss.
Given that most Chrome users installed it because of the deal with flash or advertising on the Google home page, and updates are silent, it's safe to assume very few of them have any idea what is being introduced or when or what the implications are.
Her defence is that she was only the messenger?
Sorry for the confusion, let's see if I can clear this up. We'd like to see these locales translated to the same names that the native map program on a device would show (which is what I rely on now). For example, on my iPhone, when I switch to French and I'm in the Mission District of SF it says "Etats-Unis" / "Quartier de la Mission". Actually, that's a bad/rare example, a better one is a multi-lingual country like Switzerland where you can have 3 languages at once for some cities/neighborhoods. I want to pass the locale of the speaker to the API and get back what they'd expect in their local dialect.

Make sense?
>FairPlay and Zune

That's because they didn't sell. What if they had been every player in the market?
Uh oh, we've got someone here who can't comprehend hyperbole.
> We gave Google and Apple this power because we decided that smooth animations and per process tabs were a fair trade for the future of a global information network not controlled by corporate interests.

Actually, I decided that hellacious startup times weren't worth it.

All of your hyperbole is a spin-master's way of saying that Chome and Safari beat out Mozilla because, for a significant amount of time, Firefox sucked compared to them.
Some data from the Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Distribu...

The median US income of a household, was about 50K in 2012. It's not poor, possibly even comfortable, but if we assume this is 2 parents with one or 2 children, quitting a job means cutting that budget by two. Unless of course you can rely on unemployment insurance —I don't know the US system.

But most interesting is the mode of the distribution: meaning the most common income. Income distribution is not a bell curve, and the mode happen to be much lower than the median: about 20K per year. The bottom 25% is already kinda struggling. They're not going to quit their day jobs, nor take a pay cut to work part time. They're also probably too worried about making ends meet to try and build a company on the little spare time they have left.

Also, even if you don't have a massive hospital bill, you may have one later, especially if you have a crappy insurance (thank goodness I live in France). That's not very reassuring, and is one of the many things that just rouse fear. When you're afraid you don't take risks. Building a company looks risky. There's an emotional risk at the very least.

Then there's peer pressure. HN is a very unusual place, talking about building companies all over the place, Paul Graham speaking about entrepreneurship replacing employment, how we look up to the failures even (that last one is a good thing, by the way). Most of the rest of the world just tells you to get a "real" job instead. Over and over. Moms, friends, media… Many politicians even try to solve unemployment with incentives to the unemployed! (Pro tip: if they are 95 jobs and 100 unemployed, searching harder won't work.)

Finally, there's a general sense of depression and helplessness. People expect their children to be worse off than they are, and they generally feel there is nothing they can do about it. Collective action is possible, but our culture tend to emphasise great individuals —see for example the Steve Jobs semi-cult. Unless they think of themselves exceptional as well, they are not likely to figuratively leave the pack, and build their company.

And there's school, who rewards being on time, obedient, and ignores creativity, when it doesn't actively stifle it. It's meant to produce the workers the elite need to stay rich. It's not meant to produce entrepreneurs and other such free thinkers. They don't even teach us the most important stuff! (I know it sounds conspiratorial, but it's really just powerful people and institutions protecting themselves, as they always did. For instance: the most important aspect of our economy is monetary policy, and the most important aspect of monetary policy is Fractional Reserve Banking, which is best translated by "private banks print most of the money". If schools taught that, we'd risk a revolution.)

Really, in such a hostile environment, it takes an unusual kind of person to even dare start a business.

Or a privileged one.
>>Giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse than it currently is

Except if you use the new Firefox you may have better privacy and security than you currently do with flash and silverlight.

I haven't seen anybody on here argue for DRM, so I don't see the point in this FUD.

Instead, lets find more ways for Firefox to fight DRM and reduce it's negative impact. I particularly support one of Doctorow's suggestions:

>Mozilla has demonstrated that it has some negotiating leverage with Adobe – after all, it was able to fend off the demand for details of users’ systems to be leaked to video companies.

>It should demand that Adobe give it a covenant not to sue or threaten developers who report vulnerabilities in the Adobe decoder. Adobe does not need to give up the right to sue people who release cracks for their DRM or competing products in order to do this.

>In an era in which vulnerabilities are leveraged to expose users to identity theft, sexual exploitation and government surveillance, no one should fear legal reprisal for warning people about flaws in the software they use.

Additionally, we need to focus on ways to educate users about the risks of DRM and disincentive web sites from using DRM wherever possible.
I don't think Metcalfe's law applies here - people don't use encrypted HTML video as a communication network, it's mostly a channel from content producers to users. So its value only grows linearly with the number of users that can receive it.

More importantly, though, content is more compelling than browsers, and browsers are easier to switch. If Firefox blocks its n users from receiving some content, some fraction of those will leave Firefox and get the content anyway, leaving Firefox with less strength to fight the next battle. In this case, it looks like that fraction would be pretty significant, and the impact on DRM not that great.
Gender equality is more important than free speech.
We really need to make municipal monopolies illegal. That is step 1.
Google stops supporting Chrome on hardware it judges "outdated"
wonder how this compares to node - specifically https://github.com/rogerwang/node-webkit
Exactly, they had their chance, and they abused the privilege, so now we've taken it away.
Does this maze have a single unique path through it?
Out of curiosity is there a reason why cert-test.sandbox.g.c resolves to so many IPs compared to www.g.c?

dfc@ronin:~$ host cert-test.sandbox.google.com |grep address |wc
16 64 894
dfc@ronin:~$ host www.google.com |grep address |wc
6 25 262

I wanted to see how the various vendor ssl tests would handle sha256. Everything i tested had no problem, but they all took a little longer than usual because of the number of DNS results.

PS Not that it would matter but unlike other google hosts the cert-test does not have any IPv6 records.
Seriously, who is building this DRM software/hardware? If you are a software developer you have no excuse but ignorance, and as someone who makes a living on a computer (where the Internet resides) that excuse is waning extremely thin. I harbor a hairs breadth more grace for the hardware engineers designing locked down chips, but that's no more than a rhetorical nicety due to the fact that I'm am not very familiar with the intricacies of their work.

I honestly don't get it, you could make just as much, if not more, money doing something that's not 100% ethically wrong... especially in this job market! It's easy to work remotely, so you can't claim geographic entrapment. I'm sure if those who were especially financially encumbered could make a kickstarter page people would literally pay them to quit their job!

As much as this stings, it stings even more that it's "our own" selling us out, that it's the people who should know better that are killing everything so many of us have worked so hard for.
Want a raise? Drop a warm puppy into your boss’s lap [podcast]
Hm, I have the opposite experience. Being able to ignore invalid data every once in a while trumps having a hundred hours of computation cut short by an unexpected exception bringing the whole thing down.
The harm is done by what Google publishes. I've told you this repeatedly. The fact that they use a word index as part of the mechanism is irrelevant.

I have repeatedly defended my thought processes. You have simply ignored what I've said, and focused obsessively on whether 'word indexes' are inherently harmful. This has no more relevance than asking whether 'cpu's' are inherently harmful.

Many companies use word indexes in what they do. Not all companies are Google. Therefore google is not just a word index.
It should be very easy. Things are never installed system-wide -- no cross-app conflicts. When starting an application, either you manually specify each file or directory to include, or you just package every dependency into your executable jar file.
I'm talking about the life ruining things.

Except this case was about a life-ruining thing that was true.

And raises some potential problems: suppose I default on my mortgage and get foreclosed, and you end up buying my house. Now, the fact that I was once the owner and that it changed hands in the foreclosure is part of the chain of ownership of that property, and may become necessary information if your ownership is ever challenged.

Does my "right to be forgotten" preclude your right to prove your ownership of the property?
It's not something I've experimented with yet. Lua comes with a very low level debugger: http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#pdf-debug.debug but I haven't tried using it inside of an nginx worker. Because the workers are forked you don't have immediate access to their standard in.

For lapis I did build a server side console for running code in the same environment as the worker though, it might be useful: http://leafo.net/lapis/reference.html#lapis-console

This project looks interesting, maybe it can be used: http://keplerproject.org/remdebug/
One issue here is that Mozilla's revenue and ability to influence decisions at the W3C may depend more strongly on their usage share in the "developed" world than the "developing" world... The W3C issue may be even more of a problem than the revenue issue.
>change it so that you are no longer able to install a DRM system.

No, you change it into one that doesn't have code that caters to a particular DRM system (the EME system, not the blobs themselves.) If they want to have DRM, they can write a plugin with their blob. Putting in the calls for DRM to use is the same as putting in DRM.
Reading between the lines here, I have a strong suspicion this and the smear campaign directed against Eich are related events. Only a few short months ago Mozilla was staunchly opposed to this. Then Eich gets forcefully removed, and Mozilla's stance turns a 180. In retrospect the "outrage" against Eich felt very artificial. It could have been a deliberate attempt at character assassination in order to further someone's goals of destroying our internet freedoms. The motive of course being heavy financial incentives. This likely had nothing to do with LGBT* rights (which I'm a proponent of, FYI). Instead it was all about someone lining their greedy pockets, at the personal expense of Eich and us to a much lesser extent. Keep in mind the same people who have a vested interest in strengthening DRM, are the same people who own the media outlets which propagated this story.
While no, "as an access provider, you can filter and rate limit content in combination with charging content providers as well as consumers for the transfer of that content" will not be constitutionalized or truly frozen... Moving in that direction with FCC regulations is pretty close to the same thing. It sets a precedent for this practice in the future. In nearly any system, it's harder to remove or change regulations than it is to add them.

In fact, it will make it easier to add similar regulations, as has been shown throughout the history of our country's particular style of governance.
Oh hey, mbostock - you did some good work! Thanks for sharing.

Your idea sounds fantastic - the problem really was with how I perceived the maze (black paths, white walls)
There is tons of content on the web that has nothing to do with video. There is tons of video on the web that has nothing to do with DRM. If there is 20% of web surfers excluded by Netflix and Youtube, and DRM in fact doesn't matter for securing sales, then that's a huge edge for any new content provider that wants to compete with the incumbents.

All of that said, yes, of course this is something that will serve as a draw for users away from Mozilla. And yes, of course Mozilla might not be able to find something else that can serve as a better (or even comparable) draw that will not compromise their principles at least as much. I'm not casting aspersions at Mozilla and saying "Gee, they're dumb, why don't they just...". I'm saying "It would be better if they had found X" where I'm not at all sure such an X exists.
Yes, it's the node of the tree furthest away (at the far right) from the origin.
I disagree. I feel the parent did a great job of bridging explaining why the math is the way it is, and why our "intuition" is wrong.
Thanks guys, really appreciate it!
This is why a wise person accepts entry upon prepayment of a sum of money, as this allows the homeowner and police to both stay in honor, provided consideration is then given promptly thereafter.
I don't think the load balancing is setup as tightly as www.google.com. It doesn't get much traffic after all.
Adobe offered Apple an iOS port of Flash and Apple had Access to beta versions of ports. Thus Apple could have enabled the option to install it by default or as option. But for political reasons Steve Jobs/Apple decided differently.
> It's easy to work remotely

Is it? I get a pretty steady stream of offers from recruiters and LinkedIn, and I can't recall a single one that offered remote work from day 1. Care to share all of these opportunities you know about?
Wow, I never would have guessed that a significant reason was historical, so that x != x could provide a robust way to detect NaN without requiring a special API. Is there a similar test for infinity?
That's bullshit. In what extremist world do you live? How on Earth did you manage to correlate DRM and "protected HTML"? This is like saying: "maybe next year my security system will be updated to hide my furniture from me!"

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to protect content. Frankly (I'm a hypocrite, becsus the I have used it, myself), isn't the YouTube downloading plugins some type of breaking copyright or TOS anyway? If you were an artist, and everyone was downloading your work for free, I bet you'd be pissed as fuck.

Or, if you're a publishing company, I bet you'd be pissed if everyone was downloading the shit you published for free. Just because the company is "big" does not mean they don't have the right to protect their content or service. This is utter hypocrisy!

To draw a paralle: I can eat the pie on the table, but you can't. Why? Fuck you, because human rights and shit, dude; this side of the table is the only one with rights.
I remember Tim Cook saying that hybrid tablets devices were doomed to fail because they tried to do two things and failed at both. That the desktop and mobile experience were separate experiences and should be treated as such. Yet it seems like this is the exact mistake they're making trying to make the Mac App Store into aa iOS App Store - Mac Edition.