skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Lack of generics is not really significant. Other advantages in golang are worth much more than this minor deficit. Such as very fast compilation time, goroutines, channels, taggable structs (makes XML or JSON a breeze) and multiple return values -- one can get rid of bug inducing complicated control flow, that exceptions typically cause. Exceptions tend to be very hard to maintain and reason about and they tend to move the code dealing with the errors far away from where the exceptions are thrown. Probably a lot of people disagree about this, but humor me -- I write C++ as my dayjob. Oh, and I prefer golang's "defer" over RAII. It gets most of the job done in a way simpler fashion.

Even when generics are available, they're about a fraction of one percent of code. Other languages have been doing just fine without generics. Even Java has just syntactic sugar compile time type erasure hack instead of the real deal. Those List<String>s are just List<Object>s in bytecode. I don't remember any C-programmer complaining either.

What's very cool about golang in general, is that rather than including all the possible features you can think of (looking at you, C++!), it's more of how few features you can have while still having an expressive and powerful language.

I don't mean to talk down other languages or to praise golang, but I do want to point out one should look at the big picture and not let small details distract. Such as lack of generics.
If you could make the choice of what content to watch and what to watch it with independently, this could be said to be a free market decision. As is, my decision to support or not support DRM dictates the content I can watch. That for most people the content is more important gives the false signal that people are choosing DRM (which, in reality, pretty much nobody would).

That's not a functional free market. There is no market for non-DRMed content that's on an even footing with the market for DRMed content.
Mozilla had to be dragged into this acceptance kicking and screaming (metaphorically).

They were faced with a hard choice, Not implement EME (HTML5 DRM) and risk users moving to other browsers (user loss) or implement EME and risk looking like they are contradicting their core mission (trust loss).

They figured a little loss of trust is worth keeping most of the users on the Mozilla platform - which in my view is the correct decision. If users start to abandon Mozilla (FireFox) in droves then they lose their power to influence the development of the open web.
... meanwhile Github doesn't support viewing rendered SVG files when you click on a .svg file, yet they have viewers for 3D objects and maps that render in SVG.

It's frustrating how difficult it is to get anybody at Github do work on small things since there's "no manager" and everybody wants to focus on grandiose projects.
Someone who has a strong online presence will look better than someone who does not because then these public records will be more prominent.

But you've failed to argue why this is something Google needs to take into considering when indexing the internet.
I must be missing something. I read the article and clicked the attached link to Mozilla's blog, and nothing seems radically to change for users other than a move sideways. Though I'm a little disappointed that there isn't a move forward, it certainly doesn't feel like a step backwards. Even Mozilla writes, "At Mozilla we think this new implementation contains the same deep flaws as the old system. " (emphasis mine)

Right now if you want to lock something down, like watching Netflix on your browser, you install Silverlight. In the future, Silverlight is replaced and Netflix uses XYZ technology but maybe with DRM-in-HTML or whatever. And as a user, it doesn't matter because most people I know today use a tablet with the native app, a streaming device such as the Roku player, or a SmartTV.
9gag... I need help!
> Note that in C we say that the value 4 is assigned to foo, but in J we say that the name foo is assigned to the value 4.
pretty much all my phones (smartphones included) have had this feature, it just hasn't been advertised
Exciting, but I'm still holding out for .PIRATE...
More power to him for finding a workflow that works.

The only thing that would stop me from using a similar set up for writing is that there isn't a DOS version of Spotify :(.
I've never actually seen this code before. I find it interesting that he found that the frames were arriving 500ms after capture, but I've used a similar technique (to how I did it in VideoCore) for video conferencing that achieved much, much lower latency than that. I wonder if that's something that was true in 2010 but is no longer true.

I also haven't really encountered much of an issue with frame reordering, but as it is I mostly don't care about that. I have noticed, however, that as of iOS 7.0.4 or so the encoder can output multiple slices per frame which it previously didn't do (or at least I never caught it doing it anyway)
Do you have a native and supported way to watch Netflix on Linux? No. So it does make the experience worse (it's one of the biggest missing components, not implying the only one).
Not sure if that's coming... I think .HORSE is coming though. :)
Maybe it can be disassembled? Like it what was done with some proprietary blobs of Linux kernel.
At tech meetups and conferences they sometimes give away "studio" packs that have a large assortment of Autodesk software for free (non-transferable). They sent it to me on a USB drive.
I have the same feeling. Few people I know even use a browser to watch that type of content anymore. Frankly I think native apps on the TV, Nexus 7, iPad, etc won already and this isn't going to be used much.
That's one of the reasons I'm not using Netflix (and I'm not buying Blurays). Additionally both don't work under Linux.
> That is a harmful form of discrimination.

What do you think should happen when someone searches "Tom Cruise"?

Should it somehow show you all 14,724 people who happen to have that name, somehow cleverly giving equal visual weight to all of them? Not accidentally listing one of them first, etc?

No, it's not harmful discrimination. This is a flawed line of thinking.
I'm not sure why they even bother trying, it'll be broken within a week. They're pointlessly adding to a spec which has enough bloat and hacked-together features.
Text Bombed
> But I only want to pay a premium for a fast connection to certain websites

What the cable companies are trying to do isn't about you, the user, paying a premium for faster access; it's about you, the user, and the web service provider, both paying a premium to your ISP for faster access--even though the service provider is already paying a premium to their own ISP for faster access to the Internet as a whole.

From the ISP's point of view, selling you faster access only to certain websites would probably be a lot harder, technically, than selling you faster access to the whole Internet, because the ISP would have to inspect every packet you send or receive to see whether it was part of a connection with a website you want faster access to. Plus, you would have to have the physical bandwidth present anyway, which means you could just as easily get faster access to the entire Internet. So I don't see how an ISP could sell you faster access to a limited set of sites any more cheaply than faster access to the Internet as a whole; in fact it seems to me that it would be more expensive to do the former.

> Nor, in a perfect world, should it be illegal for a website to cover this fee if the website can derive unusual profits from it.

Websites that can benefit from faster access already do this in the real world: they put their content on CDNs--or in extreme cases, like Google or Facebook, they build their own CDNs--and spend extra resources in other ways to give users faster access to their content.

What I think you're missing in all this is that the cable ISPs do not (currently) own the entire Internet; they only own their own networks. That means they can only extract artificial scarcity rents from their own customers, not from the rest of the Internet. What they would like to do is to effectively own the entire Internet so they can extract artificial scarcity rents from everybody.
I would hope that rebranded versions of Firefox such as Iceweasel will strip the DRM support, so I guess it is not like it will be forced on people who don't want it.

Of course, this is still bad news, because it means there is no more pressure on content owners against this DRM, which can eventually become painful for people who want to avoid the DRM.
The whole point of replacing Flash with HTML5 video is to get rid of buggy third party plugins that crash all the time and have shitty cross-platform support.

If HTML5 video is going to rely on buggy third party DRM plugins, we lose the benefit that was the whole point of HTML5 video.
What really worries me is the fact that now it's going to be way easier to implement something with DRM. A lot of users nowadays are not willing to install some third party plugin. The fact that it comes with the browser means that it's extremely easy to implement something with that DRM. I might be wrong, since I haven't read much about it.
To Serve Users
I really like the idea of having core "office hours" backed up by a general expectation that people will not be in the office outside those hours, even if they may be working. I think teams need to have face time sometimes, but there is a lot of work that doesn't need it. Having core office hours forces everyone to coordinate that work that does require face time, and plan to get it done during office hours.
DRM is less likely to be inflicted on users if every publisher must put effort into their own less-polished version.
The www.mopidy.com web page is brand new. Hopefully, it explains the Mopidy concept a lot better than what the old page did.
I also know that Google is a system operated by humans who are responsible for its effects. If you operate a machine and it harms people, you are responsible. The fact that the harm was done by an automatic process does not change this.

How far down the line does this logic follow? Are the people who created the programming language that Google used to write their search algorithm responsible as well? What about the construction company that dug the ditch for the fiber cables in the ground through which Google's information runs.

I know exactly how a search engine works, so your explanation is irrelevant.

No you don't.
It would be worse because HTML is supposed to be a hypertext standard, not a DRM standard. We shouldn't be putting closed things in "open" standards.
I'm glad, when I started to learn OpenGL I used web tutorials and most of them were written in immediate mode.

It was nice to be able to quickly get some stuff going and then realize "Oh wow, my program is slow." Then I learned how to use VBOs and shaders and eventually got a pretty good handle on how to work it all.

There's a big difference between Unity which is "Here's a model, display it at this position and this scale" and writing your own .OBJ loader and arranging vertices and outputting the data to the screen, even if you're doing it inefficiently.

Sure when you use immediate mode it's terrible performance wise and very restrictive, but once upon a time, immediate mode was the only thing. Many people who are skilled started with it, and made use of new features as they became available. Sure jumping in and doing it the right way is better, but it's also really hard.

For a parallel example for C, we have printf to write to a console. In most applications you're not actually using printf to print to an 80x25 console, you're rendering your text to a window or some other output stream. But we leave print in the stdio library, because it's handy for testing things quickly, for learning, for getting quick and dirty output when performance is less important.

Immediate mode is easy. Begin, add vertices, end. You can do a lot with it. You don't want to write a graphics engine in it, but that's no reason to discard it. You don't want to write a client app with console output but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

I do agree you shouldn't hold the language back to support these way of doing things, but there's no point in now letting them exist.

WebGL is pretty cool but in my experience still has some compatibility issues with browsers rendering it, and then there's the reliance on js.
Technology should never force it's users (the sites creators) to use one technology or another. Not implementing DRM is idiotic for couple of reasons:

1. The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets. forcing them otherwise by not letting them the option is bad.

2. Even without implementing it, DRM is available through flash or silverlight or any other third party plugin. The only result not implementing DRM gets is that of hurting the HTML5 video component.
Yes: So people that expect that not complain
No: Because I was there, and I even give the class about OO because the teacher don't know well, be there mean be 5 years behind the tech, and frankly: Because the "superior education" was not that superior, and the U don't give the kind of education I was hopping for..
Ask HN: How to revert to old Twitter profile page design?
Like many others, I am starting to hate the new Twitter design, is it possible to revert to the old one ?
It is painful today for people who want to avoid the DRM legally.

We already lost the ideological war with the media companies.
Massachusetts is not as diverse as the US as a whole by about half.
I guess it depends on the implementation. At least we can put limits around the current flash plugin. Can we do the same thing for the new plugin architecture, so a media codec exploit doesn't take over your browser?

Or in a darker version - can we make sure the new plugins don't scan your drive for "incompatible content". Game anti-cheat systems already do that. At least flash / silverlight was playing nice so far, unlike some of the more interesting DRM systems in the past.
Okay, let's assume that, in the former case, the functionality required is built into the browser and enabled by default.

The problem with the former case, then, is that I get a browser that ostensibly supports my freedom, and this code that runs things secretly, without letting me intervene or analyze, comes in with it, under the radar.

In the latter case, I have to take a deliberate action, explicitly agree to a license, and install a product I know to be freedom-denying. So I have something icky on my computer if/when I specifically choose to, and I know exactly what the icky stuff is, why it is there, and how to get rid of it if I decide to.

I think it would be much better if Mozilla were to present the DRM stuff as an optional, not-installed-by-default plug-in with clearly restricted scope, access, and capabilities. If they do this, then they probably ought to spin off the group that makes the plug-in as a separate organization.
Because every time you list something that a search engine does, you conclude that it's harmful.

Yes, you are opposed to search engines. You don't think they should echo information (an intrinsic function of a search engine), and you don't think they should prioritize results (an intrinsic function of a search engine).

Show me a search engine which DOESN'T echo information posted online, or prioritize results.

SHOW ME JUST ONE.

Otherwise, admit that you are opposed to the operation of search engines in general.
Our current offer is a significant cost reduction for a single high-quality broadcast to a large audience. On top of that we handle all the plumbing related to your iOS/Android cloud video app. Our SDK can manage all your application's broadcasts and users (if you choose).

I'm excited for our open-source Android and iOS clients to stimulate development of some novel video apps. Maybe Security monitoring systems or even Phone + $20 Weather balloon = Weather satellite!
That doesn't explain the difference between US and the rest.

Either the rest of the world has other, more noble purposes, which helps their children to learn better. In this case, should we think about purpose? Or the rest of the world has the same goals and just reaches them better than in US. In this case - should we learn how to pursue them properly?

This all is in case US still believes the real education is important. May be it isn't? May be better education doesn't lead to a better life?
For people who want DRM there are already enough browser choices. On the other hand for people who refuse DRM there's only one choice - and soon zero.
I saw an interesting comment from gerv @ Mozilla: "Current plan: CDM can scrape memory to check sandbox is a sandbox it trusts." http://lwn.net/Articles/598640/
This is why just doing this at the state level is not enough. This story by NPR is really good:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/07/182010027/episode-...
Weizmann Institute research challenges basic beliefs about stem cell activity
Why is NaN not equal to NaN?
Jamie King has great videos on OpenGL, among other things, on his YouTube channel. It looks like it was last updated 8 months ago with 99 videos spanning 14 hours. His commentary is awesome, so you will stay entertained.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRwVmtr-pp06qT6ckboaO...
> The decision of whether or not to use DRM should be of the site creators. That's as "free" as it gets.

Why does that mean that we should facilitate their use of DRM? If they want to use it, they can specify a third-party plugin.
I was just experimenting this today, select queries will be able to deserialize array results into lua tables automatically. Same for json values as well.
I remember seeing in documentation somewhere that switch statements with more than 128 cases are not optimised in V8, that might be what OP is referring to; however, I've never seen a 128-case switch statement in production, nor have I seen a developer use that many cases in development, refactoring tends to happen earlier in my experience.
> ISPs have been throttling bittorrent for a while now

That's because bittorrent uses a lot of upstream bandwidth, and the ISPs' contracts with their customers already explicitly limited upstream bandwidth to be much smaller than downstream bandwidth. With services like Netflix, the vast majority of the bandwidth is downstream.

(That's not to say that I'm in favor of the standard ISP contracts: basically the ISPs want their customers to be passive consumers of content, not active creators of it, which has been a big factor in creating the system of highly centralized services we have today, rather than a much more robust system of decentralized services that was the original vision for the Internet. But that's a whole other argument.)
It's been made clear that, whatever happens, "users will have control over whether the CDM is used in their copy of Firefox."
"There's plenty of physiological variation among humans; are we really horrified by Pygmies?"

Have you ever seen more than one dog? There's a huge variation (just for example, my dog is 13 pounds, my brother-in-law's dog is 130).

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
and: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001
I believe the issue is not about the video player per se, but the specifications that are going to be (or are already there) added to HTML as a standard.

As I see it, it kind of looks like it help DRM, first by legitimizing it, i.e. it doesn't carry the same weight if it's something proposed by only one corporation ("these guys are crazy and don't know what they are doing") vs the weight it carries by virtue of being part of the HTML standard ("if it's a standard it must be already accepted by everyone so it must be good!")

And second, by preventing fragmentation among DRM solutions, i.e. it will be easier for DRM users (not end-users) to interact with one another and even innovate and pass on that innovation (licensing, etc) instead of fightning among them like it happens nowadays (i.e. SecuROM vs their competition, etc).

Again, that's what it seems to me, but maybe someone else can provide a different explanation?
As discussed below, DRM never makes sense since it's not effective anyway.
I run my browsers without Flash in order to avoid Adobe's exploit-du-jour crapware. This means, for example, that I don't run Chrome.

If this binary blob from Adobe isn't presented with a similar UI as regular "plugins" (that the user can disable or uninstall), then I will look into writing an extension to disable it, or perhaps rely on a Firefox fork to give me a Flash-lite(tm) free browser.
I don't understand your argument. If you are installing firefox for yourself, you don't need a version with the support compiled out; just don't install the plugin.

If you are installing firefox as sysadmin for someone else, you don't need a version with the support compiled out; don't give the users rights to install plugins.

What use case has less security just from the sandbox being enabled?
In many areas the content is learned in layers - first you get some simple picture, then refined details, then some real depth. So it doesn't say much is something is learned in 2 years, the question is - how deep?
That isn't the case. You can choose to not install the CDM component.
The Value of Iteration
Right, they are using "their power to influence the development of the open web" by supporting DRM.

What's the point in having this power if you immediately cave?
It absolutely can be disassembled. It's information-theoretically impossible to have a video format that people can watch, but can't transcode.
no. drm will still be an add-on, just like it is today. The DRM add-on will just change from flash/silverlight.

DRM is a very real thing in todays web.
Test Driven Fundraising
I'm not sure that thats quite fair— Firefox won't run the CDM without user consent. You can still say no.

Having a choice doesn't magically resolve the issues, it doesn't prevent content providers from making things formerly available unavailable, it doesn't help us (as users) make better more considered decisions rather than clicking yes a lot to get things done, etc. But it does retain the choice to not run this stuff, choice which is not retained in the current closed source alternatives.
Enhancing the AVIC-5000NEX
"...until we decide otherwise" (for different values of "we")

Edit: Added last part.
You don't need to do that though. The container or packet format is completely independent from the encoder format and they're all fairly simple, so packetizing compressed audio and video data and sending multiple streams, while not ideal due to bandwidth concerns, is most definitely not limited by CPU resources.
Mozilla's whole argument for using their products rests on trust. They have consistently lost out in terms of performance, usability, and other things users care about. I no longer trust Mozilla, so why should I use their software? How does this not result in loss of trust and users?
> they must acknowledge that net neutrality will unfortunately destroy benefits that would naturally accrue in a without government regulation: the ability for users who need it to pay a premium for fast or reliable service, a la first class mail.

You must be joking. First class mail service has consistently gotten more and more expensive for poorer and poorer service, while private companies like FedEx and UPS have consistently gotten cheaper for better and better service. Are you maintaining that this would not have happened if the rule that only the US Postal Service could carry first class mail had been abolished? It seems to me that, if anything, abolishing that regulation would have given us cheaper FedEx and UPS sooner.