skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If Comcast doesn't peer with Level 3, then Comcast customers can't reach Level 3 customers[1]. The internet is only the internet if everyone can actually talk to each other. Comcast can't sell internet service to its customers if it doesn't actually provide access to the entire internet. Which is to say, Comcast's customers are already paying for the privilege of peering with other networks.

So no, this is not like some jackass (Netflix) walking up to Comcast's customers and demanding the right to sell crap. Netflix is already paying Level 3 for the right to internet access, and Comcast needs to provide access to Level 3's customers in order to actually provide what it promised to its own customers.

A more apt analogy would be considering ISPs as cities, connected by roads. The roads are the peering agreements. Comcastica is a city where everyone lives. Level3ton is a city with a lot of warehouses and other commercial infrastructure. The residents of Comcastica love ordering products from Netflix, who has warehouses in Level3ton. As such, the roads between Comcast and Level3ton are constantly crowded with big trucks hauling all the ordered goods from Level3ton to Comcastica.

Comcastica is now saying to Level3ton that they're sending far too many trucks for Comcastica's roads, and wants Level3ton to pay for Comcastica to expand their roads.

Level3ton is, of course, only sending the trucks because the residents of Comcastica are demanding them. If Comcastica's roads aren't large enough, it's because they underbuilt their road infrastructure given the number of residents they have.

The only reasonable course of action here is for Comcastica to take all the taxes they collect from their residents and use some of it to build better roads, in order to service all the vehicle traffic that Comcastica's residents are creating. It doesn't matter that the vehicles are coming from Level3ton, it only matters that the vehicles are servicing Comcastica's residents needs.

[1] Presumably Comcast could route traffic through a common peer to both, but they'd have to pay for that privilege, so I'm going to consider that irrelevant at the moment.
> 'The Arripis is also known as the Australian Salmon' is a true and relevant statement.

Sure, but it's still weasel words unless it is accompanied by a citation from an authoritative source. If some random guy knows that fish as the "foobar fish," you could say "The Arripis is also known as the foobar fish." In this case, a Wikipedia contributor could rightful add the "by whom?" template tag. If there's no source cited, the statement should be removed, and if the source were cited, it would say that this name comes from some random guy, not the community of biologists, and would therefore be removed due to being irrelevant.

> Nobody called anything a Brazilian Aardvark at the time of the edit. It wasn't true.

From my understanding, the person who added that claim probably did call it a Brazilian Aardvark, so a claim like "it's called the Brazilian Aardvark" technically is true. But that's irrelevant to the weasel word diagnosis. Regardless of whether any human actually does call it that, there needs to be a source cited.
New lawsuit accuses Google of AdSense fraud
I've always been fascinated by this. Apologies if if it is linked somewhere in the article that I missed, but where are the forums where radio enthusiasts share hidden towers they've found?
The "Office Hours" Meetup
I think we can fully expect that NBN Co. will be sold to some organisation or another just like this. That is the sort of thing the Australian government does with public assets.
A universal wage would work. It's no sense in hiding from receiving it, in case that should be a problem. And the money has to come from somewhere, and the poor simply can't pay, so the rich will have to. Not directly, necessarily, but whatever part of the economy ends up having the capacity to be taxated that much must be a sector the rich own.
When people ask me where I'm from I say "DC". I actually grew up in Alexandria, VA. But I'm not lying to those people[1], I'm trying to give them a general idea of where I'm from that they are most likely to know. If they follow up with "what part of DC" then I know they are more familiar with the area and I say something like "well actually, i grew up outside DC in northern virginia".

Now that I live in Oakland I say I live in Oakland, but if I lived in, say, fremont, I'd probably just say the SF Bay Area. People probably know Berkeley, Oakland, SF, Palo Alto, and San Jose as specific places around the bay, so you can safely say those, but if you are from Walnut Creek...no one (generally) outside of the area can actually place that, so defaulting to "SF Bay Area" or even "SF" is simpler and puts the person you are talking to in the right geographical area.

[1] - well, technically I am.
Blocked from Russia :/.
Lessons Learned Tuning Clojure for a 45x Performance Boost
You're welcome to call bullshit but it's not and here's why.

First $6k/month will not get you a $1.5MM home unless you had a down payment of $500k and even then it would not cover your taxes and other expenses. A general rule of thumb for someone with good credit is a monthly payment of $3k will let you borrow $500k on a 30-year fixed mortgage. You can check this yourself here: http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/ (or use Trulia's).

The problem with Trulia's "really cool tool" is unless you use the advanced version all the inputs are wrong. For example, its tax assumptions are less than half of real cost for SF. A more sophisticated tool is available from the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calcula...).

Of course getting an apples to apples comparison is pretty hard unless you're talking about buying a condo vs. renting a condo in the same building. Yes, it would be cheaper to buy a 1 bedroom in Bayview then rent a 3 bedroom in Pacific Heights. If you're looking at starter homes in a decent area, say, Noe Valley and compare those costs to renting something similar in the same area renting is generally cheaper.

The "excess for investing" DOES exist, at a minimum in the form of the down payment you did not spend. The good news for home buyers is that you get leverage on that return if the market keeps going up. The bad news is that it's illiquid and we don't know whether that's a better investment than the stock market or one of the companies we see on the front page everyday. In short, if you're never moving again buying is likely cheaper. Otherwise, it's complicated.

TLDR: It's complicated, and most calculations downplay other buyer costs and ignore other renter opportunities.
I think his idea is "actually empowering those at the bottom of the economic ladder" by giving them cash. Cash is pretty empowering for those who have none.
HELP: Growth hacking needed for a theater group
I volunteer for a theater group and they need some serious help with increasing their subscriptions. They still have a lot of patrons buying one off tickets but would like to convert them to subscriptions. they want to leverage mobile as part of increasing subscriptions. we are grappling with what we can do technology wise to get more awareness out. thanks for your suggestions
In the US, consumer level accounts are protected against unauthorized withdrawals. (The bottleneck for the crooks is finding a sucker who will change a reversible transaction into an irreversible transaction.)

It might take you some time to get it back, but the bank is legally required to get it back to you.

For business accounts this protection does not apply.
The title is incomplete/misleading - six European countries, not just 3:

Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Luxembourg
While I am fully aware that the American public education system is far from excellent, I am always skeptical of reports that laud China, Korea, and Japan as paragons of math and science instruction. What exactly is being measured here? Arithmetic and the ability to solve word problems of a few known formats is not mathematics. I do not want my future children to be calculators, I want them to be thinkers. There is creativity and beauty in math, and what worries me is not that it does not exist in the current implementation, but that it does not exist in the ideal implementation.

Of course, I'm also one of those people who doesn't particularly care whether a college education prepares me for a job, because that's really not the point.

See also: Lockhart's Lament (pdf at http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...)
So if you disagree with the author, then you're anti-intellectual.
"Game of skill" vs. "game of luck" is not a binary distinction, but the law pretends it is. I think it's definitely closer to the "skill" end of the continuum than the "luck" end though.
This. The fact that most people seem this ignorant to practical law issues is a major part of why the overall situation (patents, Hollywood, etc) is as shitty as it is, methinks. Uneducated flocks are easier to steer.
Final Cut is what I was thinking of, along with something else that hasn't been mentioned. Avid I think?
Clay Christensen – The Capitalist’s Dilemma
Direct evidence against your belief:

http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2...
Once someone becomes convinced of something it is often very difficult to change their mind despite logic and even strong evidence. I have noticed this even in my own thinking despite being aware of it.

You become invested in an idea by your own thoughts and actions as well as statements to others. Then to change your mind you have to admit to yourself that you are wrong as well as to others who may still hold the mistaken belief. This can be unpleasant so many people just avoid it.

Keep in mind that very few things are black and white so there is always some "reasoning" that can defend the incorrect belief even if it is very unlikely. And there are often people who benefit from the incorrect beliefs (you may disagree but I think the $5 billion US vitamin/supplement industry is a good example).

While if everyone had excellent "critical thinking" tools it should help I'm skeptical this would overcome natural human biases such as pride. And perhaps it is a good thing that at least a few people disagree with any consensus no matter how strongly supported by logic and evidence.
Apparently somewhere under 26.9% of GDP.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...
No[PSD to HTML] – New Trends in the Web Building
Why are compilers like Stalin/MLton not the default for functional languages?
Ask HN: Do you want to buy our website
Hi guys,

We've been developing our site - getinspired365.com for the last 15 months. We've spent a long time on it but we've reached a point where myself, and my partner, can't spend any more time on it. We would like some return on the work we've put in so we've decided to see if we can sell it. Here is a quick presentation (6 slides) on what the site is about, and why someone may want to buy it.

http://app.emaze.com/414240/gi365#slidenum=1

thanks
It's not, but you're going to pay your fund manager a lot more than your gardener even if both exert similar amounts of effort and skill (I picked fund managers because they're notorious for charging a lot of fees despite their inability to consistently outperform markets).

Or to take another example, suppose you're a lawyer. You'll be able to bill a lot more money to rich clients than you will to poor disenfranchised ones, even though the complexity and challenge of your legal work might be identical. This is partly because people usually assume other people are all utility maximizers; eg within the narrower cohort of criminal defense lawyers, public defenders are generally considered to be inferior lawyers because it is assumed that if they were sufficiently good, they would go into private practice and make more money.
That's exactly the top commenter's point. The law doesn't hinge on the distinction between a house-banked game (like blackjack) and a house-hosted, peer-to-peer game (like poker). The distinction between skill/no-skill is less meaningful than the fact that you point out.

Nontheless, the law (and thus the article) is about the former distinction.
clicky http://app.emaze.com/414240/gi365#slidenum=1
....

The US has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world:

http://i.imgur.com/R9nM7oZ.png
Agree, I moved to Luxembourg and started recently watching some French TV: almost everything is dubbed (while on Sat you can sometimes found the second audio track).

I would also add that while UK televisions are very good at subtitling (almost all the programs are accurately subbed with a 1:1 correspondence with what it is said), French TV are less scarse (not all the channels have subs available and some of those subs use different words)
> But if someone choose to go all-in blind pre-flop then they are choosing to play the game as pure gambling and their version of the game would be pure chance.

This isn't making the game pure chance; it's just cutting off that player from future decisions. The opponents still get to call or fold, which means the opponent is manipulating the odds that the all-in player will win a contested pot.
This is obscenely wrong. Federal income taxes in the United States are at the lowest they've been since WW2 for most deciles.
As evidence for what I say I will tell you I have won thousands of dollars at Roulette. Far beyond what one should win "by chance" which should be a negative number for the amount I have played.

Things have changed a bit since then and I don't play anymore. If you start winning more than you should you become known. I will tell you that. And this changes things.

For example, one technique I used was taking advantage of dealers who had skill placing the ball...yes, these do exist. At one Nevada casino in a smaller town I stayed for a few days and played very small amounts of money while watching the dealers. One Asian lady was very adept at placing the ball on the green zeros when she wanted to. So I went to her table and played $40 which I lost. Then I left and watched her while playing small amounts at the craps table. I saw her practice placing the ball on the green zeros 4 times in a row (not sure why she would have done this in public). I walked back to her table and placed some reasonable bets all over the board. As soon as she released the ball I put maximum bets on the green zeros. What do you know? I must have got lucky! I then collected my winnings and checked out. That bet more than paid for my trip.

Roulette is not always as random as it is held up to be. No, I can't "prove it".
The problem with graduation rates is that we then optimize to increase that KPI as much as possible, at the expense of median education quality (which is nominally the social good we're trying to support). You do get more people with "the credential" - which you could also get by handing them out for a buck fifty at Walgreens, if that's what you really wanted to maximize.

It's almost impossible to give politicians a hot-button campaign topic without them over-reducing the problem to a counter-productive KPI, which they will then tie funding to.
> I understand what you're saying about peering, but I think his/her point is that ISP customers pay ISPs not to care about peering.

Nothing in their contract with Comcast suggests that they've somehow bought "the right not to care about or understand peering".

So if they think they've bought that, then the problem really is one of "stupid customers".

Do you know that I absolutely loathe Comcast? I hate coming off like I'm defending them. I want the company abolished, its assets sold off at auction, its shareholders prohibited from ever investing in shares again, its executives sent to prison to rot for the rest of their lives.

There are many bad things about Comcast. We don't need to make up lies about them.

> If Comcast needs more money to properly connect it's users to Netflix, then that's fine, charge me more money.

Then they're hit with accusations of violating network neutrality (if they only charge Netflix users), or of price-gouging if they charge everyone.

This was already taken off the table by the same people who are rabble-rousing everyone.

> But forcing that revenue to go through Netflix first, you're fundamentally changing a key feature of the Internet.

By not forcing it, you're changing a key feature of the internet: settlement-free peering.

This is why my original, top comment explains how things have changed and peering may not work anymore. It's impossible to come to a resolution where all parties feel as if they've been treated fairly.

And that's a much bigger problem than anything anyone else is talking about. It's a problem that won't go away if we ignore it.
HBO programming available on Amazon Prime
I've got a possibly naive question about DropletPay.

I was under the impression that Apple essentially took 30% of all money that flows through an app. Is there an exception for payment / ecommerce apps? Is there a special agreement in place? Is this app a "timebomb" that just hasn't been noticed by apple yet?

It's possible that the "30% of all money" is a bit of misinformation; I can't find where Apple's app policies are enumerated.

I'd be interested in knowing and I have no doubt someone here has a good idea.
To some of the older folks on HN - is this a new problem?

The last few years have brought on a whole different type of newsmedia hybrid (the buzzfeeds, huffpos and gawkers) organization that is driven primarily by clicks and do not hold themselves to the standards of traditional print news. While there were dubious options on paper before (Daily Posts, National Enquirers), the internet is far greater venue for propagating bullshit with clickbait headlines. Some of the newer sites I'm seeing people post on Facebook have skipped the truth part altogether, they go straight to fabricating stories. TV has gone the same direction with news-entertainment.

I'm pretty concerned. When its too hard to find signal in all the noise, I'm afraid folks will give up altogether. With Buzzfeed putting out longform articles and NYT putting up quizzes, its already hard to discern who cares about delivering real news and who will do anything for clicks.

But maybe I'm just young (25), and people have always found echo chambers, and yellow journalism is always something we've had to wade through to find the facts. What do you guys think? Has anything actually changed?
A couple of hints:

1. Use a finite-state-machine REST framework like webmachine or cowboy_rest. This will help you in the long run once you grok how they work.

2. Your intention here is that the user might have done something silly. Write a helper which can load arguments from the request and fail if some of them are missing. The best approach is to shuffle as much as possible into a routing layer and then let the routing layer return the 4xx responses. This only leaves up optional arguments, where an undefined option is what you want to handle. Look at how, e.g., cowboy is doing this.

You can essentially avoid all of this boilerplate, if you construct your HTTP RESTful API correctly.

db:find/3 should probably return either {ok, UserRec} or not_found. Something along the lines of

case db:find(my_db, users, #{<<"username">> => Username}) of
{ok, #{<<"password">> := Password} = UserRec}} -> respond(200, ...);
{ok, UserRec} -> respond(401, ...);
not_found -> respond(404) % or something more appropriate
end.
>Again, it's free software so I'm not sure what the problem is. I learned from this experience that some people will never pay, and some will. I'm not opposed to alienating people who won't support all of the time, effort, and money I put into this product.

It's always surprising to me when devs are surprised by outrage at the change/removal of a free product. There is a non-negligible cost for a user to research/choose/setup/learn a new tool. In this case, a feed reader has favorited articles, read/unread state of articles, etc. When you pull the rug out from users that have made that investment who now have to start over, they are going to be mad, regardless of what they paid.
Hardly an "insane level of politicking", as you like to put it; in a relatively close parallel early in my career, I cost my contracting firm a moderately lucrative client, and verged closely upon getting us sued, out of the same sort of sheer ignorance, as applied to vulnerability reporting rather than feature improvement.

I mean, sure, it would (possibly) be ideal if everyone in our field simply looked at the technical aspects of everything, without any personal or emotional investment whatsoever. What about your experience on this planet has given you to imagine that it's reasonable to expect any aspect of human life, singly or in the large, to be anywhere near ideal?
If it's company policy, the employees have plenty of incentive to snitch to gaming boards. I used to hang out with a lot of casino dealers in Washington state and every one of them would sell out their boss that day if they were told to do something like this.
Gemnasium unveils Bower dependencies support
Not always:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Sloot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Controversy (not clear cut in Wikipedia's mind, but I think their editors are somewhat in denial)
I winced, because it seemed like the kind of pep-talk speech you might have to hear over and over again when you get called into a very high-level meeting without any discussion about execution, in the middle of a workday where you have code to build and ship instead. There's little here that appeals to my actual intelligence or abilities that screams "challenge". We can say we're in it for the social impact and "meaning", but if there's no succinctly-stated technical challenge to face and succeed over, there's no food on that fishing hook.
Well, American taxes are rather typical. A bit on the low side, but not much. What is atypical is the very low return American citizens see on that tax. Some of that is just because of high defense spending but the rest is a product of a completely inane government. One could argue that given the rate of return, American taxes are quite high.
The package management story in Haskell, I don't want to say broken, is just too complicated for beginners, err actually everyone.

For instance, to install stylish-haskell you will ultimately need the "happy" executable, but cabal is not smart enough to get it for you.

I don't know what a "clean" environment means, nor do I know what you mean by "broken dependencies." Did you:

mkdir stylish-sandbox
cd stylish-sandbox
cabal update
cabal sandbox init
cabal install happy stylish-haskell
cabal copy
cd ..
rm -r stylish-sandbox

That might work.
In the UK, foreign-language dramas and films are always subtitled.

Foreign language dramas are not common on British TV, but then a few years ago, the BBC broadcast the original Danish version of The Killing which gained a cult following. Since then we've had a whole raft of foreign-language dramas (mostly crime dramas, a lot of them Scandinavian).

I personally much prefer subtitles to dubbing. With dubbing, you get the distracting mismatch between the actors mouth movements and the dubbed dialogue. Plus, the dubbed language will have a different tone and inflection from the original language. At least if you watch with subtitles, the fluency of the dialogue (even when you don't understand it) will feel much more natural.
Evidence builds that e-cigarettes help smokers quit
Interplanetary superhighway
How hard can it be to disable upload in bittorrent clients and be a bad but considerably more legal torrent citizen?
- Copyright issues

- Procurement of local films and dubbing/subtitles for existing ones

- Localization of interfaces/apps

- Payment options adequate for every country

- Local tax issues

- Local marketing