skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I assume your point is to justify the fact that this page does not load if JavaScript is disabled, because the domain has a web app on it at a separate URL? It is possible to have both static document pages, viewable without JavaScript, and a web application that requires JavaScript to function.
53+ Free Image Sources For Your Blog and Social Media Posts
Generally server-side wallets don't keep all user funds online. Most are stored offline in cold storage, which requires multiple signatures to access.
This is a neat project! It looks great :-) What inspired you to create this?

It would be interesting for every emoji to link to the original tweet.
This is a very nuanced issue. The reference implementation of the JVM for instance will most assuredly compile some code to machine code, but it does so JIT. The developer/build server compiles to byte code that is run on a VM layer (though the distinction between the VM and a Run Time like Go's seems blurry as well).

That even leaves out Java compilers that skip the JVM step.
Well, no, he told us how he was controlling WordPress' memory usage, but not the web server's or PHP's. And Azure includes free databases, both SQL Server and MySQL, there's just limits (20mb). Which, y'know, is how it works.
It's not easy to make them less convienient to copy.

It is easy to outlaw it, though.
For the same reason US politics in general are such a disaster...money driven lobbying.
Well said.

> The hard and painful truth is that business-oriented programming is underappreciated by business and unattractive to talented programmers, and so almost a complete non-starter. The good people tend to fight for a while (for more refactoring, more autonomy) but eventually disengage or go elsewhere . . .

I'm at the "disengage" point. The higher ups aren't heeding my warnings that what we are doing is not sustainable. Eventually the system will enter a permanent broken state and I just don't care anymore.
wow, didn't know that. So does that mean these days it's worth buying an aged domain?
IBeacons lessons learnd
This is a vote to receive comments on the proposal. IN 60 days the FCC will respond to comments and redraft a proposal. A final vote on final rules will come in about 120 days.
I worked in small startups for many years, and then later I worked in big companies for a few years. From my own experience, I would say sleep deprivation has no point in a big company. It only makes sense in a small startup when you are trying to hit some very specific and life-altering deadline, such as a meeting with a potential investor, whose money might determine the fate of the company.

I recall a long stretch from 2003 to 2006 (myself and my friends were doing our own startup) where we were often working crazy hours to meet deadlines. I recall at one point a guy was going to come in and possibly invest half a million dollars -- that would have changed everything for us. I recall I worked for 20 hours, then I slept for 2 hours, and then I worked for another 20 hours, just so we could have a bug-free demo when the guy showed up. I recall another time when we had to meet with a potential investor at 12 PM on Thursday, and I started work at 11 AM on Wednesday, and I kept working, and I kept finding bugs, and I worked through the night fixing everything, and I worked right up until the meeting. Then the meeting ended at 1 PM -- I had worked 26 straight hours.

Sleep deprivation only makes sense in the life of the startup because that part of your life that you spend in a startup is suppose to be finite. Paul Graham covers this in his essay "How to make wealth":

"Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast."

http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Sleep deprivation will always be a part of startup life -- that is natural. You face deadlines that determine whether the company will continue to exist.

In a big company, sleep deprivation doesn't make sense. I made this mistake when I first moved to big companies, and it took me awhile to unlearn the habits that I had acquired at startups. In a big company, your individual contribution is no longer a large part of of what makes the company go (you can shape the destiny of a company with 4 people, but not one that has 400 people). And in a big company, there are no particular deadlines that truly determine the fate of the company -- nothing that has the same urgency as "We are running out of money so we need tomorrow's potential investor to invest".

In a big company, in the future, I will be cautious about working an 80 week. But if I do a startup again, I know what I am signing up for.
It annoys me that it doesn't search users blogs and things that well. I'm often searching for what real people have to say, not content farms etc I know spam blogs are the cause, but the results are still frustrating.
That applies in the US. In the UK £1000 cannot buy a gun but it will buy you a 3d printer however.

As for muzzle velocity check out some of the videos of these guns. Sure it may not equate to a high end pistol but it beats the shit out of no gun at all.
Comcast's network is designed to deliver a certain amount of data per customer.

It can hit this number when the data is coming from distributed sources.

It should be able to hit this same number even if all the data was coming from 60 interlinks to netflix.

It's not about how fast the netflix access is in absolute terms, it's about whether it's throttled compared to other things.

Comcast is not obligated to speed up their entire network when their customers request more data from a provider, but they should be obligated to peer.
Something that took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out is that I don't need 8 hours sleep every night, just on average. The correct sleeping time turns out to be half the time I was previously awake for.
Swarm released for Android
This reads like "How To Get Press For Your Startup. Additionally, TechCrunch Sucks."

You shouldn't be taking the lack of coverage from TC personally.

Also, don't beg for upvotes: http://i.imgur.com/ambemzZ.png

That doesn't work and it just gets the article vote banned.
Why should you force business to operate in a certain way? Because, weirdly enough, the profit motive isn't always sufficient to make sure that business operate for the benefit of consumers, or more broadly, society.

Antitrust laws, environmental laws etc. all force businesses to "operate in a certain way". You can argue for more or less regulation, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to argue for no regulation.

Also, the issue is many people don't have a choice between ISPs, or if they do, it's between two major ISPs. If a Time Warner / Comcast juggernaut implements a fast lane, do you think that Verizon or whoever else won't?
CP, ~A, AFAIK
Who nominated this former lobbyist for the FCC spot? And who voiced/voted their approval? Voters should know.
That's kind of funny, since I'm nowhere near Silicon Valley and don't even identify with that crowd, I rarely do any web work, and write plenty of proprietary code. (Ironically, web apps are an area where you can generally get away with not knowing anything about open source licenses, since you're not redistributing the programs you make.)

I merely observe that programmers generally use third party libraries, and that doing so requires at least a basic understanding of the license terms.

Maybe there are a lot of people out there writing code who never touch external code?
same reason there's party lines inherent in the verdict-deciders of the highest court in the land (blind justice). or in counties/cities where sheriffs are publicly-voted for (to serve and protect). political collusion -- sorry, persuasion -- is the dna of gov't office.
sh... brainless devs just want to bash flash... that's why.Most of them didnt live the time when you had to install 60 plugins to read videos.
FCC votes to start formal consideration of net neutrality proposal
ISP's believe that internet services should have to pay to reach their consumers. This is the first step.
In the US. The US is not the world.
Hey guys. I've seen a lot of the algorithms to "fix writing" like ClicheBuster[1], Hemingway[2], and others. These are fine, but will only get you so far. My idea was to match up actual professional copy editors with people like us (and bloggers and such) that need small writing projects reviewed.

I'm always idea guy and end up muddling around with a site for months before abandoning it out of boredom or frustration. So, I decided this time it would be different and I was going to get to MVP is 72 hours, hell or high water. This is the result. I'd love some feedback on the brand, design, idea, etc...

[1]http://storytoolz.com/cliche

[2]http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
You can scroll in Terminal.app too, use the MouseTerm SIMBL plugin
"On the SOC side, it's 4x cortex A9 @ 1.45Ghz with Mali 450 MP4 GPU-- h265 decode at 4K/30fps, 2GB RAM"

Is this because it is a "smart" TV, or should I expect all computer monitors to have this degree of complexity these days ?

I'd like my monitor to be as dumb as possible, thanks.
Your comment is indicative of why this discussion is so difficult to have and why it's even tougher for the general public to understand or even care.

The way this has always works, and is not changing based on anything 'network neutrality' related, is that generally the sending network (Netflix) pays the receiving network (Comcast) based on something like the 95th percentile of their sending rate. It maybe not be linear, but if Netflix starts sending 2x traffic, they will pay something like 1.8x-2x. That's not changing, and nobody is disputing this.

What we're talking about here is that Comcast could take a user's 20Mbps connection and decide that even though it's fully provisioned in the last mile for 20Mbps, and they have plenty of pipe to get the Netflix data to the Comcast side of the last mile, that Comcast can just decide that Netflix will only get 5Mbps of that 20Mbps, that is unless Netflix pays the ransom money to Comcast to change that arbitrary limit.
This Startup Launched in 30 Cities in 6 Months
The administration gets to nominate commissioners. The Senate confirms them. These are partisan bodies.

The commissioners themselves have theories that fit into party politics as well.
The reason I care about licenses is because the auditors care about licenses and we can get hit with ginormously hefty fines if we're not in compliance.

So, I wouldn't say you're an idiot, but you're a bit dangerous to work with. Professional programmers should know about licensing.
Then the users need to be educated about those things too.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that the premise is to "trick" users into using Firefox by luring them in with promises of Netflix support? What's the point of this, and what precedent does it set? These are the issues we need to think about, rather than just saying things like "oh no Mozilla is losing all it's users" and other silly doomsday predictions.
In my mind one of the key questions to ask in this debate is, if the eventual rise of a more closely controlled internet destroys this frontier, what's next?

Right now thanks to a close confluence of remarkable factors, the barriers associated with starting something are almost negligible. The steady march of Moore's law combined with visualisation has given us servers that cost fractions of a penny to lease per hour. No one has had to beg or pay middlemen to use that server and reach customers around the world. At the other end, customers can finally view these bits, often streamed wirelessly, on magical slabs of glass and metal in their hand or what would have passed for a super-computer in a bygone age... All of this combined with a myriad of other factors has allowed anyone to start a billion dollar company. If this very fragile ecosystem is damaged and it dies out, where should someone ambitious go next to strike out on their own?
Online Gaming with AWS: Golden Manager
Simply put, this is absolutely terrible. How are start ups and small business web companies supposed to compete when their reach to consumers will automatically be slowed compared to larger competitors who pay for faster pipes?

And who is to govern the rates (and tiers) of faster speeds? I can only assume ISPs will determine a cost based on aggregate bandwidth. But who is to say there can't be a fast lane, a faster lane, and a fastest lane? Sounds anti competitive to me (even the big name companies are against this!).

Last: "The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers" > Google Fiber is cheaper for one. Seconds, the telecom giants have all increased subscriptions so there is more money there. And, as time goes along shouldn't these providers become more efficient and costs should decrease anyway? Must be nice to have a sudo-monopoly in some markets.
It really is time to decentralize and move forward with mesh networking.
When Profitability is a Red Flag (Startups vs. Businesses)
Yes, but it is a little bit annoying when the same company is arguing at the same time that it should be entitled to more money from content providers (such as Netflix) by killing Net Neutrality. These increased content costs would just get passed along to customers. We would pay more at both ends of the pipe.
For the about the same price of a 3d printer and plastics, you can buy a small lathe and aluminium stock to build a gun far superiour yet just as dangerous for the user. Required skill is comparable. Why aren't there any talks about banning those hobby machines too? Because you need a good scary story to sell and cutting metal is old news. I don't buy the plastic widget manufacturers getting in the way angle either. Do you have any idea how much cheaper is buying a mass produced thing instead of designing, building and botching the same piece with worse tolerances and worse materials?
> The people at the FCC are saying the opposite of what they mean.

No, net-neutrality proponents are saying the opposite of what they mean. They couch this in terms of "protecting the open internet." Except there never was an "open internet." Before the short-lived net neutrality regulations, cable companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their network. And that's true now that the regulations have been struck down. The cable companies do not need any sort of action by the FCC to be able to come to these agreements.

What net-neutrality proponents want is new regulations to keep cable companies from doing something that they currently are allowed to do, and except for a small period of time, were historically always allowed to do.
It's definitely a TV not a monitor.
" Honestly it was more of Mozilla capitulating to the DRM gods, it's not like they're out there pounding the pavement for DRM."

What's the difference?
The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table.

There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 60 days of replies to those comments from the same. After that, the final rulemaking will happen.

It's likely that the docket number for comments will continue to be 14-28, so if you want to ask the FCC to apply common carrier rules to the Internet under Title II, you can do so here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=r8e2h and you can view previous comments here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=1...

It's probably best to wait until the actual text of the NPRM is made public though, which'll likely happen very soon.

Edit: WaPo have now updated the title of the article to make it more accurate: "FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet." Old title was "FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet."
Ampache now has a Subsonic back end, meaning you can use any Subsonic client with it. I use it and it works great. This is a huge improvement; while I always liked Ampache better than Subsonic, the latter had better clients, especially on mobile devices. So now you can have the best of both worlds.
At this point everyone is officially invited to comment on the proposal. In around 60 days, the FCC will respond to your comments and redraft a proposal. Please comment! http://www.fcc.gov/comments
The problem is that a network that can stream 20Mbit continuously to every customer (so they always can get the "advertised" bandwidth) would be absurdly expensive, and rates would have to go up accordingly. Why should someone who doesn't consume Netflix pay for this? Why should Comcast be afraid to sell you a 100MBit "bursty" connection (essentially the same kind of service they actually advertise now) because they'd be 'forced' to potentially have the capacity to serve 100MBit to every subscriber when Netflix goes to 8K-h.269 or what-have-you?
> Can anyone make a serious argument on behalf of the carriers? Given the court decisions, the only way to protect the American people and the economy is to reclassify ISP's under Title II.

If you ignore the various arguments about ISPs trying to get paid twice for the same content, consider the possibility of an ISP and a major high-bandwidth content provider (YouTube, Netflix, Akamai, etc) trying to build a deal that's better for both of them and for the consumer. For instance, consider a CDN on the ISP's network. Consumers get content faster with lower latency; the content provider reduces their bandwidth costs by sending only one copy of $POPULAR_CONTENT rather than one per customer; the ISP has lower costs and makes its customers happier.

Network neutrality would ban that, too. So this isn't the kind of thing that can be settled with simple blanket statements like "carriers should not make deals with content providers" or "all content should be treated identically".

> For the skeptics, it appears to come down to the question: which route offers better prospects for upgrading our internet infrastructure? Choice one is relying on a for-profit corporation with an effective monopoly that is beholden to shareholders; Choice two is relying on elected politicians beholden to the voters.

I'm always impressed when people can say with a straight face that politicians listen to voters. Voters don't care about issues like these, unless you can divide the issue across party lines and successfully make it one of the very small number of visible issues in a political campaign.

I'd be more interested in seeing proposed solutions to the "effective monopoly" problem than to network neutrality. Solve the monopoly and issues like network neutrality will disappear along with it.
It is also apparently helpful if you bring donuts.
Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?
"Use a version of Firefox without the EME code".
Well I already use a fork of Firefox called Iceweasel, so I'm curious what Debian will decide to do with Iceweasel.
I wonder how America's Apple will respond to this.
I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but that is simply not true. You can dedicate your whole life to a task - being more persistent than anyone else has in the history of the world - and still fail. It's actually a pretty common occurrence in human history - people dedicate themselves to doing something that is impossible (i.e. turning something that is not gold to gold), and at the end of the day, fail.

While it sounds great as a soundbite, persistence alone is not enough to succeed at something. There has to be a realistic path to success. Persistence is then required to stay on that path until you reach the end.
The difference between brand and identity
Wait a minute! You mean my ever-increasing ISP fees at my home are not for the ISP to build a better network? You mean to tell me the ISP is now going to charge content providers for the ability to provide me with content that I'm already paying my ISP to deliver? You mean to tell me my content providers are now going to likely increase their fees to cope with this "fast lane"?

This sounds an awful lot like extortion, and double billing.

ISP's... you have one (1) job. Deliver packets.
You have to recompile for another platform. There may also be subtle differences in the platforms.
non blocking refresh on materialized views is going to be massive! I wonder when it's going GA and Heroku rollout.
Keep up to date with Tech in Africa
I don't see that the link to Wikipedia is not "citing the people who wrote the stuff you're using". When you cite a scientific paper, you give the primary author (or few) and an "et al.", you don't list out everyone who contributed to the paper - you're still crediting them all and if people care, they can go look up the rest.
> But... she voted yes anyway. WTF?

She doesn't think the actual NPRM represents the best way to acheive the objectives it seeks to serve, but agrees with the objectives. As an NPRM isn't an adopted regulations, its a proposal which sets out objectives, provides concrete proposed steps, and seeks public comment on those steps and alternatives to them, it may make sense to vote for an NPRM (especially when you believe that there is a large and active community that will provide alternatives) when you agree with the objectives but have strong disagreements on some elements of the implementation, rather than voting no and preventing any rulemaking directed at the objectives from proceeding.

She would prefer to delay and get a better (from her perspective) proposal before the public, but would rather have the process moving forward that will allow adopting rules than have the process stalled. The three that voted for the NPRM are the three commissioners that, differ as they might on the details, believe that the FCC should be pursuing net neutrality ("Open Internet") regulation, the two that voted against are the two that think that the FCC should not and that things like paid prioritization and all the other things net neutrality seeks to restrict should be permitted without restriction.

Much of the news coverage has inverted reality and portrayed the proposal as a change to permit paid prioritization, but it is a change (in relevant part) to prevent it, within the constraints imposed by the D.C. Circuit when they struck down the last FCC order intended to do that.
We are sorry for the loading times, we have a lot of people on the site (Running on my own computer)
> What we're talking about here is that Comcast could take a user's 20Mbps connection and decide that even though it's fully provisioned in the last mile for 20Mbps, and they have plenty of pipe to get the Netflix data to the Comcast side of the last mile, that Comcast can just decide that Netflix will only get 5Mbps of that 20Mbps, that is unless Netflix pays the ransom money to Comcast to change that arbitrary limit.

On the other hand, that's not what happened in the recent Comcast/Netflix dispute, so spinning it that way does not make a good case for net neutrality.
Foursquare’s Swarm and the Rise of the Invisible App
Special report: What Does a Linux Job Look Like?
Wait a second, isn't that doing the same thing that's already automated via combination of pagerank and what google does with chrome and analytics? And for that matter isn't 'censoring as a service' what a search engine does in the first place?
Well, that's the issue. ISP's are being classified as telecoms.
Great read!

Interdependence is something that I always think about in these situations. Our society is so dependent on trade and working with other regions/countries that to see those systems collapse would be utter chaos.