skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Our silicon age, which sees no glory in maintenance, but only in transformation and disruption"

Startups see no glory in maintenance, of course, but that's almost the definition of a startup: they have to do something new, big, and fast. I wouldn't ascribe that to the entire "silicon age" though.

For instance, look at open source communities. A lot of people are doing a lot of great work, some more revolutionary, but a lot of it quite incremental. Even fairly revolutionary ideas are often more concerned with engineering concerns like safety and robustness -- look at PostgreSQL, and the Rust language.
Compressing JavaScript
There's too much confusion, you're right. What Netflix need is some hard numbers. I suggest they take very detailed statistics at the client level and constantly report them back to their servers, in real time. With all that data available, it will surely ~~artificially balance the network usage and solve the legal aspect~~ allow both parties to make informed decisions.
"those who would change the world were viewed with suspicion and dread"

There's a difference though: some ways of changing the world are much safer than other ways. Traditionally, it's been politicians who want to change the world, because they were the only ones with enough power to do so -- and people were rightly afraid (and still should be).

But technologists pose a significantly lower risk. Sure, there are exceptions, like the Manhattan Project. But for the most part, technology is opt-in, and people opt-in because it helps them more than it hurts them.
"And the only way to figure out what those improvements are is to build them and see if a massive number of new users show up."

That's sort of what I wrote here:

https://www.zerotier.com/blog/?p=74

You can't test those markets with mockups and quick hacks, at least not easily. Those markets have a tendency to sit on the sidelines for a long time, since only a lunatic would actually build a real product just to test a market.

Despite having the business school dogma of "test the market before actually building something" banged into my head with a hammer by every MBA-ish type I've run into, I am still skeptical of it. I don't think it's always possible to test without building.

YouSendIt and all the other file sharing sites were really pretty simple hacks, exactly the kind of "MVP" that a b-school sort would suggest tossing together to determine if anyone cares about sending each other files. Dropbox on the other hand was a seriously hard piece of engineering. The first time I used it, I immediately thought "whoa, that was not easy to build." You see, the file sharing problem is not the file sharing problem. It's really a distributed database problem in disguise. All the others built file sharers, but Dropbox built a centrally-supervised distributed database ala BigTable or GPFS.
I guess that makes a certain arbitrary kind of sense... :)
Easy and cheap cluster building on AWS
"No idea what it could be."

Maybe it was really bad. :)
I would choose `finally` keyword over the `else`.
I work at a site where about 20% of traffic comes from IE8. Many are users on corporate machines with no alternatives. I really appreciate that React runs on older browsers and is decently performant without a huge payload. All this with a well designed API and a nice development experience... I think it's hard to beat!

Anyway the more traffic your site gets, the harder it becomes to ignore certain cohorts.
The HN user def- posted a link to the Nimrod section of rosettacode.org: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8048939
The beef of the problem is that Verizon is both a consumer ISP and a transit provider.
"Verizon, you're my enemy, I'm going to continue paying you every month while I work around your stupidity with my VPN..."

That's just how fucked up this situation is.
I didn't have an account before this post, but your whois search compelled me to create one. Before seeing your comment I as well did a who is search. I then googled the address and found another whois listing from the same address, also referencing other domains. http://whois.domaintools.com/zz.cx Curious that the name of the registrant is different.

EDIT: The website for the domain zz.cx has a reference to claire. it's a very strange site. http://zz.cx

I also feel that this profile(http://search.cpan.org/~nicolaw/) is linked to the registrant of zz.cx, registered from the same address as white.ly.
This piece says more about the author's problems than actual problems, but as I've gone through life I have run across many people who are angry with me or with with technologists in general because of choices made in their own lives have come back to haunt them in ways they never imagined when they made those choices.

Back in the 70's you could be forgiven for ignoring computers, they were specialist tools that only people who were 'bad at sports' seemed to have any use for. But in making that choice, in the 90's your kids were talking to each other using "screens" and you always seemed out of touch with what was going on. You finally got a "computer" in the early part of the 21st century because you got tired of people laughing at you when you asked them to send you a print catalog. Now you want to get something done and that computer that you barely know how to operate doesn't work because of some sort of magical indigestion that randomly tries to sell you ED medicine with random pop up advertising.

Those people are really angry, they are frustrated and angry and pissed off that nobody told them that when the nerds reshaped the tools of the world into something they liked better, there choice to ignore nerds would leave them badly under equipped to live in that world. There was a big push to give people "computer literacy" which is sort of like being able to read, the essential skill that got you buy in the 20th century, but for computers in the 21st century. A lot of people decided it was too much bother and their life has become harder because of that choice.

What is interesting is that Alvin Toffler predicted this would happen in "Future Shock" [1], where he talked about how change that was fast enough could disenfranchise an entire generation or two. I don't think a lot of people appreciated it then.

One of the effects I've observed is people with sentiments exactly like those expressed in the original article. Anger at people who would change things and impose a burden on those who, for what ever reason, could not accommodate that change.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock
As a residential subscriber this is contractually the case. ISPs do not allow the operation of servers in residential contracts and they are almost always provisioned with asymmetric speed. 50 down, 5 up, etc.
Gaza has no "dome" there, naturally, because if it did (with the big-oil money of their ideological brethren easily to pay) then Hamas could not play the victim card in the global press by counting up the civilians Hamas explicitly puts at risk of cross-fire even when Israel provides humane advance warning. Also given what operates as taqiyya tactics among the ideological brethren on display for the rest of the world, Israel would be unwise to trust that Eqypt had actually sealed any Hamas tunnels that could hurt Israel. Mossad hopefully is smarter than to believe what may be just a pack of Eqypt/Hamas lies in what is actually a monolithic ideology of terror and conquest. (Because, like, well, duh, uh, in a digital age Hamas didn't get the smoke signals from Eqypt a few days ago proposing truce that Israel was wiling to accept.) IDF may be on the ground to find out and fix the tunnel situation if necessary.
This is clearly a "dame pan y dime tonto" situation (“Dame pan y dime tonto” literally translates to “give me bread and call me fool”. The idiomatic meaning is “I don’t care what people say as long as I get what I want”.)
And you can implement C as a set of assembler macros and a preprocessor step (which can be part of any C compiler). That does NOT make C and assembly the same language. The same is true for large C++ codebases. Nobody claims they're valid C, even though they're one preprocessing step away from being one.

Specifically C is "smaller". Everything in C can be expressed in assembly, but not every piece of assembly code has a matching C code. One hopes that it's mostly the more insane parts of assembly code that can't be translated.

Nobody will argue that C and "text" assembly are the same language. In the same way, I argue that javascript and closure are very, very different. Generally, assuming google actually demands closure apps compile with the toolchain (I'd be astonished if they didn't), these languages are not the same, despite one being valid in the other.

Javascript further clouds this issue by allowing preprocessing steps in the language itself. If you don't take that into account, you could say python is valid javascript. That's not a reasonable claim.
Always is an odd characterization of something that occurs 10% of the time.

Edit to respond to comment: The context is a an executive talking about whether accounts that FedEx classifies as internet pharmacies should be counted towards sales goals used for bonuses. That means they could classify new accounts as belonging to this group or not. It's worth noting that their definition is likely not synonymous with the plain meaning of internet pharmacy. Rather it means that subset that they expect the DEA will put out of business. I'm sure Caremark isn't excluded from normal sales metrics and subjected to extraordinary credit requirements.
Go, Bibi!!!!! Stay strong. May God be with you!
Anyone who wants to look into the future of the young talent of silicon valley needs only to look into the lives of 50+ year old professional athletes.

To the owners go the spoils, to the workers go the toils.
As I understand it, Verizon customers are requesting data from Netflix and Level3 has to carry that data from Netflix to the edge of the Verizon network.
Verizon has got a profit from their customers so I would say that in any case VZ are the ones who should pay L3 to bring the traffic to their edge.

Or, you know, stop the bullshit and keep the Interwebz working as they've been for decades.
>requesting this traffic through VZ and he is paying VZ to carry this traffic for him.

That's a very disingenuous way of putting things.

Let's get all the actors in play here:

Netflix - The website/service you're trying to access

Level3 - Netflix's ISP

Version - Your ISP

You

So to get to Netflix you'er going through 2 different entities.

If you consider Level3 and Verizon to be on the same level ( after all, they're both ISPs), then your argument works the same way the other way around : Netflix is paying Level 3 for the connection between it and you, so why shouldn't Level 3 be responsible for this? Why is only Verizon responsible?

The second way of seeing things is that Verizon is responsible for the connection between you and Level3 (i.e. Level3 is a Verizon customer). Level3 wants to just plug in more cables to get better speeds on Verizon.... well who wouldn't expect to have to pay more for that?

In no situation is Level3 entitled to the maximum speed technically available to it for no cost. The counterpart to this is that it's Verizon's responsibility to offer reasonable pricing for upgrades (and not have content discrimination and conflicts of interest).

If Verizon offers the same pricing structure for backbone infrastructure to everyone who asks, it's hard to fault them on this. Level3 is in a particular position given the size of the traffic served.

But if I were a mailer for something like Amazon and were responsible for 35% of packages sent during a day (fake number), it's not like I could just ask FedEx to let me use more of its trucks and get higher priority for free.
This is very thorough, and I'm sure it's helpful to a lot of folks. So thank you to the author. For me, it's probably a syntactical issue, but I find things such as the below too hard to comprehend.

What did we get just by doing this? Let's see:

λ> :type EitherIO
EitherIO :: IO (Either e a) -> EitherIO e a

λ> :type runEitherIO
runEitherIO :: EitherIO e a -> IO (Either e a)

So already we have a way to go between our own type and the combination we used previously! That's gotta be useful somehow.

OK, looks like a pair of parentheses moved. I have seriously no idea why that is interesting or useful. Conceptually what's going on is probably not complicated, but that syntax makes it inscrutable to me. (I could be wrong and the problem could be at a deeper level of understanding.)
If you cut yourself with a knife the fault is on you for not using it properly, not on the knife.
"Is there some reason this is better than being built on an existing protocol, http!?"

Yes: not everybody has a web space to publish HTTP data, but everybody has email. So intuitively building something on email has better chances of gaining adoption.
They didn't check your blood sugar while busy giving you this? Jesus, which country was this?
The BackDoor Factory: Patch win86/64 PE and linux86/64 binaries with shellcode
There's a ASP.NET MVC plugin for server-side rendering of React http://reactjs.net/
I think everyone, at least here, is perfectly aware of this.

The problem is verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too: bill people for (a quite large) profit margin on last mile access, then turn around and tax content providers. As if asymmetric access wasn't already part of the deal when selling last mile internet pipes. This is a textbook example of why monopolies are bad, or verizon exists to fuck us and is happy to purchase legislators to that end.
Except in the case of Netflix, it's purely an ISP.
The cult of disruption – are we deluding ourselves?
I was pretty sure the precedent was that high volume peering was for 'balanced flows'. At a public peering point with a shared LAN, balanced flows aren't usually as required, but capacity would usually be less as well.

If Level3 (or Netflix) would read the Peering Playbook, they would see that they need to attract some upload traffic from Verizon to balance their flows, and get Verizon to upgrade the links (then, once the links are in place, they can drop the upload traffic). If I were Level3, I would find a backup service or image/video hosting site and convince them to let me advertise their IPs to Verizon/Comcast to balance the flows.

I looked for old level3 peering policies, and actually in 2004 they didn't mention balanced flows which was surprising, because most "Tier 1" networks have required balanced flows for peering for a long time.

If you don't like Level 3 paying Verizon/Comcast, consider the situation where Verizon has no backbone, and pays for 100% transit from a hypothetical Tier 1 provider. If Level3 doesn't have balanced flows (within usually a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio), most Tier 1's would depeer them as well (or refuse to upgrade circuits).
I had a similar experience. I was writing a polygon intersection algorithm, heavily optimized for the domain of inputs, but kept having issues when vertices were coincident or when edges were colinear. I spent days trying to fix it, until I decided to just truncate the vertex values to some good-enough level of precision, and add a random unique jitter to each value (past the truncated precision). This made sure that there were never coincident or colinear situations. Then I just truncated the resulting intersection points again to remove the jitter.

It was trivial to add, and it was faster than all the extra checks I'd have to do for the edge cases. Also, it gave me peace of mind, since I knew it worked in theory, instead of my other feeble attempts which worked most of the time, but always failed in some new edge case.
I think you are ignoring the crux of the argument. Verizon has agreed with the customer basically to "go fetch" what the customer asks for. Netflix is not sending data to the customer, the customer is the one who has asked Verizon to "go fetch" at a price agreed between them.

Verizon operates on the agreement with the customer that they can afford to meet the customers data needs at the price agreed.

Your ISP is like a courier service who agrees to collect and deliver your parcels from the parties you order from, with the understanding that you are bearing the full cost of the delivery.

At no point do they state that if the party you are ordering from will not pay them a fee, they can wilfully restrict the amount and the speed at which the parcels are delivered.

The OP's experiment demonstrated clearly that Verizon's didn't lack the ability to deliver the packets at the speed he had 'ordered' regardless of source, but was deliberately throttling the speeds when they realized they were from Netflix. By routing the connection through the VPN, Verizon lost the information the throttling was based on and the downloads arrived at a higher speed.

Any one who hosts a server knows that you can transmit terabytes of data for a tenth of the price ISPs charge customers.

It is purely corruption and venality on the part of the FCC and the legislators when entertain the arguments from the ISPs on net neutrality and ignore the breach of faith and contract that the ISPs attitude towards the customers entails.

The proper solution is the for the customers like the OP to bring class action suits against the ISPs and force them to reveal the financial and technical details to see if they have any substantial bearing on the ability of the ISPs to deliver on the services they have promised.
Asymmetric data flow is intrinsic to the service Verizon sells to the majority of it's last mile customers. It's pretty much intrinsic to DSL that the download bandwidth you get is vastly higher than the upload bandwidth.

When you buy that download bandwidth from Verizon, there's nothing in the fine print that says what you may or may not fill it with. If you fill it with Netflix video, that's your business because you paid for it. It's not Verizon's because they have sold it to you, and it's not Netflix's because you requested the data. It's your data that you paid Netflix for traveling to you on your bandwidth you paid Verizon for.
How to Give a Good Conference Talk
I've acquired a reasonable number of friends, family, and associates who use dvorak. Every so often, I'm surprised when I find someone who uses my keyboard without issue!
Silicon Valley’s Arrogance Is Out of Beta and Ready to Ship
Peering is when you send packets from your network (or your customers' networks) to my network (or my customers' networks). Transit is when you send packets from your network (or your customers' networks) to my network, and I agree to deliver it, regardless of if it's within my network, my customer's networks or beyond my network (via peering or my own transit connections).

Peering is historically settlement free at public exchanges and in private connections with balanced traffic. When a private peering is not balanced, historically the peering would be disconnected, but in the mid 2000's, paid peering started showing up more frequently as an option. Paid peering is often less expensive than transit, but it depends on the networks involved and the volume.
Memebox is looking for a VP of engineering and full stack engineers
Early adopters aren't people that read TechCrunch or Product Hunt. Those are just geeks. Early adopters are a specific segment of a customer population that have the pain the most and are willing to try novel solutions.
Online contact lens sellers (at least ones I've used) do verify your prescription. Is it up to FedEx to investigate whether their customers are required to and actually do verify prescriptions?
NYC Taxis – A day in the life
If Verizon's recently released data is accurate, location probably doesn't make much of a difference. The key is that packets from the VPN provider to the user need to not arrive via the congested Level3 <-> Verizon interconnections.
Watching the individual shapes render on the PDF in Firefox's PDF viewer reminded me of fond memories of DOS-based mapping software I had as a kid on an 8MHz 8088 PC-XT with CGA graphics. Once upon a time, you actually had to wait for each individual vector shape to be drawn :-).

Edit: maybe this comment should have been a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8046656
The DEA wants to be able to inspect these packages, under the guise of catching drugs. They ask FedEx, let us just come in and open what we want, and they said fuck off.

So now the theory is, just prosecute FedEx for not being law enforcement. FedEx has two choices; fight a costly battle and possibly lose, or settle the charges in exchange for letting the DEA run hog wild.

Putting on the squeeze.
This is a problem with Silicon Valley, not Product Hunt. Ryan identified a way to grow his website and get funding. Smart on his part. Now he has the resources to make the site better and more open.
Thanks! If you can suggest a better title, we'll use it. In the meantime, we changed it to a sentence from your comment.
When people spend their time on the computer, they're turning their back to the outside world. And to be sure, that's anti-social.

But before computers, some of us did that by reading books.
I scraped a file list if anyone's curious: http://bochs.info/~aegis/files.txt.bz2
> after all, they're both ISPs

No, Level 3 is not an ISP. So the argument doesn't work the other way around. Also, you've framed things to make it sound as if Level 3 is initiating the traffic, when it is Verizon customers who are pulling data from the Level 3 network.
Am I the only one who read that as Pigeon Pornography?

(and yes, before someone else says it, still clicked on the link)
I think you understand more than you admit ;-). The last-mile infrastructure is indeed a completely different beast, and Verizon is last-mile infrastructure. So backbone-to-backbone might be symmetric, but backbone-to-last-mile should never have been expected to be symmetric.
Disclosure: Oracle data redaction is broken [pdf]
It was a perfect timing. MS was bringing in developers, and Bungie was the perfect target because it needed help, and because it was the coolest IP in development at the time. The trailer they showed at E3 2000 was the bee's knees, and ended up having little to do with the end game's actual plot, but it sure sold MS on the idea that this was killer IP. It was actually a compromise to bring Halo to the console because it was an FPS, which was not really a console thing, outside Goldeneye. But then, MS had signed Rare, too.

Isn't it obvious MS was buying up things it specifically thought were cool? The original Xbox lineup was a who's who of bad ass computer game devs like Molyneux and the Rare folks. And, clearly, all of the studios were able to negotiate decent contracts because they all were free of MS in the end, unlike other studios that have had their publishers run them out of business rather than see them keep their IP. In the end, bungie was glad to be rid of Halo, actually.
I have no beef with abortions. I believe they should be readily accessible and women should have the choice. If Bill and Melinda Gates think the same then I can't mark it against them. I've never met anyone who was in support of the ProChoice argument and saw it as a way to control population growth. That is simply ridiculous.
"Kids these days."
Just started learning rails a few months ago. As an aspiring web-developer it really puts me off and just start learning another web framework :( Have i just been wasting my time with Rails? Whats the next step? Any advice?
"Always" could be referring to the x% subset. Does the context of the quote say which interpretation is correct?
Well the idea is good, but the execution creates a ton of problems of-course. Like the things you mentioned. This is why I mentioned "Mind you they also do a lot of bad." The notion of limiting population growth is good (imo) but the execution is poor.
Created an account to point out this gem by Guido himself that makes use of this and the fact that python variables are not scoped inside for loops:

https://github.com/aosabook/500lines/blob/master/crawler/cra...
Xbox Entertainment Studios To Be Shutdown
completely rip off!