skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First point is kind of hard to fight in my opinion, since a company has the right to publish its own services.

That changes once a company becomes a monopoly, specifically because it leads to market distortion. We've got rules against this sort of thing for a reason…
Why did Google deviate from "Do No Evil"?
I also tried some JEE in ~2000 and hated it. How could one accept to code in such a bloated ecosystem?

I'll admit I filtered out a lot of candidates becaused they mentioned stuff like "J2EE Engineer" on their resume, which seemed to imply strong incompatibilities with our coding style...

Fortunately not everyone in the Java community is modeled after JEE (or Maven, Spring, etc.).
Miller Urey expt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#...
What is the alternative to Google Adwords, that has anything like the same reach?
HTTP2 [pdf]
I seem to remember that I used Altavista before google.com. I guess I would move on to another search engine. DuckDuckGo might be good enough, I guess, and there's also Bing (I guess DDGo uses Bing?). Most people would use whatever search engine that the browser than defaulted to. Maybe they'd still find what they want.

People would have to find other video sites to procrastinate and entertain themselves than YouTube. I don't know if there are any video sites which are competitive when it comes to providing content compared to YouTube. If so I guess people would go back more to professionally made entertainment (yes, of course not all or perhaps even most of YouTube is amateur).

People would replace Google+ with... oh that one doesn't matter.
Means around £30k per employee which is reasonable for UK junior-ish dev straight out of university, but low if they're based in London (I dunno).
If Google is broken into parts, then each parts will be owned and operated by different people, and different people will have different interests. In addition, people generally don't willingly cede their power for the common good. That is why they will probably not cooperate.

Of course, your imagined scenario could totally happen. But I think the opposite is more likely.
I kind of feel sorry for Europe, that their leaders can't see the enormous positive impact Google is having on the world.

And in general I hate behemoth corporations. Google is different. The moment they start behaving like other Fortune 100 companies is the moment I stop rooting for them.

There are still too many complacent monopolies in the world to break up Google. Unfortunately Google is the only one with the money and the balls to fight them.
I'm sure it is relevant, and the EU has serious issues that need to be fixed. But that doesn't affect the question of whether or not Google has a monopoly which is causing market harm.
Ask HN: What's the best android tutorial you know of?
Preferably video.
Hate to say it, but they are pretty spot on.
'Decentralising the internet', if considering the web as an important part of that, pretty much is an effort to break apart Google. Google is a centralised web made reality.
For biology, have a look at contributing to http://www.bioconductor.org/
I'm not sure I'd actually call the EU a "huge bureaucracy" - it has 33 thousand staff:

http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/hr_key_figures_en.pdf

That's about twice as much as the Scottish Government - which is for a much smaller population.
As mentioned in the blog post, I'm hopeful that the awful |&mut:| and |&:| and |:| can be completely removed with greater inference capabilities. I'll be speaking with nmatsakis soon about exactly what needs to be done to make this a priority for 1.0. Likewise, the `move` keyword should be possible to infer in many cases (though I honestly don't mind it very much).

Finally, I'm actually not bothered about the type of a closure being written as `FnMut(blah)` instead of `|blah|`, because that syntax was always a bit line-noisy in type position anyway.

The bottom line is simply that closures in a low-level systems programming language present a daunting design challenge that is hard to appreciate until you've wrestled with the domain. There is no one-size-fits all here that does not result in compromises that make closures essentially useless for this niche. The best that we can do is reduce down to as few knobs as possible (Rust closures are still a bit less expressive than C++ lambdas) and lean on inference to have the compiler Do What I Mean.
Yes. Extensive details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law
Al Jazeera hacked
There doesn't seem to be as much desire to get profitable any more. Why bother with that when you can just get acquihired by bigco.
Google isn't a monopoly for the users of the search engine - you're right, they can move to whichever search engine they like - many which are almost or as good as Google.

The problem is for advertisers and website owners. If you are advertising on search engines and you don't have your adverts on Google, you're missing out on 90% of users. That's why they're a monopoly. Moving your adverts to Bing just isn't an alternative.
> First point is kind of hard to fight in my opinion, since a company has the right to publish its own services.

Microsoft was forced to include a browser choice screen and not use IE by default on Windows computers sold in the EU. The same happens here - you have different responsibilities when you're in a dominant position.
yes, because breaking up a monopoly does so well in ending name recognition.

you cannot monopolize search, you might just be able to monopolize being good at it - so then what,force them to license it out?

Really is the answer to "our national industries/companies are fail, lets force others to be fail too" all that they have to go on?

How do you monopolize search, you claim it, tell me.
What unsubstantiated, loaded dross. Sorry but what point is there in saying what you have? How does progress any discussion at all?
> The overwhelming majority of truly valuable contributions in our field are done by people who are neurologically aspie-autistic.

Well, let's assume for a sec that you're right about this (I personally don't think so). I don't know how many neurotypical people we lose by favouring aspies. If we assume a prevalence rate of 1% or 2%, or even 5%, it may mean losing a good chunk of the neurotypical 95% – we _are_, after all, chasing away a good number of developers (check for example the stats for women in opensource, but I'm sure we chase away quite a number of men as well who prefer to stay away from toxic environments). Are you saying that these 1-5% provide more contributions then that huge chunk of the 95% that are, in your words, "overly sensitive"?
> if String could point to either &'static str or an owned buffer,

That used to be the purpose of MaybeOwned, which was just replaced by CowString (a typedef of Cow to String and str).

On Cow, a deref returns an immutable slice (with no copy) so slice methods can be called directly on the CowString, `to_mut` copies the source data if necessary and returns a mutable ref, and `into_owned` copies the source data if necessary and returns it.

So if you don't really care what you get and whether it's going to be copied or whatever, ask for a CowString and go to town.
Where to finish a degree?
I'm like a few folks in the technical community in that I never finished college. Honestly it didn't matter too much until recently when I took the plunge into management, but now I need one to advance further. I'm about 2/3 done with a degree. What's the best place to finish a degree up online? I just want to finish up with a general BS degree. Many of the programs I've been looking feel a little sketchy.

What's the best value in terms of price, reputation and online learning?
Fair point. I didn't pick up on this from the article. It's this exact reason that I use Firefox & DuckDuckGo.

I based my statement on this:

> The European Parliament has voted in favour of breaking Google up, as a solution to complaints that it favours is own services in search results.

The key part there being ..it favours its own services in search results. In my opinion they are free to rank search results in whatever manner they wish.
Thanks for the feedback! If the hard level is pretty hard, wouldn't adding more operations make it even harder? I kept the number range small because I felt it would be too hard to do mentally otherwise, but I'm definitely open to extending it.
The idea was novel for me but I was quite certain it has been done before in one way or another.
The strange thing is that Microsoft got hit for bundling IE while the two big mobile/tablet OSs both not only ship with their own web browser but also (for iOS) grant the platform-preferred browser powers that no other application is allowed (JIT compilation).

The question of "a market" versus "two distinct markets" is a vexed one. Is "phone browser" a seperate market from "phone"?
> if String could point to either &'static str or an owned buffer

There exists a copy-on-write smart pointer in the standard library that can be used for exactly this purpose: http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/borrow/enum.Cow.html
The 'there are other worse things so we can ignore this' argument? Really?
Facebook will not like this idea
Sometimes things change, Google search is so big in Europe (the article sites 90%) that perhaps we should no longer view it as a private company.

A good Internet search engine has a huge impact on less tech-savvy people. My parents have never ever used anything but Google, and don't even understand that there are _other_ search engines out there. As such perhaps we should view it as a public utility. Just like the public transit system brings people to real destinations google search brings people to virtual destinations.

At the same time this shouldn't deprive Google of its revenue. So an approach should be taken which enforces neutrality in search results but also leaves room to serve adds.

I think that recent actions from Google are partially to blame for this attention from the European council. There have been warnings thrown Googles way. As it stands I believe Google is even breaking privacy laws with the fusion of Youtube and Google+ behind the scenes. There was also criticism from the Council about google blurring the distinction between adds and real results. So this can't come as a surprise to Google.
Ideally the EU would figure out a way to prop up its own IT companies instead of being wholly reliant on US based ones and then coming up with threats of lots more paperwork whenever they find their backs against a wall.

This is what is happening here. Lots of smallish companies depend on ads in the EU and they are obviously being hurt by Google's monopoly. Realistically, breaking up Google just means lots more paperwork for Google. It won't actually mean new competition in search.

Despite all this, whenever a government entity is in need of some IT infrastructure it's always Microsoft, HP and other US based companies that get the contract.
There are other text brokers. You just couldn't find one that paid as much as Google. That's not a monopoly problem. A problem is if Google kept Adsense payouts artificially low or charged advertisers too much because of their market power.

(Also, a monopoly on the buy side is called a monopsony.)
I'm interested. I already have everything necessary and I've been learning by myself since few months. Should I contact you through the email on the website?
Sort of a nonsensical premise, the three highlighted distributions have entirely different goals (use Tor, penetration testing, and security through VM isolation), but it does give minimal overviews of each, plus mentions a few more in passing. Worth it if you aren't familiar with each, or one that matches your possible interests.

Side note: Qubes, or perhaps the woman developing it, is sort of scary. I was reading ... her blog, I think, where the discussion had turned to the open sourcing of a provably secure microkernel. Alas, that's only with an embedded ARM system, they didn't even a try a serious proof with x86.

And for good reason, besides covering how difficult this was in principle (e.g. chipsets, IOMMUs), she mentioned finding a remote execution exploit that never touches your OS, it compromised a network card and rewrote its EEPROM, then on the next boot exploited a secure boot "feature". Kinda makes you despair about the current state of security :-(.
Your defaultdict approach and the dict.get with a default specified is not really equivalent. In the defaultdict case when you encounter a non existing key it adds a new entry with that key into the dict. i.e. your dict will start growing.

whereas dic.get with default value keep returning you the default value without touching your dict.
The common agricultural policy is largely an ecological and humanitarian disaster. However, it's only one aspect of the EU, and most of the member states would have similar subsidies if they were outside the EU anyway. Even the anti-EU parties in European nations tend to favour maintaining the subsidies (e.g. UKIP policy is to maintain the single farm payment after an EU exit). The US isn't in the EU and still has a significant program of agricultural subsidies.
It makes sense when all the values in the list are text.

Avoids lots of ", "
Not really. Mental arithmetic is the ability to move numbers around in your head, it really is equivalent to being able to type as a programmer. Mental arithmetic is to number theory as being able to type is to programming. That you do not understand this, shows that you too have been damaged by the standard teaching of maths within education - pre university level.
Sorry, not picking on you. Someone says this in practically every Google post. The answer is: "Evil" is subjective.
Indeed, and besides that, this vote was by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU citizens.
You'd better lawyer up real quick if you think of making money from this. If you're lucky you'll just get a cease-and-desist letter really soon.
I don't think the aim is geographic boundaries, but functional boundaries. eg, Google Advertising is the only ad network allowed on Google Search.

To use a loose analogy with the Microsoft trials; msft having a monopoly on the desktop wasn't the problem. They earned it. Using that monopoly to create a second monopoly in the browser space, was the issue. Hence the unbundling.

In this case, Google having a monopoly in search isn't the problem - again, they've earned it fairly. But using that monopoly to prop up additional monopolies in, eg, advertising, is problematic.

I don't think they'll actually try to split Google up. It's so-far sabre rattling, and this decision just ensures they actually have a sabre to rattle.

But if, eg, third-party advertisers were allowed to compete with Google on Google's own properties? That'd be interesting.
The new proposal gives three different types of closures, either immutable, mutable, or call-once. For each type of closure, variables can be either borrowed by reference, or moved into the closure. This gives six types of possible closures with this proposal. Currently, only two out of those six are supported (The current ||, and proc). So this proposal means closures are more powerful, and that two different, inconsistent types of closures can be unified.

While the internals are probably going to stay the same (the traits), syntax sugar is still very much being thought about.
Of course, sometimes I still type:

D.get(key, None)

since I forget that dict.get and getattr() have different behavior in the case of missing keys/attributes...
That's kind of underhanded to do that on a day when most people in the US are on vacation and aren't available to respond.
So you think that if the EU disbanded, there would be more wars (and/or arms-races) in Europe? Between which nations?
Yes you are right (I got a bit carried away there!) but let's note "The ultimate decision will rest with EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager." - an unelected official.

And while I'm on the irrelevancy track (apologies) - how about an unelected foreign minister with, as reported by observers, no demonstrable talents and certainly no mandate. What are we coming to?
It's pretty clear that this and other their other specifically anti-Google rulings are about protectionism and nothing more.
It's not going to break up on account of the European Union. It's a fairly large market today, but one with only decline in its future. Europe's relative share of the world economy will not increase again during the lifetime of anyone alive today.

I also question whether Google isn't already more powerful than the EU. If it threatens to suspend services to the EU, it would cause a massive backlash among inhabitants, and not one that would be directed at Google. In most member states, popular support for continued EU membership is already dangerously low. Cutting 90% of the people off from their email can be the final straw.

Remember when the EU wanted to break up Microsoft. What they ended up getting was a crippled version of Windows for the same price. Everyone bought the full version instead.
Forgive my ignorance. What are we ignoring?
You're talking about European Commission, not the European Parliment. This action is being initiated by the directly-elected[1] Members of the European Parliment.

For readers more familiar with the US, the closest analogy is European Parliment == Congress, European Comission == Executive Branch [2]. Far from exact, but will give you a flavour of the reason the parent comment is so off base.

[1] In the countries I'm familar with they're all directly elected. Not sure if that's the case in all member states.

[2] Structure of the EU: http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-390500.htm
WPF and .NET are not different runtimes.
The USA subsidises its agricultural sector, I agree that the EU does do it more. But then Japan puts in more direct subsidy to its agricultural sector than the whole of the EU. Still, whatever your view on subsidies, it is a much better thing for people to be complaining about than Europe being on fire. Again.
The European alternative to Youtube would be Dailymotion, a French company part-owned by Orange.

People are used to getting the occasional "This video is unavailable in your country" failure from Youtube; this might be less of a problem with a local operator.
Global Websites Hacked by Syrian Electronic Army
Awesome! However... could you change the instruction to "login as root" to also suggest:

echo core | sudo tee /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
Regardless of your feelings, various countries have thought it a good idea to set up antitrust law and competition laws for just such situations (see [1], [2]).

The logic is that with a large enough market share, a company can keep perpetually dominating the market purely based on status quo, to the detriment of consumers. Related is anti-competitive practices, e.g. where a company might strong-arm "partners" into dropping competitors, or otherwise coercing them into a highly unfair situation for the competitor. This is particularly applicable to companies which try to use their monopoly in one area to leverage a huge advantage in another area (e.g. the famous case of Microsoft using their OS advantage to gain advantage in the browser space - again, you may have different feelings about the issue).

So basically, what we're talking about is a situation where a company is effectively and practically un-challengable primarily due to its current market share, and many countries recognizing this as a problem, and having laws against this type of thing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
Here is a good blog post on the history of the TRS-80 that also discusses RadioShack's corporate culture. http://www.filfre.net/2011/06/the-trash-80-part-1/
But there is competition. Bing, DuckDuckGo, even Yahoo's still hanging in there.

There are no technological or commercial barriers to switching search engines: no-one is making people use Google search (except I guess maybe on Android devices or Chromebooks -- I don't have and have never used either, so I don't know).

People use it because either (a) it returns better results or (b) inertia.

If it's (a), using it is a rational choice (though one that could be trumped by privacy or ethical concerns).

If it's (b), eventually they'll be knocked off their perch by a better search engine.
In my opinion they are free to rank search results in whatever manner they wish.

I get what you are saying. The problem arises when something like Google is the front page of the Internet for so many people – a monopoly, essentially becoming similar to a public service.

Let's say they decide to rank their own services high, and push competitors down the list. That's a real problem, because it artificially raises the barrier to entry to other market participants.

I can very easily see this becoming a problem with Google as they move into more areas. And it's quite possible that breakup isn't the best solution, but we really should look at what the answers might be before it's too late.
Having a monopoly is not a good reason to break them up. Being a monopoly is not a crime in itself, because as a fact of nature, monopolies happen.

Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly that abused its power contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act, however they went through a lawsuit for this. Therefore as an European I'm disappointed by how the European Parliament is handling this, especially because some of their reasoning I'm reading about in this article are flawed. So where's the lawsuit in this case?

If the EU wants to ensure a level playing field for rivals, then maybe the EU should lower its taxes instead and do more to encourage startups. Because really, it's not the presence of Google in Europe that prevents rivalries from happening.
I have always thought of Rust development as akin to simulated annealing. They could spend years still searching for the proper combination of language features that will give them a global optimum, but in that time their window of relevance in will likely close. I'd rather see them have an impact on the industry with whatever local optimum they have now rather than quietly toil away searching for perfection as they spiral off into irrelevance.

The time for 1.0 is not now, IMO, but it is soon. At some point you just have to cross your fingers and launch, and learn to live with whatever mistakes you may have made. Experience has shown that the language is good enough in most respects, so even if they flub the last-minute things it won't be any worse than what any other brand-new language has had to live with.
The Philosophers' Mail Is Dead
It's local to France, at least.
Core Windows is, still, Windows NT, which was designed by Dave Cutler, who designed a number of OSes for DEC, which changed its name to Digital before it was bought by Compaq, which then merged with HP, which is its own can of worms.

Cutler designed RSX-11M, VMS, and VAXELN (a real-time OS for the VAX), which are or were all serious OSes. VMS in specific was a serious competitor to Unix; in the form of OpenVMS, running on Alpha and Itanium, it still exists.

So Windows NT is a foundation made by someone who knows OSes and OS design; in many markets (not all, not that I think my parenthetical will stop people from "correcting" me) it's the last OS family not based on a fundamentally Unix-like foundation. Having an Open Source version of that is interesting for historical reasons, if nothing else, and there's something to be said for hybrid vigor if some bright spark figures a way to port a few concepts to the rest of the OS world.
That's the thing. And the "open web" doesn't help at all. At least in mobile/PC there is an option to move between App Store, Play Store, Windows Store and Steam.
I always thought that anti-trust laws kicked in when the power was abused, so to speak.