skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet

Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. Cable operators themselves, for example, are not responsible for channels that display obscene material - the original transmitter is. That's under Title VI (cable communications) and Title III (radio and television).

Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.

As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.

They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence:

* Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required."

* Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility."

They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves (this could be interpreted to mean that, as a common carrier, ISPs are not allowed to read the contents of the packets that they transmit, only the headers -- like telephone numbers -- as needed to get the packet to its destination):

* People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."

You, as an internet user, are not protected from those actions unless your ISP is classified as a Title II common carrier.
I think many of us here call it a generally good move, we just wanted to see everything that was proposed before it was passed. Not that we could do anything about it.
According to a recent comment, the truth about Wheeler's lobbying activities is more complex than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657
Then you have to keep your database and those files in sync. There are tools that help with this, but it's no longer as simple as redeploying your code.
I think people sometimes underestimate the increased efficiency of simply switching from driving to public transit (if you're able to). Even if public transit takes slightly longer, you're winning.

40 minutes on public transit getting working done or 30 min driving, completely wasted time?
If the FCC had no funds to enforce regulations, what's to stop me from squatting prime spectrum property that Verizon spent so much money on?
>The Geocoding API may only be used in conjunction with a Google map; geocoding results without displaying them on a map is prohibited. For complete details on allowed usage, consult the Maps API Terms of Service License Restrictions.

https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/

I wanted to use this API for a simple app of mine too but in the end didn't because of this. Used Mapquest instead, which seems good too.
Tom Wheeler was a cable lobbyist when cable TV was unheard of -- 1976-1984. He fought for the underdogs there, whether or not you like where cable has gone. It's much the same with his record in cell lobbying, though he was there for a bit more of the maturing of the tech -- 1992-2004. He helped promote two nascent industries; how is this a bad thing?
Daylight Savings Time has some ill effects, true, but if you think that making life easier for programmers is a point that should convince the general public, you're sorely out of touch. For one, it's not all that difficult in the scheme of things. For another, programmers dealing with dates in the past will always have to consider it. Lastly, the general perception is that programmers get paid quite well enough and can suck it up and deal with this minor annoyance.
Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.
I know this is a little dark, but perhaps trust and desperation are related for humans.
If everyone saw tons of kids dropping dead from measles, they would feel a type of desperation to save their kid, and the amount of "trust" needed for them to get their kid vaccinated drops.
From what we've seen, money talks. That is, in every case we've seen, the highest offer got accepted. Seller agents are legally required to present every offer to the seller. It's kind of a prisoners dilemma thing -- as an industry it makes sense to block out agents who are disrupting the normal commission structure but as an individual agent who is actually getting paid a cut of the sale price, you just want your client to take the highest price.
"replacing Internet freedom with government control"

This is what is happening. The government is now regulating the Internet. Where is the emotion?

"then blamed Obama"

He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied and now we have Internet regulation (exactly what Obama wanted). Again, these are facts, not emotion.

I also think it's funny that you mention one line of potential emotion when the pro-regulation speeches were almost all emotion.
> So everyone hates Comcast enough to let them pass this with little fanfare

"Little fanfare"? Have you been living under a rock since the NPRM on this issue was published last year?
Sometimes when I run without Ad blockers...
You know, it's funny you mention this...

I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental.

Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.
> the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition.

That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another side that makes factual arguments. This simple heuristics is inaccessible to over half the population, who are collectivists.

Also notice, most of those collectivists do not believe they should oversee their representatives (corollary from the fact that they don't). They believe politicians are a "set and forget" thing that you input tax-money/votes and without oversight, out comes exactly what was asked for.

There's only one solution that I can see. People who want to be led and believe in godonearth, I mean, government, should be allowed to live their communist fantasy; but they should not be allowed to demand that others do so too - this much is fascism. As soon as that schism is feasible, you will see the progressive dwindling of brainless taxpayers and the fattening of the free side; but as long as everyone is forced to participate in this immorality, no change will come.
The final rule won't be materially different from what was in the NPRM: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393. And the whole proceeding has been documented publicly in Docket 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28.

The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the whole notice-and-comment dog and pony show, also makes it pretty easy to overturn regulations if the final regulation isn't adequately foreshadowed by the NPRM. And this will be heavily litigated, so you can bet the FCC is trying to do this by-the-book. One might make the argument that there should be public comment on the final text, but that would be intractable. It's taken 9 months just to do one round of notice and comment.
I don't even care about new hardware or products. I just want it to all be incredibly stable and well-supported.
Haven't they? Since IE7, every new version is more and more compliant. IE11 gives a good experience and seems easy to work with (at least with the web dev I do). It just seems that they got sick of the baby steps approach and needed to start from scratch. They figured out yet another way to handle legacy code and want a new engine, and by new I mean, a Trident-based engine without some/most of the fluff IE has for legacy sites. Especially the active-x fluff that has no place in non-enterprise browsers.

I really don't see this as some big move. They've been doing this stuff for years. I think the consumer oriented Spartan browser is a clever move, but MS was getting there anyway. Seems like they're being clever and using Spartan and web-standards as a way to sell Win10. We're not getting these toys on 7 or 8. Want the new fancy browser? Get Win10.
After reading from the other sources (this one is a really crappy summary)...

How is this surprising? Video is extremely easy to consume, expensive to deliver, store, and process... and, and! the majority of their content lacks any substantial value.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment.

Employee-owned cooperatives aren't communally owned, they're employee-owned (as the name indicates).

The resources, in this case, are the employees themselves. So you're claiming that employees will exploit themselves more than an employer would?
Actually, if you watch any of the various hearings and what-not that he's been in, talking about his plans (and previous attempts) to preserve net neutrality, I think it was pretty clear he was on the right track all along. Surprising, I know, given his background, but still.
it's called a "stand up" desk! ;)

Sent from my Stand Up Desk.
> Yes and no - our lives would be much easier if we could just assume that every user runs a WebKit fork.

Just as our life "was easier" when we could just assumer every user ran MSIE.

It was easier for a short while, then the rot set in. I'm not interested in having Google control the web in the same way, that's a road we've taken, we know where it leads and it's a terrible place.
Exactly. If you look at the kids of wealthy people that don't have to ever worry about money, they don't start their own businesses.
I hope this is the new Macbook Pro
Two companies making a deal between each other: what an unusual concept! We need to fix it with 700 pages of gov't regulations!

Are you ready for decency (and political) standards?
They can't. They said in a court of law that IE can't be separated from Windows.
Unlocking your door might soon be as easy as 'open sesame'
Opera, Chrome and Chromium are based off the same engine which is a fork of WebKit. If anything competition has gone down the last couple of years with WebKit based browsers becoming the standard despite its bugs & non-standard behavior. It reminds me of IE6 in its heyday.
It's true that ads use bandwidth and battery but ad-blockers and web standards implementations built into browsers are not "free" either.

It takes CPU to find and strip out ads, and bandwidth to contact filtering servers or whatever else guides the behavior of blockers (and generally the more blocking you opt in to, the more of this there is). I have seen an astounding drop in Chrome performance when using HTML5 YouTube videos on my laptop, where attempts to scroll and click take seconds to even respond and I haven't yet figured out why.

I would still expect the cost to be less overall without Flash but it would be interesting to measure everything that is really going on and figure out if ads are really the worst offenders.
Hahaha. Microsoft and Internet are fundamentally incompatible. All you need to do is go to their homepage to see they don't get the Internet. Never have, never will.
Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US.

Reading comment threads, a person new to the issue might get the impression as if the US government just nationalized comcast. I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.
For a commoner like me, FB only notify 10% of my friends. Is that the same thing for celebrities? It doesn't seem so.

I just take a sample using Justin Bieber's post that are both shared on FB and Twitter. On FB it has 385k likes, and Twitter only has 63k likes to the same content. The ratio is similar to MAU of the two platforms. FB is able to get more audience for him.
From your lips to god's ears. But, I don't think "stability and support" are gonna make the agenda for March 9.
Ask HN: What are the traits of a good tech interviewer?
I'm giving my second technical interview next week, and I'm wondering what makes for a good interviewer.

The first time I gave one, I tried a version of pair programming in an attempt to break the monotony of similar interviews and to get a feel for what their work sample might look like. Unfortunately, the candidate ended up stumbling through the interview, even on what I thought were very simple parts, and I didn't feel comfortable saying whether it was an issue on their end, an issue of development environment and tools, or interview failings on my part.

So for the upcoming one, I'm thinking of going with a more traditional hourlong <strikeout>waterboarding</strikeout> whiteboarding approach. But I'm still left with a question of how to approach it, effectively and compassionately. Structure-wise, I'm thinking of splitting it 10-15 minutes for introduction and warmup question, around 30 minutes for a more complicated question, and using the remaining time to talk him through any issues he had while coding and give him a chance to ask me some questions. IME this is the standard approach--what do you think of it?

Two things I currently think are valuable (though I'm eager to get feedback on):

1) Taking notes and pictures--I should be able to go back and objectively reflect on his skill level.

2) Balancing between not stepping on the interviewers toes, and being an effective spotter when there's a blocker that wasting time on something that won't give me any more actionable information.

Beyond that, though, what things should I do to make sure the interview acts as a solid predictor of future performance? And as the interviewee, what makes you walk out of the interview room feeling like the interviewer respected you as a human being and gave you the chance to perform at a representative level?

Also, is it weird to ask for feedback from them on how they think you conducted the interview?
If you're in NYC, there will be a talk tonight on Building & Deploying Applications to Apache Mesos at the Digital Ocean meetup: http://eventhunt.io/node/5984.
a.) there are no gifts involved in the stories you posted

b.) it seems like the bbc witnessed the gift-giving
Afinul PLANTA MEDICINALA
> Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?

If the past experience on similar FCC actions (including, e.g., the last Open Internet Report and Order) is a good guide, they'll be published in the next several days, and the biggest delay in getting them published will be the opposing commissioners getting finished writing up their dissenting views, which will be published alongside what is adopted.
I love how they reason it away in the article:

"Considered separately, the active use app, clock, and fitness numbers sound very low, but the reality is that people will passively wear the Apple Watch for most of the day, actively interacting with it only for short periods of time."

Essentially they're saying, "People will buy an expensive watch that does all this extra fancy stuff, but really they won't bother much with the extra fancy stuff - because who actually wants to fiddle around with something on their wrist for any protracted length of time?"

I think Apple has enough die-hard fans, who will buy almost anything they make, for it to be hard for them to do something that will register as a genuine complete flop... but I think the Apple Watch really could struggle to get much traction amongst the masses, and I don't just mean the expensive gold model.
Testing Apple Watch Applications My Way
Under what principle would you allow silencing, removing the ability of these people to speak, that includes them but not your favored tiny or not so tiny groups?
You do know that television is also regulated like a utility, right? How did innovation in that sector turn out when the FCC took control?
Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested?

By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be.

Again, I think most people agree this is the right move, but we talk about how it's important for the internet to be open and neutral but I didn't hear much screaming and yelling to see everything before it passed.

So no, I haven't been living under a rock. I guess I just expected more out of the community.
Seems like this is the easiest way to fix battery issues. Google is in an ugly place not only with its relationship with advertisers but with its own OEMs, who modify Android with usually battery-killing results.

All that extra surface area means lots more battery. Its a classic 'throw hardware at the problem' approach and, unfortunately, that just seems where Android is going. As Lollipop has showed, Volta and ART are not battery savers. If anything, people are reporting worse battery life than under KitKat.

I'm not going to go as far as saying Android is bloaty and out of control; I just don't think you can have the level of QA and control you need for an ultra-efficient mobile OS when you're dependent on so many other chefs to deliver your product and monetization for you (OEM hardware and software, ad monetization, user tracking to better ad delivery, etc).
You're saying you mix it? Do you drink it cold, or hot? I've never considered that.

I agree on mornings. It fills that infinite vacuum of hunger I get some mornings pretty well.
I wonder, why the gender gap? Could it be associated in some way with these products' resemblance to existing products with a strong marketing differential between genders?

Men might think of protein shakes: you know, whey protein GMC-type stuff, that kind of thing. Women, on the other hand, might think of diet shakes: Slim-Fast and the like.

These might both have a broadly "body improvement" type outlook, but one of these associations is perhaps more positive-thinking than the other.

Or maybe not. Just a thought.
SMSmart Simulates Useful Apps Using SMS When You Have No Data
The original article does not talk about ad blockers causing YouTube to lose out on revenue. Looks like the GTN article is making this up!
> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material.

That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license.

Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we anti-FCC complain about is the problem of not being able to get a license in the first place. You and others like you are always addressing this red herring non-issue of indecency and obscenity. That can only happen if you get a broadcast license. The problem with the FCC is that they are a gatekeeper for getting a broadcast license and it is at that point, when they are deciding whether to give the license that they exert the most dangerous kind of censorship. Not after you have the license.
He was a lobbyist for the cable industry from 1976 to 1984. I don't totally know what the industry was like back then, but from what I understand it's completely different then what we see today. Back then it was a large number of smaller providers that could easily be pushed around by larger networks. There was no massive comcast, timewarner or what have you.

I haven't read up on his time at the CTIA, but that was 1992 to 2004. Again during a time of a lot of smaller companies in the cellular industry. Remember when roaming was down right expensive or didn't even work? I think that was changed while he was part of CTIA. The wireless industry grew dramatically in that time.

What is the bad thing about him being a lobbyist for these groups? He's someone that has been part of the communication infrastructure at the political end since 1976. This means he probably has a very good idea of how his actions will impact companies. This seems like it may be a good thing?
What kind of consumers are you thinking of? Most 'regular consumers' are probably better off with a tablet than with a desktop PC.
yes, you're right, especially in America, corporate jobs are standardized, and it's more common for the employer to have a standard set salary offered.

I was just describing the point of view common in some other countries, in which case the employee is expected to come up with their requirement and state it. Neither one is correct or incorrect. (And both have real-world analogies - for example, auctions, which can also be an analogy for the job market in that there's only 1 of specifically you, where bidders have to offer an amount rather than the seller saying how much something costs.)
The Verizon/Level3 Netflix performance issue is also the consequence of a peering dispute between Level3 and Verizon, by admission of both Verizon and Level3 - not a consequence of Verizon specifically throttling Netflix traffic.

It's very important that the distinction be made between saturated interlinks and throttling of specific origins; many people seem to think that it's the latter that's been done here, when the issue is consistently interlink capacity disputes between last-mile ISPs and T1 providers.

To put it another way, unless these new rules require that ISPs hook up as much interlink as their T1 peers ask for, these rules won't fix shitty Netflix performance on last-mile networks who are engaged in peering disputes with Netflix's transit providers.
Google buys .app for over $25M
I think the reason why the future isn't spelt out is because they don't know (or haven't decided). The last 12 months have been massive steps for Microsoft (open source, multi platform). I would expect they would wait and see how their customers & community react.

Also Azure is a massive component to all of this (they make money of Azure, they don't make a massive amount of cash from someone using .Net).

Microsoft have a long history of keeping old versions alive (unlike say Apple). Eg Internet Explorer, Windows XP, Office, Win Forms vs MVC

I'm sure .Net core will take over one day. In the same way .Net 4.5 overtook .Net 2 / 1.1 etc.