skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How are any of those human rights? If you are in the woods without water, someone is obliged to bring you some? If you are walking around on a winters eve and are cold, someone must give you a blanket?

You can claim that the state will provide you things if you are without them, but that is more an offer on their part (albeit using coerced tax dollars) than violence upon others to force them to work for you without compensation, as the superposter implies.

He means you cannot be guaranteed something that means someone else is compelled to provide it. The state as a whole could be compelled to give you something by its own laws, but they can't force an individual by mandate to do work, outside the already outlined exception to slavery.
Sounds like you would not consider it unethical to exploit a flaw in a website that allowed you to order products without paying. After all, the website is public, and you weren't asked not to exploit the flaw...
TFA is about the fact that Google no longer does trust CNNIC. And Mozilla no longer does, for the same reason.
I checked; I remembered the wrong analogy: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pick-and-shovel-play.asp

I am talking of a pick and shovel scheme. I should be ashamed, but I am not :) It is still the rigt idea and something already heard of.
It's inconceivable that nobody was fired for this. And that nobody will call this what it was -- a hoax of monumental proportions, perpetrated by the accuser and a credulous magazine that was more interested in promoting a social cause than in doing real journalism.

I suspect that if we dig deeper we will find more stories like this in the past from Rolling Stone. As the Wall Street Journal tech columnist put it, "There's irony in a publication assailing universities for systemic failure claiming its own failure is an unrepresentative one-off."
When I come to a website, it's usually because I want some particular piece of information (like movie times or ticket prices) or to have some particular interaction (to find new, interesting stories or to play a game). Good design (and good designers) keep that goal in mind, and support it by keeping distracting elements (possibly including weird, mis-styled scrollbars!) to a minimum, allowing me to focus.

Less-good designers just aim for making something more-or-less cohesive, and bad designers rarely aim higher than "something cool" whether or not it supports my goal. Mediocre and bad design hinders me from achieving my goal by hiding or obscuring basic tools of interaction like buttons or scroll-bars. Even good design can be a problem, if my goals do not align with what the designer had in mind (for example, the designer wants to make a good impression for first-time customers, but I'm trying to file a customer-support ticket).

I appreciate that many of the people commenting on that ticket are just trying to make the world a more pleasant place, but some times I wish browsers had a button that would blast away all the custom styling of a page and just display the content in a standardised fashion (like the Reader mode many browsers have, but not just limited to long-form articles).
There's something I rarely see discussed: plenty of ads out there range from distasteful to plain disgusting. Sometimes I wonder if people realize what's being show on their websites.
Tangentially related, I was performing an analysis of the billions of links available in Common Crawl[1] and ran across an interesting error: there was one link where the port number was 18779690999[2].

The library I was using converted the port text into a 32 bit integer but the library didn't account for the possibility that someone supplied a port well over the 32 bit int limits. I was curious how many tools that use URLs would suffer similar fates and whether there might be any interesting security vulnerabilities.

Just goes to show, no matter how much crazy you've seen, there's likely crazier things hidden from you across the Internet ;)

[1]: http://commoncrawl.org/
[2]: https://twitter.com/Smerity/status/576339945041707008
healthy.
I think the best term is "individual right," and the term "human right" should be abandoned.

The original proponents of rights treated them as "individual rights." Later, people who wanted to violate "individual rights" made up the "human rights" idea as a contrast to "individual rights."

But for the sake of this conversation, I just went with "human right," accepting it as valid and not getting into all the mess I just talked about.

By the way, a Constitutional right, ideally, is just an individual right that has been written specifically into the Constitution.
The part I've always found weird about this story, and the meta-reporting about it, is that the article is long. There's the story about Jackie, which is a hook to get you reading and appropriately horrified (and at least in my circle of acquaintances, often the spot where they stop reading because they can't any more...). But the rest of the story is about a university that can't deal with so many problems of a similar nature, and that makes up the bulk of the article. Jackie or no Jackie, is the article accurate that, for instance, the university is nicknamed "UVrApe"? And where did that come from?

It feels to me like, if Rolling Stone had merely decided not to go for the shocking opening story, and decided to call it something other than "A", singular, "Rape on Campus," they'd have had an excellent, well-fact-checked article about many rapes on campus. Which is a far more important problem for the university, the alumni, the local police, and the wider community to worry about than the details of Jackie's story. And the author acknowledges that: "Maybe the discussion should not have been so much about how to accommodate her but should have been about whether she would be in this story at all." In other words, there would have been a story either way.

Am I the only one who reads it this way, and thinks there still is a story even as the article was written? CJR calls Jackie's story "the main narrative in 'A Rape on Campus'", but it doesn't feel like the main narrative at all. If you read a news story about a kid with some horrible childhood disease, and the third paragraph opens "Billy is not alone. Thousands of children across the US have been diagnosed with...," is Billy's story the main narrative? If Billy turned out to be misdiagnosed, does that affect the story?
Even if you're the absolutely best of the world, you are still nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A cute trick that I do: everytime I asked myself that question (which happened to be a lot), I tried to name the top 30 billionaires living in the world, the Nobel winners in the last 20 years, or the 2nd richest guy in Rocketfeller time. How about kings around the world a hundred years ago? I can't.

That's not to put down the greatness of those people. They're far better human than I could ever hope to be. But I think part of the existential crisis about being average is that we realized we're easily forgotten, and it helps to realize that even the great people will be forgotten too.
I aim to not have forgotten to buy my then wife a present for her 54th birthday.
The ironic thing is that many of the same people who complain about ads also complain about paywalls.
If this does indeed crash Chrome, it's not very nice to have the link as the URL of an HN article, where people can easily click it by accident.
That is the state guaranteeing access to water. It isn't picking a guy out of the crowd, pointing a gun at his head, and telling him to work the well and give everyone else water. States usually reimburse private utility companies, or run them themselves.

The superposter means, I think, that you cannot have a right that deprives someone else of their freedom. If nobody wanted to work at the water treatment plant, the government is hard pressed to compel anyone to work there within any sane persons logic. They would have to offer higher pay until someone did the job, but they couldn't point a gun at someone and make them do it. Unless they were a prisoner, or maybe a soldier.
Test Chrome Crash
Yahoo, Microsoft extend search partnership talks for 30 days
The host files part was pretty cool. I might not add all the ad/tracking sites, but I definitely added the shock/malware because I know for a fact I won't ever want or need to visit those.
> the penalty falls unfairly on content producers

Not really. No-one is obligated to produce content; if a business model doesn't work, then you probably shouldn't do it.

So what business model should content producers use, if they can't use the "advertising can fund anything" hack? That's a broader conversation, and I think it's the right conversation for our society to have. Advertising is an expensive tax on our economy (and on human well-being) that doesn't need to exist.
There is a legitimate place for marketing. If I cure cancer in my garage but never tell anybody, what I've done can't become valuable.
I aim to be a writer and a triathlete.
No. Perfect advertising will convince you to buy the advertiser's product, regardless of what that is. This is the mindset described in the original article.

You're describing perfect advertising for you.

Even if the ads were limited to a topic you deemed relevant, the advertisers would still essentially lie (or elide truths). E.g., they'd show you good deals on hotels in Vietnam without bothering to mention that people are regularly knifed in those hotels, or that they have bedbugs, etc., etc.

Perfect advertising for the informed consumer would be a list of objective specs that can be compared between similar classes of products, allowing the consumer to choose the best product within their budget, needs, etc. If you're a company that produces an inferior product, how would you advertise it in that scenario? Reduce the selling price, or lie, lie, lie?
>In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today.

One way I'm trying to overcome that is to actually pay for content. I've started in a small way by supporting people who producing the content I care about at Patreon.
Where do you aim to be 30 years from now is an interesting question because our industry seems pretty committed to the belief that there is no place for people 30 years older than us.
> In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today.

People's reluctance to pay and their aversion to advertising is, I think, understandable and reasonable.

It is just a quirk of the time period that we find ourselves in that there is any "moral" dilemma attached to this situation.

The reason people perceive it as a moral situation is because we've established a society in which one must extract money out of others in order to survive.

Our welfare system is not yet currently capable of providing people with the basic necessities: food, shelter, clothing, clean water, healthcare, education, and equal access to opportunities.

If it were, you would find that the cost of content really would approach $0. If, for example, artists did not have to worry about any of the previously mentioned necessities (if it was just given to them), then most of them would probably be perfectly happy to continue to produce content for free and without advertising.

I know, as a software developer and entrepreneur, that I personally would be happy to not charge anything for any software that I create (or charge very little), if these basics were taken care of.

As more people continue to lose their jobs to robots and automation, we will (if we can avoid destroying ourselves), move in that direction.
"Downvoters: I'd appreciate if you would comment as well, since I can't imagine why you would downvote me for reminding someone of our community guidelines."

Do not discuss your own downvotes. Do not interrupt the actual discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system. Do not address the "downvoters".
I challenged myself to build 10 apps in 5 months
That would put me at 55. I intend on not having to worry about money by that age. I will likely have a few rental properties. Ideally, living somewhere warm where I can exercise for free (eg. swimming in an ocean or a public workout area). Enough income generated from investments to take a yearly vacation. If programming still exists, I would still do that as a hobby. Writing trading algorithms for fun, gambling with slightly better odds. Teaching is also appealing to me, not necessarily in academia, but maybe if I get good at a martial art over the next 30 years.

In short, doing whatever the hell I want.
I disagree that the penalty falls unfairly on content producers. The content producers choose their business model. If technology makes that model untenable then the content producers must change their model.
Space! Assuming we solve the problems of death and aging (I'll be getting pretty old by then...probably still alive and in pretty good shape, if my rate of aging thus far is any indicator), I'd like to be colonizing another planet. But, 30 years might be optimistic for that. I can dream big, anyway.
> ($20/mo for 1MB of space!)

A friend of mine did computing, but took one unit of fine art... because students got 5MB storage, except for fine art students, who got 10MB... and zMud was 6MB...
Hi, I do not have a CS/engineering degree. I have a BS in Statistics from a top 20 University, and masters in e-commerce... does that help?

What kind of companies should I target though? I'd love to work in a start up but would they bother with helping potential employees with visas? Should I target bigger companies? Or do they have too many applicants to even look at mine?
Nice strawman.

Nowhere did I imply that. Everything I mentioned was webpage reading/viewing content that the publishers themselves announced across the world, hoping to get readers - who in turn would view their ads.
That is not actually all that true in JS, or generally any languages where without static types or classes that aren't duck-typed objects themselves.

Its true in C++/Java/C#, but less so in JS, Ruby, etc. If you can change what a dependency refers to without using injection, as you generally can in the fact namuc languages, injection is less useful.
Not really. The author's main idea was that even people who were already using word processors and spreadsheets would by and large not be interested in using them anywhere but at their office and at home, and that technical or price improvements to laptops would not change this. He returns to that thesis immediately after the excerpt you quoted. He really was just far wrong in this.
>It would certainly hurt the content creator more.

I think you could make the argument that you affect the content creator to a higher degree (larger percent of income) but I suspect you affect the ad company to a higher dollar amount. Nonetheless it's a negative for both.
Extensive discussion a month ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9162014
based in San Francisco

Nope. SF is not the center of the universe.
Founding a religion to guide mankind and AI through the post-human future
I'm with Elon Musk on this one "I'd like to die on Mars, just not on impact".
I don't understand why nobody's pressing charges against Jackie. Seems to be a clear defamation case.
you realize all the things you mentioned are only reimplemented in code due to the lack of native scrollbar styling, right?
I wonder how Britain differs from the US to make much lower real estate transaction fees possible there.
If people would just use Mbits/sec, MBytes/sec, then the only confusion that would be left is whether they actually meant 10^6 or 2^20 when they say Mega.
The port number is supposed to be a 16-bit number though. So, anything above 65535 is malformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_%28computer_networking%29
I work on SSD firmware. There is lots of restrictions and algorithms involved with using NAND and presenting a reliable storage to the end user. And many of these algorithms are tuned to the specific NAND. The FTL basically hides the ugly details.
You claim that you were never presented with an agreement that the content is provided in return for you viewing the ads, and yet you're very clearly aware that's the deal being offered, as you state here.
That people don't pay for content online is partly a social, historical, and technological problem. Crowdfunding is slowly but increasingly becoming viable, as it enters the social awareness/expectation for content creation.

Other options include government (known for relatively high-quality content in many parts of the world: for news, science, education, art, and other works that are widely considered to be a part of the common good).

But I'd like to see more of a rise in crowd-sourced "content pools" that, for example, would commission many works/creators in an ensemble centralized around broad topics (e.g. "participate in commissioning a cabal of high-quality tech blogs" if that's your fancy).
That'll put me at 84. I'll be retired.

I'm hoping to get another 20 years or so out of my programming career, though. I think I can do it, though I'm pretty unsure on my strategy for working for a traditional company in my 60s and might have to do consulting or some similar kind of piece-work.
Plug here but if you're looking for web React apps try Reapp[0]. You could fairly easily port between the two. We're using a lot of the same tech: flexbox layouts, CSS in JavaScript (using the same syntax, just simpler).

In our next releases we'll be moving towards replicating many of the features of Native and API as well.

[0] http://reapp.io/
On Linux, you are looking for `redshift'.
World dictator.
I think it has to do with my approach to the web, and my preferences for web design. I like minimalism, generally speaking, and I like consistency. I think Google UIs are fine. But, I don't use Chrome, so I don't know what the difference is. Maybe it would be amazing with custom-styled scrollbars. But, I'm content with them looking like my native OS scrollbars (I use Linux/Gnome 3, so they are grey, flat, and slim; quite unobtrusive on any page, whether light or dark).

I also tend to find most dark web designs (which is what a lot of these comments are talking about) just plain ugly. So, that's another factor. I've never made a dark website or web UI.

All of this is opinion, of course. My opinion should probably matter less than someone that really cares a lot about it.

I think it's silly because I think the way so many people approach web design is silly. Standardized UI components are not a bad thing. They are a very good thing. I like it when web pages look like they belong on my computer screen.
His point is valid. If you rely on something that causes people harm that must be factored in when they seek to minimize their risk.

I don't use ad blockers because I generally support your position. I do block flash because it is so annoying and especially noisy ads and downloading video I didn't ask for on my limited bandwidth.

It seems to me it isn't 100% either way. There is an issue of being a free-riding meanie when you block ads those providing content rely on for income. There is also an issue of sites being overly obnoxious in their serving of ads. The users right to control their computer makes sense.

The risk of privacy violations and serving malware are real and impact the ability to claim blocking ads is fair.

Those that believe in blocking ads mainly don't believe it is ok for some ISP or others to replace website ads with their own ads. This is normally based on the idea they don't have the right to change web content clients request and this argument largely relies on the same idea those that say ad blockers are wrong rely on. It is true there is space between these arguments to slip in the claim that while others don't have the right to eliminate the web content and replace it with their own the end user does. This is a reasonable argument, but it is not, IMO, without a reasonable counter-argument (that those providing the web content are doing so with the ads as part of their offer).

I don't think ad blockers are immoral or unethical but I do think they are not 100% pure either. They are a reasonable thing to resort to given an understanding of the whole situation. But they do, it seems to me, take away an earned benefit from those providing content.
Spotify pays the labels who pay the artists. So shouldn't the artists work on negotiating better agreements with labels? That might compel labels to negotiate a better agreement with Spotify assuming that is possible. If any party overplays its card, it could all come tumbling down:

- if artists demand too much payment from labels, labels won't sign them

- if labels demand too much from spotify, spotify won't sign them

- if spotify doesn't sign enough labels or pays too much to them, it will die either due to not enough music or not enough revenue to find growth.
The Dawn of the Age of the Software ‘Infrapreneur’
I'll be in my early 70s. "Still in good shape" sounds great. Maybe "inhabiting a robot duplicate with my brain regularly backed up".

Also "a famous enough artist to crowdsource a decent living with my art". Which I think is a threshold I may be thoroughly over in about a year. In 30 years, barring accidents, I'll have finished the next two graphic novels I have planned for the next 6 or so years, done whatever the hell the next three multi-year projects are, and taken some cool vacations.
While I've had no problems with React's coupling of components controller and view in one location, doesn't this suggest that it should be separated? One view for web, one for RN using the same state and controller?
My point is that your argument is ludicrous. "What, these people that have been promoting their stuff everywhere have advertising on their site?". It's not like it's unexpected. The idea that each website would have to get your consent to show you ads is outright silly.

I don't have a problem with people using adblockers (I use NoScript myself, which has a similar effect), but let's not pretend that it's some kind of ethical action you're taking; that because a website hasn't entered into a formal contract to show you ads, that it's ethically fair that you block them.

And while you didn't imply the situation I described, that situation is using the same arguments you are using - "it's public" and "I wasn't asked not to".
Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
This seems something like the (constantly failing) climate prediction models. There are the lot of interrelated factors, many of which are not well understood and any number of possible unforeseen events arising.
This is not necessarily ironic. For example, most of the content producers that I fund are the ones which make their media available as open to the public (e.g. wikipedia, democracynow.org, tvo.org). This is a model that I encourage.
For those who are wondering, the source of this quote is Banksy, the famous graffiti artist.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/461383-people-are-taking-th...
>... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In return for consuming this content, you agree that you will look at the ads being shown here".

Isn't it common knowledge that many sites rely on ads for their revenue? Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum wage because customers are expected to tip. Yet, it's generally considered rude to not tip even though it's even easier than installing an ad blocker and restaurants won't refuse you service, whereas some websites try to block ad blockers.

Edit: Added last sentence.