engendered

My "approach" is to call out a bullshit, partisan, zero content article. If you don't like it, well bully for you. And FWIW, I succeeded in short circuiting some bullshit, taking many well worth it downvotes in the process (from imbeciles who are growing in ranks), angry idiots desperate that they can't ply their partisan bickery.

C-51 gives law enforcement and intelligence some slightly more modern tools. For instance, they can demand that "terroristic" material is removed from the internet (where jurisdiction applies), which is a right that they already have for child pornography and hate material, with the agreement of a judge and the minister of justice. If they become aware of a subject, they can ask that the subject's ISPs capture data pending a warrant (versus waiting for the process of the warrant and perhaps miss things).

And so on. Remarkably few who comment on C-51 have any idea what it entails, or the scope changes it offers. But they ply, ironically, exactly the sort of rhetoric of fear that the right wing plies about terrorism -- somehow having an advance ability to request data capture == All lefties are going to be locked up.

What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt that he's a member of the opposition? Do you doubt that all of his claims are vague to the point of meaninglessness?

It is throwing some fetid meat on the table and saying "make a meal". There is zero possibility of it leading to valid conversation. It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense.

A critique by a legal expert would be interesting. A standard "I'm the opposition and I oppose this" is just banal partisan rhetoric. It is worthless, beyond people going "rah rah! Down with Stephen Harper".

As to the period of debate, firstly almost no one commenting on C-51 actually even knows what it entails, but the thing is that it's a surprisingly light piece of legislation. While this ridiculously claims that it's an "omnibus" bill, it's actually a very light piece of legislation. The NDP wants to debate this to essentially grandstand. And that's fine -- that's what they're there to do -- but this isn't debate in any manner of "get to the bottom of it and we'll finalize the perfect copy".

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...

This Globe and Mail article conflates an RCMP position statement on emergent threats (and anti-oil groups are a legitimate law and security threat, some of which are given substantial foreign funding, including hilariously by the Saudi government) with CSIS and then somehow tries to draw it into C-51.

CSIS doesn't care if you protest oil. If you plan on sabotaging oil pipelines, though, yes, law enforcement does and should care.

This is a political submission, and there is astonishingly little chance it will yield any commentary of merit. Instead there will be some railing about Harper, trite claims about the terrorists winning, and various bits of partisan dogma.

Yet the GS5 shows dramatically better results. A number of handsets show dramatically better results. That you read someone's anecdote about their Nexus 5 is irrelevant.

Sorry, but I find your posts hilarious, and again I have to say that they're astroturfing. "I'm not going to go as far" -- sure.

Seriously, are people not aware that HN has been targeted?

Isn't this the line with each and every release of IE? Why is this different? Each prior version of IE was proclaimed some revolution of some sort.

EDIT: Downvotes? Really? I see the front page is starting to get curiously Microsoft heavy again.

We've heard the "this time it's different" argument with IE7, IE8, IE9, IE10, and now IE11. Each time some shill would declare "finally! This changes everything! Microsoft has the resources and know-how to beat everyone" And the world moved on.

Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon.

99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd.

much in the same way as calling a tank "a car"

Hardly, and that analogy is absurd. More like if a bomb went off in a cafe you would be declaring that "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...."

It's just noise. Noisy bullshit that is ruining HN.

This is classic HN autism, and this "hurr durrr drone" bullshit appears in each and every thread that mentions "drones", even if every single participant knows what they're talking about, without specifically declaring that it's an XYZ.

Don't be the problem. Don't be the noise. Don't be the stupidity.

Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense that, while becoming common, is really that someone wants to argue, in utter futility, about the definition of a word. For years HN was caught up naval gazing about the difference between hacker and cracker. Now it is this drone garbage.

https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/05/04/pinning.html

However then you get to the same market issue that allowed the whole Superfish and related debacles -- Enterprises require the ability to self-CA everyone else given that they demand the right to MITM.

Yeah, the strawman that Microsoft can do no right is pretty easy to knock down, but has absolutely nothing to do with the context of this.

Again, a post on the second page (a ridiculous, extremely low quality post that had to be flagged off the front page) saw my benign comment get -11 within 60 seconds. I've never seen that before, much less for a completely moderate comment. I've seen this extremely pro-Microsoft moderation hit other threads hard, and it seems pretty obvious that it isn't by accident.

Because Lenova is the one who took your hundreds to thousand+ dollars and in return compromised your experience (for what has to be pennies). And in this case it caused a serious security compromise?

"EVERY PC manufacturer bundles adware"

Crapware/bloatware and adware are very different things. Dell installs some bloatware crap that I can uninstall (and even that is, truly, unacceptable. Again, they can't make more than a dollar or two on that junk, yet they compromise the user experience), but they don't MITM my secure communications, or compromise my security.

This has nothing to do with Lenova being a Chinese company. Further, no one expects anything out of Superfish (some slimy adware company), but they do expect standards from Lenova.

This post and a large percentage of the comments, and the moderation, is essentially a "shit on Google" post, somehow trying to make Microsoft look better in some relative sense. It is terrible fanboy noise.

And the gent I responded to just picked up someone else's grievances. I would wager good money they have no Android device "ruined" by Lollipop. They just want to legitimize their walls of anti-Google screeds.

EDIT: I've really riled up some astorturfers. Any post I make is almost immediately attacked.

Given how profound you seem to think most everything of Google sucks (seen in a multitude of posts of yours throughout this thread), I'm curious what device you have that Lollipop "killed"? I'm going to call bullshit

HN has seen a HUGE influx of Microsoft shills, and it's getting disconcerting.

And an almost immediate karma punishing (-11 in less than a minute), despite this story sitting on the second page. Does Microsoft give an extra bonus if you sign up for HN? The astroturfing PR efforts have gotten quite a bit more pronounced. It feels like the glorious Slashdot days of old.

Is this kind of a glass half empty thing? The dramatically more popular Galaxy S5 saw a significantly improved battery life. If we just include those data points, and average across users of Android, it was a huge net win for users.

This article is clickbait garbage (again a "contributor"), and it allows people to ply their grievances as if they are canonical.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/13/facebook-android-faster/

After Facebook went native, LinkedIn did some "why we went with HTML5" thing...and then not long after they went native.

You mentioned in another comment that you need to see a list that has troubles on your Nexus 4. I find it difficult to believe you use the web much on the device with such a claim -- I regularly use a Nexus 4, 5, 7 (2013), and I regularly encounter horrendous websites where the site is so grotesquely overloaded that scroll requests are acted on literally a second+ later.

I love the web. I endlessly evangelize the web. But it has serious, profound problems that its biggest champions had to completely work around or avoid altogether.

Flipboard spent an enormous amount of effort making a rendering to canvas platform, humorously to allow an "open" option aside from their app (which makes the complaint about it in the submission rather perplexing). I suspect they did a lot of analysis. And the DOM is notoriously slow, one of the reasons being that it is now a catch all/everything and the sink platform that has an enormous number of modifiers -- the flexibility that we hail is also what leads to engine slowdown. We need a new, simpler layout standard that simplifies all of the various sidepaths and diversions that got built into the standard.

Of course, and you addressed this, this doesn't mean that HTTP/1.1 disappears. Heck, my web properties still see HTTP/1.0 requests, almost a decade after HTTP/1.1. But that is a very small minority.

This goes both ways though, doesn't it? Much of the arguing about HTTP/2 tended to be Johnny Come Latelies who, if we're being honest, seemed to just want to toss some refuse in the gears. Microsoft, in particular, watched as Google proposed SPDY, and then iterated and shared their findings, and then right as consensus (or as close to consensus as possible) starts to be reached, Microsoft tries to upset the cart. In that case wouldn't Microsoft, and the naysaysers, be the ones trying to force their preferences? The delay of HTTP/2, or basic improvements to these technologies, not only causes hassles for developers (image sprites, resource concatenation, many domains, and on and on), it marginalizes the web.

It is going to be pretty rare when any initiative sees complete unanimous agreement, especially given that many of the parties have ulterior motives and agendas that aren't always clear.

You are inventing numbers from fantasy, and demanding retorts. What an astonishing bore, your inconsistent, incoherent point not in the least viable. Find a hobby.

To your final paragraph -- you essentially made up numbers and then demand that I refute them. 10. 14. 1.3e12. Refute that.

The single and only reason this side discussion even happened is that I noted that some power companies will refuse to allow grid feed-in if you install battery packs, for the reason I noted.

Peak shaving is if you powered your own home off of your battery pack during peak times. The whole issue is that gamers -- who are essentially ruining "the commons" and pissing in the drinking well -- are instead abusing a system.

Again, no home battery pack is helping the power company. The rates are hugely subsidized to encourage green energy. The people who abuse it simply ruin it for everyone else.

There are some niche industries, like finance, where there are legacy spreadsheets (where, scarily, much of the business is run. Wall Street runs on Excel spreadsheets) that don't run, and with users who have a very unique knowledge and can't easily accommodate the change, but that is a small minority.

For new and growing companies that just need this sort of functionality, these apps are fantastic.

I can't find any references for your stated claim about Connecticut, however it seems deeply illogical given that a generator (which surely aren't banned), solar panels, wind, etc, all have the potential of feeding energy back to the grid in an outage. Which is why there are regulations and home inspections and all of that, to ensure that the appropriate safeties and switches are in place. Simply banning one of many possible mechanisms of generating power would be very short sighted.

Many regions that offer feed-in time-of-day tariffs are rightly trying to figure out how to accommodate battery systems, where some users are trying to game the system by charging a big battery array during low cost hours, and then "selling" it back to the grid during peak hours (at inflated, subsidized prices).

EDIT: As a reply to msandford, given that I can't reply lower -- the reason they have this limit is that the tariff price paid to home solar/wind generators is way above the bulk, "wholesale" price of power. It was created as an incentive to encourage green energy. So when you feed back their own power to them, it does them no favor given that now they're paying 2x+ what they would pay on the normal power market for power, and simply undermines the entire incentive program.

So now that we're in an understanding that we're talking about database writes to IO, the other matter is how it writes it. I've built a lot of systems on a lot of databases, and the write amplification has generally been very low. I've been building and running significant databases on SSDs for about 7 years now, and while everyone else is finally starting to realize that they're wasting their time if they aren't, we still see the sort of extreme niche fearmongering that makes other people clutch onto their magnetic storage (and I heard it the entire time. "OMG but don't databases kill flash???!?!?". No, certain volumes of writes and types of writes do. Only metering will tell you if that applies). Yes, some people do very odd things that can kill storage, but that is extremely rare. It almost certainly doesn't apply to the overwhelming percentage of HN readers.