just2n

> I'd love to hear from some Republican supporters who think this is a good idea

What idea, exactly? Doing what the title of the article claims?

Obviously nobody wants to reduce privacy except perhaps serious proponents of IAs. You can't even really judge that based on intent or claims, and Obama is a great example of why. He always claimed to be fighting them but in reality he expanded and affirmed their power in ways that make him look more like Bush than a liberal-minded Democrat.

I'm not even comfortable putting a political party label on myself (it just so happens more libertarian and classical liberal minded people like me seem to be more favorable of some people in the Republican party as of late, largely due to the disturbing trends going on in the Democratic one), but I personally don't find the idea of repealing laws that protect privacy very palatable. That's a gut reaction, because I'm not aware of what other plans are in place because the media doesn't appear to be reporting those, nor do I have any confidence it would if that news would conflict with what they've set out to do: to vilify Ajit Pai and the FCC under new administration.

What's more important to me, however, isn't necessarily the clickbait-tier quality of the title presented here, but the larger strategy. If you opened a code review and saw someone removed a critical piece of code as part of a much needed refactoring and immediately yelled "THIS IS A REALLY BAD IDEA!" but ignored the part where that critical function was maintained and improved upon further down, you'd be seen as a bit of a reactionary focusing far too narrowly on specifics. I think that's a genuine risk here, and all too often in politics in general.

Why am I not outraged? Because I don't think I'm getting the whole picture.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-th...

Why would this necessarily mean they're getting rid of all legal immunity? I think we have plenty of examples outside of the digital world where legal immunity is maintained.

The digital world currently has an excessively powerful version of this -- even when they're not neutral, they're still immune, which definitely needs to be fixed.

I don't think this is the same as a subsidy. It's about immunity from legal consequence.

If a website can curate what is said so that it is visibly filled with defamatory material about a specific target, the organization curating the material maintains complete immunity from what would otherwise destroy a newspaper or any other organization that is actually liable for what is printed in it.

I don't think this should be possible for any organization, regardless of who they are. This immunity should require an extreme impartiality on behalf of the website. It's meant to protect organizations from speech they don't control -- when they assert any control over that speech, it's now their speech.

The simple answer? Because humans are actually intelligent.

Find me someone in a job who has the exact same day at work every day with no exceptions and I'll show you a job you can automate. Exceptions are what define things that machines can't do well, and every scenario brought up in this story has routine exceptions.

More importantly, even in cases perfectly suited to automation, we can't pretend all the software we build is perfect or even remotely approaches the quality that can be produced by the brightest minds in the industry, either. Everyone wants to automate everything, and you can be sure most of it will be done poorly. Even the simplest human at least does a better job than a poorly built piece of software. I can rage 24/7 about how bad the software people write is. At least 90% of it. I rarely find myself annoyed at how incapable of doing their job the typical service worker is, and when I do it's virtually always fixed by their boss or a manager.

Automation done well is a tool. It turns many jobs into a few, where people handle exceptions and have actual administrative control. I've had tons of bad experiences with automation that has little/no human backup and it's by far worse than dealing with people. And this is coming from an introvert.

Why not limit it to a single render queued with the latest information?

I see this done via debouncing for render operations that happen on repeated events, for instance typing (send query to server, then show matching results in a render of some list).

I don't understand the hostility towards it. These types of complaints like "oh if you misuse this tool that you didn't bother learning about, it does things you probably didn't expect" are basically completely useless.

Try randomly slapping your hands on a keyboard and writing software in <insert language>. Now complain that because you can't do that, <insert language> sucks. That's basically how I see these types of complaints about git.

Anecdotal as it is, I started my career working as a sysadmin while studying CS. When I was younger I was quite interested in security (e.g. I followed defcon and CVE lists and read a lot of manuals and source code). I built server software, broke applications, and did a lot of reverse engineering. In that time I was forced effectively to learn about how the OS worked and how to utilize it, both Linux and Windows, from C APIs to scripting, package management, and everything else needed to effectively work in those environments, primarily around reverse engineering and vulnerability research.

That experience naturally lead to me becoming a sysadmin during my study at university. It was a fairly straightforward application of what I already had learned with a much larger scale of management. The primary thing I gained out of it was a drive to automate everything. When I started that job most of the sysadmin work was manual, but a few of us spent a huge amount of time focusing heavily on automation and when I left most of the work was automated and we were just doing meaningful firefighting and supporting development.

As an engineer, the main benefits have been understanding how my software is going to run in an actual software/hardware stack, easily jumping into a production environment and debugging complicated issues, being able to quickly have my OS do what I want, and that drive to automate everything. A lot of that informs how I build software and in general it feels like it makes me a lot more productive.

I think in an effort to understand exactly how the mechanics of the big bang worked and how you can go from an infinitesimal point of incredible energy to an enormous and expansive universe with the diverse laws we observe today.

From the article:

> If the forces were indeed one during the “grand unification epoch” of the universe’s first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, then particles that now have distinct responses to the three forces would then have been symmetric and interchangeable, like facets of a crystal. As the universe cooled, these symmetries would have broken, like a crystal shattering, introducing distinct particles and the complexity seen in the universe today.

Nope. This website is officially a reddit sub called /r/UberSucks. I'm gone.

That's not victim blaming. And victim blaming is not always unwarranted, but you're presenting it as if it's always bad.

- Improves Wi-Fi reliability

Praise Jobs. I hope this patch completely fixes the disconnect problem. Disconnecting up to 10 times in an hour has been pretty annoying for me.

The entire point of clickbait sensationalist journalism is to get people fighting about non-issues. A guy who landed a probe on a fucking comet was forced to apologize in tears because he wore a shirt that these same people disliked. Now even the MSM is pointing out how ridiculous that was. He was called sexist, exemplifying why women don't work in STEM. They just found evidence of organic matter on the comet. This is groundbreaking. But the fucking shirt. Scientific achievements don't generate the clicks and outrage like sensationalist "fuck ethics" journalism.

Let's make HN about sensationalist articles about shirts and off-hand jokes at private dinners.

Why not just unmod all of the websites that do this routinely. This is hardly as big as half of their "stories", and then let the front page be covered with stories that sit there for 2 days because they have 3000+ upvotes?

This place has become a more toxic version of Reddit. Oddly, this story isn't on the front page there, or even on the front of /r/programming. Or even in the first 4 pages. I guess they're doing something better.

How about we take it a step further and ban positive mention of Uber, since it seems the majority here hates Uber for one reason or another, even if they're mostly uninformed (and yes, quoting BuzzFeed or PandoDaily as fact makes one uninformed) or do so because someone poked their feelings. Maybe next we can ban gendered pronouns and require people disclose their full names, place of employment, and home address, because anonymity is the cause of online toxicity. We definitely need to lower the downvote bar to 0 so that new people can immediately begin downvoting anyone they don't like or disagree with. Let's see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

To what extent are you "entitled" to "investigate" into the personal lives of entrepreneurs and people building real value.

If your goal is not to intimidate, attack, or slander, what purpose does it serve and accomplish? Freedom of speech and self publication is important and is part of the Constitution. Entrepreneurs can investigate shady journalists who seem to have a bias and who are crossing ethical lines even if you think they shouldn't.

Looking into the financial ties of companies is game. But the industry and business is not the same as someone's personal life, their sexual preferences, children, family, etc.

There's nothing in this article alleging that. There is someone in the comments here who has been vehemently anti-Uber on other social media who makes the claim, though.

Let's get facts before we throw around slanderous accusations. Or even apply some basic reasoning.

Even the author of the story said it was hypothetical. Multiple times.

It's not gendered. A reporter discussed supposed sexism and misogyny at a company. The man is frustrated because it's probably untrue, but we don't have a clear picture because the press has been sensationalizing anything anti-Uber for a while now, and no credible evidence is ever presented.

That doesn't make his response or anything about it gendered. It doesn't matter who slanders, it's frustrating when it happens, and joking about digging up dirt to do the exact same thing back to a journalist so they know what it feels like is tantamount to wishing an abusive person would some day get to know what being on the receiving end of that feels like.

Also, you should really check your sources about harassment on the internet. Prominent men are harassed more often and more violently than prominent women. It's a recently constructed myth that's been hyped up by the media over the past few months that the internet is an especially hostile place for women.

Even the author of this article recognizes, and confirms, that it was a hypothetical.

It's completely defensible. Would you rather people go to jail for painting hypotheticals of crimes? Perhaps we should send everyone who's ever written a violent novel to jail? Thoughtcrimes are real, now. People can never be frustrated.

Further, why does this article repeat over and over that this wasn't "off the record" going to every length to try to justify publishing it? If there was no confusion about it being "off the record", there's no need to mention any of it. And it still doesn't matter.

This isn't a major story. It's an out-of-context clickbait dressed recount of a hypothetical story painted by a frustrated man at a private dinner.

If there was a criminal suit filed along side the allegations made, perhaps you'd have a major story. This is just another in a long line of hit pieces that seem to have no basis in reality.

Why is this here? This is a non story. All I see in this article is that someone was ranting in a conversation that was entirely assumed to be off the record (they go to great lengths to justify talking about it, as if private dinners require contracts of nondisclosure). I find it beyond hilarious that here Buzzfeed stands appalled that someone would joke about hiring people to dig up dirt when they find their way into private dinners and report every unsavory thing said in confidence and without context, essentially writing off that context as "this is never appropriate." Does anyone else see the outrageous hypocrisy here? One man is joking about something because he's frustrated with poor media coverage (which is arguably of questionable ethical validity) while Buzzfeed is actually doing that thing and now everyone here on HN is joking about how terrible Uber is and how they've distanced themselves. This is HN.

This is gossip about a man's frustrated rant at shitty media coverage. It's a non story and is totally off topic. If there was evidence he had hired people to dig up dirt with intent to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce people, we could be talking about criminal proceedings. But seeing as there's no mention of any criminal wrongdoing, this is complete and utter trash, and they know it. Another in a very long list of reasons never to read Buzzfeed.

I'm not here in a position in support of Uber because I literally have no idea what is and isn't fact. If every article negative of them is as misguided and useless as this one, I can't possibly hope to form a coherent and well informed opinion about a company. Definitely not based on clickbait headlines and opinion pieces without solid evidence of wrongdoing. You can hate Uber for all the valid reasons you can find, but getting angry at someone for expressing frustration is truly next level pathetic. This clickbait shit. What the fuck.

Some people are linking a Pando article, which says, as a direct quote:

> Earlier this evening, a bombshell story by Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith proves the reality is way worse than anyone on our team could have expected.

In reference to this article. You can see why this shit can't be taken seriously. Referring to garbage like this article as a "bombshell" or "proof" of activity is completely divorced from reality.

“any use of Title II would be problematic.”

For you, not for us.

I like the free/paid model, but what you have doesn't strike me as "shareware", but rather "adware". How well does a completely free (no IAP, no ads) trial with a paid full version do in reality? That's more in line with the shareware model in desktop software and I remember it being a very successful strategy in console (and PC) games when I was younger.

For some reason it really bothers me that stack[0] is never used in this implementation.

We already have one.

http://jsfiddle.net/gJP9k/

The developers who manage to successfully get a ticket through the lottery*.

Why are the two coupled anyway? That's a huge issue with the WWDC and it's becoming an issue here. If you want developers, don't offer "the next big thing" in consumer electronics to anyone who attends, then leave registration open for everyone.

Thanks for the constructive insight.

I'm glad we collectively understand the general purpose of downvotes. There's a reason they aren't defaulted to 0 pointers; they aren't "agree/disagree".

Go back to slashdot where inept moderation is the norm.

These scavenger hunts aren't merit based reserved tickets. What do they actually do? Who are the targets, and why does Google want these people to attend I/O?

The answer can't be "developers" or "to learn things." Not while the prevailing reason people attend I/O is to get the new shiny toys and the primary means for getting a ticket is a random lottery with no prerequisites for entry and no fee to prevent gaming. What we need for learning is mostly put on YouTube promptly, so presence is not necessary there, either.

I don't understand it at all.

I wouldn't want to limit the password a user supplies. Any password should work, including 1 byte or 1 gb passwords. Restrictions of any form have always just caused more problems than they've solved.

But the solution I've favored is hashing the user's password on the client with a hash that provides enough significant bits that your key derivation on the server is not weakened. This way you get the benefit of not needing to deal with differences in transmission size and the user's plaintext password is never exposed to any listener (regardless of whether the connection is secure, or believed to be secure).

Most are (easily > 90%), so why aren't a majority of the seats determined this way? With a quick glance of last year's sessions, I don't see anything that's design focused. Maybe technical designers who also do a bit of prototyping and developing would benefit, but that's a developer-centric role, it's a lot more than design anyway, and I'd expect such a person to be able to complete a simple programming challenge.

https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions

Does it need to? It's developer-oriented, not consumer-oriented. The "freebies" (really ahead of market or exclusive toys that you pay for, or get some kind of discount on) attract consumers, which is the problem.

If the goal is to have a place to show off all the stuff that's new in Android (or the new Google devices), that seems like a separate consumer-oriented conference. Or the big unveiling keynotes followed by the actual I/O, and the two should have separate attendances.

Look at games. There are many consumer-oriented events (BlizzCon, PAX, E3, CES, etc) to a few developer-oriented events (GDC). And the two don't generally overlap too much.

Sounds fun on the surface... for people who have nothing better to do than to be looking at the sources of pages or reading over documentation that's rarely viewed, or watching random YouTube videos.

By the time this was made public and people were able to build scrapers, everything was already gone. Person A finds a ticket, tells his closest buddies so they can find them. Before it's made public knowledge that this happened, all of A and his friends and their friends have tickets. I don't see this as a particularly "good" approach. Why not just randomly pick several developers from GitHub/Google Code and say "here are 10 tickets, give them to your friends"?

I'd much rather a scavenger hunt be announced and all-inclusive of the community. I don't see how this is any better than FCFS or lottery. In fact, the lottery might be the worst of all. It's more likely to be diluted by non-technical people and encourages gaming by having as many employees sign up as possible in any given company, since there's no cost to register.

I don't understand what Google's goal is with I/O attendance.

Is this not one of the most technical conferences of the year? Highly technical talks and sessions for developers by developers. Looking over the talks at 2013 (https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions, non-versioned link, so this might point at the 2014 sessions if your'e reading this in the future), everything seems to be developer oriented.

Why, then, doesn't participation require the ability to do something like complete a few simple randomized programming challenges to prove you're capable of benefiting from attendance? Google runs Code Jam, they easily have the infrastructure to do this on the scale that is needed for I/O. It's also certainly not necessary that every seat be given out this way, but why not 70-90%?

I'm happy that they put everything on YouTube and live stream the talks, so I (and everyone else who doesn't win the lottery) can still benefit, but if people are trying to get tickets just to get the toys Google gives out to attendees, I feel like there needs to be much more thought put into the selection process, or Google should just sell those outright to any developer who wants them. I really hate trying to saturate conference attendance by giving out exclusive toys, or toys ahead of market. It typically attracts the wrong people for the wrong reasons.