mlmlmasd

> Advertising is necessary

No it's not.

> ISP are providing access/transit, not content.

If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps.

> Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry?

You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me.

> This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.

No I prefer everything to be free, open source, organic, and made by volunteers. You can stop pretending that there are only two options.

> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free.

I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use?

> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience.

The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need.

> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress.

This is a step backwards, not progress.

> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves.

Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

This whole initiative (acceptable ads) came out of Google paying off Adblock Plus.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboo...

Fuck off ABP. Use uBlock Origin.

Professors and other high-ranking academic nerds: get your students to design your websites, cause you always fuck it up. Lol.

I can't really think of any good forms of 'security through obscurity'. Is the elimination of buffer overflow vulns and sql injections a form of obscurity? Is SSL a form of obscurity?

How does it make the system easier to game?

> Or that could be another downside if the answer is "the moderators".

To me it seems like an upside if we know when moderators are gaming the system.

> There's simply too much data that isn't public.

Make it public?

> There's no way around the need for moderator intervention on a site like HN—the clue is in the word 'moderator' itself: left to its own devices the system runs to extremes and it needs a negative feedback loop to dampen it.

Then maybe the system needs to be changed?

> None of this is new information, btw. I've posted about it plenty over the years and am always happy to answer questions.

Is there anything in particular that should make us trust the information you provide? You could be lying for all we know.

> What do you do with a conscript who never wanted to be there and possibly fundamentally isn't suited to military life anyway gives up? Threaten them with legal action?

In some countries, you will get punished - get assigned bathroom cleaning for a week, get assigned lots of manual labor, or your whole squad gets punished which means they will have reason to 'motivate' you themselves. You can also go to military jail and get dishonorable discharged.

Basically, there is the carrot motivation method, and then there is the stick method.

Static typing is great. My point is that whether a language is statically or dynamically typed has no bearing on whether it is functional.

Type-checking doesn't really have any bearing on weather a language is functional. Functional languages can be statically or dynamically typed.

Wait, so you say 'that is patently ridiculous', then completely agree with me while trying to add your own little spin on it? Okay bud.

^ That's called ideology.

He`s not talking about policy. Most capitalistic businesses are anti-competitive regardless of policy.

You still don't get it buddy.

> I don't think he has a problem with government spending as long as it's towards corporations instead of people.

That's exactly what every right-libertarian and ancap thinks and acts according to. Most of the right-libertarian and ancap 'movement' is funded and supported by corporate and pro-corporate interests, the people that fall for the bullshit are social lobbyist for corporatism and neo-feudalism.

Has infinite mathematics actually been useful for anything at all? I mean uncountable infinities, higher cardinalities, etc - not limits, and other 'pseudo-infinite' abstractions. I have never encountered these things applied to anything other than infinite mathematics for infinite mathematics' sake. Seems like a waste of time.

> but right now it's an atrocious book if you want to learn current C and this has been the case for a long, long time.

Strongly disagree.

It only makes sense to apply such rules to closed-source and proprietary software.

There is a difference between building something and paying others to build something.

Language exists in this medium - language that computers cannot mimic or understand the way humans do. There is also intonation, pauses, etc.

> That's the medium - but how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans?

We don't really know, but it is much more than 10 bits a second.

> He's saying that the amount of information contained in the combination of these human communication mechanisms can be compressed to about 10 bits per second.

No what he said is humans type, input text through a keyboard, on average at the speed of 10 bits a second.

> Imagine us talking for a minute, compressed to a movie script. Your wetware could easily use my expressions to come up with an estimate of my happiness, sincerity, confidence, truthfulness, sarcasm (and so on) on a scale of 1-10. These values might change from sentence to sentence. If you're very observant, in 60 seconds you might get 10 estimates for each of a dozen emotions with 3-bit fidelity from these observations - only a few bits per second of actual information transferred.

You're assuming all of our communication happens through our consciousness, which is just not true. People don't consciously evaluate each other's facial expressions and use formulas to draw a conclusion.

> I would perhaps speak 200 English words in that minute. 200 words, averaging 4.5 characters each, with a 20% compression ratio, is only on the order of 4 bytes per second. And most of that is overhead for grammar.

Most of the words people use are 'overhead for grammar'? Sorry, this is just false. Also keep in mind that human language is very complex, we do not understand how it works. Our processing of language does not happen in our consciousness.

> The medium is irrelevant. The question is how much information can be exchanged. And computers win that with no contest.

You have no idea how much information humans exchange. Your view of human thought and communication is very simplistic. These are things which we (bleeding edge science) do not understand yet. Furthermore, there is no contest because there is no purpose in any kind of contest, computers don't win or lose, they are used for different purposes.

> Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second.

Humans communicate in much more complex ways than computers. Facial expressions, intonation, language, body language, etc. All things we do not quite understand.

Elon Musk is a little arrogant due to his success in business and likes to make 'fun' predictions based on his very limited understanding of whatever field he happens to be talking about. He sounds like an eager undergrad student that tries to demonstrate his genius to his professors and the class. I don't understand how anyone can take him seriously in technical fields.

Sounds like a fun place to work though.

Seems to be just a marketing page with no link to source code or even mention of open source?

Here is the github page:

https://github.com/Microsoft/GraphEngine

Avoiding bugs is the default in software development in any language, no? If you have pointer DSL that can lead to various bugs, replacing it with a more complex pointer DSL is not a good way to avoid bugs. And I don't think C++ 'smart pointers' and other crap are very simple (relative to C pointers) or much less error-prone. That's just my opinion though.

I have a joint for you buddy. :)