ratel

The possible reason to start the campaign now is that a big chunk of the market in Europe is business lease. New vehicles are not ordered in the last quarter of the year, because the resell value will drop if the car is a year old in three months. The lead time for cars ordered by employees is a bit longer than for regular customers. By building the hype over a new affordable EV which in quite some countries come with tax brakes they probably hope people will wait for the car to come out in Q2 and not have another one delivered in Q1.

I did not know this, but I am apparently one of those few people who use a scrollbar to point to a location where I need to be. Either in source code, manuals, even on some vendors web pages I know the tech specs and the link to the datasheet is 2/3 of the page so I drag or click the scrollbar. In documents, or on webpage I have a mental image of where the scrollbar was when I read it, like page numbers in a book and I use it a lot. And no this is not substituted by scrolling with a mouse wheel or heaven forbid a track-pad. If I know I need to find something at 'M' I do not want to go through all the stacks starting at 'A'. Just saying we have been organizing content for a lot longer than the UX people telling us what we do not need.

Scrollbars are a tool and they should be functional: visible, properly sized and interactive. It helps if a scrollbar looks and functions the same on all our content, because it takes less mental strain to use.

It may be that you don't like scrollbars for your content. The obvious solution is to make your content fit so it does not require scrollbars. If you cannot manage that you will have to live with the fact that scrollbars are there as a functional tool and make sure it is kept functional. In analogy: If I sell furniture you have to self assemble I can choose to design it to not require tools. If it does require tools I should make sure people can actually use those tools to assemble and not try to hide that tools should be used by pretending the thing to put nails in is not a hammer.

It seems someone figured out how to play hide-and-seek with thousands of people. Just let Ikea know you are coming and they will provide the seeker. The last one thrown out by security or the police before closing is the winner. Bragging rights go to the person who is found the next morning by staff sleeping in one of the beds.

I'm not sure I agree with inflammatory. It seems that the common attribute between the two materials is that it is based on the same 200 year old composition and not much else. Like if IT takes your keyboard and gives it to someone else because they are the same keyboard. Completely missing subtle differences like the serial number or the fact that on one the space is worn out and on the other the tab key.

No that position is wrong, because the analogy is wrong. If the baseball bat would hit the customer in the face every time he tries to hit the ball, that would get fixed pretty quick. Allowing privilege escalation is an unintended side effect of the product being used and should be fixed because the customer never asked to be exposed to that risk.

Mr. Rupert Hogg I salute you!

Very funny: A security issue in a group sex app is reported by penetration test partners. It could have been the name of the app.

I have to agree with some of the commenters that your write-up is pretty bad, because far too general for such a well studied problem.

Let me try to help you along in your thinking: The tragedy of the commons is not a generalized version of the prisoner dilemma. I guess you meant to say a prisoners dilemma is a more generalized version of the tragedy of the commons. This is however also not true. Logically because there is no sensible pay-off where everybody defects, but the other player. The commons would be largely destroyed way before everyone gets their pay-off so all the players would never collectively decide to do that (and decision is a integral part of the prisoners dilemma). You could make it into a NxN dimensional prisoners dilemma, but that is not useful for another reason. The tragedy of the commons is about future benefit (keeping the commons so everyone can extract more than they could individually at a single instance) a prisoners dilemma is an instant game. You could model the tragedy of the commons as a repeated prisoner dilemma. The problem is that free riding is not a rational option if you repeat it often enough. In the real world free-riding works, because we expect to play a limited number of rounds and in the long term we are all dead. The number of repetitions one expects to play is however not the same for all players.

Limiting defection is in this case not external to the tragedy of the commons, as any way to resolve the prisoners dilemma is, because it reduces the pay-offs the participants get. Preventing defection costs and there is a balance to be struck to the costs to preventing an additional free-rider and letting him free-ride. There is also a moral component to this. Limiting defection means also being able to limit entry. The commons has de-facto become 'our commons'. There is the description of a 'mutual protective agency and one of the most common is the state.

Dear umanwizard,

Genuinely not understanding something is fine. Already claiming someone was intellectually dishonest because you misread or misunderstood not so much.

The ads business of Facebook is based on the very specific data Facebook can provide their advertisers for very specific target audiences based on private information they gathered through their platform. Like ads for people who die their hair, have an affliction for cheese burgers, are right wing and live in zip code 20500. That is privacy sensitive information (although I picked a public person for this example). They do not provide customers with Trump's private number. That would be private data. They do not just sell ads on their platform, they sell specific target audiences on their platform.

I was really careful enough in my wording: Facebook sells privacy sensitive data as in very, very specific target groups for among other things ad targeting for their customers to use. I did not refer to the selling of private data.

Well, The big one would be nice: Facebook makes her money from harvesting and selling privacy sensitive data, or at least that is the perception shared by nation states, the EU and the wider audience. For any claim Facebook makes about respecting privacy to have at least face validity she need to show how she is going to make money without violating her users privacy. So how is Facebook going to make money if they need to respect users privacy?

Somewhat more constructive: Facebook seems to have an unhealthy appetite to collect _all_ user data including privacy sensitive information. But lets be fair: She is definitely not the only company on the quest for the Big Data insights, that seem to always be at least one data point away. Does Facebook have information on which data points they really need to make a commercial viable user profile? What data points are privacy sensitive? Is Facebook looking into alternatives for those privacy sensitive data points? If not: can Facebook enumerate those and ask their users for explicit consent to collect those points and ask for explicit consent in the future for any new data points?

Good luck this afternoon. I hope you get some insights.

The analogy of the cliff seems nice, until you give it some thought. a) We are not actually running. What does stop and think about it actually mean? If there is a cliff and if we can stop or change direction. why not on the edge of the cliff, why way before that? b) Nobody is excepting a bridge to miraculously appear, but we might be thinking about how to cross that cliff when we get there and prepare. Humans are actually quite good at that. Will it costs us more than we were expecting when we could not yet see that 'cliff' yet. Definitely, but we were not born with foresight and have a limited time-frame of reference even if we can predict with some certainty. The later is why we are not investing everything for the time our sun will turn off its light. Call it the human condition.

As for your insistence that 'growth' cannot be sustained. I suspect you mean population growth, although nobody is actually "thinking" as in wishing for that. I for one cannot have a meaningful conversation on that. People who really belief that is our biggest problem are no longer here to have that conversation with and all others tend to mean: There are too many _other_ people. That discussion has been taking place under many different guises, none of them remotely interesting.

I am all in favor of Plague-DSL: Municipal broadband by rat. The speed is not great, but bandwidth is and at least you get 100% coverage.

You need some way of serialization that makes clear it was serialized as a BigInt and thus must be de serialized as a BigInt without the likelihood of it misinterpreting the data like 9n being a tractor model. A single indicator would be too error prone, so the schema has to be more complex. With that complexity it needs to perform and be (cheaply) verifiable.

Quickest thing I can think of is storing it as power of 2 + the difference ending with character n as good measure. It is easy to serialize/de-serialize and you can verify the number by re-serializing to be a proper BigInt and not for instance a String. Confusion still would be possible, but rare. So 1 would be stored as 0+1n, 42 would be stored as 5+10n, etc.

That may be true, but the fact that they need the new path to make larger investments outsides of VC raises the question how much VC money will be left. Furthermore the change still implies that they think other investment opportunities might be more profitable than the one they were actually quite successful in.

Dear Gentlepeople, can I point out the Elephant in the room, or better the one leaving it. The most interesting part (especially for HN) is not where A16Z is going, but what it is leaving behind: VC. Setting aside the shift in social tide for a moment, why does A16Z think there will be no more profit in VC? Any thoughts?

A financial product that is said to be a strong and will never fail according to some commercial analysts. Although other experts seem to disagree. (Deja vu)

Trading CLO's has been expanding. One could argue far beyond a point where there is enough safe companies to lend to. That must mean the risk for CLO's is growing (Deja vu again)

Continues low interest rates make people look for better returns on their investments and people selling products to fill that need. They may forget to make sure their clients understand that there are no save investments in the market at current Fed rates. (Can we say deja vu)

CLO's now cover leveraged loans, meaning loans with no collateral other than future profit. Like people taking out mortgages on for-rent properties. (Deja vu, deja vu)

It is only a feature, because you have the information about which rotation you provide and relate it to the result. If I just try to classify an image the information about which rotation the image is under might be not there at all. Just an example. Say there is a drone: The Elmer-2 that takes an image of a sign. Now depending on which angle this picture is taking from it might think it is duck season instead of rabbit season and never look twice.

I quite surprised at the comments on HN so far as nobody seems to see the significance of this. Yes, the image is ambiguous. The point is that Google Cloud Vision gives an unambiguous answer of that image based on the rotation. Transformations of an image are regularly used to improve the results of image recognition. That process fails quit dramatically if in the course of a transformation the answer given is presented with higher confidence than should be.

I have been a customer with Xs4all since I think 1993. When the uni decided it it might be a good idea to have at least some security policy on their network. Nowadays it just is small stuff I keep around for historical/sentimental reasons. It is to the credit of the good people at Xs4all that they kept their relative independence for so long after being bought. I won't be signing any petitions to keep the label. I would like the experience of a knowledgeable, innovating and activist ISP back which has been slowly deteriorating since the buy-out. I don't care about labels. Keeping the label around for service that is going to be far less is actually not a compliment. Like Ben and Jerry's made by Unilever.

So thanks for all the help, discussions and service. It was fun while it lasted.

I found myself instantly agreeing with your sentiment and then failing to explain it to myself. I think the problem is that being good at something is not related to that "good" as an outcome and appreciated by others as such.

Let me try to explain with a bit of an overstatement: Most TV is crap, but year after year they keep making it. People making it cannot be good at it? Well actually they are. They found the sweet-spot by maximizing the profit in terms of eyeball captured they will make from the least amount of effort. That is success.

Now-a-day successful politicians are far better at making people vote for them than actually realizing the platform they are elected on. They are literally good at the game of democracy, but don't know what to do with the spoils. The difference between those two seems to be "fake-news".

Lets assume that the prolific reviewer on Amazon is completely legit. He is obviously good in the sense of efficient at reading and writing reviews. That we do not see the "good" in an outcome of having so many reviews written by the same person does not make his activity less good as an activity.

I'm sorry, but you reading the text of Article 13 far more narrow than it actually is:

"internet platforms that organise and promote large amounts of copyright-protected works uploaded by their users in order to make a profit" Would include https://news.ycombinator.com as well. It does organize and promote user comments, quotes, references which are of course copyright-protected works as anything created in the EU member states is, including user comments. Now "Hacker News" does not make a direct profit of the content. It is a side-line to a profitable business. It is however trivial to argue that the fact it is a side-line by a for-profit company it must in some way contribute to that. This has been done before. The term upload does not exclude anything, because there is no legal or technical distinguishable difference between upload and post. The law could have read 'provided by their users' and the legal implications would be the same. All sites that are for profit and allow anything from their users are affected by this. This would also include online games that allow users to chat.

I don't agree that its intentions are that clear. Nobody likes a leech, but that does not mean that we should kill all animals to prevent leeches.

"And if it changes the internet as we know it today, is it that bad? It will push people to self publish instead of relying on "platforms", like the old internet."

This seems to be a call to the internet being just for the technologically savvy. No great number of people are going to self host and any form of support for people self-hosting from a for profit company will run into article 13. Moreover what I remember from the old internet is not self publishing, but the social gathering on IRC, newsgroups, etc. Something that will be impossible to do at our current scale without for profit companies or government backed services. The first will run into article 13, the second one is a non-starter.