HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

wanderingbort

135 karma · joined January 2, 2017

submissionscomments
wanderingbort··on Join the Battle for Net Neutrality
The internet is not a single "connection" for an ISP that fans out to all the customers, unless your ISP is only able to get transport from a single peer/provider.

The big ones back-haul to a major hub and then enter in to several peering agreements. Depending on what service/site you use the "best" path will be over one of those peers.

However, this means that there is usually a middle-man-network in between you and the service you want and neither you, your ISP, nor the service can directly control the quality or speed of that network. If Netflix, Hulu and Google all end up with a "best" path on a single peer its going to be bad during prime time even though other services connected on other peers may operate normally.

One version of a "fast lane" (like the one that Comcast and Netflix negotiated) is to remove that middle man and directly peer with the service. This is only available to large services because they need a presence in these major hubs as it usually requires a direct physical connection between edge routers.

Now, no matter how congested their peers get, the "fast lane" service is working well. They have probably also agreed not to charge the actual "market" rate on that link's bandwidth as it is mutually beneficial and the ISP should pass those savings to its users by not counting the service against any data caps etc.

From the outside, this looks like extortion. The reality though is that both sides pursue these kinds of deals all the time because it benefits their customers and therefore their bottom-lines. ISPs push harder for them because services, like Netflix, are incentivized to find the lowest cost transport peer which is usually not the highest quality. When that peering link is bad, customers blame the ISPs not Netflix.

Netflix used to brag about how cheap and cut-rate their cost per gigabyte was. How do you think they got such a good deal? It wasn't by purchasing the best connection to their customers. It was become some sales exec at a tier 1/2 internet transport provider oversold their poor service. We should be just as upset with the overselling of transport over peers as we are about ISPs throttling but, most of the internet citizens don't understand how that works.

Another note, most of the times when people use VPNs to "prove" that their ISP is throttling network capacity for a service, they are simply routing over a different peer (the one that connects to their VPN). In ideal circumstances this is traveling over a sub-optimal path and should suffer a little bit. However, in times of heavy congestion it is like being routed around a traffic jam. It is "very hard" with current routing protocols on the backbone to do this kind of "flow around" for congested paths in real-time for everyone. Single users are manually implementing it by hitting VPNs.

wanderingbort··on We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)
> It's irresponsible.

While I agree, it would be irresponsible to exhaustively interview isn't a key metric for a _good_ hiring process how efficiently you can find/place candidates who _do_ excel in the role?

By that turn, shouldn't a responsible hiring manager constantly be evaluating and improving their heuristics so that their front-line filtering is less biased and stupid in the ways that materially affect the quality of hires?

I don't think the point is that we can remove heuristic filtering from the process. Heuristics are necessary in hiring but this doesn't justify being dismissive of a discussion about whether a certain class of heuristics is really serving the needs of the organization.

wanderingbort··on Assassin's Creed Origins is crippling gamers' CPUs due to anti-piracy DRM
> The burden of proof lies with the proponents of DRM!

That seems like a just world fallacy. The decision is made based on the perceived risk/reward by the publisher before you the consumer ever have a role to play. If they have internally decided this is "worth it", then it is _to them_.

If you want to correct their internal model of a customer, the one where it is worthwhile to use DRM, then the burden lies on you. Not that I am suggesting you can but, theirs is the incumbent position, yours is the challenger.

If you really don't like the DRM policy, don't pirate the game either. Pirating solves your problem (the DRM) but it doesn't correct their model of you. Lots of active pirates are still seen as fans of the game and potentially customers. They still see an "opportunity to convert" if they can just get stronger DRM out the door for the next title.

Saying "people do pay for content if they can" is seeing it from your perspective. To change their minds you have to see it from their perspective. Even if you feel it is objectively untrue, their perspective is that piracy is lost revenue and DRM reduces that loss.

wanderingbort··on OpenPGP really works
> If big companies like Apple and Google were behind this, it could change, but I'm afraid this won't happen unless there is a sudden need for it.

Digital privacy for average consumers needs more than a brand behind it, it needs an obvious value. I don't think many average people actually suspect that email _can_ be tampered with so, what does "signing" it mean to them.

Moreover, when/if it enters the mainstream it will be plagued with "hacks" which degrade the user-perceived value, causing many to abandon it if it isn't free.

by "hacks" I mean the users will expose keys and then blame AES :)

← PreviousPage 3 of 3