anon1385

>They are willing to cooperate with the police

Except when they aren't: https://fymhotsauce.rocks/blogs/news/my-uber-driver-robbed-m...

Simon Wren-Lewis has written a bit about this here: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-core-economic...

He's broadly supportive but points out that section 14.8 isn't correct.

>Can you provide me with some concrete examples of famous, high profile tech stocks like facebook and snapchat giving a "share of their current/future assets/profits of the business" to stockholders?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/dividends-and-stock...

You're on a YC website. They are open about looking for founders who do these kinds of things.

Keep in mind that YC invested in a startup that was running a service that added malware to software installers and when people called them out on it Paul Graham defended it and said they were doing nothing wrong because there was a tiny "pwn my machine" checkbox in the installer, and if people didn't uncheck that then clearly they wanted a load of malware installed.

I've been writing comments about this kind of thing on HN for years. This one was 4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7051099

There's issues with going that way though - it gives the police the power to arrest and detain people in secret and prevents anybody talking about it. Historically police forces have a bad record of abusing that kind of power.

It's also going to be pretty unenforceable in the era of social media.

>No modern browser lets you know the state of a:visited

There are loads of ways to extract that information, and the number increases all the time as browsers get more complex. It's not something browser vendors actually consider to be a bug. They have historically only 'fixed' the trivial methods of getting the visited status because it became an issue that was widely publicised. If they cared at all they would never have implemented features like Shared Array Buffers.

This stuff is all sitting in years old open bug reports. Nobody cares.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=884270 Link Visitedness can be detected by redraw timing

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=508166 Security: Chrome provides high-res timers which allow cache side channel attacks

Further reading on some of the exciting new timing attacks added to web standards in recent years:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.07373v2.pdf The Spy in the Sandbox – Practical Cache Attacks in Javascript

https://www.contextis.com/resources/white-papers/pixel-perfe... Pixel Perfect Timing Attacks with HTML5 (now fixed because you could use it to steal the contents of any page)

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~herbertb/download/papers/anc_ndss17.pdf ASLR on the Line: Practical Cache Attacks on the MMU

OP said the fight was about a different viewpoint, not voting for a different party. There's a whole world of viewpoints outside the two dominant political parties in the US.

That's not a new thing. The fascist Oswald Mosley complained about a lack of free speech when he was repeatedly prevented from speaking and marching in predominantly Jewish parts of London in the 30s by large violent crowds[1]. Post war there were very organised groups dedicated to disrupting fascist "free speech", like 43 Group which was made up of Jewish ex-servicemen[2]. Again in the 60s Mosley cited "free speech" when his fascist rallies were violently disrupted[3].

Fascists have been using "free speech" as a shield since the beginning, and similarly liberals were handwringing about the fascists right to "free speech" while fascists beat up and killed Jews and other minorities and burned down synagogs. The liberals were wrong in the 30s to tolerate fascism and they're wrong now.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street being the most famous example [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43_Group [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRS4NR_BZ1w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Ef3WYWJYc for example

It hasn't killed proprietary software at all though; if anything the average person interacts with more proprietary software per day than ever before. It's just than now it's all behind a web interface. It's notable that the Linux stats are being boosted significantly by Chromebooks. Ask RMS what he thinks of Chromebooks…

Weirdly an entire generation of developers have managed to convince themselves that by working on proprietary web apps they are somehow fighting the good fight on the side of FOSS.

I didn't notice it was C++. In C++14:

From 3.6.2:

>Variables with static storage duration (3.7.1) or thread storage duration (3.7.2) shall be zero-initialized (8.5) before any other initialization takes place

and from 8.5:

>To zero-initialize an object or reference of type T means

>--if T is a scalar type (3.9), the object is initialized to the value obtained by converting the integer literal 0 (zero) to T

and from 3.9:

>Arithmetic types (3.9.1), enumeration types, pointer types, pointer to member types (3.9.2), std::nullptr_- t, and cv-qualified versions of these types (3.9.3) are collectively called scalar types

C11 6.7.9 (10):

If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized explicitly, its value is indeterminate. If an object that has static or thread storage duration is not initialized explicitly, then:

— if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;

>They have an independent responsibilty to make sure the building is safe.

As far as I understand it that's only true since 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_Reform_(Fire_Safety...

If you don't know what neoliberalism is then how were you so confidently able to claim that it wasn't to blame?

> the Grenfell Tower fire was a specific failure of building and fire regulations >This is independent of fixing the housing market or "neoliberalism".

Removing/relaxing building and fire regulations is neoliberalism.

Of course The Economist thinks markets are perfect and government regulation is to blame for everything. Spreading that idea is why the magazine exists. If the article was promoting a different theory then it would never have been published in The Economist.

How can I prove a negative?

I can only point to what the Google AMP documentation says, where they state that you have to allow your site to be served by Google AMP Cache to count as an AMP site: https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq and https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp

Maybe they don't follow their own docs and there are sites out there not cached in the Google AMP Cache that still get placed in the carousel. I have no way to prove that without being able to test every single possible search term (plus all the other variables like location which affect the results).

I think that the fact AMP sites are faster than the average site is exactly what makes it so dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of sites out there that aren't bloated up with javascript and ads, but Google doesn't offer any way to identify that in the search results. The only reliable indicator of site speed is the Google AMP Cache logo. So naturally users will consciously or otherwise favour clicking results with the Google AMP logo. That drives more traffic to those sites, improves their search ranking etc. A non-GoogleAMPCache site could be incredibly lean and fast but it will still lose out to the Google AMP Cache hosted sites in terms of traffic and ranking. The only way to compete is to use Google's proprietary markup standard and cede hosting of your site to Google.

Could you show us some examples of AMP sites served from Cloudflare (and not the Google AMP cache) that show up in the Google AMP carousel and get the AMP logo in the Google search results?

As far as I can see it takes over 5 days at least 50% of the time: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/queue-weekly-status-2017-08-...

(E: and that's currently; go back a few months and it's nearly 90% taking over 10 days. Possibly well over 10 days. https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/queue-weekly-status-2017-05-...)

CDC methodology vs UK methodology doesn't explain why California has a rate of 7.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 compared with 22.0 for the US as a whole. Or why the rate in California is falling (like other developed countries) while the rate for the entire US is rising year on year [1].

The author just threw out data (with no explanation of their methodology) until they got the American rate similar to the UK rate and then stopped so they could assert that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the US health industry. The author would have been fully aware of the regional differences in the US because the Economist article is a response to the various articles this summer about maternal deaths in the US which have generally focused heavily on the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative and the improvements California has made compared to other states[2][3].

Not that I'd take the 21 year old interns writing without bylines in The Economist very seriously on health matters (or anything else for that matter).

[1] https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/programs/mcah/Documents/MCAH%20B... [2] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/29/15830970/wo... [3] http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-dur...

When the US government kidnaps non US-citizens they don't give you the chance to call your lawyer. You get stripped, beaten, sodomised and sedated. If you're lucky you get released after a few months of torture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

>Khalid El-Masri (born June 29, 1963) is a German and Lebanese citizen who was mistakenly abducted by the Macedonian police in 2003, and handed over to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While in CIA custody, he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held at a black site and routinely interrogated, beaten, strip-searched, sodomized, and subjected to other cruel forms of inhumane and degrading treatment and torture. After El-Masri held hunger strikes, and was detained for four months in the "Salt Pit," the CIA finally admitted his arrest and torture were a mistake and released him

>I've been reading the Guardian for a long time and I've noticed it's been embracing some of the more unsavory elements of the left in recent years.

What elements? If you mean deliberately antagonistic opinion pieces from transphobic feminists (TERFs) then yes you're right. But I'm guessing that's probably not what you were referring to. If you mean run of the mill socialists then I can't see any truth to your claim - there's a small handful now and it's mostly the same small handful they published 10 years ago (Monbiot, Jones, previously Milne, and a couple of others). The Guardian as an institution hates socialism, even if it occasionally allows a mild opinion piece from a socialist about how it might be nice to raise the top rate of tax by 1% to pay for hospitals.

Other than an increase in the amount of clickbait the Guardian is mostly the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago. The editorial position has actually shifted to the right slightly since Viner took over. But historically it's always been a liberal paper. It supported the SDP, has supported the Lib Dems at various times, supported Blair and supported Iraq.

Part of liberalism involves giving voice to any old opinion no matter how dangerous, crazy, offensive or wrong, at least as long as it comes from the elite class and doesn't do anything as gauche as question the property rights of the wealthy middle class readership (coincidentally this leads to great clickbait on a lot of social and religious issues). So that's why you see the Guardian doing things like publishing articles by Ergodan or other fairly repulsive people as well as hosting flamewars over atheism/islam/feminism/cultural appropriation etc. It's not being left wing that leads to any of that. If it was a left wing paper it would contain far fewer articles of that type because the left wing generally doesn't subscribe to a "free market of ideas" like liberals do.

It's relative. From my point of view as an outsider the US print media scene appears to be dominated by what I'd describe as broadsheets (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, LA Times etc). These papers can at times be pretty bad and I don't agree with the editorial position of any of them but even something like the WSJ which will publish crazy climate change conspiracy theories is in a different league to the papers that dominate in the UK: The Sun and Daily Mail. Imagine that the most widely read US paper by far was the National Enquirer and that it was treated as a serious and important paper by other media outlets and political parties.

I can't help laughing at your quaint idea that spreading misinformation "at least once over the past year" is a major offence. Dozens of major inaccuracies (with blatant political motivation) per day is the kind of standard we are talking about here.

Not to mention the abhorrent behaviour of journalists towards victims of crime etc in trying to get stories, which is a whole other side to the UK media which probably isn't appreciated from the outside.

>The Guardian, which someone else mentioned, is massively left-leaning

It really isn't. It's a liberal paper not a left wing one. That's not a theoretical distinction; you just need to look at their coverage of the UK Labour party over the last 2 years to see that.

It does publish a range of people in the opinion pages, including conservatives and socialists, but the reporters and most importantly editors are nearly all liberals. That's what informs which articles get published and which anonymous "senior labour party insider" they quote in the headlines and front page news stories.

>I doubt they were as influential in main political discussion as e.g. Fox News seems to be today.

Why do you assume that? Absolute garbage tabloids have been influencing elections and dominating mainstream political discourse in western countries for decades[1]. In the UK an entire political ideology was created to try and work around the influence of right wing mass media (spoiler: the answer was allowing media barons to dictate policy).

If anything tabloid influence is lower today than in the past. Compare the result of the 1992 UK general election with the 2017 one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It

Same here. It appears to check http://update.videolan.org/vlc/sparkle/vlc-intel64.xml for updates and the newest version listed there is 2.2.4

Nothing has changed though. You still get these kinds of ads pretty much every time you visit the site. It doesn't matter that the article is from 2013 when the problem it describes still exists. That it has existed this long, despite people pointing it out, just makes it even worse.

It's still relevant. I took this screenshot a few seconds ago: https://i.imgur.com/6LoQ3TW.png

>The Official Secrets Act must be signed by you

That's not true. It's a law not a contract; everybody is bound by it: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summ...

>Do you have to sign the Official Secrets Act to be bound by it?

>It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it.

Your comments here are arguing that this isn't a problem. You called the stats dashboard "hugely misleading" with the implication that the problem is not as bad as it would suggest, but actually it shows that the problem is worse than the average western based HN developer realises (based on their day to day experience).