eggnet

If prices go up Americans will buy less.

Google would maintain a kernel patch or upstream a patch if that was the right choice for a given problem.

A good first target is a VM.

You can already tell Mullvad users from their IP address. If their browser only reveals that much, that sounds like a win to me.

Average users will leave toxic environments, and be attracted toward content that is compelling to them.

If federated services pick up steam, they will pick between a few popular options.

There is always a second filter bubble. In the case of non-federated sites, that filter is in the form of the policy of the site and also the algorithms used to sort feeds and replies.

With federated solutions, users have a choice.

It's not enough if those people's posts are flooded with low quality replies.

Signal to noise ratio. When the admin of a server thinks the ratio of another server is too low, the admin will block it.

What's the definition of too low? Up to the admins of that server.

Some problems are harder to solve than others. It usually stems from a long testing period. Try X, wait. Try Y, wait. If the wait period is decades, you have a problem.

Broadly, statistics and large sample sets are used to combat that.

Human understanding, or lack thereof, for a given problem also contributes to suboptimal theories.

Ultimately, hard problems are hard.

> that I don't know of any court interpreting "steals" in a statute to mean "making an unauthorized copy of" or "leaking"

Is there some reason you would know this? Intellectual property and classified information are things. You can steal them.

> freedom of speech has seemingly become a right-wing talking point

Because hate speech and misinformation is part of the right wing platform...

Favored to win and assume power in 3 months, yes. Trump was president at the time. Current, guaranteed threat, with a track record of doing exactly that.

Biden has a long public history, without abuse of power.

It's not comparable.

Here you go.

https://sgp.fas.org/jud/snowden/complaint.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

Who is Tony in this analogy? Trump was president at the time, and had threatened Zelensky to improve his election chances.

Twitter was supposed to fear Biden?

Because the first amendment covers congress's limitations on lawmaking. Thereby indirectly limiting executive and judicial actions in the same way.

It doesn't cover someone (regardless of influence or position) asking a company to review content against their own terms of service and policies.

Apple doesn’t post tweets using @apple

It’s not new.

It’s math. Imagine you are the SSA. There is tax revenue, and there are payouts.

Both are controlled by policies enshrined into law by congress.

One of the things that can and has been done to control expenses is raising the retirement age.

Liked your comment. The bit about Facebook, I don’t expect anything out of it today let alone in 30 years.

Just to be clear, 5% of China is 70 million people.

You are correct. But it really should be NaN, since 1/ε is positive infinity, whereas 1/-ε is negative infinity.

Oh well :)

By which country's standards is North Korea free?

Edit: Other than North Korea.

Not to mention some pretty solid data about where the anti Black racists reside.

It's hard to imagine a Klan member being a Democrat, within the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/1...

Major CDNs don't use Tier 1 providers to reach major eyeball networks in the United States. There are no ISPs who have sufficient capacity to the other networks. I'll cover why later.

Netflix is what... 37% of Internet traffic? They aren't sending anything to Comcast other than Comcast traffic, guaranteed. Same with Verizon, AT&T, Cox, etc.

Also, Comcast's backbone isn't large enough for someone like Netflix to inefficiently deliver data. Netflix is delivering the data locally, not using Comcast's national backbone.

So sure... Comcast might offer "Tier 1" internet services, but they don't have enough connectivity to other ISPs to matter to major CDNs.

Why?

Because the other major eyeball networks in the US employ the same tactics as Comcast! They all want to force major CDNs to connect directly, for different reasons. Some ISPs do it to avoid paying "tier 1" internet providers, allowing CDNs to peer settlement free. Others do it to extort CDNs.

All Teslas use one pedal driving. I'm under the impression that all EVs operate that way.

Edit: Yes of course, one pedal driving only applies to regenerative braking, normal brake pads are still engaged with a separate pedal. The Bolt works the same way. Imagine if simply releasing the accelerator slammed the brakes as hard as possible. That's a bad idea.

Regenerative braking only works if there is spare battery capacity to absorb the energy. In general that requires a large battery to be useful. A normal car battery is nowhere near large enough and is generally topped off by the alternator.

My ICE car has regenerative braking as well, but I certainly didn't buy it for that, nor have I been able to discern the impact of it. I have driven EVs before and the regenerative braking is unmistakable.

You're basically describing two factor authentication, when you have not authorized the particular computing device in question to skip it.

The problem with your argument is that a significant number of HN readers, I among them, work in the Internet interconnect industry.

Network Neutrality didn't go far enough. Most major eyeball networks in the US charge a high fee (should be zero) for interconnecting with content providers. And even after fees have been agreed to, drag their feet on installing the ports or limit port availability.

We should be looking for ways to give NN more teeth, not get rid of it. Without NN, ISPs can expand the war currently being fought via port availability and pricing, to specific content within a port... as well as placing traffic shaping and QoS back on the table (legally).

Competition is not the solution to all problems.

That's like suggesting that we don't need laws against fraud in functional healthy markets. Removing monopolies would not fix the privacy issue either.

However, it would probably eliminate the need for net neutrality. In the meantime, we need it.

And we need to keep privacy laws in place until such time that technology makes it impossible for ISPs to discover any details about what you are doing. Don't hold your breath.

The OP didn't say that the Pixel starts at $1000.

A 128GB Pixel XL with device protection is $968 US before tax and still has the same 3 year support as the entry level Pixel.

The fact is Google sells a $1000 phone with 3 years of support. They also sell less expensive variants with 3 years of support.

Being a thief requires theft. The GP didn't discuss stealing.