1. 7

    I mean, “RSS”, whatever the carrying signal is, is super-useful. There is no replacement that isn’t fatally crippled; so I’ll continue to happily use my reader to collect interesting sources of info, and continue to happily find all kinds of interesting stuff.

    This feels to me like it’s written at the wrong level of abstraction. Who cares about the XML structure of the feeds themselves, if the data is available? And what does “demise” mean – that VC money can’t figure out how to turn RSS into surveillance advertising? Pshaw.

    1. 4

      You hit all the nails on the head. Since the turning off of Google Reader I have been happily using a Tiny Tiny RSS install with no complaints. Every news source and blog has an RSS source. I have not missed a beat in the years since. Facebook, Twitter and Google would love it if RSS was dead, but if very much is not.

    1. 6

      Current status: https://media.giphy.com/media/dF7d5Fn8Cbt9m/giphy.gif

      Heading to Poland 🇵🇱 for a week’s holiday/exploration. Not taking a laptop, super looking forward to it. Starting out in Warsaw this time, then after a couple of days hiring a car and driving down to Krakow for a long weekend. Not been to Warsaw before, so that’s super exciting to explore. Looking forward to seeing other places on the way down the country too, and then it’ll be my second visit to Krakow so get to explore it a bit more.

      1. 3

        Welcome to Poland :)

        1. 3

          Great choice, and welcome to my beautiful country! ❤️🇵🇱

          As all tourists in Warsaw inevitably visit Stare Miasto, I can recommend the restaurant named Polka. Tourist hotspots in any location generally have lower quality and higher prices on everything, but this place does great Polish food.

          1. 1

            Ooh thanks! We do like the non-tourist, locals-recommended places to go, will check Polka out.

          2. 2

            Always wanted to visit Poland. Hoping to get a chance in a couple of years. Have fun!

          1. 4

            Listening to the new Dirty Nil record. Installing a new radio in the Jetta. Playing with the kids. Not working.

            1. 8

              That was quite a rant!

              I tried to use SeaMonkey a few times over the past couple of years but gave up after general crashiness and the fact that Thunderbird is a way better email client.

              I sympathize with the author to a degree. For backend things like programming languages, libraries, and kernels, we nerds are great at iterating on what already works. But if it has a GUI, some people just seem to have this irresistible urge to throw out the whole baby+bathwater and reimplement the thing (poorly, as a rule) literally just because it seems like a fun thing to do. Especially web browsers, desktop environments, smartphone interfaces, and so on. Once the UI has had time to mature, get stable, and regain all of the features that made it useful again, guess what? Time to wipe everything clean and start all over again!

              (Yes, I’m still bitter about GNOME 3.)

              1. 4

                I wonder if there’s some structural reason that free software does so badly in some areas, or if it’s a function of the population of people who work on free software. I tend to think it’s the latter, but I am willing to be persuaded.

                Also, I really wish that Apple didn’t ship Mail with the OS, because I’d love to see some actual competitive pressure on email clients. As it stands, I’ll just stick with mu and mbsync.

                1. 5

                  I don’t think bad UI development is a free software problem. We see it all the time in commercial products:

                  • Windows Start menu -> Tiles
                  • MS Office toolbars -> Ribbon
                  • Gmail interface variant 99834279834 -> Gmail interface variant 99834279835
                  • Reddit old -> Reddit new
                  • etc etc

                  I suspect this is a problem driven by a psychological desire to appear fresh, new and “innovative”. Whether or not you succeed does not matter, you only have to appear to change for people to think you are doing the right thing.

                  1. 3

                    Yeah, this is true. “We must do something! This is something!” &c.

                2. 3

                  I was considering adding the Rant tag :)

                  SeaMonkey … general crashiness … Thunderbird is a way better email client

                  Eek, I’ve never had any stability issues with SM. At least not more than any other web browser.

                  I always felt that Seamonkey mail and Thunderbird were identical to use. What differences caused you problems? Anything major?

                  Once the UI has had time to mature, get stable, and regain all of the features that made it useful again, guess what? Time to wipe everything clean and start all over again!

                  Ooh yes. I’m very happy with GTK2 apps simply because the interface is OK and it’s not constantly changing. GTK3 seems to be still changing and yet simultaneously ignoring all of the lessons learned in the GTK2 era and earlier.

                  There’s a small paradox involved. The expectation that new app develop uses the latest frameworks, but the latest frameworks are never the best ones.

                  (Yes, I’m still bitter about GNOME 3.)

                  twitches

                  1. 3

                    Minus HiDPI support Motif and gtk 2 are mature and stable. It’s too bad we as a community want to throw them away. I really wish there was an interest in a lighter weight GUI framework for Linux/Unix. I agree and sympathize with you and Hales.

                    1. 2

                      Motif

                      As far as I know, Motif doesn’t have any accessibility support. GTK 2 does, though.

                      1. 1

                        Thanks drs.

                        You bring up an important point. Why are projects transitioning from GTK2 to GTK3? GTK2 is a bit like win32 UI’s, it’s such as popular historical foundation that compatibility for it is never going to go away. GTK3 doesn’t really bring that many advantages (HiDPI, anything else?) and instead brings horrible things like the new file chooser dialog (that searches instead of navigating when you type).

                        Seamonkey’s transition from GTK2 to GTK3 has never made sense to me. Most of the UI is in html/XUL anyway, what was the motivation? Perhaps it was easier for maintenance because upstream had done the same?

                        Sidenote: perhaps HiDPI support can be hacked into GTK2 at the renderer level without the application knowing (other than for custom widgets, which would look scaled)? I’ve never used the library, so there’s probably a pile of technical reasons why this wouldn’t work.

                        1. 3

                          Why are projects transitioning from GTK2 to GTK3?

                          Because developers like using active projects, not abandoned wastelands.

                          GTK3 doesn’t really bring that many advantages

                          • Wayland
                          • Broadway (rendering to HTML — maybe not the most often used backend, but might be useful for running apps on a headless server)
                          • CSS styling (soooo much better than the gtk2 theme-engine hellscape)
                          • touchscreen support (I can even pinch to zoom in Evince yaaaaay)
                          • inertial scrolling support for touchpads (if you “had” it it gtk2 and everywhere else — that was your driver emulating inertia by changing wheel scroll speed, which is a horrendous hack)
                          • header bars and other cool modern UI elements (conservative “Windows 95 UI fans” hate them, but as an ex-Mac-user I love them)
                          • great language bindings with gobject-introspection

                          But wait, GTK 4.0 is coming! — with GPU rendering (WebRender-ish kind of engine), constraint based layout, and the whole thing actually becoming a scene graph while still keeping all existing widgets (Qt really dropped the ball on this with QML/QtQuick being its own separate from-scratch world)

                      2. 1

                        I was considering adding the Rant tag :)

                        SeaMonkey … general crashiness … Thunderbird is a way better email client

                        Eek, I’ve never had any stability issues with SM. At least not more than any other web browser.

                        I always felt that Seamonkey mail and Thunderbird were identical to use. What differences caused you problems? Anything major?

                        Once the UI has had time to mature, get stable, and regain all of the features that made it useful again, guess what? Time to wipe everything clean and start all over again!

                        Ooh yes. I’m very happy with GTK2 apps simply because the interface is OK and it’s not constantly changing. GTK3 seems to be still changing and yet simultaneously ignoring all of the lessons learned in the GTK2 era and earlier.

                        There’s a small paradox involved. The expectation that new app develop uses the latest frameworks, but the latest frameworks are never the best ones.

                        (Yes, I’m still bitter about GNOME 3.)

                        twitches

                      1. 69

                        Fastmail. They are trustworthy, quick to respond to service requests, and rock solid. I can count the number of outages in the past ~10 years on one hand.

                        1. 18

                          +1 for Fastmail. I’ve been using them for several years now and they’re very reliable, have a really solid web UI, and from what I can tell a solid position on security. They also contribute to moving the state of internet mail forward by improving Cyrus and contributing to RFCs. All in all I’d highly recommend them.

                          1. 13

                            They also contribute to moving the state of internet mail forward by improving Cyrus and contributing to RFCs.

                            That’s another good point: they are by all accounts a solid technical citizen, contributing back and moving the state of the art forward. I like to reward good behaviour when I spend my money, and it’s nice to be able to do that and get top of the line service, to boot.

                          2. 14

                            I also switched from Gmail to Fastmail.

                            The funny thing is that for the amount of press that Gmail received/receives for being “fast”, once you switch to Fastmail, you realize that Gmail is actually very slow. The amount of bloat and feature-creep they’ve introduced is fascinating.

                            1. 3

                              You’re talking about the web interface or the speed at which the mail is sent?

                              1. 1

                                The web interface.

                                1. 2

                                  I just use thunderbird (and k9 on mobile). I don’t see why you’d ever use a web interface for email when a standalone client is so much nicer to use.

                                  1. 1

                                    I’m on a desktop client too (Evolution). Just pointing out the advantage of Fastmail over Gmail. :)

                            2. 9

                              Love Fastmail. I only wish more tools had first class CalDAV/CardDAV support. When I switched over, I was genuinely surprised how pervasive it’s become to slap on Google account sync and call it a day, even in FOSS. Aside from the built-in macOS/iOS apps, most solutions involve fussing with URLs and 3rd party plugins, if it’s supported at all.

                              1. 1

                                Fastmail has a link generator for CalDAV so it’s super easy to get the right URLs. I do agree for 3rd party plugins, it’s annoying to have to install add-ons for standard and open source protocols…

                              2. 7

                                It was the best one I found, too, overall. I dont know about trustworthy, though, given they’re in a Five Eyes country expanding police and spy authority every year.

                                Maybe trustworthy from threats other than them, though. I liked them for that.

                                1. 7

                                  Yeah, I’m not concerned about state level actors, or more properly, I don’t lose sleep over them because for me and my threat model, there’s simply nothing to be done.

                                  1. 4

                                    I’m not worried about the state spying on me, I’m worried about the apparatus the state builds to spy on me being misused by service provider employees and random hackers.

                                    1. 1

                                      If those are your concerns, using PGP is probably recommended.

                                    2. 3

                                      That will be most folks, too. Which makes it a really niche concern.

                                      1. 2

                                        Maybe it oughtn’t be niche, but it’s pretty down my list of practical concerns.

                                  2. 5

                                    I use Fastmail as well, and became a customer by way of pobox.com acquisition.

                                    I’ll have to add, this was about the only time I can ever recall that a service I use was acquired by another company and I was actually fine with it, if not a bit pleased.

                                    My thinking was along the lines of “well, the upstream has purchased one of the biggest users of their tools, can’t be bad.”

                                    I’ve not had any noticeable difference in the level of service provided, technically or socially, except the time difference to Australia is something to keep in mind.

                                    I do hope that no one here in the US lost their jobs because of the acquisition, however.

                                    1. 3

                                      I do hope that no one here in the US lost their jobs because of the acquisition, however.

                                      Nope! We’ve hired a bunch more people in both offices, and the previous Pobox management are now C-level execs. We’re pretty sure the acquisition has been a win for just about everyone involved :)

                                    2. 5

                                      I can also recommend it, especially due to their adherence to web standards. After 10+ years of GMail, the only functioning client had been Thunderbird, which too often too large. Since switching to Fastmail, I’ve been having a far better experience with 3rd party clients, and a better mail experience in general (probably also because I left a lot of spam behind me).

                                      1. 4

                                        I second that. I was searching for a serious e-mail provider for a catch-all email, calendar and contacts.

                                        I had trouble setting up my carddav autodiscovery DNS configuration and they helped me without considering me as a “dumb” client. Serious, clear and direct. The most efficient support I could’ve encountered by far.

                                        It’s paid, and I’m paying the second plan (of 5$/month), and I think it’s perfectly fair, considering that, firstly, e-mail infrastructure is costly, and secondly, that their service is just plain awesome.

                                        1. 5

                                          They’ve recently added the ability to automatically set up iOS devices with all of their services when you create a new OTP. I didn’t know that I needed this, but it’s a wonderful little bonus. It’s stuff like that that keeps me happily sending them money, and will as long as they keep doing such a good job.

                                          1. 1

                                            I did not know about such a thing, since I’m not an iOS user, but sure sounds nice !

                                        2. 4

                                          Do you know if they store the emails in plaintext server-side?

                                          1. 2

                                            It’s a good question. I don’t know, and would like to. I’ll shoot them a mail.

                                            1. 1

                                              Their help page on the matter isn’t clear, although it does describe a lot of things that seem pretty good. Now you’ve got me wondering. (Happy Fastmail user here, and I even convinced my wife to move to it from GMail!)

                                              edit: It does sound like it’s plain text but you could read it a couple of ways.

                                              All your data is stored on encrypted disk volumes, including backups. We believe this level of protection strikes the correct balance between confidentiality and availability.

                                              1. 4

                                                Encrypted at rest (encrypted block devices), but cleartext available to the application because we need it for a bunch of things, mostly search, also previews and other bits and pieces. Of course, the applications that hit the on-disk files have their own protections.

                                                1. 1

                                                  I’d imagine their disks are encrypted as a whole - but not using per-mailbox encryption based on keys derived from individual user passwords.

                                                  However, even if such claims are made you can’t verify that and shouldn’t trust a companies word on it. I’d recommend PGP if that is a concern.

                                                  1. 1

                                                    using per-mailbox encryption based on keys derived from individual user passwords.

                                                    If this is a feature you’re looking for in a hosted solution, Protonmail is probably your best option.

                                                    However, even if such claims are made you can’t verify that.

                                                    Up to a point you can, Protonmail has released their webmail client as open source. Of course, with today’s JavaScript ecosystem it’ll be very hard to verify that the JavaScript code you are running actually corresponds to that code. Also, you can’t verify they’re not secretly storing a plaintext copy of inbound mails before encryption. But down that path lies madness, or self-hosting.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      But down that path lies madness, or self-hosting.

                                                      And the desperate hope that your correspondent also is sufficiently paranoid.

                                              2. 3

                                                +1 for Fastmail. Switched recently after self-hosting (well, the last several years at a friend’s) since the dial-up days and I’m satisfied.

                                                1. 3

                                                  Another Fastmail user here. I switched from GMail and my only regret is that I didn’t switch sooner.

                                                  I don’t think there are any workflow advantages, but I appreciate that they don’t track me, and I trust them more than Google.

                                                  I have the $30 per year subscription.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    One of other things I want to highlight is reliability/availability. Making sure I dont miss important emails is even more important than privacy to me. Newer, smaller, and privacy-focused sites might not have as much experience in keeping site up or getting all your mail in reliably.

                                                    Fastmail has been around for quite a while with positive feedback from everyone Ive seen. So, they might perform better than others in not missing/losing email and being available. Just speculating here based on what their customers say.

                                                    1. 3

                                                      SMTP actually tolerates outages pretty well… I’ve had my self hosted server down for a couple days, and everyone resent me everything when I fixed it.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Haha. Good to know.

                                                    2. 1

                                                      What service do you use for Calendars and such?

                                                      1. 4

                                                        I use FastMail for calendars and contacts. I actually don’t use it for e-mail much since my ISP is pretty ok.

                                                        For Android I switched from CalDAV-Sync + CardDAV-Sync to DAVdroid. Both work but the latter is easier to configure (by way of having less config options).

                                                        I tried self-hosting Radical for a while but for the time I had to put into it I’d rather pay FastMail $30 per year.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Fastmail! We have a family email account and shared calendars and reminders and suchlike, and I have a personal account as well.

                                                      1. 3

                                                        I use fish, and the completion has always been good enough that I’ve not spent any time figuring out how to change it.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          We have discovered a pathetic bug in Kafka’s handling of Avro encoded data, that is essentially unfixable without reworking vast swathes of unrelated codes. So, that’s fun! We get to put in a disgusting workaround and try to maintain, with a straight face, that our data backbone is reliable and trustworthy.

                                                          Swutting software, Ford!

                                                          1. 2

                                                            I’m surprised how regularly this happens pretty much around every macOS version release since OSX Tiger. Last time I used such tool was to run macOS Leopart on PowerMac G4 (QuickSilver 2002) which has beep deprecated in that release. It was completely not worth that, I downgraded back to Tiger after few days, and personally I think 10.4 was the peak of macOS line (something like Windows 2000 for WinNT OSes)

                                                            1. 2

                                                              I’m sometimes impressed with the effort some people put into making proprietary software work.

                                                              If having an operating system with long-term maintenance, regular updates and without planned obsolescence is important, why don’t they pick an appropriate Linux distribution of their choice?

                                                              That additional 30%+ performance boost of replacing macOS with Linux might especially help with older hardware.

                                                              1. 4

                                                                Because the operating system is just the enabling technology for the software that runs on top of it?

                                                            1. 5

                                                              My wife is off to NYC for the weekend, so I have the girls to myself. We’re probably going to go to the market tomorrow, then the zoo? Once they’re asleep, around 7pm, I’ll probably just play Zelda all night, because I got a Switch and oh man alive.

                                                              1. 3

                                                                I have to wonder if keeping the airplane, or avionics suite, running continuously for 248 days is even realistic in the first place.

                                                                1. 3

                                                                  While it doesn’t specify the reasons it seems they need/ed rebooting < every 22 days https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-orders-787-safety-fix-reboot-power-once-in-a-while/

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    Yeah, I mean, this is a tradeoff, but you’re not going to run an airliner that long without maintenance, anyway. It’s still ugly, though.

                                                                    1. 2

                                                                      NonStop Systems run continuously for years as their parts are replaced. VMS clusters did same on server hardware. Record was 17 years at a railroad company. There’s embedded CPU’s with lock-step support, too. Erlang has also been used in five 9’s systems.

                                                                      I’m sure airplane computers could use those proven concepts to hit five or more 9’s. The airplanes themselves still have to go down for maintenance, though.

                                                                    1. 11

                                                                      This is shameful:

                                                                      To Kaminska’s point, in April a once-shuttered coal power plant in Australia was announced to be reopened to provide electricity to a cryptocurrency miner. And just today, a senator from Montana warned that the closure of a coal power plant “could harm the booming bitcoin mining business in the state.”

                                                                      At a small scale, heavy residential electricity users in certain U.S. locations where marijuana remains illegal are sometimes checked out in case they are running a growing operation. I wonder if this idea of investigating grid usage by crypto miners could be applied at a large scale, or are they simply too big, coordinated, and powerful to be regulated through anything but national-scale action?

                                                                      1. 8

                                                                        Mining Bitcoin or other crypto is entirely legal. So it’s just a question of the miners signing a commercial power deal with whomever sells electricity. So there’s no need for miners to use subterfuge like illegal growers.

                                                                        1. 10

                                                                          If anything, people who are illegally growing marijuana might want to disguise their suspicious power useage by pretending to be mining cryptocurrencies!

                                                                          1. 5

                                                                            There could be zoning restrictions, though I would guess you’d build the mine in a commercial area anyway.

                                                                          2. 8

                                                                            This is shameful:

                                                                            What is the problem?

                                                                            We already expend huge amount of electricity on distributing cat videos and movies of men in cape flying around blowing stuff up. How is mining bitcoin any less ‘productive’ than beaming photons into people’s eyeballs?

                                                                            We already have huge established industry involving people betting on whether or not something will happen. Sports betting, futures market, roulette etc. If you want to save on some carbon emission, then turn off your computer and surrender your car to the nearest recycling plant. But you won’t because you think those things are ‘worthwhile’ because you like them.

                                                                            Maybe bitcoin will be useless technically, maybe it won’t. This is just a decentralised R&D program and a gambling pool rolled into one.

                                                                            The problem isn’t bitcoin. The problem is clean energy scarcity.

                                                                            1. 5

                                                                              “This is just a decentralised R&D program and a gambling pool rolled into one.”

                                                                              Best, concise description of it I’ve ever seen. ;)

                                                                            2. 2

                                                                              There’s a pretty good study on the electricity/carbon burden of marijuana manufacturing in California.

                                                                              https://sites.google.com/site/millsenergyassociates/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-up-in-smoke

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                It seems to me that electricity is hilariously underpriced, if the best usage anyone can think of for it is a sad desperate attempt to circumvent Chinese capital controls.

                                                                                1. 7

                                                                                  Or… bitcoin is hilariously overpriced if it’s worth the electricity to make it?

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                It’s really sweet that these types of articles pop up from time to time. There’s a lot of power here. Problem is that so many people use ORMs which don’t support all the types, or have to support different databases, that we end up in a suboptimal position :(

                                                                                1. 6

                                                                                  That is one of the thing I love about SQLAlchemy, we use most of these without problem. JSONB is really nice to use, fast, efficient

                                                                                  1. 7

                                                                                    When people bemoan ORMs and the “impedance mismatch” and it being hard to formulate queries or to optimize them I used to think “what are you talking about, there’s nothing wrong with ORMs” and eventually I came to realize that I was probably very lucky to have mostly only used SQLAlchemy (and LINQ way back) or raw SQL for talking to DBs.

                                                                                  2. 4

                                                                                    The CHICKEN PostgreSQL egg, which is not an ORM but “just” a database access library (a wrapper for libpq with several additional features, much like Python’s PsycoPG) has rich support for types. I’ve written a so-called “omelette recipe” (a tutorial) about this a couple of years ago.

                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                      Most recent project I did, the SQL and the data access code was done in plain JDBC access code in Scala. The SQL uses postgres types and one or two more specialized bits. It’s worked out reasonably well; a compare and contrast with the FRM and ORMs from Scala that I did later on revealed roughly about as many lines of code, but without the support for Postgres capabilities; adding those capabilities got very fiddly and brittle, so I closed down that line of work.

                                                                                      Fortunately, I didn’t have to try to target multiple SQL databases. That would be Very Irritating.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        I have always maintained that the “but multiple databases!” rationale for ORM is meaningless – how often do large projects change their entire data persistence strategy? How often ought they?

                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                          It may be rare for a particular installation to change, but “works with the database you are already running” is a compelling sales bullet.

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            Several times a day. By which I mean, using SQLite in unit tests and so forth, while using PostgreSQL or similar in acceptance testing and production. If I couldn’t do that, I’d have to write much, much more mocking code to have the level of code coverage I have.

                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                              You would only have to run postgres locally instead of sqlite. The coverage would be unchanged, and you’d be able to take advantage of more powerful database features in your application.

                                                                                            2. 1

                                                                                              It’s pretty much as @tedu said. Good luck breeding those lions (as the meme says) if you leverage Postgres heavily but many of your pitential customers run Oracle and their DBAs don’t want to add something new to the mix. An ORM is the easy way out.

                                                                                              Even then you may encounter interesting situations with the Oracle driver and long text, unless that’s fixed or not applicable in your ORM of choice.

                                                                                              It does suck people don’t usually run tests against their target db. I’ve seen big companies fsck this up with Django. It really isn’t that hard. Turn off fsync and Postgres isn’t even slow.

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            Nature red in tube and claw, I guess?

                                                                                            1. 8

                                                                                              The thread of security issues unveiled during the last few months in Intel CPU and similar architectures is an industrial nightmare. It’s difficult to accept that a whole industry could have been built on a such fragile basis…

                                                                                              1. 25

                                                                                                I mean, have you seen the software the world runs on?

                                                                                                1. 6

                                                                                                  It’s difficult to accept that a whole industry could have been built on a such fragile basis…

                                                                                                  See also car software.

                                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                                    For me, it was easy after seeing how much better older stuff was that they ignored for money. Intel did try to make their own better stuff which failed repeatedly. They tried three times with i432, i960, and Itanium. Each had good and bad (i960 my favorite) but Intel was punished hard for all of them. Customers did buy billions in x86’s based on performance (most important), cost, and watts. Predictably, Intel decided to keep doing what people paid billions for instead of what cost them billions. I blame the buyers as much as them given I’ve tried to sell lots of them on secure, usable products that were free or cost almost nothing. Usually unsuccessful due to some aspect of human nature.

                                                                                                    Like in most other tech products. It was surprising to me that Intel’s products weren’t worse than they are. Well, maybe they were as the bugs keep coming in as those assessing them predicted. They weren’t designed for strong security since market doesn’t pay for that. So, they have a lot of security problems. The hackers ignored them way longer than I thought they would, though.

                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                      What shocks me most is how long we have been using these techniques without widespread awareness of these issues or the potential for this class of issues.

                                                                                                      Some people predicted these problems, sure, but their concerns were mostly dismissed. So over the course of decades, we’ve seen other chip makers and architectures adopt the same techniques and thus enable these same bug classes.

                                                                                                      For a young initiative like RISC-V, this is a great opportunity. They have not sunk years and years of development in features which may never be entirely safe to implement (speculative execution, hyperthreading, …) and are now able to take these new threats into account, quite early in their development. This could be a boon for industrial adoption, especially while many competitors are forced to rethink so many man-years of performance improvements.

                                                                                                    1. 8

                                                                                                      As a European, I don’t quite get it: Americans seem to be concerned with net neutrality, meanwhile not protesting huge monopolistic corporations(the gatekeepers) removing some controversial users on their own judgement and with no way to appeal. Are individuals excluded from the net neutrality?

                                                                                                      1. 16

                                                                                                        I’m not very familiar with the legal details, but I assume the distinction is general access to the internet being considered a utility, while access to platforms being considered something like a privilege. E.g. roads shouldn’t discriminate based on destination, but that doesn’t mean the destination has to let you in.

                                                                                                        edit: As to why Americans don’t seem as concerned with it (which is realize I didn’t address): I think most people see it as a place, like a restaurant. You can be kicked out if you are violating policies or otherwise disrupting their business, which can include making other patrons uncomfortable. Of course there are limits which is why we have anti-discrimination laws.

                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                          Well, they’re also private, for-profit companies that legally own and sell the lines. So, there’s another political angle where people might vote against the regulations under theory that government shouldn’t dictate how you run your business or use your property, esp if it cost you money. Under theory of benefiting owners and shareholders, these companies are legal entities specifically created to generate as much profit from those lines as possible. If you don’t like it, build and sell your own lines. That’s what they’d say.

                                                                                                          They don’t realize how hard it is to deploy an ISP on a shoe-string budget to areas where existing players already paid off the expensive part of the investment, can undercut you into bankruptcy, and (per people claiming to be ISP founders on Hacker News) will even cut competitors’ lines “accidentally” so their own customers leave them. In the last case, it’s hard to file and win a lawsuit if you just lost all your revenue and opponent has over a billion in the bank. They all just quit.

                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                            Do you have the source for these claims regarding ISPs?

                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                              Which ones?

                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                …existing players … (per people claiming to be ISP founders on Hacker News) will even cut competitors’ lines “accidentally” so their own customers leave them.

                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                  One of them described a situation with a contracted, construction crew with guy doing the digging not speaking English well. They were supposedly digging for incumbent but dug through his line. He aaid he pointed that it was clearly marked with paint or something. The operator claimed he thought that meant there wasnt a line there.

                                                                                                                  That’s a crew that does stuff in that area for a living not knowing what a line mark means. So, he figured they did it on purpose. He folded since he couldnt afford to sue them. Another mentioned them unplugging their lines in exchanges or something that made their service appear unreliable. Like the rest, they’d have to spend money they didnt have on lawyers who’d have to prove (a) it happened snd/or (b) it was intentional.

                                                                                                        2. 11

                                                                                                          The landmark case in the United States is throttling of Netflix by Comcast. Essentially, Comcast held Netflix customers hostage until Netflix paid (which they did).

                                                                                                          It’s important to understand that many providers (Comcast, AT&T), also own the channels (NBC, CNN, respectively). They have an interest in charging less for their and their partners content, and more for their competitors content, while colluding to raise prices across the board (which they have done in the past with television and telephone service).

                                                                                                          Collectively, they all have an interest in preventing new entrants to the market. The fear is that big players (Google, Amazon) will be able to negotiate deals (though they’d probably prefer not to), and new or free technologies (like PeerTube) will get choked out.

                                                                                                          Net neutrality is somewhere where the American attitude towards corporations being able to do whatever to their customers conflicts with the American attitude that new companies and services must be able to compete in the marketplace.

                                                                                                          You’re right to observe that individuals don’t really enter into it, except that lots of companies are pushing media campaigns to sway public opinion towards their own interests. You’re seeing those media campaigns leaking out.


                                                                                                          Switching to the individual perspective.

                                                                                                          I just don’t want to pay more for the same service. In living memory Americans have seen their gigantic monopolistic telecommunications company get broken up, and seen prices for services drop 100 fold; more or less as a direct consequence of that action.

                                                                                                          As other posts have noted, the ISP situation in the US is already pretty dire unless you’re a business. Internet providers charge whatever they can get away with and have done an efficient job of ensuring customers don’t have alternatives. Telephone service got regulated, but internet service did not.

                                                                                                          Re-reading your post after diving on this one… We’re not really concerned about the same gatekeepers. I don’t think any American would be overly upset to see players like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Netflix go away and I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or more of those guys implode as long as they don’t get access to too much of the infrastructure.

                                                                                                          1. 4

                                                                                                            Right-leaning US Citizen here. I’ll attempt to answer this as best as I can.

                                                                                                            Net neutrality is being pushed by the media because it “fights discrimination”, and they blame the “fascist, nazi right” for it’s repeal (and they’re correct, except for the “fascist, nazi” bit). But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                            I can’t speak to why open-source advocates are also pushing for net neutrality, because (in my opinion) the government shouldn’t be involved in how much internet costs. I do remember this article was moderately interesting, saying that the majority of root DNS servers are run by US companies. But, that doesn’t really faze me. As soon as people start censoring, that get backlash whether the media covers it or not

                                                                                                            Side note, the reason you don’t see the protests against the “gatekeepers” is that most of the mainstream media isn’t accurately covering the reaction of the people to the censorship. I bet you didn’t know that InfoWars was the #1 news app with 5 stars on the Apple app store within a couple of weeks of them getting banned from Facebook, etc. I don’t really have any opinion about Alex Jones (lots of people on the right don’t agree with him), but you can bet I downloaded his app when I found out he got banned.

                                                                                                            P.S. I assumed that InfoWars was what you were referring to when you said “removing some controversial users” P.P.S. I just checked the app store again, and it’s down to #20 in news, but still has 5 stars.

                                                                                                            1. 34

                                                                                                              But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                              I think this is too optimistic. I live in Chicago, the third biggest city in the country and arguably the tech hub of the midwest. In my building I get to choose between AT&T and Comcast. I’m considered lucky: most of my friends in the city get one option, period. If their ISP starts doing anything shady they don’t have an option to switch, because there’s nobody they can switch to.

                                                                                                              1. 16

                                                                                                                I think this is too optimistic. I live in Chicago, the third biggest city in the country and arguably the tech hub of the midwest. In my building I get to choose between AT&T and Comcast. I’m considered lucky: most of my friends in the city get one option, period. If their ISP starts doing anything shady they don’t have an option to switch, because there’s nobody they can switch to.

                                                                                                                It’s interesting to contrast this to New Zealand, where I live in a town of 50,000 people and have at least 5 ISPs I can choose from. I currently pay $100 NZ a month for an unlimited gigabit fibre connection, and can hit ~600 mbit from my laptop on a speed test. The NZ government has intervened heavily in the market, effectively forcing the former monopolist (Telecom) to split into separate infrastructure (Chorus) and services (Telecom) companies, and spending a lot of taxpayer money to roll out a nationwide fibre network. The ISPs compete on the infrastructure owned by Chorus. There isn’t drastic competition on prices: most plans are within $10-15 of each other, on a per month basis, but since fibre rolled out plans seem to have come down from around $135 per month to now around $100.

                                                                                                                I was lucky to have decent internet through a local ISP when I lived in one of Oakland’s handful of apartment buildings, but most people wouldn’t have had that option. I think the ISP picture is a lot better in NZ. Also, net neutrality is a non-issue, as far as I know. We have it, no-one seems to be trying to take it away.

                                                                                                                1. 14

                                                                                                                  I’m always irritated that there are policies decried in the United States as “impossible” when there are demonstrable implementations of it elsewhere.

                                                                                                                  I can see it being argued that the United States’s way is better or something, but there are these hyperbolic attacks on universal health care, net neutrality, workers’ rights, secure elections, etc that imply that they are simply impossible to implement when there are literally dozens of counterexamples…

                                                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                                                    At the risk of getting far too far off topic.

                                                                                                                    One of the members of the board at AT&T was the CEO of an insurance company, someone sits on the boards of both Comcast/NBC and American Beverages. The head of the FCC was high up at Verizon.

                                                                                                                    These are some obvious, verifiable, connections based in personal interest. Not implying that it’s wrong or any of those individuals are doing anything which is wrong, you’ve just gotta take these ‘hyperbolic attacks’ with a grain of salt.

                                                                                                                      1. 2
                                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                                      Oh yeah it’s infuriating. It helps to hit them with examples. Tell them the media doesn’t talk about them since they’re all pushing something. We all know that broad statement is true. Then, briefly tell them the problems that we’re trying to solve with some goals we’re balancing. Make sure it’s their problems and goals. Then, mention the solution that worked else where which might work here. If it might not fit everyone, point out that we can deploy it in such a way where its specifics are tailored more to each group. Even if it can’t work totally, maybe point out that it has more cost-benefit than the current situation. Emphasize that it gets us closer to the goal until someone can figure out how to close the remaining gap. Add that it might even take totally different solutions to address other issues like solving big city vs rural Internet. If it worked and has better-cost benefit, then we should totally vote for it to do better than we’re doing. Depending on audience, you can add that we can’t have (country here) doing better than us since “This is America!” to foster some competitive, patriotic spirit.

                                                                                                                      That’s what I’ve been doing as part of my research talking to people and bouncing messages off them. I’m not any good at mass marketing, outreach or anything. I’ve just found that method works really well. You can even be honest since the other side is more full of shit than us on a lot of these issues. I mean, them saying it can’t exist vs working implementations should be an advantage for us. Should. ;)

                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                        Beautifully said.

                                                                                                                        My family’s been in this country since the Mayflower. I love it dearly.

                                                                                                                        Loving something means making it better and fixing its flaws, not ignoring them.

                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                          Thanks and yes. I did think about leaving for a place maybe more like my views. That last thing you said is why I’m still here. If we fix it, America won’t be “great again:” it would be fucking awesome. If not for us, then for the young people we’re wanting to be able to experience that. That’s why I’m still here.

                                                                                                                  2. 5

                                                                                                                    arguably the tech hub of the midwest.

                                                                                                                    Only if you can’t find Austin on a map… ;)

                                                                                                                    1. 11

                                                                                                                      Native Texan/Austinite here. Texas is the South, Southwest, or just Texas. All the rest of y’all are just Yankees. ;)

                                                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                                                      But if their ISP starts doing anything shady, they’ll surely get some backlash, even if they can’t switch they can complain.

                                                                                                                      1. 9

                                                                                                                        They’ve been complaining for decades. Nothing happens most of the time. The ISP’s have many lobbyists and lawyers to insulate them from that. The big ones are all doing the same abusive practices, too. So, you can’t switch to get away from it.

                                                                                                                        Busting up AT&T’s monopoly got results in lower costs, better service, better speeds, etc. Net neutrality got more results. I support more regulation of these companies and/or socialized investment to replace them like the gigabit for $350/mo in Chattanooga, TN. It’s 10Gbps now I think but I don’t know what price.

                                                                                                                        Actually, I go further due to their constant abuses and bribing politicians: Im for having a court seizetheir assets, converting them to nonprofits, and putting new management in charge. If at all possible. It would send a message to other companies that think they can do damage to consumers and mislead regulators with immunity to consequences.

                                                                                                                          1. 6

                                                                                                                            What incentive does the ISP have to change? Unless you can complain to some higher authority (FCC, perhaps) then there is no reason for the ISP to make any changes even with backlash. I’d be more incentivized to complain if there was at least some competition.

                                                                                                                        1. 30

                                                                                                                          Net neutrality is being pushed by the media because it “fights discrimination”, and they blame the “fascist, nazi right” for it’s repeal

                                                                                                                          Nobody says this. It’s being pushed because it prevents large corporations from locking out smaller players. The Internet is a great economic equalizer: I can start a business and put a website up and I’m just as visible and accessible as Microsoft.

                                                                                                                          We don’t want Microsoft to be able to pay AT&T to slow traffic to my website but not theirs. It breaks the free market by allowing collusion that can’t be easily overcome. It’s like the telephone network; I can’t go run wires to everyone’s house, but I want my customers to be able to call me. I don’t want my competitors to pay AT&T to make it harder to call me than to call them.

                                                                                                                          But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                          That assumes people have a choice. They very often don’t. Internet service has a massively high barrier to entry, similar to a public utility. Most markets in the United States have at most two providers (both major corporations opposed to net neutrality). Very, very rarely is there a third.

                                                                                                                          More importantly, there are only five tier-1 networks in the United States. Five. It doesn’t matter how many local ISPs there are; without Net Neutrality, five corporations effectively control what can and can’t be transmitted. If those five decide something should be slowed down or forbidden, there is nothing I can do. Changing to a different provider won’t do a thing.

                                                                                                                          (And of those five, all of them donate significantly more to one major political party than the other, and the former Associate General Counsel of one of them is currently chairman of the FCC…)

                                                                                                                          I can’t speak to why open-source advocates are also pushing for net neutrality, because (in my opinion) the government shouldn’t be involved in how much internet costs.

                                                                                                                          Net neutrality says nothing about how much it costs. It just says you can’t charge different amounts based on content. It would be like television stations charging more money to Republican candidates to run ads than to Democratic candidates. They’re free to charge whatever they want; they’re not free to charge different people different amounts based on the content of the message.

                                                                                                                          Democracy requires communication. It does no good to say “freedom!” if the major corporations can effectively silence whoever they want. “At least it’s not the government” is not a good defense of stifling public debate.

                                                                                                                          And there’s a difference between a newspaper and a television/radio station/internet service. I can buy a printing press and make a newspaper and refuse to carry whatever I want. There are no practical limits to the number of printing presses in the country.

                                                                                                                          There is a limited electromagnetic spectrum. Not just anyone can broadcast a TV signal. There is a limit to how many cables can be run on utility polls or buried underground. Therefore, discourse carried over those media are required to operate more in the public trust than others. As they become more essential to a healthy democracy, that only becomes more important. It’s silly to say “you still have freedom of speech” if you’re blocked from television, radio, the Internet, and so on. Those are the public forums of our day. That a corporation is doing the blocking doesn’t make it any better than if the government were to do it.

                                                                                                                          Side note, the reason you don’t see the protests against the “gatekeepers” is that most of the mainstream media isn’t accurately covering the reaction of the people to the censorship.

                                                                                                                          There’s a big difference between Twitter not wanting to carry Alex Jones and net neutrality. Jones is still free to go start up a website that carries his message; with Net Neutrality not only could he be blocked from Twitter, but the network itself could make his website inaccessible.

                                                                                                                          There is no alternative with Net Neutrality. You can’t build your own Internet. Without mandating equal treatment of traffic, we hand the Internet over solely to the big players. Preventing monopolistic and oligarchic control of public discourse is a valid use of government power. It’s not censorship, it’s the exact opposite.

                                                                                                                          1. 7

                                                                                                                            That assumes people have a choice. They very often don’t.

                                                                                                                            This was also brought up by @hwayne, @caleb and @friendlysock, and is not something that occurred to me. I appreciate all who are mentioning this.

                                                                                                                            More importantly, there are only five tier-1 networks in the United States.

                                                                                                                            Wow, I did not know that. I can see that as a legitimate reason to want net neutrality. But, I also think that they’ll piss off a lot of people if they can stream CNN but not InfoWars.

                                                                                                                            It just says you can’t charge different amounts based on content.

                                                                                                                            I understood it to also mean that you also couldn’t charge customers differently because of who they are. Also, don’t things like Tor mitigate things like that?

                                                                                                                            “At least it’s not the government” is not a good defense of stifling public debate.

                                                                                                                            I completely agree. But in the US we have a free market (at least, we used to) and that means that the government is supposed to stay out of it as much as possible.

                                                                                                                            Preventing monopolistic and oligarchic control of public discourse is a valid use of government power.

                                                                                                                            I also agree. But these corporations (the tier-1 ISPs) haven’t done anything noticeable to me to limit my enjoyment of conservative content, and I’m pretty sure that they would’ve by now if they wanted to.

                                                                                                                            The reason I oppose net neutrality is more because I don’t think that the government should control it than any more than I think AT&T and others should.

                                                                                                                            not only could he be blocked from Twitter, but the network itself could make his website inaccessible.

                                                                                                                            But they haven’t.

                                                                                                                            edit: how -> who

                                                                                                                          2. 6

                                                                                                                            Even though I’m favoring net neutrality, I appreciate you braving the conservative position on this here on Lobsters. I did listen to a lot of them. What I found is most had reasonable arguments but had no idea about what ISP’s did, are doing, are themselves paying Tier 1’s, etc. Their media sources’ bias (all have bias) favoring ISP’s for some reason didn’t tell them any of it. So, even if they’d have agreed with us (maybe, maybe not), they’d have never reached those conclusions since they were missing crucial information to reflect on when choosing to regulate or not regulate.

                                                                                                                            An example is one telling me companies like Netflix should pay more to Comcast per GB or whatever since they used more. The guy didn’t know Comcast refuses to do that when paying Tier 1’s negotiating transit agreements instead that worked entirely different. He didn’t know AT&T refused to give telephones or data lines to rural areas even if they were willing to pay what others did. He didn’t know they could roll out gigabit today for same prices but intentionally kept his service slow to increase profit knowing he couldn’t switch for speed. He wasn’t aware of most of the abuses they were doing. He still stayed with his position since that guy in particular went heavily with his favorite, media folks. However, he didn’t like any of that stuff which his outlets never even told him about. Even if he disagrees, I think he should disagree based on an informed decision if possible since there’s plenty smart conservatives out there who might even favor net neutrality if no better alternative. I gave him a chance to do that.

                                                                                                                            So, I’m going to give you this comment by @lorddimwit quickly showing how they ignored the demand to maximize profit, this comment by @dotmacro showing some abuses they do with their market control, and this article that gives nice history of what free market did with each communications medium with the damage that resulted. Also note that the Internet itself was an open, free-if-you-have-a-wire system that competed with the proprietary, charge-per-use, lock-them-in-forever-if-possible systems the private sector was offering. It smashed them so hard you might have even never heard of them or forgotten a lot about them depending on your age. It also democratized more goods than about anything other than maybe transportation. Probably should stick with the principles that made that happen to keep innovation rolling. Net neutrality was one of them that was practiced informally at first then put into law as the private sector got too much power and was abusing it. We should keep doing what worked instead of the practices ISP’s want that didn’t work but will increase their profits at our expense for nothing in return. That is what they want: give us less or as little improvement in every way over time while charging us more. It’s what they’re already doing.

                                                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                                                              I read the comments, and I read most of the freecodecamp article.

                                                                                                                              I like the ideal of the internet being a public utility, but I don’t really want the government to have that much control.

                                                                                                                              I think the real problem I have with government control of the internet, is that I don’t want the US to end up like china with large swaths of the internet completely blocked.

                                                                                                                              I don’t really know how to solve our current problems. But, like @jfb said elsewhere in this thread, I don’t think that net neutrality is the best possible solution.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                Also note that the Internet itself was an open, free-if-you-have-a-wire system that competed with the proprietary, charge-per-use, lock-them-in-forever-if-possible systems the private sector was offering. It smashed them so hard you might have even never heard of them or forgotten a lot about them depending on your age.

                                                                                                                                I might recognize a name, but I probably wasn’t even around yet.

                                                                                                                                So, I’m going to give you…

                                                                                                                                Thanks for the info, I’ll read it and possibly form a new opinion.

                                                                                                                              2. 5

                                                                                                                                But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                                What obvious reasons? Because customers will switch providers if they don’t treat all traffic equally? That would require (a) users are able to tell if a provider prioritizes certain traffic, and (b) that there is a viable alternative to switch to. I have no confidence in either.

                                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                                  I don’t personally care if the prioritize certain websites, but I sure as hell care if the block something.

                                                                                                                                  As far as I’m concerned, they can slow down Youtube by 10% for conservative channels and I wouldn’t give a damn even though I watch and enjoy some. What really bothers me is when they “erase” somebody or block people from getting to them.

                                                                                                                                  1. 4

                                                                                                                                    well you did say they have an incentive to provide “equal service” so i guess you meant something else. net neutrality supporters like me aren’t satisfied with “nobody gets blocked,” because throttling certain addresses gives big corporations more tools to control media consumption, and throttling have similar effects to blocking in the long term. i’m quite surprised that you’d be fine with your ISP slowing down content you like by 10%… that would adversely affect their popularity compared to the competitors that your ISP deems acceptable, and certain channels would go from struggling to broke and be forced to close down.

                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                      Well, I have pretty fast internet, so 10% wouldn’t be terrible for me. However, I can see how some people would take issue with such a slowdown.

                                                                                                                                      I was using a bit an extreme example to illustrate my point. What I was trying to say was that they can’t really stop people from watching the content that they want to watch.

                                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                                        I recall, but didn’t review, a study saying half of web site users wanted the page loaded in 2 seconds. Specific numbers aside, I’ve been reading that kind of claim from many people for a long time that a new site taking too long to load, being sluggish, etc makes them miss lots of revenue. Many will even close down. So, the provider of your favorite content being throttled for even two seconds might kill half their sales since Internet users expect everything to work instantly. Can they operate with a 50% cut in revenue? Or maybe they’re bootstrapping up a business with a few hundred or a few grand but can’t afford to pay for no artificial delays. Can they even become the content provider your liked if having to pay hundreds or thousands extra on just extra profit? I say extra profit since ISP’s already paid for networks capable of carrying it out of your monthly fee.

                                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                                          yeah, the shaping of public media consumption would happen in cases where people don’t know what they want to watch or don’t find out about something that they would want to watch

                                                                                                                                          anti-democratic institutions already shape media consumption and discourse to a large extent, but giving them more tools will hurt the situation. maybe it won’t affect you or me directly, but sadly we live in a society so it will come around to us in the form of changes in the world

                                                                                                                                  2. 5

                                                                                                                                    But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                                    Most customers have exceedingly limited options in their area, and they’re not going to switch houses because of their ISP. Especially in apartment complexes, you see cases where, say, Comcast has the lockdown on an entire population and there really isn’t a reasonable alternative.

                                                                                                                                    In a truly free market, maybe I’d agree with you, but the regulatory environment and natural monopolistic characteristics of telecomm just don’t support the case.

                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                      Most customers have exceedingly limited options in their area, and they’re not going to switch houses because of their ISP.

                                                                                                                                      That’s a witty way of putting it.

                                                                                                                                      But yeah, @lorddimwit mentioned the small number of tier-1 ISPs. I didn’t realize there were so few, but I still think that net neutrality is overreaching, even if its less than I originally thought.

                                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                                        Personally, I feel that net neutrality, such as it is, would prevent certain problems that could be better addressed in other, more fundamental ways. For instance, why does the US allow the companies that own the copper to also own the ISPs?

                                                                                                                                    2. 3

                                                                                                                                      But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                                      Awkward political jabs aside, most of your statements imply that you believe customers are free to choose who they get their internet from, which is just plain incorrect. Whatever arguments you want to make against net neutrality, there is one indisputable fact that you cannot just ignore or paper over:

                                                                                                                                      ISPs do not operate in a free market.

                                                                                                                                      In the vast majority of the US, cable and telephone companies are granted local monopolies in the areas they operate. That is why they must be regulated. As the Mozilla blog said, they have both the incentive and means to abuse their customers and they’ve already been caught doing it on multiple occasions.

                                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                                        most of your statements imply that you believe customers are free to choose who they get their internet from, which is just plain incorrect

                                                                                                                                        I think you’re a bit late to the party, I’ve conceded that fact already.

                                                                                                                                      2. 3

                                                                                                                                        All of that is gibberish. Net Neutrality is being pushed because it creates a more competitive marketplace. None of it has anything to do with professional liar Alex Jones.

                                                                                                                                        But without net neutrality, the ISPs still have an incentive to provide equal service, because otherwise they’ll lose customers (for obvious reasons).

                                                                                                                                        That’ s not how markets work. And it’s not how the technology or permit process for ISPs work. There is very little competition among ISPs in the US market.

                                                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                                                          Hey, here’s a great example from HN of the crap they pull without net neutrality. They advertised “unlimited,” throttled it secretly, admitted it, and forced them to pay extra to get actual unlimited.

                                                                                                                                          @lorddimwit add this to your collection. Throttling and fake unlimited been going on long time but they couldve got people killed doing it to first responders. Id have not seen that coming just for PR reasons or avoiding local, govt regulation if nothing else.

                                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                                            I can’t speak to why open-source advocates are also pushing for net neutrality, because (in my opinion) the government shouldn’t be involved in how much internet costs.

                                                                                                                                            It’s not about how much internet costs, it’s about protecting freedom of access to information, and blocking things like zero-rated traffic that encourage monopolies and discourage competition. If I pay for a certain amount of traffic, ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to turn to Google and say “want me to prioritize YouTube traffic over Netflix traffic? Pay me!”

                                                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                                                              Net neutrality is being pushed by the media because it “fights discrimination”, and they blame the “fascist, nazi right” for it’s repeal (and they’re correct, except for the “fascist, nazi” bit).

                                                                                                                                              Where on earth did you hear that? I sure hope you’re not making it up—you’ll find this site doesn’t take too kindly to that.

                                                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                                                I might’ve been conflating two different political issues, but I have heard “fascist” and “nazi” used to describe the entire right wing.

                                                                                                                                                A quick google search for “net neutrality fascism” turned this up https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kbye4z/heres-why-net-neutrality-is-essential-in-trumps-america

                                                                                                                                                “With the rise of Trump and other neo-fascist regimes around the world, net neutrality will be the cornerstone that activists use to strengthen social movements and build organized resistance,” Wong told Motherboard in a phone interview. “Knowledge is power.”

                                                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                                                  You assume that net neutrality is a left-wing issue, which it’s not. It actually has bipartisan support. The politicians who oppose it have very little in common, aside from receiving a large sum of donations from telecom corporations.

                                                                                                                                                  As far as terms like “fascist” or “Nazi” are concerned—I think they have been introduced into this debate solely to ratchet up the passions. It’s not surprising that adding these terms to a search yields results that conflate the issues.

                                                                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                                                                    Ill add on your first point that conservatives who are pro-market are almost always pro-competition. They expect the market will involve competition driving whats offered up, its cost down, and so on. Both the broadband mandate and net neutrality achieved that with an explosion of businesses and FOSS offering about anything one can think of.

                                                                                                                                                    The situation still involves 1-3 companies available for most consumers that, like a cartel, work together to not compete on lowering prices, increasing service, and so on. Net neutrality reduced some predatory behavior the cartel market was doing. They still made about $25 billion in profit between just a few companies due to anti-competitive behavior. Repealing net neutrality for anti-competitive market will have no positives for consumer but will benefit roughly 3 or so companies by letting them charge more for same or less service.

                                                                                                                                                    Bad for conservative’s goals of market competition and benefiting conservative voters.

                                                                                                                                            2. 2

                                                                                                                                              One part of it is that we already have net neutrality, and it’s easier to try to hang on to a regulation than to create a new one.

                                                                                                                                            1. 11

                                                                                                                                              I would like to request that people don’t post “we” as a hyperlink, without saying who “we” is. It’s much easier to read through the various posts that way. Please put the name of the company as the name of the link, or at least right next to it.

                                                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                                                When I get an email from a recruiter that does not mention the company name it goes into my junk folder.

                                                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                                                  I usually just ask for more detail. 90% of the time they move on, but 10% of the time it elicits useful information.

                                                                                                                                              1. 6

                                                                                                                                                Atlassian is hiring anybody interested in functional programming in Bengaluru. I’ll be available for training in any FP topics you want to learn. Haskell and Scala experience are beneficial but not necessary.

                                                                                                                                                Senior Full Stack Software Engineer

                                                                                                                                                Senior Front End Developer

                                                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                                                  Nix and/or NixOS experience is super useful too. We use it to ship all of our team’s software.

                                                                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                                                                    OT but do you have any thoughts about using Nix in anger?

                                                                                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                                                                                      We build Docker images from Nix then deploy them to Atlassian’s internal PaaS.

                                                                                                                                                      The benefits we get:

                                                                                                                                                      • I can build any image we ship to production, byte-for-byte
                                                                                                                                                      • When we change 1 line of code, we’re 100% confident only what we changed will be shipped
                                                                                                                                                      • All of our services use the same build commands

                                                                                                                                                      The problems we have:

                                                                                                                                                      • Documentation is not great, so Nix is hard to teach
                                                                                                                                                      • Very common things like pinning cause lots of questions (e.g. what’s problems are caused by Import From Derivation?)
                                                                                                                                                      • Therefore most team members rely on the few people who have invested the time reading nixpkgs and the Nix source

                                                                                                                                                      I think the problems are mostly solvable and the benefits can’t be obtained from any existing tools.

                                                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                                                        It would be helpful for me to see an example of this (Nix->Docker->PaaS) with an example app, if you’re looking for things to write about on your blog.

                                                                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                                                                          This shows the Nix and Docker tooling: http://lethalman.blogspot.com/2016/04/cheap-docker-images-with-nix_15.html

                                                                                                                                                          The PaaS part is mostly a docker push to a repo.

                                                                                                                                                  2. 1

                                                                                                                                                    Indian nationals only?

                                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                                      Atlassian will support relocation to offices, including Bengaluru.

                                                                                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                                                                                      I am located in bangalore. How can we discuss this further?

                                                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                                                        Sent you a direct message

                                                                                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                                                                                      Hi, I’m jfb and I switch static site generators more often than I post at the executive orc house.

                                                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                                                        Headed to the lake with the family. We’re meeting up with friends from California and should have a noisy but fun weekend, with five kids between six and 18mo.

                                                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                                                          Another wonderful article.