1. 1

    So what does Nuster do that HAProxy doesn’t?

    1. 1

      nuster added cache ability to HAProxy, nuster = haproxy + cache. Also it is different from the cache feature introduced in haproxy v1.8 which has many limitations.

    1. 5

      What else would you expect from a VPN run by Facebook?

      .. And what else would you expect from a fiber connection provided by Google? People have been happily using Google’s connections for a long time now, seemingly completely oblivious to what Google does. It’s baffling.

      1. -4

        Anyone working on Wall Street is doing “meaningful” work in contributing to the destruction of our economies, people’s savings, jobs and livelihoods!

        1. 2

          Yep, this whole thread kinda pointless without a deep examination of meaning for the lobster.rs community

          1. -2

            a deep examination of meaning for the lobster.rs community

            That would be a waste of time. Almost everyone here is a psychopath, and will do whatever happens to be in their perceived self-interest anyway.

            For example, some are working in “infosec”, happily getting paid lots of other people’s money for helping budding police states monitor their subjects. That work is not “meaningful” in the (virtue-signalling) sense (presumably) meant by the OP, but it sure does affect all our lives.

            1. 1

              Almost everyone here is a psychopath, and will do whatever happens to be in their perceived self-interest anyway.

              Why not try to wrap that up in a way that is palatable for this community, since you’re posting in it?

              1. -1

                Why not try to wrap that up in a way that is palatable for this community, since you’re posting in it?

                Because I don’t want to waste any effort in making the truth somehow more “palatable”?

                Did you take that personally for some reason? ;)

                1. 2

                  No, my response was neutral / supportive, you’re just expecting everyone here to reply to you angrily as they’re all psychopaths and don’t understand why you’re angry.

        1. 11

          Oh god, no. My work is 99% dealing with complete nonsense, 1% doing something mildly interesting. They have this catch phrase here: “change banking for good,” but I’ve never seen anyone do anything to that end or even mention it beyond the ra-ra corporate meetings.

          I actually am in the middle of getting a new manager right now. I love my old manager and am really unimpressed with the new guy. Realistically, I’m looking at finishing my year out here and moving on.

          1. 5

            “change banking for good,” but I’ve never seen anyone do anything to that end or even mention it beyond the ra-ra corporate meetings

            If you’re working for a run of the mill, state-enforced cartel member bank, then yeah, they’re not interested in changing anything.

            1. 1

              Hmm, I’m not sure which banks you’re referring to. I work at Capital One for what it’s worth.

            2. 1

              Oh god, no.

              🤣

            1. 1

              Hugo, Jekyll, Ivy. I’d like to give it a try as I find Hugo a bit of a pain moving from Jekyll. Honestly, the whole minimalist shtick is appealing regardless of how haphazardly the word is thrown about.

              1. 1

                What problems did you see with Jekyll and Hugo?

                1. 1

                  I think, after further reading on Ivy (it’s not meant all that much for blogs), that Hugo and Jekyll are a hodgepodge of assorted features that can lead to bloat. Granted, baseline both are easy enough to get started with. I use both right now for hosted sites. I just really agree – after playing around with Ivy – that Hugo and Jekyll really aren’t meant just for plain static sites. They’re meant for more complex sites (e.g., blogs mostly). That’s fine. Ivy does a great job of doing what it says it wants to do.

              1. 2

                It’s obvious to anyone running a business that GDPR is a massive pain in the ass, and a huge threat. 20M euros in fines will destroy any medium-sized company too.

                Oh but if a company is fined under GDPR, surely that means it deserved to die, right? Good riddance! .. To any valuable products or services it provided, and good riddance to all the jobs it had created too!

                The GDPR has been successfully sold to the masses, as something that will supposedly prevent sleazy ad companies from invading your privacy. But do you really think Google will be invading it any less than before?

                What about governments then? Do you think intelligence agencies will spy on you less?

                This is the main reason why GDPR is such a fucking farce. They tell you they’re protecting your privacy, while invading it as much as they possibly can.

                1. 4

                  Agree it’s a huge hassle.

                  On the other hand people really suffered from not being able to get new bridges when engineering requirements were brought in, but 50 years later we no longer had lethal collapses on a regular basis.

                  Being able to make google wipe out everything they know about me is pretty cool. I’ve nearly finished getting their hooks out of my stuff.

                  1. -1

                    Being able to make google wipe out everything they know about me is pretty cool.

                    Haha.

                    1. 3

                      If I could get a friend to blow the whistle on anything they’re still holding, I’d be happy to split the 4%.

                      1. 1

                        Count me in ;)

                  2. 2

                    What about governments then? Do you think intelligence agencies will spy on you less?

                    Nope, since GDPR is primarily about working with commercial entities rather than clandestine government agencies.

                    But do you really think Google will be invading it any less than before?

                    I expect them to comply with the law.

                    I also expect companies will pop up with low-cost solutions to deal with user data, similarly to how PCI regulation created an industry for payment providers to come up and handle that aspect of the transaction. Cloud providers can offer userdata bases that are encrypted and architecture for it. And designing a new system for GDPR is not super challenging, the important parts of the law tend to be pretty straight forward.

                    As someone who was involved in implementing GDPR at a company, I believe the law is a good first iteration. I’m sure we’ll find that some things in it are irrelevant and some things in it are harmful, but I believe in pushing for privacy.

                    Do you have an alternative? You’ve consistently commented on GDPR being a bad idea and implied, but not out right said, that it will have no effect. Is your suggestion that we should just drop the idea and let companies do what they want? Do you have a suggestion for alternative legislation?

                    1. 0

                      I also expect companies will pop up with low-cost solutions to deal with user data

                      Don’t want to deal with the VAT-MESS? -Oh no problem! You just pay someone else to take care of that bullshit.

                      Don’t want to deal with the GDPR? -Oh no biggie. There’s a service to deal with that bullshit.

                      But a burden is still a burden, even if you pay someone else to deal with it, and there’s a limit to the burdens a business can bear.

                      I suspect the real goal of all these new burdensome regulations is to gradually cull small (and even medium) sized businesses, as part of a drive to centralize our societies ever further, so that we’re all easier to rule over.

                      I believe the law is a good first iteration. I’m sure we’ll find that some things in it are irrelevant and some things in it are harmful, but I believe in pushing for privacy.

                      It’s far from a good first iteration. They’re threatening one-man companies with 20M EUR fines for not complying with rules that are basically impossible to fully comply with. That’s not something to cheer for, and that doesn’t happen by accident - genuinely retarded people don’t get to a position where they’re writing EU-wide laws.

                      People keep telling us we’ll just have to wait and see how the law will be interpreted. That sounds vaguely benign, but what that means in the real world is observing which companies get destroyed for which arbitrary/political reasons.

                      It’s a bit like waiting to see who gets executed for wearing the kind of clothes the Emperor doesn’t happen to like. Is there no problem once everyone knows what kind of clothes he’s unhappy with?

                      Do you have an alternative? You’ve consistently commented on GDPR being a bad idea and implied, but not out right said, that it will have no effect.

                      How about “no onerous bullshit legislation”? Of course it will have effects, and they’ll be a massive net negative. How about tens of thousands of companies not wasting time researching and complying with onerous bullshit legislation, and concentrating on providing valuable goods and services instead?

                      Even if GDPR actually makes some privacy-invading scumbags call it a day, it’s not even meant to do anything about the police states budding everywhere.

                      Pretty much everyone on this forum is intimately familiar how the people running governments operate.. so why are you seemingly fine with.. well, anything governments do?

                      1. 1

                        Even if GDPR actually makes some privacy-invading scumbags call it a day, it’s not even meant to do anything about the police states budding everywhere.

                        You keep on bringing up government surveillance but GDPR does not have anything to do with that. It’s a fine fight to have but it’s not related to this particular discussion, there are other laws and legislation around government agencies.

                        How about “no onerous bullshit legislation”?

                        This is an entirely unactionable suggestion. One person’s onerous bullshit legislation is another’s opportunity. There is not meaningful way to turn this useless platitude into a working economic system.

                        1. 2

                          You keep on bringing up government surveillance but GDPR does not have anything to do with that.

                          Privacy, hello?

                          This is an entirely unactionable suggestion.

                          You’re saying onerous bullshit legislation has to be created, but that’s not true.

                          One person’s onerous bullshit legislation is another’s opportunity.

                          Duh? Of course it benefits whoever charges you money for dealing with the bullshit. So what?

                          There is not meaningful way to turn this useless platitude into a working economic system.

                          That sounds like you’re over-exerting yourself in trying to sound smart.

                    2. 1

                      This is exactly the point I am trying to make. How can a business take advantage of GDPR and build a “legal” tracking system that you can turn into a recommender system for example.

                      1. 0

                        Well you’re basically just advertising your http://grakn.ai/ service, and trying to polish the GDPR turd in the process.

                        1. 1

                          I am not actually working for GRAKN which is not a service but a database. I build a proof of concept for the company I work for. I had considered neo4j for the task but found GRAKN better suited. GRAKN did appreciate my proof of concept and asked me to publish my paper.

                    1. -2

                      In case it wasn’t clear when Signal was integrated into WhatsApp: there’s a backdoor for governments.

                      They’re giving you the illusion of security / privacy. But you’re too clueful to fall for it, right?

                      1. 1

                        What’s the backdoor?

                      1. 3

                        I can’t comment on Silicon Valley, but I am quite aware that I have certain political opinions that are not safe to express in my (fairly typical) work environment.

                        My politics are a mix of strongly “liberal” and strongly “conservative,” with few positions in the middle. For example, I favor a robust government healthcare guarantee, and also oppose abortion. I can mention these in passing to coworkers. But there are others I can’t. They happen to be “conservative” positions, but I don’t see it as a bias against conservative ideas in general. It’s more those specific issues.

                        1. 3

                          To be fair, abortion really isn’t a topic for work conversation anywhere outside of a medical setting, policy institute, or the like.

                          1. 1

                            I don’t disagree. I was using that as an example of something where merely noting one’s position in passing would be considered acceptable, while there are other topics (which I won’t list here) where even mentioning a difference from prevailing opinions would be ‭crossing a line.

                            1. 4

                              Big PHP fan, huh?

                          2. -2

                            I favor a robust government healthcare guarantee

                            It’s only “robust” or a “guarantee” as long as the government hasn’t run out of other people’s money, which it eventually will (e.g. after having confiscated so much that being productive just isn’t worth it anymore).

                            1. 2

                              How far does it go? Roads? Police? Military? Air traffic control? Food safety? Education? What things are valid use for tax dollars?

                              And every Western nation (and Japan) except the US has some form of universal healthcare and spends less per capita. If you’re worried too much of your money might go to helping others, you should be all in favor of systems that have dozens of examples of spending less of it to get more.

                              As for “being productive”, I can at least provide my anecdotal experience from helping found three startups now: getting competitive, or even decent, healthcare coverage for our employees was by far our biggest challenge on the recruiting side. How many companies have not been founded because someone couldn’t risk losing their healthcare?

                              1. 1

                                “Eventually” has (frequently) been hundreds of years. I’m not expecting to outlive the state where I am (Australia) although the situation elsewhere seems more precarious.

                                Here people have remained productive despite taxes close to 50%. I’m philosophically pretty libertarian, but specific implementations of states differ and my local one has worked well for some time in spite of some of the corruption being a bit obvious.

                                1. 0

                                  Governments that control their own currency (e.g. the US) can create more of it, which is what the Fed does. That money hasn’t been taken from anybody else; it’s literally been created out of thin air. [Mind you, doing this too much can trigger runaway inflation, which would reduce the value of everybody else’s money.]

                              1. 6

                                I feel like the article and the survey themselves are somewhat biased. There appears to be a desire to paint Silicon Valley as absurdly leftist and thought-policey (the evidence here is that the only concrete event mentioned by the survey is the Google “diversity memo” in which a person with no training in psychology, sociology, or biology claimed certain things as fact while the respective scientific communities still treat them as open questions, and claimed that any attempt to disagree with this was the product of an “ideological echo chamber,” which is more combative than it is conversational).

                                The survey didn’t mention, for example, Peter Thiel, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, or other major conservatives heavily involved in Silicon Valley.

                                It also kind of ignores the obvious thing: a lot of the issues that people complain they can’t talk about revolve around essentially private things: marriage, private sex lives, abortion, pregnancy, gender, etc…These things aren’t appropriate to talk about in a workplace, regardless of how you feel about them. They never were, in Silicon Valley or elsewhere. If you feel upset that people don’t like you talking about other people’s private business, that’s not evidence that those people are actively biased, it’s that they’re actively professional.

                                1. 3

                                  “The survey didn’t mention, for example, Peter Thiel, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, or other major conservatives heavily involved in Silicon Valley.”

                                  Billiomaires and executives are an entirely different class of workers than average employee. They can ignore, side step, or run through problems that low-level folks often cant. People with unpopular views wanting big money might be trying to get through recruiters or HR to a small number of companies. Whereas a much larger number will take one of the people you mentioned or try to get an investment from them.

                                  1. 2

                                    …or try to get an investment from them.

                                    Right. If I want to do well in Silicon Valley, I might be forced to think twice about espousing liberal left views if I’m talking to one of the VCs or strategy firms that one of those big names is involved with.

                                    1. 1

                                      That’s a good point. It could come into play there. Double true if you’re pro-Union. ;)

                                  2. 4

                                    the Google “diversity memo” in which a person with no training in psychology, sociology, or biology claimed certain things as fact

                                    You appeal to his purported lack of authority, but in fact, he had a master’s degree in biology from Harvard: http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8

                                    Obviously you didn’t even read what he actually wrote.

                                    1. 3

                                      You’re right; I’d forgotten he had a biology degree (the Diversity Memo isn’t something I think about often). I still argue he made a mistake by claiming things as true, or likely so, when the scientific community as a whole still treats it as an open question. He also ascribed any disagreement as an “ideological echo chamber”…which is not inviting discussion, but denigrating disagreement: the very thing he accused Google of doing.

                                      I likewise think my other point still stands as well: sexual orientation, gender, marriage, and so on, are private matters. It’s not appropriate to talk about someone else’s private life, neither in Silicon Valley nor elsewhere.

                                  1. -5

                                    I hope no one here takes this fucking retarded propaganda piece seriously, and no, I don’t think it’s necessary to even discuss why.

                                    1. 5

                                      Flag and move on.

                                      1. 5

                                        Please include more content and civility in your future posts.

                                        1. -2

                                          Do you want me to believe you genuinely have a problem with the word “fucking” appearing in front of your eyes?

                                      1. 1

                                        Modern large-scale market economies where people trade with strangers on a daily basis are only possible because of another solution: third-party enforcement. In particular, this means state-enforced contracts and bills of exchange enforced by banks

                                        For example E-Bay has shown that reputation-based marketplaces work just fine, for an indeterminate amount of time.

                                        If “third-party enforcement” is needed, it doesn’t absolutely positively need to be by a nation-state, specifically. Anyone with half a brain could come up with ideas for some kind of co-operative arbitration.

                                        Currency can be modeled as [..academic mental masturbation..]. Traders collectively have an interest in maintaining a stable currency, because it acts as a lubricant to trade. But each trader individually has an interest in debasing the currency, in the sense of paying with fake money (what in blockchain-speak is referred to as double spending). Again the classic solution to this dilemma is third-party enforcement: the state polices metal currencies and punishes counterfeiters

                                        Actually, traders collectively have an interest in using money that can’t be counterfeited nor debased. Gold fit the bill for ages, and now cryptocurrencies show promise of something similar.

                                        Again, there’s no need for a nation-state to “enforce” anything when sound money is used.

                                        The enforcer is in a powerful position in relation to the enforced: banks COULD extract exorbitant fees, and states COULD abuse their power by debasing the currency, illegitimately freezing assets, or enforcing contracts in unfair ways.

                                        (Emphasis mine)

                                        “Could”, you say? Fuuuckkk.

                                        Bank fees are kept in check by competition: the enforced can switch to another enforcer if the fees get excessive.

                                        This seems to conflate “competition” between banks and nation-states. The former doesn’t exist, because banks are a state-enforced (!) cartel everywhere, and governments are working hard to eliminate the need for the latter.

                                        Less than a hundred years ago, passports didn’t even exist. You could just show up anywhere, which sure made a lot of sense.

                                        But immigration just keeps getting more and more difficult as time goes by. It’s almost as if nation-states didn’t want you to have a way out of getting exploited by them and their cronies! Go figure.

                                        Who makes the rules matters at least as much as who enforces them. Blockchain technology may provide for completely impartial rule-enforcement, but that is of little comfort if the rules themselves are changed. This rule-making is what we refer to as governance.

                                        Here the author actually has a point!

                                        But overall, he’s basically just cheerleading for government intervention, which is never a “solution” to anything besides the “problem” of a government not having yet another way of exploiting the masses.

                                        1. 1

                                          For example E-Bay has shown that reputation-based marketplaces work just fine, for an indeterminate amount of time.

                                          Not just Ebay. A forum like Watchuseek has more or less organically built up a reputation system that allows trades like this to be made.

                                        1. 1

                                          There’s racism/inequality in government surveillance too!

                                          We must fight for our right to be surveilled just as much as minorities are!

                                          Surely, governments will find it in their hearts to graciously grant us that right. Write to your congressperson today, and ask for more surveillance!

                                          1. 3

                                            I don’t think the objective of the article is to point out that we should be surveilled as much as minorities are…

                                            1. 3

                                              I wasn’t being serious?

                                              The author seems confused. He’s speaking governmentese, discussing what the US government’s laws say about surveillance and related court precedents, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the government will surveil whatever the fuck it pleases, no matter what its own laws say.

                                              The Fourth Amendment, among our strongest safeguards against police overreach

                                              Despite all the police abuse we’ve all seen, he still thinks the fourth amendment is a “safeguard”, like it’s magic text that somehow prevents police thugs from engaging in thuggery?

                                              And so on.. the article isn’t much more than a virtue-signalling fluff piece, and a testament to the author’s confusion about reality.

                                            2. 1

                                              I don’t think that your troll comments will convince anyone to shift to your anti-government stance, so maybe just don’t write them?

                                              I’ve seen quite a few of your comments now, and they hammer the same point rather monotonously, suggesting that your position lacks depth and nuance. Perhaps you should spend some time considering how your no-government utopia (or whatever it is you want to see) would work in practice? You might be surprised by your conclusions, or at least you’ll have more convincing arguments.

                                              1. 1

                                                It’s funny how you accuse me of trolling, with a comment that’s indistinguishable from trolling :P

                                                your position lacks depth and nuance

                                                You’re skirting around being on to something there. For example, there isn’t any nuance to extortion being immoral, or text on a piece of parchment not having magical powers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&t=8

                                                Perhaps you should spend some time considering

                                                Perhaps you should? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U

                                                Even those two videos are more than enough to make any sane person agree with me, so I’ll just stop here.

                                                1. 4

                                                  I think you’re making two assumptions:

                                                  • Lobste.rs is a good place to share your outrage
                                                  • People here have never heard about anarchism or abuse of government powers or anything related.

                                                  I disagree with both of these assumptions. I think most people here are extremely well informed, and I also think most people prefer this site to be an outrage-free zone.

                                                  Now, I would like to read an intelligent argument for how anarchy would work in practice with 7.5 billion people on the planet, and particularly how you would transition to it from the current world order. That would be a worthwhile thing you could write. The videos you linked don’t even begin to address any of it.

                                                  1. 0

                                                    how anarchy would work in practice with 7.5 billion people on the planet, and particularly how you would transition to it from the current world order

                                                    If chattel slavery were abolished, who would pick the cotton? There could be severe disruptions to supply chains, companies might go bankrupt and people might lose their jobs!

                                                    Also, how well is being enslaved by governments “working” for you?

                                                    I think most people here are extremely well informed, and I also think most people prefer this site to be an outrage-free zone.

                                                    Reality doesn’t just go away if you ignore it hard enough, you know? That’s basically what you’re suggesting with the “outrage-free zone”.

                                                    So are almost all psychopaths resigned to a fate of being enslaved for ever by governments? Or why is this site so free of outrage in general?

                                            1. 2

                                              How exactly does the EU think it can make people not sell to EU citizens if they have no local presence?

                                              1. -2

                                                Do you want to find out?

                                                Imagine you have a SaaS business in the US, with no presence in the EU. Some pesky EU citizen registers with his e-mail, and now you’re under GDPR.

                                                Years later, you get a nastygram from the EU. They’ve somehow decided you violated the GDPR for some hand-wavy reason, and demand 20M EUR in fines.

                                                What do you do? Will you try and reason with them? Sue the EU in their own court? Write to your representative? :p

                                                If they decide you’re fucked, then you’re fucked. Even if you try your very best to “protect” people’s data, you can still be fucked.

                                                1. 12

                                                  Some pesky EU citizen registers with his e-mail and expects his or her private data to be private. What are those pesky EU citizens even thinking, that data should be left unsecured, sold to third parties and be used in any other fashion for profit at the expense of the customer!

                                                  1. -2

                                                    Which part are you addressing? I can’t tell without a quote.

                                                    Again, governments are spying on everyone, which means they actually don’t give a fuck about your privacy.

                                                    So now when the EU tells us the GDPR is about “protecting” our privacy, we know that’s a lie. So what is it really about, besides maybe killing small businesses to shield big ones from competition?

                                                    1. 7

                                                      The fact that you’re using EU and governments interchangeably tells a lot about how much you understand how things work in the EU, especially how laws get passed.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        The EU is like an additional layer of rulers, on top of your local rulers.

                                                        Consider the implications. What do you think I’m missing?

                                                        1. 2

                                                          Your description is wrong.

                                                          There are two main bodies: the European Commission and the European Parliament. The European Commission is responsible for proposing legislation and implementing decisions (and other stuff but that’s not relevant right now) and the European Parliament, whose members are elected by citizens in various EU members. Those members of the European Parliament elect the members of the European Commission.

                                                          As a member of the EU, it’s true that you can’t have any kind of legislation that’s against the current EU laws but the same applies to local by-laws vs federal laws, for example. But by no means this can be translated into “a layer of rulers on top of local rulers”. The format is somewhat similar to the US Congress, which is at the federal level, and each state’s elected officials and I don’t think you can call a representative or a senator “a ruler on top of the state ruler”. The European Union is a bit more divided than the US so the dynamics are obviously quite different but it’s very helpful to have something that can minimize the impact of various far-left or far-right leaders (one example would be Hungary’s Viktor Orban, but there are others as well).

                                                          Also, what you say implies that there’s some sort of agenda that some people have and steer the EU into one direction or the other. The best argument against that is the convoluted process of passing any kind of laws: basically the European Commission proposes a law, it gets pushed to the Parliament, which can propose some changes and sends it back to the EC and the process is restarted and if they don’t agree on the second reading then a third body, the European Council, is added to the discussion for a “trilogue”. As you can well imagine, this usually takes years. For example, the proposal for GDPR was submitted on the 25th of January 2012.

                                                          1. -3

                                                            Well, you sound like a government PR flack or something.

                                                            The reason why I call them rulers, is that they issue commands (called “laws”/“regulations”, etc) that you will have to obey under threat of punishment. It’s pretty simple, and it’s accurate.

                                                            Now since the EU is a “supra-national organization”, i.e. “above” the local governments, it’s a layer of rulers on top of your local rulers.

                                                            There’s no need to spout Governmentese at me.

                                                  2. 1

                                                    you are actually right, but I think instead of “deciding that you’re fucked” it will most likely be someone who complains for unsolicited mail or something and it will point EU towards the company and they will start investigate. Then it will be 20M per infraction or worse 4% of your income.

                                                1. -5

                                                  Well, this is yet another big government puff piece.

                                                  Corporations don’t operate autonomously, of course, and the humans in charge of them are presumably capable of insight, but capitalism doesn’t reward them for using it.

                                                  I guess by “insight” he means “not being scumbags” or something.

                                                  Actually, free market capitalism would reward people for not being scumbags. It’s just that now we have governments intervening in everything, making being productive / entrepreneurial increasingly difficult, and shielding their cronies from competition.

                                                  No wonder bad stuff happens. Comcast can keep on being Comcast, and still roll in money, whereas in a free market it would have gone out of business ages ago, because people would have options, and wouldn’t need to take their shit at all.

                                                  The proximate cause of every single one of our societal problems is government, one way or another, because all it does is coerce people to benefit the elites at everyone else’s expense.

                                                  1. 10

                                                    The proximate cause of every single one of our societal problems is government, one way or another, because all it does is coerce people to benefit the elites at everyone else’s expense.

                                                    Could you please do me the mental gymnastics to explain how, for example, man made Climate Change is a “big government” caused issue? Or will you go down the usual libertarian route to simply deny it?

                                                    Markets aren’t ideal, and starting from the assumption that they are, but blaming some “external” cause for it’s own deficiencies, is just intellectually dishonest. Nobody is going to claim that any government are perfect, but for some reason it’s acceptable to hail an economic abstraction as the ultimate solution. People aren’t utility optimising monadic individuals, they make irrational decision based on advertising, miscalculation, subjective preferences, etc. (and all of this would get worse with AI) but all of this doesn’t exist in the eyes of the market fundamentalist. Every decision the market “makes” has to be intrinsically right, just because it was “consentual”, while at the same time ignoring all the factors one didn’t get to choose? That’s hyper relativism if you ask me, and fundamentally contradicts reality, I’m sorry to say that.

                                                    I don’t mean to insult anyone or start a flame war, but this kind of dogmatic nonsense just really annoys me.

                                                    1. 0

                                                      Could you please do me the mental gymnastics to explain how, for example, man made Climate Change is a “big government” caused issue?

                                                      Is climate change a societal problem?

                                                      1. 1

                                                        The question was about “man manged climate change”. You’re doing it again, btw. The dishonest stuff, since your dogma is entirely in contradiction to reality.

                                                        But back to man made climate change - of course it’s a social issue, since the problem is exact that the current social organisation produces industries and practices that are obviously harmful to the ecology of planet earth. How else would one want to do something against man made climate change, but socially? Naturally? Supernaturally? Via “the market”?

                                                        1. 0

                                                          The dishonest stuff, since your dogma is entirely in contradiction to reality.

                                                          My “dogma” is essentially just that aggressing against people is immoral and should not be done. It’s not that complicated. The implications are massive though, and not seen at all by the masses.

                                                          Governments are all about violating that principle, which is why they shouldn’t exist at all.

                                                          It’s of course possible to scam someone in a free market, but a free market itself is essentially just people engaging in unhindered productive activities and unhindered voluntary exchanges.

                                                          Here’s a Red Pill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&t=8

                                                    2. 6

                                                      Actually, free market capitalism would reward people for not being scumbags.

                                                      It’s doing it right now. They get away with being scumbags so long as (a) the benefits they provide are better than the competitions by some amount or (b) they cover up the way they’re being scumbags. The cartel effect you see in the market with things such as telecoms, car dealerships, and so on is (a) in action. They’re all greedy, destructive assholes since a lack of better alternatives within your geographic range boosts profits for all. For (b), that would be especially the food industry, drug industry, and much advertising combined with complicit or well-paid media. That covers up a lot of evil bullshit that directly improves the numbers of the companies involved. The mere existence of damaging leaks about big companies’ activities that doesn’t put them out of business supports my point here,

                                                      Your big miss here is that both free market and government are reflections of human nature. They’ll both have good and bad depending on whose running the active entities and whose keeping them in check (or not). The “free market” isn’t magic: it’s people telling other people whatever they need to for money to change hands. Bullshit might get even more likely in markets more like that since businesses would come and go fast to point there’s hardly reputation. Even reputation services developing might be paid to be full of shit. Closest to those models are online black markets and competitive places with no I.P. protection such as Shenzhen. It is harder to find quality or safe products in those markets compared to my local market according to people experienced in [successfully] dealing with them. So, your claim doesn’t hold up under either human nature or real-world examples of unregulated markets. They were all extra evil with the physical markets often killing people.

                                                      1. 0

                                                        It’s doing it right now. [..] The cartel effect you see in the market with things such as telecoms

                                                        You do know that telecoms are a state-maintained cartel in every country, don’t you?

                                                        They get away with being scumbags so long as (a) the benefits they provide are better than the competitions by some amount or (b) they cover up the way they’re being scumbags.

                                                        And what does “being a scumbag” mean there? Is it something you’d actually get away with in a world without governments?

                                                        Your big miss here is that both free market and government are reflections of human nature.

                                                        No they’re not. Governments are reflections of psychopathy. Actual humans have a vastly different nature.

                                                        I’ll stop here.

                                                        1. 0

                                                          Just a little more..

                                                          The “free market” isn’t magic: it’s people telling other people whatever they need to for money to change hands.

                                                          That’s one way to put it, if you want to paint it in a negative light. Here’s another: the free market is people making voluntary exchanges, investments and agreements.

                                                          For (b), that would be especially the food industry, drug industry, and much advertising combined with complicit or well-paid media. That covers up a lot of evil bullshit that directly improves the numbers of the companies involved.

                                                          If you don’t think the bullshit they’re getting away with is enabled by the government, you’re not really familiar with the topic of free markets, or freedom in general.

                                                          The “well-paid media” is run by the government too, and as you surely know, essentially just a propaganda outlet. Yes, it does cover up a lot of bullshit. In a free society, it wouldn’t even exist in its current form.

                                                          Bullshit might get even more likely in markets more like that since businesses would come and go fast to point there’s hardly reputation

                                                          Perhaps you’d only buy from established businesses with a good reputation, then? It’s not like those would be non-existent.

                                                          Even reputation services developing might be paid to be full of shit.

                                                          Sure, and if they were found out, people could just go beat their owners to a pulp for being scumbags. Without a government to protect scumbags, they’d think really carefully before engaging in scumbaggery.

                                                        2. 4

                                                          I guess by “insight” he means “not being scumbags” or something.

                                                          I think he means what he laid out earlier:

                                                          In psychology, the term “insight” is used to describe a recognition of one’s own condition, such as when a person with mental illness is aware of their illness. More broadly, it describes the ability to recognize patterns in one’s own behavior. It’s an example of metacognition, or thinking about one’s own thinking […]

                                                          Which I suppose might be a requirement for not being a scumbag.

                                                        1. 16

                                                          I really can’t feel bad for companies on this. They’ve demonstrated over and over again that they can’t be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

                                                          I wish the United States could enact a law like this, but who am I kidding?

                                                          1. 0

                                                            I really can’t feel bad for companies on this. They’ve demonstrated over and over again that they can’t be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

                                                            Even the one-man companies currently just starting out that are under threat of 20M EUR fines for not complying with rules that are practically impossible to comply with?

                                                            You’re not seeing the big picture here. The EU says it wants to “protect” people with GDPR, while all governments are spying on people as much as they can.. It’s fucking ridiculous.

                                                            1. 18

                                                              Even the one-man companies currently just starting out that are under threat of 20M EUR fines for not complying with rules that are practically impossible to comply with?

                                                              Especially those ones because otherwise they have no checks and balances whatsoever and the single person in charge will do whatever they feel like without telling anybody.

                                                              We don’t let small restaurants ignore food safety, or small construction companies ignore building codes, why would we let small internet companies ignore privacy regulations?

                                                              You’re not seeing the big picture here. The EU says it wants to “protect” people with GDPR, while all governments are spying on people as much as they can.. It’s fucking ridiculous.

                                                              Just because the government is spying on us doesn’t mean we should allow corporations to do it too. We don’t have to solve both problems at the same time.

                                                              1. -5

                                                                Do you sincerely think that small companies need to be threatened with 20M EUR fines to keep them in check?

                                                                I mean.. seriously? I hope you’re trolling, for your sake.

                                                                Just because the government is spying on us doesn’t mean we should allow corporations to do it too.

                                                                Who’s “we”? -The faceless bureaucracy of the EU that’s hoisting this pile of garbage on productive people?

                                                                1. 7

                                                                  I’ve downvoted you as troll because we don’t have anything like “unnecessarily rude”.

                                                                  Please try to be less abrasive with your posts.

                                                                  1. 5

                                                                    Do you sincerely think that small companies need to be threatened with 20M EUR fines to keep them in check?

                                                                    Another way of putting this is “do you sincerely think that small companies need to be threatened with being put out of business entirely if they disregard their customers’ safety?” and my answer is yes, absolutely.

                                                                    Restaurants operate perfectly well under there threat of “if you give a noticeable quantity of customers food poisoning even once, the FSA will permanently shut you down”.

                                                                    It’s perfectly sensible to me that any other business capable of ruining a whole bunch of peoples’ lives should be held to the same standard.

                                                                    1. 0

                                                                      Another way of putting this is “do you sincerely think that small companies need to be threatened with being put out of business entirely if they disregard their customers’ safety?” and my answer is yes, absolutely.

                                                                      You know you’re comparing apples to oranges, right? Someone’s e-mail address staying in a database somewhere “against his will” is not comparable to feeding people rotten/contaminated food or something.

                                                                      Regardless, neither warrants a 20M EUR penalty, and in the first case, it’s just utterly insane. You also understand that just fine, so why are you arguing against me?

                                                                      It’s as if EU regulators were completely oblivious to the existence of small businesses, which they’re actually not, of course, because they’re not that fucking retarded/insane.

                                                                      So they’ve set MegaCorp level fines for everyone for some reason other than insanity/stupidity. But it’s not for no reason, and it’s not because it’s reasonable either.

                                                                      And obvious truth is met with hostility, as always.

                                                                      1. 2

                                                                        you’re comparing apples to oranges

                                                                        Privacy violations don’t happen at a rate of 1 or 2 per incident, they hit thousands of people at a time.

                                                                        neither warrants a 20M EUR penalty

                                                                        You won’t be paying 20M EUR. Your company will be accruing a 20M EUR debt that it will immediately fold under. You founded a limited liability company for this reason. The number could be 13.37B EUR and that outcome would be the same for small companies.

                                                                        Folding your company is a perfectly fair outcome for you flagrantly violating other peoples’ privacy rights.

                                                                        met with hostility

                                                                        I didn’t say anything rude to you at all. You asked a question, “Do you sincerely think that small companies need to be threatened with 20M EUR fines to keep them in check?” and I gave a completely polite answer. You just read it as hostile because you don’t like that answer edit: because people downvoted you a lot, which, to be fair, probably feels hostile.

                                                                    2. 2

                                                                      Do you sincerely think that small companies need to be threatened with 20M EUR fines to keep them in check?

                                                                      I do sincerely think companies who can’t respect people’s privacy and don’t take the issue seriously should go out of business. The size of the company has nothing to do with it. The potential damage done once the info escapes into the wild is the same either way.

                                                                      It’s unfortunate that it takes the threat of a 20M EUR fine and possibly going out of business to drive the point home, but asking nicely and hoping companies do the right thing hasn’t worked.

                                                                      Who’s “we”? -The faceless bureaucracy of the EU that’s hoisting this pile of garbage on productive people?

                                                                      If they can’t harness some of that productivity to protect the private data they collect, then good riddance.

                                                                  2. 3

                                                                    The EU says it wants to “protect” people with GDPR, while all governments are spying on people as much as they can

                                                                    States (for better or worse) need a monopoly on coercion. Some of them have realized that the breakdown of privacy is eroding that monopoly, and they’re reacting.

                                                                    1. -4

                                                                      That doesn’t make sense, but you’re probably just trolling again, so whatever.

                                                                      1. 2

                                                                        What doesn’t make sense about it?

                                                                        I’m not making a value judgement about whether it’s a good thing or not; I’m giving a reason why a self-interested state would choose this course of action.

                                                                        Separating value judgement from behavioral reasoning is the only way to make sense of others behavior when they don’t share your values.

                                                                    2. 3

                                                                      Why do you think they are impossible to comply with? Germany has had laws like this for years and it works just fine.

                                                                  1. 25

                                                                    Zenyep Tufekci said, “[T]oo many worry about what AI—as if some independent entity—will do to us. Too few people worry what power will do with AI.” (The thread starts with a result that, in some circumstances, face recognition can effectively identify protesters despite their efforts to cover distinguishing features with scarves, etc.)

                                                                    And, without really having to have tech resembling AI, what they can do can look like superhuman abilities looked at right. A big corporation doesn’t have boundless intelligence but it can hire a lot of smart lawyers, lobbyists, and PR and ad people, folks who are among the best in their fields, to try and shift policy and public opinion in ways that favor the sale of lots of guns, paying a lot for pharmaceuticals, use of fossil fuels, or whatever. They seem especially successful shifting policy in the U.S. recently, with the help of recent court decisions that free some people up to spend money to influence elections (and the decisions further back that established corps as legal people :/).

                                                                    With recent/existing tech, companies have shown they can do new things. It’s cheap to test lots of possibilities to see what gets users to do what you want, to model someone’s individual behavior to keep them engaged. (Here’s Zenyep again in a talk on those themes that I haven’t watched.) The tech giants managed to shift a very large chunk of ad spending from news outlets and other publishers by being great at holding user attention (Facebook) or being smarter about matching people to ads than anyone else (Google), or shift other spending by gatekeeping what apps you can put on a device and taking a cut of what users spend (Apple with iOS), or reshape market after market with digitally-enabled logistics, capital, and smart strategy (Amazon). You can certainly look forward N years to when they have even more data and tools and can do more. But you don’t really even have to project out to see a pretty remarkable show of force.

                                                                    This is not, mostly, about the details of my politics, nor is it to suggest silly things like that we should roll back the clock on tech; we obviously can’t. But, like, if you want to think about entities with incredible power that continue to amass more and how to respond to them, you don’t have to imagine; we have them right here and now!

                                                                    1. 3

                                                                      Too few people worry what power will do with AI.

                                                                      More specifically, the increasingly police statey government.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Is there a government decree that the masses would find too ridiculous to take seriously?

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        Suggested merging with existing submissions

                                                                        Also, hope you have Comcast shares.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          The link to the existing submission is dead.

                                                                          I wonder why this story has more than a thousand comments on Hacker News, but crickets here.

                                                                          1. 6

                                                                            Perhaps because Hacker News has a lot of people saying very little.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              I do wonder what happened to the one but there were very good comments in this article

                                                                          1. 4

                                                                            Baffling. Plenty of the ICOs seem to fit this pretty well, but surely even with those - and certainly with Bitcoin - people can quite easily just buy/“invest” coins/tokens without ever even telling anyone, let alone trying to “recruit” people, no? So how would anyone policing a coin as a “scheme” decide whether someone intended to recruit others? “They might not have done it yet, but they sure intend to! I can see it in their eyes!” Smh.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              So how would anyone policing a coin as a “scheme” decide whether someone intended to recruit others? “They might not have done it yet, but they sure intend to! I can see it in their eyes!”

                                                                              Policing doesn’t have much to do with actually being objective anyway, so I guess it would work the usual way? The Connected exploiting everyone else?

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              @technomancy do you have any insight on how lein is related to/overlaps with the new official command line tool? Is it the kind of thing lein would take advantage of under the hood, or unrelated to lein users?

                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                The new tool (really more importantly the tools.deps.alpha lib underneath it) is designed to build classpaths both from Maven libraries, but also from other stuff as well. It overlaps some of what lein uses pomgeranate for (the artifact and metadata download) but not does do anything with the deployment side. Because of that, I don’t think it would make a ton of sense for leiningen to use it instead of pomegranate.

                                                                                However, it might be useful to have a lein plugin that could read its dependencies from a deps.edn file (if that’s something a plugin could do?). However, the overlap with lein profiles would be weird and it’s unclear to me what is valuable here that would be worth doing.

                                                                                One thing that t.d.a can handle is local projects (and eventually probably using code directly from github). When we get that done, perhaps it would be useful enough to leverage in lein.

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  Where do you see tools.deps going?

                                                                                  For example, I’d love to get rid of Maven and Leiningen altogether. They’re mostly “the standard” because everything depends on a shitload of libraries, right?

                                                                                  Maybe there could be some sort of community guidance towards a cleaner ecosystem? :)

                                                                                  “If you see a library depending on commons-whatever.jar from 1998, ask the authors if it’s absolutely necessary, or if we could maybe stop lugging it around in hundreds of thousands of projects!”

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    One direction that we are already headed is to enable you to point directly at a github project as a dependency. Clojure code doesn’t need to be built into a jar and downloaded to be loaded by the Clojure runtime. Instead, just point at some github projects (with sane support for tags, etc), have your tool download and cache that code as necessary, and start working. There does not need to be a Maven deploy and download step at all.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      One direction that we are already headed is to enable you to point directly at a github project as a dependency.

                                                                                      Does GitHub support some manner of “stable releases”, or would tools.deps just get whatever the current state on the master branch happens to be?

                                                                                      There does not need to be a Maven deploy and download step at all.

                                                                                      Yeah, the main problem there is Java’s baggage. I hope the Java ecosystem gets cleaned up somehow. The JDK 9 module system might help.