MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by toomuchtodo | 2025-04-30 03:18:24+00:00
Yes and yes. It is why I believe there is no room for negotiation and weaseling out of paying humans a wage required that enables them to live with dignity (as it relates to a minimum wage) [1].

Edit:

> There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree!

I don't know what else to tell you my dude. McDonalds made $14B in profit last year. I can show you many examples where the economic resources surely exist based on the profits being made, in whatever industry or vertical you want to pick from, to pay people a living wage. I'm not saying no profits, I'm not cheering on communism. I'm simply arguing for the existing system to pay people enough to survive in comfort, regardless of age, with some combination of decreased profits and increased costs. If I can show you the economic value and wealth exists, and we still go through contortions to argue we cannot pay living wages to people (when the evidence is robust that we can), I can either come to the conclusion that someone has not built a robust mental model on all of the variables in play or they just don't think we should pay people enough to live. We're just arguing unnecessary economic system complexity (living wages for some, lower wages for teenagers even though a majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers [2]) to paper over exploitation for some combination of consumer excess and shareholder returns. No attempt at dehumanizing is being made.

[1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43840936
by fc417fc802 | 2025-04-30 03:18:28+00:00
> I'd rather explain why

I might have given you the wrong idea. I think it's important to explain why - exactly once. After that a link to that original explanation of what happened and why things are the way they are should suffice.

The thing is, if someone isn't willing to follow that link and take the time to understand what's going on then presumably they aren't a reasonable individual. If that's the case then I estimate it's unlikely that engaging with them will lead anywhere useful.

It's one thing if it's your manager or a teammate being unreasonable. But when it's a pseudonymous avatar with no financial or professional relationship to you that seems like all downsides and no upsides to me.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-04-30 03:19:46+00:00
It sounds like you are referring to Search. Search hardly even counts -- it's perfectly usable without an account and it's accessible through so many avenues. When I referred to "using Google", I meant Google's web app properties that are typically provisioned through the web browser, like Workspaces. Sorry for the confusion, but I consider Search to be deprecated and hardly even worthy of notice, these days!
by jongjong | 2025-04-30 03:20:31+00:00
I disagree. I agree that the system shouldn't be creating so many billionaires. It's a flaw in the system. But Musk is among the best of them IMO and his contrarian position makes him essential, even if you disagree with him and his politics. There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.

I generally agree with Musk's politics but I wouldn't want all billionaires to share his politics because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately those on the left do not seem to understand this; they keep trying to force total consensus. Which is the biggest evil, total consensus is more evil than any idea you could come up with.

Most ideologies are distractions to get people upset over specific unimportant ideas so that they don't get upset over the massive evil, creeping ideology; the ideology of "total consensus over important ideas."

Full consensus is evil incarnate, no matter the specifics. Its stickiness; inability to adapt to reality is what makes it evil. Without opposition, there is no room for independent thought.
by eadmund | 2025-04-30 03:20:38+00:00
> If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate.

Yes, minimum wages are unfortunate for those who don’t have sufficient skills to work at minimum wage. That’s why there are almost no more human order-takers at fast food restaurants. Kind of sucks for the kids — and poorer folks — who could have worked those jobs and used them as a springboard to something else.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-04-30 03:21:35+00:00
You are stating these things like they are natural or physical laws, when they are simply agreed upon politically and can change. Look no further than California raising the minimum wage to $20/hour for fast food workers, increasing costs roughly ~1.5%. So, let us not say that it can't be done, only that those with the power to change this are unwilling to (for obvious, economic advantageous and exploitation reasons).

California's $20 fast-food minimum wage improves pay at small cost to consumers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806608 - April 2025
by ramesh31 | 2025-04-30 03:22:55+00:00
>They were late to commercialize it... someone else had to show them how first. As a result they are playing catch up, and they will at best be one of many players, for the foreseeable future, as opposed to a monopoly.

This isn't a hype cycle they need to catch. It's the final technology. Steady and stable will win here.
by londons_explore | 2025-04-30 03:23:52+00:00
Web push, FCM, APNS, etc are free because they only have a single systemwide TCP channel open - and that channel is already open whether or not your app chooses to use it.

Your app can also be ready to receive notifications even when the app isn't running - using zero RAM. Inetd on Linux allows similar stuff (although no ability to handle ip changes or traverse NAT makes it fairly useless in the consumer world).

This stuff is important because polling dominates power use when idle - especially network polling which generally requires hundreds of milliseconds of system awakeness to handle tens of network packet arrivals simply for a basic http request.

Did you know, a typical android phone, if all polling is disabled, has a battery life of 45 days?
by Terr_ | 2025-04-30 03:24:45+00:00
To recycle a similar sentiment from another submission [0] on the White House's response:

One of the Republicans' (conflicting) rationales for the import taxes was Americans would notice the higher prices and be motivated to seek out domestic alternatives.

If they were telling the truth, they should be happy to see these factors clearly displayed, since that makes it easy for consumers to compare and switch to other products that aren't being tariffed.

Instead, they're freaking out, indicating they want to deceive consumers and voters into blaming higher prices on "greedy companies", instead of (correctly) blaming the federal government which is taking the money for unprecedented new "national emergency" taxes.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43831027
by aeyes | 2025-04-30 03:26:13+00:00
What are multi instance upstream Postgres clusters for you? PostgreSQL has no official support for failover of a master instance, the only mechanism is Postgres replication which you can make synchronous. Then you can build your own tooling around this to build a Postgres cluster (Patroni is one such tool).

AWS patched Postgres to replicate to two instances and to call it good if one of the two acknowledges the change. When this ack happens is not public information.

My personal opinion is that filesystem level replication (think drbd) is the better approach for PostgreSQL. I believe that this is what the old school AWS Multi-AZ instances do. But you get lower throughput and you can't read from the secondary instance.
by Terr_ | 2025-04-30 03:26:13+00:00
Even if we charitably ignore the way this administration has contradicted itself, and assume they really do want to spur a change in what Americans buy... I see no innocent explanation for these unconstitutional threats against transparency and free speech.

The simplest explanation is that they want to deceive consumers/taxpayers into blaming higher prices on corporate whim, instead of their decision to take the money away by import taxes.
by sdwr | 2025-04-30 03:26:26+00:00
How does it require a critical mass?

If the car ahead of you is sharing visibility and braking data, you can drive on their bumper and stop when they stop.

If the car next to you is receiving route data, they can open a spot for you to get to your exit.

The benefit is large and NOT REQUIRED for normal operation. It's the easiest coordination problem in the world, because it's all upside and practically atomic.
by wtmt | 2025-04-30 03:26:30+00:00
Wanted to do a TL;DR of this order:

* Some company’s employees receive some inappropriate emails from a ProtonMail address.

* They file complaints and approach the court to identify who sent the emails.

* ProtonMail does not respond to queries about its users from foreign authorities unless the Swiss government directs it to. [1] It didn’t respond to this request.

* The court decides that blocking ProtonMail in the entire country will solve this problem and such problems forever.

[1]: https://proton.me/blog/india-block-proton-mail (key text snippet below)

> Under Swiss law, Proton is not allowed to transmit any data to foreign authorities, and we are therefore required by law to reject all requests from foreign authorities that are addressed directly to us. However, Proton is legally obligated to respond to orders from Swiss authorities, who do not tolerate illegal activities conducted through Switzerland and may assist foreign authorities in cases of illegal activity, provided they are valid under international assistance procedures and determined to be in compliance with Swiss law.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-04-30 03:27:19+00:00
> I'm a little puzzled, to be frank, to see one being handled this way. There are definitely two sides to this story.

You shouldn't be. I've seen low-experience cops get soundly manipulated over and over and over. As long as a manipulative abuser gets that cop's ear first, that cop is handled.

For those times when the cop learns they'd been had - once the facts are now clear, they do not arrest the manipulator or even try to do the right thing. Not ever.

They get in their cars and go, leaving a rewarded abuser behind.

Throw in a law that mandates an arrest and they're going to arrest the person who has the least capability to embarrass them (further).
by nullc | 2025-04-30 03:27:28+00:00
I'm in California. Two of my favorite fast food restaurants have closed (or closed their locations here) others have radically reduced their workforce and replaced humans with machines.

It'll be interesting to see if this effect turns out to be statistically signficant in time. ( https://reason.com/video/2024/12/19/no-californias-20-minimu... ).
by nozzlegear | 2025-04-30 03:27:32+00:00
You're right, we were lucky and bought it toward the end of 2016 with a 3.3% interest rate, right before house values and interest rates started shooting up.

I'm not sure what it's worth today, but we bought it for 90k, so call it 150k? According to a mortgage calculator that I found online, my monthly payment would increase from the $800 I pay now (includes escrow and extra toward the principal) to about $1350 per month with escrow. Definitely a big jump, and I'm not so sure it's doable on that $15/hr minimum wage; it would require my wife to work as well if we want any disposable income after the mortgage, bills and groceries.
by Mystery-Machine | 2025-04-30 03:29:02+00:00
Odd how sentiment about Elon Musk changed rapidly... Some HN users pointed out in the comments here that not even Teslas reach 85%. Is the article wrong? Interesting that everyone is talking about favoriting, but no one talks the anti-favoriting of Tesla during the Biden administration. Tesla wasn't invited to any EV conference that was organized by the previous admin. They are the biggest EV factory in the US yet somehow they were never invited...smh
by somenameforme | 2025-04-30 03:29:08+00:00
My use of "reasonable" might have made the matter confusing. I think "not reasonably within their mandate" and could be argued "to be reasonably within their mandate" are two very different things, but this is made much cleaner if I simply change reasonably to clearly.

Without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond those bounds, so long as there was a "reasonable" argument for it.

Again the example with the CDC makes this very clear. A mandate enabling them to carry out actions "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" like testing, inspections, quarantines, and so forth does not clearly (or even reasonably) grant them the right to also prevent evictions. But they could create a "reasonable" argument that, though ambiguous, it should.

With Chevron this ambiguity was up to the regulator to decide themselves. Without Chevron, it's up to the judiciary to decide (if the regulator is sued). So circling back to the point here - the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.'
by slg | 2025-04-30 03:29:33+00:00
You are failing to understand what I'm saying. They don't have to weasel out of legal liability in court. They just bake the legal settlements they know they will have to pay into their marketing budget.

Has no one watched Fight Club and heard the anecdote about how a company will only recall a car if the cost of the recall is lower than the cost of settling all the lawsuits? All this guarantee tells us is that Mercedes did a similar calculation. Taking legal liability is not proof the car is safe. It is proof that they think the value of customers thinking the car is safe is more valuable than the cost of paying out settlements. Tesla not making the guarantee does not prove their cars are unsafe. It is evidence that if they did the same calculation, that got a different result. Maybe that is because the car is more dangerous, but it could also just be a different marketing philosophy and Tesla notably does not approach marketing like most other car companies.

The conclusion that you reached in which the Mercedes is safer than the Tesla is valuable to Mercedes and that opinion was indirectly purchased by Mercedes paying out legal settlements.
by rayiner | 2025-04-30 03:32:36+00:00
> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights.

That’s the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasn’t powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. Those rules entailed a major expansion of federal power. Indeed, you can see the seams in the civil rights laws. For example, Title VI’s ban on discrimination in public education is implemented through conditions on federal funding. Because the federal government can’t legislate such a ban directly.

> The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority.

That’s exactly the civil rights era retconning of the constitution I’m talking about. The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip.... The statement is about self determination: the right of a people to determine their own form of government. The equality being referred to is the equality between Britain and its monarch and the colonists.

The founders said almost nothing about protecting minorities from the majority, except perhaps in the context of religious freedom. Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority.
by Joker_vD | 2025-04-30 03:32:47+00:00
The fact that the Linux kernel does not track environment variables of the processes is not a "fundamental". The setenv/getenv could very well have been syscalls, it's simply a design decision that they are not. One can make a kernel with such tracking, and it'd still be POSIX compliant as long as you supply setenv(3)/getenv(3) wrappers with expected signatures in your system libc.
by xtiansimon | 2025-04-30 03:32:53+00:00
I’m thinking a good amount about this. Right now I’m of the mind the benefit of weakening ESA is to lower costs and increase speed for _new_ property development. In other words, encroachment on wild lands.

When you say “The cost is borne by the property owner, effectively without remuneration.” I think about the property developer who buys next to the garbage dump and then complains about the smell from the dump. It’s adding undue cost to his housing development.

Where I’m living now there are several older and abandoned manufacturing properties. I believe buying virgin land and building it to your taste is very attractive compared to trying to shoehorn into someone else’s old building—which you might have to demolish at greater cost.

So, no. Right now I don’t think we should fast track the kind of development that needs shortcuts around ESA. Develop somewhere else. Capital investment doesn’t need public help going faster/harder into wild areas.

And if the idea of the cost of demolition and toxic building demolition seems insurmountable, consider the communities whose leaders said they will take the toxic garbage from the LA fires, despite the complaints of the people in those communities. Turns out the naysayers lost to the public good.

I think wild spaces with wild animals are a public good and should be protected. I enjoy those spaces as they are. Anyway, that’s how I feel about it right now.
by nullc | 2025-04-30 03:33:06+00:00
As a worker being denied the ability to get work I wanted to accept at an agreed wage because someone far away who never met me and doesn't understand my life thought it was too low for my own good isn't particularly dignified.

That's why I'm arguing with your presentation even though I don't oppose having a minimum wage. It's not just a question of lacking empathy for someone or living with dignity, because in those terms a minimum wage can have the opposite effect.

And dismissing contrasting views as unemphatic or suggesting that no one can be poorly paid with dignity detracts from having a useful conversation... it also says little about what the minimum wage should be. Certainly $1m/yr is more dignified than less! :P
by klabb3 | 2025-04-30 03:33:47+00:00
Just crossed my mind that perhaps lots of bot traffic is coming from botnets of unaware victims who downloaded a shitty game or similar, orchestrated by a malicious C&C server somewhere else. (There was a post about this type of malware recently.) Now, if you crash the victims machine, it’s complicated at least ethically, if not legally.
by vips7L | 2025-04-30 03:33:58+00:00
> It's a cherry picked, out-of-date counter-example. Swift isn't designed for building drivers

Do you have a counter benchmark? The burden is on you here to disprove the data presented. What that benchmark shows is that you spend A TON of time counting references, much more than tracing GC, unless you enter Swifts C++ networking code. I would think games don’t spend most of their time calling into networking code.

> In reality, a lot of Swift apps are delegating to C code. My own app (in development) does a lot of processing, almost none of which happens in Swift, despite the fact I spend the vast majority of my time writing Swift.

So what you’re saying is that any language will be good for gaming since they all can delegate to C?

> Swift an excellent C glue language, which Java isn't. This is why Swift will probably become an excellent game language eventually.

What makes swift better at calling C than Java? AFAIK Java has a perfectly good and brand new foreign function interface.

> This is why Swift will probably become an excellent game language eventually.

I would take this bet that it won’t. Purely on the sheer fact that gaming occurs on Windows and Swift is barely capable there.
by jakogut | 2025-04-30 03:34:32+00:00
The Linux kernel also doesn't have any concept of shared libraries, which are resolved by ld.so, a program that's usually shipped as part of libc.

I like this approach of shunting off functionality that's important, necessary, and omnipresent across all OSes to userspace, rather than giving into the temptation to put everything and the kitchen sink into the kernel. It seems to make a more versatile and future proof OS, that's easy to work with in spite of uncertainty.
by bilbo0s | 2025-04-30 03:35:37+00:00
The guy's arguing all over the place. Not much of it makes logical sense unless you stop looking for logic in the arguments.

Suffice to say, like most ideologues, the beliefs make sense when analyzed in accordance with the logic rules of the holder of the beliefs.

Think of the beliefs being discussed more as doctrinal tenets of a pseudo religious sect, and you get a little closer to the thinking of the adherents.
by labster | 2025-04-30 03:36:30+00:00
The fuzziness was primarily left to bureaucrats making best guesses, without any particular agenda. Of course there would be some bureaucratic capture going on, but shame would still work. Systems work best with some sort of fuzzy logic, which is what courts and bureaucrats provide. Regulations are not supposed to be a suicide pact.

What has changed here is that loyalty to the head of state is the primary determinant for all of the gray areas — and that guy can be as arbitrary and capricious as he wants. Context always matters; context is the difference between prerogative and corruption.
by Joker_vD | 2025-04-30 03:37:39+00:00
Why not? Every executable is started with execve(2) syscall which takes an array of the environment variables that the kernel use to reset the process's environment variables it inherited from its parent, so obviously the kernel has full knowledge of the environment variables of all of the processes in the system.

Now, there is a reason why kernel actually does not have such knowledge, but it's not at all unreasonable to assume that the kernel has it.
by benlivengood | 2025-04-30 03:38:08+00:00
There seems to be only a single central crux to the article; it could have been much shorter.

It claims that innovation within an ethnic niche is significantly smaller than innovation in a mixed society. I saw little or no evidence related to that claim.

It also conflates immigration with the establishment of so-called ethnic niches without justification, and fails to explain why a significant fraction of CEOs being white men is not a similarly problematic ethnic niche.

Poorly concealed racism through and through.
by nullc | 2025-04-30 03:38:16+00:00
High average productivity can just as well come from aggressively not employing anyone that doesn't drive the revenue per head-count forward. I suggest that the below-average workers productivity is inflated by aggressive fat cutting-- and that we'd be better off as a society if we made more room for novice and trainee employees. But this has gone off-topic of the subject of minimum wage because very few people actually receive minimum wage in the US.

> I personally can’t imagine saying “I am incapable of producing much more than seven dollars per hour with the help of the time, body and mind of a person that I interviewed and selected to work at my business”

An inexperienced new employee can easily be a net loss for a long time as they mess up more stuff than they produce while they learn. This isn't tolerated by a lot of modern business philosophy so the jobs and industries that work like this increasingly just don't exist in the US.