skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I don't know what dedicated servers has to do with it?

First see the science, I can tell you the facts and figures and you won't reason to the conclusion correctly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

If you wanted to avoid "back end problems" (aka problems with 'stressing servers' because of your desire for locked down games where the server code is never released to the public) then you should allow gamers to run their own servers using server software like what games did in the 90's - problem solved. The corporate world basically stole gamers ability to own and run servers and since most gamers are 100's of miles away from these game companies they get away with it.

The free market simply cannot work when buyer and seller are 100's of miles away from each other, the seller has a huge advantage, all the outraged customers can't patrol outside the company and give the people there an earful for being corrupt criminal bastards.

Free market is a fantasy held onto by people who don't know much about how the real world works and gullibly believe the false ideological propaganda in the universities.

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Crisis of democracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117
> Today I discovered the truth: that white man in the photo is, perhaps, the biggest hero of that night in 1968.

Ok, I don't want to downplay what he did. Sure, it took courage for him as well. On the other hand something rankles about taking one of the most iconic moments from the civil rights movement and making it all about the white guy. I mean, come on, the biggest hero of the night? Really?
> My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.

I truly loathe this argument because it allows people to engage in hatred based on race while saying that their hatred is not racism. Hatred breeds hatred. I don't understand why people would judge me based on my skin and say that I have a hand in oppression, when I have no power over them. Why am I judged for actions of people who are not even my ancestors, because the color of our skin is the same? Is that not the very problem that we're trying to solve?

I feel conflict and resentment when I am told that I am oppressing people and that I should be hated for it because I am simply white, and frankly I think that's the end goal for the media as they are fanning the flames of racial tension. Don't give in: judge individuals on their merits. Judgment based on race is racism.
The problem is that when you only understand half the issue, you start shouting "down with capitalism" instead of "down with corporate corruption of governments and international trade agreements negotiated in secret by unelected representatives", and there is no sensible alternative to capitalism as an economic model, but there are sensible alternatives to government corruption and unaccountability.
Cornflower herb
Can you share the name of your 400 year company? In America anything over 100 years is ancient, and I'm fascinated by any surviving entity that old.
I like bringing up Meditations on Moloch[0] in context of topics like this.

> The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not because it’s correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn’t an agent.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
The Media Lab – Inventing the Future at MIT [pdf]
The ',' in always creates a tuple. Why is that puzzling?
But is the Californian tax based on how much "wear" cars do to the highways or also on the pollution they create?
I think the only way you could do it on top of a RDBMS is to use a strict subset of features that are common (something that many ORM's already do) which reduce the problem scope down to something manageable, the issue then would be that there would always be the temptation to use something outside that subset and forgo the easier testing, fast forward and you have the same issue.

It would be interesting to build a RDBMS that enforced that subset by simply not allowing those features to be used/abused with support for many of the modern features (JSONB etc) but that is way beyond my area of expertise.
I see what you mean.

Try grouping siblings into subgraphs, and adjusting the length of edges between generations to approximate shells.

You might try NetworkX as well. I don't think it offers a better layout engine for you, but it supports graphviz and is awfully convenient for working with the graph itself.
If you go just far enough back, the hours we work would sound ridiculous (but I do agree about the effort).
It would probably sound more like a retelling of the "businessman and fisherman" joke.
Meeting Malala
You don't have to be an expert in economy to be able to say sensible things about capitalism, like you don't need to be an expert in biology to be able to say sensible things about evolution or need to be an expert in meteorology to be able to say sensible things about the weather.
I think he meant users that have a joint in their pocket or something. Not experienced criminal operations that know about the dogs and are trying to evade them.
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10365480
We should be worried about Keynesianism and Crony Capitalism. A free and fair market is not bad per se... Too bad we don't have that kind of market anymore.
Your code is brittle; it'll fail when I pass it a generator expression, and for no good reason.
The Observatory of Economic Complexity
https://github.com/clef/handbook/issues/69
https://github.com/clef/handbook/commit/4794bc93db32222855b4...
https://github.com/clef/handbook/commit/d25a1e33adf93ad6bb89...
> "until his parents"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the author is a female. Not that it matters that much, the issues apply to both males and females.
The premise I was responding to was that she is not working for me, but for someone else who decided not to pay her.
1) Yes. But a random distribution benefits the population in a non-discriminating pattern, instead of re-encorcing the rule of the richer.

2) Why, is there a problem with that? First of, all communism is not necessarily stalinist communism the kind that prevailed in the 20th century. In fact such "communal" ideas go millenia before even Marx.

Second, a society with renewable power, advanced automation, and they kind of resources we have, or will soon have, will inevitably need some form of "communism". Most sci-fi depictions of society, even Star Trek at times, are quite near that.

>I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor.

Actually India follows more or less the US model -- they just are behind, as a developing country. There are super rich, a middle class (increasing) and super poor.

And if you think that in the US there's "high inequality but everyone is rich" you've probably never set foot outside of a middle class/upper middle class echo chamber. From SD, MS, NM, AZ, AL, to the thousands of homeless in NY, Chicago, SF, etc, the trailer poor, the ghettos, etc. That's not some outliers.

As for me, I prefer the model of the US in the 50s and 60s. Less super-rich, everybody can make a living, less super poor, much decreased inequality and more protections. And I don't mind having "socialist" niceties like cheap education (like college tuition used to be), municipal fiber and wifi, and such.

Large parts of the US are like backwaters when it comes to health, quality of life, public transport, internet acccess speeds and such things compared to some Western European countries.
It seems to me the examples showed instances of people who are seen interacting with a problem. The real idea there is, if nobody sees you interacting with the problem, then you get off the hook.

But the thing is, merely becoming aware of a problem puts some ethical burden to solve it —or at least solve some other, more important problem.

On the other hand, it would be a bit dangerous to vilify people for not doing their best. That tend to cause its own sets of problems, up to and including totalitarianism.
Over 5000% Price Gouge Still Not Lowered by Turing Pharma. CEO, Martin Shkreli
Teradeep general object classifier
1) Yes. But a random distribution benefits the population in a non-discriminating pattern, instead of re-encorcing the rule of the richer.

2) Why, is there a problem with that? First of, all communism is not necessarily stalinist communism the kind that prevailed in the 20th century. In fact such "communal" ideas go millenia before even Marx.

Second, a society with renewable power, advanced automation, and they kind of resources we have, or will soon have, will inevitably need some form of "communism". Most sci-fi depictions of society, even Star Trek at times, are quite near that.

>I guess the difference between our moral axioms is clear. I prefer the US model - high inequality but everyone is rich. You seem to prefer the India model - dire poverty but virtually everyone is equally poor.

Actually India follows more or less the US model -- they just are behind, as a developing country. There are super rich, a middle class (increasing) and super poor.

I prefer the model of the US in the 50s and 60s. Less super-rich, everybody can make a living, less super poor, much decreased inequality. And I don't mind having "socialist" niceties like cheap education (like college tuition used to be), municipal fiber and wifi, and such.

Large parts of the US are like backwaters when it comes to health, quality of life, public transport, internet acccess speeds and such things compared to some Western European countries.
one of my favorites in http://brainpickings.org
Why shouldn't they be? Words can have unfortunate connotations. When you name something, you try to avoid such things.
Yes, I am familiar with that kind of approach. However, something like 'geohash.org/eyckqv01zy2v' is not what I mean because it is similar to '38.7436214,-9.1952231': both can only be communicated by copy-and-paste.

You missed the word 'readable' in my post ;-)
Let's deal with the extreme sexism and misogyny that has always had a stranglehold on the entire world first, before whining about recent beginnings of extreme "feminism" in the computer industry, m'kay?
The end goal of capitalism is one corporation selling you air.

I'm pro-capitalist (not least because it works) but also pro-market regulation, capitalism should be harnessed for the good of everyone not just a few.
Yes, but another problem is that when you are too deeply involved with the minutiae of the system you lose track of the big picture - it's not corruption or trade agreements that's going to doom us, the real issue is with feedback loops embedded in the basic idea of profit maximization and growth economy. You may have zero corruption and perfectly honest people and market economy will still screw you over.

Our system was pretty good for bootstrapping humanity into a technological era, and was pretty well aligned with our shared values for a time, but now it's becoming less and less well-aligned, in dangerous ways. In the end, with robots capable of doing anything, trying to keep people working for a living is prima facie ridiculous and evil. We need a way to avoid this future, and focusing just on new ways to solve government corruption isn't, I think, going to help us with this much. We need to stop riding the feedback loop.

C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ for some pretty good analysis of the problem
Why is null "empty"? That seems worse than being implicit - it's misleading.
Thank you very much! Changed my text.

As non-native speaker, the differences don't shine out so visible.
How can they know how old it was? A 500 year old log jam on the face of it seems implausible.
if people used other drugs as heavily as alcohol is used, then it's not going to be sunshine and roses. it's the volume of alcohol consumed that's the problem. too much of anything is bad for you, as the saying goes.
Did we ever actually have that kind of market? Perhaps what we should say is "too bad we haven't tried this kind of market yet".
As a Linux sysadmin in Norway... bro means bridge and br reminds me of brctl(8).
I think our modern education system has done more to blunt people the curiosity of young people then these drugs possibly could.
Well for the U.S., agricultural production went from 90% of the population in 1860 to < 2% today. And we net export food.

In developing countries, you're most likely to suffer a famine if you're a farmer. We can save the people, save the land, and grow the economy if we do this the right way. But it starts with acknowledging the fact that agriculture/ general "living off the land" as an individual is unsustainable with today's growth rates.
What Hollywood Is Telling Us with the Martian
Would you extend that reasoning to heroin, for instance?
Why bloggers should stop event based niche blogging
Going the microservices way – part 3
Yes, "bro" could mean other things in different contexts. But that's irrelevant. It has unfortunate connotations in an IT context.
Sure, but let's understand we've changed the subject. If the claim is that a state should not, by threat of violence, block a private firm from serving a voluntary customer, I could not agree more. That's entirely different from saying that someone has a positive obligation to provide a certain product.
No, there does not need to be any group in power or set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others for there to be racism.

Trying to redefine terms to avoid having to accept that minority/non-establishment groups can also be racist is ludicrous.

If you have not experienced minority groups being racists, lucky you. Meanwhile I've fairly regularly had members of minority groups expressing fairly crass racist views to me, presumably under the assumption that I as a white man won't take offence when they express racist views about other minority groups.
Last week, one of the U.S. presidential candidates made a rather ignorant statement about gun control and the Holocaust. The Warsaw Ghetto revolt is the immediately obvious example to look at.

This piece is really an advertisement for the author's upcoming book, and this piece seems pretty obviously cribbed from one of his chapters. It reads less oddly if you read the title of the book, and go look at the description on the Amazon link, and realize that it fits into a philosophical work on the justifiable use of force in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
You have to be careful what you are calling work when you make a comparison like that. We might just be calling more things "work." How many people are artists, musicians, writers, comedians, or chefs?
> And the whole "Copehangen" theory BS wants us to believe that it's either (2) or nothing

Recognizing that disincentivising marginal improvements in behavior leads to a worse behavior is not claiming only those two behaviors exist. It's just saying that perverse incentives lead to worse outcomes.
I think they are smart to sidestep it right away.

That said I think the current trend of limiting not just insults but whatever can possibly be construed as an insult by anyone, -that might not be a smart move in the long run. Especially as some people seems very good at getting insulted.
>More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and raw materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to produce one dollar of GDP than it used to.

Very much this. It isn't, however, a new insight to economics. That the limits to growth argument is a fallacy based on conflating increased value with increased resource use is standard economics but misunderstood by almost everyone else, hence the trend for physicists to write blog posts calling down derp on econ types. This is explored by Tim Harford in a piece on Freakonomics [0].

I would highly recommend Harford's book The Undercover Economist to anyone with even a passing interest in the field. It's one of those humbling books which demonstrates that everything you thought you knew about a subject was basically wrong.

[0]http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-conti...
Wondering if this will fare better than gzip for my use case of compressing a Windows 95 disk image (http://win95.ajf.me/). Will have to try it out.
He simply responded to a question on a reddit AMA. Which was then re-posted on reddit, with the new title, which editorialized what was said. And that new title was used on the article linked here.

I don't know that anyone is claiming any expertise at all - this is just how things get emphasized and repeated online.
s/slavery/indentured servitude/

By definition slavery isn't voluntary. Not that this changes your argument; servitude is banned internationally for approximately the same reasons as slavery.

> people accepting [less than minimum wage] jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available

This is yet another example of the problem of using "profit" as the primary (or only) metric for human progress.

Are the people given non-livable wages in a more profitable position than if those jobs weren't available? Does the job improve their situation in general? Is the job using using low wages Wallmart-style to offload a portion of their personnel costs on taxpayers by paying such a small amount all employees are expected to always use government services?[1]

It is of vital importance to ask a wide variety of these questions. Using a single metric is p almost always going to give you an incomplete view of the situation.

[1]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...
I think this teacher should take this as an opportunity to examine what it is he, and the institution he works for is offering these students as an alternative, and consider the students are making rational choices that serve them better.

We know from the Rat Park study that rats in an enriched environment full of positive social engagement and freedom do not choose morphine. [1]

If the students are choosing drugs, it's because they are trapped in a bare metal cage.

For high achievers the do good in high school so you can go to a good college so you can get a good job track can be financially rewarding, but it is also stressful, often leads to burn out and depression and at the end a kind of existential malaise.

For average students this track means bleak economic prospects, low status, a boring monotony with high student loan debt burden.

Cannabis based friendships while in high school form extremely tight, rewarding social bonds. With a shared group identity and shared activities. Going to a concert and getting 'so high' can be an extremely life affirming peak experience that strengthens social bonds.

If his students are rejecting society's plan for them and choosing another, perhaps he should examine what it is he is offering. The conclusion often made from his sentiment is a reflexive authoritarian prohibition.

I know many high achieving friends that rejected society's plan, got high, had fun and went on to start lucrative tech careers, and started businesses that are building the future.

I know many other average students that rejected society's plan, got high, had fun and went on to live rewarding ski-bum lifestyles funded by bar tending, waiting tables, and small scale real estate investment.

The people with their boot on your face don't have your best interests at heart. Believe in yourself, and find your own way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Context: The original suggested three-character file name extention name was “.bro”.

From (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559#c147):

“I received a series of 'bro' jokes in response to my posting about this new feature.”

This proves that the name “bro” actually has significant meaning for many people, some of which find it a bad thing. This would be unnecessarily distracting, so it should simply be replaced with something like br, btl, bli or bti.

Save your outrage for when the solution actually has a downside of any significance.
Luxury Bomb Shelters
How about "encouranging actual improvements in behavior" instead of framing it as "disincentivising marginal improvements in behavior"?
Your sentiments are totally understandable - but lets take this to a broader, less emotional level.

We, as Americans, are responsible for poor working conditions in large parts of the world. People recycling metals from computer parts (a topic HN users probably think about) develop neurological disorders, based on what we do.

Am I harming someone directly by not thinking about recycling more often? No, but I'm still part of a system that perpetuates these effects.

Your conflict and resentment stem from what some people before us have done. I have conflict over the families whose breadwinners die due to my electronic excess. But the answer isn't to deny the system I live in but to be more thoughtful.
We should be worried about Supply Side (Chicago) economics and Crony Capitalism.
Adobe Sneak Peek: Audio Retargeting [video]
Perhaps what was meant was that they were part of a movement to improve the lot of their ethnic group. That movement seems to have worked. However, Norman had nothing to gain - he could only lose, unless he valued human rights more than his personal situation.
Too bad that kind of market is, as far as we can tell, impossible.
No, there isn't. There is validity in the fact that the substances make people think that they are healing tools.

Until or unless there is actually a quantifiable effect it is not a fact that they can be said to heal anything.
WTF is this and why should I sign up if the site doesn't tell me anything about itself?
> TPP, huge inequality, centralization, unemployment ARE NOT a consequence of free market capitalism.

Then what's the cause? Surely you have a guess?
That's exactly the point of Tim Minchin's song about the power of the language of prejudice, about a word with a terrible history of being used to abuse, oppress and subdue: just six seemingly harmless letter arranged in a way to form a word with more power than the pieces of metal that are forged to make swords: a couple of G's, an R and an E, a I and an N... [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw
a feminist