skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Question from a newcomer here - why does one have to live in San Francisco?

I moved to bay area three weeks ago. I live in Walnut Creek which is the boonies to everyone here in SF but 1) it's affordable, 2) it's safe, and 3) it's quiet.

I commute to SF every weekday. I almost always get a seat, pop open my laptop, tether to my phone, and start working. The 45 minute commute usually isn't even noticed.
I think a reasonable metaphor for thinking about this issue is to consider a grocery store, where is aisle represents a different kind of income and each store represents a different country. If prices get too high in one aisle, shoppers that spend a lot of time in that aisle will switch stores if they can afford the drive. It seems like both people and politicians tend to focus on the "earned income" aisle because that's what people are familiar with. That serves as a nice area for politicking because they can "tax the wealthy" without actually hitting the real donors in any meaningful way since most of their income comes from other sources. At the same time corporations and high net worth individuals are more than capable of leaving, hence the double-irish, etc. If they go, tax revenues go to 0 rather than small, so it would seem to be in the strategic interest of the United States government (assuming we want to maximize revenue which is probably not the goal but will work for this purpose) to be the lowest tax domicile for that kind of income, but just barely. That way we attract wealthy individuals but still "extract" the maximum feasible wealth from them. I really don't like the adversarial nature of this kind of thinking, but you have to at least admit that people are corporations do venue shop. If that's not brought up at all, someone's being naiive, or more likely, disingenuous.
If I attach a gun to it, then can I avoid registering it?
This is already true.

Model aircraft have to be flown within visual line of sight (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 336), which restricts the height.

Commercial use is already FAA territory and you have to be registered (Section 333 Exemption).

/Edit: Section 336, not 366.
I've have worked in the restoration business in Europe and would absolutely hate doing the same jobs in the US. Here, it is tactically accepted that even people that faces the public can have a shitty day, specially if the pay is not-so-great. You know you are not 100%, your clients know it, your boss knows it, but as long as it doesn't become a regular problem, it's ok.

Now, besides having a shitty day, knowing that my pay and lifestyle is in danger if I give the client a less than perfect experience would do nothing good to my mental stability.
> giving poor families money, on top of the benefits they already receive, improves their children’s behavior

I don't think anyone questions that extra money does good. The big question in the fight against poverty is: given X available welfare dollars per family, what is the optimum allocation between giving them as benefits or giving them as hard cash?
One reason why the 1% pay less taxes is b/c they make their money on investments rather than income. The yearly capital gains tax (tax on investment gains) is ~15% while income tax in that bracket is 30-40%. Those in the 99% pay somewhere between 10-28% income tax. So it would seem obvious that we should simply raise capital gains tax to 30-40%. However, investments and income are not equivalent. Making an investment is correlated with a certain amount of risk. For example an investment in a General Motors corporate bond has a risk of default (very apparent in 2008). So if we raise taxes on investment gains, we dis-incetivize investment activity (b/c it therefore lowers expected gains). So it makes places like GM less able to finance things like payroll or build factories that employ regular people.

I'm not saying we should or should not raise taxes on 1%'ers. But we should keep in mind that there is no free lunch. What we do has unintended consequences that we should keep in mind.
I wish I could remember who said it, but apparently at one time somebody cheered up a depressed or suicidal Hunter S. Thompson by reminding him that he hadn't written Nixon's obituary yet: Nixon was still alive. Apparently it had never even occurred to Thompson and the thought really warmed him.

If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.
I agree, but you still have the problem of finding the argument tree that uses your particular definition of the subjective word. :)
"Blender may be one of the most successful and best run Artistic/Media projects in Open Source."

I would go one further and say one of the most successful and best run projects in Open Source. I have always been impressed with the Blender developers ability to just plain deliver. Features get built quicker than you can keep up with them, and they seem to have had the best success integrating GSoC projects & developers into the code & team I've seen.

I don't know what their secret sauce is (Ton's enthusiasm?) but I think many projects could learn a lot from them.
Thanks, the video in the article cut off before it made any interesting points.
Taking a job on a salary also involves a risk, as plenty of GM workers found out recently.

Money is supposed to be fungible, and the free market is supposed to allocate capital optimally. In any other case where we taxed one kind of thing at 30% and another at 15%, people would be crying foul about this crazy taxation regime that was distorting the market.
fyi: there's a little mixup on your main page, the $5/mo plan says 512gb ram instead of mb
It's beyond naive to expect American politicians to do anything remotely responsible with increased tax revenue. There are countless examples throughout recent and age-old history that show what happens when you give government money to spend like drunken sailors but we don't ever seem to learn from any of them.

And if Hillary Clinton was serious about any of this, she would return donations from all of these people.
It is an interesting turn of events that Arguman can be used to improve the design of Arguman.

[1] http://en.arguman.org/there-should-be-inbuilt-definitions-fo...
There is a clear distinction in the two. You are presenting a straw-man argument.
Cha-Ching for Uber
I'm with you, but at some point the battle is lost, and you're throwing good effort after bad.
That doesn't give a motivation for the secrecy.

I don't know why someone would or would not do business with a16z. Was a particular contact breached here? I don't remember reading such an allegation, but I may have missed it.
Not entirely related, but progressive taxation schemes make me extremely uncomfortable. It's a shame so many people want to continue even farther down the rabbit hole.
I originally heard of this app a few years ago from a friend who was an advisor for the company at the time. My big gripe with this app is that it did not address the underlying psychology of setting and reaching goals. Research has shown that sharing your goals with other people actually diminishes the likelihood that you will complete them.

At the time my friend brushed off my comments and it looks like this post-mortem doesn't cover half of what it needs to. The premise of the app completely missed the mark for the problem it was attempting to solve.
There seems to be quite a bit of FUD and a lot of apparent guessing in these comments. Regardless of politics, are there any studies or evidence to back up or even discount any of these claims?

How does one separate the politics from the rest?
People rarely acknowledge that a significant portion of their identity is a result of social conditioning (or indoctrination as you bluntly put it in another comment).

The act of seeking of approval, in particular, is the persistently amorphous result of a society shaping/ strengthening/ controlling the underlying instinctual passions (of fear and desire and nurture) over decades. Most people even in individualistic societies will fight to death their right to defend their internalizing of this brainwashing.

You may notice that a lot of spiritual beliefs too fall under the similar umbrella. If not, I invite you to this rabbit hole: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au
I've not been doing Haskell for that long, and I'm still very much a beginner, but so far, I'm not finding the community use of random ASCII for operator-like functions too overwhelming.

Also, I think one crucial thing is that the strictness of usage, enforced by the compiler, can help ensure that the code is used in the right way. I would feel a lot less safe doing it with Python for example (what I use day-to-day).

Also, Haskell has unicode source files, so there's even more scope, and it can lead to some funny results: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/acme-lookofdisapproval
I fail to see a problem you are trying to present.

Even if identification was hard, which is not true because of how HTTP works, it is irrelevant because HTTP doesn't discriminate. If someone does, that is their problem, and should be solved by them, and not a committee or law.
I did not realize that I am running my private SMTPd (+ imaps) for nearly 8 years. I never had issues. My score on test-mail is 9/10 because of lack of DKIM. I will implement DKIM, see if I can get 10/10.
>>As for fair share, 1/3 is not enough?

1/3 would probably be enough, but they're paying ~1/5.
Yes! In fact I'd go so far as to say they're what make it possible. Without them you end up needing to split a large codebase into microservices, with all the disadvantages that entails, because that's the only way to get good isolation in a language without a good type system.
"the US" is not criticising diesel cars, that is one article on vox.com

Of course, it was in the US where the widespread European diesel cheating was discovered :) but again, that was a small number of Americans measuring, and they don't speak for the whole country either.

And I did pretty much answer the question, it was asked if there are more big cars in the US as rumored, and I didn't say "no", I said "...it's because of these reasons"
Thank you for your feedback. It is appreciated. :)
But then again, what if people start harvesting people's identities from the drones through the identifier? I think it's a neat idea, but it straddles the 4th Amendment line and could potentially expose your identity to people who don't like drones.
> That would more than cover, for example, the estimated $47 billion cost of eliminating undergraduate tuition at all the country’s four-year public colleges and universities, as Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed

I would be in favor of this proposal if it could be demonstrated that college costs could actually stay somewhat stable (i.e. not increase faster than inflation) for even a relatively short period of time. Otherwise the cost of this could spiral out of control in short order.
The "Yes, I got bored" part suggests that it wasn't in the program and he was studying it on his own.
I was studying to become an urban planner at one time. Life got in the way and I never completed my Bachelor's in Environmental Resource Management with a Concentration in Housing. I did get the Certificate in GIS I wanted, but, obviously, never having finished the bachelor's, I also failed to get a master's in urban planning.

There is a long American tradition of megacorps doing things like entire planned towns (Hershey, Pennsylvania) or otherwise influencing local planning. It seriously doesn't make sense to me that Google can't make some kind of arrangements. Megacorps are often very well positioned to cut deals and put through proposals that are de facto urban planning schemes that could not happen if it weren't one company behind it. In other words, if you had to get multiple groups agreeing, which is the thing that causes a lot of friction in the process of urban planning. If all you need is BigCo and TownInQuestion cutting a deal, it often cuts a lot of the red tape.
OP, I don't know if you are reading the comments here but in case you do: Don't get discouraged so quickly.

The reason this is happening is as the blurb from the MS postmaster help page: Your IP doesn't have a reputation yet.

The reason these rules are in place aren't about email monopoly, it's about spam. If anybody could setup a SMTP server and start firing off large amounts of mail, spam would be even more endemic than today.

You can configure your server perfectly, but that doesn't mean much, since it's your IP that's the problem.

If you have legit objectives, it's a pain in the ass for sure. But you are not the only one having this problem, and there's a solution for it.

All the big email service providers (ESP's) like Neolane, Exact Target, Mailchimp, Campaign monitor etc share this problem when they onboard a new client, who requires their own IP.

Deliverability is a surprisingly deep, technical topic, and all major ESP's have entire teams of specialists working on this.

If you want to make such a service as Fastmail, you need to get really into deliverability. It's not a walk in the park, but it's not impossible either.

I'm not a specialist in this particular area myself, so I can't give you that much specific advice. I've just worked elbow to elbow with a lot of these guys, so I know what kind of challenges they work with.

One thing I know for sure is really important, is the "warming up" of IP's. Basically the IP you are sending from needs to accumulate some reputation over a period of time, typically a month or two.

If you send out reasonably small amounts of mail to email addresses that exists and the recipients does not explicitly report you for junk mail, your IP get whitelisted and you will get a much higher delivery rate.

There's no quick fix unfortunately, and email reputation is hard to gain and fast to lose.

But it certainly can be done. You sound very competent on the server side of things, so to get your fastmail-like service up, I think it's just a matter of a bit more persistence and studying deliverability as a technical subject.

Hope this helps.
I cofounded a daily fantasy sports site in 2004, so it's funny to see FanDuel's 2009 launch date described as "early to market". But the environment for fantasy sports in 2004–2005 was incredibly different, with the major leagues often showing overt hostility (including the NFL Players Association suing a company for using the players' names without permission). It's yet another example of how big a factor timing can be in the startup game.
No, just no. Taxation (of individuals at least ) is theft. If one person puts a gun in your face, or threatens to, and demands your money, you would have no problem seeing it so. But because of the societal construct we call "government" some people are deluded into believing that "many men with guns" have some innate authority that "one man with a gun" lacks. But being robbed by many men is no less robbery than being robbed by an individual.

Now, if you want to talk about corporate taxes, that's a somewhat different story. Corporations owe their existence to the State (whether they should exist or not is a separate question) and since they derive benefits from the special status granted to them by the State, I can see a reasoned argument that they should pay for that special status. Of course there are potential, negative, unintended consequences to raising corporate taxes, but the concept is more palatable than the individual income tax (which needs to be completely eliminated).
It's not like the US can't legislate against that. Just need a couple of more pen strokes to stop that from being a possibility.
My evidence is 5000 years of human history. What is yours?
There's more depth here than "just give cash".

What we've seen in study after study is that if you take low-income people who are struggling and give them more money, they use it in ways that improve their lives, they become more productive, and this has profound long-term impact.

At the same time, I don't think anybody really disputes that giving moderate amounts of extra cash to a heroin addict is unlikely to improve their lives. They need medical treatment before anything else.

I've never seen a study which looked at extra cash injections for long-term unemployed. That would be an interesting one. I would be unsurprised to find that cash alone was insufficient to solve their problems; the most obvious thing they need is education.

My point here is that cash clearly helps in some - probably most - circumstances. But "just give cash" is insufficient; we still need to work on all the other things as well.
I'm also curious if we could reduce the number of children born into poverty by offering to pay men $2,500 plus medical costs to get a vascectomy.
People can be pretty stubborn about that, look at the title of this website. :-)

The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart.
Isn't this exactly what Milton Friedman advocated for some 40 years ago? Why is this just being "discovered" now?
The idea of a 'fair share' isn't so important here, because the numbers are huge and have to come from somewhere. It isn't like $100 billion sits under a mattress, it will already be out in the economy, invested in something.

Raising tax is one part of the people getting what they need. The other questions that are just as important are how to provide services as cost effectively as possible and is it worth the loss of investment in the economy. Also maybe is existing investment channeled effectively by the existing tax structures.
>Users should be able to easily filter and ignore promotional email, but email hosting companies should never block it as spam.

See, you still seem to think that it's a negotiation between the senders and the receivers.

My point is that you don't have the right to the end-user's attention. If the end-user wants to hire someone to filter out messages they don't want to read, using whatever criteria for "don't want to read" that they like, this is the user's right.

(more relevant to the discussion, the email that is technically spam is pretty easy to block already, so a solution that requires a lot of social/political change is inferior to the technical measures we have in place.)
I won't be surprised if failing to be in compliance while flying a UAV/RPA results in being arrested.
What Legos Can Teach Us About Software Design
Miller 2.3.0: regex support, gsub, reservoir sampling, iterative stats, and more
One more point of data from my experience: I have never set up mail servers at hosting providers in remote datacenters, only local servers in my own server rooms which I could physically touch. I guess it’s quite possible that Gmail, etc. have figured out by now where all the IP blocks of hosting providers are, and are very suspicious of them.
I don't think it's robbery unless you don't participate in the state. If you're using roads, education, the police, fire departments and all of the other infrastructure and innate protections you get from the state, then, yes, you should contribute.

If you really are an island with no interaction with the outside world, fair enough. But then you have other problems.
>* pinning the entirety of the blame on the third party provider is wrong.*

We disagree. It's certainly understandable that the third-party might raise false-positives. However, what is wrong is when a business can demonstrate that it is not engaged in such practices, yet the third-party provider still refuses to cease penalizing them.

So, who else's fault would it be? Mine? The customer? The customer's e-mail provider who contracts with the third-party? Some unrelated spammer who makes the third-party's business really difficult to execute well? I don't think so. The third-party is in the business of profiting from the proper classification of senders. It's their risk and responsibility to fix these problems.

>the reason why you're getting hostile replies here.

Well, I didn't think the replies were particularly hostile. A little misguided maybe, but not hostile.

Anyway, I think you're also jumping to a lot of conclusions and, frankly, not reading very carefully.

Firstly, we're not an "email advertiser" in the sense you're implying. We're a member-based site with a newsletter, into which only members double opt-in out of their interest in our service. The ads I referenced are occasional sponsorships by businesses that are also highly-relevant to our service and members' interests. But, we don't just push ads and we follow all rules regarding proper email management.

Secondly, our content was never the issue anyway. As I mentioned, the issue was that we were falsely claimed to have been sending to honeypot addresses and/or defunct addresses. I enumerated the reasons why we knew this to be in error.

I hate spam as much as anyone. In fact, my reaction to it is probably borderline irrational. But, there are legitimate businesses with legitimate customers between whom e-mail is a mutually beneficial channel. There's nothing "scary" about that. And, my initial point was in response to an ancestor comment, wherein I agreed that certain "anti-spam" practices make it far too difficult for those who use the channel properly and respectfully.
The users "felt betrayed" because they were betrayed. Isn't that a fair statement when a company makes a promise it can't keep about possibly precious data?

I'm not understanding how they feel they can face consumers again after what happened in 2012.
Apparently hype has the right of way on this post.
Epistemic status: wildly overconfident. "If you don't know how to pronounce a word, say it loud!"

This is naive on two counts. You can't raise taxes without affecting people's behaviour. If someone's tax burden goes from 35% to 45%, they'll put more effort into avoiding taxes, and you're not going to see the increase that the obvious calculation says you will.

But let's ignore that for now. The highest number here is $276 billion. That's a bit less than 10% of the $3 trillion tax receipts collected in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#M...

That's a significant amount, but it's not really earth shattering unless you can use it effectively. And if you can use it effectively, you probably could have used the previous $3t effectively as well.

In reality, when you collect an extra $X billion, you don't get to go "oh great, we can spend $Y billion of that on paying for college tuition, $Z billion on a child tax credit, and the rest can reduce the national debt". What actually happens is the same thing that happened to the rest of your money. It goes to the military, it goes to subsidies for entrenched interests, it goes to pork barrels, and a fraction of it goes to actually improving things.

What could an extra $276 billion do? Surprisingly little.
This article is as much a polemic as an analysis. As a simple example of its flaws, it suggests that gas engines should have gone the route of direct injection to meet diesel efficiency. Guess what the effect of GDI is - much higher NOx emissions.

It also pays short shrift to SCR, which when implemented properly can virtually eliminate oxides of nitrogen in emissions.

Lots of mention of soot and particulates, no mention of the standard particulate filters required on all vehicles now.

I think the commenters who are proclaiming the death of diesel are at risk of simply confirming their own pre-existing preferences for another technology, not so much doing objective analysis of the landscape.

Having said the above, I would agree that the regulatory environment in Europe has failed to ensure that "clean diesel" is not an oxymoron.
Records? Pandoc and Hakyll use records with default arguments to great effect.