skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My grandpa died of parkinson's, its a really slow and heartbreaking disorder. I think early diagnosis would be wonderful. It runs in the family, and his two older brothers and father had it, so he lived a very preventative lifestyle - especially with respect to daily exercise. I think it paid off, he lived to 85 while both his brothers died 20 years younger.
>"He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it."

This has been clearly demonstrated to be incorrect many times.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price
The odds of randomly guessing all 12 correctly is 1 in 2^12, or 1 in 4096.
Actually that really isn't an option. Opting out of social media as a kid/teen is basically like eating your lunch in the bathroom every day, or worse. You haven't been part of that so it's probably hard to understand how fundamental social media is to the lives of large groups of kids. And I'd think the fact that they have to take that extreme option would affect them almost as much as the bullying itself.
> people seem to be reliably made happier by throwing chunks of the pie on the floor

That's a really bold statement to make. Where is your proof? Are you just making it up based on your own biases?

If we're just going by anecdotes, then I can honestly say, I have never met anyone who wants to destroy other people's piece of the pie.

If anything, I've met more people adamant about defending other people's pie pieces. Like you, for example.
Yeah, I wasn't sure about posting this way, and wouldn't normally, but as this is really a follow up to my previous Tell HN it seemed appropriate.

I would have posted the whole content on HN, but it wouldn't really work with in the confines of Hacker News formatting. Mods please delete / turn into a link if it's not ok.
Are you being serious here? I can't tell.
What does it say that I correctly identified the crossover of both brands of car I own (VW and Volvo) despite not having ever seriously looked at buying their crossovers?
Modification: they care about businesses that support conservative candidates making a boat load of money.
When I think of inequality and opportunity in the US, I think about the education system. Sadly, the quality of K-12 education in the United States is too strongly tied to economic output / wealth / income of a region, which seems regressive to me.
My best score 4620, what about you? WARNING: Highly addictive game
LeCun: Obstacles on the path to AI
You're getting to performance left on the table. Unfortunately, java and the existing JVM jit compilers will not fold away all the abstractions (nevermind the allocations if you have capturing lambdas).

Whether this matters is circumstantial, but for serious game dev it most definitely will.
Thanks! Synkee looks cool, it's something I could have done with when I was still freelancing, as some clients were stuck with FTP only servers!
As someone who has developed an app for Android (going into it knowing Java really well) and now porting it to iOS using swift ( not knowing Swift at all), the language is actually the least of your worries. It's like you say the tooling, the paradigms, the UI and libraries, SQLite etc which are the biggest learning challenges. Also mobile dev is unique in its self (limited hardware & no reliable network conn)

That's been my experience anyway...
160 Blockchain Companies in Financial Services
People indeed want fairness. This is a little bit obvious, though. Furthermore, to say that people aren't generally "FOR equality" is a straw man.

It is imperative that those who might claim to be against the idea of "equality" for some abstract philosophical reason to separately ask themselves why they can't also be AGAINST egregious and institutionalized inequality.

Being against both universal equality and egregious inequality is an entirely consistent position. Setting up the utopia of universal equality as a straw man in order to avoid addressing the latter question is dishonest and immoral.
Bingo. And most people knows this. But conservatives wants everyone to think it means "wealth redistribution".
Overcome "victim mentality" - How to take control of every situation
CommaFeed has similar problem.

http://imgur.com/Bijmmuh
Agreed. I think this is one part that the author misses in his article. Overall, choice is not bad, but the feeling of uncertainty caused by an unorganized selection is the problem here.

A similar thing happens in video games. Many developers get feedback from users and UX people that too many options are bad. THey then remove the COMPLETELY, which should not make any sense. Even a small submenu somewhere to enable advanced settings is fine, but removing them? Why?
It doesn't quite yet. By default it errors on unknown fields, and my plan is to add an annotation to ignore it instead. Not quite sure if I got the default behavior correct though. I'm considering flipping it.
> I always tell students "a perfectly architected system would mean it's controlled by one company, and you'd need their permission and/or have to pay money to build those apps/sites"

I think that's a mistake. While open standards create forces which tend to produce certain architectural misfeatures, being a controlled tool for a single company does to. Its just a different set of forces working against ideal architecture between the two cases.

Though, while different, overlapping. And, in the case of <input> and other web standards, the big problem is also common in single-source systems: compatibility (e.g., backward compatibility with previous systems that aren't perfectly architected for the current use case, for whatever reason -- with an open spec system that may because someone just went off spec and got popular anyway, with a closed system it might be with an older system with a different purpose that ended up being popular in the domain for which the new one is designed.)
Amazon shares go wild after earnings beat
A Minimal Development Server with Nginx and Docker
UK internet and phone provider TalkTalk hit by significant cyber attack
You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API, which Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter have. The connection the social network happens on the server side, where the filter can't get it.

Further, you can't prevent access to email for the same reason.
> Then how is it a solution?

I didn't claim that it was. Maybe you should ask saulrh that.

> Also, the pie is fixed.

Economic growth has exceeded population growth rather reliably for the last two hundred years or so. The pie is definitely not fixed.
Ev Williams on Medium’s future, his new venture fund, and listening to his gut
Then why be so specific by saying income inequality?
dude this is way too sick. Let's see some GB OG!
Look into John Rawls' theory of justice. It'll answer a lot of your questions.
> open enrollment

Do you mean that the program should be made available to anyone who wants to take it? What if there just isn't enough capacity to take that many people?
Almost every great company has been in a position where losing just a few key employees would have killed it before it became large enough to sustain itself.

I have a theory that a lot of companies become great because of the output of those absolutely superb (but not necessarily self-promoting) employees who create 95%+ of the intellectual output of the startup, while all the the credit goes to those who promote themselves.

Snag those great employees, kill the company.
I thought this was going to be about the NSA or Google. A lot of people working on talismans agsinst them!
> 1.) Delete their harassing posts and/or report them.

And you've already seen the comment and it's already affected your emotional state. This is also akin to blocking your ears and saying la la la la la.

It fuels the bully and makes you look like a 5 year old. You don't want to look like a 5 year old.

> 2.) Use the privacy settings so they can't see or interact with me

And that gives them free reign to spread any rumors about you and you can't retaliate or even know what's going on. Nobody likes being the butt of a joke they haven't even heard, but everyone else has.

> 3.) Not use the service if it isn't contributing to my well-being

And throw away 80% of your communication with friends and family. Perfect.

It's hard to opt out of Facebook because it does contribute to your well-being. It's just that pesky 2% of times you use it that are the problem.

Luckily all these problems automagically go away once you and your social group grow up a bit. But during early puberty, bullying has always existed and always will. It looks like a core part of how humans work.
> It does a disservice to everyone. And to me are just a scam.

You're flat out wrong and you're doing a disservice to yourself and the industry by dismissing them out of hand.

I've talked to quite a few people who have gone through bootcamps or hired people from bootcamps. Many come out completely capable of filling a junior dev role.

We hired a junior dev straight out of a bootcamp and she has been great. Not only is she competent but she adds a different perspective to the team which is valuable.

One caveat though. Not everyone is suitable for a bootcamp. You have to be an intelligent, fast learner who wants to continue learning and is aware of your limitations.

Employers have to have reasonable expectations too. You can't expect someone from a bootcamp to be committing code on their first day, first week, or possibly even first month (depending on the complexity of your code base). At first they will take much longer on tasks than a CS major or someone with experience. But they've clearly shown a willingness to learn and learn quickly so it doesn't last.
That's what "safe browsing turned off" (or "malware protection" in the report text) is ruling out.
Imagemaps were fun ages ago - and animating imagemap menus with javascript was even more fun.

No one would bother with such things today when CSS has animation and whatnot.
The article never defines what fairness is. Another word for fairness is "justice". The article betrays its bias when it analyzes how income is "distributed". Of course, income isn't distributed - it's earned. If person A earns 100x person B then of course it's just. However, if income were indeed distributed, all things being equal, unequal distribution would not be just. So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard work and diligence or that it is distributed by some kind of greater power?
> He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it.

Given your other statements, this is not a sensible position. A widget is priced according to the value it delivers a buyer -- if there are 100 brands of widgets on the market and they are easy to make, it's priced low; if I am the only widget maker, the only limit on the price is what I can convince people to pay.

And what I pay my factory workers is subject to the same competitive forces -- labor's value is limited by my ability to replace it. That's your free market in effect, labor is only extracting value for itself until it exceeds the cost of the alternative, be that a robot or another worker.

So if you are a believer that free markets deliver the best pairing of choice and freedom, how do you not look at a person working in a factory, being paid a low wage, enjoying no participation in profit, and think if they had more value to offer, they would negotiate a better deal.
It depends on the shape of your preference curves. If you're a 1.5 hour commute from work, your highest value change might be a shorter commute. But if you're a 20 minute commute from work, your highest value change might be a pool.

Similarly, if you live in a rich society, you might prefer a more equal society to one that's somewhat more wealthy on average. But if you live in a poor society, you might prefer one that's wealthier even if it has more inequality. For example, the U.S. has 25-35% higher PPP GDP per capita than Germany and France. However, the ratio between the income of the top 10% and the bottom 10% is twice as wide in the U.S. as in those countries. I imagine a lot of Germans and French are okay with that state of affairs.
> In contrast, it is easier to learn to avoid the chatrooms where the trolls hang out. (The article mentions bullying on your facebook page, but that is very easy to fix with facebook's privacy settings).

Bullying isn't just done by random people, it's also done most significantly by people you know at school, often having greater social power than you. When I was still at school a decade ago, being excluded or bullied by people over instant messenger (e.g. MSN) wouldn't have been something you could ignore or write off as nothing like you can with anonymous trolls, it would have been social death.

I feel that, in the end, and this isn't particularly useful advice to everyone, the strategy is to out-social them by winning over your own group of friends and support group who will choose you over the bully. Or just holding on until you can leave and meet better people.
> I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are talking about equality of access, not equality of 'things'.

The features which provide access to economic opportunities are, themselves, economic goods, and wealth is largely (though not entirely) fungible, so the two things are not entirely separable. You can't provide an equality of access that meets some common standards of fairness without finding some way to reduce the degree and circumstances in which the current system produces inequality in things.
Yeah... and then there's the people who benchmark computer programs, don't even bother measuring the test variance, don't know about warming the cache, and post raw timing data online claiming that X is better than Y. Dunning Kruger is a harsh mistress.
Thanks for the feedback. You are correct, I have been discovering through my content marketing efforts that literally none of my signups come from initially landing on a blog post. Yet that strange part is since I've been content marketing, signups have noticeably increased in proportion to page views.

$3000 MRR is my goal for ASAP :) I've said 9 months as it seems reasonable, but more because this is virgin territory for me, I have no idea what kind of MoM growth is possible for BugMuncher, I'll be re-evaluating as time goes on.
Ontario still charges HST on Bitcoin exchanges

http://www.correntmacri.com/harmonized-sales-tax-due-sale-bi...
feature tool helps with iOS review bottleneck
I've felt the same, and it's because schools are mostly funded by real estate taxes. Changing that model would help - even if it was something as simple as pooling all the taxes for an entire state.

The difficulty with doing that is that real estate values, and thus taxes, is a very local thing, it's quite hard to set them universally.
> That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job.

Whether or not it's terrible, it's the system of checks and balances that was envisioned by the founders of the United States. It's exactly how our government has (and does) run for its entire history. The courts exist for this purpose.

"Follow the law" is not cut-and-dried. Statutes can be interpreted any number of ways, and very little common law is set in stone. Even common law created by the Supreme Court (e.g. Roe v Wade) it incredibly controversial and could be challenged again.
Meaningless to draw large scale conclusions on. It's a "This is something we should look more closely at" not a "Send this person around the country STAT"
I think you're lucky you feel like that. Nowadays I see social media as inescapable if you're younger. I think there is an immense pressure to have a presence, so you don't "miss out" on something.

Of course once you have a presence you are left open to a 24/7 bullying outlet that is far harder to detect as a parent/teacher. Think about getting shoved around the schoolyard - every teacher would know the bully (even if they did nothing about it) vs. being tormented online anonymously via apps your parents have never heard of.
5 TASUTA KEERUTUST MÄNGUS STARBURST
Meh. Saying people prefer fairness over equality doesn't actually tell us much, mostly because neither of those two terms have consistent definitions that allow us to analyze whether a situation is fair or is equal.

On the one hand there's the internal division of equality of outcomes vs. equality of opportunities. (See this [in my opinion somewhat confused] article by Dylan Matthews[0]). On the other hand "it's not fair" usually seems to mean "I have been slighted".

As someone who has worked in Game Theory, I've seen a variety of notions of what constitutes fairness (in the form of social welfare). There isn't one obvious-even-if-technically-infeasible choice. There's a variety of plausible, mediocre alternatives.

I think that what this actually demonstrates is that most people have muddled thinking on most topics.

</curmudgeon>

[0]: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunit...
There's nothing stopping you from flipping that relationship order though, or making that pattern more compact. In fact, I'd prefer an overall reversed order, something like:

MATCH (openCypher)-[:MAKES_AVAILBLE]->(cypher:QueryLanguage)-[:QUERIES]->(graphs),
(u:User)-[:USES]->(cypher)
WHERE u.name IN [‘Oracle’, ‘Apache Spark’, ‘Tableau’, ‘Structr’]
RETURN cypher.attributes

I guess, in this particular case, it's subjective preference which language you feel expresses the query pattern most legibly. I certainly prefer the visual approach of cypher.
Absolutely. I could imagine a system where the job goes to the lowest price * reputation, with lower (which in this case means better) reputation causing you to win the bid even if other companies bid lower.

Assigning reputation in a system with financial incentives is a challenge in itself too. If reputation is decided in a non-transparent process, such as members of 18F deciding, the system is ripe for bias, e.g. towards companies with ex-collegues, friends or aquaintances. Any public form of online voting is subject to manipulation, closed voting of the companies involved would leat to a conflict of interest as companies have no incentive to distribute reputation fairly, and raising and lowering reputation depending on if the job was done or not allows companies to do the contract with the lowest effort possible, leading to the problem the above poster described.
'Million Dollar Shack' documentary looks at Bay Area's insane housing market
I think the reason why people don't want equality is because it's arbitrary. To take a simple case, let's say there are five people and five apples. An "equal" distribution might distribute five apples to each person, but let's say one of them is allergic to apples. Then suddenly the "equal" distribution doesn't satisfy equally.

So how does one formulate an equal distribution, and who gets to choose those rules?
Did you really expect the people who chose to drop out to be counted in job placement rates? I believe the same standard is used when talking about placing graduates to jobs from colleges, so I don't find that misleading.
It looks like Italy already does have such a network -- but they teach modern Italian, not Latin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_Italiano_di_Cultura
Might actually be worth enduring the inhospitable work culture for returns of this magnitude on RSUs.
We need to eliminate or limit kickbacks next.

This is a monumental decision for inmates & their families, but long-term progress can be made by getting rid of commissions, particularly at the state & local level. The FCC chose not to make a decision on commissions (citing the lack of legal authority) however it's eliminating or limiting these kickbacks thats needed to really re-align the market. Currently commissions are negotiated on a percentage basis, so facilities have an incentive to favor high customer costs since they get a chunk. This could be improved by legislation limiting commissions to a per-minute basis, so facilities have incentive to favor lower cost & higher-volume. That way rates continue to move downward.

Think about it like this... With the FCC's decision today rates are limited to a max of 0.14 cent a minute. Since commissions are percentage based a facility could demand 13.99999 cent commissions. Theres no incentive for them not to! If states were to set a maximum per-minute commissions at say, .05 cent a minute, it would encourage facilities to push the rates down in order to increase usage. Rates would never fall below .05 cent, but facilities would have incentive to push the rates down as close to the maximum as they could. It would also help cut down on the extra fees vendor's charge. Since extra fees eat into the money that families can spend on actual calls, facilities would have financial incentive to favor lower fees that would increase the number of minutes used.

We've seen nationwide[1] that lowering the total price to families increases call volume. Also increasing phone calls fights recidivism and heals family units. It's something I've been reading and personally care alot about with my work with Penmate[2]. Today's
victory was landmark, but there's certainly more progress ahead.

[1] 2014 FCC Report on ICS (search 'call volumes') http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000975214
[2] http://penmateapp.com
A lot of the comments in this thread sound just like the advice well-meaning (but clueless) adults gave to bullied children when I was young: "Just ignore them, and they'll go away." Or: "You getting upset just encourages them. Smile and walk away".

That advice didn't work back then, and blocking bullies on Facebook/Twitter/Snapchat/etc. doesn't work now.
I'll take Rawls' veil of ignorance and say yes, I'd rather be born into unequal world A than equal world B if everyone in world A has strictly more pie than in world B.

Destroying parts of the pie clearly isn't Pareto optimal, either.
Crest doesn't use triclosan, if you are remotely concerned (there's some research showing a link to propensity for allergies, so that might be a reason to avoid it, but the consensus seems far from conclusive)
Well I suppose the issue is muddled because having a pool is a binary thing where as commute time is not. That makes them hard to rank.

Suppose instead of just saying that you're choosing between a house with no pool but a short commute over a house with a pool and a long commute you try to rank your priorities:

1. Pool

2. Commute < 1.5 h (choosing an arbitrary cutoff to turn this constraint into a binary one)

Now if the pool is really the most important thing to you, then you will have to forfeit the < 1.5 h commute no matter how long it is. If you decided to forgo the pool for a shorter commute, then that is sort of exposing a hidden priority, it would look something more like

1. Commute < 2 h

2. Pool

3. Commute < 1.5 h

The point being that if we haven't fulfilled a certain priority, then it cannot be the most important priority. At least in this binary priority model, there are of course other ways you could lay this out. I just don't think it's fair to call the logic "frighteningly fallacious"
I would argue the opposite. You can't provide an equality of access that meets any given standard of fairness without creating inequality, because now you are favoring those who happen to conform to/ or be better suited to/ or have a better temperament for the new standard over the old.