skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So, "the analysis by the scientific experts finds that leadership is generally achieved as individuals gain experience, in both humans and non-humans" <- it took much longer than it should to find what ended up being the only valuable sentence (fragment!) in this entire article.
If he'd had a choice he wouldn't be in Russia. It was literally the last place left to go.

Also, they changed the passwords when he left.
EDIT:Instead of down voting my comment, perhaps you should reply to my post so that we can have a conversation about the topic.
I just want to launch websites to test an idea, see if it works. But with VAT MOSS I have to go through a mess just to ensure I'm doing everything legally, even though I might not even continue with the idea after 1 month. It's an unnecessary frustration.
All About Frogs
What does this really mean (and the list of random requests is just pointless):

Is it a sign of a breakdown of the traditional ways of making money (as a summary, the replacement of "working the farm" to earn money with "driving for Uber" to earn money)?

Is it the de-centralization of existing support networks? Asking your friends for money isn't new, maybe it's just that you talk to your friends over the internet that's new.

Is it the corporatization of personal budgets, where everything has to have some nice-sounding reason attached to it, even if it's obviously a waste of money? (unless you really believe that all the leadership summits in Hawaii are really cost-effective)
Wait: Maybe Europeans Are as Rich as Americans
I assume that much like people can disconnect vitriolic statements from reality when sitting behind a computer screen, so too can that screen disconnect people from the shame one would usually feel begging on the street for money.

I don't understand it, but people can be completely honest in their disconnect from shame when asking for money for completely unnecessary things.

The people asking for help with extremely difficult times, sicknesses, etc., those people that legitimately need help, probably feel enough shame for everyone.
"We'd like to pretend everyone is a self-motivated software engineer who will create value for the world for personal fulfillment."

Considered strictly (literally "everyone", specifically "software engineer"), it may actually be the case that literally no one believes that.

Let's consider a weaker interpretation, more precisely phrased "enough people are sufficiently self-motivated to create value for the world that the perceived decrease in productivity due to workers opting out of traditional employment will be substantially made up for by the other things these people choose to be productive at."

And contrary to your claims, the data you provided not only fails to show that this is false, but lends some support to the notion. From the same paragraph whence you draw the 13% figure:

"Because the primary earner typically worked many more hours than the secondary and tertiary earners, this implied a relatively small reduction in work effort by primary earners."*

"The general result that secondary earners tend to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns, was found in all the experiments"

To a large extent, "Mincome reduced work effort" in the same sense that a man marrying his housekeeper reduces GDP. It does not mean people are being correspondingly less productive!

It is also not clear to me how volunteering would have been counted towards work effort, and non-commercial art almost certainly would not.

Regarding "software engineer" in particular, the study took place in the 1970s. For many well-paid jobs, the initial capital requirements look qualitatively different.
The "crossover" market isn't for car people. It's for regular people who actually want a minivan, but who are too embarrassed to drive a minivan.
Is anybody really surprised by this development? If you create a platform where people can ask for money, a bunch of people are going to ask for money they don't really need.
Time to play devil's advocate and do a thought experiment. What if we created a site containing every word and every conjugation in a way that could be linked to. This work is clearly not a copyright violation. What if we then wrote a "compression" program that took any text file and converted it to a file containing only links to this site. Few would argue that is not a copyright violation. Yet the resulting file contains nothing of the original, it is just a link. If linking to a whole text with a single link is not a copyright violation, at what point between that and our "compressed" file does it cross the line, and why?

Or, put another way, if links had been copyright violations from the start, would we think that it was a sensible and logical characteristic of copyright?
There is one called Maxwell too (NY).
Looks like someone went through and downvoted every comment on this story.
>In the end this stuff doesn't strangle the open sourcers or the hacker culture... It only strangles big industry, the people pay the legislators' paychecks.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Big corporation have teams of lawyers that will allow them to navigate this legal thicket. But your average open-source project, or blog? The first scary legal letter they get, asking for a six-to-seven figure amount for copyright infringement, will cause them to shut down. As far as I can tell, this law is a huge threat to any free-speech that threatens corporate interests, because the moment you link to the thing you're criticizing, you can be sued for thousands to millions, depending on how many people (allegedly) clicked.

Under this legal regime, making it to the front page of Hacker News would be a literal kiss of death to almost organization that offends corporate interests. Maybe the EFF could handle the legal wrangling to prove that its links were "fair use", or whatever. Precious few others would be able to.
Como hackeio
Q
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-eric-garcetti-el...

this morning's news: LA got its 4 cell providers to agree "to share network capabilities in the aftermath of an emergency."
Was your comment saying anything? I thought it asked a question, to which pavornyoh gave an answer.
Seattle is undergoing a near total replacement of their old street lights to LED. At the same time, they have squandered an opportunity to install a wireless mesh work that is already wired for power and has great line of site. The hot nodes could be downlinked to fiber/dsl/etc.
"Is Skype currently safe?" Safe from what? The NSA recording your conversations? Microsoft selling marketing information? Your competitors doing a bit of corporate espionage? Accidentally recording calls to a YouTube channel?

That is, what is your threat model?

Some of my clients, at a big pharmaceutical company, use Skype for Business (nee Lync), so I know some businesses find the risks to be acceptable.
Don't complain about downvotes.

You likely were downvoted since your comment doesn't add much ("The article is spot on" doesn't count as having a conversation)
It's like I need to in order to justify my existence.

According to the Christian bible, god invented humans because he was lonely. Based on that, I figure I am entertainment for a cosmic intelligence beyond my comprehension. I am probably more entertaining when I am fucking up, so I figure I cannot get this wrong.

You don't need to justify your existence.

Next, I suggest you read some bios of people who had success later in life. Twenty-two is really not that old.

Also, try either unplugging from listening to the bragfests of all your so-called friends or scratch the surface and look deeper. A lot of people who rub their success in the faces of people around them are incredibly unhappy you couldn't pay me enough to trade lives with them (assuming a genie could grant such a wish).
The amateur radio organization, American Radio Relay League (ARRL), has its own definition of a country. I can't locate the exact definition on the web but in general it is stated that each discrete geographical or political entity is considered to be a country. Many of these 'countries' lack even population but are considered so for awards purposes. Hams schedule trips to put these countries on the air.

Here's the ARRL list:

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/dxcclist.txt
So much on r/all these days is fluff, breaking stories don't appear as quickly as they used to - in spite of admins repeatedly stating that they're "looking into it".
Yes, they did.
Employees: Don't sign a non-disparagement or release agreement when your employer burns you out.

It takes time to realize the true cost of a past employer's abuse on your career and your mental health. I've heard it can take multiple years to recover in some cases.
You should tell Kimble that message, he's currently determined to launch MegaNet using mobiles to store data when they're idle in a p2p network.
Right. I don't see much difference between this and people who have asked for money over the years. Some have been totally worthwhile, others have been straight up fraud.

Same thing, on the internet. Someone should patent it.
That's an interesting thought. It has gone on the fritz before and then returned to functioning, so I am not yet all up in arms. I hope you are right and things will start working again some time soon.
Assuming a Type 2 civilization has 10x population of the earth, each individual of it would consumes more energy than all of human beings combined. It's reasonable to suggest that light-year to it would be less challenging than AU to us.
There is always residual sugar, which doesn't get fermented no matter how long you leave it. If you really want to avoid all sugar, then you just have to avoid these drinks. I don't think there's a way around it.
The real question, I would guess, is where you get your sense of self-worth? It is worthwhile to do a bit of introspection to understand what really matters to you as opposed to what all the people around you tell you should matter to you. A while back, I found that a lot of my motivations to achieve certain things where driven by pride and a need to show off to my peer group and not due to any real intrinsic desire for those things so I started asking myself why I was working so hard for things that I do not really care so much about. The question I kept asking my self was "What is your life worth?" If at any moment I was told my life was going to be over, what are the things I would wish I had accomplished. The list I came up with (and it is a pretty short list) are the things I use to prioritize my actions. I am always checking back to that list to be sure I am actually trying to accomplish those things.

One caveat about setting any goals that involve the approval of or comparison to other people (e.g. I want to be as wealthy/successful/beautiful/smart/talented as person X or I want to be famous and celebrated) is that there is always someone better, more successful, prettier, smarter or whatever-er you desire and so chasing these dreams are a mirage. I remember reading an article in Forbes (or Fortune, I forget which) which described what life is like for various stages of wealth. The descriptions of life for people who are worth seven figures then eight were pretty much what you would think but I will always remember the first words used to describe people who have a net worth in the low hundred millions: "Prepare to have your ego crushed". I remember thinking that's ridiculous, if I ever have a hundred million dollars, there is no way that I would feel insecure about my status and then I realized that I know a lot of fairly wealthy people (in the seven to eight figure range) who are very, very insecure about their wealth and in fact feel like failures simply because they are comparing themselves to others. The only way to win this game is not to play.

Also, do realize that we are all very influenced by peer pressure. Why do you think there are red states and blue states? You think somehow every one in a particular geography just decided to have a certain set of opinions? Nope, my guess is 80% of our opinions are driven by the opinions of the other people around us. So the practical way to make this work for you is to find people who have the values you want and hang out with them. Also, limit your interactions with people who move you in the other direction. If's tough but for a decision as important as this, you should try to actively shape your life rather than have it just happen to you.

Lastly, you should always separate your happiness from your achievement of your goals. You should be happy and fulfilled regardless of the outcome of your strivings. Your goals, however wonderful, are just one aspect of your life and not the whole point.
Add into that, when I was at school I learned to code on a Research Machines 380Z in C/PM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Machines_380Z

Then a ZX81, then a BBC Micro

What would now be utterly useless skills if I was suddenly in need of adding some code to my work years later.

Ten years ago AJAX was just appearing [1], Web 2.0 was the buzz, and the iPhone was 2 years away. What would you teach kids today to equip them for their work in 2025 ?

[1] http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/11/javascript_a...
> In the early days, the first task every new Grouplend employee had to complete upon joining the team was assembling their own desks.

Really? Gropeland could have hired someone to assemble Ikea desks for $5-10 apiece, but instead they chose to haze new employees and waste their time. The previous tech boom did things better: when I showed up for a job, the desk was already there, the sysadmins slotted in a drive with the stuff I needed, and I was ready to do what I was hired to do in 5 minutes. People did what they did best, and we all went home for dinner.
a hybrid will change nothing and 14k€ for a car is fucking expensive, especially since the innovation there is nearly nothing. in over 20 years cars didn't get much love.

and the design? cars looking more and more the same.
Satoshi Nakamoto officially nominated for the Nobel prize in economics
For me the angle is accountability. Whatever your family wants, and it'll be different than you individually, they all want the elected and appointed officials of the government to carry it out honestly and without corruption.

Proper separation of the bodies of government is important for everyone, conservative and liberal alike. The domestic spying not just on average citizens, but also specifically on (potential) political opponents (like then-senator Obama, for example) weakens all of us.

It sounds efficient to some, to imagine one monolithic law-enforcement entity without its hands tied so the idea of parallel construction, for instance, doesn't bother them. But it's not a "rights of the guilty" leftist tree-hugging issue, it's a corruption prevention issue. By separating our agencies and making them work through official channels we have a check on any one getting out of control.

Be you Right or Left, the government are our employees and Snowden is the one who came to tell us the rest had their hands in the cash register. (And worse, were forging our name with the bank, etc...)
>("I agree with this article!" doesn't count as having a conversation)

Did you read my first response? Or are you confusing me with someone? I asked a question if you saw my first response about the mods/admin.
Why We Can't Afford the Rich [video]
How much impact would this have? Being as gold is a fully fungible commodity, wouldn't the "bad gold" simply end up in bullion/coins/gold bars, and the gold that otherwise would have been used end up in jewlery, with no real impacts on price or demand for the bad gold?

And being as there is no way to track gold, couldn't it just be laundered via similar channels?
I was thinking the same thing, quora has a list of highest ROI films of all times. Most are low budget break away global success's.

https://www.quora.com/Which-movies-have-the-highest-Return-o...
There are a couple reasons you lose cell coverage in an earthquake.

1) Loss of electricity.

2) Congestion.

This doesn't fix either of them. Everyone is still going to pick up their phone, and the lines (power and network) will still be cut.

In fact, it makes it worse, since it is no longer possible to bring in a generator and provide power to the street lights.

Since routing, billing and interconnection are centralised, networks with longer wires are less reliable. The likelihood of a break increases with distance.

What it will do is provide quick and easy blanket coverage without the pesky nimby's knowing they are surrounded by cell towers.
I'm kinda confused. It looked like you are also confirming PG's observation but you ended with a skeptical tone.

Anyway this was interesting to me because most people tend to overly support youngster's into entrepreneurship but this looked more realistic and practical.
You can wait until bacteria and yeasts eat up all the sugar, or leave residual sugar in there. The problem is, without residual sugar you will get a vinegar-y taste.

I switched to milk kefir for that reason - I don't want to drink sugar every day, as my SIBO returns quite quickly if I do.
> What about the girl seeking $600 for her “personal development journey”? (Not much to ask, but she was so beautiful, I didn’t understand why she didn’t develop herself into a model and make a whole lot more than that.)

What a bizarre comment.
>I'm sometimes a bit sceptical giving money to friends

I'm a runner/biker and I know dozens of people that do these charity events. I even went to an informational session for one, since I was thinking about it... the way these charity events generally work, at least here in U.S. (not sure about that particular event in Australia and the fundraising requirement it imposes) is that the participant is required to raise a minimum of 3X the amount of the expenses for doing the event.

So for example, if the hotel/airfare, event registration, and other misc training costs (generally this is water/snacks for group training on the weekends, e.g. the classic long run on a Sat morning for marathon training) are roughly $1000, then the participant will be asked to raise $4000. And of that $4000, $1000 goes to letting them do the event and $3000 goes to the charity.

That was for the one I went to, not to name it specifically however it was a marathon in a foreign country. So airfare and hotel and the pasta meal the night before. A local event won't need so much diverted so the fundraising burden will be much lower. I've done local charity events which only required $250 (no fancy travel or lodging), so rather than bug all my friends I just wrote a check and submitted a matching form from my employer!

So on the one hand, if your goal is to donate to the charity, you are better off giving money directly. But that's true of most fundraising situations as well.

On the other hand, if you view the expense as the cost of getting donors, maybe that is reasonable. A mildly obscure disease might not have a better way of attracting donations other than aligning with a sports event. I'm just speculating here since the specifics probably vary hugely and I have zero experience on the race director side of the registration table or with the fundraising side of a charity. ;)

Basically, I can understand your skepticism - your donation money is more effectively used directly to the charity or on people doing local events. If the goal event involves travel and hotels, then a chunk of the money raised by the participant goes towards them doing the event.
I think it's a great idea because those media companies will get crippled when everyone stops linking to them. What a great way to put a serious dent in an annoying industry.
First example seems like it would want >, not <
This is not soley a trade off between job creation and "environmentalism", and resource extraction is not always net win for a local economy.

Also, public land is involved, so consider that the public has a legitimate interest in the outcome then it might not have in interfering with a mutually agreed upon transaction between private parties.

There is a lot of money to be made from resource extraction, but most of it does not accrue to workers or local residents. In many cases, employment increases for a while, which benefits a minority of citizens while the external costs of business are socialized, and then eventually the part of the resource that is cost-effective to capture is exhausted, commodity prices change, or for whatever reason production stops.

Meanwhile, there has been less incentive for the state to develop a diverse economy based on taxing earned income then there would have been without the income from selling extraction rights, and everyone who lives near the project is back where they started: the jobs are gone, but the public is often left with a big mess to clean up. In addition there are other major employment sectors and stakeholders that may be negatively impacted, such as fisheries and tourism, and legally guaranteed native subsistence rights. In other words, the kind of industry often results in a "resouce cursed" economy and polity.

I grew up in Alaska, and I own land in Southwestern Alaska. There was a closed mine in my home town. The reality of the situation is, the resource is so valuable that as a political matter, it's virtually impossible for state or local residents to prevent the state from selling extraction rights on public land because the local citizens can't compete financially with an out of state lobby. Several of our state politicians have been convicted of accepting bribes from private companies. There is simply so much money to be made that extraction projects on public land are almost inevitable, with or without the consent of the public.

I'm not certainly not opposed in general to mining or oil production, but if the resource is public, the decision should be made democratically.

Should the state sell mineral rights on public land if the majority of it's population doesn't want to? Shouldn't people who live near the public land get a vote?
Previous discussion (same research article, another press coverage): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10458165 (546 points, 11 days ago, 407 comments)
The ones I see are not for vacations. They are for school supplies for kids that need them, medical expenses, that sort of thing. Guess we have different friends!
As I said over here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10512349

I will be dead before I allow an always on camera to be watching me at my computer.
I wasn't referring to rich people. They have a whole different set of requirements. Also, they typically don't have to clean their own mansion, of take care of the pesky chores around the house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Show HN: UpScored – A Career Discovery Platform Powered by Data Science
Probably a silly question, but what is the book that the high school freshman is writing? Just curious what exactly it is.

But it's a decent interview regardless.
This thread illustrates the need for personalized services, aimed at individuals who will pay for what they want. I mean, we have lived through the 'here's a package of content our psychic powers indicate you will want to buy' (newspapers, record albums, cable TV packages). What people want differs, which is why we need intelligent content. The capabilities (that's what upper management cares about) add value to the organization adopting the new approach and makes them capable (capacity + ability) to deliver better, more people-focused (instead of persona-focused) content.

Agility is key. The world of big content will change everything as we begin to ask questions of content and deliver adaptive content focused on individual needs.

My two cents. My crystal ball is cracked, but seems to have been working fine lately. ;)

Scott Abel
TheContentWrangler
How to Get into Reading Science Fiction Books