skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, you should start by stopping reading Hacker News, because it's clearly not good for you in your current mental state. I promise, you won't miss anything important.

Next, take some of your time and go volunteer somewhere - go tutor a child or teach someone to read or feed the homeless or whatever else you like, just go help someone out. You're now accomplishing something way more important than interning with some 'top company' somewhere. Congratulations, your existence is now justified.

Finally, now that you're doing something worthwhile for humanity and you're not tormenting yourself by wallowing in everyone's self-promotional bloviating, you can happily focus on learning new things, gradually improving your own skills, and figuring out how to make a big dent in the universe on your own personal schedule, which is different from everybody else's.

Hey, I spent my entire twenties fucking up left and right - whatever you end up doing, I guarantee you're way ahead of me.
Good point, that didn't occur to me.
to me the decision to write an article about a technical topic such as "APIs" shows a certain amount of importance given to technology by NYT. However once I read it as a sponsored article, it felt dishonest, as if the topic was not interesting enough to warrant "true" interest.
The trick resides in how you can ask questions like "if and only if" which in my opinion are really multiple questions masked as one. For example you can formulate iff as "(not q or p) and (not p or q)" where the "not" refers only to the term directly to its right. This is far from a simple assertion like "is it true that if the earth is round then I am a knight?" because you are also asking "is it true that if I am a knight then the earth is round" and thus get the chance to ask two questions in one.

It's certainly still a tricky puzzle but you would need to understand the rules on what kinds of questions you are allowed to ask before starting
The current plan is to have Rust (in the form of rust-url replacing nsUrlParser) riding the trains later this quarter.
In the case of the GPL, the "or comply with the license" doesn't even apply. As soon as you violate the license, the license is terminated. This is to stop people from violating the license and then saying, "Ok, Ok, I'll comply" when they are threatened with a lawsuit. In practice, copyright holders usually forgive the other party and offer then a new license, though. So, again from my layman's point of view, I don't think this is an issue since the court can't force the other party to disclose their source code. It can only grant an injunction on distribution.

In every case, the use of the license (and subsequent release of the source code) is a choice. Of course, without choosing to follow the license, you can't distribute the software. As far as I understand, this is by design and the reason why the GPL is so robust.

I also think this is a negotiated license because the GPL specifically says that you don't have to accept it. It is a written offer for a license. Sometimes, if you contact the copyright holder you can get a different license. Usually now. Just because the offer is made to everybody, doesn't mean it is not a negotiation (I don't think... but that's probably where knowledge of the law would come in handy ;-) ).
Actually, you can't. If you're growing vegetables, after taking out taxes, you still have a vegetable. If you're cooking, after taking out taxes, you still have a meal. If you're hunting, you still have the meat. If you're making clothes, after taxes, you have some clothes. These goods go back into the economy as capital - the clothes on the back of labourers. The meal workers eat during lunch.

For childcare, there's only the adult's attention that enabled the child to mature one more day - but one could have stayed home and taken care of the child anyway, so there's no marginal gain to getting a carer unless the carer is really good and really imparts a tremendous positive impression on the child, or if one is a worker especially valued by the economy, such as one of a few nuclear scientists or doctor or software engineer.

If there's no tax effect, you only need to be marginally more productive at your job than the carer for it to be worth getting a carer. With the effect of taxes, you need to be a lot more productive.

Whereas if there's goods produced, it's almost always worth it for someone in the economy to be doing that, even with income taxes, because the resultant goods is capital that drives the economy forward.
Just a note, no historian of any note takes Howard Zinn seriously, other then from a political science point of view (similarly Stephen Ambrose is not held in regard).
The Monster Project
Contact an organization that you care about. Ask them if they use a service/product that is based on subscription. Offer to pay the subscription fee in advance for that service.

For example if organization already have domain name, offer to pay the registration fees for X number of years in advance that fits into Y number of $20 bills.
This battle might be fought with the dwindling pockets of old media, but it seems to miss the fact that everything created by anybody has copyright. A permission based culture won't just create a minefield around old media, it will mine everything.

This comment is licensed under the Linking Commons 2020 Open License, which permits anybody to link to it just like you used to on the old Internet.
I have always said that I only feel like I truly know something when I have taught something to someone else and they have learned it.

Getting to explain and articulate ideas to others so that they can understand it is how many people learn best. Everyone wins in these situations.
I agree with all the respondents. Yes, we need science. Probably what we especially need is some rigorous studies in this topic in particular, but how would we do that? Where's the 'control group'? Double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, longitudinal study? All we have instead is the 'Social Sciences', which have trouble even predicting the past.
Something isn't adding up. There is no way $350 million 30 years ago is only worth a little more than x2 30 years later. I've never trusted CPI due to its skewed critera.

$350 mil in 1986 is probably a good x5-x10 in today's money if not more. You also need to take money supply into consideration.
1800s. Blake wrote that in 1804.

More significantly, it took a fair bit of time for modern methods to enter into construction. Structural steel and skyscrapers along with many other "modern" inventions date to the 1880s. Modern "stick" housing began largely in the 1940s.

You can find catalogs of old housing, literally, in Sears Roebuck catalogs, detailing design and construction.
Haha. I agree, my previous answer doesn't come across as consistent. But I was typing from an app I recently started using and I didn't know where the edit button was. It might explain the age of my account too. I just discovered this site.

The central point I was trying to make in my reply was that getting fired (or being a college dropout or bankrupt) is a huge social stigma. It's a relic, in my opinion, of the pre-liberalization times.

"A good chunk of our planet didn't have that prior to 80s, not just India." This is plain wrong. It was hard to open new business because of lack of cheap credit and license permit system. Most of the developed world had systems in place for half a century before we had them. We didn't have banks, we relied on funds from friends and family, or the shadow banking system that is so prominent in Gujarati and Marwari communities. We didn't have the economic freedom to start large organizations, and those who could, were the elite families who had access, and stranglehold over the govt. They had the power and connections to use their levers in govt to acquire licenses and contracts. Which might explain why we have most number of inherited billionaires in the richest Indians list.

Ok, so why is this history relevant? Getting laid off as a concept hasn't seeped in the public psyche yet. Because it a huge social stigma and because for many working for corporate is recent experience. There weren't many to speak of. Add to that, there hasn't been a single recession.

".. they (the employees) would probably never get their wages." Do you really think the founders would not pay? In this age where the smallest stories can get wide attention, I don't think they can ever get away with something like this.

So what is the dispute about?
1. On the surface, about timing of payment. For which they can work out a resolution, but ganging up on anyone is not a good way to resolve issues. Employees aren't that powerless, that they have to resort to physical means - it is not the most effective means. Internet and sites like Twitter has leveled the field a little for everyone. If ganging up is the most effective means to deal with this, then it is mostly a lack of imagination on the part of those employees.

2. At the core, about getting fired. Their anger is about getting fired. Founders have handled it ineptly. If their jobs became redundant because of automation of orders, the firm should have set the expectations right from the start. They certainly shouldn't have laid them off in a sudden move.

Also, what I think, from a plain econ 101 pov, is that harder we make firing, slower hiring becomes - because vacancies won't open easily, and more difficult is it to get hired into good jobs. Hiring and firing should be easy - determined solely by economic rationalie. The more efficient labour market is, the better off everyone is.

My only point is that ganging up is no solution - which they did because of the emotive issue. In the long run, it clips the wings of the individual.
Efficient Iterative Processing in the SciDB Parallel Array Engine [pdf]
Um, sure -- but they get bulk deposited, not individual transactions. The merchant account is what sees the individual transactions, and that bank generally isn't the one businesses go to for loans afaik.
Pirate Bay Song by Bosnian Band
If you go around old homes in Portland, you will see lathe and plaster walls as smooth as a still lake built close to 100 years ago, not to mention lovingly crafted wood details.

If you go into a modern home, you see sheet drywall with tons of shitty looking texture all over it to hide the deep imperfections with the hanging of the drywall, and nary a wood detail to be found.

It's absurd that we've taken these woefully cheaper home construction standards with the prices of housing.
You couldn't buy a washing machine 20 years ago that was anywhere near as energy efficient, kind to your clothes, could figure out the right amount of detergent or softener to use, or had features like remote operation so your clothes don't sit damp all day. Durability is not the only mark of quality.
I'm implying that businesses do what is most profitable. If a certain business leader has an inconvenient moral compass they will, eventually be replaced or undercut by those willing to get their hands dirty. This is unfettered 'caveat emptor' capitalism. I'm not advocating it or saying it's good (the opposite, rather).

But you are acting like this is some mustache-twirling unrealistic liberal fantasy of an evil business person who does this -- not so. This happens ALL THE TIME in real life. People build cars that explode because it's too expensive to build them correctly. The poison on kids toys is not something I invented it is literally a real example from a number of years ago. This behavior is the inevitable consequence of 'caveat emptor' -- thank god we don't employ this awful principle anymore.

In a relationship, it's important to keep the power and the culpability/responsibility divvied up in equal proportions. If you're the powerful one in the relationship, you're also the responsible one. When you are a consumer you have zero power and zero information. You are a consumer of so many things coming from so many different industries you cannot be informed about them. You cannot become an expert on the toilet paper industry, you can simply watch ads and go to the store and pick based on garbage information fed to you by PR firms. Compared to the company selling it, staffed with hundreds of experts who live and breathe the toilet paper industry you are an infant. If they use this asymmetry to abuse or exploit you the culpability lies with THEM not with you. Caveat vendor.
NB: This is not a 65C816! It's a 6502 with a very unusual memory mapper. :)
I am suspicious of the intentions behind this. Something's not right about this, can't quite point it out...
FWIW, replacing the circuit board on a washing machine is pretty common and easy.
I don't think you can stop comparing yourself to others, and you shouldn't try to. It's a good thing to do.

What you should try to do is realize you are you, and you have the opportunity every second to be creative and additive rather than competitive or detrimental to the world. That is amazingly valuable :)
Free flying ballons are not drones. I expected a link to real ww2 drones - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite
> 1) taxing stay at home moms for the value they are creating

That sounds incredibly distopian.

Plenty of studies show the benefits of children being raised by their actual parents. If anything, the bias towards staying at home is not strong enough, because it only has negative motivators - the taxes on paying childcare / having a career. That doesn't make it any easier to have either or preferably both parents actively raise the child where neither of them have to be absent from their life to provide food and shelter, but it does make it harder to have both parents working.

But that hardship demonstrably does not outweigh the lost income, since so many households are two income with children in third party care services. I would hesitate to ever advocate trying to punish dual income households more for using child care services, since those are exactly the ones who often have no choice in the matter.
101  Resources to Become a World Class Content Marketer
> Something isn't adding up. There is no way $350 million 30 years ago is only worth a little more than x2 30 years later.

Well, for things that people in that range it doesn't, because the way the vastly wealthy have gotten wealthier faster than the median and lower means that the amount of money chasing the thing that segment spends money on has expanded much faster than is the case for the rest of society.

> You also need to take money supply into consideration.

Price inflation indexes already take money supply into consideration, since increases in the supply of money decrease the relative value of money vs. the goods and services it is chasing. So, no, you don't have to take it into account in addition to price inflation. Its simply one of the significant inputs in determining price inflation.
"some time right after WWII, people in US suddenly decided to live in a poorly built and ugly looking dwellings regardless of their income level. "

We stopped living in walkable villages and cities and started living in motorway dependant sprawling suburbs. Our buildings got uglier. Our built environment got worse even as we got richer.

Largely this was a matter of public policy. The Roosevelt administration made new rules to plan new development to promote industry during the Depression and imposed it on banks and local planning boards. Still, there wasn't enough push to get the banks to allow anything to be built. Then after the war, those regulations had been in place for almost fifteen years and nothing had been built in the whole country for 16 years since the Depression began.

So people took the rules as gospel and built using them. The only thing allowed was car dependant sprawl and the car companies -- an enormous political power right after the war -- loved it. So the whole country was redesigned. It still is. And if your community isn't worth loving -- as sprawl isn't -- then it isn't worth building beautiful buildings.

That's why this is now the nation of NIMBYism. People can see that nothing has gotten built here but garbage since 1929 and they don't want more of it. Places like San Francisco are now like jewels and museums since nobody has been allowed to build like that in 86 years and won't be allowed to start tomorrow. The epoch when things could be new and beautiful has passed from living memory.
A study shows people of age 18-25 are the most stressed out, as it a period of "entering adulthood". This is the time you have to make many important decisions in life and it is absolutely normal to get confused and remember you are not alone in facing such a situation . Millions of people of the age 18-25 face the same problem. But what you must do is, sit and think what you really want in life and listen to your inner voice. Always remember no two fingers are the same, so never compare yourself with anybody else. Each one is made for a purpose. Identify yours and work towards it.You may not realize your own strength untill you set a goal and work towards it. So all the best my dear friend. Be cheerful. You are not alone!
While most money does exist electronically, you'd be surprised at the amounts of actual cash and gold which are stored in major banking centers.
The Fed expands and contracts the money supply to keep inflation around 2%. They use it as a tool to smooth out financial expansions and contractions by affecting interest rates which affect the demand for money vs interest bearing holdings.

Currently, they expanded the money supply past demand to accommodate the 2008 crisis and now we are caught in a liquidity trap. If the Fed now wants to stimulate the economy by lowering the interest rate though expanding the money supply they can't, because the interest rate is at the lower bound of 0%. They need to now use less effective and unconventional methods to affect the economy.
In that case, lets have more banking crises! They also reduce work effort.

We are not yet in the era when humans are useless. We still need Uber drivers, house cleaners, and day care workers. Once we reach the era where robots have made everyone obsolete, BI will be so cheap to provide that no one will bother to oppose it.
Thanks oh so very much! :)
Conspiratorial? Have you read "People's history", it's mainly observational. Makes a few ideological points at the end after the great mass of evidence but leaves it mostly to the reader.

The ruling class are hardly saints, as history has repeatedly pointed out. Usually the lower class opposes wars, and are led into them by their rulers.

The last 30 years the people who have benefitted the most are the top 0.5% and the people who have lost the most are the middle and lower classes. So really looks like the lower class is lifting the ruling class.
For an android developer who has been trying hard to understand lisp,this is amazing.Swank seems a bit unstable(the readme says so too).
Ping me when you visit Seattle area. I have a 2007 era working Black Macbook. Happy to give it to you as I was already planning to donate it.
This is a shockingly good piece of tech journalism.
How Coops Can Beat Death Stars Like Uber to Create a Real Sharing Economy
You seem to have your own narrative for how Microsoft is and you don't really seem to care much about the reality of the day. I implore you to drop former prejudices when it comes to technology because this changes fast and what you're talking about (much like the parent) is very much in the past.

> Having a good web browser or partially obscure language does not make Microsoft a web company in a sense that Google or Facebook are. That would be a dishonest comparison. Us devs will never forget about IE, though Edge is a good start in repairing a very frayed relationship.

No one said Microsoft was a web company. But yes you devs (including me) will forget about the IE of old because that is no longer the reality. Holding superficial grudges over software that becomes less relevant everyday is pety and counter productive.

Besides, since IE8 Microsoft has ackowledged its issues, has been far more open and more like a partner with the other companies involved in the W3C specifications and they've made fantastic strides (IE 11 is awesome as well; IE 10 isn't that far off).

> Regarding social web it is also highly dishonest to compare Xbox Live with Facebook or Twitter, which are deeply ingrained cultural phenomena.

If you re-read what I wrote I simply said if you counted XBox Live as social then sure they have some social presence but that's it. I never compared it to Facebook or Twitter. So zero dishonesty there.

> His points are valid, much more than ticking off positives of Microsoft's efforts.

You haven't refuted my responses to his points and yet you are saying parent's are valid. I'm not sure if you're simply trying to troll or what but if you feel his points are valid and all of my points, which mostly just corrected incorrect statements from the parent, are not then please present your evidence instead of trying to dismiss.

> There's a reason MS isn't as confident as it was. Redmond is constantly haunted by 2006(AWS), 2007(iPhone), 2008(Chrome) and 2009(Facebook's rise). They seem to be the last to the party...

Azure is second to AWS; I'm sure Google is kicking itself because of that and it's a pretty awesome business. Why would they be haunted by that?

For iPhone yeah Microsoft missed the boat but so did countless others. Microsoft has a new tactic with making all of their software available on all platforms and you know what? It's higher rated than some of the contenders in the same space (for instance Word is higher rated than Pages). They're doing fine with mobile except for their own OS.

I doubt they are "haunted" by Chrome. If anything Mozilla would be considering they were making ground on IE and then Chrome came right in and grabbed many of their users. Microsoft still has plenty of users here and they probably don't care nearly as much as you want to think they do.

Everyone was caught off guard with Facebook. If you'll notice Microsoft hasn't even tried to over take them, unlike Google who tried 3 times in different ways.
Wow. No agenda here.
>The basic framing of houses is not that much different.

Lots of the old houses people are pining for here used death-trap "balloon framing".
I was a private yacht chef for 6 years. With my skill set, I have a choice to do cooking for a couple people or work as chef in a restaurant where in the same amount of time I can cook for 50 to 100 people. The challenges are different, for example, in a restaurant there is a lot more space to work so the work is much more efficient.

Do I make fantastic food for a very limited amount of people or do I cook for a lot of people? Turns out, that yacht chefs make a lot more money and it's a fun job where the hardest part is having to catch dinner first.

I didn't make the rules and I'm just living in the system. I really enjoy both, it doesn't make much difference to me if I cook for a few or a lot, but whether I do depends on wealth distribution. Most crew on yachts are very talented so an engineer would instead of being engineer for a limited amount of people would be an engineer in a power plant or as one engineer I worked with if he want back to his former engineering job, as a rocket scientist. The captain instead of managing an handful or crew would be managing scores or hundreds of people in upper management somewhere.

There is so much wasted energy and talent serving the wealthiest of the wealthiest. A lot of these people are still miserable with all their wealth because there is always a person with a bigger boat. At the end of the day, Paul Allen is making the wealthiest people on earth miserable.
Without Einstein We'd All Be Lost
Well, to be honest, for almost all "core" pieces there are enough alternatives that for a really small businesses it doesn't make much sense to budget for paying for libraries.

And it's reasonably standard practice in commercial situations to charge more to large enterprises than small ones.