skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Trying to put in the effort to get a bump in salary is very different from the kind of creation that is the main benefit of startups to society.

To counter your anecdote with another one, if only half of the characterization of Steve Jobs is true, do you really believe the exact amount of potential financial upside was ever really a question for him?

Sure, if the economic environment had been so extremely bad as to make it impossible to make a living off founding Apple it's likely he would have gone somewhere else. But that's a strawman and you know it.
Actually, yes, in many areas it is considered good practice to NEVER do things in your head even if they are obviously trivial to do so.

2x2=4, but anyway a cashier receiving or handing out 20 notes of 20 dollars should still use a calculator to get the total - since otherwise once in a blue moon a tired person will mistakenly enter it as 200. This particular combination is a "common" source of cash handling mistakes that ocassionally happens in every organization that has a lot of such deals, not a fictional example.

The examples you give about programming are about understanding concepts, not menial tasks. If a programmer needs to reference a e.g. particular table/column name it often is appropriate as a policy to copy and paste it instead of retyping a dozen obvous characters; I've seen people that are paranoid enough to do that every time in production environments where testing won't catch that and you need a script to run properly the first time. Being careful and re-reading will catch most of the typos, but not all. When that's not good enough, you have to reduce risks of introducing such typos in the first place even if it takes more time to copy/paste.

So yes, if you need to convert 3/16 to decimal in practical engineering situation - yes, you absolutely will use a calculator or something comparable every single time, and possibly repeat it twice to verify against typos. If you believe that you can do that in your head - sorry, you and everyone else will make a stupid mistake once every thousand times, and that is not good enough.
Citation needed.

Your quibble over the precise date of the post seems predictive of an inability to deal with the larger points raised.
> go back to the tax structure of the 1950s–70s”, with higher capital gains taxes

Wouldn't it just push capital outside of US?
It'd be easily detectable-- any phenotypic differences would present themselves in the first generation. Unless the rogue actors were able to add gene drive genetics to a wide swath of a plant's population in a short amount of time, this doesn't seem a tangible threat.
The Consequences of California's Top-Two Primary
The appeal to nature fallacy us to claim that something is right because it's "natural". It's not necessarily wrong to say that something can't (practically) be changed because it's natural. In this sense, natural means "an (emergent) property of nature". For example, as much as we may dislike it, people will continue to fall to their death in the near future, as gravity and its associated risks are natural.

I believe Paul means that these economic properties are to be expected because they arise naturally and it is not practical to eliminate them.
This was very insightful. One thing he doesn't tackle though, is how this re-fragmentation affects the idea of the national state itself.
In a market economy, people are paid just enough so they don't leave. Salary depends more on the typical economic situation of an employee than their ability.
Probably not much more than current crop seeds do, insofar as large volumes of crops are already highly homogenous GMO breeds. I think this technique will probably just be a better mousetrap for GMO breeding.
Laurie Anderson Reflects on Life and Loss in 'Heart of a Dog'
Looking Beyond the Internet of Things
When people post that sort of personal/political fantasy attack, it says nothing about the target, only something about themselves. I'm glad to see it flagged on HN. The purpose of discussion here is to sincerely seek the truth, not crush enemies or vent resentments.

I agree with you that people written off by society have valuable contributions to make. That's a big deal. But the binary thinking in your comment and the GP doesn't pertain to that—it's just projection, which always leads to false imaginings. For example, PG wasn't rich thirty years ago.
Isn't that why we have aircraft carriers?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and will ride your coattails for a moment by pointing out that if economics is darwinian, then a possible way out of this situation might be human planning.

It doesn't have to be central, it can be a way of living that amplifies the changes you'd like to see in the world. So for example, say a person acquires a certain amount of wealth and wants to make his or her home solar to stop feeding investment in the fossil fuel industry. He or she should consider installing double the number of photovoltaics necessary and give back to the grid to lessen someone else's burden.

Now apply that philosophy of cooperation to our daily lives and I think that we can achieve a fairly rapid change in the status quo, and that we are seeing it happening all around us.
> the degree of infatuation or affection for the early 20th century years with central planning economy, crony capitalism, robber barons...

I think you 're being deliberately inflammatory here. He's probably well read about the period but there is no "degree of affection" for that kind of capitalism.
If the employer responds by increasing the prices of the goods/services they sell, then yes. However, in the market the consumers have a choice, so they can choose to not buy something, or buy somewhere else, and the market thus regulates itself. Don't want to pay taxes? Not much choice there. So I think having the market regulate itself is better than enforcing the cost of labor through taxes. (Who knows, maybe the employers would be forced to cut their margins even.)
But "fat finger" errors are so well known they have a name. And these are responsible for billions of dollars of errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-finger_error
"No leftie is arguing or longing for any of these policies. What we're looking for is just more equality in economic opportunities and esp capital and that distribution of capital to be more fair across all the classes and not to be a privilege only for rich people and highly connected people."

And what non lefties are asking is how do you solve income inequality without those policies?

And more fair? Fair by what metric exactly?
That's not the argument. The "contribution" is through taxes to the society that enabled them to get rich in the first place. Sure, some people are upset about obscene displays of wealth (though in today's America, those people don't seem to have much of a voice), but by and large, no one begrudges rich people from enjoying themselves (this is America, after all. We love our rich people as a rule, even when some of them are terrible people individually.)

We do begrudge people avoiding taxes, buying legislation and legislators, funding think tanks that support only the interests of the wealthy, and blowing up the financial system and/or economy.
User experience guidelines for Universal Windows Platform apps[pdf]
Under the Hood of Redis: Hash [Part 1]
At that level it ceases to be about things like housing costs, and starts to be about how the whole country is run. Wealth brings power. Look at that list and you'll see a lot of people who are screwing with the political system for their own benefit.
Analogies aside, there is a moral component here. Everyone has a moral claim to the fruits of their labor, however rich or poor they are. You need some amount of tax to pay for our collective defense, police, courts, and mandatory education, but much more than that is immoral. Remember what taxation ultimately is: the police coming to your door and picking your pocket at gunpoint. It rarely comes to that, but that's fundamentally what separates it from voluntary charity.

The "soak the rich" approach is immoral in my book. Any discourse that doesn't consider the moral angle to these issues is incomplete.
"You link to these things like they are incriminating evidence; I just see someone pushing back against an onslaught on bullshit."

No. You are depersonalizing her actions as "pushing back" against some impersonal force. What she actually did was engage in sustained harassment, bullying, and blacklisting campaigns against specific individual human beings.
It isn't the same edition, the language have changed a lot ;)
Indeed.

PG's audience is start up people, so his message here is in part "You shouldn't feel bad about pursuing or having massive wealth". Of course this message is true. But it should probably be accompanied by a message like "But don't be an asshole, give a large amount of your massive wealth away to noble causes".
Cost of antibiotic resistance: 10M lives and 100T dollars per year by 2050 [pdf]
Economic inequality is harmful when it results in centralization of power, where decisions are increasingly top-down and made by a smaller number of people who are more out of touch because they're more insulated by wealth. This leads to bad decisions, and unhappiness among the increasing number of people who sense that they have no meaningful participation in society.

"Can you have a healthy society with great variation in wealth?" Only if there is no great variation in power, and this would require redefining wealth as something disconnected from power, like consumption of luxuries.
Ya, ability isn't really the best word to use there. I was being cute by using the words of Marx. In reality "output" is probably a better word here.
Could you please elaborate on these flaws within RabbitMQ's clustering design? I'm legitimately interested in a discussion on the matter.
I will suggest that bugs and features are not as different as most people think. In both cases you are adding functionality that is not present in the current implementation. The difference is that in a feature, nobody expects the functionality to exist. In a bug, people expected the functionality to exist (either because it existed in a previous version, or because it was thought to have been implemented and it turns out that it wasn't).

People react badly to bugs because they feel it is a result of a mistake -- developers broke something they shouldn't, or they didn't do a good job in a previous implementation. The feeling is that a bug has the highest priority, but in reality, there is no such connection from "previous mistake" to "important now".

If the only difference between a bug and a feature is that a feature is not expected to already be present, as soon as you discover a bug it becomes a feature request -- we now know that functionality is not present. It should be prioritised in exactly the same way.

The key to solving the problem posed by the article is fairly clear. Get a list of all the things the you are not going to implement. Remove them from the list. Done. Whether these are bugs or features is irrelevant.
If you want to be extremely strict, sure, but that supplement is already in various foods that people take daily.
Note that if you use a lot of data Google Fi can be shockingly more expensive than T-Mobile. I use ~30GB per month on T-Mobile (and, sometimes even more on Karma...I travel full-time, so I use my phone, a T-Mobile hotspot, and a Karma hotspot with the Neverstop plan for nearly all of my Internet usage) which would cost twice as much on Google Fi as on T-Mobile. I was very excited about Google Fi, until I actually did the math.
Current share price of Facebook is roughly ~4x what he sold many of his shares at
One taboo on HN is pointing out that even though software is a huge lever, there's no sign of the end of raw human labor. In every industry you can point to jobs being lost to automation, yet you still need many, many people in health care, or construction, or manufacturing, or police, or teaching, or mining, or working for utilities, etc. It's complete speculation to suggest that jobs are disappearing faster than they could be replaced. It's not surprising that people who used to work for big auto manufacturers can't continue to work for those same manufacturers, and that says nothing about whether those same people could find low-skill jobs in other industries, nor whether investment in sectors other than GM or Ford could create more unskilled jobs.

If there was a larger market for unskilled labor, the competition for workers would tend to drive up wages and lower inequality.
Does anyone believe Gates is personally authoring this list?

I've worked with a few celebs over the years. Be them CEOs or models, they all have "people" to handling this stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to hear gates reads none of these books, that the entire scheme is handled by his PR. Worse yet, many extremely wealthy people believe "they" create things when they in fact pay others to do the real work. I'd need lots more evidence before I'd believe that someone like Gates is actually typing the words.

But even if he is reading these books, there is this from the OP:

"“‘We don’t have any say over what Bill chooses,’” she said “‘We just leave it on his desk and he reads what he wants to read.’” Ms. Kim lucked out"

They "don't have any say" except that they appear to be able to shortlist books. Getting your book onto the desk of a reviewer is 90+% of the effort needed to secure a review. The ability to place anything on the desk of a billionaire is the sort of influence for which people pay good money.
The argument of the "pie fallacy" is itself a fallacy. The rate of capital generation compared to the rate of capital transfer is actually quite small. Apple didn't pull its $200+B cash reserves out of thin air purely by creating value: it obtained them through capital transfer from its customers. Sure they created some value along the way, but that doesn't change the primary source of their money. Not only that, but an individual's ability to generate new capital is proportional to that person's existing capital stores.

Therefore it is completely accurate to idealize the economy for the bottom 90% of citizens as existing in a zero sum state.
Right - the important thing is recognizing that their development processes (or lack of them) has lead to this situation. Treating the symptoms is no guarantee they won't end up in the same situation in the future.
From letters to apps, the secret code language of lovers (2015)
On a global scale, this is nonsense. The number of people globally who have negligible net worth because they earn less than $10 per day vastly exceeds the number of people who have negligible net worth because they've only just started paying down the mortgage on their McMansion and still have student loan repayments remaining.

The purchasing power of those 80 people isn't going to start looking insignificant if you change the basis for comparison to net wealth plus imputed future income streams.
did you read the article? it uses words like "most" and "many". it talks about why older females have trouble finding jobs, but also about how older men have trouble finding jobs. its also an article about trends, not absolutes.
> Why do they have to "contribute to society"?

This gets to the core of the question! How did a rich startup person get wealthy anyway? They built something that people wanted. People said: "hey, that thing you built, I value it at $20 and you're giving it away at $10, so I'm happy to buy it!" Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market.

To the people who would disagree with me-- Look at your surroundings. Do you feel oppressed by the manufacturers of your laptop? Do you feel like you have no other option but to buy a $5 latte at the coffeeshop you're at? Are you being held at gunpoint by your new-used car? Do you wish the refrigeration oligarchs never existed? No! You are getting _insane_ value out of these relatively cheap items. Your $5 latte couldn't even exist a century ago. So it's okay that all the people who worked 40 hours a week to bring you your gadgets get a cut.
Open sourcing a PHP library and Docker development images for Multichain
Newsletter for iOS Devs Issue: Jan 16
I know this will be an unpopular opinion but Magnesium is conventional enough of a supplement that you can easily get away with trying it on your own without consulting a physician.
I disabled the upstream check (IIRC) in the AP, and I only have to turn the server on when reconfiguring. I was against Ubiquiti for this reason, but after using it I'm glad we chose it.
How I Grew Up My Reading Habit Again
What lies beneath
McLuhan was a remarkable combination of conservative Catholic and pop culture proto-troll. His relative obscurity now is probably a reaction against his original celebrity. Many academics were shocked and embittered by that, and there seems little incentive to treat him seriously yet, so the attempts that I've seen to rehabilitate him as a thinker are so far still marginal.
Ask HN: Where would you personally prefer to work, Google or Facebook?
What's your rationale?
Tax sheltering investments were huge.
You can do metaprogramming things like iterate over the fields of a tuple or unpack it into the arguments of a function, but you can't with a struct (without manually defining an array of fields).
I would argue that job management is unrelated to messaging, at least according my loose definition of a task that:

* Has a well-defined lifetime — unstarted, running, paused, completed successfully, or failed;

* Is executed from some kind of parameterized "job specification" that describes its inputs and desired behavior;

* Has state data (e.g., completion % progress, log output, metrics, transactional continutation state for pausing/retrying);

* Can be scheduled on multiple nodes;

* Can be created and scheduled multiple times;

* Can be scheduled by priority;

* Can have its resources (RAM, CPU, I/O) constrained.

The thing is, queues are terrible at this. People continue to abuse messaging systems as a scheduler, and it always sucks.

For example, consider acking: For a long-running tasks that might take hours, do you really want to hold up the broker's internal lock for all that time? What if you restart the broker — the task is still running, now you decoupled its running state from the queue. Similarly, queues are terrible at finding out what's waiting, or what has happened. By using the queue as job state, you are coupling scheduling with execution, which is just wrong.

A queue (one that supports priorities, mind you) is, however, excellent for management commands: "Start job X", "pause job X" and so on. But you will want to maintain execution state separately from the queue. A relational database is quite good at this, though one could use a NoSQL databases, too. First, create a row representing the job: {id="job1", state="new", type="import_stuff", params="..."}. Then push a queue message {commmand="start_job", job_id="job1"}. Run a queue consumer or ten on each node. Each consumer acks the message, finds the job in the table and starts it. One could run it as a child process, or in a Docker container. One could of course use an orchestration service (like Mesos/Marathon) to run it, and monitor the service for container events and update the job table appropriately.

I would want to take it further and allow the job to update itself through API, so that it could publish metrics and log messages, as well as maintain whatever data is useful snapshotting. For example, a long-running task to import data into a database would benefit from maintaining a cursor so that you could pause/kill the job and later resume it at the point where it was.
I noticed this exact same thing. Funny how awareness of a cognitive trope doesn't confer protection, eh?

Anyways, hypocrisy haunts us all.
> If the rich people in a society got that way by taking wealth from the poor, then you have the degenerate case of economic inequality where the cause of poverty is the same as the cause of wealth.

Yes, that is the problem and is what's happening. Prior to the 1970s increases in productivity led to increases in household income. Since the 1970s productivity has increased but household income has stagnated. Workers are no longer seeing their return match their productivity.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/productivity-and-rea...

http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_3...
I thought it was widely accepted that Hitler was funded by the hereditary elite and businesses in Germany that feared the masses would turn against them because of the increase in democracy, if so he fis your pattern too.
From the perspective of a hobbyist programmer, the compiler seems very "enterprisey": it doesn't look like you can just stick a program in a file and run it or put some functions in a file and load them into a REPL. Instead it seems you have to make an "application" with some specified directory structure and several files indicating where to find things and so on. I guess that's what a serious programmer would do anyway, but it's a little off-putting to people like me.
Startup public-private funding gulf widens
Yeah, poor people can buy tv sets and cell phones now. Those things are definitely cheaper than they used to be.

You know what's not cheaper than it used to be? The big ones: housing, health care, education.

That's the problem. People look at how almost everyone has a refrigerator, and a ton of poor people have tv sets, and think "they're not hard off at all!!!1! rising tides!! boates!!!" while ignoring how rents are skyrocketing and it took a major law to make health care even nominally affordable again.
I think the difference is that you can't (afaik) generate a struct with metaprogramming.
Hasn't Peek (https://github.com/peek/peek) sorta replaced Rack-Mini-Profiler?
Yes-- increasing poverty for the masses and increasing opulence for the wealthy, who rely on the masses to produce said opulence. You can see exactly why people are upset.
Have you tried the "Zero-Handoff" mode? It supposedly broadcasts the same BSSID and the devices don't have to use roaming. https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205144590-UniFi-What...
Income inequality is not the problem, it's a shorthand for the real problem, which is the mutual reinforcement of wealth inequality and political corruption. Rich people use their disposable income to buy political influence which they then use to get laws passed that allow them to collect rents.

The solution is to 1) roll back the corrupt laws (like the preferential tax treatment of carried interest and high-speed trading) and 2) get rid of the absurd legal doctrine established by the Citizens United decision that money=speech and hence the First Amendment applies to bribery.
This will change, somewhat, as the new bands come online (particularly band 12, which is at 700MHz, and so it can travel farther and through obstacles more easily than higher bands at the same power). I noticed in a tiny Texas town that my T-Mobile hotspot (which has bands 2 and 12) had very strong 4G service, while my phone and tablet (which don't) had literally no service. The drive from that town to Austin or Round Rock was also devoid of service for miles at a time on the phone and tablet, but the hotspot had it pretty much all the way.

As I understand it, Verizon has historically had the strongest presence in the low frequency range, which is part of their reputation for the strongest network. Fewer towers can cover more ground more effectively at lower frequencies.
Click the link (I'm on an iPhone), see a few lines as a 'read more' link.

All apparently so I can see the 'sidebar' menu below the content?

When I follow a link to an article why should I have to press a button to read the article?

I'm getting so tired of this crap on so many sites. I'm really disappointed to see it here.

2nd big story in two days that I found unreadable due to poor web design on someone's relatively simple site (i.e. not crammed with junk like Bloomberg).