skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hypervisors are much closer to exokernels. General distinction between kernel types:

Monolithic kernel = all familiar kernel abstractions (processes, IPC, filesystem, virtual memory, device drivers, networking stack) are built into the kernel.

Microkernel = Most kernel abstractions run as separate processes. Kernel communicates with them over IPC.

Exokernel/unikernel = There are no kernel abstractions. Instead, these abstractions are built into runtime libraries that are then linked into applications. The kernel's only job is to securely multiplex the hardware, and it exports an interface that is similar to bare metal. In 2016, the exokernel is called a hypervisor, and the libOS is called a unikernel.

Neokernel = the programming language's runtime library provides the primary kernel abstractions, along with any interprocess security. Machines are limited to a single programming language.
This is the problem that I and many others seem to see. The people getting the richest in our current society are the ones doing the asset shuffling and not those who create the wealth.

(BTW,what is NOOP?)
Your claim seems to be that technology failed to improve us in terms of spirituality, ergo it will always fail us.

The technology hasn't failed us. People who in the past wouldn't have good access to spiritual teachers, have that access now.

To give you an example - in the postcommunist Poland, virtually anything besides the catholic church was qualified as sect ~ 15-20 years ago. Thanks to the internet me & quite a few friends were able to read up about buddhism. We could practice meditation long before many teachers arrived, and listen to their teachings as well.

Right now, the access to the teachers is so much easier (again - mostly thanks to Google & Facebook Events), but there's also another thing. Apps, like Headspace, helped both me and quite a few friends, get into the rhythm of meditation and spiritual practice.

In other words - thanks to the internet, the access to teachers is far, far easier, and people get access to better quality materials.
It's also so much safer to go to meetups, or figure out what your kids are into - when I was very young my parents were afraid of sects. Right now a parent can do a quick google to figure out more information about the group the kid is attending to.

Finally - even if the technology failed (which it didn't!), it doesn't mean that it would always fail. I'm surprised to see this kind of thinking on HN.

As for the article, I don't like it either. It mentions just one kind of a gimmick/gadget, and I don't think this approach (with gadgets that track your brainwaves) is proper. There are better solutions to meditation, Headspace being one of them.
What's the state of Swift for web development? Are web frameworks starting to appear?
Yes.

This concept of small manufacturers that excel in their niche has been the oldest business model in history.

Especially in Japan and Germany many companies have existed for over a millenium like that, and even today half of the made profits are by small, (50 people or less) companies that are hidden champions.

You probably never heard of http://www.walterwerk.com/en/, but they’re the world’s leader in machines that produce ice cream cones.

As you said, it’s not just since computers that these companies existed – they’ve existed for centuries.

But what is different this time is that for the first time investors are trying to invest in these small businesses, and try to make a huge profit out of them.
Good observation. Paul's definition of "startup" seems to be "company that grows explosively to a massive size/valuation in a short number of years". The sort of businesses you cite seem to fall under the "small business" moniker, and would probably be one of the mouse-sized companies he referenced in the essay as one that tried to avoid trampling by the elephants of BigCo.
I'm not sure about that. Work your ass off for four years, successfully exit with equity worth $4 million, and you only keep $1 million? That's about what you could have made at Google.
The change in Federal government power started long before WWII. Its origins came with President Lincoln and the Civil War and its aftermath. The strong Federal power picked up quite a bit of steam in the 1900's with several Supreme Court rulings allowing the commerce clause to intrude into state's business. The Presidency's of Wilson, both Roosevelt's, Hoover, and Truman[1] continued the rise in Federal power that setup later Presidents. Nixon[2] had a wages and price controls board too.

1) Truman was stopped from continuing to fund the government at a wartime budget by the House. The time period from 1945 through 1950 makes for some fascinating reading.

2) “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.” President Nixon Aug. 15, 1971
Very interesting, particularly the idea that the rise in inequality is a ntural consequence of fairness. I wonder, then, if those opposing the rise in inequality aren't like King Canute ordering the tide to recede.
It seems to me that much of the fragmentation that the post discusses is just economic specialization, which we should encourage (see Adam Smith). I do think it is reasonable that one limits the 'fragmentation', i.e. that one puts negative feedback in the economic loop in the form of a progressive tax. Negative feedback is used everywhere in electronics and even sometimes by the Fed to control interest rates. Even so, many economists [1] throw up their hand and say macro economics is too tough and we just can't predict how it will work. This seems like nonsense to my engineer brain; I think that a sharply progressive tax with an accompanying universal basic income is the right way to encourage economic diversity.

[1] I get my impression of economists from EconTalk by Russ Roberts.
To me, income inequality means: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

But that is not the situation. In reality, the situation is: A rising tide raises all boats.

The global pie is getting bigger because GDP is growing faster than the population:

- GDP Growth since 1999 ~2.5% annually [0]

- Population growth since 1999 ~1.3% annually [1]

- % of world population living in extreme poverty has more than halved since 1999, 29% to 10%. [2]

Meanwhile, the wealth of the top 10 wealthiest in the world has grown at a rate of ~4.5% since 2000 (not adjusted for inflation) [3]

So perhaps a more accurate depiction would be: A rising tide raises all boats. But it raises some faster than others.

[0] http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=66

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_po...

[2] http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires#200...
He accepts that this is true through various forms of rent seeking behavior. He even explicitly condones such forms of wealth creation.
I think that the field in US in urgent need of refragmentation is the political systems. The two parties are oligopol that don't care about their customers and they don't deliver enough political product to the people. We need more smaller parties that could represent the increasing diversity of opinions.
=/
"To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In"
My take away was the discussion about poverty, specifically "I'm sure most of those who want to decrease economic inequality want to do it mainly to help the poor, not to hurt the rich." So I don't think he based it on a false premise.

also

"When the city is turning off your water because you can't pay the bill, it doesn't make any difference what Larry Page's net worth is compared to yours."
Unlike Paul's other essays, this one did not offer me any insight. WWII bringing the country together, America becoming less culturally conformative since WWII, etc... these are obvious trends that most everyone is aware of, and which people talk about quite often.
> CodePen doesn't work very well without JavaScript.

You were saying?
It's true that stack allocation is often better, and should be preferred, but that doesn't mean the heap isn't useful.
Perhaps, but as the higher the tax rate, the higher the greater the incentive to avoid taxes. As PG mentioned in his essay, when the marginal tax rate was at 90%, there was a lot more tax avoidance and lavish, wasteful benefits companies offered their employees in lieu of wages (health care, housing, first class flights). If the tax rate were high enough, the government would actually bring in less revenue as there is more avoidance but it would also have negative externalities like padded expenses, people fleeing the country, shell companies, etc.
On a related note. Does anyone have any references to how english grammar is changing because of this.
> I wonder a bit about the fact that it focused on the US only. On a global scale I think that experiences are continuing to compress and will continue to do so for at least a few generations.

There's actually a little allusion to this in footnote 21:

>
[21] Globally the trend has been in the other direction. While the US is becoming more fragmented, the world as a whole is becoming less fragmented, and mostly in good ways.

He didn't elaborate, but I suppose the essay was already pretty hefty.
Aiui the Unicode problem is even more complex than most folk realize for the reasons I explain in this comment.

-----------------------------------------

On the final technical destination implied by Unicode:

The final technical destination implied by the Unicode standard is correct handling of "grapheme clusters".[1]

-----------------------------------------

On the half way point at which we've arrived:

In the 80s, there were a bazillion incompatible "character" sets and encodings of those "character" sets. Unicode was a response to this.

The half way point envisaged by the original Unicode design was to firmly establish a single overall "character set" view with a handful of encodings.

Imo we've arrived at this half way point.

-----------------------------------------

On the string types of languages:

Programming languages designed before Unicode emerged adopted the "byte=character" view to determine the character unit of their default string type, leaving higher level views to library code and functions. This is the level Python began at. But the more established Unicode becomes, the more important the higher level views become.

Newer languages have mostly been designed to optimize for Unicode's half way point (but not the eventual destination). They typically support the byte view in some form but adopt the "codepoint=character" view to determine the character unit of their default string type. Aiui, this is where Python 3 is at.

A handful of newer languages continue to support the byte and codepoint views in some form but have adopted the highest level "grapheme=character" view for the character unit of their default string type. I think the most visible new language that's been forward-thinking enough to adopt the final destination view (grapheme=character) is Swift.

-----------------------------------------

[1] Folks trying to understand this point should find it helpful to start with the deceptively brief hint inherent in http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#Grapheme which defines "what a user thinks of as a character".

Next, I'll quote the perluniintro[2] document:

> A Unicode logical "character" can actually consist of more than one internal actual "character" or code point. For Western languages, this is adequately modelled by a base character (like LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A ) followed by one or more modifiers (like COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT ). This sequence of base character and modifiers is called a combining character sequence. Some non-western languages require more complicated models, so Unicode created the grapheme cluster concept, which was later further refined into the extended grapheme cluster.

[2] http://perldoc.perl.org/perluniintro.html
Well said! Dynamic memory allocation is a really big performance hit, and in a lot of cases you can pre-allocate data structures on the stack for serious speed improvements. Avoiding DMA was one of the secrets for writing blazing fast real time systems stuff when I was in telecom. I don't think those benefits have gone away.
The definitions for "unemployed" are very well defined. This is the standard "U3" unemployment number. You count as unemployed if you do not have a job and have looked for work within the last 4 weeks.

There are other unemployment numbers that include people who would work if offered a job but aren't actually looking for one, but that's not the main measure that BLS uses. People that wouldn't take a job even if you offered one to them (like students and early retirees) don't count at all- they don't even show up in the denominator of any of these measures. BLS has the summary of all 6 measures of unemployment at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm but I don't think they have the detailed breakdown of any of the other measures.
Named tuple for C++
Err depends on what sort of job you need to look at what level you are on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

A job working at MacDonald's is not the same as say Dactor or Vet.
They didn't, the technology just got renamed "virtualization" when people realized that if all the kernel does is multiplex the hardware, its API might as well look like the hardware too. Modern hypervisors are basically exokernels; it's a multibillion-dollar business that's a lot more successful than any microkernel has ever been.
This is the case for any and every startup today, which is why it can be a mistake to work at one, unless you're doing it for reasons other than the theoretical future value of your equity.
I don’t think “income inequality” has much to do with the rich getting richer, especially startups.

I think the concern has to do with whether those same startups make the poor, poorer. Some do, some don’t.

I believe that Github, for example, makes it easier for the world’s poor to become richer. Amazon or Walmart, on the other hand... Some of these disruptive industries make a lot of people poorer by driving businesses into bankruptcy.

Same with the “sharing economy” claptrap, that turns jobs into piece-work subcontractor relationships. All this stuff may be perfectly defensible, of course, but but I don’t think anybody will complain if GitHub’s founders get stinking rich. I think the complaints are about those industries that take huge amounts of investment funds, run at a loss to drive existing businesses bankrupt and drive people out of work.

To the anti-capitalist, that behaviour is not about creating value, it’s about taking existing wealth and using it to make a lot of people poorer.
Thanks!!!

Worked perfectly.
But meditation is technology! We just don't think much of tech unless it exists outside ourselves to be consumed anymore
Disappointing article filled with pseudo historian rubbish.
Personally I believe that wealth inequality affects many of the negative aspects of our society, so its hard imagining it not affecting the bottom 50%.
Why is that more offensive? What if they were all startup founders or created companies that made profound and positive change? At what point is the cross-over between being reasonably and unreasonably wealthy? If they have too much money and give most of it away, is that better than continuing to create new ventures that could make a difference?

This economic inequality feels similar to racism. Why should a very wealthy person be pre-judged to be worse than others without knowing the whole picture? You seem to be singling out startup founders as being OK, it’s just the others that are bad?

Sure, income distribution is unequal, but it doesn’t have to turn into villifying those at the top of the heap.
Because copying the entire in-memory database you're using on every function call is kind of expensive?
AddGoals.com – People are awesome 2016
Ah, I missed that footnote. Thanks!
My mistake. I was referring to how the original article is about why they're leaving GitLab for GitHub.
In the language many things changed and you should look a the books which focus on C++11/14 no the old stuff.
The same exists in Germany for many years, as there is a law allowing customers to return goods bought online within two weeks. Shoppers abused this regulation a lot (I think H&M had problems with this), so that the rules got changed lately: you need to state a reason and certain items are excluded. Here is a somehow recent article in german about said law http://www.br.de/themen/ratgeber/inhalt/verbrauchertipps/kun...

Edit:
Amazon even started to block accounts when they returned too frequently (link in german)
http://www.golem.de/news/verbraucherschutz-amazon-sperrt-kun...

The Atlantic article doesn't mention Germany, but is has been a issue for years over there.
This article explodes the myth that by doing exercise you can compensate for eating badly, that is eating animal products. The person who has probably exercised more than anyone else in this world is the explorer Ranulph Fiennes
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes), who has had a double heart bypass operation.
Disappointing article filled with pseudo historian rubbish. pg should stick to his SV startups gig.
You mean C++ programmers allocate n object on the heap even when its lifetime is the same as the scope of the containing block ?

Unless its such a large huge object that stackoverflow is a possibility I cant imagine why would one do that.
Aviate on Android – case study on the importance of owning the mobile homescreen
Hire High School Graduates Instead of College Graduates
What about the 3 words is so hard to crasp?

Embrace (JavaScript/Node CHECK), extend (TypeScript, ES6 CHECK) and extinguish (JavaScript5 CHECK, V8 based Node IN-PROGRESS, ES6 TODO)
>"More wealth than half the world's population"

That's such a disingenuous statistic. A huge number of people, including a huge number of very well off people, have a negative net worth due to debt.

I don't have a car payment or a mortgage, so I have more wealth than at least 30% of America, over 100 million people, combined!

It's disappointing to see that FiveThirtyEight has now become just another outfit twisting the truth for their political agenda. I expected better from them.
This seemed like a blurb for start ups rather than an analysis. One thing that is missing is a quantitative analysis in the factors underlying inequality, and whether / how they relate to startups at all. Also missing is an analysis of the role of rent seeking in increasing inequality. Basically there is a fundamental division in factors of inequality: which are related to the self serving manipulations of the political and economic system by rich people to sustain their position and which are related to innovation by the best entrepreneurs? Then we must also analyze which of these factors are dominant in our environment. He avoids these essential questions so this essay is just opinion.
There are some aspects of our situation that make it seem rent seeking is dominant: low productivity growth, stock buy back games by companies rather than investment, a slowing down of new business formation (which can be caused by monopolies). I am sometimes critical of economics as a discipline because there is no scientific method but he could use some immersion in economic data, studies, and theory, to force him to come up with a useful analysis.
I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from.

She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices.

Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.
Well food prices are significantly lower in the EU than the US. A more dramatic case, Spain, the consumer bread prices can be 1/10 US prices. Vegetables run a fraction of US price, eggs about 1/3. Even corn is less expensive when it reaches the consumer. Yet the median wage is on the order of .75 US and minimum wage including farm worker wages, are higher.

Yet US agriculture is more mechanized and agro-business more consolidated and the country significantly more efficient. So empirically the most significant factor is now something else.
The integrity of those numbers is pretty good actually. You need to understand what they mean.

You have to be in the workforce to be reflected in them. Voluntary work doesn't count -- and in many cases women are caregivers for grandchildren, spouses, older parents, etc.
C++ has perfect move semantics since C++11, and you can always use a reference to pass things around if you need.
An Interview with A. Stepanov (2000)
pg provided his own tldr; in the first paragraph of the essay:

"One advantage of being old is that you can see change happen in your lifetime. A lot of the change I've seen is fragmentation. US politics is much more polarized than it used to be. Culturally we have ever less common ground. The creative class flocks to a handful of happy cities, abandoning the rest. And increasing economic inequality means the spread between rich and poor is growing too. I'd like to propose a hypothesis: that all these trends are instances of the same phenomenon. And moreover, that the cause is not some force that's pulling us apart, but rather the erosion of forces that had been pushing us together."

In general he tries to look for a net positive outcome resulting from these changes, but is not confident there will be one.
Indeed.

The issue is opportunities.

And our aim should be in ensuring that everyone, at every time, always gets a second chance. That everyone, at every time, has access to the same opportunities.

If you have to steal to get food, because you’re homeless and can’t get a job, you have next to no opportunities.

If you get access to healthcare, education and a basic minimum life standard, you have far more opportunities – you can study again, go into a job, etc.

Our aim has to be in making sure that for everyone, a specific minimum standard of life and opportunities is existing.

This also uncouples your socioeconomic opportunities from those of your parents.

Everyone should have the ability to go from dishwasher to millionaire based just on their own decisions, not advantaged or disadvantaged because of the socioeconomic status of the parents.

------------

This is also what the European model aims at: Provide everyone with a minimum standard of life, so that everyone’s success is only based upon their own decisions and work, not based upon what their parents did.

If everyone has the same – free – access to high quality education, to healthcare, if everyone can at minimum get a small apartment and doesn’t have to be homeless, then we have far more mobility.

In a way, Europe makes it far easier to live the American Dream than the US right now.
The ironic thing is that the wealthiest now try to live a rather stoic, normal life with a focus on whole, local foods and simple agrarian pleasures. Sure, they don't fly coach, but honestly, they don't exactly live extraordinary lives when compared to that of the middle class in America.

Reminds me of a Warhol quote:

> What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.