skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"...A good example of this is Foursquare. Beforehand you’d do everything in one app. Now there’s Foursquare and Swarm. Facebook has Messenger as a separate app. Google has like 17 different apps. You’re seeing this shift from just one specific application that does everything to many different applications designed for a particular experience...

This is true in the west but is the same true for everywhere else? As far as I remember China or Japan have apps to do everything in one and no indication that this is going to change.
Yes, I meant to emphasize the long journey being the main factor.
The Wild World West
Looks very nice. The nice thing about tuples is they can be manipulated generically to do some really cool stuff like destructuring and pattern matching, serialization, remote marshalling, etc. Making them easier to use is a win for all.
Given Bloom's two sigma problem[0], the potential market for teachers is nowhere near saturation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_Sigma_Problem
> As AT&T did not acquire the full company, we understand that it will not be liable for any outstanding litigation or settlements against CIQ.

How is it possible to just acquire the assets but not its legal liabilities?
Essentially, no, at least not in the usual sense.

The "best" options are to either 1) short ETFs that have a suitable concentration in some subsector of the industry you think will be affected by falling unicorns, esp. leveraged versions of the funds or 2) short investors heavily concentrated in private unicorn investments such as NASDAQ:GSVC.
Harrys dudee
saddf the man is here
What alternative to man-made law would you propose?
It's closer to "for health" than you'd think. If you talked to PG about this I'm sure you'd come away with the same sense. My impression is that he writes essays as a way of thinking and because it makes him happy.

Edit: these are representative of talking to him about it:

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/676834210976411648

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/680162174648492032
Don't forget standard posix stuff with rumprun.
100009676428753
Remember the SUV tax rules in the late 1990s and early 2000s?

I recall the taxpayer making a substantial contribution to my truck purchase.
A Code Learning Community's 2015 in Review
> So it seems that today there are greater opportunities to sell expensive hardware, particularly since even the lower classes are (in absolute terms) richer than the middle class of the Apple II era.

What has happened is instead technology allowed some luxury products to be commodized and available to everyone. I doubt multi-billionairs build their own OS-es, cell phone towers, hardware, batteries, support from scratch. They buy an iPhone. Someone on food stamps could concievable save money and still get an iPhone. They both have a luxury product so to speak. But this is a cool anomaly. It doesn't happen with cars, housing, job opportunities, healthcare, clothes, safety, free time, food, etc.

So I think looking what kind of tech products are avaiable to everyone doesn't work as an argument regarding inequality. What about inflation adjusted salary, isn't that a better metric to look at? Or say the cost of healthcare or housing as percentage of wages... defintely not the type of computer and printers people can get.
Indeed, a structure is a named tuple. I think there's a subset of C++ users who pride themselves on creating massively complex solutions, as if they're trying to use as much of the features of the language as they can, instead of going for the simple, straightforward solution. AFAIK std::tuple does compile into the same code as if you declared a struct yourself, but I'd like to see what this convoluted solution compiles to... if I'm reading it correctly, this turns into an O(n) structure member access!?

What if You by mistake switch ‘GPA’ and ‘grade’ inside your function? Nothing will happen to inform You that something went wrong.

I don't know if there's a specific name for it, but "what if you did X" arguments like this fail to convince me.
Do you think modding this down is going to make those 100 million corpses go away? 'Cause it isn't.
The rest of the world had to put up with the EMV change-over. But the US just keeps delaying and delaying. If the card industry applied the same tactics to the US then merchants would switch over pretty quickly e.g if the shop doesn't have emv certified chip card terminals then the shop has to accept the loss from the fradulant transaction.
Agree. The webmasters, app developers, are free to follow the trends and pursue whatever presentation and delivery mechanisms they like. But as a backup the bulk data needs to also be mirrored on at least one FTP server and available to the public in an open, accesible file format (e.g., CSV, SQL tables, XML, JSON, etc.).
Interesting that would call your linked references "random".
There's little irony. Krugman has publicly changed his opinion on several items over the years, and isn't an advocacy organization or a think tank. Cato's raison d'etre is the promotion of "negative liberty" to the exclusion of virtually everything else. I regularly read Cato, and I even agree with some of their work (things like replacing the welfare state with a GBI, free speech absolutism, etc.), but I still consider them a biased source even if their views sometimes dovetail with my own.

It'd be different if you cited credible right-wing (economic) sources, but there are few left since the intellectual foundations of much of what passes for economics on that side of the divide (a chaotic Reagan-Thatcherism, a right-of-center Neoliberalism (older FT/Economist-style), or a wild-eyed goldbuggery) have fallen apart in the modern world. It's not symmetric at this juncture.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/economics-t...

We can stop the discussion, sure. Let's do that.
That's an interesting, albeit distorted, perspective of the events that transpired.
> The most common way of becoming poor is not to produce wealth. How could we fulfill our "strong obligation" and force people to produce wealt

There is a break in your logic: your conclusion would only make sense if not producing wealth is the only way of becoming poor, which is not the case (think bankrupting medical bills that can make you poor even as you 'produce wealth').

To answer your question directly: you can fulfill the strong obligation to stop people becoming poor by having a strong social security net, and possibly a guaranteed minimum income.
> I do not believe he said this

How many of his essays have you read? It's a fairly common theme in them.

> it's a non sequitur

The argument is pretty simple: people who are more productive are capable of creating more wealth; the best and most straightforward way (and the only one that's been shown to work consistently) to motivate them to exercise that capability is to allow them to get richer by creating more wealth; wealth creation is economic growth.
My wife and I played AOM obsessively, it's such a great game. There's a small time commitment, the AI had just the right levels of difficulty to help you work on your rts skills while still having a blast.

I always felt like the Atlanteans were slightly overpowered, but other than that the balance was pretty good.

The steam version is good but I kinda wish there were an update with low system requirements that fixed some of the bugs in the current version. It's the best LAN game ever.
I found dual numbers pretty intuitive, but I was a math major and studied abstract algebra and stuff, that way of thinking is definitely an acquired taste.

To be clear, when you say f' you're not talking about Newton's notation for the derivative of f, you're talking about a function from floats to floats that is the approximation/algorithmic implementation of f (which is R->R), right?

I don't really see why the distinction is particularly important. The reason the exact derivative of f' that you get from AD is useful is because it also approximates the derivative of f, right? If it were possible to make some pathological choice of f' (that is, algorithmic implementation of f) such that the result from AD is a poor approximation of the derivative of f, that's not really a successful use of AD on f, right? So when I say I'm gonna "use AD to get a derivative of f", I'm really saying I'm going to use AD on a good choice of an approximation of f to get a good approximation of the derivative of f, right?

I suppose if infinite precision analog computing were possible, or in the context of theoretical real-valued register machines (does anyone still study that?), it matters that AD is exact on the algorithmic implementation, but we're not in or anywhere near those contexts, are we?
he updated the post with a correction.
Thanks for these words.
I understand that it's common for a politician to commit to some action during his campaign, and for it not to happen when he's later elected. To that extent, I agree that it's common for politicians to be liars.

But I tend to think that it's not so much that they were planning to con everyone all along, but rather that they tried to push their ideas and failed to convince the rest of the legislature to go along with it. Maybe it died out because nobody cared about it in that year's Congress, and then the politician gets busy with other things while another year passes until the next legislature.

I imagine it's the same mechanism at work in large companies: Haven't you ever had a new manager come on board, go gung-ho on changing a couple widely visible organizational thing and getting everyone's feedback, and then calm down a year or two later once they're busy with their work? I've probably seen that at least 5 times.

However, there's a key difference: In the above situation, I would expect a politician to keep to the same general platform even if he fails to perform some specific action. The simpler statement 'all politicians are liars' leaves open the possibility that he might completely change his platform and starts actively pushing for things that he never mentioned. I don't know that I actually believe that about all or most politicians.
Ha, there aren't a million other sentiments in the grandparent comment.

No one is arguing the value of the social safety net. The comment goes above and beyond the safety net suggesting it shouldn't be needed and the remedy is redistribution. A safety net is one thing but arbitrarily inflating wages is another.

I don't believe the suggested remedy would be proposed by someone who believes in property rights. Further, as a person who believes in property rights I do find the sentiment of theft of property for redistribution offensive.
Don't forget that you can also have functions return a struct.
What specific taxes are Walmart and Amazon not paying that you think they should be paying, or why do you claim they're not paying their "fair share"?
Finally, a PG essay returning to true form.
As I stated in the article, I did not include the array creation in the benchmark in order to be fair to Numpy with its slow initialization times. The only python code that I benchmarked was the numpy.mean line.
Did you know that truck manufacturers hire lobbyists who "help" legislators write the laws?
>and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most

Are you proposing a >99% tax rate on capital or corporate income?
I've also picked up AOE2:HD again and agree with all the frustrating parts you mentioned. Age of Mythology (and AoE III) seems to have much better unit AI, saner move command chaining (shift+click), nicer chaining of research and training, less micro management of villagers (e.g. farms are infinite), visible UI for idle villagers and control groups, yet most of my friends have only played AoE2 in their teens, so that's what we go with the rare times we get together to play.
Allow me to introduce you to the 2008ish housing bubble.
Don't forget an enormous portion of the bush era tax cuts went just to the Waltons. Citation needed but I am on mobile right now.
We know that Uber is awful and managed by sociopaths in absolute terms. It does not need comparison to any kind of old taxi industry ideals. Plethora of reports we had for the last few years show this clearly. And old "taxi mafia" was at least subject to some improvements - each taxi company was local and had to listen to authorities, which in turn could be influenced by citizens. Uber? They don't give a flying fuck about the law, and they're too big for any single city to pressure them into anything. It's like trying to replace a bunch of crooked mayors with a warlord hell-bent on total domination in the region.
It's a 6 week turnaround time for Visa and Mastercard. But yeah, they can do it and have done it. Having non-standard procedures is a pain on the IT implementation side, and the US is non-standard.
It looks to me like Garret and Graham are actually in violent agreement. :-) Garret wants to keep people from getting rich through political influence rather than creating wealth; Graham wants to make sure people can still get rich through creating wealth, even if they can't get rich through political influence.
Hobbes's thesis is ridiculous, and has been refuted at great length by many over the centuries. I see no need to go over well-trodden ground yet again, but here are a couple of points:

If you accept his arguments, you're basically advocating a dictatorship (or his era's equivalent, a king ruling by "divine right").

For another, his notion that humans are motivated purely by ego and self-aggrandizement is demonstrably wrong.
So there's lots of work left to do :)
We're skimming good material as we are skimming this bad article.
Are you claiming Walmart's success is based on a low tax rate and their effectiveness at driving out competition? I don't support Walmart by any means but they do a whole lot more than what you give them credit for.
I'm not sure what's up with the website. I've pushed the most recent source tree up to github:

http://www.github.com/marssaxman/radian
Thanks for this comment! There is much here I haven't learned or considered before.
I don't really "hang out" with NYT readers, so I can't tell you the group consensus.

But my experience has been that NYT frequently fails to report meaningful data. For example a few days ago, they compared the propensity of people to marry others of similar income to "eugenics". http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-pow... But then totally and completely failed to show that income level transfers generations, which is crucial for eugenics. They also failed to look at it even mention confounding variables.
The legal entity and the assets it holds are separate things. So they just paid for what they wanted, and now the company has that cash (or whatever) instead of the assets.

I guess in principle it isn't real different than if they had sold AT&T a car.
I run FreeBSD and ZFS on my RPi-B as a cheap and cheerful destination for remote zfs send replication.

I wrote up a guide: https://github.com/hughobrien/zfs-remote-mirror
And yet, it doesn't seem to be displaying a swastika yet... ;)
>Surely a cool, calculated, orderly effort to solve the problems described by the GP would be better than bloody revolution

Well yes, but talking about cool, calculated, orderly solutions has a tendency to get you labeled a "dirty socialist" by the Right and a "dirty reformist" by the Left, with the former being overwhelmingly stronger.
Wow, this guy's really doubling down on the negative comments, no matter how often he gets rebutted.
>Cable is being challenged.

cable tv is being replaced by internet service through the same provider, with the fiber optic deployments being limited by legislation lobbied for by the original cable tv providers.

>The monetary system is being challenged.

Total BTC is about 4 billion usd, much smaller than most nations currency circulation.
> Efficient in terms of human capital, oftentimes: look how few people AirBNB employs directly, yet have a market cap larger than Marriott.

Of course, the "directly" there is quite a nasty word, as AirBNB arguably makes quite a lot of money off shadow-work[0].

[0] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_work
I think you're just really really attached to the idea that colonialism explains the modern world.

Over the course of the 20th century, the Ottomon and British empires crumbled. World War II happened. The US and Soviet Union became superpowers, there was a Cold War, and the Soviet Union split apart. The US pursued aggressively open trade. Western Europe unified to a common economic zone. World power structures have been reorganized several times over since colonial times.

For example, how does your theory explain Singapore going from a British colony, occupied by Japan during WWII, to US$56,319 GDP per capita in 2014?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore
> Am I hugely missing something?

You may have missed the nytimes.com domain. :)

It's incredible that a HN comment has better reporting than a whole professionally written New York Times article.
click-bait. Why should I change my language even if I'm looking for a numpy replacement?
What’s it like to run a successful business at the age of 20
I shouldn't have name dropped that particular book since I haven't read it, only summaries/reviews of it.

But the question still remains of how "rich people invest in the economy". Do they really? Or is it entirely indirect? Not one of them is giving small farmers money to buy tractors. Maybe they're building hotels which eventually employ housekeepers, sure. That's what I think of as the general economy. There's probably a more specific technical term for this. But I think using a billion dollars to give small farmers loans would be the worst possible use for it. You'd probably speculate in oil futures or whatever. While it's technically all the economy, sure, I'd argue that the super-wealthy generally don't add much to the economy, they extract value from the economy using their existing wealth as leverage.

What I'm getting at is that money spent on stuff/food/buildings/etc is different than money used as a tool/leverage/instrument just to make more money. I get the sense that it's an entirely different game (again, mostly an intuition from reading a lot of commentary about economic issues).

Sure, we all earn money and pay rent in dollars. Those dollars and that activity are only tangentially related to what a hedge fund uses dollars for.
Regarding your last point: I really don't like that competitiveness. I don't get the fun in repeating the exact same schedule over and over again just to finish the game as quick as possible. I would rather prefer to build a nice city first and take it slow, but with strategy games that almost never works in multiplayer, which is why I never play them. I don't really get that feeling with FPS games, they seem to be different every single time (although for games such as counter strike that may not be true).
“What’s so typical,” said an interested neighbor eating lunch at an area cafe the afternoon of the sentencing, “is he bought depreciable items! If he’d just invested in the market, he could have replaced the money, taken his share, and they would have been none the wiser.”

Indeed. Reading stories like this, I'm always struck by the sheer incompetence and greed of the perps, and how many warning signs everybody else manages to miss. How many other tales like this are there that we never hear about, because the thief had half a clue?
Strangely I am responsible for the name of this cheat code. It's an accidental-turned-intentional misnomer for a place we used to eat a lot during Age2 development called Fred's Downtown Philly.
As someone who has taken an advanced OS class that involves implementing portions of such an educational / teaching OS, I also perceive "educational" to mean "for learning OS dev".

The other side of the spectrum for me is "research" and "proof of concept" OSes though - like House (written in Haskell) or Singularity and Midori.
Just don't say that to a billionaire. It might make for an unpleasant learning experience.
I've never used it but there is also something called Rails Panel someone might find useful: https://github.com/dejan/rails_panel
Sandy Jenkins had nothing on Omar Siddiqui. Omar, "...defrauded [Fry's Electronics] out of $65 million..." and then "He spent $162 million in three years at the MGM Grand Casino and Las Vegas Sands Casino...".

He was sentenced to 6 years in prison.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11290227

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/12/08/former-fr...
"Fifty dollars reward, for the negro Jim Blake--has a piece cut out of each ear, and the middle finger of the left hand cut off to the second joint."
Thing Explainer: xkcd's Randall Munroe's new book
> No leftie is arguing or longing for any of these policies.

To the extent they aren't being argued for (I won't comment on whether they are "longed for" except to say that you don't seem to have read many leftist writings), that's because they are now the norm, so the burden of argument is now on those who want to change them.

For example, it is now considered the norm that the government will mess with the money supply and the banking and financial system whenever it feels like it, in order to implement centralized control of the economy. Nobody has to argue for it; the burden of argument is on those who aren't sure things like the Fed printing money are a good idea (and most of the time their arguments aren't even heard, they're dismissed as crackpots, even though the worst depression in history occurred after the Fed took control of the money supply).

Also, it is now considered the norm that larger and more centralized government is better; the US Federal government, the EU, etc. People talk about a single world government as though it were a natural next step. Nobody has to argue for any of these things. The burden of argument is on those who think centralization of power has done more harm than good (and again, most of the time their arguments aren't even heard, they're dismissed as crackpots).

> 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 and highly connected people.

And Graham's point is that, even in a perfect world where economic opportunity and access to capital was perfectly equal, there would still be huge variations in wealth, simply because there will be huge variations in how well people take advantage of economic opportunity and access to capital in order to create wealth. And the more technology advances, the larger the variations will be, because technology amplifies the differences in productivity between people.

So by all means, fight for a fairer world in which there is equality of opportunity. But don't measure your success by equality of outcome. Unfortunately, equality of outcome is exactly how "success" is measured by basically everyone. And we have "lefties" to thank for that.
I think one of the biggest problems that we have today is that intelligent, hard-working people are the poorest they've ever been.

In the past, if you studied and worked really hard, you would usually achieve something. Today you can study and work very hard for a very long time and still end up with nothing.

Being smart or trying hard has very little value, it's all about who you know and what assets you own. Today, most people are just living off of their assets. Assets which they received as a result of a lot of luck and perhaps a bit of hard work.

Instead of the government stepping in to protect the people - The government is facilitating this inequality by allowing corporations to carry-out mutually-beneficial deals with one another at the expense of regular people.

People are being enslaved; not just less-educated people, but also highly educated people (who can actually see/understand what is happening).

I think we have a new economic class in our society, the 'highly educated lower class'.