skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It doesn't really matter. Even if you have a Pew poll saying that a good amount of voters believes that “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”- those are just vague sentiments and not real policy. There are no mainstream American politicians in either party with any proposals that even remotely resemble that sort of idea.
“Recover the Widgets” – WebGL Game Prototype
Many countries in Western Europe have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times since the 19th century when slavery was practiced.
As I wrote: by drawing new buyers from the peninsula via two obvious mechanisms: increased availability, and increased quality/dollar. Where current residents came from is irrelevant to my argument. I don't understand where you get this faith that small amounts of construction magically decrease prices. Even micro-econ supply/demand curves don't say that, because of the aforementioned exogenous purchasers.
Straight Outta Bakersfield!
Is there any danger that such levels of inequality reach a tipping point where the have nots band together and say why don't we take some of that for us. We have the numbers to either change the law or take by force. Such things are not unknown in history...
For consumer applications, you are limited by the ecosystems, such Android or iOS or Windows, so you can't choose kernel anyway.

For cloud applications, what is more important is the system architecture, not the kernel. If we assume docker is the preferred way to deploy an app. We only need very limited features from kernel:

- If I specify the CPU and RAM requirements, the kernel simply allocates them to the container. There is no need for complicated dynamic scheduling and balance.

- Network within the same data center has much lower latency than hard disk (<<1ms vs 10ms). We will be much better of using network storage or database.

- If we assign network address to each container, the kernel can deliver network packets to container, and the container uses its own CPU and RAM to process the network traffic. This will avoid the situation that kernel spend a lot of CPU/RAM to process network traffic for all containers and find the correct way to charge the cost.

If we do all above, there is not much kernel features are needed by cloud applications, as such features will be replaced by cloud services like cloud storage/database. It will make develop and deploy cloud services easier and more productive.
Maybe it's actually better that OP did that as in "you've been warned" as to some bias. I didn't see it as a smear and by the way Ron Conway has been referred to as "the godfather" by the mainstream press and bloggers (at least as I recall).
> They use investment vehicles which are increasingly divorced from "real world" economics and more like moving chips around on a poker table.

Which investment vehicles are those?

You cannot in general invest money into vehicles which earn a good return but which are divorced from the real world. Imagine if you invest in a company like Apple. Apple developed products like the iPod and iPhone, and the company's value comes from the fact that 500 million people gave their money to Apple in exchange for an iPhone. Apple's $233 billion dollar revenue, and resulting net income, leads to their valuation, which leads to the return on our hypothetical investment.

The investment profits because Apple developed a useful product that people chose to spend money on - the people who bought the products benefited, and the investor benefited from a return. Everyone is better off, and the standard of living has risen. Technology makes things cheaper over time, so that more people can afford such devices. A vast majority of people living in poverty in America own cell phones.

Can you describe how these investment vehicles work such that they're earning a return while being disconnected from the real world? Where does the money come from for the returns?
I wonder if this explains why the money supply is increasing without any accompanying inflation. The money is just getting turned into economic dead weight.
Criticism, yes, I just think a more enlightening reply would do more for the conversation. The way I like to think of it is that you're refuting an argument for the benefit of other readers of the comment who may not be well informed / are persuadable, rather than to oppose the person you're replying to. Think of it as communicating a thoughtful missive to someone (who honestly doesn't know) that has asked you "what's wrong with that comment?"
Well, at least in the age of fracking and increased investment into renewables, as well as whatever the Saudis are up to, there's no threat of a new oil crisis happening anytime soon.
I don't understand your response. The primary purpose of the proposal was to illustrate what "hoarding" is. Did it accomplish that goal? If not, why?

To address your concerns generally -- every tax policy has a variety of impacts on behavior. Multiple countries already have a wealth tax, so they are definitely workable. There are behavioral and policy methods of addressing potential negative consequences.

To respond more specifically:

> What if I own a house but have no cash? Will I have to sell it and live on the street to pay the taxman?

That's a straw man argument for a host of reasons. We already carve out exemptions for primary dwellings, and there's no reason why this wouldn't similarly apply, up to some limit. But even absent that, real assets are real assets, and there are multiple ways of extracting liquidity from them (and moreover doing so generates wealth for society). You can take on a "reverse mortgage", or rent out one of your rooms, or sell it and rent, or take out an annuity that's secured against your home, among other possibilities.

> What if the ultra-wealthy buy property and then mark it down? I.e. they buy paintings, then "accidentally" "damage" them. Whoops, a billion dollars in artwork gone, sorry IRS. Later, it is miraculously repaired. Will the IRS have to start sending undercover agents to inspect people's art collections?

That's fraud/non-compliance/tax evasion, and it's already a massive problem in the current tax system, except now it's cloaked in things like a "double dutch with an irish sandwich". In any case, this is a problem that is dealt with every day, in business, by insurance companies, and there's no reason why the same techniques couldn't be used by tax officials.

> A 3% wealth tax is still less than the growth rate of many financial assets. I.e. the stock market grows at ~7%. So the rich will still get richer. And if you increase the tax to say, 8%, congrats, you just destroyed the financial markets.

Yes, and a 95% income tax rate will destroy the labor market. So? And yes, at 7% CAGR on the S+P the wealthy continue to get wealthier (assuming all their assets are in equities, a big assumption). But note that, in the process, we've eliminated income taxes, so everyone else will be getting richer faster. A win-win.
Transitioning to SCSS at Scale
"Founder" or "investor" are equally accurate as to who and what PG happens to be. If you are writing for the HN audience, you can assume that the vast majority of your readers are well aware who is and how much power he exercises. To me, your "clarification" smacks of "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and (in my opinion) pg simply has a too distasteful amount of power to be assumed to be a decent human being."
This is horrifying. Literally the fabric of society would break down.
"So empirically the most significant factor is now something else."

That "something else" would be the 40%(!) of the EU budget that is spent on agricultural subsidies.
The OP said "I just took the old landing page down".

We don't know what was on that landing page do we? There could have been something that was infringing in some way.

For the record I happen to have a domain name that I registered that has the word "Trump" in it and is a .com. And I have never been contacted by Trump's legal team. This doesn't prove my point however I thought I would point it out as perhaps relevant.
I'm fully aware of that. However, partly since it's impossible to quantify the number of users who wish to avoid so-called duplicate posts, it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion.

At the end of the day, if Paul Graham's opinion gets a chance at prime blog real estate, shouldn't people who disagree with him get the same chance?
Overuse only decreases the beauty of kitch, which never required any artistry in the first place.

Real art requires artistry, which requires practice, which introduces divergence, which means you end up with different works. What you're thinking of is people slapping together the same junk over and over, but none of that is art.

It might be done in a medium that has properties #1 and #2 so the medium is OK but the artist isn't practicing so the quality of the work is junk.
That's right. The GWoT is the failed last hurrah of a feeble politician attempting to drape himself in war-leader glory. And that's a good thing. The future is about the ability to create, not coerce and extract, and America needs to retool for that world.
Politics is a bit of a different beast than business. Things that occur to me off-hand are:

- Political entities get large not to achieve economies of scale (i.e. increased efficiency and effectiveness, which may or may not materialize in business... thereby sowing the seeds of future fragmentation when they don't), but rather to achieve scale itself: more votes.

- There's been no de-regulation akin to what occurred in business in the 70s and 80s, mostly because the big parties literally write the rules.

- Elections are pretty much a zero-sum game.
Not to mention, the jury's still out whether it's more effective to have government programs to alleviate poverty vs. individual or foundations of billionaires spending on charities at their leisure.
> the queues are more efficient

How? Are they processing more units from the queue per second? Is it easier to find the vague end of a line among a jumble of people than the head of a queue? Are LIFO queues more likely to have something in them than FIFO queues thus avoiding wait times for the next customer and idle staff? Is it a good idea to leave a large portion of boarding to the last few minutes of the boarding interval?
Besides the obvious racism overtone[1], basing an argument for something that happened from 1942 onwards all over the Americas, on some findings about a specific small part of the US, 5000 years ago, is not really scientific...

[1] The whites that "saved" them by taking their land, forcing them to "sign" their land off with bloody wars, putting them in concentration camps, and lots of even worse things...
this feels like populism. pg's articles are well thought and argumented. i actually learned a lot from them. it does not matter do i agree with everything there or not though i mostly do. if someone can write that good from a different aspect or point of view so that i can learn more on his/hers views that would be great.
Yes, lots of people do named tuples with preprocessor logic of one kind or another (protoc and a variety of serialization libraries basically give this to you). It's much cleaner if you can use the type system to do the job for you.
Yep, it is, and "functional" means undirected in this context, as contrasted w/ "effective" or directed. These graphs are often defined by stats like Granger causality as well as some partition of the brain.

There's a Prof. named Sporns who has a lot to say about this.
Imagine a society of four people, one grows rice for four, one grows chickens for four one grows vegetables for four, one builds and maintains houses for four there is no profit and there is equality.

If one person is profiting... or in our world a person is profiting more than the others it is inequality in action.

Progressive tax rates are the simplest solution.

The thinking that one persons work is more important than another's is a dangerous and slippery slope.
Sure. And we also have the expression "PayPal Mafia." But those are written for mainstream audiences. This piece appears to have been written for Hacker News, where the vast majority of readers know exactly who pg is, what he does and that he is enormously powerful. Almost no one here needs to be told by analogy that pg is a serious contender of that sort.

But have an upvote.
Not at all. On some objective universalist level, moral relativism is right. Where it's dead wrong is that we should stop defending our way of life and our moral codes. We all have our own moralities and seek to shape the world according to it.

As an side, capitalism is more effective at achieving socialism's moral ends than socialism is. It's something people should get behind even if they don't place moral value on private property. You might disagree, but we can argue about that on the level of facts.
I've often thought that the root of many queues is a discontinuity in pricing. This is most apparent on black friday. If prices were smoothed out then a time/money trade-off can happen. Anyone can jump to the front of the line if they are willing to pay more. This is more "fair" than last first but would optimize revenue for the seller, and lower wait times for everyone.

Imagine: The next iPhone sale stars at $10,000. The crowd makes a loose circle as the clock starts to count down to sale time. Just before the clocks reaches zero, one obviously rich and important individual struts up to buy one. They casually complete their transaction, and hold up their prize as the clock starts counting down from 30 again.

At time=zero, the current price starts dropping $5 per second until about a minute later the next person is willing to step up to buy it for $6k. They walk away satisfied because of the conspicuous consumption they have just experienced. Several more step up as the price begins dropping again at $4k, $3750, and $3100. The envy of the crowd is palpable.

At $2560 a small swarm of early adopters breaks ranks. It's a good 20 minutes before the price starts dropping again. As you watch the large pile dwindle and the crowd begins to vibrate it's clear they will not be reaching the base price today, but will instead sell out the entire inventory at some unknown price.

As you eye the crowd, you think about how much you want it, and suddenly your heart races as you step out in front of everyone else to get your hearts desire.
I enjoyed it, though I haven't read PG's essay yet.
Thanks for that. I've read several books about this era in automotive, I liked Paul Ingrassia's ironically titled "Comeback" (in which the comeback is largely due to currency shifts). I'll check Toyota Kata as well.
rock-solid my ass. The situation is less about ignoring Friedman and Hayek as about ignoring their critics (which is obviously what you're doing or you wouldn't have made the absurd "rock-solid" claim)
that may have not been your intent, but it does reveal the error in your thinking. You may call both abominable, but do you not see the fundamental reason why one is categorically worse than the other? If not then you are doomed to advocate for the very problems that were the root of the atrocity of slavery, just in other, possibly more cryptic and slyly paternalistic forms.
For the record, Ayn Rand wouldn't support the kind of capitalism we have right now: she was very much against crony capitalism, and very much in favor of workers being able to live comfortably if they were willing to sell their labor in a truly competitive fashion.
Not really. You don't get the names of your fields from std::tie.

std::tie is more of a way to map non-named tuples to and from other data structures.
Having a voice and starting something new in the world, instead of being a replaceable tiny nail in a mansion built by someone else.
FreeBSD on the raspberry pi
Yeah... I spent some time pondering why people respect the violin more than synthesizers.
Since you may find it amusing: I was in a similar situation at a previous company selling high end ($25k minimum price; $80k average price; labs typically bought 5 or more at a time) scientific devices. The dedicated salesperson / account manager was forcibly told to triage bugs / assign priorities. He spent an afternoon assigning every bug as critical/priority 0.
The Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian (http://nmai.si.edu/) has a lot of publicly available resources and references that would definitely be worth incorporating at least as additional resources.
Dish Network also has some nationwide, and US Cellular has gobs of it in the midwest preventing T-Mobile from getting better coverage. Which sucks, because US Cellular is a terrible carrier. They have good coverage, but no features (still no VoLTE) plus being really expensive with small data caps. And you get no data when you travel because they don't have roaming agreements and aren't in most major metro areas.

I'd be happy if T-Mobile just bought US Cellular to make them go away.

The best site for spectrum maps that I know of is this:

http://specmap.sequence-omega.net
That's a fair question, and not one that can be easily answered in am HN comment.

Personally, I would have had no problem with CU if it had remained the narrow decision that John Roberts originally wanted it to be. Clearly, if the First Amendment protects Michael Moore's right to make and show a politically charged film close to an election then it protects Citizens United's right to do the same thing.

The problem came when this narrow decision was extended to a broader one that included for-profit corporations and labor unions. (For-profit) corporations and labor unions are legally "persons" in that they can act as legal entities in their own right (no pun intended) independent of any individual human. And they ultimately consist of groups of humans. But they are not humans. They are human constructs. They are technology. And treating them as if they were humans, entitled to human rights, leads to problems.

So personally, I would advocate retract CU protections (and Hobby-lobby protections for that matter) from for-profit corporations.

I'd also re-instate the historical lower limits on direct contributions to political campaigns.
That's because the laissez-faire market forces you invoke are not the core of our prosperity, just one of the factors leading to it, so your comment did sound as an extreme parody of a right wing position (which may be more or less reasonable depending on how strongly you support it).

Friedman and Hayek wrote their work before we had a thorough understanding of how complex systems are optimized. Thanks to more powerful computers, we now know that search guided by purely local improvements gets stuck in local minimum (in Economics, those are the Pareto points). Those local minima can be incredibly far away from a true global optimum, but can't be improved by "consensual and mutually beneficial transactions".

Sometimes you do need to take actions that temporarily inconvenience one actor to achieve a point that will benefit all them in the long term; see the prisoner's dilemma for a simple example. The GP post mentioned 40-hours work weeks; those weren't brought by laissez-faire economics nor individual negotiation either, 60 or 80 hours a week were the norm before socialism.

Capitalism tends to create immense concentrations of power without checks and balances on the hands of tycoons, of the kind that should make any true libertarian be very afraid of those holding it. The system that really works best is one where wealth is created for a few years through capitalism, and then that wealth is redistributed by government's welfare politics to the wider population. This is what has been going on in Western countries in the last century, bringing us stability and
avoiding the frequent revolutions that plagued Europe and the Americas in all its previous history.
Wealth brings "people". Even recluse billionaires have people, law firms, to manage their public images. It isn't personal. When you have billions to protect you need a team.
One great use of named tuples would be named function arguments. I've grown tired of seeing functions that take a bunch of doubles and always checking which argument is which.
I highly recommend Todoist. Awesome web UI, mobile apps, keyboard shortcuts, and a simple API if you need anything more fancy.
Are your weekend days vacation? My vacations are not like a normal busy saturday.
I'm simply presenting a thought experiment, not an actual choice. The thought experiment demonstrates that purchasing power has increased from 1970 to 2016 (at least, if you prefer 2016 wages and products to 1970 wages and products).

If you'd like to argue that "purchasing power should have increased more if it wasn't for XYZ..." then that's fine, but it's separate from the point that I was debunking:

> but the purchasing power of that nominal wage has gone down faster than the increase

If one prefers 2016 products at 2016 wages, then purchasing power has increased. Since real wages have stayed constant, we're basically just talking about 1970 products vs. 2016 (and 2016 products are much better, cheaper, etc)
>Capitalist wealth comes from repeated consensual and mutually beneficial transactions.

Tech hiring collusion, 2008 financial crisis, environment degradation and global warming, slavery-like conditions at suppliers of multinational corporations, medical bankruptcies in US and lack of guaranteed holidays, ghettos, plundering of natural resources, monopolies everywhere (as prescribed by Thiel btw).

Such a wonderful, mutually beneficial, ethical system with so many positive externalities! /s

You may claim that capitalism is the "best" system at this point, but to state that's wonderful is indeed indistinguishable from parody.
Sure... I'm just talking about the basic demands on the medium. There are many additional demands on the artist that have to be fulfilled for them to create great work.
For future visitors: I found some good spots.

Las Tajibos hotel has good internet and for 100 Bolivianos you can get a breakfast buffet and pretty much sit there all day.

Cafe 24 in El Centro has OK internet too and the food is pretty good.
Another option could be to find a place with flexible hours, during NON-rush hours, the commute around the places you mention isn't that bad!
The snark would be relevant if people argued that mass killings didn't occur before the introduction of firearms -- as opposed to arguing that mass shootings didn't occur...

Or perhaps it's not obvious enough that this ancient mass killing didn't happen by a single guy armed with some bone shaped into an axe or something, but it was something a large group of people did to another (e.g. hostages caught in a war).

One would think that a 16-year old kid trying to mass kill his school mates with a knife would not get very far...

(Or one could just check the homicide and mass shooting rates in ANY western country with a ban on private firearms and see that they are many times smaller).
Yeah, I have a very specific real-world goal I am trying to fulfill, so that helps me aim.
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 should probably read the history of US inheritance laws. They were deliberately designed from the start to "soak the rich", for the express purpose of avoiding a European-style hereditary aristocracy where massive wealth (and the corresponding societal influence/power) would be passed from father to son for multiple generations.