skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And in a related point, they refused to take the loan off of my account until I went to the apple store and had the manager swear to them that I had paid in full (even though it's not possible to buy an iphone on 'loan' though apple/tmobile). When the apple rep who was helping asked the tmobile rep how it was even possible for this to happen, the tmobile guy told him 'we won't tell you how this happened' - didn't sound like an 'honest mistake' to me.
Just Subtract Water: The Los Angeles River
This sure is getting flagged a lot.
Oh, yes. And no "contact us" link...
The joke goes, "What do you call the person who graduated last in their class from med school?"

"Doctor."

Sometimes we fail spectacularly at momentous points in our lives. That doesn't invalidate everything we've ever done and prove we are and will always be the incompetent frauds we appear to be, no more than any by other failure, although that's what it feels like when you're on trial. I would still rather receive medical treatment by an MD who graduated last in their class than by the lawyer who pointed out that doctor's biggest mistake.

More than anything, to me, the expert looks unprepared, which is forgivable, especially for someone with little legal experience. Also, fractions on a tenkey? He would have done better on an abacus.
Yes, I believe. Gates is one of us... though that might be a bit too flattering for us.

It's a nice skill to be able to read books quickly. You really don't need to read every word of every sentence if you got the author's point 3 pages ago.

I still count these books as read, even if I read some pages in a few seconds.
"And as long as it's possible to get rich by creating wealth, the default tendency will be for economic inequality to increase."

This seems to be the ontological point of his essay, which reads as a loosey historical narrative manufactured to defend his belief that the fight against "economic inequality" will undermine innovation by disincentivizing the next Zuckerberg.

But it misses the underlying point of wealth creation: if more people create more wealth, then naturally, there should be less poverty. Adding value to the world makes the pie bigger. The real issue is distribution. Our current economic model distributes wealth as a factor of capital, which is hoarded at the top and systematically protected. It would be silly to say that the top 1% of the population, which owns more than the rest of the 99% combined, creates more wealth or is more productive than everyone else on the planet. They just have a monopoly on capital.
This is exciting. Disque is intended to replace redis in celery (python). I'm looking forward to using it!
"It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story.

In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it.

Mitt Romney, the multimillionaire son of a car company CEO and governor of Michigan, told an audience at a 2012 Republican debate that if you squinted hard enough, he looked like a figure right out of a Horatio Alger tale. “And I—I mean—you know, my dad, as you know—born in Mexico, poor, didn’t get a college degree—became head of a car company. I could have stayed in Detroit, like him, and gotten pulled up in the car company. I went off on my own. I didn’t inherit money from my parents. What I have, I earned. I worked hard, the American way.”

Twilight of the Elites, Chapter 5 "Winners"
Download ifunbox iOS 9.2.1 totally free
Show HN: Zoomable Map of Amazon Products
Not entirely sure I can agree. The Gates Foundation has made important contributions, but they have also been subject of scrutiny regarding funding choices that are ideologic and self-interested.
> Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market.

Let's not get carried away. This is how the market is supposed to work, and often it does work this way, but there are plenty of businesses built on exploiting information asymmetry, bad regulation (often lobbied for by the businesses themselves), etc. Yes, markets are generally good, but there looks to be plenty of room for improvement in our implementation.
I hope I didn't go too overboard by dissecting PG's essay like this, but I felt it was necessary to correct many of the items that I read.

It may seem spurious now, but economic inequality is relevant for the tech industry, too. The massively increased productivity that information technology provides is very infrequently distributed proportionally to the people who actually forged it-- exactly the same condition as most workers in the US, currently. The principal difference in terms of economics is that the absolute wages of software engineers are currently higher than the median wages, meaning that they don't feel the pressure of not having quite enough-- given enough time, this will change unless we make a decision to alter our course.

The accumulation of economic gains from massively increased productivity will trend toward stagnation at the uppermost levels-- the founders and owners. Our society is currently engineered for this to be the case, and we have much work to do if we want a more equitable society.

If we accept economic inequality, we accept that we are not citizens but instead are largely debt-laden effortful passengers in a world owned by our betters.
I think he does. I believe that reading is one of the few things that Gates (and people like him) truly enjoy doing. It's like video games, exercising or playing music to some other people. It's really like a physical addiction.
Winning the bias-variance tradeoff
I noticed this too. There's some weird behavior going on with the algo, I think... it keeps popping on and off of the front page.
There is nothing wrong with the people who have wealth, it is with people having so much wealth. Wealth is economic power; we split power in the government so it is not hyper concentrated in on person for very, very good reasons taught to us by history (power begets more power and corrupts, etc). Similarly we should be trying to split economic power. There's nothing wrong with someone having a lot of money; but there is something wrong with a person having more wealth than most of the nation combined. It's an enormous amount of concentrated power which is inherently bad in and of itself, whether it's used for good or ill currently.

And the primary method people use to get and keep this money is through exploitation and abuse generally of workers, tax systems, etc. Which is just icing on the cake beyond the original problem of wealth concentration.

Also we have the notion that people are being paid 300, 400, 1000 times as much as their employees. This is a lie; one person generally isn't worth 1000x as much as another. There are thousands of others who would be able to replace any person in any job with similar results. The money they get is through the manipulation of their wealth, power, and connections to make more, and the Rand-esque 'great man' fallacy where Americans assume industry is driven but supermen and women at the top who truly deserve what they are getting, and not primarily as a collective effort. When a company succeeds, where should the profits of that success go? The wealthy have up until now succeeded in enforcing a deeply capitalist system where all of the profits go to the wealthy and the least possible earnings are divvied up to the peasants who beg and struggle to be allowed to earn from their labor at all.
Helping a competitor may cost them in the future, but I am guessing they got paid enough money in the present for the consultation to be worrh the risk.

I cant speak for Toyota, but they probably also would feel their own future would look bleak if their competitors died off - a good healthy level of competition is good for all players in the market, and it drives up innovation and drives costs down for consumers. In a very direct way, having able competitors ensures Toyota stays strong and doesnt stagnate.
This history is pretty well-written as far as it goes, but it's centered on the white American male worker's experience, and particularly on the sort of person who had a chance at being a manager.

It barely mentions women and doesn't mention the civil rights movement at all. A majority of Americans living at the time had no chance at being an executive at a large corporation.

There has never been a time when all workers were treated equally.
There's a lot of overlap, but my full article is actually the response as intended, and that comment is a condensed and incomplete summary due to character limit.
An Honest Way to Make Money Online
PG is wrong that he is a creator of economic inequality. Technology development usually brings prices down. This is deflationary; the 'big picture' way that deflation happens: that prices are discovered more efficiently, or resources are used more efficiently, or that idle labor capacity is recruited to fulfill a want or need that was not known before (esp: think uber/lyft).

Deflationary processes are inherently anti-inequality. Think of it this way. If we never changed the minimum wage, then people's incomes, especially at the bottom segment of society would make their net economic potential greater over time.

It is not the investment in technology that makes "tech drive inequality". It is the political structure around it. We have a structure where monetary policy shoves free or cheap money into the faces of banks and the investment classes in efforts to 'stimulate' the economy, where the secular (over decades, not over years) inflation drives low- and middle- class citizens into risky investment activity just to be able to sustain themselves in their later years (effectively a subsidy for the rich).
It's extremely dangerous to run in production because it will lose data [1] by design.

RabbitMQ does not have a good strategy for recovering from partitions, which happens when a node is unable to talk to its peers. Partitions can occur not just from actual network hiccups but also simply due to high CPU or I/O load or benign VM migrations.

The underlying cause is that RabbitMQ is not multi-master by default. A queue is owned by a specific node, and if you have a partitioned cluster, that queue (and related objects such as exchanges and bindings) will simply disappear from other nodes.

You can patch this deficiency by enabling "high availability" (HA), which is their term for mirrored queues. Each queue will get a designated master, and be replicated to other nodes automatically. If a partition happens, the nodes elect a node to become a new master for a mirrored queue.

Unfortunately, this opens the cluster up to conflicts. Let's say you have two nodes, A and B, with one queue, Q. You experience brief hiccup causing a partition. A and B will both assume the role of master for Q, because RabbitMQ has no quorum support. Therefore they will continue to accept messages from apps. The hiccup passes, and now both nodes see each other again. Meanwhile, apps had sent messages to both A and B, causing Q to diverge into Q^1 and Q^2.

However, RabbitMQ has no way to consolidate the two versions into a single queue. To fix this situation, either you need to reconstruct the queue manually (usually impossible from an application's point of view), or wipe it (hardly a solution in a production envirionment), or simply have RabbitMQ automatically pick a winning master and discard the other master(s). The latter strategy is called "autoheal", and will automatically pick the master which has the most messages. The previous master(s) are wiped and become slaves. This is coincidentally the only mode in which RabbitMQ can continue to run after a partition without manual intervention. Without autoheal, RabbitMQ will become unusable.

In practice, recovery has proved flaky for us. Nodes often stay partitioned even after they should be able to see each other. We have also encountered a lot of bugs — for example, bindings or exchanges disappear on some nodes but not on others, or queues are inexplicably lost, or nodes otherwise just misbehave. We're on a cloud provider which is otherwise rock solid; of all the software (databases etc.) we employ in our clusters, RabbitMQ is the only one that misbehaves. I should add that the last few minor versions have increased stability considerably, though the fundamental clustering design issue remains.

[1] https://aphyr.com/posts/315-jepsen-rabbitmq
However, if your mutually beneficial transaction has negative externalities, those need to be corrected. Taxation is one way of achieving that correction.
> Graham writes another article on a subject about which he knows little, and in doing so quotes Stiglitz as advocating a silly "fallacy".
Logodust – Find unused logos that you can use for free
When I made a shareware game using Delphi in the 90s distributed via BBS, tens of thousands of people downloaded it. Now there is so much "stuff" that I have to pay or beg for downloads.
In fairness, I've always seen the Koch brothers as a heartening example of the limitations to the ability of individuals to buy government. They had to give up on the Libertarian Party and can't buy the Republican caucus, never mind swing the election.

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the Koch brothers it's distinctly possible that few people would have heard of Austrian economics, and most of those would be academics writing it off as of purely historical interest.
PGs articles aren't wrong - but they are second order, when we need a first order response to a current evil [ before it leads to bloody revolution ]

If you look at income distribution its a hockey stick - you really have to slap yourself on the face and realise there is no middle class - what you thought of as professional-middle-class-contributor is actually college-debt-burdened-lower-class - no matter how many years they work they will never pay off their debt, let alone own their own home.

People aren't asking for "income equality" they are asking for some level of humanity and democracy to be restored to our version of Capitalism, to strengthen that capitalism.

So, just as "All Lives Matter" is not a good response to the "Black Lives Matter" movement, its not useful to discuss "income inequality is not intrinsically a bad thing" when we are in a time when the lower class are basically slaves and the middle class has been in steady decline - your _only_ chance to have security is to win a lottery [ the Startup or the PowerBall variety ]

So, what needs to be talked about is rather : how to take money out of politics, how to get poor people out of the ghetto, how to stop young black people from being shot by police on a weekly basis, how to bring back a reasonable level of tax on the super wealthy, and how to stop large companies from getting subsidies to pollute our environment.

A small amount of Socialism is needed urgently to bring Capitalism back into a survivable form - if not, I really think we are headed for bloody revolution, because most of the populace are angry, and its a rational anger because their survival needs are barely being met, in many cases.
"if economics is darwinian"

How can economics be Darwinian? The outcome of economic interactions is not a zero sum, whereas a lion who kills and eats an antelope is engaged in a zero-sum interaction. The antelope gets nothing out of it. As a point of contrast, if you buy a car from Toyota, you have not harmed Toyota, nor has Toyota harmed you (hopefully). It is theoretically possible, when humans engage in trade, for both parties to end up better off. But in nature, in the competition for finite resources, one often sees exchanges in which all species end up worse off. There are many documented cases where predators have been too successful, and killed off all their prey, and then gone extinct themselves -- a negative sum scenario that has no obvious comparison to economic exchanges among humans.
I think that there might be huge value in neurobiofeedback but it's a mistake to brand these devices as an aid to what essentially is a religious practice for many people. Just studying the comments in this thread shows that the sole idea of such a device seems blasphemous for some.

Perhaps it would be better to call it a concentration exercise or a brain fitness trainer, especially since it's not even clear that these devices help you with mindfulness (whatever it might be). I tried to find some reviews of Muse done by experienced meditators (I haven't collected the links, sorry) and the results seem mixed. Some claim perfect score on the first sitting, some say they get the same bad results as everyone else starting out with the app. That would suggest that either the device doesn't really do what it claims or that meditation means so many different things to different people that it's not a useful term to use in a scientific context.
On a related note to your related note, there's long been a difference between written language and spoken language [1]. Written language tends to be more complex, since it's easier to pause and think about what you're going to say, and it's still easy to understand because the reader can read it over and over again. Some writers find it difficult to write dialog for this reason, it's such a shift in format. Spoken language also tends to run on with incomplete sentences because people want to hold the channel open for themselves while they are forming a thought, but others also want to break in for their turn.

Now with the Internet and texting, of course you get plenty of regular, formal written English like I am doing right now. But you also get a new shorthand, and new information being presented. its like omg lol and you don't need punctuation

just send another text

this is how we pause for...

dramatic effect

It might be too early in the development of the Internet and smartphones to really key in on any sort of new grammar rules, but it's really worth thinking about. Plenty of times I find myself thinking "should I write haha or lol or just send a smiley", so there will be some rules shake out of it for sure.

[1] http://www.omniglot.com/writing/writingvspeech.htm
>> With the centripetal forces of total war and 20th century oligopoly mostly gone, what will happen next?

Or I could just read The Atlantic.....
I don't feel rich when I live in a town with no bookshop, beyond a certain point the availability of cheap goods is pretty meaningless.
That's the standard effect of flags.
Why would you want to create a named tuple by invoking convoluted code (and arguable with the end result being also not trivial to use) instead of just declaring a structure?

This article is interesting to explore the technical capabilities of modern C++, but not to use the result...
Le Reddit army is here
Download Videos from Tumblr on iPhone
That's one of the reasons I like it. It's too controversial and complex a topic to be prescriptive about it, but it's such an important topic that it deserves to be laid out clearly and plainly. That's what PG is so good at, regardless of whether you agree with his conclusions. I feel like I could share this with anyone I know and they would get value out of it, and further, it would help us get on the same page when discussing our feelings about what to do (if anything) about it.
In fairness, your answer to:
Is this project I’m working on fulfilling?
should have been no it is not fulfilling enough. It does not fulfill your desire to own your own company.
Yeah, I tried to use Asana and personaly really disliked it. Mostly because of the cumbersome UI and expectation mismatch of how things should work.

Then, in a ~10people Team we (after lonog debate) used Asana, and after the first days, nobody was using it, because it was horrible.

I can't really put my finger on it. It somehow feels like a Prototype after checking off long feature checklists.
Did you even read the first point in the list?

>US children of wealthier parents grow up to be wealthier than US children of poorer parents, regardless of whether the child was adopted or not.[1]
kanal tıkanıklığı açma
Getting burned at the stake for heresy? :)

I thought it was an interesting read (though I don't agree with all, only some) and would be a good complement to PG's article.
Writing Better Code with Custom Subscripts in Swift
All mobile phone providers in the us are more-or-less managed by the US government indirectly through FCC spectrum auction rules (and operating rules) and FTC/SEC monopoly regulation.
I think it is great, with everything Paul Graham has to lose, knowing comments like these will be at the top of something he helped create, he still has the courage to say what he believes. Yes, there are many people/politicians that will use other well meaning people to prevent others from competing with them by eliminating the ability to get rich.
The secret history of the about:jwz url. (2011)
the ac-lite versions aren't as good as the pro's.
the normal version basically have less cpu/memory.
> Would it be a problem if several different quasi-species of mosquito lost the potential to incubate malaria?

Yes. There is a reasonable chance that may go very badly. Malaria exists within a very specific niche inside the mosquito. It has risen to the top of the pyramid to establish dominance there. Knocking it from the pyramid, removing malaria from the environment that is the inside of the mosquito, will create a vacuum. Some other disease will rise to occupy the niche. Perhaps it will be harmless, or perhaps it will be worse. But what is true is that whenever a species is artificially removed another rises to take its place.
There seems to be an assumption that if you tax the rich, they won't be motivated to grow the pie. I don't think that that's true. I don't think people would say, "Tax rates doubled. Now I only expect to make $100M instead of $200M. It's not worth it any more; I'm quitting."

Here's how I see it:

A: Double taxes; 10% smaller pie.

B: Keep taxes; inequality grows.

C: Increase taxes such that innovation stops.

Graham seems to be arguing that B is better than C. I agree, but he doesn't seem to address A.
Actually thanks for the web archive method I'll use that again.

I was factually confused by this undated repost, but what was unneccessary or unwarranted?

Does the timing in posts make this deeply self involved opinion ok?
How to Remeber Tonights Dreams Tomorrow
France and Germany will never again be at war.

The EU might seem fragile, but that is because the NATO and the EU expanded to fast. Remember some 20 years ago there was a wall through Berlin, now nearly everybody behind that wall has joined. Russia destabilized Ukraine to stop this movement.

Still the EU welcomed Croatia in 2013 and the Eurozone Estonia in 2011, so it is growing.

North-Western Europe already has a large coalition of countries that want and think the same things and have an excellent standard of living. The East will catch up economically and the South will get back on its feet. It will take some time, but I think they will join the group.

Some countries like the UK want their special treatment once in a while, but everybody knows, that London has to play along to some degree if it wants to stay the financial center of Europe.
There's a 20 minute summary by Piketty here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKsHhXwqDqM and even the short overview by Cory Doctorow is quite good: https://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in...

After reading the first paragraphs in pg's essay I immediately went CMD + F Piketty and was somehow disappointed that he didn't choose to cite him since that's the crux of C21C. But, glad to see that others on HN resonated with the same ideas.