skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As a new web developer, where do you draw the line between a web application rendered server side and a SPA? I'm trying to develop a web app for creating invoices for a niche market but in this case I don't see huge advantages for a SPA over rendering HTML server side, the added complexity of a SPA doesn't have that big of a reward, I still plan to separate the frontend and backend, for example, writing a HTTP API that outputs json and in another process(or server) consume the json and render HTML in the frontend server (and maybe add some JS to improve interactivity). But everything this days seems about creating SPAs for new apps and that's definitely the future it seems, I'm wrong following this route or is that I'm just consuming to much SPA hype?
I went the same route. My artistic hobby ended up being UI design though. Weeps in corner.
I rarely read reviews there and almost never search in any general way. So, I can't say I've noticed this problem. Usually Amazon is where I go for something specific I already know I want -- I've already heard of it, researched it, and just want it at a decent price and shipped fast. Perhaps others are the same as myself and not really noticing. Google, blogs, aggregate discussion sites, friends, social networks, etc I feel like are where I learn about products - Amazon is just where I pull the trigger.
Yeah, that's bullshit. The oft-quoted figure of 3% for Medicare may not take into account the premium collection that the IRS handles, but with outside agencies it's still 6-8%.[0]

[0] http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/cahimedicare...
That makes sense, the variation by jurisdiction. It's kind of strange that a local person would find it simpler to go abroad than navigate the complicated workings of the local care system. Although it is pretty simple when you go to a medical tourism destination - you just get off the plane, taxi to the hospital, walk in and ask for sevice, and you get it.
You and parent both make excellent points.
I don't think that is correct. For example, a startup could make its founder a billion dollars, but if hundreds of millions of people are able to raise their incomes because they became more productive as a result of using that startup's product, then overall inequality would decrease. Does Coursera lower or increase inequality? I would argue it lowers it in the long run.
> And in the unlikely event I left no holes, some will say I'm backpedalling or doing "damage control."

There's nothing particularly wrong with doing damage control if you think people have misunderstood or misrepresented you. And PG is doing damage control here. Why else post such a "simplified version"?
Thank you for the insightful comment. Too often I have worked with developers that assume the original programmer was being difficult, didn't understand how to write proper code, or was inexperienced. They precede to rip out the code and re-write it "their" way.

When I come across code I don't understand I base my assumptions on the belief that the original programmer was smart, knew what they were doing, and had specific reasons writing the code as such.
Its almost certainly true that well-implemented policies of reducing income inequality would fix some of these problems, but that completely ignores negative side effects. The negative side effects are what makes that type of high level policy making bad.
Then they should stop saying they are concerned about "inequality" and start saying they are concerned with "dynastic wealth". This sloppy rhetoric makes it easy for opponents to attack. See, e.g.,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

And she is absolutely right. Because if "inequality" is the problem then a solution is to shape society so that everyone has $1 rather than the rich having $3 and the poor having $2. If that's not a desirable solution then "inequality" is not the problem.
Economic inequality is bad because it has a profound negative effect on most people's self-esteem and ability to enjoy life.

With high inequality, money becomes more valuable and people start to think of everything in terms of money. Even romantic relationships become money-oriented. It's not uncommon for marriages to break up because of financial reasons. Wealth inequality causes more human suffering than moderate poverty.

People who lived in communist Russia will often tell you that people were happier under communism, even though they didn't have much - Often, they had to farm vegetables from their own gardens to supplement their diets. But they were happy because they knew that they had the same as everyone else. Also, people had no ulterior motives to do anything - When people liked you, they liked you because of who you were. When people did something nice, they did it because of purely altruistic reasons.

In capitalist society, money underlies the behaviour of everything done by everyone. You can never know if a person is good or bad because you never know their true intentions.

I think the media coverage of wealthy people is itself a bigger problem than inequality itself.

The media motivates people to work harder and acquire more wealth. Without media, only innately passionate people would launch startups. Today, most people who start a company do it because they want financial rewards.

It is human nature to want equality. It reminds me of a Russian joke about a man who finds a genie in a bottle. The genie tells the man that he can get anything he wishes but that his neighbour will get twice as much of whatever he gets. The man pauses to think for a moment and then says: "Take out one of my eyes."
Additionally, Car2Go and other car sharing services exist and they seem to have figured out how to keep things clean enough.
Same for me. Cool package if it floats your boat, but it's not what I look for in an editor, especially the "crowd configured" part.
exactly the point I tried to make with very specific data above and got downvoted :)
The ability to get insurance for an affordable price (the parameters of which I realize people differ on) with pre-existing conditions outside of group plans has been one of the big wins of ACA. It's at least reasonable to argue that particular problem could have been addressed outside of the massive and controversial implementation that was ACA as a whole.
It's wonderful when simplifying an argument exposes its problems more clearly. I now wish more writers would do this. Omit needless words, indeed!
The reason that economic inequality has become such a talking point is that economic inequality has far reaching ramifications for our society. Many see a return to higher levels of inequality as a reason for slower growth and social problems.

The reason why inequality is the problem and not simply poverty is because when the 'target' is poverty, all we do is basically put a band-aid on the problem. We look at the poor with pity, segregate them, throw a minimal amount of money at them, maybe a social program or two, and forget about them.

However when you study inequality as a whole, you begin to see a bigger picture - one where the erosion of the middle class, the widening gap between those with capital and those without, and how that relates to poverty levels, economic growth, living conditions across society, etc...

As PG and others have said, back in the day you could be a factory worker, or any sort of blue-collar labourer and afford to have a stay at home wife, 4 children, a house and a car. Now that lifestyle is a luxury only the rich can afford. What's the difference? We know it's inequality, yet for some reason people make up all sorts of excuses and reasons for why this inequality is somehow 'better'.

Anyhow, economics is hard enough without trying to come up with overly simple explanations like "inequality is good because start-ups". There are start-ups in socialist countries (France, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, etc...), in less socialist ones (US, Canada), even in countries that barely have functional governments. Not to mention, all the research that shows a safety net actually contributes to entrepreneurship (in the US, that means upper-class family).
> That is how it is implemented. It doesn't have to be, I have a list of example languages where it is not the case.

No, you don't. Closures in those are also a direct consequence of lexical scoping. But those languages don't have mutable variables, regardless of closures.
Built-in distribution, period. No other platform gets you as many readers w/o doing any self-marketing.

The design and functionality is nice, but I think it would still be similarly successful if it looked like Geocities.

Thought experiment:
If you kept the design & functionality, but took away the distribution, would it be in the deadpool? My gut says yes.
But it is the relative balance of technological advancement versus technology/knowledge distribution that matters here. Technology distribution would decrease inequality and not necessarily at the expense of technology advance either.
This 2012 MacBook has been a cult hit amongst doctors and other medical professionals that I support, largely because patient information is still transferred via CD or DVD.
If I continue the author's thought process, I might as well say that this is not
a blog post, rather, it is a rant. Because I have the expectation that blog
posts follow a reasonable strain of logic and rants are emotional pieces that
use the author's feelings to persuade.

But I'll give him credit here and call it a blog post. Sure, PG certainly has
bias in some of his essays (or blog posts, or whatever you want to call them),
but in his writing he often talks about his feelings on a subject without
including his personal conclusions from those feelings (for example,
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html). I think that qualifies his writing as
essays.

That said, I don't think talking about the privilege PG gets from calling his
pieces essays is particularly constructive (or valid), especially in a post this
pointed.
The Feds Screwed Up 10 Years of Housing Data
Often these aren't really background images, they're just using that to set image sources via CSS. These days you can do the same thing with srcset, which also allows someone to learn your screen resolution.
I agree with many of the points in this article and I'd like to add to it: What astounds me about these back and forths is that I never hear the argument that I hear every time I go home to my parents, what my grandparents are always yelling at me about: my education. Your education is the key to the combinatoric explosion of specializations that will keep you afloat in a modernizing economy. Your education will also give you the general ability to adapt when your specialization is not in demand.

Your education is still the most powerful driver of social mobility. Yes there are ruts that exits, large ones that trap many people in the inner cities and elsewhere. But you can still be an immigrant in America and have a child that becomes a doctor, a lawyer, a software engineer.

Furthermore, an education is a form of human capital, one that is getting easier and easier to acquire (besides college, which could be becoming an increasingly foolish investment). Google and stack overflow are the equivalent of an expert tutor that could have set you back thousands of dollars a month 25 years ago. So I guess I would offer an additional solution to the worker trying to survive capitalism: become a capitalist. Don't settle for a wage, find a job the builds your skills, and use those learned skills to find better jobs and better skills. Leave the job that isn't paying you market price, that isn't building you, and use your investments to find a better one. Isn't that a better scenario than the labor-apocalypse that everyone else seems to be predicting, since Marx?

I hope in 100 years, there will be no more laborers. Not because they've all starved to death, but that the marginal cost of capital itself is so low that everyone is able to pursue their craft, take ownership of it, and profit.
People are concerned about egregious opulence while others are barely middling along or are impoverished; there is currently no other configuration in which income inequality exists.

The other stuff is a distraction until that isn't the case.
How about fixing dating/sexual inequality? You know, one guy sleeping with 15 girls is not fair to all the losers/ugly_guys like me who can't get a date. We have to redistribute partners and make sure that even the unattractive guys can get a date. We'll have to kidnap women who are into attractive/successful guys and then take them to losers like me.
You think this is rape? It's not, just like taxes on goods are not theft, because the only reason attractive people can get partners is because a lot of unattractive people like me contribute by building roads, bridges, apps, infrastructure, schools, which enables attractive people to arrange dates and then use roads to get there. We are also in the friend zone all the time, while the attractive guys are getting deep inside our female friend. They have to give something back. I am proposing a 'sexual tax'.

ALSO, since pretty people inherited good genes and didn't work for it, I also propose taxing physical beauty by making pretty people look uglier by 30-40%(call it 'inheritance sexual tax'). That way, already ugly people will look great in comparison.
That comic is a trope at this point. Any discussion of standards includes it.

The comment didn't add anything. If it was a more substantive comment and mentioned the comic you'd have a point.

But the comment might as well be a copy and paste job. It's not really adding to the discussion.

I mean just from the discussion and the letters XKCD I knew which comic it was.
Finding the Best Top Up Plans for Mobile Prepaid Users by Knapsack Algorithm
"I don't think the role of government is to take care of you, because it isn't the government taking care of you. It's the government coercing others to take care of you, against their will."

The government does a lot of coercing people to do things against their will. That's why we have police, court systems, jails, and so on. Heck, we've had drafts! That's literally coercing young men to march headfirst into combat to protect the country!
Ouch: "Weight Starting at 5.62lbs, 0.96in" (from the Lenovo page on the P50)

There is absolutely no technical reason for Intel to not offer ECC in the desktop/laptop chipsets. Which would then allow people like Lenovo to build it into their 'thin and light' line as well. I put all the blame on Intel for this one as they try to prop up the margins on "server" chips.

FWIW, this is something I hope ARM (and perhaps Apple) totally disrupts. I would love to see an A52 class ARM chip for use in a laptop that offered ECC support on large address spaces.
Ahh, but does git-svn-cvs-rcs do this? It's worth remembering that there were still 15 years to go from when this code was commented out to when SVN was invented.

And for that matter, does burguggle-git-svn keep SVN revisions traceable? Or are we assuming git is the pinnacle of software revision control and emacs would never ever change again.
I think this is a more detailed write up from the same author: https://medium.com/@samvlu/100-days-of-swift-736d45a19b63
this is essentially how i feel as well- do you know of any good longer form essays on this?
Target was doing that during the liquidation sales in Canada (at least at the ones I was at). It's worth noting that I don't recall them doing that before they went belly-up.
New Year, new Git release
But isn't that strictly financially worse for you than hiring women at $80 + epsilon, unless you have an expectation that the prevailing wage for women will soon increase?

That is - if your primary motivation is doing what is economically rational (e.g. arbitrage), not reducing inequality, why would you ever do this, unless you have a strong belief that the market is undervaluing women?
> that completely ignores negative side effects

What I'm saying is that if you take all the possible wealth distribution curves, the efficient frontier probably won't be at the extremes. That's not ignoring the negative side effects, rather it's cost-benefit analysis.
I could see why that wouldn't be popular. But you're also saying it was unacceptable that people didn't do a lot of work for you for free. As in, FOSS crowd isn't doing it, almost no market for it, someone does it for a fee, and it isn't acceptable due to the fee.

Kind of like buying a Yamaha bike, demanding different steering + tires, them saying no due to costs vs demand, offering to do it for a fee, and you say "why would I pay for the mod if I already bought the bike?" Then they stare at you confused.
Java Is TIOBE's Programming Language of 2015
> are not even addressable from the outside

If your router is only doing NAT, they are addressable.

A packet sent to a NAT-only router destined for 10.1.2.3 will simply be routed. It may have further address re-writing applied depending on the type of NAT, but that doesn't really matter - the packet will still go through. This could be accomplished with source routing, or an attack could simply originate one hop upstream. The return packets are probably[1] unroutable, but that doesn't stop someone from simply guessing[2] you internal addresses and forging packets.

If you want to drop some class of packet - like any incoming packet destined for a local-only address - then you want a firewall, not a NAT. One drops packets, the other merely rewrites addresses. This distinction is often missed because a pure NAT-only device is rare.

> aren't fully secure

Given how easy it is to generate packets on a supposedly-"internal" network, if a device isn't secure you probably shouldn't even connect it to the network. Border-only security may be not be the worst[3] idea in network security, but it's still a bad idea that should never be relied upon.

> for free

NAT is easily the most damaging and costly problem in the entire history of the internet. It has turned a network of equal peers into a centrally controlled, cable-TV-like feudalism. What is the cost of the losing the ability to publish without the approval of a 3rd party? What kind of price tag do you put on the entire industry of network software that was never developed because it wouldn't work behind NAT?

[1] your ISP hopefully drops any packets from any address other than the IP they assigned you

[2] sending to 10.0.[0-1].[1-5] or 192.168.[0-2].[1-5] probably works often enough

[3] http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/d...
People want higher taxes in the rich. They also want better access to healthcare, education, and higher wages. This is what the people complaining about economic inequality want.
I agree with a lot of the criticisms. In addition,

1. The prefixed underscore affects exports if you're providing an API in a package - see the standard library for lots of examples of prepended underscores.

2. Don't use lambdas where a regular function definition works.

3. Only use args and *kwargs where these args are completely generic, otherwise be specific as to the semantics.

4. Complex list comps should be rewritten to append to lists.

5. Multiline condition statements should use indentation other than 4 spaces (2 or 8, for example).

6. Don't use `if foo` when you mean `if foo is not None`.

Good luck with your style guide, I wish more people would make good style important to them.
My understanding is that the Canadian system is a step above the US system but not otherwise that great on a global scale. This is pretty much Canada's national motto.
Map of people with oculus setups willing to give out demos.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zOfhcB3uWEbI.k7yXLl...
Where's your greener pasture?
"The only question is, will I be able to accumulate enough to retire to Thailand or somewhere before I get hit with a serious medical condition?"

I was fortunate enough to do just that. Never had to be hospitalized in the US. Retired (very early) to Thailand. Ended up needing surgery. It was actually rather pleasant. And inexpensive. [1] I'm glad it didn't happen in the US.

[1] http://medicaltravelsite.com/blog/foot-surgery-at-siriraj-ho...
I don't buy the assertion that startups increase economic inequality. I mean, I suppose some of them might, but a few people getting rich by producing something of value doesn't equate to an increase in general poverty. A startup might even improve economic inequality. Depends what it does. The whole argument seems to boil down to a fear that improving the general welfare might involve slamming the brakes on innovation, but I don't see anyone making the argument that we should do that. If anything, poverty, and its associated problems, is itself a huge brake on innovation. How can you innovate if you're worried about feeding your family tomorrow? Wouldn't people be more likely to take risks like startups if they were less worried about the downsides, like losing their health insurance? Wouldn't there be more innovation if people didn't have to worry about starving because of going without a steady income for a couple of years?
It would be wise to remember that we only speak for ourselves.
I cleared up the language, hope it makes it more obvious what I mean.
Don't Edit Your Imagination
Good piece.

A (minor) nitpick.

On section titled '''Prefer "pure" functions and generators''' two "dedupe" functions are shown. They are stated to be the same but aren't. The first function returns the number of duplicated elements excluded (an int). The second function returns a set of excluding duplicated elements. It's true (in the first function) that the original list "items" will be modified to exclude the duplicated elements but an additional unshown step is needed in the second to determine the number... i.e len(items) - len(set(items)).
The real problem is that no one knows how much anything costs - including doctors.

Ever ask them "how much is this going to cost?" They'll either tell you they have no idea, or give you a useless range like, "between $1k-$10k."
Idea averaging is not an example of "the wisdom of crowds". It's a manifestation of groupthink.

More specifically, it's an example of when a group of people will tend to agree on something that is the least objectionable on average. This means that it's less likely that an unconventional idea will be accepted.

This concept has been studied for a long time in the social psychology literature. For a survey of related topics: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic... (see specifically "Hidden Profiles and Common Knowledge").
That $90 wasn't just put into time spent wrapping. There is the (negligible) cost of the wrapping paper and the cost to re-ship them. If the cost of shipping was more then $6 per item...
Seems about right. Wow this site is full of people with delusions of grandeur. It's hilarious how people wonder why others hate techies.

News flash, not everyone is in software. If you are I still doubt you are actually independently wealthy. Again, unless you were born that way.

Sorry for not doing a mathematical proof for those of you that think having $50k in the bank by the time you are 30 is independently wealthy when you haven't even put a down payment on a house in SF yet.
"Out of the usual reasons people encourage you to either found or work for a startup, "get rich" is not the primary motivator"

in my experience with startups and founders, that is the absolute central motivator, to the point that it is utterly laughable to deny it.
Do you need to work again before you die?