skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Insurance is business.
According to province, state etc. law, clients must pay to said business to 'eventually' be able to use it to cover partial costs, deductibles aside.
Business is not mandated by law to any standard which says
client must get a good deal.

Business is allowed to use any input variable in the whole scheme to jack up prices. Business is not mandated to lower them for any reason.

Well, lets give them more input on how to jack up more prices.

This conversation has been had in Ontario, Canada for so long where the insurance rates are the highest in all of Canada. It is not unheard of to pay 5000 to 7000 in Brampton, Ontario. If you move over just to the west, your rates will drop by 2000.

Laws need to change, as usual.
React Native in an Existing iOS App. Delivered
According to Slate's tool here, only 9% of married couples have only separate bank accounts (the situation where you have to ask your husband for pocket money if you don't have a job) : http://www.slate.com/articles/life/home_economics/2011/01/ou...
An ultra fast cross-platform screenshot module in pure python using ctypes
They are giving the user a choice, they just defaulted to opt-out instead of opt-in. It's like when you buy something online and get auto-subscribed to a mailing list. You still have the option to turn it off.
> This was trivial along time ago with mutt

Nothing is trivial with mutt, especially not GPG related issues. If it seems easy to you then you're a very skilled outlier.

Sincerely,

A Mutt user for three or four years
Every single traffic stop a police officer makes has them in this situation.
Aren't startups creating wealth?http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

I can't say the same about the financial system where banks were bailed out with public money or big companies "legal" tax evasion etc, this is the inequality people complain and Ezra was pointing out.
So can they just re-register it when it expires, or is the reason they can't do that because lots of people will be waiting to register it at the moment it expires?
Yes, but the analogy isn't accurate, in the sense that when things do fail in a C system, it's probably not that hard to fix.
Maybe this is better stated as: you are still responsible for your effects on other people. You don't need to feel responsibility for every little thing everyone else does, but to the extent that you hurt someone else, it's on you to make it right.
Jordan is pushing this into FreeNAS/TrueNAS and NextBSD. He would love to see this happen in FreeBSD as well, but from what I've seen it isn't moving anywhere.
Are you serious? Disregarding the fact that it was never stated what sex the poster was...

They said "I'll never feel like an adult". Emphasis on I'LL and FEEL. Not NOBODY, or EVERYONE, nor IS or BE. I'LL FEEL. Completely personal question, to a completely subjective answer -- yet you came here and contort their response in some misguided attempt to be upset with someone on the Internet so you can feel something.

Come on.
What a terrible lack of information in this article.
none of the replies here are as bad as the MASSIVE cheating scandal recently at the nuclear missile air command

these are the ethical people we put in charge of the most powerful weapons that can wipe out cities

hundreds of people and like a dozen officers - as recently as 2014 it was still happening

air force "solved" the problem by making the test pass/fail instead and dumbing it down, unbelievable
> You're not the owner of the company when you own 1-millionth or whatever of it.

There is no single "owner" of a public company. Everyone who holds voting shares holds a share of ownership. Anyone is free to try to convince anyone else to vote their shares a certain way. Ultimately the board serves at the pleasure of the shareholders collectively, and that is exactly how activist investors like Starboard work.
How do you know it's truly random though? Couldn't it be the result of a pseudo random process? Or universe splitting, where two universes are created, one where a coin lands head, and one where it lands tails. To the people inside, it seems random, but it's actually deterministic.
Doesn't matter really, with all the complaints, ramblings of systemd.. system admins will be forced to move to systemd. An admin has no choice since the company they work for runs it's entire stack on GNU/Linux and will not switch to another OS because of an init system.
Ask HN: How do I create a table in text (using hyphens, pipes and pluses)?
Every now and then I see people create fancy tables in plain text here on HN (either as a signature or in the comments). I remember seeing a lot of this in my UNIX days too and always wondered how it was done. I have a need for it now, so if you know how please help.

Thanks,
That's what they are supposed to do. In practice many of them borrow a bunch of money on the acquired company's credit and funnel it to themselves before selling. It's kind of like the legal version of a "bust out" (as seen on "The Sopranos" and "Goodfellas" :)
It is the fifth most visited site on the planet.
3 supply chain trends to watch for in 2016
"Shareholders have no right to complain about their companies' actions"

Uh...it's the complete opposite. First, anyone has the right to complain about anything. But shareholders (i.e., owners) are practically obligated to weigh in on the actions of things they own.
The true meaning of turn the other cheek
Yes, you could apply this change in compiler output without functionality impact to existing userspace applications. But you'd have to recompile everything, and it's not clear how it'd be useful; part of the question is what the privileged interfaces should be.

For Chrome this is useful because they want Chrome itself to be an unprivileged application, and they want to be essentially a recursive kernel to untrusted web content: there are multiple "users" (websites) that shouldn't be able to access each other's content, and certainly shouldn't be able to mess with the browser itself, and they get a restricted filesystem-like thing, screen-like thing, etc.

For a general-purpose OS, the OS is assumed to have control of the CPU and can just use normal hardware protection. So it's primarily useful if you want to build an OS that can be installed inside an unprivileged user account on another OS. But in practice, most people grant their unprivileged user account enough privilege to use hardware-assisted virtualization.
I don't think the biggest complaints about systemd are the consolidation of tools into a core. Nobody complains about coreutils. It's about the consolidation of tools into a few monolithic binaries. And about the piroritization of desktop use cases over server use cases.
We had an office pool for Wednesday's drawing and one of the guys in my area declined to participate.

I joked that there was now a 292.2 million to 1 chance that tomorrow, he'd want to jump off of a bridge.

Fortunately for him, we didn't win anything.
Yes, though this isn't relevant for this type of scam, which is about authenticating internal email.
Jails don't have to run a whole OS (init et all) You can make lightweight (single process) jails. People have been doing this for years.
> T-Mobile customers who activate the company’s controversial Binge On video service

It was default on.
No, it's just You unfamiliar with the offline culture which really gave birth to this metaphor.
A typedef to a character type is a character type. See http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.7.8p3.

http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#6.2.5p4 leaves open the option for extended signed integer types, and the following paragraph provides for an unsigned integer type for each signed type, extended signed types included.

So it would be perfectly possible, if not actually very reasonable - not that this is stopping anybody at the moment - for an implementation to provide __int8, a signed 8-bit integer type that fulfils all the requirements of uint8_t, but is not a character type, and use that as uint8_t. Then, conceivably, it could fail to support the use of uint8_t pointers to alias other objects, something supported by the more usual situation of using unsigned char for uint8_t.

I'm not sure that anybody would do this, but they could. I'm rather surprised gcc doesn't do it, come to think of it, just to teach its users a lesson. Maybe I should file a bug report?
NewtonVR: A free physics-based interaction system for Unity and the HTC Vive
Fellow Torontonian here, you sound incredibly boring. Maybe stop and look at how many people are walking around downtown tonight and around City Hall skating and at the Distillery District and going to the clubs and
Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [0] and related initiatives provide an advocate in disputes with banks, limits and disclosure requirements on fees, etc. The CARD Act of 2009 also standardized credit card rate and fee disclosures.

On the non-regulatory side, there's not much meaningful pushback against the big banks, but you can choose to opt out of them by banking with a local credit union (university, employer, city, etc.) or potentially an internet bank like Ally or Simple.
My husband and I have a joint bank account. I still don't feel that money he earns is my money.
Share . and click ads ! :)
It sucks that you had to kill your project because of costs but honestly I don't blame you for going the Heroku route. It does it all for you with some "mininmal" configuration. I like linux and have done enough maintenance on various sites so I generally don't feel lost but I'd kill to have someone walk me through the process of setting up a production ready web app just once.
Except that the article's second paragraph says:

> Apparently for the past half-year there have been some "ownership struggles" of the X.Org domain name, which the X.Org Foundation Board of Directors have been trying to resolve in private.
> the public conversation about economic inequality is way too sloppy, and that we should focus not on crude statistical measures like economic inequality but on the specific underlying components

This is a ridiculous thing to day. For one thing there is no public conversation about income inequality. The press is owned by corporations, whose majority ownership is billionaires. Even this forum is owned by Y Combinator, a corporation which owns shares of companies who have collectively raised billions of dollars.

I mean, elected political parties like Hezbollah in Lebanon have television channels like Al-Manar. When someone like Javed Iqbal in the US sets up receiver satellite cards so Americans can watch this channel - he was sent to prison for over six years. That's the "public conversation" in the USA.

There have been somewhat open channels of public discussion on the Internet like Usenet. Which is why the US government and last-mile monopolies got together to work to crush Usenet a few years ago, which for the most part worked in severely harming it.

Then it's also in the interest of the idle class heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from those of us who work to try to muddle the conversation. The idle class is who has been working to take the "focus" off "specific underlying components". It's farcical that the people working to confuse the issue then go on to complain how it seems so unfocused.

It's pretty simple - any created wealth is created through work. Heirs who do not work can then only live by expropriating surplus labor time from those of us who do work. It's as simple as that. It's been happening for 10,000 years, whether it's called slavery, or serfdom, or modern wage slavery. It's all the same thing. Among we who do all the work and create all the wealth has been awareness of the 1% parasites who feed off of our labor.

If the focus of the issue is confused, it's because the offending group wants it to be confused - the people who own the press, who jail the Javed Iqbal's who allow different views from elected parliamentary parties, who crush public forums like Usenet etc.
No, they're in danger of massive registration headaches because they don't have a clear chain of proof of migration from the LLC (since dissolved) to the 501(c)3 that succeeded it, and they're either not in contact with the person who was the administrative contact when the LLC existed or he's being unhelpful. I'll note that the listing was last updated in 2007, so his name's been on the contact info for 8+ years - probably at that time they renewed for as long as the system would allow.

There are provisions in place for replacing contacts on registered domains when the contact is someone no longer with an organization, and I'm pretty sure those aren't generally all that onerous (since incorrect changes can be reverted) - generally something on organization letterhead, probably a drivers' license photo, that kind of thing. In this case because the originally registering organization no longer exists they basically need proof that either the current foundation is legally the successor entity or they need proof that the domain name was part of the "assets" transferred to the new 501(c)3. They could probably have just sent in a change request on the current letterhead, but I suspect that A) they're no longer at that address either, B) Someone at Verisign said "Hey.... If we force an expiration we can auction this sucker for $$$$$$", or C) Leon Shiman could be expected to object to a change.

Another problem is the question of whether there's a registered trademark for X.Org - if they had that, even if someone else snagged the domain I suspect they'd be able to get it back via UDRP. Unfortunately it's not clear from a quick search that it's ever been trademarked, which likely drastically complicates the situation.
This is what must be going on in our brains when we watch black & white movies, fascinating.
I don't agree with that. I have a friend who plays solely for the entertainment. He doesn't gamble on anything else in his life.

He knows full well it is very unlikely he'll ever win, but he enjoys the excitement/fantasizing that it provides him throughout the week.
Long lasting investment books
Note to PG: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

I think the most disappointing thing for me about the first essay was the list of people who he thanked for pre-reading it -- were none of those people conversant enough with the discourse around income inequality that they couldn't spot the straw men, or were they just not willing to tell him to scrap it?

I mean, sometimes smart pundits go outside their wheelhouse and say clueless things. It happens to everyone eventually. (Heck, Tom Friedman has made a career out of it.) So the fact that he published this clued-out essay on income inequality didn't really perturb or disappoint me -- I was just like, "yeah he did that smart guy thing where he's stumbled into a conversation that he's not nearly as up on as he thinks he is and is going to tell us all How It Is."

But the fact that all of his pre-readers are equally clued-out is I think indicative of something larger and more disturbing about Silicon Valley groupthink.
In a "bad" part of town, maybe think of the people there as real people, and don't come across as obviously fearful. This has worked pretty well for me (although there are certainly other factors involved).
You're right, I'm also slightly mis-stating the problem.

Poverty is bad.
Institutionalized Income inequality is also bad, but neither of the authors are much addressing that problem.

That said, I'm pretty sure the Ezra Kleins of the world would much prefer to have those multiple Bill Gates. And in a world that had so many innovators, I doubt you'd have the wealth concentrations we tend to see, but that's certainly an arguable point.

Nonetheless, I feel PG's essay was defensive about points that aren't being generally attacked, and his response addresses the individual points without ever correcting his initial mistake.
How much did Uber raise in Q3 and Q4? Seems like it would be material to the trend over the past few quarters, and is at this point a different animal.
They made the choice for them. You would think differently if this were an on-by-default service compressing PNGs to JPEG or automatically minifying other content in the name of bandwidth saving. It's a dangerous slope for companies to turn on content manipulation at will. The free market has a hard time punishing them (or even knowing) for large telcos and ISPs. This is the crux of the NN legislation argument.
"the regional effects of those redwoods are tiny in comparison to the "robust ecosystem" of mushrooms that grows in their shadow."

If "regional effects" follow a power law this isn't true. We know valuation does, so why not these effects?
Of course they can. It's not about whether you are taking care of yourself financially right now or not. In fact, being an adult has very little to do with how much money you make. So for a house wife, it may be the realization that they cannot rely on their husband to be the sole breadwinner forever. At any point they could be killed, leave for another woman, or lose the will to earn a living or even live.
Paul Graham's argument is entirely tautological.

1. Startups are companies that try to grow quickly into billion dollar businesses.

2. Founders have substantial equity in their startups.

3. Therefore founders get really rich when their startup succeeds.

4. More successful startups means more really rich people.

5. More really rich people means more inequality.

6. Therefore more startups means more inequality.

PG defines startups as companies that become large and make their founders rich. So yes, you then trivially get "more startups == more inequality". However, this loses sight of the fact that when the goal is to create a billion dollar company in a few years there is a huge incentive to game the system, and to produce all sorts of externalities.

Take AirBnB. They are effectively an unregulated hotel business. How can a bed and breakfast compete with an airbnb, when they have to face regulations and taxes? How do the neighbors like it when new people move in every couple of days and party all night long? Sacrifices have to made in the name of growth.

Another example is Uber or other sharing economy startups. Employees become independent contractors, who are always on the edge of being fired. Who have to pay for their own uniforms, cars and other equipment in order to do their jobs. It's pretty ruthless exploitation, but Uber is valued at $70 billion and it's super convenient for the customer, so we look the other way.

When it comes to software if you want to serve the most people you work with open protocols, you open source your software (so it can be inspected for quality and security), you make importing and exporting to competing products easy and fast and so on. If you want to make a billion dollar business you keep everything proprietary and you create a walled garden with tremendous lock in.

Just look at all the open source products that our startups are built on top of. Billions of dollars worth of free software. What do the contributors get? Nothing. (Not strictly true; they get angry bug reports, but you get my point). This is not the natural order of things, so we should question whether this is just.

There's a big difference between companies that provide a huge amount of value, and companies that can CAPTURE a huge amount of value. Startups have to be in the second category, and that has huge social implications worth thinking about. The founders necessarily play only a small role in the success of their business -- we all stand on the shoulders of giants after all -- so why should the founders be the ones who capture all the rewards?
Each ticket you purchase is an expense that will reduce your tax liability.

If you spent $500 million on tickets and won $800 million, your tax liability would only be on the $300 million profit.
I'll be honest; I always assumed this was already standard practice in places where it made sense. Is this untrue?
Exactly that - they talked with each other, told stories, passed on oral histories, and created very high quality crafts.

There was labor, but it was not "brutal". Food preparation, tool/clothing repair, etc took up a lot of time but it was not difficult and could be done while socializing.

In the earliest journals of scholars who visited early Native American cultures, the scholars actually complained about being bored due to actual lack of work that needed to be done. Everyone really was just chilling.
A relevant comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2651
As is standard for a Phoronix.com "article".
Imminent Front: Silicon Valley Goes to War
That's an interesting question given that one letter domain names for .org are generally not available, x.org was grandfathered in.
> "I feel like PG is missing part of the point."

I'm starting to think PG is intentionally missing the point. Comments similar to yours about the differences between inequality and excessive inequality have been the leading response to the last three articles he's written on the topic, yet he only addresses it in passing, if at all.

He also continues to make grand claims such as 'Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups.' without providing any form of supporting evidence.

There was a subtle dig at the end of this article that some may have missed...

"By definition perfect social mobility would seem unfair to anyone with a mistakenly high opinion of their abilities. Indeed, I suspect this phenomenon is already a factor in people's opinions about economic inequality even with the imperfect social mobility we have now."

To give an added perspective on the implied meaning...

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/672112234521231361

Putting both together, it appears that criticism from technically minded people who haven't struck it rich just comes from insecurity about their abilities, regardless of whether they're interested in being a millionaire or not. I suspect that's why he's not listening, because he's ignoring the views of 'losers' (his term, not mine).
I think the organization process itself is what most people will find questionable about this. Making statements like:

"You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant"

Is obviously counter-intuitive for most people and certainly surprising. However, if this is the manner in which the universe actually operates, then this is brilliant. I think most of us would just want to see experiments and explanations that go further than this.
What are examples of these companies that are public/recently IPO'd?
Angles - yeah, usually not so bad, but being alone or only with 1 other person is very special

Security - fair

$350 at right time of the year - by right time, you mean "bad"/rainy time when they offer discounts (May/Nov I believe) :) - I have had excellent experiences in the rain, but I'm not sure that I'd recommend a first timer go for that $350 rate
Top 100 Best Blogs for iOS Developers to Learn and Gain Insights
Visualizing Climate Change After the Paris Climate Deal
Y C Switches Up Its Management, as Altman Shifts Focus
maybe Atom?
Misleading title—all of these are design or prototyping tools.