skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This version seems much easier to parse. Nobody would care about the super rich if they felt secure and stable in their own finances. Right now a growing number of people do not, and mostly for reasons that are out of their hands.

Fix the causes, not the symptoms. Make health care affordable, raise the minimum wage to a living wage (and for gods sake tie it to inflation or something so we're not debating it all over again the next time it's 20 years out of date), eliminate predatory lending practices, fix education costs, etc.
Ask HN: What Products/Segments need an open source Alternative?
Looking for areas where an open source alternative is feasible and required.If possible, explain Feasibility in terms of implementation and profitability.
The UK is a perfect example of a surveillance state. V for Vendetta had it right. The future is now and we're all slaves to the security state.
Reinventing Marketplace for Developers
Current State of Windows HIDAPI and Wiimotes
Fb will collapse too. People under 22 have quitted, and among older people, very few people post. The main product is dead essentially. Of course, the revenue lags behind this usage curve, just like in the case of Blackberry: the product was already dead but the revenue has not peaked yet. What remains is the fb messenger and very costly acqusitions of new stuff: whatsapp, ig, potentially snapchat. That strategy remanins to be proven to become economically feasible.
I can't cite any studies, but I do remember having heard of many studies indicating well motivated employees are more productive and happy employees are more productive. As for whether the fear of starving is 'good motivation' I would say that personally speaking it is definitely not what inspires my best work. Mileage probably varies quite a bit.
This is a good point. I'd go so far to label it a "social program", because even "welfare program" is a loaded term.
In fact they're not valued at zero. It's the Alibaba stake that is discounted, as all cash and assets on a balance sheet are by investors. That's trivially easy to prove by looking at Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Berkshire Hathaway, or Apple's financials.

If Yahoo were floated on the public market, with $4.8 billion in sales and $200 +/- million in profit, the valuation they would receive is not zero.

Proof? See: the valuation AOL had before being sold (not to mention what they got sold for). Yahoo is very obviously worth more than AOL was.

The bad analysis that Yahoo is worth less than zero, is caused by people that don't understand how you actually value corporations in reality. The bogus $0 valuation appraisal only exists in a fiction (and it makes for excellent clickbait), not in reality.
Intent matters.

I believe the core tenets of buddhism to be more about hacking your mind and body with certain lifestyle and practice (meditation etc) and living without infringing on others. The fairytales are extra baggage.

The difference between for example islam is that there are some seriously bad ideas (by socially liberal western live-and-let-live standards) in that scripture. Islam is an inseparable part of the culture in muslim majority countries hence it is bound to influence actions and attitudes to some degree.
I could have told you all of those would end up that way. Its like a list of fads.
I also don't need SPY to invest in the S&P500, but it makes it easier!
I am sensitive to this and never use "guys" when sending an email. So you can imagine my surprise a few years back when I overheard a female teenage soccer player address her female teammates during a scrimmage with "hey guys...".

edit: just asked my 14 y/o (going on 30) daughter. She regularly uses "guys" to address her girl friends and went so far as saying "what am I supposed to call them? Gals? Girls? That sounds wierd."

edit 2: wife states she'd use "guys" to address a group of women.

Background: raised in Miami by northern parents, currently residing in NC. Wife raised all over (airforce brat). I'm not immune to using "y'all," but "all y'all" is a bridge too far.
Yes, because I don't want to live in an oligarchy. Do you? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.

If only there were some of law that prevented the ultra-rich from buying the political process...

The sad fact is, even when there is a law (like we had before in the US), extreme wealth usually finds a way to eliminate it. And then it's off to the races as a feedback loop is entered. In principle, capitalism is a fairly effective instrument for reducing inequality until the political process is corrupted, and then the advantages of capitalism no longer benefit non-wealthy people due to regulatory capture, socialized risk, etc.
I think it still matters. We have already reached a state where the top x% live in a totally different world than the rest of the population. If their worlds diverge even more it will be pretty hard to find any kind of political consensus.
Ocean – pocketable, battery-powered, headless Linux server
Yahoo is just a holding company for Alibaba value. It's totally fucked up.
You should never be putting any savings in stocks except index funds, unless you're gambling.
Spacesuit Water Leak Cuts Short Spacewalk
Maybe it's a regional thing, but I certainly don't consider "guys" to be gender specific. If I were talking about a group of exclusively males, I would say "boys" or "men".
On Windows 8/Chrome, the car controlled by the player can get outside the browser window and overlap the taskbar at the bottom, which is absolutely mind-boggling.
I question how a "BI" can be paid for long-term.

Presumably BI is taxed like any other income, but of course that means the amount of tax revenue collected will not balance the amount of money paid to citizens... unless we really raise the rates on "wealthy" people (who's definition may shift if everyone is provided a free "comfortable" standard of living). In which case this "BI" becomes a Robbin Hood tax on the nation's wealthy, job creators, innovators, etc.

Knowing several people personally that would be likely to only exist off of the BI (and not produce anything, or do anything with their free time), I have my doubts about a BI nation-wide leading to a boom in productivity. This may be a selection bias, but it seems to me as time goes on, we have more and more individuals content to not produce, leaving their days to just games and other "fun" activities.
This is stupid to people from the Midwest. We've been using "you guys" as the plural of you for quite some time and, in the examples listed, most of us would say it has no gender.
"over-hyped gimmicky thing trendy with hipsters out-of-touch with reality starts to fail over short period of time"

not surprised one bit. i echo the sentiment of other commenters who give other examples.

this is only surprising if you are also out of touch with reality
I was going to say, I've seen it used as a casual alternative to people so much that I consider it a fairly inclusive term. Then again, it may be a regional thing, where it wouldn't be seen as such if it's not commonplace.
Which banks are offering throwaway credit card numbers? And where do you see wide scale deployment 3Dsecure for online checkouts? Certainly not in the US.

And what online payments processors are offering less than PayPal's 2.9% + $0.30? Seems pretty standard across the industry.
The amount of infrastructure required for coffee is excessive. Starbucks. K-cups. Delivery services.

First world problem.
Interestingly enough, people tend to think that "guys" as referring to a group is gender-neutral: http://jvns.ca/blog/2013/12/27/guys-guys-guys/.

disclaimer: this is probably skewed by the particular cohort that Julia Evans was able to survey.
Your argument misses one crucial issue: what is the probability that a drug at this stage of testing will A) work and B) be safe such that it becomes a valid standard of care treatment?

If the probability is really low, then less caution will result in cases like these outcompeting the incremental benefit to humanity.

I'll give you a hint. The probability is really low.
New CEO at Foursquare
All governments, since the most primitive tribal societies, redistribute income. Conservative economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman favor a basic income over more specific welfare programs because it could be implemented with a very lean bureaucratic overhead and minimally distort the economy, e.g., the government is not directly providing services, instead people purchase what they need themselves, and the perverse incentive of means-tested welfare programs to avoid earning too much money are avoided.
It's not really correct to say "Wall St loses its shit."

I think it's more correct to say that the extremely high valuations to start with are predicated on the idea that these companies can expand well beyond their initial niche. They're all hoping to be like Facebook, who went from college kids to the whole world. When it starts to become apparent that this won't happen, valuations come down to reflect a niche product.

You may say that Twitter has been beaten with a bat by Wall St, but they are still worth 12 billion dollars. Someone hit me with that bat.
Yeah, I guess I skipped over the fact that a home has property taxes and insurance/maintenance costs that would add up.

I think the key is the optionality of real estate for income purposes. In a down market real estate can still generate some monthly cashflow, the only way one could do it with gold ETF is lend out the shares to short-sellers.
They could teach to literally say "f_ck off" to your manager in such cases (provided that that's not something employees say to each other casually). I'm thinking of kind of "safe word" that doesn't require thinking or sugaring the pill that you can utter with shocking effect that clearly communicates you don't want to play.

What I mean is that this teaching should instill in employees the confidence that it's totally ok and safe and even advised practice to say "f_ck off" to your manager if s/he makes unwanted personal advances and to report them to HR if they don't.

If the only way to deal with harassment is to report it to HR people will hesitate because it's severe, it's process, it involves other people (and HR is not your friend).

It is all the things that you might want to save the person that might honestly misread you because he's a dumbass.

Companies should kind of own up to the fact that their employees are not asexual and that some people make some misguided attempts to flirt with co-workers and some accept the flirt and reciprocate.

Female colleague from the story who thought she was blowing the situation out of proportion probably had way more liberal opinion of office mating games.

Instead of outright banning this they should just discourage it (because it breeds conflict) and create obvious way for employees to clearly opt-out from this office activity (because those that don't want to play are horrified by human mating rituals, myself included).

I think in old days simple slap in the face had this role (totally unacceptable today, today's men can grow up without being slapped even once so they wouldn't think it's an assault or some SM sh_t). Not sure though what were men doing 50 years ago to fend off female advances apart from wearing a ring and acting completely disinterested.
It's worse than that. Competition drives price to zero. That means DRM providers need to get their revenue from some other way. The obvious way is to exploit (track, or worse) the user.
> for founders whose core drive is to "be a startup founder"

Yap saw that first hand. Someone read too much HN, wanted to run a startup. They didn't even have a good idea, but that didn't stop them. However, the was a minor problem and that was they needed investors.

Well as it turns out, if there are investors who are even more stupid than the founders and are willing to bankroll that, it's not all bad. Just take their money. Convince them you could be the next Facebook, look at the billions Facebook made!

So the startup is just a proxy to take investors' money, and play CEO for a while, and then when it fails it becomes a resume line "CEO at Uber For Dogs inc."

And yeah they didn't really have an idea, they just sort of came up with on, basically what they thought investors would like. For example, say, investors liked dogs, so the idea he came up with was Uber for dogs.
Not true if one is using Haskell (or any other sufficiently expressive language)
Political power is about more than Envy. The US has some terrible policy due to who is in power vs. what's good for most Americans.
New Horizons Pluto Mission Leader Alan Stern Wins Carl Sagan Award
Bitdefender Total Security 2016 Activation Key Latest
Addressing the "elimination of poverty" statement: Isn't poverty a relative construct? Unless full-communism is implemented, there will always be those that have less than others. For example, poor people living in the US have a much different life-style than the poor in a 3rd world country.
No, access to any form of gmail is blocked.
I just came back from Shanghai, my personal gmail on my phone was never able to retrieve mail, and even my work's corp. gmail was also unable to connect. However your mileage may vary. This was in Shanghai connecting to various wifis and using my sim's (China Telecom) data plan.

However you can use this to bypass the GFW.
free vpn app: fastcat

Initially gives you 50MB, I think if you register and check-in every so often you can get more free data to use.
I don't think Uber and Airbnb are particularly comparable to these companies. Uber and Airbnb have very clear business models.
> The problem is the new VC-funded startup model is a sham to rip off the public.

That has always been the VC-funded startup model. The difference between now and the dotcom boom is that the public isn't so gullible anymore (or at least not so soon after the financial crisis). Your grandma in Wisconsin has long since shut down her brokerage account, and has no intention of reopening it.
>Behold what 2005-2007 had to offer

Actually, it (https://solitaire.gg/play/freecell on Chrome) locked up my (Intel HD Graphics 3000) 2011 Mac, so it's not just ancient machines.
True, but it's unfortunately a lot less widely recognized.
I think in that case I would somehow expect part of the money go towards the authors. By giving to Wikipedia as whole, it's easier to accept that I'm supporting the infrastructure and not the content.
I feel the limit on time you can spend per day would fit more with busy professional lives. For me, it always made me greatly anticipate the next day when my turns would be replenished. That would make actually playing it much more special.

Also, the reduced audience available for the BBS made cheating less of an issue (at least at my local BBS)
This is turning into a debate, so let me apologize; it was meant as a one-off comment on how silly and counterproductive it is (imv) to write a bot for such things.

If this bot isn't actually negatively affecting anybody, more power to you. I certainly won't be the one to tell you what you can and can't do within your company.

Putting myself in those shoes, I would personally find it incredibly rude, and I highly doubt I'm in the minority holding that view, which means in my mind it's highly likely that other people at your company hold the same view (loudly or silently), which will contribute to making communications worse.

Putting passive-aggressiveness aside (which is a real problem)... I never contemplate "male-only" audiences, regardless of what I say. A somewhat-recent example: I've had some insecure guy come up to me being offended at my usage of "us gamers", as if saying "gamers" somehow excluded women.

There is something that really bothers me in such cases: The person is assuming ill-intent on behalf of the speaker. To me, it is extremely discriminatory to assume I don't include women when I speak. Why wouldn't I include them? Because they're women? Isn't that exactly the type of backwards thinking feminists are against?

shrugs I better just stop here. Whenever political correctness gets brought up, people on here seem to forget all logic and act completely irrationally - feminism really is the "for the children!" of the tech sector. I see even your post got downvoted for whatever reason; I brought it back up...
If only there was a way to make money off of knowledge about a stock's future...
I was somewhat being facetious. The difference of idle and load on the Atom is just a handful of watts. Completely nil when compared to my (older) desktop which is about 120 at idle and if you do some number crunching on GPU and CPU, the draw is about 230.
> If their worlds diverge even more it will be pretty hard to find any kind of political consensus.

In an actual democracy (without fraud / corruption), this should be your least concern since "the rest of the population" would be the ones deciding (voting)
>> "Research suggests Graham is both overestimating the importance of startups to inequality and underestimating the damage high inequality can inflict. Researchers from the University..."

I choose to draw my views not from politically-charged academics and their statistics, which can be made to prove most anything.

Instead, I align my views with those who have actual experience in creating wealth and building the economy. PG knows his stuff. His realistic view of inequality fits neither the political agenda of academia nor the agenda of this article's author. For this reason, the author demonizes PG as a "big-shot venture capitalist."
How is publicly shaming someone for using a colloquial term inclusive?
The Yes Men Play Anti-Terror Prank at European Parliament
The third paragraph:

>Paul Graham, a venture capitalist and one of the founders of the startup incubator Y Combinator, would have you believe this rising inequality is a good thing. Or, at very worst, the inevitable consequence of a good thing.

Times like this makes me think that different parties write the article titles than those who write the articles.
This is a type of discussion that comes up often. There are some very important things to consider to avoid causing unintentional harm.

First, understand the difference between social norms and market norms (I like this overview: http://danariely.com/the-books/excerpted-from-chapter-4-%E2%...) and how the introduction of market norms crowd out social norms (this is a good overview: https://natewkratzer.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/market-norms-a...).

Now that you have the necessary context, you can understand why I'm extremely doubtful that VC's can realistically have a large positive impact on the open source community.

Open source projects need donations in talented engineer time, not in money. There isn't enough money available to compensate for the man-hours invested in open source projects.

Open source projects are successful because they motivate contributors with social capital rewards of some kind and because they allow many different actors to combine human resources to eliminate shared costs/problems.

If some kind of wealthy supervillain wanted to destroy open source the best way to do it would be to inject a lot of money into the system, get everyone to start thinking in terms of how much they will be paid per hour to contribute to the project. It would be peanuts. Now the market norms would eclipse the social ones and they would mostly stop contributing. It would probably also be useful to use the funding power to steer projects towards architectures useful to you and less useful to others, if some of those others are your competitors then it may be your duty to do so.

This overlaps quite a bit with the existing naive view of the open source community as a big group of untapped future unpaid interns to exploit as well.

This, of course, doesn't mean that there isn't promise in funding infrastructure projects developed by paid contributors that are donated to the public on completion. Just that mixing the two models almost certainly won't work.
How I manage to maintain a lot of code projects
It's not about envy. It's about not getting one's fair share. It's hard to explain why corporate earnings soar, executive compensation rises but average salaries stagnate. It's basic fairness.
At this point putting pg in the title is a form of linkbait, but if someone can suggest an accurate, neutral title that includes him we can change it back. In the meantime, since the substance of this piece is about what economists say, the title can say that.
I figure, a BI in the US would be handled through local DMVs (triple acronym combo!) and thus at least some of the officials involved in the old welfare process will be transferred to the DMVs to help keep up. Others will, inevitably, find themselves out of a job; there's a massive, massive number of people in that bureaucracy, far more than we really need even before a BI comes in and makes most of that paperwork obsolete.

The good news is, the money that once went into their paycheck will now be used to fund their Basic Income, and they can find other lines of work.
This is a valuable point. I no longer just ask questions of people: I try to be respectful of their time by trying hard myself to figure out the answer first.

The upside is that I learn a bunch of things. The downside is that I rarely have a question for anyone anymore. I'm either too lazy to dig into the question online to be sure that the question is worth asking, or I figure out the answer on my own.

Talking to someone who is a master at something is much more valuable than the internet... but the definition of a "stupid question" is becoming smarter.
> Someone on benefits who spends all their money on alcohol will find themselves grinding their way through civil debt recovery

I think the point being made was, do we continue to provide other welfare services to an individual like this, or do we just cut them loose and let them fail?

Many people would argue we would still have to provide assistance to this individual... so then it begs the question, how is a BI any better than the slew of welfare programs we already run? At this point, wouldn't it be better (and probably cheaper long-term) for the government to just buy all the homes in the nation, and provide them free of cost to anyone? Perhaps food should be free as well.
It's a hot topic on HN and in a few policy circles. In the grand scheme of things, it's a really small issue, far behind, say, gun control or national security.
How many SV companies don't file for defensive patents? It's only been in the past year or two that a few bold companies have taken vows to not file software patents, regardless of the consequences (I stand I admire).

I can tell you that if you have a type of technology that is patent eligible, and you refuse to file for patents, finding investors is difficult. And indeed, among those companies that have sworn off patents, the ones that I've noticed have all been bootstrapped.
Interestingly enough, if you look up guy in a dictionary[0], definition #2 is:

> Usually, guys. Informal. persons of either sex; people:
> Could one of you guys help me with this?

My former (female) boss used to address the mixed-gender team as guys quite often.

[0]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guy
The most promising way would be to stop funding research if it is not done correctly and stop allowing people to publish papers with “play” research. No more use of inbred mice lines, more more injecting known cancers (only use natural cancers), no more testing of treatments that have no chance of working in humans.

The best suggestion I have seen is to make better use of all the millions of pets we have. Dogs and cats get cancer that is very similar to human cancer (much more so than mice) and these are all natural cancers. We need to encourage people to sign up their pets for cancer treatment and conduct many more trials in pets. The fact that we don’t do this at any scale is a sign that we are not too serious about curing cancer.
I find the best method is to no longer put a cigarette in your mouth and breathe in.

Much like flying is the art of throwing yourself at the earth and missing.