skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If someone is so disabled that BI alone won't save them, then yes, other things will step in. This is a great opening for private charity, in fact. Given BI as a baseline, the conservative dream of having private charity handle things might actually work, because it would be limited to the exception cases.
First, I think you misread the Stripe global page. There is still restrictions on countries there.

Second, IANAL, but if you are a US-based company you may run into restrictions with accepting payments from customers in embargoed countries (i.e. Iran, Syria, etc...).
This is just the market reflecting reality. Most of the "unicorns" aren't actually worth the billion or so dollars their valuations are at. They don't generate enough of really anything that is worth the silly valuations they get. This is why free markets are a good thing. They eventually correct themselves.
So, I'm kind of picking on you here, but people always say this about things they think are bad.

But there are pretty big structural differences between going short and going long. In particular, you need to know much more precisely when the bad things are going to happen. Sometime do a short (and if you already have, great, you know what I'm talking about). Its not nearly the "haha how stupid are they", people think it is.
I was under the impression that was exactly the case, sometimes guided by A/B testing.
Google is up 40% in the past year.
It's well-known that authors don't get to write the titles of articles like this.
Top PC Gaming Setup and Battle Station Ideas
Would be more efficient as a private message from the bot: No public shaming, no noise.
Funny thing is, I don't watch those channels either. That's why I don't have cable, there is almost no value in it. There are maybe 2 or 3 channels that I'd want but I can't get them without paying for 70 channels I don't want.
In reality, these are just are opinions you and I have. We'll find out in the next 18 months what the fate (and the value) of Yahoo is.
The way I read his comment was a difference between perceived value and actual value. Market share is equivalent to perceived value, not actual value. So the comment was remarking that the drop in share price could be the result of inflated expectations becoming more realistic rather than a loss of actual value of the company.

The biggest difference between perceived and actual value that I'm aware of is the tulip mania that early 1600s. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious that flowers didn't become less valuable in the short time period between the height and the collapse. Any utility or purpose they had, other than resale, was retained in its entirety. But the price difference was massive. There are many who believe we're in our own era of unicorn mania where it will become apparent, again in hindsight, that they were never as valuable as people made them out to be.
Are those people you mention actually productive now? Most of the people I know who would do nothing are already doing nothing.
Personally I like my coffee at the same place it's made, at home, work or a café. Not halfway across town delivered 15 minutes later.
I think the ones who really ate their lunch were companies like Shopify.
Weather and Individual Happiness (2012) [pdf]
To be honest, I am good with the torrent trackers I have now. I have found the ones that take care of my niche interests (remux, usually).
- thats assuming those are causes not symptoms

- fewer people would care but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. If as an example I am running a business that you really don't like, maybe I'm infamous for hiring death squads or something, so you put together a boycott. Except if I have eleventygazillion dollars your boycott is completely irrelevant to my bank account. I can buy laws even. With enough inequality the sufficiently rich can become entirely unaccountable.
I'm probably in that 1% you mentioned. I work with large aerial photos (usually >10000x10000) with varying numbers of bands. Headers are excellent for georeferencing, storing band information, attribution etc.

> tagging file systems

Like HFS+? I'm somewhat ignorant, not sure what other filesystems support this. What tools do? I have no idea if I rsync a file from my mac to a server, and back to a Windows box, if you'll still be able to see the metadata. This strikes me as a huge weakness compared to just supporting internal headers like every other image format.
I highly doubt this will be happening to the likes of Uber or AirBNB anytime soon, for one Travis Kalanik is one of the brightest guys on the planet and relentless in his efforts, much like Jobs in his prime. AirBNB will face more challenges but the amount of monetary funds it collects in transactions and fee's it is collecting will keep it at the top for a long long time. Anytime a company puts money back into the hands of the people, you have a good product. Etsy lost its shit because they decided to start letting every one and their mother sell on its site, and it ruined their core business model, which was selling vintage artisan goods.
To denunciate researchers as having a "political agenda", because their opinion does not fit into the own political agenda, does not sound very honest to me.
A brief introduction to CPU development in China (Loongson) [pdf]
In my experience, hell yes this is taken for granted. Completely. "Open source" means "free stuff I take for granted" and the idea of contributing back in any way is viewed as a saintly contribution to a charity (or maybe a PR exercise).
The topic of this thread is that a "country" is experimenting with it, that's more than a little interest. It's a small issue in America, for now, for sure; that will change as unemployment creeps up with every new technology hitting the market, cars will start it.
Just about every single female I know uses "guys" gender-neutrally. Most insidious.
GOP Contenders Now Trying to Out-Trump Trump
It's okay to pick on me, I wrote the comment without putting a lot of context in it. I usually stick to trading commodities, not equities.

My comment really was saying, "I believe that tech startups have significant headwinds, poor underlying fundamentals, and would like a simple way to capture the profits from trades made around those assumptions."
Also, if you download the zip, there's yet another email address. This man clearly has no problem with being reached.
So though I have to say I still feel sharing email should be the owner's choice, in this particular case, little harm appears to be done.
>but the standard says hardly anything about their behaviour, making it practically impossible to write code that actually does anything with floats and doubles that will behave correctly on any standards-compliant C implementation.

No, not really. This reminds me the common "you can't write anything serious in C without undefined behaviour" bs.

However, if you DO have a real need of IEEE-compatible floats for whatever reason, then there is nothing wrong with checking __STDC_IEC_559__ and reporting an error if it is not defined. In fact, if you are using a system that doesn't have an IEEE float implementation, using another language won't save you.

>I suggest you refrain from personal attacks, especially based on your own misreadings of the comment you're replying to.

Feel free to show me what I misread. I would also suggest that you try to read the nonsensical bullshit he has been spreading in this thread.
Or, in some regions and in colloquial conversation with a group of male friends, "dudes".
It's super annoying when there's a strong and confident initial comment and the clarifying comment is jibber jabber.
It depends on the person, some people prefer relative wealth, other people prefer wealth in absolute terms.

That is, some people would prefer to be one of the wealthiest persons in a poor country over having double that money in absolute terms, but being relatively poorer to their peers in a rich country.

So it depends on the person.
Also known as soon™ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soon&defid=4...
> I defend anyone who is attempting to effect positive change in the world, aggressively

So you defend their faults, too?

Or are you saying here that you don't believe I myself attempt to effect positive change in the world? With my open source history, I'd find that pretty offensive.
A repro steps field is a must. If I was a contributor (and I am!) then I would look at the thousands of bugs coming through and focus on only those with those that have that filled in.
Some of that feel will likely come back if(when) the internet begins to splinter, infrastructure begins to fail, and you start seeing hacked together municipal or neighborhood networks.
> Instead, I align my views with those who have actual experience in creating wealth and building the economy. PG knows his stuff.

Perhaps PG is so busy with that stuff that he's less aware of people who are wealthy but don't do a great deal to create wealth, but manage to obtain it in other ways. Both contribute to inequality. "How much" is probably the realm of the academics you deride.
Well, the important part is you've figured out how to automatically reject the math of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Anyone else find irony that this is published in the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos (founder/ CEO of Amazon)?
You would have to triple welfare payments in order to test if idle people do great things as currently most people can't live off the paltry payments welfare gives. There's also hoops galore to jump through every month like applying for X amount of jobs and getting the interviewers to vouch you did in order to receive another cheque.

BI means you can afford to live. Welfare gives you a spot on a waiting list to get into a SRO dump full of drug addicts and $100 remainder to eat, buy hygiene products, and transportation for a month. Nobody can live off that so going to loan sharks, doing under the table exploitative labor and daily hustling are needed at least here in Canada.
I like this one. Thanks again 'dang :)
Disagree entirely.

Twitter? No good way to monetize. Groupon? Failed to monetize effectively after virality faded and without a moat competitors did the same thing. Yelp? A web version of the BBB protection scheme whose profit comes from the shake down protection racket against small businesses, not from users. Zynga had no moat and other companies quickly did the same thing with much leaner overhead, like King and a dozen other cheap but profitable game makers. Box was just overvalued for what it is.

On the flip side, every time someone takes an Uber or rents a room on AirBnb, they pay the company.

As in, those companies accept money for every transaction and profit on them.

Twitter, box, groupon, yelp don't do that. And Dropbox doesn't and they aren't publicly traded and if they did sell stock it would probably be overvalued and shrink over time like Box.
These guys are wasting taxpayer dollars.
I'd say Zynga has a pretty clear business model.
"PG knows his stuff."

No doubt, but PG's "stuff" is specifically around how to find and nurture startups to be successful. It's not necessarily his stuff to understand how optimizing for his particular line of business will affect the economy as a whole.
As New York looks to ban encrypted smartphones, here's what you can do
This could also create a valuable dataset -- which pages on Wikipedia provide content that people consider useful enough to that they'll contribute funds.
I realized that I'm not sure what Yahoo actually does these days. So I looked at their website, and...I still have no idea. Their homepage is set up like a sketchy news aggregator. Wikipedia says they do a list of things (mail, video sharing, online mapping...) that Google and others obviously completely dominate.

As a side effect, I'm recalling the days when Yahoo was a directory of websites, and getting nostalgic for the days when people actually had websites.
So for example, my medical records might be DRMd with the keys in my possession, and I could give them to a clinic and give them read rights, but the DRM means they would have a hard time sending that data elsewhere without my permission?
I didn't remember PG writing anything about startups mostly driving the income gap, and I just searched the essay and didn't find it. Here's what PG wrote about the proportions of each group causing income inequality:

"But while there are a lot of people who get rich through rent-seeking of various forms, and a lot who get rich by playing games that though not crooked are zero-sum, there are also a significant number who get rich by creating wealth."

It's unclear what the WaPo writer is responding to when he says "it's difficult to conclude that startups are mostly driving the income gap."

The writer also has this odd paragraph: "If there is middle ground between Graham and this body of research, it's the idea that policymakers shouldn't go after inequality with blunt instruments, like big tax hikes just for the sake of soaking the rich. Perhaps, instead, they should target rent-seeking, which economists agree is bad for everyone who isn't a rent seeker."

This doesn't look like a middle ground; rather, it's what PG suggests: "if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing."

And: "startups aren't the problem, [the problem is] corrupt practices in finance, healthcare, and so on."

(But it's a long essay; please let me know if I've missed parts that support a different interpretation.)
This is a good question for which I don’t have the answer. We know from epidemiological research that you need at least 5 independent mutations to get to metastatic cancer. With the new CRISPR technology it should now be possible to make cells containing just 5 mutations which should then be able to be studied.

The bigger problem is these 5 mutations can be drawn from hundreds of possible genes so the combinations are almost endless.
Bubbles, bubbles, everywhere. Will they pop? Will anyone care?
the govt should seriously start considering breaking up Amazon.
Impact of Weather on Stock Returns and Volatility (2105) [pdf]
The stocks you mentioned barely get any buzz in tech media (TechCrunch) or HN. The stocks that OP mentioned get a significant number of mentions here. A number of unicorns are dying, experiencing significant criticism (Theranos), doing not-so-well (Square, Zenefits), or exiting negative returns for investors (Gilt Groupe)

The point is the companies that seem to be getting the most hype (young, 'disruptive' companies) don't seem to be doing well as IPO companies. This is an issue for the public investors (who are often pension funds, average investors, etc) and employees.

This seems to be a clear indictment of tech media, who are more interested in hyping up stories than really digging into a company's fundamentals. The only losers are common people in this scenario.
> Bitcoin seems well-separated from the U.S. federal government, but lately it also seems like Bitcoin has organically sprouted its own messy government bureaucracy.

Bitcoin, nor its tokenholders, cheerleaders, etc. do not have the violence-backed power to tax. So while it may have the nasty trappings of a bureaucracy, I don't think it sinks to the level of a government bureaucracy.
Yosemite agrees to change the names of its locations to appease trademark troll
Cock.li server seized again by German prosecutor, service moves to Romania
Netflix has to play nice with the content providers or they will not be able to show Batman, even in the US.
> Nobody would care about the super rich if they felt secure and stable in their own finances.

That's probably not true. People are envious creatures, and relative status matters too. I don't believe that that should guide policy, but it's still something to be cognizant of.
So, your main complaint is money in politics.

This is exactly what PG was talking about. You're talking about corruption - not inequality.
> None of which got started during the current technology cycle.

Then I need to understand why the current technology cycle is fundamentally, essentially different from previous ones. A business needed to bring in more money than it spent 30 years ago just the same as it does today.

> I disagree. In fact, IMHO, the overwhelming majority of startups benefit from organic methods of growth that come from word-of-mouth and reputation. Any startup with more than one customer, pretty much. Owning the market means owning that, in your respective field of business.

Start-ups rely on networking but by network effects I'm referring to a very specific phenemenon whereby the value of the product itself increases with each user / car driver / payee / node, etc. This in turn leads to this kind of run-away virality that the Facebooks and Twitters and Ubers of the world experienced. Plenty of start-ups achieve virality in other ways, merely by selling the product over and over to people, and having people sell it to each other through as you point out word-of-mouth. But in the case of network effects that process is compounded exponentially, making it very difficult to scale (without capital) because often times revenue lags behind user growth.
It wouldn't.

If anything, it would vastly concentrate power further in the hands of a few--except this time, those few would be the miners and core developers.

Say "the people" wanted to vote to increase the pool to 25 million coins, instead of 21. That is a pretty basic form of political power to exercise, saying "we want to change this structure that affects our lives, let's vote on it".

How would "the people" hold that vote?

The answers I've gotten in the past, when I ask this question, have been one of:

* Just patch the software, and if 51% of the miners accept it, that's it!

Or...

* Currency shouldn't be under democratic control.

Neither of those statements is anything like democracy. And those attitudes seem to be pretty prevalent in the bitcoin world.

It's for that that I could never, ever endorse Bitcoin in any way. My interest is in pushing for a greater distribution of power--less concentration in the hands of a few--and doing so that actually engages with everyone, whoever they are, open source dev or not.
Or have some sort of legal insider information. (Not that that's the situation for most people, but it's worth rounding out the discussion)
It's not qualitatively different than what we have now.
Hmmm, people in tea drinking places, say China, do order drinks [boba/bubble] for delivery by scooter, whatnot.

It's a business model and it works well in some places. It doesn't print money, but it gives the chains a competitive advantage.
Yes, but they're unequal in their "less"-ness.

Having less in the US means you have a hard time paying your bills, etc.

Having less in a third world country means you're dying because you're literally crapping your insides out because there's no drinkable water.

Eliminating poverty (especially extreme) poverty seems worthwhile . Making sure everyone has the same amount of stuff doesn't seem quite as important
It's not an opinion that $4.8 billion in sales and one of the largest Web properties, is worth more than zero. That's easily backed up by comps such as AOL, Yahoo's nearly 20 years of being public along with how the markets treated it, and how they were valued prior to the Alibaba stake becoming valuable (hint: they never received a negative valuation, even in the absolute worst of times post dotcom bubble when their business was falling apart rapidly).

Fair value on stand-alone Yahoo is a lot closer to $5 to $10 billion than not. Verizon just paid $4.4 billion for AOL, which has a fraction of the business that Yahoo does.

I could claim that Microsoft being worth more than $1 is merely an opinion. Does that mean Microsoft's market value is subject to such whims? No, there's a vast historical basis to go on, and a well understood approach for valuing such companies and their businesses. The opinion of Microsoft being only worth $1 is wrong, and easily proven so. The same is true regarding Yahoo's core business being worthless, and for the same conceptual reasons. The only valid room for opinion in the matter, is in how much it's worth. Anything else has no historical example to back it up (there is not a single example in modern history of a public corporation of Yahoo's sales size, with a positive balance sheet and earnings, that isn't collapsing due to some scandal, that is worth less than zero; not one example exists).
Icloud Bypass Activation iOS 9.2.1 – iOS Jailbreak Tools and Jailbreak Guide
Running and debugging CoreCLR ASP.NET web applications on Triton
DataPower Handbook, 2nd edition
Previous discussion on HN after the first time it was seized

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10774152
Exactly. I honestly don't see the problem. Some VC lost a bunch of money? Oh well!
Quite a few studies have shown, that unless you are 'chemically' enhanced, all work after about an hour does not do much more for strength or size.
robots enforcing political correctness. scary.
A simple explanation is B-corps can have a charter which is at odds with the interests of shareholders while C-corps are fully aligned with 'maximizing shareholder value'

e.g. "I've created a B-corp, named Betsy, which has the distinct mission of making it viable for more people to choose craftsmanship as a career. I cannot be sued for adhering to my charter in good faith so one thing I can offer all sellers is an insurance plan even if this move has a net negative impact on profit."

This can be contrasted to a C-corp in which its officers could technically be sued by acting in ways which are value or profit-destroying for the firm.
I would say it is an inclusive term, and in my experience, used frequently as such by people of all genders.

There is a lot that can be done in tech to progress towards gender inclusivity, however publicly calling out use of words which historically conveyed exclusivity yet nomoreso detracts from more effective means.
>The problem is, Intel's super-quick Xeon E5-2602 V4 processor will only be made through specific OEMs, and will not be pushed out into the world for public consumption.

So I basically wasted my time reading this.
Ball of Gas Has Energy of Hundreds of Billions of Suns
"Travis Kalanik is one of the brightest guys on the planet"

That is a strong statement. Care to justify?
Great read and hopefully a lesson: you can spend time and money and annoy your customers to no end to provide entertainment and a challenge to young programmers or you could save yourself all the hassle and make lots of money by being smart like the good people at GoG and treating your customers better than the pirates.
Hope you have you puts and shorts in place then!
How I Setup My Hosting Infrastructure and Community to Be Powerful but Cheap
People can do this currently with food stamps too (by selling them for 80% of face value or whatever), so it's not a new situation. So I'd say yes, we obviously can't give people unlimited funds.
Sigh. I feel so old right now.
While many are saying the bubble is popping I feel like it's just correcting itself. Other companies with high evaluations actually have a business model and hopefully shouldn't suffer the same fate.
Would have been nice to know why Twitter's is hell. This article felt like some words made up around 2 charts, with little context.
I've been to Japan a bunch of times via credit card miles and my system is something like this:

1) Get the Delta AmEx & blow through all spending rewards as fast as possible at the beginning of the year.

2) Switch to AmEx Platinum charge card for the rest of the year.

3) Churn a new Visa every year or whenever I see a sweet sign-up bonus.
AirBNB (and Uber) don't own or control any of the property that they are collecting transactions and fees on. They rely on extraction of value from independent contractors; if a viable alternative exists, those contractors can dump them in seconds (or however long it takes to download the alternative app/website).