skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If society values innovation (questionable!), UBI totally makes sense. How many skilled, capable people are working bad jobs or are afraid to start a venture because they're concerned about ending up on the street? Safety nets encourage risk taking, and risk taking is necessary for innovation. This always gets characterized as subsidizing free-loaders, but perhaps naively, I think most people want to have an impact on the world, and you don't need to threaten them with starvation to get them to do important work. You only need to threaten them with starvation if you're asking them to work against their interests.
Mental fatigue: Costs and benefits (2008) [pdf]
There were other ways to leak symbols before that method was added. They were never foolproof.
The disturbing thing today about smart TVs in particular is that it's increasingly difficult to buy a TV without those features. Personally, I have no interest in them even without the obvious security and privacy concerns. I want my TV and speakers to be as good as possible at showing pictures and making sounds, and to accept signals from whatever sources I want to use in sensible ways. Everything else is just more cost, more scope for failure, and less future-proofing.

The really disturbing thing about a lot of these IoT devices with sensors and remote communications in the future will be when they no longer rely on an explicit Internet connection being provided via the home network, and instead use some sort of mesh arrangement where they can get online independently and you won't even know about it. At that point, I think robust laws about both disclosure and the ability to opt out will probably be necessary.
But you can't be bothered to explain where I've gone wrong? That's too bad.

Regarding hoarding, do you think I meant they're keeping it under a mattress? Hoarding (which I'll admit is poor word choice and inflammatory) means they're allowed by policy to keep more than they ought to be if we want a UBI, or to raise up the lowest end of income spectrum.
That's not quite true. Measuremnet=entanglement can lead to MWI, but there is at least one tenable alternative to MWI which is variously called QIT (the quantum-information-theoretic view) or the Ithaca Interpretation ("We are correlations without correlata") or, my favorite (because I invented it) the zero-worlds interpretation. Even Everett, who invented MWI didn't call it that. He called it the "relative-state" interpretation, which is actually much closer to truth than "many-worlds".

But even though MWI is "correct" in some sense, it has a similar problem with its pedagogy as the more common Copenhagen interpretation (measurement is special, wavefunction collapse is a real physical phenomenon) which causes almost as much confusion: MWI is usually presented as "When you make a measurement, what was previously one universe before the measurement splits into two universes after the measurement." That's wrong. Nothing "splits" during a measurement. There are exactly "as many universes" (I put this in scare quotes because the line between universes is not sharp and so the number of them is not well defined) before a measurement as after.

For a more detailed critique of MWI see http://blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/on-shadow-photons-and-rea...
Seems to be fixed now.
If you chose the wrong abstraction for the project, it's often reflected in the logical structure of the app and it takes some serious creativity to correct it without changing the UI very much, IME.

Often the things that make the app hard to work on also make it hard to use.
I'd be very interested in your product, except your website completely fails at convincing me. The way it's presented, I pay you $85 for a framboise tart, and I have to bake it myself on top. I might as well buynit already made, for cheaper, and at least I won't mess it up.

If you really have a product that helps me repeatedly and reliably make such tarts, then show it.
Side observation: what is with the recent trend in clickbait headlines utilizing this notion of "hardly anyone noticed". I've certainly noticed an uptick in this phrase on a few stories just this week in the news cycle.

Did the reporter go door to door and ask if anyone noticed X? There have been many stories in the last year regarding Uber's regulatory woes and how the company is fighting back. Out of all the many recurring clickbait tactics, "hardly anyone noticed" has to be one that immediately raises the most red flags for me, not to mention how insulting it is.
You could look at the idea of people creating art, new business, making movies as something that you and your family could benefit from.

Art, one could argue, is the whole point isn't it? Otherwise, what else do we as a species leave behind?
The reason that folks on HN are so in favor of UBI is that large numbers of us are employed as software engineers. We automate things that were previously done by humans. We make our money by destroying jobs. From a gods-eye perspective, this is actually a good thing, as it brings down the costs of serving peoples' needs. From the perspective of someone who loses their job, it sucks because that person now has no way to feed themselves. So, we want to get around that by being able to say to someone: "Here is a free $700/month. Move to rural Maine and spend 6 months learning to code and eating food delivered by the driverless truck which stole your job. Then join us in automating more people's jobs away."

Why not Universal Basic Sex? Very few people think that sex is a basic right or think that the existence of sexually frustrated folks indicates a flaw on the part of society. Most people don't put sex and food/shelter/medicine/etc in the same categories. Also, HN readers aren't doing things to make sex harder to find, so we feel no responsibility for people's sexual frustration. Also, we can't really automate the production of sex. If someone wants to seriously argue that we should give everyone a free Autoblow 2...well I would be interested in reading that argument.
let f = function() { ... g(); ... }
let g = function() { ... f(); ... }
f();

Works despite the temporal dead zone and depends on hoisting. This exact example is why hoisting was kept for let.
$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security would cost about $2 Trillion per year.
To put that into perspective, Social Security cost $1.3 Trillion in 2013. The cost of all social welfare programs was $529 Billion. The GDP came in at around 17 Trillion.

The US could afford it if we really wanted to.

- Is it inflationary? Prima facia, it has to be. But then it would also increase the flow of money and put more people to work in places that the $1,000 gets spent.

- Is it fair? If every American receives it, regardless of their wealth, then I don't see how it would be unfair.

- Is it realistic politically? It seems that the US was pretty close to something along these lines in the 60's[0] and Obama finally got universal health care through. Perhaps it is realistic enough to at least put a true, modern pilot program in place and convince ourselves one way or the other. It really seems better than the alternative: Status quo for the homeless and the poor.

A real value is that lower financial stress across the entire country would free parents to focus more on raising their kids. Many, many social problems subside when families do better.

So my question is, how can we construct a valid experiment to convince ourselves one way or the other that this will benefit society overall, and provide enough value to actually do it?

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%...
"fuck you, got mine"
> Isn't it common sense to at least set a randomly generated password as the default one

You're increasing your support cost by a factor of 100 to 500, and that's a very conservative estimation.
Is that mostly a faster feedback loop and better errors thing? It seems like so long as the generated code doesn't get as far as compiling, it doesn't make that much of a difference?

(this could easily be a stupid question; I know I've come across as condescending to you before by mistake and if I've somehow done it again please believe that I meant to come across as genuinely curious :)
"How would you guys feel about deploying such a project for 300 people?"

As long as they don't all try to connect at the same time you should be fine.
The magazine Free & Easy is all about these brands
Lomonosov’s Discovery of Venus Atmosphere in 1761
If we really could have a system where we could just stop working and have basic income that would be the great liberation of the masses.

But all these basic income proposals require people to pay taxes to support us.

I've lived on 20k a year with almost no required work. And I've lived on 200k with a job. I'd pick the former everyday and twice on Sunday.

So I don't have some moral problem with not working. The problem is the tax base would implode and there wouldn't be anyone left paying the bills. The system would collapse.

Maybe if software actually eats the world but not until then.
At present time, Java8 is acceptable (wit lambdas, RxJava, etc.). But yes, you are right: Spring, Hibernate, JBoss, etc. are huge reason to quit.

My own web projects in java 15 years ago were coded in java and glued by JavaScript (Rhino) with templates in JavaScript, which were compiled into bytecode for speed: fast, secure, simple, 10x faster to code.
> What does the C++ code print? If you guessed wrong, don't worry. You're in good company. If you guessed right, congrats!

How do I knowwww????
Hm... you wrote your whole post assuming that the manager did something wrong after initiating the relationship (e.g. didn't report the relationship, didn't make sure the team was OK with it, didn't take care of any potential conflicts of interest, ...). My point in mentioning marriage was just that clearly, the subordinate was OK with the whole relationship thing. So, after the fact, the flirting was clearly not wrong/immoral/inappropriate.

So, assuming everything was done correctly ("by the book") after the relationship had begun, would you still consider flirting inappropriate in all circumstances?

> 2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.

In an ideal world, this would be awesome. In the real world, people fall in love unexpectedly (even if they don't want to). What do you want them to do in that case? Repress their feelings, hide and lie about their relationship, quit their jobs hoping that it was worth it? I firmly believe that reasonable, emotionally mature people are able to handle relationships (and breakups) in a normal, not psychopathic or disturbing way.
If you make slight alterations to the text and replace Russia with the US, you have pretty much the same narrative

Edit, on mobile:

Moscow — A GLOBAL inquiry announced this week that Edward Snowden, an American security officer turned defector who fled to Russia was gantrd asylum by President Vladimir V. Putin. That’s little surprise. For more than eight years the world has suspected that the America was behind a global electronic survellience monitoring program seeking to undermine encryption technology and state soveriegnity (Just as surely, Mr. Obama has denied his responsibility. His spokesman [all lettered agencies] denounced the inquiry as a “quasi investigation” and an expression of the “pro terrorist rhetoric" that opponents so often have.

In the years since Snowdens exile, the American government has engaged in an array of brazen acts: cyberattacks on Iran, China, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, created stuxnet, and spent 2001 to 2015 occupying other countries with the aid of superior military technology and manpower.

The covert operations to annex computing power and destabilize not only the middle east, but the technology ecosystem came to a head in 2014.

So was Mr. Snowdens exile the start of a new era of dirty tricks?

It may have seemed like a good idea at the time and probably in the immediate aftermath; the American government viewed it as a success that deterred others in the security community from opposition activities. But the political price Anerica paid was considerable; it solidified the image of Mr. Obama's America as a rogue state.
Mr. Obama might like to act as if America is a world unto itself. It’s not. Modern America is thoroughly integrated into global markets and institutions. It seeks foreign manufacturing and energy partners abroad.

Anericas elites vacation in Italy, bank in London and send their children to French universities. They can’t afford the repercussions of transnational assassination plots or destabilization of American competitiveness.
Answers like this consider a society of one (or one plus family) and doesn't comprehend how the health and well being of a society directly correlates to the health and well being of the one.

But put that aside for a second. You also get this basic income, which is basically just printed money, so your taxes aren't helping someone else create art with UBI (but they sure are now, in actual reality). Your moral outrage about someone "creating art" as though it's less hard than your job is laughable, and oh by the way, your reward is income far above UBI, so you exist on a different financial plane for your hard work anyway.

But lower crime and happier people and less burden on courts and properly fed kids that lead to a better educated generation and less terrible schools in inner cities and every other benefit you receive from basic income and not one ounce of your "hard work" is just a step too far for you?
Is that at all useful when trying to decide what to do next?

Okay, so an MVP is a product with the absolute minimal set of features necessary. How do you find that core of features? How do you determine which feature you will add (or test) next? How should you build it? Who should you put it in front of?

The advantage of this article is that it provides some answers for those questions. You should build the riskiest feature next. You should build it in the absolute fastest way that will let you have reasonable confidence in the result of your experiment. You should expect to throw out many versions before you find one that works.

It still leaves many questions unanswered - how do you decide what is the riskiest feature? Is there an easier way to test what you'd like to test? But at least it gets you closer to having an actionable plan to reliably figure out market needs.

It's great to have a concrete definition of what an MVP means, but if the result of that definition is that the process of building a startup is "Do you have an MVP?" "Nope." "Do you have an MVP?" "Nope." "Do you have an MVP?" etc, then so what?
I think that what you describe is a good thing, when you look at the complete picture.

GBI could (should?) function, effectively, like a negative income tax -- below a certain income level the government pays you. Above that level, you earn nothing from the government, because you're making more than some specific threshold already (probably at least 1.5x GBI, preferably higher [1]).

So yes, it would discourage people from going to a new country for fun and lounging around there and not working. People who want to move to a new country should do it because there's a job for them in that new country, and if it doesn't pay above the GBI threshold, then yes, they should probably stay home. If you're a consultant who can work from anywhere, and you make more than the cutoff (which I would hope!), then GBI is similarly irrelevant.

GBI for a backup income while you're starting a company is also something to think about: Where would the US prefer that you start a company? Here, of course. So I think that GBI encouraging people to work in the country is absolutely appropriate.

Finally, GBI could be provided to US citizens and permanent residents who spend more than X% of their time in the country. If that's 51%, then you could spend nearly six months in another country getting situated before GBI would cut off, which should be more than enough time to pick up a job there. Even if it only paid you for 2-3 months of living abroad, that's not bad for a paid vacation and/or job hunt.

[1] This may be obvious to most; apologies in advance. If you phase out GBI at a 1:1 rate with what you earn, as in, if you earn $10, you get $10 less GBI, then taking a job that paid less than GBI would earn you nothing (unless you're being paid under the table, but let's assume we don't want to encourage people to cheat). EDIT: My math was wrong. The idea is that you set the marginal tax rates such that every dollar you earn earns you more money, but that by the time your income is at some arbitrary level, you're paying more than GBI in taxes. Figuring out the exact rate curve is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)
Pressure.js – 3D and Pressure touch JavaScript library
Do we need this story over and over? Nothing new is ever said, and the comments are just as predictable. I get that some segment of HN thinks this is super important and should be constantly flogged but I question the purpose.
Yep, a universal basic income guaranteed by government (using violence at gunpoint to redistribute other people's money). The socialists leave out the part in brackets.
If you know what you are doing, the C11/C++11 memory model (or another one with roughly the same features, like the linux kernel memory model) and how a computer actually works, I don't think you will find a single architecture on which an atomic implementation of Lock-free Single Producer, Single Consumer (SPSC) queue will not outperform a spinlock.

If you use overkill sequential consistency to do that, you might actually end up slower in some cases.

Given the amount of expertise you need to use atomics properly (far more difficult than sticking to critical sections), it might as well be preferable to stick with those at application level unless you really need extreme performance and know the applicable memory model and the corresponding target stack (maybe processor architecture, maybe C11/C++11 memory model if you use it, maybe additional compiler guarantee on that and related stuffs, maybe all at the same time).

Not that in the end an acquire / release pattern is so hard to understand, but in my experience programmers already can't even stick to properly using critical sections as in textbooks (not even talking about what happens when the textbook is a piece of shit, like when it presents double-checked locking without any regard to the model needed for it to work properly => people end up writing that in C++ on plain variables...).

Really, stick to the (good) textbooks and the simplest patterns if you don't know enough about memory models and how processors and compilers work in 2016... How fast you execute buggy code is not a very interesting property, sequential consistency is expensive in lots of cases, and using weaker atomic is incredibly difficult (each time I think I know enough about weak atomics I found something that explain how various model are subtly weaker than I previously thought, not even talking about the fact that the C11/C++11 model is subtly formally unsound and compilers actually not formally respect it... so much if you try to prove some algorithms)
The tone of that article is very confusing. What's the point he's trying to make? (honest question)
Although the TEL seems inexcusable, I'm not convinced that the second point about CFC's is fair.

Yes, they destroy the ozone layer, but that wasn't known at the time Midgley invented them, and they replaced refrigerants that were corrosive and poisonous.

I also question this line: "Beneficial ozone is not terrible abundant, however. If it were distributed evenly throughout the stratosphere, it would form a layer just 2 millimeters or so thick."

How would evenly distributed ozone create a layer? Something seems wrong with the research here.
Ah. Royal we. Nice.

Downmod bot has got me in its sights.
Why pay for roads other people use or public education or the fire department? There are plenty of things you're not using right now that are good ideas.
There has been documented tests of railguns launching raw material around those speeds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Tests). As the sibling comment said, there's no reason to limit ourselves to 3g (yet), and indeed someone laid out a plan to launch material to space with a railgun, where the first "stage" would be a railgun and the second stage would be a traditional rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Launch_or_launch_assis...). It says that acceleration can reach a little less than 2000g. Unfortunately I haven't found any realization of this.
Not at all!

Yes, to me, it's largely about better errors and such. If th generated code is wrong, it won't compile, so it's not _that_ level of bad. But this can't happen in Rust: http://tgceec.tumblr.com/
This, along with the topic link, give me the impression that the Internet of Things can't possibly work, not in the medium/long run. Not without a huge shift in how manufacturers and developers think about security and maintenance of devices deployed in the field.

As long as the general approach remains "take a device, slap some nodejs on it, deploy" then the whole endeavour is doomed to a spectacular (and potentiall bloody) failure.
Sudo: Create special-purpose identities for any situation
I still don't fully understand the break/continue/return argument, at all. I should bug someone to actually write this up.
Probably one of the few times I've enjoyed an ad, useful and interesting! good job threadbase
The concern is that the loss of workers will hurt production/the economy/etc.

If right now, people are willing to do simple work for minimum wage, but we change the system so that people want twice as much before working, then anything that depends on that kind of labor goes up in price, with ripple effects. If less people work, less goods are produced, and prices go up. Similarly, if more people are buying things with their guaranteed income, there's more demand, and prices go up.

This has nothing to do with judging people for choosing not to work, despite what you claimed.

Do you understand that opposition to this idea might not be motivated by wanting to have a system "take advantage " of people? It sounds like you don't, from what you wrote.
Your making assumptions that people who rely on it will put their time to good use when a great many of them are not currently do so, why would they change with even less reason?

Incentive to work would more like incentive to receive even more benefits for other items. The problem is politicians, suddenly there will be all sorts of new exceptions to your BI "because". Then we are back to square one.

I see most BI suggestions as rationalization for giving up. Face it, there are a lot of people who would be and even some who are living at a level none of us can fathom. Do we really want to legislate an permanent poor class of people, one where there is likely more incentive to not leave it?

Finally how do you plan to prevent self destructive and generally harmful activities some will engage in. There are countless stories of generational incompetence, from high frequency of out of wedlock children if not even out of school, to not even finishing school? How can we incentivize good behavior, good for self and society?
The only winning move is not to play?
But many Democrats would and many Republicans appreciate his pro-NSA stance, his calling for the prosecution of Edward Snowden, and finally his pro Israel government stance. Ultimately he is pretty right wing and his anti-guns thing is consistent with all of the above.
$ g++ test.cpp
$ ./a.out
EDIT---answer removed to let others guess first.