skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They reject capitalism because capitalism has been turned into "crony capitalism". They hate big corporations, because big corporations go out and buy politicians who then pass favorable laws only for those corporations, but not necessarily favorable to the people as well.

If this didn't happen so pervasively I don't think millennials would be that mad about capitalism. To fix this, bring back real democracy in the US (and I mean that as a generic "People's voice must be heard" term, not as direct democracy or mob rule, as many often misconstrue such comments).

Relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
Ask HN: College hijacking all SSL certificates?
So I'm in college right now, and I noticed on my phone while connected to the college WiFi that all sites with SSL were failing to load because of a certificate error. When opening the certificate information, every single site had the same cert: issued by sw-5400-bingle

Same on the computers, only it has a green padlock here.

I know why it's possible and why it's red on phone and green on computers, but what I don't know is what the implications are. Can the college view confidential information? Can they change information in transit? At what point in the network is the hijack happening?

Is this legal/ethical?
This article doesn't seem to suggest a widespread adoption of socialist ideology as much as a thorough dissatisfaction with the reality of capitalism today.

It'd be surprising to me if a majority of polled youths did support "capitalism" given the state of affairs (impending climate doom, eternal crisis, unemployment, corruption, inequality).
Yep. I got one too, and see no need to upgrade anytime soon.
Much like communism, right?
Many monopolies are natural and the free market concept isn't infallible. That a truly free market doesn't exist might hint that it's not possible. True communism has never happened either.
> Capitalism is not the perfect system, it's better than the alternatives

This is really not generally true. I would gladly take socialism in the Czechoslovakia over capitalism in some third world country (say Pinochet's Chile). Capitalism worked very well in the West after the WWII, but that system had strong elements of socialism, too. But it's important to realize that for many third world countries, capitalism was not a success.

On the other hand, what was generally successful was democratic governance (maybe with exception of India and China). This is often conflated with (real world) capitalism (and dictatorship with socialism). But they really are pretty much orthogonal ideological axes.
Isn't pure capitalism also the inability of the government to prevent/dissolve coercive monopolies?
Alternatively, a rebellion against a system that screwed our parents (loss of labor jobs, mortgage crises) and is now screwing us (student loans, mass youth unemployment, climate change).

Capitalism did a lot of good and then in order to really juice it for everything it had, we let it run wild. Now we're seeing the pendulum swing back. So we agree there, but I don't think it's a matter of youthful rebellion. It's the only logical stance for our generation to take.
By real autocompletion dropdowns, I mean dropdowns which are different from editing buffer. That means whatever is the colour of the code/background underneath, they won't blend in in confusing ways. VIM does coloured completion drop-downs, but they're still just buffer-like text. Unless you mess with your theme manually, there's a chance it will blend in and confuse you one day, because there's no real frame around it.

As for markers, I know they're supported by Vim. That's why I'm saying better. For example Vim can't do single-pixel column marker (or specifically, create a line between columns). I can do hacks to highlight one column only (100th for example), but then highlight/copy on the terminal is broken, because in reality I just have spaces displayed after my code. Similar thing with region folds - they don't need to take the whole text row and the description of the fold can go off-buffer on a side.

Basically you can do everything with text. You can even print out "this is a placeholder for an image of a sad green frog looking at a computer screen". But actually displaying that picture is better ;)
The article is about rejecting capitalism, not about rejecting free markets. Regarding europe at large, including france and even UK to some extent, the difference between american style capitalism and social democracy is whether the Capitalists or the Democracy have primacy in the society. It's not about choosing exclusively one of the two.
How can a watch, worn on the wrist, have any idea of whether your back is straight, curved, or whether you're rolling your shoulders when doing a squat, or over-head press?

Edit: PS. "Muscle Confusion" is not generally regarded as a real thing.
Exactly. I was commenting on how those are not real examples of socialism - you can own property in Venezuela for example. North Korea is more of an example of a dictatorship than anything else.
First off. Economists define "poverty rate" in a slightly cheeky manner:

"The poverty rate is the ratio of the number of people who fall below the poverty line and the total population; the poverty line is here taken as half the median household income."

This means that if the middle class is 5% better off after one year and the lower class is only 2% better off, then the poverty rate will go up. Eventhough all households are doing better.

The same goes in reverse. If the middle class is 5% worse off after one year and the lower class is only 2% worse off, then the poverty rate will go down. Eventhough everyone is doing worse.

This does not mean that the number is meaningless; it just cannot stand on its own.

Secondly. Japan is much nicer with those bad things that hurt the lower classes in other societies:

Crime is much lower, relatively few people in prisons. And the public school system is of very high standard.
This is why I mentioned _coercive_ monopolies. Natural monopolies are OK (e.g. Google search), as long as nobody tries to protect them by law and force.
Social Market Capitalism is the best working system we have currently – but a lot of people are working against it.
What you call "crony capitalism", I call it capitalism in the real world.

In my opinion people are not questioning the efficiency of democracy, but the legitimacy of the capital accumulation mechanism.
Who is this capitalism you're speaking of? I want to meet him.
Virtually every rural area in Japan has expat English teachers. In my immediate area there are probably 10 or 20 people who are native English speakers. I think that's typical. I tend hang out with Japanese people since I speak Japanese and my wife is Japanese, but it's not terribly difficult to get by without much Japanese language skill, especially if you are young.
Capitalism is more specific than that; you also need private property, including of firms.
> there is generally an expectation that 19/20 year olds are going to be more revolutionary than their elders

I'd love to see some references to this statement. A quote from a 19th century Swedish king is hardly compelling evidence.

I think you might be confusing socialism with activism in general.
q: "do you support capitalism"

a: "not in the way it treats engineers as 'resources', and cronies, friends and relatives as 'management' as but in principal yes"

q: "i need a yes/no answer"

a: ".."

q: "so i'm putting down no"

a: "whatever".

fun fact: If the fortune 500 were a country it would have the second largest GDP in the world.

Most of you here reject or would like to run away from that institutional form of capitalism anyway to a good startup.
Nor without socialism. There are no millennials advocating USSR style communism. They're advocating a move away from unbridled '00s capitalism.
Rotonde: the IOT library
There's always gonna be endless debate about terms...

Let's just say that what I call communism is what happened in Russia. And that it was supposed to be an intermediary step toward socialism. The idea was State owned means of production ==> totally democratic ownership everyone is free no need for a state bliss
But they’re a very different form – usually known as "Social Market Economy" from the Capitalist economy common in the US.
Where do we really have (free market) capitalism in the world?

I once read something about how traffic works best when 100% regulated or 0% regulated. Everything in the middle is sub-optimal. That's what we seeing with capitalism at the moment. Everything is half-regulated. There are many people who got a big part of the global wealth and many of them inherited it from people that had it before the world switched away from kings and queens.
There is no "perfect system" in the same way that there is no "perfect algorithm", unless you can define the goal.

What is the best sorting algorithm? Is it the one that sorts a random list in the shortest time? Or the one that uses the least memory? Most likely we'll pick by balancing a few important metrics, which leaves us with "optimal". Far from perfect.

If we're discussing Capitalism vs Socialism, instead of criticizing the opposition for ignorance (like every comment below the WashPo story), let's accept that different groups are optimizing for different goals. And there are so many competing objectives: efficient distribution of wealth, national economic growth, safety net for unlucky/disadvantaged, protecting shared resources (environment), etc etc etc.
It actually makes less sense than that. The poverty line in the US was calculated one year based on some percentage of the median wage. Don't remember what year that was. But since then they just keep adjusting it by the CPI.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Seriously, this is stupid. It's a poll about words, not really about politics.

I'm sure almost all would agree that either complete capitalism or complete socialism would be bad. Everyone actually agrees that there needs to be a balance.
No. This notion originated in the theory of none other than Vladimir Lenin, who took Marx framework and extended it. See his famous "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" essay.

While this essay is not without merit, I doubt that Lenin can be counted as the expert on what capitalism is.
You can also reject sunlight if you want to. Guess who you're screwing up?
Indeed. You haven't really worked stage until you've accidentally yanked a cable that's still connected to something on the other end.
except when there is a general shortage of workforce
So what do you think dissolved the rich and well-developed middle class that millennials never saw?
Chess, Go and now foosball: AI is coming for you
HTTP/2 server Push available for almost 90% of Internet users
As an aside, the use of the term "poaching" always bugged me. It implies that an employee is owned by a company like some deer in the King's forest.
That's basically a reverse appeal to authority.

"Lenin had that idea and Lenin was a bad guy" isn't a real argument on why you disagree with the idea. Please explain why, I'm actually interested in understanding your point of view.
Wheat fungus, not yeast fungus.
Anything that gives an actor power over other actors – so everything that includes a monopoly, and where actors can’t switch to competitors without moving into another area – is better left to an administration of that area, usually a state, federation, etc.
GitHub has 880,114 open pull requests
> Capitalism is free competitive markets and inability to lobby the government into protecting coercive monopolies

Isn't more the definition of classical liberalism rather than capitalism as an economical system ? Because you could argue that China's economy is capitalist yet there is virtually no difference between the state and most of the Chinese industry.
Sorting arrays is such a capitalist concept.
All array elements should be treated equally.
There, sorted in O(1).
The predictability of Nix environments is good for "one" machine too.

Just download your configuration.nix (and dotfiles) on another machine and you're pretty much safe.
I feel that this is only the first of a series of scandals in which respectable companies and institutions will be found to have done nefarious and harmful things: attempting to secrete their misdeeds in the seemingly impenetrable and arcane minutiae of everyday software.
It looks like Levien's own Inconsolata. I notice it has those ever so slightly curving t's.
From the Sanders/Clinton age divide apparent in exit polls, we might deduce that somewhere between 40 and 50 is the new 25. And to me that makes some sense. Baby boomers grew up in a world where you could get a decent paying blue collar job for life, and buy a house on a single income. You can afford to be individualist when you have that level of security. Young people today don't feel they have that and are looking for an alternative.
Free markets mean free trade. You can't freely trade anything without private property, can you?

A corporation is just the convenient legal form to aggregate earnings and liabilities from cooperative action.
Rejection of the current crony capitalism doesn't imply socialism.

A right winger can dislike how it makes markets lazy through government protection, and making entry and exit difficult.

A left winger can criticise the inefficiency of outcomes in monopolistic markets, and the unfairness of outcomes based on initial endowments.

The current status quo is very traditional: those in charge take every opportunity to enrich themselves either legally, illegally or by rigging the law.
There is the question of what we mean by capitalism.

Is capitalism simply the state of affairs of contemporary Western society?

In that case, capitalism includes things like labor unions, state regulations, corruption, etc. So the word refers to a very dynamic and tumultuous process involving constant struggle between opposing forces.

That's never going to be a "perfect system" of course. What we think of as opposition to capitalism is then a big part of how the system regulates itself.

But maybe capitalism is more correctly thought of as a certain set of forces and structures operating in the larger state of affairs.

For example, capitalism is whatever is advocated for by those who own and manage concentrated capital. Then, too, opposing this should be natural for anyone who doesn't belong to that class and doesn't expect to.

I'm just saying that the concept "capitalism" deserves analysis if we want to talk about whether it's good or bad and to what degree "we" should oppose it or try to change it.
Well, no. T-Online (and T-Mobile) as companies owned majorly by the German government have shown well that they always operate worse than competitors.

Just like DHL (also owned by the German government in majority) has shown the same.
They see social democracies in Europe, and cherry pick the policies they like (broad government spending), ignoring the ones that actually allow Europe to generate enough wealth to support their welfare states.

Also - something to realize about Europe:
The poor in the US are RICHER than middle class in much of europe.

"A person at 60% of median income in the US still has a larger income than the median household in Chile, Czech Rep., Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and several others. And the poverty income in the US is very close to matching the median income in Italy, Japan, Spain, and the UK."

https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-...
The capital gains tax is lower than the taxes on employment. Wouldn't this mean that owning is favored by the society?
> which currently has the longest life expectancy, and one of the lowest crime rates

lowest reported life expectancy, lowest reported crime rate.
How do you define force?

If natural monopolies are left unchecked to grow in power, how can you be sure that they won't become powerful enough to use force to protect their or their cartels' interests?
Capitalism as it’s implemented in the US, or Stalinism and Maoism as implemented in Mao’s China or the USSR are not the solution, sure.

But the answer has to be a balance – one which Social Democracies have shown to be quite stable.
It is in the Lift Regulations 1997:

* http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/831/schedule/1/parag...

In accordance with the 1995 EU Directive:

* http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...

But it is not retroactive:

* http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/831/regulation/5/mad...

However, there were of course earlier regulations.

* http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/2748/schedule/1/made
So for extra karma, someone can post this: https://github.com/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen
Intel's new strategy moves away from the PC
I just upgraded from being a long time iPhone user to a nexus6p and an delighted. Most of the UI makes more sense to me. The camera is amazing and the integration with Google apps as first class apps is a positive. Being able to voice command the device without a power cord plugged in is an added benefit. I can't imagine going back to iPhones.
I think that was a calculated move. The dirt farmers aren't supposed to like American Apparel.
What I learned from being an African Prince
Is there reason to believe they are both significantly misreported in Japan, compared to the US and EU? Genuine question as I've never seen otherwise but would be interested in reading about it.

=====

I found this article about under reported crime, but couldn't find anything about the life expectancy being wrong.

Japan's Police See No Evil (LA Times)
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9
Word "free" in "free market" refers to choice of producers by consumers and competition. You can conceivably have that even if there is a restriction on capital accumulation.
Free Photoshop plugin with over 700 Google fonts
Apple's probably just biding its time with the iPhone while it works to soup-up the Apple Watch - add cellular, more power, more battery, smaller package.

I reckon the iPhone (and maybe iPad) will transition into just a dumb accessory screens.

My thinking is that this follows the trend: Desktop (power on your desk) -> Laptop (power in your bag) -> Smartphone (power in your pocket) -> Watch? (power on your person)
The main advantage is Rust's ownership model. It allows you to catch most memory problems at compile time.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ownership.html
She had to go, regardless of the immediate consequences. Yes Temer, Cunha and the others are thieves. THIEVES. However so is Lula and also, Dilma. Unless she is chronically, grossly, impossibly negligent and incompetent, she knew what went on in Petrobras regardless of what the kangaroo inquiry who condemned no one of matter said. $2B dollars went down the drain. She had to go.
Yes, but once a monopoly happens, that market is no longer free, competition becoming impossible without regulation. A monopoly can also supply virtually unlimited resources for expanding in other markets without breaking any antitrust laws.

The only thing that can break monopolies naturally is technologicall progress, because only new technologies can make older monopolies obsolete. But then again, relying on a constant stream of innovation to keep our economy from collapsing seems like a losing battle. And also, lately technology is all about making rich people richer and poor people poorer. So much for hope.
I lived in America for almost 40 years. I'm familiar with the place.
Firefox 46 supports some -webkit prefixed CSS properties
Unfortunately, such behaviour is all too widespread. I don't think anybody believes that the fraud is limited to VW, or that this type of fraud is limited to the automotive industry.

If you previously thought that your car was environmentally friendly, you are being forced to think again.

What do you still believe to be true?

Do you think your bank account is protected from thieves?

Do you think that your railway journey is safe?

What about your flight to your next holiday destination?

What about the nuclear power plant down the road?

The systems that we have to keep our weapons secure and safely out of the hands of terrorists?

All these things depend on software. We have to think again about complexity. We have to think again about the role of software in our society. We have to think again about what transparency and trust really mean for a technologically advanced society.
That's true. I've only seen pictures of those.
Unemployment has remained very low as well, considering their demographic changes Japan is doing quite well.
Visual Marketing Tricks: Hope you are not missing out any
And now that we've stated both boundary conditions, we can have a productive discussion - is the pay allocation in a hospital arranged optimally in terms of lifes saved and if not, then how can we shift the arrangement (i.e. who should be paid more, and who less) to maximize the effectiveness of that hospital in saving lives?
Isn't that the same with computers? They introduce new connectors to overcome limitations in the old ones. Moore's law is the reason for this I assume.
I work on safety critical systems. At least 80% of the work for building such a system is not critical for the actual quality of the product, but is necessary to satisfy compliance rules. Documentation of the development process is really extensive.
One word that is conspicuously absent from this articles and the comments so far, is "SCARCITY". Both socialism and capitalism are systems designed to deal with scarcity (and often, to generate it as well, since as systems, (and the stake holders in those systems), they benefit from scarcity.

The problem we have now is to establish a new system (or systems), to deal with abondance, or at least greatly reduced scarcity. If the stakeholders of the old systems don't prevent us, eg. by declaring a very destructive WWIII.
Middle class is currently far from being dissolved. Jobs are still there, salaries are paid, taxes are collected.

As for "what caused the crisis of jobs and industrial society", the answer is of course automation (this is one thing where Marx was right). The full-blown crisis was imminent 100 years ago (which is why socialist regimes appeared), but it was delayed by two world wars (there are no unemployed in wartime), the Cold war, and rise of the clerks / bureaucracy.

Socialism was Marx's answer to the idea of automation of production, but it didn't work out 100 years ago. It will not work now as well. We have to think of something new.
Robotics narratives: If I only had a brain
It's because of Moore's law. Power consumption decreases, size decreases, and of course throughput increases as well. When that happens, connectors must change.
That argument assumes that there are only two ways to organize productive activity: capitalist profit-seeking corporations or national governments. Anarchist thought, for example, rejects that premise.
I am in favor of socialism, and if I was forced to choose between "socialism" and "capitalism" on a survey I would pick socialism. But this does not mean I reject capitalism. I am generally in favor of free markets and private property. But I want taxes on externalities (eg. pollution), and I want enough wealth redistribution to prevent the kind of extreme inequality we see in America and similar countries. Countries generally considered capitalist already have some taxation and wealth redistribution. The question of "capitalist" as the article calls it vs. "socialist" is a matter of degree, not a binary choice. I think we should move further towards the socialist side, but that does not mean I want a centrally planned economy and everybody to have exactly the same wealth.
Interesting to see that whenever one refreshes the page - the number changes.

Curious to see issue-per-minute value :D
Write me an e-mail when you do, please: adrian_neumann@gmx.de.