skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your arguments are interesting, but they hold only in systems with artificial inflation controls. UBI increases the amount of money in the economy, which has the same effect as simply printing more, thus the value (scarcity) of the money decreases. A poor mother without UBI will be a poor mother with UBI because costs will simply go up, something you acknowledge.

As costs for services go up, costs of products go up as well. For example, if I'm in the beer business, and the cost for me to bottle a single beer is $.10 per bottle on my assembly line. If labor costs increase under UBI to double that ($.20/per bottle) (because cheap labor is now harder to find), I must increase my sale price by at least the same or go out of business.

Now somebody buying my beer has to pay $.60 more per six-pack, potentially wiping out that fraction of new income UBI was providing them.

The government could come in and say "the price of beer may not increase at all" and set some kind of price control. So now I need to cut $.60 of cost somewhere else in my product.

But wait, it gets worse!

Bottling isn't the only cost for me to make and sell my beer.

- Grain harvest is more expensive - increasing my cost

- Transport costs are more expensive - increasing my cost

- Blank bottles are more expensive - increasing my cost

- Brewing is more expensive - increasing my cost

and so on...

So to prevent inflation I have to cut costs everywhere else. Cheaper glass, worse grain quality, worse brewing methods, worse water supply, and so on. If I can't balance the cost equation I simply go out of business, decreasing the supply of products in the economy and increasing unemployment.

In effect, nobody gets paid more because everybody gets paid more, which drives up prices, which is the definition of inflation. If inflation is artificially capped by price controls, then product quality either goes down, or I go out of business.

It's basic economics.
Rent is a bit higher and restaurants are tad more expensive. Otherwise no.
Communication between the part of the program that runs on the CPU and the part that runs on the GPU is typeless and requires manually marshalling arguments. Javascript programmers will shrug at this, but for people used to strong type checking and better automarshalling of RPC it's very disappointing.
"Rewriting something to reduce technical debt" is the kind of nuclear option you would use if you had money - or developer hours - to burn.

Technical debt is better managed through gradual refactoring as part of the normal development processes. Of course there's still going to be a struggle between taking time to maintain code quality and sales wanting the next feature yesterday, but it's a different argument than "we want to rewrite this in shiny new framework X because someone on Hacker News said so" (not that this exact argument will be used, of course).

Automation I'd see more as a sensible move, if it reduces costs in the long term. Again it may take a back seat to short term priorities, particularly when cash is short.
Well, for his sake I hope he has some sort of direct price manipulation scam going, or at the very least is about to issue some sort of "it was all a test lol!" message -- he has committed reputation suicide regarding his quest to "remove the fear surrounding bitcoin and the blockchain"[1] in every other case.

[1] http://www.drcraigwright.net/about/
> You mention Louis XIV [...]

I mean, that's my point.

The fact that "things are less expensive now" is 100% due to the fact that tech has improved, so the poorest of the poor get now things that were inaccessbile to royalty at that time not because things have improved from a societal point of view. Society's dynamics in terms of balances of power have actually gotten much worse from what they used to be in medieval times - think about that.
Unbundled: How breaking apart rigid structures is creating a personalized future
This is nonsense. Like people saying oh you can lose weight by being cold or breathing harder/more. Sure there is science behind it but in the end it does not promote maintainable lifestyles.

One minute all out may help athletes already in shape push to the next level. Like at the end of my long distance runs, I do a wind-sprint all out.

But regular people doing regular exercise benefit much more mentally from learning HOW to exercise for 45 minutes every day and increasing their metabolism.

If intensity training for a minute was all you needed, you could do sprints in the parking lot to train for a 45 minute 10K. Good luck with that.

Intensity training is good for fast-twitch muscle. Endurance training is good for slow-twitch. The two are not interchangeable.
>I'd rather see unproductive humans digging and re-filling holes in the ground than getting paid to do nothing. Or something like the biking experiment in Black Mirror.

I'd rather people get paid to do nothing than people getting paid to do pointless tasks. I've seen some amazing things people made in their spare time, but I can't imagine anyone making something worthwhile digging and re-filling holes.
>The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built.

The point is that you couldn't have been a software engineer if you'd been born 100 years ago. And demand for software engineers might tank in the future. People who currently enjoy their jobs as software engineers are lucky to be living in a time when it's possible to make a good living doing that. If you'd been born in another time, there might not have been such a good match between what you're good at, what you enjoy, and what's profitable.
I see no real traffic data on that page ;) But yes, this is very far from a high traffic website, and the main profit comes from using it as a tool to build recommendations for user asking for them on other sites, like reddit.

I agree with all your limitations, even the potential problem with affiliate programs – while the one I work with is generally trustworthy, I indeed observed sales that they never registered.

I learned a lot from the site and it was worth it even if that were the end now, lessons I'd take to the next project, but I feel there is still a lot that can be done without going all in and counting on it getting huge.
London house prices visualization, 1995–2016/3
Possibly, when the opened the doors, cleaner air from the inside of the car mixed with the air from outside and lowered the pollution, but I'm just guessing here.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think China, Brazil, and India are all at similar levels of development.
If you sell in another country you are subject to their laws, an obvious example is consumer protection laws. This is a fact. Whether or not you are going to follow any rulings made against you is another matter, in that case all the country can do is try to block you in whichever way they can (like Brazil just did) and possibly prosecute you in absentia.
I said that the guy mowing the lawn is either doing it out of "good will" or "fear". The way I read the post I was responding to was: if UBI existed, less people would be forced into doing stuff they didn't want to do, so there would be less people to mow my lawn because a lot of people wouldn't mow my lawn if they weren't coerced into it therefore we shouldn't stop coercing people into mowing my lawn cause that would mean it would be more expensive and not as many people would be around to mow my lawn.
> It's hard to compare directly.

It is. But still, if we think about the improvements we've had in terms of technology and compare them to the "political" changes in society (which are nil), you gotta sit down and think for a while. We're basically still stuck in 0AD.
He didn't mean "crazy" literally.
>> "eliminating tax credits, disability benefits and housing benefits will net another £110bn, but also render a lot of poor people poorer or even homeless, which is the opposite of what BI is generally proposed to do)"

I don't see how that's true. Isn't the UBI supposed to replace ALL of those programmes with a single number for everyone that is sufficient for everyone? If the UBI provides enough for food and shelter you shouldn't need housing benefits. Disability may be different I suppose but if you cannot meet your needs with UBI due to a disability I think that's something you could probably roll into the NHS where equipment you need but cannot afford is provided to you by them (I haven't really thought that through though it's a very good point you've brought up).
What if we replace the gun and bullet with a bottle rocket? Is it a weapon now?
Apple is now run by a guy who is more like Sculley than Jobs
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: full stack, Ansible, Packer, Vagrant, Linux, Jenkins, PHP, Composer, Silex, Symfony, Zend, WordPress

Resume: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ingussneilands

Email: IngussNeilands [at] gmail [dot] com
This would definitely be very interesting in regards to language study. Repeating the experiment with people which are actively in the progress of learning a new language every few weeks could give some remarkable insight in how the new words are being mapped onto the brain.
No, I'd rather we raise the basic income for every adult enough to the point where the adult can support themselves and ONE (1) child at least for bare necessities like food and shelter.

For what it is worth, I don't think anyone sane would have kids to get money. In fact, you couldn't pay me to have children and raise them. I know what a shitty brat I've been and I'm sure if God or karma exists, I'll get an equally shitty child or worse I'll make a very shitty parent. (Parents: yes, people without kids also have nightmares about fucking up as parents)

Thankfully though many if not most people want children even though it makes no sense. This is good for me because these are the kids who will build and maintain roads, hospitals, and electric lines when our generation can no longer walk without a cane.

I don't think we need to encourage people to have many children. Those who want multiple children should find alternate ways to fund their lifestyle.

Edit: I assume above that basic healthcare for everyone exists with $0 out of pocket even if it is some couple's 99th child.
I was arguing about the effect on GDP, where "not having to pay for child care" appears as a negative effect, a smaller GDP.

From a GDP-maximising point of view, it's better for everyone to contract out every aspect of their household than it is to do it themselves. An economy built on taking in each other's washing has a much higher GDP than one where each does their own. Stepping back from GDP makes that look nonsensical.
I've been a remote worker for over four years, and my experience is this statement is partially true. With a laptop and wifi connection, I can work from any location where I am most productive. Spending every day in the same spare bedroom kills creativity, and a laptop can go anywhere that spurs it.

It saves money if you cast off things you don't need, such as an extra car (my wife and I now car share), business casual clothing, eating out, &c, and if you live somewhere cheap. I live somewhere cheap (Louisiana), so I have a house with a couple of spare bedrooms from which to work.
Countries have managed to avoid chemical or biological attacks against each other since WW2 (Vietnam and Iraq-Iran being notable exceptions AFAIK). Laws of war are generally taken more seriously than the speed limit.
Yeah, I can see that happening soon to be honest.

If Donald Trump doesn't win at the contested convention (if there is one), I wouldn't be surprised if the entire party split.

The same goes for the Bernie Sanders supporters (if Hillary wins the dem. nomination, which she will), but to a lesser extent. There are many Bernie supporters who see Hillary as the same kind of person as Donald Trump, and would never vote for her.

This election is going to be interesting.

I bet the voter turn out will be similar, but I also bet that the actual people who are voting will be different. There are many people who simply won't vote, and there are also many people who are voting for the first time.
Isn't it simple ? most working class jobs are boring. But law, police, medicine, a tv show(rock 30), or just changing jobs and random situation puts you in a lot of variety and that makes comedy easier.

And the expectations of comedy today are far bigger than the 80's. So something had to give.
Really? Child care is easily available to working mothers? House cleaning services are cheap and readily available to all skilled workers? Professionals sit in the back of their car working on their laptop while a driver watches the road?

There are lost of things to do. We have a situation of labor scarcity, not a surplus.

Complaining about a labor surplus right now is like a 350lb man eating french fries on the theory that he might starve in the future.
It's more like hundreds of thousands of writing teams from different cultures and levels of experience sprung up to write collaborative epics in Latin because it had suddenly become cool to do so while bringing the language to the modern world by inventing a new vocabulary and arguing on the correct pronunciation of everything.
I've just used this guy's services and he's a legit black hat hacker, he can handle social network hacks, emails and school grade hacks, he's actually the real deal, I was initially skeptical as I already got scammed before but he did come through, his email is ethicalgenius2015@gmail.com
Home-market, accessories, taxes – I'll do that. Thanks a lot.

Visually appealing proved to be very difficult. This is already many iterations in. I'd need to look at the whole UI with fresh eyes.
> Now Telcordia, a Swedish-owned firm, is being compelled to rewrite the database computer code — a massive undertaking — to assuage concerns from officials at the FBI and Federal Communications Commission that foreign citizens had access to the project. These officials fear that if other countries gain access to the code, they could reap a counterintelligence bonanza, learning the targets of U.S. law enforcement and espionage investigations.

I hope they didn't use an open source database because otherwise the bad guys will have access to that too!

Seriously how stupid are the people in charge of this kind of thing if they can't differentiate between programs and data? Now having a fear that there may be back doors somewhere in there is a valid concern, but the answer to that is sunlight on the code and layers of least privilege on the execution environment.
Skull echoes could become the new passwords for augmented-reality glasses
What's the net economic difference between giving someone $5, which they then spend on soup, and spending $5 to buy soup on their behalf? None. Same for spending $10000 on someone's behalf via services, versus simply giving them $10000 which they then spend on the same services. Who holds the taxpayer provided money when making the final sale for goods or services is moot.

In both cases you're driving up demand, which is what in turn drives up supply. Supply doesn't magically materialize - either someone pays for it with money, or someone pays for it with time not spent earning money, to provide those services or products. As your own graph demonstrates, quantity goes up regardless. What's your "new N=0 point" on the graph?

My point here is not that there aren't issues with funding demand for services with inelastic supply (where large increases in price only lead to small increases in quantity, meaning little good was done.) There are such issues. Instead, my point is that these are not UBI specific issues. They're valid concerns with housing programs and rent controls today, for example.

The real difference of consideration between UBI vs other social welfare programs (when taken as a whole), is how demand might change (lowering in some places while increasing in others) when the ones actually consuming the services get to direct where the dollars are spent, instead of government policymakers.

In theory, replacing social welfare programs with UBI might drive demand away from elastically supplied goods and services, towards inelasticly supplied goods and services. It's far from a given, though - we have plenty of existing government programs for such inelastic things as housing. If you see some fundamental flaw of UBI that would cause demand to shift this way, I've missed it, so please do share.

I'm more concerned by the other factors:

On the one hand, those in need of services in many cases the ones in the best position to know what they need, so the money for those services may be spent more efficiently - especially if there's less waste in red tape bureaucracy, from government organizations unfettered from the pressures of capitalism.

On the other, if you haven't learned how to manage your money, don't know about the things that could best help your situation, or are in the grips of addiction, it may be difficult for you to spend your money wisely.

My understanding is that direct cash influxes to the poor in 3rd world countries has worked pretty well. It's not perfectly analogous to helping out the poor in 1st world countries via UBI, but I'm fairly hopeful it's analogous enough.
It doesn't work that way. Brodlist is not in its final market, for example -- it's in its first market.
Should be clarified that the Cabinet approved the visa but it still requires Parliament's approval.
RE:WedWell - no good vendor would put themselves through his - they’d be too busy making money.

>Not what we're seeing. Were initially focused on the NYC area. There are a huge amount of great vendors who are constantly battling for each wedding here. Plenty are excited to extend their reach. Each market is different, but it makes sense right now in bigger cities.

Also RE: the RFP process. Initially vendors are using their own proposals to iterate with the clients, eventually we see this being baked into the system. Either way, drawing up a proposal has to be done whether you meet the client in person or via our platform. The time savings is the initial iteration is done electronically vs face to face.
Because that's not how markets work. The ones that try would loose all their business to those that didn't.
Such experiments essentially make a point that the main results of training sessions occur not because of the direct action on muscles and calorie burn during the exercise but rather because of some changes in body self-regulation that are triggered by the training session but act throughout the rest of the day/week.

If that 1 minute of 180bpm causes an upregulation of +1bpm (or an increase of base metabolism for calorie burn) for the whole next week in a way that moderate exercise doesn't, then it can quite plausibly have significant effects..
Not trying to be too snarky here, but blue-collaredness and excelling at one's job are quite orthogonal in my head.
Another comment made this point and it's a good one, I hadn't thought about it before. I think when it comes to equipment you could provide that through the NHS (essentially doctors could be in a position to prescribe it). Same goes for a carer. If you need it for health reasons the NHS should be able to prescribe it. I guess then you run into moral issues (e.g. this person doesn't NEED a carer but it would make their life much easier).
Robohub April Digest:FAA Reauthorization, Drone Ships and National Robotics Week
If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. Or they could have the fathers change the diapers.
Perhaps you need to convince the public that having a large government handing out a specific allowance to everyone regardless of how hard they work, is somehow different to communism.
Not necessarily.
In scenario 1 with no basic income the baker only receives what he is paid. If there were no other providers, and the baker would not desire to do this work he could charge more to stay and work.
This would apply until he has competition in one way or another.

In the second scenario, he receives BI, but the same market forces would apply and he would only be able to charge more as long as there are no competitors. Additionally, since everyone will receive BI this will grant people more potential free time. Time they could use to make their own bread in case the baker raises prices.
In this scenario the baker would have less incentive to work but would also have more potential competition in case he raises the prices.
Y Combinator for the dummies
This is where I'm coming from. It's not like this is some attention-seeking teenager on Reddit.

My best guess is that he thought 99% of people would take what he said at face value, and the other 1% would be ignored as nutters, but he judged it wrong.

I guess another alternative is that this is some kind of long-play by the Bitcoin Foundation. They need to establish who Satoshi is for the general public in order for Bitcoin to gain further credibility, but since the real Satoshi won't come forward, they have agreed to put up Craig Wright. They can't put forward the real proof everyone is demanding, but they're hoping that enough good PR will make it widely believed. However, even then, it would only take one bit of evidence from the real Satoshi to prove it wasn't Craig Wright so even this theory doesn't seem very good.
I would like to mention that most, if not all, of the Go compiler and related utilities is written in Go itself, with high quality, open source code that can be found in the "go" package of the standard library:

https://golang.org/pkg/go/

I would recommend using that as a template for one's own compiler, because it's written in idiomatic Go (originally by the language creators) and is cleanly split across abstraction boundaries (packages "scanner", "parser", "ast", and so on.)

There's also a smaller, simpler parser in the "text/template/parse" package, that is used to parse the templating languages in "text/template" and "html/template". As an introduction to it, I recommend the talk "Lexical Scanning in Go" by Rob Pike:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxaD_trXwRE
Because you don't really need a creative outlet, the toilet cleaning job now pays double what it used to and combined with your UBI you can save enough money every few weeks to hit up Vegas, buy a new sports car or fund your wild consumption.
Base64 Encoding in C++
Instapaper founder's new Mac app can automatically quit distracting software
Or instead, give it universally to children, but require a certain percentage be saved in some sort of fund that they are given full control of when they turn 18. That way the parents don't have to shoulder all of the expense of a child, but the child isn't screwed over by irresponsible parents either.
I basically think we all dont have to face all dese deceit and lies from our spouse…in a case of mine when i got sick and tired of all the lies and deceit i had to contact a friend of mine to get me the contact of one of the best hackers in the states ..then i met {masterminditservices@gmail.com)..they saved me from the lies of my cheating girlfriend by hacking her phone.. In case you need help with hacking any phone or account, Hack into any hack websites, Hack into any company website, Hack into any database system and grant your admin priviledge, Hack paypal account, Hack word press blogs Server crashed hack bank account hacking , smartphone and social network hacks, Unlocking , Access to any icloud account , Keylogging , credit card hacks and grade change other jobs..You're guaranteed a smooth job with no traces they are kinda selective so make sure you tell them angelia referred you, Contact {masterminditservices@gmail.com}.
I think you overestimate the training and skill level of most childcare providers.
Fred Wison – The Business Blockchain Book