skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First link in the quick Google search I did, which starts with a story where Henry Ford wanted to stop paying special dividends to partial owners. "At trial, Ford testified to his belief that the company made too much money and had an obligation to benefit the public and the firm’s workers and customers." The judge did no agree. I haven't read the whole article yet, but it seems definitely to apply (and also notes there is little precedent in this area).

1: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20...
The Art of Fiction No. 135: Don DeLillo
> "Inflation" occurs when the money supply increases but the supply of things money can buy does not increase.

There are two different uses of the term "inflation" in economics: one is simply an increase in the money supply ("monetary inflation"), the other is simply increase in nominal prices in either the market as a whole or some segment ("price inflation"); the latter is what is being discussed in the grandparent post. Monetary inflation is a potential cause of price inflation (though there are other potential causes, and other factors can result in monetary inflation without price inflation, so there is no necessary direct relationship.)

You seem to want to restrict "inflation" to mean "monetary inflation producing price inflation", which is narrower than either of the usual definitions.
- From the 2013 data breach

- HaveIBeenPwnd contains the data on sale here
GLOBO needs a Head of Engineering
Even an image created in a physical medium (e.g. oil paints) has a limited resolution. Vector/polygon art is "infinite resolution" (but not infinite detail/complication), and so are some other forms of mathematically-defined images (example: fractals like the Mandelbrot set, which are infinitely detailed as well).
Ah yeah, that's right.. that one Sheriff seems to stay in power. Hmmmm. Definitely a mark in the "con" column.
That's kind of the point, though: Anything can be considered "hate-speech" depending on who you ask. That's why speech needs to remain free.
Because all of these factors will necessarily have to be taken into account when we come up with our speech rules, don't you see?

Sure it's complex, convoluted, and controversial.. but as long as we put the right people in charge to make the decisions for us, it will all work out fairly.
As someone who mainly browse on the phone, I have gotten used to browsing with sound off.

The issue is not that I am hiding from my boss (I have a computer and headphones at work).

The issue is that I don't want everyone in the same room as I am to hear my youtube videos.
Can't you work around the restriction using something like
ProxyCommand /bin/bash --login --rcfile .mybashrc
on ~/.ssh/config?
This is unfortunately not true, though I think the factually incorrect parts (as opposed to those I simply disagree with) are due to misuse of terminology more than anything.

First, the factually incorrect:

> For a long time, lambda-calculus has been seen by a lot of programming language researchers as the foundation of programming to which every other paradigm has to be reduced.

... not really. The lambda calculus is a way to represent computation, which is Turing equivalent; it can encode any computation which a Turing machine can. You can reduce any program to either a Turing machine or the lambda calculus, as they are both capable of representing any computation. The lambda calculus is not inherently functional, or OO, it's much lower level. To be fair, lambda calculus did lead directly to Lisp, which has long been associated with functional programming (though it is also not inherently functional - see Emacs Lisp or Common Lisp).

> Eventually, it became clear that lambda-calculus isn't the basis of all other programming paradigms.

Again, no. The lambda calculus is as much a basis of all other programming paradigms as the turing machine is.

> encoding lambda-calculus into object-orientation

After the above explanation, hopefully it's clear that this statement doesn't really make sense. Again, I'm guessing that this is mostly due to incorrect use of the term "lambda calculus" - you likely meant to use another term.

On to the stuff I just disagree with:

> FP is a special case of OO

Highly disagree. FP and OO are simply two different methods of organizing and connecting code and data - in OO, you have objects that encapsulate state and expose functions to the outside world that modify and retrieve that state. In FP, you write programs as series of functions that transform data. The fundamental difference is that in OO you are treating data and its related functions as a fundamental unit together and structure your program around connecting objects together, and in FP your program is essentially a data pipeline. The other distinctions between OO and FP (immutable vs mutable state, generic collection interfaces vs specialized interfaces for different kinds of data) stem from that fundamental dichotomy.

Scala may combine the two, and may do so elegantly (I really don't know, I've never used it), but even if its particular kind of FP is encoded in an OO system, that doesn't imply that FP at large is a special case of OO. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: a method on an object is simply a function with an implied argument (the object) in a scope where that argument is inacessible from outside. You can see this clearly in pre-ES6 JS, where that's literally how an object is constructed (in the Crockford style - the prototype style is a bit different).
Your comments are very interesting. It's clear to me you have a unique perspective on this topic. I hope you don't mind me asking some follow up questions.

What does "going native" mean in the context of the intelligence community? Why is it you think British don't have this issue? Why is it harder for the US?
Introducing HyperDev: A developer playground for building full-stack web-apps
It would more likely be a gradual phasing out of old programs and a build-up of basic income as money is moved toward that program

Yes, this has been my conclusion.

I don't think a BI will ever happen. But I suspect/hope that in maybe a couple hundred years, we'll have something very similar to it under a different name ... probably still with some level of admin overhead to deal with the "poor people make bad decisions" issue that has been raised.

The welfare state has expanded massively over time just due to the increase in life expectancy and health care cost inflation. But if we assume that these things reach some sort of natural peak, then eventually as GDP grows and more taxes become available, a progressively more generous welfare state should be the natural outcome ... at least for governments that have got their debt levels under control.

Unfortunately the looming pension deficits mean it'll probably be a long time before we reach such a happy state. Our society is very obviously not rich enough to handle even the current levels of welfare (or put another way, our society misallocates resources). There is no realistic chance of a BI any time soon.
> you wouldn't have to worry about supporting yourself for the bare necessities

I know very few people who only work in order to secure for themselves the bare necessities of life. I suspect, even in an infinite BI world, many people would work in order to be able to have more than the bare necessities.

However, anecdotal evidence such as "people I personally know" is terrible evidence for making drastic changes to our social welfare programs. Which is why we need small scale studies and pilot programs in order to begin to assess the data of how people behave when they receive BI.

> If you tell an employer "I've been out of a job for 10 years because I got free money and didn't need to work" they aren't ...

No, but if you really didn't want to work, you could easily take 6 years off and then spend 2 years on education, and another 2 years getting back into the job market. It would be really good to have this kind of data.
It depends on your definition of "basic".

I normally take "basic income" to mean "covers typical recurring monthly expenses that almost everyone has".

If that's the definition, then I believe you can.
Yeah, no. You've clearly never been on the receiving end of the Internet Hate Brigade, but doing that is not a solution.
Holy shit! That's 71 characters, which leaves you 9 characters for your code. 4 of that goes to indentation, 3 of that goes to (); and you have 2 characters left for the parameters before you break the 80 character limit. That's horrifying.
For years, this limitation made using npm on Windows miserable[0][1].

[0] https://github.com/nodejs/node-v0.x-archive/issues/6960

[1] https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/3697
Wait what? How exactly would these people be OK in the current system? Why would it be worse?
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply.

In a vacuum, UBI increases inflation by giving people more money.

You can counteract this inflation by doing the opposite. AKA, by taking that money away from someone else. AKA, by increasing taxes.
Stipulating that five years is the wrong period to use, what would the right period be? Intuitively, there must be some period of time over which different nations could be meaningfully compared on this basic health result.
Author here. Thanks for commenting, interesting point!

However, as you can see in the section "1960s", many similar comments were predicted 50 years ago. The point I address in this paper is that optimism is easy when things are going well.

This is a great example. Lots of people are saying today that we will have X in 10 years. But in 2006, no one was saying we will have X in 20 years.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it's worth questing why you are so optimistic, and whether it's because we aren't looking at the big picture.
Good resource list at the end of this article for people who want to become better at math/coding:

Resources to Help Boost Confidence in Math:

Forget what you learned in school (memorizing theorems or trig identities won’t help you). Instead, learn to recognize problems and choose the right formula.

Read great books (Links to free versions in the article)

Art of Problem Solving

Mathematics for Computer Science (free eBook)

Godel Escher Bach (free eBook)
or eyes! lol
What would a concrete example look like to you? They don't do these things on the internet or with apps, it's all face-to-face and word of mouth. I wouldn't bet on there being any academic studies of it either. Likely all we'll ever have is personal anecdotes from people who have been involved in these communities and somehow ended up spending much more time on the internet than is the norm there.
Notably the study PDF linked is broken, but the link provided to adrianroselli.com provides a good short list for accessibility for dyslexic users which mirror general good rules for typography.

The most important take away comes from one from a presentation linked on adrianroselli.com's page. Some users do prefer the dyslexia fonts and they use a simple font stack overwrite methodology, which makes a global CSS rule. This works fine except when it doesn't. Icon fonts break thus this creates an accessibility issue as suddenly pages can become somewhat vague as all the font icons appear as the missing box icon.

Best thing you can do as web dev is allow users to font replace and not use icon fonts.
Sure, the someone who makes the T-shirts is the someone who wants to earn money, as opposed to sitting "on basic." I'm not sure how you missed that part. It's in the 7th paragraph.

The point being that it doesn't take 7 billion people to provide for 7 billion people. It might take only 1 billion people, or 500 million people, or even 100 million people, to provide enough resources to cover everyone else.

Part of the reason we're not in a true post-scarcity society is that we as a society have decided that in order to get stuff, you have to have money, and in order to get money, you have to earn it, and in order to earn it, you have to have a job. So we have all of these unnecessary jobs out there that exist solely so people can make money without necessarily contributing to society.

And so the dream, such as it is, is two-fold:

The first part is that we provide a basic floor of services to everyone. That 100, 500, or 800 million people that are needed to provide resources will do so in return for money and will therefore have more stuff. The rest can work if they want, or subsist on the basic floor. That's not communism.

The second is that by providing that basic floor, we can eliminate the notion that you have to work and contribute to survive, That's true today, but it doesn't have to be. We could eliminate the busy-work that almost all of us are doing. We can get rid of paper-pushers and ditch diggers. We don't need them all. The laws of supply and demand would push people into more productive roles, rather than simply working for the sake of a paycheck.

Like I said, I'm not an economist, nor am I an expert on any of these things. I read a sci-fi book, and it made me think about it. That's it. :)
Can the cause and result be (at least partly) reverse? That is, poor people is poor not because of their poor decisions, but being poor let them make poor decisions. Or maybe it's a feedback cycle. I don't have first-hand experience, though; just an impression from a book[1].

If being poor is a part of a cause, then guaranteed safety net may break the malicious cycle. But yeah, just blindly betting it seems too naive. That's why we need social experiments, right?

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Hand-Mouth-Living-Bootstrap-America/dp...
It is not stifling freedom of speech. Not one iota. Remember, you do not have the right to force someone to listen to you.

And remember, most of the stuff we're talking about here are twitter eggs saying they're going to rape someone's family to death because a video game was delayed. No reasonable person would consider that protected speech.
All it costs is your Email Address
Safe? No, it's probably copyright infringement. But you have to consider that so is reading them on sci-hub.

The question is whether you want to engage in this particular act of civil disobedience and bear the risks or not.

The risks can also be reduced by living in the right jurisdiction or obscuring your identity, e.g. by renting a torrent seedbox with bitcoins.
I'm not convinced that's true, but I also don't know enough to dispute it, so... ok. :)
Hm, except that this seems to penalize people at the bottom who cannot adequately manage their own finances and I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with that.

In the UK currently, we do that by things like having pre-pay meters for electricity - but the pre-pay electricity costs more even though you paid for it up front! (there are other similar scenarios, where poor people are penalized because they haven't a positive credit report)

I don't know the answer though; I think what ncallaway suggested was to provide it at-cost which seems fair (also, the bulk-buying power of a food kitchen means that it should not really cost any more - in fact it may cost less than doing it yourself)
Why would it be better for the government to provide this than the existing food distribution and supply chain?

Not unlikely scenario: some department is created to handle these necessities, they hire a bunch of people for terrible admin jobs, and they still sub-contract a bunch of the specific work to private companies.
Except that still requires them to go through and filter stuff.
C:\ONGRTLNS.W95
> But giving someone a months worth of rent/food/utilities/clothing in cash is going to be disastrous

San Francisco used to give out cash to homeless, and realized that it didn't work well. So Gavin Newsom (previous mayor) started the "care not cash" program, where cash was replaced with services.
Yup. They felt that they helped keep content free, even though $0.00 of the revenue they invented actually went to content generators.
Government fails in most areas. I agree with your point about administration costs, but don't you think politicians will come up with other things that they can spend the saved money on?
"watched" :)
What's your preferred solution?
I don't think there's anything arbitrary about defining death/rape threats as hate speech.
We are focusing on the individual-level effects (not the ecosystem), but it's a lot more than how people act and behave. We'll provide more details on outcome measures later, but we’ll be interviewing participants to understand their decision-making processes and the constraints they face. It isn’t enough to know that certain outcomes are associated with basic income; we want to know how cash transfers generate the effects and why outcomes vary among recipients (if they do). These insights can inform future research and policies.
Then there should be settings for you to not allow communication except from those in your friends circle.

I agree that there are ways around that, but there will always be ways around it. Pretending that filtering speech will make the harassment go away is pretty naive.
It's my lay understanding this is true; there's a reason we all switched to bcrypt, right? But this comment is getting downvoted. What's the deal?
I disagree ... older PCs are much less tolerant to changes to the input voltage. A "simulated brown-out" might kill it completely. Electrolytic capacitors are probably to blame for the smoke - they definitely fail with age. The good news is that you can probably replace them since everything was through-hole back then (as opposed to surface mount).
Inaccurate title.

Windows currently doesn't have a 260 character path length limit. However some legacy Win32 APIs only support up to 260 characters for backwards compatibility and old file system reasons.

If you use UNC paths you can have a path with 32,767 characters in it, 255 characters per element (e.g. a single folder/file name of 255 characters).

To quote MSDN:

> The Windows API has many functions that also have Unicode versions to permit an extended-length path for a maximum total path length of 32,767 characters. This type of path is composed of components separated by backslashes, each up to the value returned in the lpMaximumComponentLength parameter of the GetVolumeInformation function (this value is commonly 255 characters). To specify an extended-length path, use the "\\?\" prefix. For example, "\\?\D:\very long path".

All this GPO policy does it change existing non-unicode Win32 APIs to support paths beyond the 260 character limit. However this likely won't work on pre-Windows 10 versions of Windows, non-NTFS filesystems, and just having long file/folder names may within itself break older software.
The libraries are not identical; I'm not particularly up to speed with CK, I'm not a user, but there's so much that can be done with any data structure library that there will be things liblfds has done which CK has not, and naturally vis-versa, such that for some one of the libraries will be a better (or possibly the only) choice.

What those things might be I cannot much tell you, where I'm not particularly au fait with CK.
Later versions of npm install dependencies in a flat structure with duplicates removed, instead of a deep nested tree for each packages sub dependencies sub dependencies sub dependencies and so on... It should help to reduce these problems.
https://sublevel.net

http://nightchamber.com
> Where does that view go on the right/left spectrum?

Its a not-uncommon libertarian view that's probably more common the farther right you go (but you'll also find some left-libertarians who believe it; heck, you'll find left-libertarians that are almost completely opposed to the existence of the state as such)

"left", "right", and "libertarian" are all pretty broad groups within which there is lots of individual variation.
Possibly a junction-like mapping into the "physical" position in the MFT. Perhaps something like "\\?\$MFT\positioninmft\possiblyshortenedfilename.ext". Somewhat similar to the various mappings for 32-bit programs running on 64-bit Windows.
A big problem for the Mill people has been getting LLVM to understand that pointers on the Mill do not behave like normal integers.
Yes as I pointed out you don't want this if you're doing NFS.

Personally I prefer something like a MySQL table with GET_LOCK() to process things instead of NFS if I need multiple machines. It gives you flock() like semantics in that if a machine or client goes away the GET_LOCK() is automatically freed, i.e. it survives as long as the connection to the database survives.

Not having to deal with stale locks generally sucks way less than the extra overhead of a database.

For any NFS-based scenario you usually end up creating a "task" "task.underway" and "task.done" files as locks, and re-enqueuing tasks if you have a "underway" file that's too old without a "done" file.

You'd do the same with a MySQL table that you GET_LOCK() on, except you can safely re-enqueue "underway" tasks if you acquire the lock on them, since you know their consumers have gone away.
> I even feel that if the code doesn't have unit tests in the first place the original developer didn't care

I saw unmaintainable projects of very low quality with near 100% unit test coverage.

I saw projects with outstanding quality without unit tests.

To me, presence/absence of unit tests means nothing.

> uses for example boost.filesystem

Why boost doesn’t change API when changing the implementation to something incompatible? If they did, you’d catch (and be forced to fix) most of those compatibility issues even earlier than unit tests — at compile time.

Also, unit tests are IMO nearly useless with IO heavy code like filesystem access. If you use mockups instead of actual IO, you won’t get those errors from the OS i.e. will test nothing. If you don’t, the tests will be too complex to deserve “unit tests” name.

> Nobody said anything about a waterfall.

A development model where you first design the entire system, then implement the entire system is waterfall. The approach only works well for some projects.

> But once it's stable

Many software projects evolve constantly: you stabilize your design, release a version, then based on e.g. market performance you redesign your system and create a next version of it.

Unit tests work well when you’re doing many local changes, when API stays stable and you only replace or fix the implementation. They are also useful when you code business logic, or lower-level code with lots of math (esp. SSE/AVX code).

However, if you have high unit tests coverage, API-breaking redesign is expensive. Unit tests might cause you stick to your initial 1.0 design, but because you need those new features you’ll start write hacks introducing technical debt. Even if you take your time, redesign, stabilize the design, and write new tests — this costs time + money.

Just like most other aspects of software engineering, unit testing is a tradeoff: improves something, worsens something else.
Sure, it will increase the value of land, which will increase rents. But part of the rent was also the value of the improvements, which will not cost any more and should have the same ROI as before.

Especially in the US, land is cheap and if rents are too expensive in the cities people will move elsewhere.

Property and land is already taxed, and an increase in the value of property will eventually be converted into an increase in those taxes.