skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Of course there is evidence that people on welfare want more of it. You are already socially ostracized for being on it in the first place. Everyone around you spends tremendous effort to remind you if you are on welfare you have "failed" in society. And while I may not be privy to the extent of criticism in Scandinavia, I know stateside the requirements to even get on most of these programs are brutal and invasive, and state agents will take every opportunity to try to tell you how you don't need food stamps because you must have enough to live off with $200-300 a week income.

UBI is about discarding that - that system, broken fundamentally, that makes the poor the enemy of the helpless, and works to exclude you rather than include you in society. Instead of being a leech, you are just another person. Whether or not you make more than the minimum is up to you, but if you cannot house and feed yourself with the means to do so provided you, you are no longer the pitiful homeless guy on the street corner, you had the opportunity and you refused it. But nobody can target you for having a UBI - because they get the exact same money too, enabling them to take more risks and follow their passions more than they otherwise would. Workers benefit tremendously from it through the increased bargaining power it gives them with their employers, possibly enough to justify the increased tax burden alone from their perspective.

And it is in its name - welfare or unemployment insurance is broad and has its definition changed to fit the narrative. Of course you can end up with luxury goods attached to welfare when dealing with people who had such things but now do not, but its supposed to be insurance, right?

None of those contradictions need enter a dialog about UBI because UBI is not complex. It is intentionally simple, to avoid the corruption from both the state and the citizen level. There can be no mistaking the intention behind it, and thus anyone can obviously see when anyone is trying to mislead on what that intention is. Unlike with draconian and bloated welfare systems where you can have dozens of programs all overlapping all under or over funded and all ripe for abuse and exploitation, UBI is dead simple, and the UBI recipient can want more all they... want, but part of the reason you live in a republic and not a democracy is to avoid the rampant runaway will of the people. Because if we had that now, wouldn't we be taking the fortunes of every millionaire and billionaire yesterday?
Yes, I wasn't implying an age limit on adoption. However, I think there's almost always some amount of self-interest in having kids:

Me and my girlfriend despise babies (for now) and simply don't see ourselves as being responsible/mature enough to raise kids yet. We do entertain the idea though, now and then, and for us the main attractions of having kids seem to be: Something we made together, a "substitute" of each other to live for after one of us dies, and something to carry on our legacy, such as it is.

With adoption, these things can be fulfilled if the child is young enough, to be molded into our image, as it were.

That's not to say that love for an orphan, no matter how old, cannot happen. Of course there can be selfless adoptions, where you just want to make someone's life better without regard to yourselves.
Worse than not making economic sense, it opens the door wide for malicious users - I'm sure some guy is already working on setting up JS-based bitcoin miners that just use up these free, no-login servers' CPU capacity, or set up malware sites, child porn hosting, you name it.

The barriers - login, mainly - aren't there to annoy users.
This is seriously awesome!! I was just chatting with a co-worker today on PhantomCSS and how I felt visual diffing could possibly be replaced with diffing the actual dom tree. Does anyone know of an open source project working on this? If not, I'd love to start one (although I'm sure it would be incredibly difficult)
Cops can easily get months of location data, appeals court rules
I have heard this as well, but I think the point still stands. Things like annual physical's might not be a net positive, but you don't want to deter people from going to the doctor when they think something could be wrong.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-preventive-economics-idUSB...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015012/article/14295-...

http://www.thehoopsnews.com/effectiveness-of-mammograms-vast...

It's a complex subject, and a few articles aren't the final word one way or the other. My opinion is based on various things I've read over the past couple of decades (most of which I can't summon up right now) and conversations with various medical professionals in my family and social circle, and my overall worldview (as anyone's must be).
It does not exactly answer your question but this study [1] had some relevant results.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experime...
Why is "stop using Twitter" not at the top of that list?
The beauty of the (universal) basic income notion is the elimination of needs assessment, morality, judgement.
Data Acquisition Strategies/Hacks for Machine Learning Startups
It's unlikely that the business climate has changed much for startups. I doubt the success/failure rates are identical to what they were one, five, or ten years ago.

What has changed is media coverage, skepticism, and average skill level of "users" and maybe the frequency with which things happen.
BI would be for everyone, so pensioners would get it too. They'd probably be better off.

Plus, people wouldn't need to save for retirement if they didn't want to. They could spend more which would provide a stimulus to economic activity. That's another benefit of BI.
اللغة الفرنسية الثالثة اعدادي (La corespondance)
Twitter has been an insolvent rotting corpse for quite some time.

Taking the company public only revealed their financials for everyone to see and confirmed it.
A loan shark can introduce a pipe wrench to your kneecap regardless of whether he can officially record a lien against your BI income or not.

My personal opinion is, like the ancestor post, that BI is unworkable as a cash-only benefit. People forget that money is an economic lubricant. It does not make the gears turn. Possession of cash is economic shorthand for being able to command the disposition of real goods and services.

Having cash is a symptom of providing value to the economy, not the cause of it.

If you take a big chunk of cash from rich folks, and dump it on poor folks, that does not alter the underlying structure of the economy. The real-world supply pipeline for bringing popcorn from a field in Indiana to a bodega in East L.A. remains the same size. You have to divert a lot of cash for a long time before anyone will even consider upping the bandwidth of that specific food channel. Until then, popcorn is just $N more expensive at the bodega.

You're not providing anyone with anything more than a temporary illusory benefit if you don't build some actual infrastructure. Giving cash for rent does little good, unless someone actually builds more houses and apartments as a means to getting some of that cash, or to more of it than their existing landlord competitors.

The same amount of cash, spent on eminent domain compensation and general building contractors, can directly generate a permanent reduction in the local monthly cost of housing, rather than as a potential incentive for someone out there to maybe try to get at it.

If you do not build the economic infrastructure required for the benefit to exist, the amount of cash you have to throw at the free market to provide it can increase without bound. The economy is currently structured to funnel property and luxuries towards the rich. Screwing on a bypass pipe from a rich person's consumption endpoint to somewhere further back in their existing cash flow structure does not accomplish much.
Show HN: Learn web development, resume building, interviewing, and get hired
I suspect interest in this withered greatly after Apple abandoned Xserve
Wild Wolf and Bear Form Unlikely Bond
We've got piles of people with degrees in <SomeGroup> Studies, working as waiters and waitresses. The money that was spent housing and feeding them as students for 4+ years, paying the professors and administrators, could have been used more productively in some other pursuit. As you note, it's not quite equivalent to burning the money. But it's still a net loss, and given its size, it's not insignificant.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
It's not just the US that is like this. Every country is.

Put another way: Things are the way they are for powerful reasons (which may or may not be justifiable). You can't just ignore these reasons when you create policy, otherwise those reasons will cause things to revert to the way they were before.

Proponents of basic income will have to overcome many peoples' moral intuitions about who deserves help, and who should have to work for a living.

If these moral intuitions remain the same, basic income won't be basic for long -- people will vote to give more money to the disabled, less money to felons, and so on. Should people receive basic income while incarcerated due to a criminal conviction? Someone will come along who suggests that members of certain racial groups should receive more money in the basic income program as a form of affirmative action, to compensate for past wrongs. Maybe people who choose to work should get more money under basic income, as an incentive for others to choose to work. Should people who inherit a lot of money have their basic income reduced?

I think it's pretty clear that the first time someone makes a change of the kind I listed above, the cat will be out of the bag, and basic income won't be "basic" income anymore. Then the argument that basic income should treat everyone the same will become useless to defend against further changes. You can't really preserve the purity of a policy design when the voters want to change it.

There is also the danger of everyone voting to increase their income, to the extent that the program runs out of money.

I think these moral intuitions can be changed, but only through a gradual phase-in of benefits over time. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the past century or so, and it's what led to the welfare systems we have today.
> If guardians cannot feed their dependents adequately, they should lose their dependents.

If they cannot, then they should be helped to be able to. If they can but do not, then I'd agree that they should lose them. You're describing two problems with different solutions: Extreme poverty and outright abuse.

Adoption beyond infancy is rare, and I've never heard good things about the foster system, and I'd be loath to put kids into it, except as a last resort.

> The unfairness in the system emerges from when parents have kids through selfish motivation only to force society as a whole to pay the cost of raising them

Financial conditions for families change all the time. A parent looses a job and has difficulty getting a new one. The bread-winner in the family gets hurt, and the family has to limp along on a lesser income. You can't just ascribe unfairness to selfishness. Things aren't that simple.
> The electricity supplier gets more for the same electricity at no risk. Thats not actually stupid..

Yeah, I meant stupid as in, 'No person would take that "deal" if they could help it.' I guess the people who are taking this deal are forced to take it, and that does make it pretty bad (especially if you are a brand-new tenant who isn't actually connected to the previous one who had trouble paying).
> Note that the definition of strong eventual consistency in [17], just like ours, requires that updates can be applied to any state.

My favourite gotcha.

It solves distributed statefulness!

... so long as someone else solves statefulness!
This is a direct consequence of the world wide web turning from a self-publishing culture (blogging + RSS) to a posting culture (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.)

It's trivial to exert political and social pressure globally. I'm not trying to be polemic nor alarmist but, when you centralize the primary social exchange for almost 2 billion people on one network, these are the effects.

People need to start thinking for themselves and see that by using a service like these they are only seeing part of the whole.

To be fair, most people probably won't care too much about what's outside the walls of the garden. And further, the walls of the garden aren't terribly high nor hard to come over. It's easier and simpler than ever to start a blog. It's easier still to make a Facebook account.

People who care enough to make the trivial amount of effort to publish outside the system should and we as developers should make it even easier, safer and lower friction. Let's Encrypt, cheap and easy static hosting, static site generators, etc.
Well, now we've even managed to make having sex a boring app problem. Way to go folks, way to go.
It (and the rest of basic income) is a direct redistribution of social wealth into the hands of everyone, some of whom don't necessarily need it.

One of the things that distinguishes basic income from welfare is that the former is an unconditional transfer payment. That means that some of the folks who receive it don't actually need it. But it gains a lot of advantages over traditional welfare plans in the process - it is much simpler to administer, it doesn't require making politically fraught judgments of who is worthy, it eliminates disincentives to work that come from income cliffs, and it's easier to gather support since everybody sees a benefit.

Presumably those who don't need the basic income will end up funding a greater portion of it through higher taxes.
CajLife, online community for casual daters, launches beta program
My only worry about that is the lack of (enforced) competition in the market to keep rent under control.

How do you 'enforce' competition? Build baby build, and you set how much to build by how much is being charged in an area.
Your brain "is" indeed a computer in the same way that your eye "is" jelly.

Sure it computes, but in case you've forgotten there is a whole lot of other stuff going on as well and we don't have the first clue how.
> But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive.

I think its just misstated. What automation does (absent compensatory policy) isn't to reduce the number of jobs that exist, but rather to drive more of the returns of productivity to those who own the capital and a narrowing class of elite workers, and less to the large body of workers. That's been pretty consistently seen since the industrial revolution, producing occasional major outbreaks of social unrest leading to compensatory public policy to mitigate that effect.

But most of those measures have been short term measures optimized for a narrow set of circumstances that were current at the time they were adopted. A well designed UBI -- particularly one tied to a tax drawn largely from income on capital -- is a more general and long-term compensatory mechanism to address the sources of unrest (hopefully, this time, somewhat proactively, rather than reactively.)
I also immediately thought about the MSN customization days! Is fb the customizable platform of this time?

For MSN it was also non-officially supported and it grew quite a community of devs who tinkered around things like this, would be interesting to see a renaissance of such projects.
On the other hand, "Henry Ford got smacked for it" speaks loud enough to stop most executives and their corporate lawyers from testing the waters. Even if some time has passed.
People will complain about anything and everything. What is extremely valuable about UBI, though, is that unlike traditional welfare systems where those who squandered it are often just those who are also the most pitied, there is no ostracism for using a UBI and no social isolation for it because everyone gets it, and those who cannot manage their money have no one to blame but themselves.

Today, the poor are defensive of one another to some degree, defending their "way of life" even when it is exploitative of social safety nets because they have to fight for scraps and every step of the process in getting such benefits is humiliating. It should surprise no one that once people have it, they are happy to blow it and stick an effective fuck you back to the society that ostracizes and criticizes them.

Which is one of the pillars of utility in UBI. It is a panacea solution to negating hostile poverty based cultures like ghetto. There is no more war against the poor, or active emotional attack for needing help. Everyone gets the help, and there is no vector for abuse through it, so those who are aggressive towards it or squander it are no longer fighting the man but are just fools who deserve no pity.
How do users with these requiremnts replace fonts with this "font stack overwrite methodology"? Do they have browser extensions to do this?
why not use a sub domain? user@class16.school.com for example.
Synesthesia? Perhaps her brain sees those sets and identifies them in such a way that it takes no conscious effort? A group might appear in a different color, or "taste" or feeling, for example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
It is possible to leave comments that are not novellas and that also are not sweepingly dismissive of underlying reality. All birth control methods have failure rates. None of them promises 100% protection -- except celibacy (assuming no one gets raped), which most married couples are not keen to practice.
I don't think the comment is pointing out the difficulty in telling whether it's meant to be symmetric, it's pointing out that the symmetric case is trivial and so any example should be really different from the symmetric case in order to serve well as an example. It's hard to picture how the climbers might have any difficulty whatsoever when seeing an example that's almost trivial.
Do you only read articles you agree with? That sounds like a strong case of confirmation bias. Besides, the core of the article does not reflect an elaboration of that paragraph, you should give it a try.
I wonder what proportion of the welfare programs is just handing out money to the poor.

All the rest, like counseling, helping to find jobs, extra equipment for disabled persons, ... this would certainly stay in place.
> Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help.

How about if they get a grave disease and need urgent treatments and related resources for that? Is medical treatment supposed to be free in the scenario of BI as well ? Because, THAT, we know how well it works (free medical coverage) in several countries where it's already applied.
Man, I feel old. I remember this when it was the alt.destroy.the.earth FAQ...

https://jult.net/adte.htm
MySpace and Tumblr hit by 'mega breach'
Getting Dialogue Forum package to work with Umbraco 7.4.3
This has influenced me on my prediction for (http://www.metaculus.com/questions/164/).
See edit.
> the liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size.

I dont think all libertarians are partisans of BI.
> But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all their money and now can't afford rent and/or food? Do you tell them "tough shit, you've exhausted all your social safety nets"

That already happens with existing welfare programs. It's not immediately obviously why BI would be worse.
Ehh... This is more like "don't post stuff that offends me and makes me scared for my safety".

That's the real danger with censorship. Anyway, Facebook as the social platform is on its way out, but the brilliant fucker that Zucks is, he is buying up everything that remains relevant.
http://chesstempo.com/ - Wonderful chess tactics website
But why not just export a C interface from Rust, and use that from PSX?
First 3D mathematical model of uterine contractions created
We changed the URL from http://blog.fogcreek.com/announcing-hyperdev-the-developer-p... to Joel's blog post. We can change it back if people prefer, but it gives more background and is a fun read and there shouldn't be two articles about the same project on the front page.
Great post, if you haven't seen it yet.
(though it's about 10 months old: https://twitter.com/tonyhschu/status/625710709922471936)
After the civil war the southern states voluntarily rejoined the union
I wrote a command called 'lc', which list commands in a directory. I've found that what I really want is context-specific command history,and this provides it.

Linky: https://github.com/pconerly/lc-listcommands-bash
These are the benchmarks supported by Soumith Chintala (Facebook AI Research):

https://github.com/soumith/convnet-benchmarks

They place TensorFlow performance on par with Torch (within 10%).
> 2. Don't try to find anybody. Choose science! [1]

"Sience! I'll kill you!" (Ahmed Scientist)
That.

I still prefer the idea of 4/7 working days
I've brought this up in the past, and am always met with arguments that just don't seem to dent the problem statement.

My simple question I always pose is this: "If everyone has $X dollars, then wouldn't $X become worthless?"

I fail to see how there won't be some kind of inflationary situation amongst the lower class, especially in the form of rents over the course of a year as leases reset. I also refuse to accept any argument that involves the majority of landlords "doing the right thing".

Thanks for posting the Law of Rent.
The author's analogy at the beginning involving birds, airplanes, and flying machines seems pretty spot on to me, but it's a double edged sword the author apparently hasn't thought much about.

Ask yourself if it's apt to call a bird a flying machine.

You likely see the problem right away. That description is at least accurate within limits, but it's also reductive to the point where it will induce blindness if you don't recognize its limits. A "flying machine" is only one of the things a bird is. And if you were trying to figure out how to make something very much like a bird, you wouldn't get very far by focusing on the idea that a bird is an flying machine like an airplane.

Similarly, it's true enough that the brain is a computer in the sense that it does computation. That description is at least accurate within limits. But brains do things that we don't know how to get computers to do yet (yes, we're getting better at creating systems that have capacity for performing/optimizing tasks with less explicitly pre-encoded domain logic, but we're still doing that, and as far as I can tell nobody has demonstrated any testable or practically applicable idea of what constitutes consciousness). It's reasonable to assume that a computer might be only one of the things a brain is, and it seems likely that you won't get far by focusing on the idea that a brain is like a present-day von neumann digital computer in the same way a bird is like an airplane.
So this isn't about Microsoft's turf on the PC being challenged by mobile.
Progressive Web Apps across all frameworks
You said that people who don't work shouldn't get money. Not sure how else to interpret that.
When I read the dialogue at the beginning of this article, I knew exactly what article he was responding to. I had the same annoyances reading that article, good response!
It requires you provide it with a zipped Raspbian image. It takes that image, and injects a few scripts, and configures them to run at boot.

Here's the scripts:

https://github.com/guysoft/FullPageOS/blob/devel/src/fullpag...

https://github.com/guysoft/FullPageOS/blob/devel/src/common....

https://github.com/guysoft/FullPageOS/blob/devel/src/config
The Iranian nuclear deal?