skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"You can reduce
any program to either a Turing machine or the lambda calculus"

Can you easily reduce a program with concurrency to either of these? If not then you are leaving out a large class of programs and systems. I think this is why Milner invented the pi calculus (a calculus of objects)
depending on the extremity of the dyslexia, OpenDyslexic is a godsend. I've personally installed it on at least 10 linux conversions (mostly musicians wanting KXStudio[0]), and I've only had one dyslexic that didn't feel the font helped.

I understand this is anecdotal, and a small sample size, but my mileage definitely varies from this guy.

0. http://kxstudio.net/
I get the premise but sometimes you need to keep stuff you won't touch for years.

For example, I restore pinball machines and I have stacks of salvaged and spare parts from various games in my workspace. Since there's so many manufacturers, and I restore what happens to come my way via Craigslist, I might not touch a part for years, then suddenly have use of it for my next project.

Since most of the parts are manufacturer or machine specific, and most are decades old and not being produced anymore, the only source of parts is the pile. Also, shipping from the US (I'm in Canada) is prohibitively expensive, so just buying the parts I need for that one project doesn't always work.

If you're just dicking around, I suppose, it's good to de-clutter regularly. I do like to keep my workbenches clear by always cleaning up at the end of a session.
Thanks for translating. I wasn't sure what method of execution was implied.
What do you mean by "well documented" exactly? Are you referring to the numerous blog posts where people in the industry complain about it? I wouldn't call that extremely convincing.

I understand that some people get stage fright, but I'm not expecting them to come up with a perfect solution; I'm only trying to get an idea of how they think (and whether or not they can actually write code). If they can't do this sort of thing in front of a small group then how are they going to perform in group meetings? Are they just going to sit quietly in the corner the entire time?

I can't have that either, and I need some sort of measuring stick. I'd rather lose a good candidate than take on a bad one.
also, if for some bad reason your Tumblr password is the same as your email, make sure you change that as well. (as they have emails of the accounts)
Good thing everyone will not have more money then. The total money supply remains constant under UBI.
Yes... if only there was a technology that let us communicate with investors in other places... or better yet some sort of modern flying machine that could take us there!!
Wait, we do that already? I don't recall getting any significant amounts of money when I graduated high school! I feel so cheated.

Anyway, there does seem to be a problem with loaning kids lots of money and then parting them from it, but that's a different issue.
28c3: The Science of Insecurity (2011)
Behavior seems to be about 80% circumstances.
Yeah, this is deeply off-topic, but my reading of the evidence is that preventative or diagnostic care is typically not cost-effective or even outcome-enhancing, with a few specific exceptions like vaccinations.
>I think Russia's problem is it spent its entire history surrounded by powerful enemies

That applies not only to Russia, but to pretty much everyone. Particularly, it applies to each of Russia's neighbours...
Real Truth about Alcohol, How Fattening Is That Key Summer Ingredient
Airbnb now lets you bitch about your neighbors if their guests piss you off
I think that right about now is when we'll see a renaissance in low-poly artwork. I say this because I think the people who grew up playing PS1 era games are now going to do something similar to what the people who grew up playing 8-bit and 16-bit games did. See Bob Mackey's piece on this: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/back-in-1995-and-the-changin...
An introduction to UNIX and the computing environment at the University of Technology Sydney's School of Computing Sciences circa the mid-90's. Heavy with student humour and IIRC Monty Python quotes.
To be fair, he does. Fog Creek has been going for over 15 years. Trello started with a similar model - only free use at the start as they figured out the best way to monetize, and now they are making $10M+ a year [1]

1 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2016/05/23/trello-get...
Consider reading the post I linked to. And let's not forget Window taxes from the 19th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

In earlier ages, there were few windows owing to architectural and building technique related constraints. If anything the window taxes reeked of "oh shoot, these guys are rich and can afford modern construction techniques." Your home with plenty of light flowing in is in fact quite modern.
I think the point here is that Twitter and Facebook increasingly look like a piece of infrastructure - it's hard to reach the general population without them, it's hard to opt out of using them, etc.
Mine was useless too, was it not obvious?

Welcome to the club!
Given how bad Americans are at planning for retirement, I think you're right. BI is a terrible idea.
The press release for the original study this article is based on claims they've accounted for this:

"NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities." [0]

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/managing-medical-bill...
> "It's not possible to do it any other way" is just pseudo-speak for "nobody has invented a better way yet". ... After 30+ years, nobody has thought of something else?

Not really, I think you've hit the nail on the head. There are plenty of pie-in-the-sky proposals that start from an axiom like "we should replace the centralized CAs with a distributed, decentralized system", but so far I haven't heard of anything that is robust enough to credibly improve on the current architecture.

Off the top of my head, the closest things I can think of to what you're asking for are:

- Namecoin (depends on the Bitcoin blockchain, with everything that implies e.g. huge computational overhead, tight coupling to the volatile Bitcoin economy, and potential attacks from mining cartels etc.)

- The PGP web-of-trust (places additional burden on users who have to decide whether many different intermediaries are "trustworthy"; totally impractical for John Q. Public, in my opinion)

- CACert.org (still relies on a centrally trusted certificate issuer, but crowdsources the identity validation stuff)

If you have better ideas, let's hear them!
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Given that the project is at the privately funded research phase, questions about possible problems related to government implementations at scale are probably at the who-the-hell-knows stage.

As I interpret the YC Research's statements, it seems to be more a matter of adding a private basic income to the menu of existing public and private resources. If I had to predict, I wouldn't be surprised if the most problematic financial situations involved health care issues...i.e. Joe having a stroke. What does "basic income" mean for a person in the ICU?

So I guess the answer to the question is, the safety nets below basic income are whatever if any safety nets already exist.
Is this truly going to be a basic income experiment, or is it going to be a charity experiment? To me it's only a valid experiment if somehow it is self-sustaining (e.g. it's funded by the same population it's distributed amongst, not by external donors).

Taking Oakland's population of roughly 450k, presumably this experiment doesn't cover the entire city (guesstimating a minimum income to be ~$1,000/mo for that area to cover rent + all expenses, that'd work out to be a $450 million per month price tag). So right off the bat it probably is going to be limited heavily in scope, which diminishes it's value as a test of "universal" basic income.

Even if it ends up being self-funded (which I'd be surprised if it actually is), you have to figure out how to get people to pay for it. People probably won't sign up to voluntarily give up more than they'll receive, which makes it tough. And you don't have the same enforcement that the IRS does (e.g. you can't forcibly take money/property from people). And on top of that you don't have the power to truly create money, although you can approximate it by taking charity donations from folks in SF.

I guess I'm just really skeptical of what any results might actually mean.
Oh please. Even the best systems will have issues, and there will always be high pressure situations, regardless of the competency of management. It shouldn't be a way of life, but it's simply not practical to expect easy sailing at all times.
Out-Of-Box Exploitation: A Security Analysis of OEM Updaters
The author spends quite a bit of time comparing the expenses, but never really mentions the pay. It's a better deal if the pay stays the same. This kind of comparison happens a lot, but I personally think it's a little faulty.

To demonstrate, let's do some math. If I make 60K after taxes in Phoenix and spend 18K/year on rent (1.5K * 12), and let's say another 12K on food and gas and miscellaneous expenses, then I have spent 30K and have 30K remaining. That's 50% of my income goes to expenses.

If I live in San Francisco and make 120K/year after taxes, and I spend 50% of my income on rent and food like I did in Phoenix, then I've both made 2x the Phoenix salary and I've spent 2x the Phoenix expenses. But what's left? Instead of 30K in savings, I have 60K in savings.

By living in SF, I've saved an additional 30K over what I would have saved in Phoenix. Now, I'm using nice round numbers here to make a point, but even if SF expenses were 2.5 or even 3x Phoenix expenses, I'd still come out ahead.

Sure, the psychological impact of paying less feels good, but unless you can keep your pay closer to SF pay while living in Phoenix, you're probably not going to come out ahead financially.

My two cents.
Open-source hardware PlayStation GL renderer – alpha version
https://www.cruisewatch.com - big data and machine learning to find cruise deals
Yes, it creates a disincentive to work. The hope is that it creates much less disincentive to work relative to a means tested program. I don't think the structural economic advantages are enough of a reason to implement a BI (you have to start looking at fairness issues).

Typical proposed implementations just increase taxes at higher income levels. So there is a taper starting somewhere above the basic income where people that are working are benefiting less than people who aren't working, and there is some income level where the basic income is effectively a pure cost. But all those people have a higher effective income than they would have from the BI.

And it likely would represent a massive increase in spending for most countries, even if it was more efficient than welfare programs. Especially if you make payments outside the tax code, which ends up with a lot of spending that is just accounting.
I was really hoping for at least some statistics or research to show what the scale of the purported issue is, and the decision-making processes that lead to it. This reads more as an opinion piece from a marriage counselor (author seems to be a television personality in actuality) than an actual explanation of why people choose the wrong marriage partner.
Does it matter in if it's the drug addicts fault that he is a drug addict or not?

The parent shared his opinion on if a basic income is going to help that person or not.

You could instead describe how you believe a basic income would actually help such a person instead of starting a discussion about morals.
I just see way too many people not doing this. BI would be like winning the lottery to these people. Someone would hand them a check once a month and they'd go spend it on useless stuff.

To top it off, they'd be first in line to complain about how crappy "the system" is.
> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.
> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.

I don't think there's a cause and effect relationship there.
I was reading "The Early History of Smalltalk" a while back (http://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/) by Alan Kay, and the thing that jumped out at me was goal-oriented methods (see the section "Object-oriented" Style). That is, when you are calling other code you don't tell the other code how to do something – and of course you don't go poking into what the other code "knows" (i.e., accessing properties on an object) – instead you say "please, make it this way". The code may succeed or may fail, but you aren't micromanaging the code.

From my time with Smalltalk I found this pattern quite remarkable, though also at times hard to trace. You'd tell an object to do something, and it might access some object it knows about, maybe do a test or guard, and then it would tell the other object to go do that thing. And the other object might in turn delegate, many levels deep. The result could be really incredible and compact, though it also felt like it wasn't actually easier to understand. Kind of Ravioli Code (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RavioliCode), though not the kind of modern Ravioli Code you might see because someone takes DRY too seriously – instead it reminded me more of a mathematical proof. Mathematical proofs are really cool, but they do not contain the information necessary to reproduce them; a mathematical proof is the result of studying and pondering and struggling with a problem for a long time until you reduce it to something compact and beautiful. The result seems magical, but in part because you threw away all the struggling that produced the result. That's what the core Smalltalk class hierarchy felt like to me; beautiful, maybe not reproducible, not always accessible. All of which is a critique of one place and time of code, and OO is bigger than that, but I suspect it's also some of the result of created goal-oriented methods All The Way Down.

Functional programming can also be goal-oriented if you can reify all your goals, because ultimately that which isn't reified (that is, made into data or state) can't be the result of a function. I don't have as intuitive a sense there, is goal-oriented functional programming an ideal people hold?

Another Smalltalk lens on OO is message-oriented programming, where you have a set of objects or actors which pass messages, but never directly "touch" each other, and in some sense objects are more autonomous than a conventional understanding of OO. This does not map well to functional programming – the purpose of messages to autonomous objects is to effect state, to make changes in the world. Of course that's the purpose of all programming, so it's not crazy. In some sense functional programming lifts the purposeful and useful outcomes of a program out of the programming, and into the environment. I would consider that a stronger contrast with OO.
> Drug addiction, gambling, alcoholism, poor budgeting, mental illness

I come from a middle class background and I know a number of people, in my extended family and in my middle-class community, who have made the same choices (BTW mental illness is not a choice), and it didn't put them in poverty.

I don't think there's a strict cause and effect relationship there.
I didn't bother to search HN for the title, just the link, and this is the first time this particular variant of the link (https) has been posted. Sorry; I wouldn't have posted it if I'd realised it had appeared multiple times before.
He didn't say _no_ taxes. He said _no flat_ taxes. Think progressive taxes instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
Agreed. It does not address the high concentrations of wealth which allow a small minorty of people to be in direct control of the majority of our resources and economic activity.
The Perks Are Great. Just Don’t Ask Us What We Do
I'm fairly certain he only wanted the money for alcohol or drugs.

Of course he did. Never, never, never, ever give money to panhandlers.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11806739
Of course there are safety nets, look I can only speak from my perspective living in Sweden but it's my perception that we already have a sort of basic income through the various social services available.

I never understood BI until you said "cut a check", so that's the difference between BI and what we have today in a welfare state.

Because today you get a grant for your rent and you get a basic minimum income from social services. All of which is designed so that you should be able to survive but not in excess.

It's two sums of money that is essentially a BI but instead of cutting a check it's calculated based on your standard of living.

For example if you're keeping a 3 room apartment without a job then the public insurance company that issues the housing grant will require you to move to a smaller apartment to keep your grant.

There's also additional money you can request if you're sick or old. And of course some people have a disability so there's money for that too.

The problem with having many small creaks like that is most people don't know about all their rights, or are just too lazy to pursue them.
Agreed, which is why I prefer to provide goods rather than money. Plus I usually don't carry cash anyway.
I know it's down right now but I used this a couple of weeks ago and it was very powerful. Well worth bookmarking and checking out later.
Oh man... it's super suburban. Of course, if you've got a family and don't want neighbors breathing down on you from every direction, a proper suburban home here is totally affordable.

That said, if you like to play outside, it's a paradise. We've got thousands of acres of public land within reach, easily accessible and free to all.
That's a "blind men and an elephant" characterization. GamerGate and anti-GG are much more complicated than that. Here's a copy/paste of a comment of mine from a year or so ago after I spent way too much time trying to unravel this. I found at least 4 or 5 distinct groups with quite different goals involved:

1. People who are in fact concerned about the sorry ethical state of game journalism.

2. Trolls and jerks who have jumped in to cause trouble, mostly by attacking women in groups #3 and #4.

3. The game journalists whose ethics are being called into question.

4. Assorted "social justice" activists. They showed up because the original spark that set all this off was a lying, vindictive open letter from an ex-boyfriend of a female developer, accusing her and some journalists of unethical practices, and that caused the developer to receive some very inappropriate comments. The letter was fairly quickly discredited, but the incident did get many fired up to do something about long standing unethical game journalists, which had long been something people were annoyed about but never got organized enough to do anything about, which is what led to the formation of group #1.

5. Group #1 includes many female gamers. Many of them have been receiving death threats and rape threats. It's not clear if these are coming from people in group #4, or if there is a distinct group of trolls and jerks similar to #2 but who have decided to attack #1 instead of #3 and #4.

• group #1 is concentrating on fighting #3, and trying to keep #2 out.

• group #2 is attacking #3 and #4, and trying to make sure #1 gets blamed.

• group #3 is trying hard to make sure people don't consider the points of #1, by making sure to cover all the activities of #2, which they attribute to #1, and ignoring group #5's activities.

• group #4 is fighting group #2's actions, which they often attribute to group #1.

• group #5 is fighting the women in group #1.

There may be other groups. The women in group #1 maybe should be considered a separate group, because in addition to fighting #3, many of them are also fighting #4.
I've lived in NYC my entire life, and I've never even heard of New York Ice Cream. Mr. Softee's has always been the dominant (and singular) soft-serve truck.

Interesting that someone is challenging their dominance, although I doubt this will play out as well as the dollar-pizza wars for the average pedestrian.
Cambridge's Hackathon Unleashes Power of Wearables
BI won't save much money, it's just a political myth. administrative costs over all welfare programs are just a few percent.

Source: an economist in a panel i heard.
No Evidence That GMO Crops Unsafe to Eat
Often the billing is directly on the phone bill which means the traditional chargeback system won't really help you (it's not a credit card charge and you probably don't want to try to chargeback your phone company). One interesting thing many people don't know is that telcos, almost always oligopolists, are themselves pocketing 30-50% of those fraudulent charges (as they are the payment processor and their rates are extremely high), which helps explain their ambivalence to these sorts of scams.
Could it be somehow related to better peripheral vision?

I met a woman once who could gather four-leaf clovers nearly instantly, at the same spot where me and my male friends had spent minutes searching.

I've seen written in some places (but could not find a worthy source) that women might have better peripheral vision due to food gathering in prehistoric times, but this might just be some old sexist construct (if anyone knows a good source to confirm or refute this, please tell me).
> Giving $1200 check to someone without food and shelter most definitely isn't going to provide them food and shelter. It will more likely go to a stamp bag, scratch off, 40 ounce, etc.

At first, absolutely, for some significant percentage of the homeless. Anyone would be a fool to think otherwise. And yet I still strongly support the idea because I think think a bit farther than that, and not just because many will rise up to the opportunity.

You can't even casually approach the issue without considering the cycle of poverty. It's equally foolish to doubt that; higher-income areas don't magically produce harder-working, more responsible kids.

A UBI allows more opportunities for those that do want to rise up. A UBI provides drastically more stability for kids, taking away the major dragging force that causes so much violence, homelessness, and instability. So many low-income parents are away all the time working shitty jobs. You can ignore it all you like, but these people are in shitty situations from the beginning.

And ditch the personal narrative. It doesn't help. I grew up poor (rural, not urban) and got educated, etc. Yet, looking back, my situation wasn't too bad; my mom was always around, education was a priority, government programs offered a lot of help, and ultimately the state paid for a lot of my education. I am very much the exception that proves the rule, and almost without fail, any time I meet someone like you describe yourself, I find they had lots of advantages, too. Sure, not as many as someone from the middle class, but not nothing.
WTF is operations? #serverless
40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece
15% in favour of keeping them at the British Museum
18% would not vote
27% had no opinion

... I feel like this is a good example of where they will eventually migrate home. It hasn't been very long, on an antiquities scale.
Excellent to hear, thanks for clarifying that.
And I suspect the noncompete laws are not as friendly.
reminds me of this article...

http://markmanson.net/question

TL;DR: Don't set goals based on what makes you happy. Instead, decide what you're willing to suffer for.