skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Culturally we seem to take the benefits of capitalism completely for granted. Nobody exclaims "capitalism is fucking amazing" when their favorite tv show is renewed for another season, or when a new awesome tv show is created.

If people made the connection that capitalism is the thing that's creating all these things in your life that you love.. that those things don't materialize magically as a result of people just doing their thing... that would change the perception of capitalism dramatically.
Rewards are nice, but I use credit because I'd much prefer to use the float on other people's money. If my credit card is owned, I'm not out the money while the bank figures out what's going on. With debit, that money is gone until the investigation is complete.
Nope, most android phones (that I'm aware of) lack a dedicated HSM. The iPhone 6+ was I believe the first general consumer phone that shipped with a HSM. Being a linux guy through and through, it is/was the reason I got a 6+ and I couldn't be happier. It isn't perfect, but it is a huge improvement over most other things out there.

Motorolla has the horribly overpriced AME 2000 (ick), and Samsung has the knox platform built standard into most of their stuff (which is very good), but they lack a true HSM. If you're an android user and want a HSM for sensitive data, get one of the Microcrypt SD devices. It is as good as you'll get (and still not as good as an iPhone).
What's preposterous about it? Minimum wage is less now than its been in 50 years. Do you really think that your average person has it better now? It's hard to get into a trade and your only other route is college which will put you in debt. Then once you have a degree you have to actually get a good job.

This doesn't even get into the fact that normal people are competing against people with wealth for the same coveted spots in colleges. That typically means better high schools, more opportunities, less debt (parents can cover). It's not surprising to see why younger people are upset. They economically don't have it as good as their parents!

It's easy for most of us to simply write off these people as lazy, stupid, whatever. But, we often forget how much easier we had it and just how much luck plays into things. Shouldn't we be trying to find a solution where people don't need luck to make it?
Consider the software business. It's probably the most free market industry in existence, with a near total lack of government regulation, standards, interference, subsidies, price fixing, licensing, and oversight (with the exception of the disastrous patent system).

And look at the results: an ongoing, decades long explosion of new products, innovation, millions earning a great living, costs of software relentlessly driven to literally zero, revolutionary new technology every couple of years - does anyone think that could be made better with socialism?

On the other hand, the industries with the most government intervention seem to be doing the worst - finance, health care, higher education.
They have a US office and offer cards to US residents. That's all that matters.
I'm not "ignoring" your point, but disputing its correctness.

You can only trace what you have documented in some way or another. But it's not necessary that it be written by friendly sources. For example, you can learn that there was a group teaching that circumcision was required for Christians because some of Paul's writings criticize that group. That doesn't tell us that they were wrong and Paul was right, or even that Paul's characterization of them was totally accurate, only that Paul thought them noteworthy enough to criticize.

What we know of early Christian documents is that they preserved not merely their own positive teachings, but criticisms of other groups. The writings we still have involve a fair bit of back-and-forth. They involve what might be called either "criticism" or "nuancing" of other parts of the same collection of writing. They involve criticism of teachings of other groups.

My contention is that they, either directly or indirectly, preserved every truly-early variant of Christianity that had enough followers for anyone to care -- that, in essence, there isn't a big enough gap in history for a group like the gnostics to have existed and been significant prior to around the mid second century. Because there's no criticism of those ideas, and for a group that loves to criticize, that would be way out of character.

And the documents are well-enough preserved to have not lost that. It's not, as some suppose, that there's a sketchy chain of preservation that we can't follow, and out the far end many centuries later comes a document we can't trace; instead, there's a broad spread of preservation by a bunch of different Christian communities on three different continents, who spoke different languages, and we can trace what sort of changes happened over time from different communities. We don't have to suppose a chain of accuracy-destroying alterations; we can establish fairly high certainty of most of the New Testament at least near the end of the first or start of the second century. Which is different from saying "proven eyewitness accounts" (though there are some things that point toward the accounts being written by people familiar with 1st-century Jewish culture in Palestine; one of the reasons I keep bringing up the names used in the canonical gospels is that they don't match Jewish diaspora names, but instead Palestine-region Jewish names, from the first century.)

There are entire scholarly journals about this stuff. I don't mean "Christians convincing themselves"; there's a good mix of Christian and non-Christian scholars who study Biblical manuscripts and Biblical archaeology and so forth, and there's fairly broad agreement about the various sects that existed in the first couple of centuries. There's disagreement over who was "right", of course, but not particularly over which groups existed or were significant.
The Internet solved this very nicely more than thirty years ago with a protocol called NNTP connecting article servers to form a network called Usenet.

The traffic is pretty low on Usenet these days. You can blame your aforementioned fragmentation for that. People would rather write to walled gardens. The idea of using special client to connect a server is somewhat alien to the generation that equates the Internet with the Web. There is also a learning curve to Usenet. For instance, newbies will be dismayed by a long delay while the client downloads the the entire list of newsgroups when connecting for the first time. This is something you can turn off. E.g. in the SLRN newsreader's .slrnrc file:

set read_active 0 % don't download active file
set check_new_groups 0 % don't bother me with new groups

I'm currently subscribe to these:

comp.compilers
comp.lang.awk
comp.lang.lisp
comp.programming
comp.programming.threads
comp.std.c
comp.terminals
comp.theory
comp.unix.admin
comp.unix.programmer
comp.unix.shell
sci.electronics.basics
sci.electronics.design
sci.electronics.repair
yes, and the top post doesn't really make a lot of sense. Inflation devalues money, really poor people don't have any money.

The failure of the minimum wage not growing with inflation is a political one. If you want higher minimum wages vote for guys who campaign for the stuff, but it has nothing to do with monetary policy.
Doesn't need to.

It's very different from the 6, and Apple has launched the iPod Touch in 2012, which is practically identical to the 2014 iPhone 6.
Formalizing 100 Theorems
Start one! That's how all of them began :D
It's really heartbreaking.

As a person who was raised very leftist, and only became a conservative (to the consternation of all friends and family) in my 20's, I really don't know how to talk someone out of the left's bubble. I count it a miracle that I found my way out of leftism. Their politics are so lush and their imagery vivid. Ours, on the right, are dull, utilitarian, and based on comparatively dry topics like economics and social psychology.

It's no wonder politics is swinging left, but it is profoundly frightening. Young Americans, just 5-10 years younger than myself, have reached a new extreme. I believe the US is about to take a hard dive to the left, and I don't want my kids to grow up impoverished by it.

I've been looking for a country, to move to, which is more dedicated to classical liberal/capitalist ideals, and who's young people know and understand the value of hardwork, sobriety and dedication. Somewhere in Asia, perhaps?
Justice Minister cedes defeat in war on drugs, wants to co-exist with yaba
I have a side question. If gravity (i.e. warping of space time) propagates at the speed of light. Then does that mean that the Alcubierre warp drive is fundamentally incapable of supra-light speeds?
On your last point: from a historical chart [1] of U.S. net household wealth (in a 2014 Economist article), it seems the wealth gap didn't collapse or even moderate its increase in 2008. Indeed, it's reached the same territory which, in 1917, inspired the passage of progressive income and estate taxes in the U.S.

[1] http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/inequali...
Here today, GaN tomorrow: Military chip tech grants Moore’s law a reprieve
http://javaranch.com/ which is primarily a Java focused site but they have been re-branding it as http://coderanch.com/ for a while now to bring in discussions for various other programming languages and programming/engineering in general http://www.coderanch.com/t/660249/Wiki/Code-Ranch-Domain.

They have been around for a while now http://www.javaranch.com/JRhistory.jsp
Open multiple tabs of the most recent commit diffs on any project on GitHub
> No, he/she didn't say that

I'm well aware that they didn't say that. I'm saying that because disagreeing with them.

> that's not true.

Really? Why, in a capitalist system, would the upper middle class and rich, who are the only people with money to invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation, not invest in assets that grow proportionally to inflation? Isn't the entire basis of capitalism that people act rationally in self-interest?
Management is honest, but execution is slow.
My 2 cents: Young americans are giving up on capitalism because they are some of the most impatient people I've ever met. They expect their careers to go from 0 to 60 in no time without putting in hard work, effort, time and experience to get the "dream career" they want. They don't see that great things in life require dedication.

Yes, hello Sander's supporters :)
Can you not just direct debit it into a landlords account? That's what's done here but is there a down side?
Cltorch: A Hardware-Agnostic Back End for the Torch DNN Library, Based on OpenCL
Yes sometimes the mental gymnastics people make to avoid logical conclusions..
I think you're deluding yourself, and your arguments have the same tone as defenders of communism when they say "oh of course communism didn't work in the USSR, but that's because they werent doing it properly!" Capitalism in 2016 is a hell of a lot less broken than capitalism in 1916 or 1816 when many markets were much less regulated. The answer is not "freer markets", but I agree with you that it's also not just more regulation. Instead, we need to be able to do more with less regulation, to have more efficient rules that make the economic game better fulfill its purpose of providing for everyone's needs and encouraging useful behaviours.
Sortition[1] (randomly selecting from the population for government positions) combined with direct democracy where possible would fundamentally address problems of inequality regardless of their source. Meritocracy, plutocracy, nepotism--you'll end up with a small group of people in power in any system unless the system is carefully designed to prevent it.

Put another way, the article mentions several possible measures to try to provide for better outcomes for everyone who isn't "smart"; these are bandaids for cancer. These are top-down methods for "the elite" in various forms to provide for "everyone else" so that the have-nots have at least enough to avoid offending the sensibilities of the powerful. If fairness is a genuine concern and central goal for a society, then positions of power should be filled by a statistically representative sample of the population. Until then, inequality will be the status quo.

As I see it, the primary benefit in this specific situation (technological unemployment or underemployment for the "not smart enough") would be faster reaction time. You might see similar solutions to those proposed in this article, but you wouldn't have to wait for people like Mike Rowe to write about problems of inequality (and you wouldn't have to wait even longer for people in positions of power to decide to do something). Random selection would produce many people who deeply care about the "not smart" because that describes about 50% of the people selected and many people they personally know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
> Capitalism is not a natural state at all.

It's more natural than centrally planned economies, which absolutely require rule of law, police, etc.

Capitalism is 1) that the relative value of choices needs to be determined and 2) those values are best crowdsourced.

If the rule of law breaks down, people will still trade, they will just trade for things that cannot be stolen or reneged on. Things like honor or reputation. This obviously eliminates the efficiency of a common currency, but at the end of the day, choices still have various priorities and the world is too complicated for even the smartest people to evaluate all the choices for everyone.

Anyway, those are the natural laws. Choices need to be made. Crowdsourcing is best when evaluating prices, especially regarding common goods and services.
probably done with https://github.com/gelstudios/gitfiti
Surprisingly, Russia may be a good bet.
Wasn't there as show HN a few months back that allowed you to draw anything you wanted in the commit history?
brilliant!It's the coolest UI library I've ever seen
Thanks for the links! Good to see such books aren't lost in total obscurity as I had suspected. Seems to me that "educational fiction" tended to be text-books poorly-disguised as stories, so I intend to do book for Physical Chemistry that flips it around: a story that happens to talk about the chemistry extensively (although, like most side projects, due to lack of funding/incentive that project is "taking it's own sweet time" going anywhere).
That chart is misleading, because it's measuring the top .01%, and the caption gives me the interpretation that it has an agenda.

Here's a more leveled look: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/09/15/wealth-inequality-shr...

There's no doubt it re-accelerated after the crisis, but a lot of that has to do with credit conditions and tight money for the poor, and loose money for the rich.
A New Generation of Law School Grads Are About to Be Screwed
> that VR is the future of gaming

It's not the future of gaming. I don't think anyone believes it is. There are far too many types of games which are fundamentally inappropriate for a VR headset.

However, it is a part of the future of gaming. Probably a big part, especially as more interesting control peripherals are developed. It's already amazing for basically any type of game where a joystick / HOTAS setup is appropriate.
What we have is no longer free-market capitalism, but "gangster" or "crony" capitalism.

The only bright spot in the US economy is the one part that hasn't been taken over via regulatory capture, rent-seeking etc. - the Internet and related technologies. (Although Comcast, Level3, ATT and the incumbent telecoms are trying to change that).

This quote is very apt, though over 150 years old:

*"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. "
4.7t is pretty strong. It isn't a cover detector as it's mainly iPhones I've seen affected and it lasts long after the phone is removed from the field. However this may be what has caused the effect on some of the other phones I've seen exposed. I'll do some experimenting next time it occurs. GE and Seimens seem to have an array of phones that engineers are equipped with and they are happy to expose them to high fields.
Switzerland. They just said no to basic pay and say no to increase hourly wage through national referendum.
I can't speak for my whole generation, but I used to be nearly ancap in highschool. We were coming of age a few years after the first dot-com crash, and it looked like a temporary market correction. The War On Terror still didn't sound like a joke, technology and the Web were still exciting and changing and hadn't gone completely walled-garden yet.

The game plan was simple, especially with Boomer parents: do well in highschool, do well in college, and then either get a good job (Boomer suggested) or start your own thing (Boomer accepted).

2008 hit, money gets tight for everyone, stock market tanks, and all of us watch as the bankers get bailed out--the ones with enough friends, anyways. My first company's accounts got acquired when Chase ate Washington Mutual and then charged us service fees until they'd drained our meager J2ME game profits. It was abundantly clear that "capitalism", as being practiced in the United States, was not a free market.

2011, a bit over three years later, Occupy Wall Street happened. A lot of protests happened. I saw protests in Houston--after work, of course!--and would later learn that threatened sniper actions against the protestors were ignored by the police. In Oakland, police shot an Iraw veteran in the head with anti-riot gear, landed him in critical condition in the hospital, and nobody gave a shit. In New York, in Zuccotti, the protests were more a spectacle for the bankers and finance folks than a serious way of changing the system, mostly because of the frivolous hippy shit that took it over.

In all cases, they were made fun of by the media until they dissolved from internal disorganization and distraction. The "We are the 99%" site was brilliant marketing and had such a clear message of desperation that it probably could've galvanized the entire Occupy movement, but instead we ended up with a bunch of environmentalists and progressives and hippies who were all bitching about their niche agendas and somehow failing to see in their echochamber intersectionality that they weren't saying anything that 95% of the rest of the 99% gave two shits about.

And now, in 2015, I see that the startup ecosystem and game is basically based on squeezing labor out of early employees while paying lip service to "visionary" founders. I see that large companies are bemoaning the lack of trained devs and yet who are pushing H1B support at the same time that everybody is pointing out the aggressive "train your foreign replacement" techniques of those same companies. I see great swaths of the Internet grown fat upon the domestic surveillance of advertising, a rot so deep that it'll probably kill off something like half of humanity's accumulated output from the last few years because it'll suddenly no longer be economical. And in this total ratfuck, finally, people are starting to go after the perceived oppressors--ye olde cisthet while males--because that's a more convenient target than grappling with the forces that put them there and are finding ways of flaying them still further in pursuit of the all might dollar.

So, yeah, you're damned right I don't believe in capitalism anymore.
I'd guess 5-10 times per year.

The bulk of these have been mostly positive followup questions to comments I've posted here. I admit that in a few cases I've dropped the ball and not gotten back to people. I do apologize for that.

I've also received two or three negative e-mails from people who didn't like my comments/posts, which is a little odd, as I don't tend to be too controversial on here. One of these was I think prompted by a misunderstanding of the message I was trying to convey. I would have responded but the person in question was using an e-mail anonymizer which didn't support return messages.

The most impactful relationship I've formed via HN was when I contacted Sebastian Macke to discuss my networking setup for jor1k. We don't speak to one another often, but since I still happily maintain the server which supplies network access to the jor1k demo we do contact one another every now and then.
Getting downloaded for asking a technical question? Hacker news... full of dicks.
Bunch of David Aninowsky's friends in here and shills, RamNode is a legitimate provider.
The high transient balance really only affects your credit a few points if you have otherwise excellent credit. It starts to ding you more if you have delinquencies or really high balance to overall limit.
Its not young people that matter but the class responsible for educating them, the intellectuals. Few intellectuals even know what capitalism is and what an historical achievement it is. Much to the intellectual's dismay on both the left and right she ain't going away after decades of smears, misrepresentation and attempts to ignore her arguments.

Cf. Ayn Rand's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal

NB: This is not a book on economics, in this book she makes a moral case for capitalism based on her ethics of rational egoism, i.e selfishness. She was not primarily interested in politics or economics except as a consequence of her work in epistemology and ethics. I urge anyone who cares about the future of Western Civilization to read her books and judge it for yourself instead of repeating what others say about her. At the very least it will force you to examine some of your own premises and worldview, i.e it will make you think, even if you disagree.
If you have problems with my threads, make one response, don't detach my threads like a bitch and multiple responses.
Can you give an example of the kind of question or discussion you're looking for? Might help folks narrow down their answer.
>Global poverty

Most of the world isn't capitalist, or at least not traditional western capitalism. Including the west currently, which is in an orgy of corruption and distortion and central control and unfree markets.

Your explanation of how things that used to be valuable are now valueless is exactly the problem from the article. If technological trinkets that are highly entertaining but inherently fundamentally worthless are our generations Faberge Eggs, or clickbait journalism on the internet or music on the internet or pr0n on the internet or social signalling spirals on the internet, that's "great" that its worthless so everyone can have it even if they have no money. On the other hand, when its labor or skill or craft or art, that's kind of a problem for everyone who has nothing else to sell, when that's basically the entire population.

There is also a forest for the trees argument. A state that fails most of its population is a failed state. Doesn't matter if one tree is in the best shape in history, or really that one tree doesn't matter at all, if the rest of the forest is dead. Failed states are ripe for revolution and that really great tree is going to get chopped in the guillotine no matter how great its achievement. A state that fails to serve its population will eventually get replaced, peacefully or otherwise.