skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What I don't like about this argument is that it vastly downplays corporations' ability to form monopolies and cartels in the absence of government programs to abuse. They are perfectly capable of using whatever means are at hand.

We've had periods of much less-fettered capitalism. It did not result in greater equality, in fact it had the opposite effect.

In regards to your last paragraph, you should realize that some people support redistribution not because they want rich people to give them money, but because they understand that capitalism is a flawed tool for tallying contribution to society, and a well-functioning economy needs a rebalancing hand. Likewise there are lots of people, capitalists even, who have arrived at your "success" scenario and yet still don't share your social darwinist views.
Another interesting publishing system is Pollen http://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen/. It integrates with Racket to give you the full power of a programming language while writing markup. The guy behind it, Matthew Butterick, is a typographer and has put a lot of work into it.
> There are two conflicting and irreconcilable centres of gravity in law - justice/fairness, and the exploitation of power asymmetries for profit.

I don't think that's a reasonable dichotomy. "Letter of the law" isn't exclusively useful for people looking to exploit power asymmetries or create unfairness. It's also useful for smaller entities to protect themselves from threats that larger ones have enough insulation to just weather and survive.
Won't the poor have to share the tax burden to service the interest rates on the Fed's increased liabilities?
Gesundheit
tl;dr Basecamp CEO recommends L Marquet's _Turn the Ship Around_ as an important management strategy. Namely, empower team members to approach leaders with an intent, rather than requesting permission.
Go: Subtests and Sub-benchmarks
I'm curious as to how you characterize "left" and "right" ... what collection of positions do you attribute to each side?
I host https://dns-api.com/ which allows you to use Git repositories to host DNS, via Amazon's Route53 infrastructure.

I seem to pick up new users pretty organically, and it's been running for over a year now.
You're paying for food at work?
I can't stand video content unless the visual component is absolutely critical to transmission of the idea that is being communicated. I'd take a podcast/audiobook (with playback speed control) over 99% of videos that are shared on HN and a gazillion other sites.

The "information density" to "bandwidth" ratio (is there a term for it?) is seldom justified for the majority of video content.
At this point there's not much reason to use it- linux game torrents are slim pickings.
> 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.

Actually, you're looking for Ayn Rand novels.
Slight NSFW warning (blurred tits).
I was wondering about that - they already took out $1M each in the last fundraising round at all - why draw a $200K+ salary and give half of it to taxes when you've already got plenty in the bank?
Yes.

I'm a massive fan of AWS Lambda, but using it to serve public API quests is just a nightmare. Just because you _can_ do something, doesn't mean you should.

I'm constantly puzzled by why people use Lambda for this - if you don't want to deal with managing traditional services, there's plenty of other options out there (in AWS and otherwise) that are much more suited to the task of serving a website.
I'm not sure I've ever seen someone so readily admit they don't know what the world "socialism" means.
Ianal but having seen an egregious contract in action, I was told that the legality of a given contract depends very much on the kind of contract being signed and the kinds of people signing. The question is what sort of contract is "unconscionable".

For example, someone signing a standard residential lease wouldn't be expected to read fine print that says "after two years, rent doubles and I can kick you out and demand rent in advance". But someone signing a commercial real estate contract would be expected to read and abide just about anything, including something like that.

So I think how enforceable legal a contract that says "btw, there's a strong chance your money will wind-up with a stranger" depends on how well the investment literature really conveys that risk.

Also, I have the vague impression that the riskiest investments are reserved for high-net-worth-individuals (those with $2 million+ in non-real estate assets) because they can afford to lose more money.
Startups and immigration
Isn't that Locu?
Of course, movies can be beautiful and even enjoyable because of their slowness sometimes - but that is completely different from the online experience, where everything moves extremely fast and there is always an overload of information, so to keep up with it, you want to be able to ingest it as quickly as possible.

Exceptions apply of course for long form writing pieces, where the pacing and the wording is as much a part of the content as the content itself.

But on facebook ?
> STFU

The civility rule here doesn't switch off just because someone else is wrong. Please don't do this again. Instead, please (re)-read the following, which describe what we're looking for in comments on this site—the idea is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11926598 and marked it off-topic.
Er, that should read the first section of the third book, namely the same book/section quoted at the start of the short story.
And when the data gets bigger, there's data.table[1], which performs amazingly well at certain tasks (vectorized ops ftw!), though the syntax can get a little clunky (if you squint at it hard, it's SQL-ish). On my 2012 macbook pro, I'm able to do (some) transformations of tables containing 10s of millions of rows in only a few seconds (and sometimes faster).

It's possible to use dplyr and data.table together, as well, to good effect[2].

[1] https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/wiki

[&] https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/wiki/Benchmarks-%3A...

[2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21435339/data-table-vs-dp...

[&] https://twitter.com/hadleywickham/status/553169339751215104
>In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of tuition?)

Government subsidies, grants and scholarships were absolutely available in massive supply even 20 years ago, when annual college tuition for in-state public schools averaged about 10k (including room & board and books). The student loans didn't make it more expensive; the influx of students did. It's not the kids fault they were sold a bill of goods by their boomer parents, the media, and even employers about college being the only way to avoid fast food or ditch digging as a career.

>I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market.

Then, why is life-saving medicine that USED to be relatively cheap so needlessly expensive? That wasn't government regulation. Turing pharma with Daraprim, KV pharma with Makena, then doxycycline, etc., the list goes on. I think this is one place the government should have (and could have, actually) stepped in but didn't. The invisible hand is so darn arbitrary. Makes computers and flat-screens so dern cheap, but something that can save our life? Nah. Go figure!

Another example. I don't recall diamonds being anything but compressed coal. I don't think it's regulated much if at all (I don't recall the GIA being a government agency). There is no regulated market for it like there is gold and other precious metals. Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?
I'm pretty sure it's sexist (but maybe in the other direction?) to claim that men are in general too stupid to realize that they should leave engineering. "Perceived barriers" also indicate some sort of sexism is at play here. (The alternative that women are just imagining these barriers seems far-fetched and equally sexist.)

Perhaps more to the point, this argument only holds up if women who leave engineering go into more prestigious/higher status fields. Is there any evidence of that?
I think debtors will far more often be middle and upper class than lower class. The most indebted of the poor might have tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt, but that doesn't really stack up against a $600,000 mortgage. Also in this day and age of getting your credit checked for everything it seems like a lot of poor people probably have fairly restricted access to loans.
I'm going to call that inaccurate. Of the top 100,000 smart people in America, more than 80,000 of them are males.

A lot of these men have supernatural mental abilities. They can envision things working in their minds in all 4 dimensions. This is called the visual-spatial intelligence type, and it is most common among genius men. These are the men, ones who excel in super-natural visual-spatial reasoning, which results or is the result of super-natural quantitative reasoning ability, but don't excel so much in linguistics or verbal reasoning as much, that are being "talked out" or shouldered out of some executive positions and Ivy League schools, especially at younger ages (verbal reasoning maxes out around age 50-60).

These men are much more suited for positions such as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and other high administrative positions. During the Obama presidency, a woman was appointed as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and she was propped up through San Francisco liberal networks. I don't doubt that she is a very smart person, even a genius, but I do have very serious doubts that she should be leading women to that end of society. The men that she is shouldering out are very civilized, very unlikely to speak up for themselves, and they have been carried by the rest of the patriarch for centuries, even since the beginning of time. In times of trouble, these visual-spatial geniuses, such as Alan Greenspan, Richard Feynmann or Albert Einstein, are who we all lean on for making great decisions in driving our civilization. American civilization is currently in a steady decline, and we should be leaning on them rather than making them into the enemy and shouldering them out of the positions they should inherit.
Sorry, it looks like I pasted the wrong study. Here it is:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/853175

(google "Mixed Results for Fecal Transplant in First Randomized Trial" to bypass the paywall).
> I don't understand why current contracts don't suffice for that scenario. If the user disputes payment for services already rendered, you can sue them as things are now, and you'll win. It doesn't usually happen just because the cost is too high, but I don't see that this would change for "don't apply reasonableness, just read the letter of the agreement" contracts.

If you have to sue to recover the money, you're out the money until you win, and you might not win. You're also out the money if the entity you try to sue can't be sued, which can happen for a variety of reasons, such as "already pulled the money into a different jurisdiction you can't touch", or otherwise "doesn't have the money to recover". And in any case, it isn't worth the trouble unless the transaction is large enough, which is why most service businesses have to budget a certain amount for losses due to fraud.

I'm not sure why you think an unbreakable agreement wouldn't fix that, assuming it was actually enforceable as such.

> Or just ask people to pay you in cash.

Cash doesn't function for online services (with very rare exceptions). And even for a cash transaction, people can sue you and demand their cash back.

To clarify something: I don't think that the entire economy should use "rules as written" transactions; I think that would be an incredibly bad idea. For example, I want to store the majority of my savings somewhere that follows "spirit of the law", and has some protections and recourse for transactions I don't want. And I spend money on credit cards, confident that I can call up American Express if something goes horribly wrong. (I've never had to do so.)

I do think it should be possible for me to intentionally and verifiably move a small amount of money from my bank account in a "rules as intended" system into a transactional account in a "rules as written" system, and then use it to conduct a transaction in that system. (Moving the funds is necessarily governed by "rules as intended" protections provided by my bank, as for example I would want some recourse from my bank if that transaction wasn't initiated by me. That then gives the bank an incentive to make absolutely sure they have valid authorization from me.)
Yes, but Digital Ocean also includes storage and bandwidth.
People have thousands of stocks to choose from. If they want consistent low growth, they'll go with something far more predictable like a bond. Low demand for this stock makes it worth even less, which hurts investors even more and gets CEOs fired. This is why growth or consistent high profits that can pay for dividends is a goal of every company. Mediocre profits alone won't really do you much good if you're working for your investors at a major corp.
Does that online shopping mean any ecommerce transaction?
I think ruby-sys was originally built into ruru, then separated out. Based on comments in PRs, I think the -sys convention is for Rust crates that map 1-to-1 to other languages C apis. Then, packages such as ruru create something more easy to consume and program against.
I like this critique of Capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

Yes it's nice having cheap super cool toys. It's nicer having less work and being treated well. But when a social economy interacts with human behavior it usually does not work out that way. But the above, having less work and having more free time, however you do it, is a worth goal for the economy. However you make it happen. Toys are not all that they are made out to be especially when you have no time to play with them.

That's all Capitalism I think is doing for us these days. Most methods of producing necessary things are so well understood and so efficient you can run them off machines for the most part. Capitalism is producing really cool toys for everyone. Yay!

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

"Studies in the United States have found that an increase in material wealth and goods in the country has had little to no effect on the well-being and happiness of its citizens."

What people need are experiences and those experiences are all about having the time to experience them.

"Instead, research shows that purchases made with the intention of acquiring life experiences such as going on a family vacation make people happier than purchases made to acquire material possessions such as a car. Even just thinking about experiential purchases makes people happier than thinking about material ones"

It's sort of sick that this idea that you need free time has been turned into the above analysis about purchasing experiences.
Quite the opposite, and for the record, I'm a native Swede so I do have quite the first hand experience. Socialism means that production and distribution are controlled by the workers, something which isn't true for any state in Scandinavia. In fact the economies were built through quite liberal market policies.
> It seems to me that these alternatives (Chip & sign, chip and pin, carrying a credit card at all) all compete poorly with the "tap my phone to pay" offerings.

Sometimes I need to read comments like this to remind me that Hacker News is full of people who live inside the SF tech bubble where this sentence is considered a reasonable idea, and I shouldn't take HN too seriously.
This is the worst kind of off-topic tangent that we see on HN: trotting out ideological talking points, then slathering on flamewar fodder. It's so ridiculously out of place here that we've banned this account.

I think we banned your previous account for doing this as well. If you don't want to be banned on HN, it needs to stop. If you want to commit to keeping this sort of comment off HN, you can email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look into unbanning your original account.
The markup Atlassian uses in Jira isn't Markdown at all. It has a few general similarities, like the use of asterisks for bold, but otherwise it's so different as to essentially be its own thing. (For instance, it uses [text|http://example.com/] for links, which isn't even remotely like Markdown.)
We have a side-project http://orcarium.com - will it make everything OK with a legal part?
If only people learned history. Look at the comprehensive list of hyperinflations in modern history. Every single one happened under leftist rule of the country [1]. Look at Venezuela, Cuba or any other very leftist state. There's always a rich elite, and a poor underclass.

If only people would learn that its socialistic policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer! Capitalism (voluntary trade and respect for private property) has always improved everyone's lives. What we need is a transition to more capitalism not less of it. If we keep implementing leftist policies that sound nice (like min wage, 'free' education, 'free' healthcare, etc) we'll end up poor like all the other socialist countries before us. It's time to actually have compassion on the poor and create opportunities through capitalism.

[1] http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/hanke-k...
You start to wonder though, how much better these CEOs are compared to less famous ones.
I do hope they gain some more traction. I've found them to be very useful with reducing boilerplate / repetitive code.
FYI, the post was written by Tim Carmody, who is guest-blogging on Kottke.org this week.
> The idea of using special client to connect a server is somewhat alien to the generation that equates the Internet with the Web.

I think the problem wouldn't so much be needing a special client (app) to access a server (walled garden) as having to discover the existence of USENET, select a client, set up the client to point to their ISP's NNTP server (do ISPs even have NNTP servers these days?) or a premium or free 3rd party server, and then find an appropriate newsgroup(s) to follow.

Walled gardens also have the attraction of having a more user-friendly experience that can work across a variety of devices. The last time I was even moderately active on USENET, I was slurping newsgroups via a scheduled job running Souper and reading/writing posts on Yarn, a console mode program for OS/2. I'm fairly sure SLRN is console mode as well... not really a selling point on today's technology, where many people would be using their phone/tablet.
Interestingly, this story has attracted numerous people to Ethereum. It was a pricey advertising but it worked.
We've asked you before to stop posting flamewar-style comments to Hacker News. Really, please stop.
How does that have to do with an inability of young college graduates to make ends meet? A large number of are financially insolvent and rely on payday lenders, large debts, and the gig-economy.

Saying "That's too bad for them" while new billions are made on top is very Louis XVIth. The population at large will, eventually, try something to address this problem. It'd be nice to try to be on top of it early and handle it peacefully.
2008 didn't happen because of a lack of regulation, it happened because of absolutely awful regulation. You don't need more regulation, you need smarter regulation. It is absolutely absurd that the federal government subsidized loans to (insolvent) poor people that they can't pay back -- resulting in subprime the mortgages that caused the crisis. Now, in no way am I saying banks had no hand in it; that's just untrue. But it certainly was not the one-sided affair leftist revisionists wish it were.
Don't forget that's it's common for autoimmune diseases to wax and wane. Even if a patients get no therapy at all, the disease often gets better for a short period of time.
> Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?

People want them and are willing to pay the offered price for them. Just like truffles that cost $20 for shavings at a fancy restaurant.
He does seem very confused and somewhat innocent in his way to look at the world and capitalism in particular.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11926528 and marked it off-topic.
Aha, so that's what (human) dreaming is for.
The thing is that capitalism[1] can work reasonably well for almost everyone if capitalists weren't so shortsighted (and petty). Many Nordic countries get this right and their populations are the better for it.
The taxi driver is also reducing his cost by not paying credit card companies.

Given credit card companies have legal means to pay less percentage tax on much more income than the cab driver and suck money out of taxpayers' pockets in many other ways, I'd offer that screwing over the credit card company might benefit the rest of taxpayers more than the cabbie paying tax does.
Solid article backed up with research put in context.

TL;DR: Almost everyone watches porn, and people are starting to watch younger and younger. However, almost all research shows it's not harmful. Porn is also a reflection of the viewer and society.
tl;dr: There is no evidence that pornography has ill effects, and a modicum of evidence that it can be positive. The (sometimes) conventional wisdom about porn -- objectification of women, its addictive nature, destructiveness in relationships -- is flatly wrong.
Labyrinth? I have a feeling that Doom is next.
Please don't violate the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

I agree with you that the comment you replied to was unduly negative. It was probably unfair to downvote yours, though it wasn't particularly substantive.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11926020 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11925924 and downweighted it.

It's not strictly off-topic, but it's a nasty, generic dismissal. Piling onto other people's mistakes ("They could have been discovered as part of coming up with their business plan") is a lousy thing to do, and if you're going to do it here (though please don't), your comment should have at least have some other redeeming quality. Instead you draw contemptuous conclusions about someone's character, kicking them when they're down.

This is the sort of comment that, even assuming it's 100% correct, says more about the commenter than its subject. I'm ashamed to see things like this on HN and particularly ashamed that they routinely attract upvotes.
They do have a couple of rules there - 1. Be Nice 2. They strictly enforce their naming policy wherein they expect users to have a real _sounding_ display name.
There's an open source version of K(3) here: https://github.com/kevinlawler/kona
Are you able to load data sets into data.table which are larger than memory?