skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Starting with 3:

Why should the citizens of a country be in favor of an economic policy that screws them in return for making the richest .001% of the population richer, and raising the standard of living for foreigners living in a mud huts to being slaves in a factory? This was apparent all along, but the people voicing these concerns were ignored or marginalized by the one sided economic voices in the media...

So to part 2:

The problem is that the economists you hear on the news telling you what needs to be done are wrong worse than 50% of the time (austerity, free trade with countries that don't have equivalent economies, you name it). In the US after Trump (who I mostly disagree with) started calling out Carrier for closing a US factory to offshore the production, I heard a couple economists taking about how if carrier didn't move all their production offshore no one would be able to afford an AC unit.

To which, I was frankly shocked. central AC units, which are mostly assembled from 3rd party components, many of which are already made in china/etc (unless you get lucky with a us built emerson/copeland compressor) are extremely high margin businesses. The assembly costs in the US are a tiny fraction of the installed price of a AC unit (which are dominated by your local AC installer). Worse, prices rarely decline when production is off-shored, rather the savings tend to go back to the execs and majority share holders. Or worse, are used to buy or block smaller more efficient competitors.

So, for a news organization to not vet this before allowing some doomsday economist to come on and talk about how the price of AC units are going to spike if carrier isn't allowed to fire a bunch of $20/hour employees in favor of a bunch of $5/hour ones, while playing tax games with the profits (aka book the majority of the profits outside of the US to avoid taxes) is just insane. Heck carrier has a gross profit margin of > 50% (its higher than Apple!).

Bottom line, I think pretty much everyone I know is now trained to disbelieve anything heard on the news from a self proclaimed economist.
I agree. A fifty-something vote is more like "neutral" or "undecided" than "leave" or "remain". Perhaps 60% would be the clear threshold to count as a clear, unambiguous decision from the voters to leave the EU.

On the other hand, you don't want too high a threshold to make a change, like 3/4 to ratify, as js2 points out, because then you're effectively locked in to the status quo for too long.

Another way of doing this is to offer voters a third option, "neutral/undecided". When counting, you'd treat these votes as if they were in favour of the status quo, remaining in the EU. Then, if 51% of the votes are to leave, Britain leaves the EU. After all, if you're neutral about something, you stick with what you have, rather than disrupting things for no good reason.
Apparently unless you are for unlimited immigration with no control or assimilation period you are a bigot.
Agreed. We shoUld but we won't for a long while. We're not a nation even if it would be safer if we were. But see how young people vastly voted against Brexit. This referendum wouldn't have won in 2026 and there is hope for becoming one nation. 100 years?
I derped on the math. But the point remains.
You mean "dead" ? You can vote while being retired right ?
No mentioning of HPV, which is contagious and some types of which cause cancer?

(SciHub has the linked Nature article, BTW)
Neville Chamberlain <--> Adolf Hitler

David Cameron <--> Angela Merkel

According to your comment, Angela Merkel is about as evil and reckless as Adolf Hitler.

Okay. I am not taking this seriously.
Not really. German politicians can just play up the betrayal card - UK leaving means the Germans are now left holding the bag even more for the EU. Germany has a strong economy and this will not affect its fundamentals that much.
I find the younger are usually more naive and more easily manipulated. They're young, they'll live and adapt
Well I guess we're talking past each other. I do appreciate the responses, but I also agree that we're unlikely to make any progress here and this thread is best killed.
I never said they were. I was responding in general terms to the comment above mine. What disappoints me about this vote has nothing to do with the way people are organizing, but the thing they're organizing around. People are voting based on how they feel or what "side" they're on instead of thinking about what will actually have the best outcome. Cutting off the nose to spite the face and so on…
My biggest fear is another Scottish referendum... the last one was bitter and polarizing.

I have just spent the last 20 minutes drafting letters to my MP and MSP basically telling them I do not want another referendum.
> helps that it's the only English speaking nation in the common market

Ireland? Malta? Cyprus?
Writings: http://vpri.org/html/writings.php

Software:
http://www.vpri.org/vp_wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Underlying a lot of this is the fact that not everyone can perform like Germany, because, by definition, not everyone can be a net exporter. Germany has benefitted greatly from the Euro to get to its position as a net exporter.
It seems that the vote is actually not binding. The parliament might still decide to stay in. While this would be another hit against the trust in democracy, I wouldn't bet GB is actually leaving. Very similar to Switzerland and the "foreigners out" vote.
Really? In terms of security NATO is a far, far bigger player than the EU will ever be. The EU may have played a part in Ukraine in terms of encouraging it to look West which annoyed Russia - but the EU is not really offering much in the way of collective security. Look at its inability to agree further sanctions on Russia (vetoed by Greece etc).
> while it is not that easy to immigrate into China.

Care to mention why? In my quite limited circle of acquaintances I have 3 people who now work in China, and they seem to have had no problems with getting work permits in there. One of them is even a guy in his late 20s who's now working with kids under 7, which would have been an issue in other, more "liberal" countries, but I digress. I'm from Eastern Europe, if it matters.

> Why not?

Because if you make superior products to out internal, home-made ones, and then flood our market with those products then that means our domestic producers go out of business and we lose our jobs (while we happily buy your better products). We want to have the chance to share in your country's superior economic power (which, let's not forget, also depends on our cash, it depends in our buying your products) by working for your country's companies, if need be in your country. It's as simple as that, any other outcome is economic colonialism.
Primarily, they could have called off the project for political union and concentration of political power in Brussels (including the ridiculous monthly ride to Strasbourg). Concentrate on enabling free trade, not building a federal superstate. Also, quit bashing "unpleasant" euro-sceptic elected politicians (by unelected EU officials).

(As an example of the EU gravy train, the former prime minister in my own country, Jyrki Katainen, first screwed up things home and then landed on a nice job in Brussels - because he kept saying nice things about the European project. This is one more little thing that has turned me suspicious of the whole project, a project I didn't vote for when I voted for EU membership 22 years ago.)

Simply: admit out loud that they got it wrong and they have to change direction.

But that would have meant a loss of face.
Not one word about demand.

Most of the US population is out of buying power. The savings rate is near zero. More than half the population couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency. The US economy is demand-limited, not production-limited
Except the German economy is driven by cars. We import 1/5 of all German cars.
Not the OP, but as someone born in Britain, raised in Switzerland and now living in the US, I concur.

At least in my case think of it as my identity being some mix of Europe-in-general, Britain-somewhat, Switzerland-somewhat. Now Britain says "we're not Europe" (to horribly over-simplify). That doesn't make me think "oh well, now I'm less European", instead it makes me thing "oh well, now I'm less British".
That's the stupid thing. The high working class turnout to vote leave means that the EU labour laws can be repealed (work time directive, gender equality, etc.). Who do you think is likely to get hit hardest by that once the Tories start pushing through deregulation?
Are these available in Google Earth? If not, why not?
I think that @foxylad's point about Russian opportunism with a weak / dissolving EU is a high possibility too.
They could devalue their currency if they wanted to, if they had their own currency instead of the Euro
To say nothing of the unelected German head of state!
There are elections. But how many MEPs can you name off the top of your head? I can't name a single one... I think that's the perceived issue with EU law making.
Don't know about Iceland, but Norway and Switzerland have had to actually adopt the EU norms without having any say in how those norms get adopted or decided. That's the reason they didn't go "down the drain", I think you forgot to mention that.
Unfortunately =/
It's time to buy Alfred powerpack :P
The bulk (50%+) of the immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. They already have control over that part and they haven't done anything about it and nothing will change on that front after BRExit.
For real. Any time I hear popular macroeconomic metrics, I become deeply skeptical of whether there's gonna be anything worth listening to.

It's like taking your temperature. Sure, it could mean you're going to die. Could also mean you've got a healthy immune system fighting off a disease. Could mean it's time to stop wanking in the sauna.
Considering that the english just voted Scotland out of EU, it makes perfect sense for the Scottish to reclaim their own future.
"A blitzed economy coupled with increased nationalism"

That's my real fear - a lot of people voted for Brexit because of the situation with immigration and that's not really going to change. So next time around I see more extreme right wing government (I'm having waking nightmares of Farage in a BoJo cabinet) that will take "measures" to deal with immigrants...
Let's do some math. UK exports to the EU amount to approximately 300 billion USD. Assuming 1 worker produces 200 000 USD worth of goods, then the UK-EU trade is linked to 1.5 million jobs in the EU, or 0.3% of the EU population.

For comparison the UK-EU trade is linked to over 3.3 million jobs in the UK,¹ or 5.1% of the UK population.

0.3% vs 5.1% → the UK needs EU more than the EU needs the UK.

¹ https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-jobs-and-eu/
I'm from India and I think most people would prefer having a stable job in a factory to starving in a mud hut.

And yes , the citizens of a country should not be in favour of a policy that transfers the lions share of the gains to the 0.01 %.

But overall , a liberal global order has been a good thing.

I blame the greed of the elites for (potentially) killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Voting leave will not change the type of immigration we have in UK.

Any immigration schemes proposed by LEAVE would probably see a rise, not fall, in immigration.

This is one example of the dishonesty of leave campaign.
If I were EU - i would have agreement pre approved and ready to be signed - in the next 2 weeks.
The current liberal order isn't helping the world out so much. Another incredibly hyperbolic, right wing bad / left wing corrupt elites plan good.
Doesn't matter who needs more who.

The best deal for both is low tarrifs. There's no conflicting interest here.

Tarrifs = more jobs losses for both
No tarrifs = fewer job losses
I wasn't, that is a good point. And after Google I helped run a search engine :-) I was not saying that I advocated the person's point of view or even agreed with it, only that I recognized the argument they were making. Which was people "give" services with some expectation of how they are used, and feel abuse when their expectations are interpreted differently.

To use our anonymous employee's perspective, Google was "giving away free drinks to employees." They were an employee, they were taking drinks. At the time the policy was not as explicit as it was after the great MK purge. So they chose to interpret the policy without considering the "intent" (which was drinks when you are at the office). They compared it to newspapers (and to a lesser extent the books project) which at the time were exploiting "fair use" loopholes to drive traffic to Google's sites, where Google placed advertising. Google was sued by a number of different groups over this. As a result advertising is subtle/non-existent on the news.google.com page and somewhat subdued on the books.google.com page.

I agree with Ryan that sites get more out of Google showing results from their pages than they perceive they "lose" by not having people come to their site to read the full story. And while we can argue about magnitude, the reality is that the "web" link on HN stories lets you get the referrer set to Google and that can sometimes jump the paywall of a web site. If such a thing wasn't possible the publisher would argue those people would pay. But as perhaps Forbes has found out, maybe not so much with the ad blocking crowd.

The argument I recognize is that one side might choose to see only that evidence that supports the conclusion they have already arrived at. And the dismissal of contrary evidence is perceived as a lack of integrity.
If you get consistent splits of that nature, you should really look into breaking into two countries.

This point in particular resounded with me:

> The referendum has underlined the social and cultural gap between London and provincial England.

This applies pretty much everywhere. You have the temperate / urban / high-immigrant liberal places, and the more desolate / isolated / sparsely populated / resource rich conservative places, and for some bizarre reason we still keept forcing them to operate under one government.

I have long advocated that in the era of NATO, the UN, and nuclear arms that massive states on the scale of the US or what the EU was designed to be (effectively, over the long term, another US) is counter to all notions of democracy. You only need an independent state so long as it can assert its own borders and have enough economic significance to have bargaining power in international negotiations.

The Northeast Corridor in the US, the West Coast from SF to SD, the Rust belt, and the Carolina's are examples of fairly homogeneous societies, that would make a lot of sense being their own countries, and are all fairly distinct, but would all have significant enough size and GDP to still function easily as first world countries.

Texas is an example of the opposite problem. It has 4 liberal cities surrounded by cowboys. You would almost just want to make 3 cities (Austin / San Antonio are close enough to form one) that are independent states that behave like Luxembourg by being landlocked around the Midwestern Confederacy of Rednecks that spans from the Carolina's to the Rockies.
Compare to: Greece.
Exactly. If they held the referendum next week we'd probably get a different result. What a farce.
> I've not heard EU/US leaders say anything like "X religion has some serious issues, but we need to work to fix those issues".

Here in California, in 2008, we had Proposition 8, which rescinded the right of marriage which the state Supreme Court had declared less than a year earlier was available to same-sex couples. After that, it was noted that violence against gays increased. The vote was taken, by some, as an official statement that discriminating against gays was okay.

What do you think would happen if Obama said "Islam has some issues"? Don't you think there would be plenty of people who would take this as an excuse to start beating up Muslims? The fact that he didn't even mean his comment to be taken that way would be no defense against this very predictable consequence of his saying it.

I think he has to stick to the line that "Islam is a religion of peace". The vast majority of Muslims, after all, are peaceful. I've even read about mosques working with the FBI to help identify potentially violent people. We need that kind of partnership to continue and expand, and to make that happen, it's important to express that side of the truth, if you will. Saying "Islam is a religion of peace" says "if you're a Muslim who abhors violence, the US is on your side". That's a good message!

I don't think anyone on the left is unaware of the risks posed by violent extremism, Islamist or otherwise. It's more a question of what is the best response. As tempting as it is to say, Let's just keep out the people who seem most inclined to do such things -- if that means all Muslims, I think that would be a terrible mistake, as it would keep out large numbers of desirable citizens in order to stop a few violent crazies. (Of course I have no objection to deporting individual immigrants who have committed crimes or otherwise demonstrated a predisposition to violence.)
Twilio does MMS, both inbound and outbound. Pictures only for the US and Canada, though.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

(Ie I agree with you. My comment was just worded rather narrowly.)
Technically, this is no different. However, in practice I can understand if EU people had a motive to try to keep member countries in one piece (Catalonia is next in line). And if EU now decides to take its gloves off, it can "easily"[1] tell that Scotland or any other part of UK is very welcome to stay in EU if they so wish. It would be interesting times on the British side of the negotiation table once Scotland, Wales, North Ireland and City of London decide to split from UK and into EU...

[1] I am no lawyer nor politician, I have no idea how easy this would be from any practical point of view
Does it? That is huge. Thanks a lot!
> Was immigration policy the only factor driving people's votes? Do you believe that over 50% of the UK population harbors ill will towards immigrant populations?

As a Brit living in the EU, yes this is exactly what the vote is about. The common Brit believes immigrants from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, etc came to steal their jobs and benefits and are the cause of all their problems. They believe by voting out it'll magically fix everything. Take a look at the media like the Daily Mail and The Sun over the last few weeks and see what they had to say about this topic.
More than 10% wait for the market to open.
Because there's no reason to do that.

They need and are investing in other countries besides USA. Their mapping sucks completely in Europe.
Not enough demand shouldn't be a problem: the central bank can just print money.

(I write "shouldn't" not "isn't" for good reason.)
Yes, I think that is bigoted.. Why does the blue collar worker from Eastern Europe deserve less opportunity than a blue collar worker from Sheffield? How is discriminating against some group of people based on what country they were born in morally different than discriminating based on race?
All these limitations are(or were?) very well known facts. Modern republics(representative democracies), the existence of senates, all try to address this. Ancient Athenians had gone much further with the establishment of Sortition(random election of representatives).

We call random people to vote for issues out of their expertise and we enforce the rule of the majority to everyone.(what happens to the 48% who voted remain?). This is obviously ridiculous but everyone is brainwashed as we learn at school that democracy is like the biggest invention of mankind. Athenians at least were allowed to ridicule it all the time.
[iOS] – UIVIEWCONTROLLER WITH BLUR BACKGROUND IN SWIFT
It took me a while to pause the video at the exact spot.
I played around with Squeak many years ago, but might appreciate it more now.

What recently spurred more confusion on this topic was Alan Kay's discussion with Rich Hickey during the AMA the other day. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11945722

I found it really hard to understand what Alan Kay is actually talking about. Saying things like

> This is why "the objects of the future" have to be ambassadors that can negotiate with other objects they've never seen.

This seems like something that (based on my limited knowledge) isn't possible with Smalltalk (in any but the most trivial of cases), and so I don't really consider it an example of what he is talking about. Or, at least, all of the things that I know of that you can do with this you could just as easily implement in languages without the same dynamism as Smalltalk.

My conclusion after reading all of that is that Kay is talking about a system so completely unlike anything we have that there aren't even really examples of what it would look like.

I am really trying to understand what Kay is talking about, so any pointers would be interesting!
You don't need massive armies to reduce a region to a nightmarish place of death and destruction. The war in the Ukraine only involved around 100-150k combatants (the overwhelming majority on the Russian side) yet it certainly harmed the Donbass region and Ukraine in general.
S&P: UK likely to lose AAA credit rating
> Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?

Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.

> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!

Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
From what I recall of the most recent stats, which were unfortunately released just a short while ago and may have pushed some votes to Leave, there has been more net migration into the UK over the past few years from EU nationals than from those coming from outside the EU.
Doesn't give names, but shows they're planning to move:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f00c4a58-384a-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e...

The FT is reckoning on a split across the Eurozone:

"But, as a small city with a population of less than 700,000 people, Frankfurt is seen as provincial and unpopular with staff. Dublin is English-speaking and attractive on tax grounds, but it is a relative backwater. The most likely outcome is that foreign banks with large operations in London will shift staff to a spread of eurozone locations where they already have operations — including Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris, Warsaw and Lisbon. That would fragment the financial services industry in Europe, potentially weakening the continent’s ability to compete internationally."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d576b0-386a-11e6-a780-b48ed7b612...
A big part of the reason I wanted to remain was to avoid another independence referendum. It looks like it's probably unavoidable now. And it's going to be another horrible round of extremely divisive, poisonous political activity that will leave a lot of people unhappy no matter what happens.

But this time I might actually vote for independence because I'm not sure a Britain outside the EU is one I want to live in.
Trade norms are not a bad thing, even if some in Britain wanted to continue to sell bananas by the lb. Most everyone is happy with having trade norms, and in particular, having the same norms everywhere (not just in EU but world-wide, starting with things like the metric system).

Unfortunately, even within EU the influence of small countries on trade norms is rather negligible. We also get lost of proposals for regulation of things we don't want and could avoid outside the EU.

Note that I'm actually for the continued EU membership of my country. I just find it abysmal that the pro-EU camp is often in denial about things and too enthusiastic for deeper integration towards USE.
Probably nothing. Ireland isn't part of Schengen and has always had relatively open borders with the UK.