skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For example since corporations (etc.) have no interests, if their behavior impinges on the interests of even one person that behavior has to be stopped, unless someone can show that that more peoples' interests are served by that behavior than are harmed.

In the case of TPP the attempts to show how it benefits individuals rely on a lot of hypotheticals which doesn't wash if we take this stance. Everyone gains standing to stop corporations if their interests are affected, and the burden of proof is on those who want to permit some corporate behavior that anyone opposes.
Because the US government forced banks to make those subprime loans through the Community Reinvestment Act. Although the government (through the FCIC, a government-created commission) obviously denied that this was a root cause of the housing crisis, they probably know that if they try to pin it on some scapegoat bankers it will not hold up legally or in the court of public opinion.
Yes, but without those developers there would be no facebook :) (pat yourself on the back)
This would be better if there was a link to the actual product.
(edits for structure. disclaimer: these views are my own, not my employers' or the communities' or publishers')

Publishers do provide a necessary service: financial support for meetings. One significant problem with "Open Access Everywhere!" is that many conferences are a huge financial net loss even after the registration fees, so they need the publisher's financial support to actually hold a meeting. In this way, most of the smaller conferences that publishers support are subsidized by the heavy hitters. It would be a shame for those smaller meetings to disappear.

It's easier for top tier conferences to choose how to publish. For example, in computer vision, CVPR and ICCV (two top-tier conferences in the field) are currently co-sponsored by IEEE (the publisher) and the Computer Vision Foundation, which is run by well-respected members of the computer vision community. As part of this arrangement, papers from these conferences appear in IEEE Xplore as well as the CVF's open access website, free for everyone: http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/menu.py Of course, only a very small number of heavy-hitting conferences can afford the kind of leverage that CVPR and ICCV needed to pull this arrangement off. In their unique situation, everyone (publishers and academics) benefit from the arrangement. That's not usually the case.

In an open-access-only "Ditch the Publishers!" world, it's unclear how we can continue to support smaller conferences. Not every field has big industry players that can sponsor the meeting, and not many students or advisors have enough grant money to afford increased registration fees.
People should actually read up on the tax structure Facebook used: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/facebook-g.... It's not reliant on some crazy lobbied-for loopholes in the tax code. It actually relies on some fairly mundane provisions of various countries' tax laws.

Just getting rid of, say, transfer pricing rules wouldn't make tax avoidance harder, it would make it easier. Say you do all your R&D in the U.S. But you set up a subsidiary in a low-tax jurisdiction, and license the U.S.-made IP to that subsidiary for $0. Boom the U.S. company now has no profits to show and all profits are in the low-tax jurisdiction.
I often wonder about a tax system that just works on inflation. Why does a govt go out of its way to collect taxes if it's also going to print money? To me it's so that you can tax different entities at different rates. But if we're willing to adopt a flat tax of X% I wonder if it could be collected through inflating everyone's dollar?
The only reason for Facebook to move assets to Ireland is to take advantage of more complexity in the interactions of multiple legal systems instead of sticking with the relative simplicity of one.
If there were seven habit, there would probably be someone who would have hoped for an eighth one.
No time at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXls4cdEv7c
My view is that corporate income tax is just a very bad idea. It will always introduce a lot of judgement problems and you will always need to assess every single transaction.
Is it "fair price" or is it done to funnel money somewhere?

Those questions are impossible to answer objectively and we shouldn't really care. Tax owners of the corporation. Tax people for living in a nice place (land tax, real estate tax, all kinds of consumption taxes). If you really want you can tax companies' revenue (not profits). Some taxes for polluting the environment, using the infrastructure would be great as well.
Try to understand what makes your country an attractive place to operate from and charge for those things.

Taxing income is just a recipe for problems and unfair treatment (companies with access to top lawyers pay less, small companies pay more).
Given that it's so easy to overshoot your daily sugar budget, you should just try to avoid sugar in general.

E.g. if you eat some premade pasta sauce and some slices of toast, you're probably very close to exceeding your budget. So, it would be a good idea to not have a can of pop or some cookies.

Anyhow, if you only eat veggies and meat, you'll do just fine. The big problem is the added sugar found in most processed foods.
> Chances are that the distance between your database and the API is not far, so static typing is not that useful.

For me, this mostly brings up the question of why the distance between data sources and front-end code apparently seems so big these days, and whether or not that's really an asset.
Good question. I did not track the intake but it was dessert after lunch, something sweet to soften the 4pm energy low, something sweet to go with morning coffee, sweetened muesli or jam for breakfast. Small things that probably added to unhealthy amounts.
Not so easy and it is a dangerous, slippery slope.

There is a large and (warranted) initiative to bank minorities and other disadvantaged communities. Until the government created huge incentives to do this it didn't happen. In many markets it still doesn't. If you tell someone they are criminally responsible for the loans they underwrite, on the margin, they are far less likely to bank the people who "really" need it. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor.

As the saying goes, you can't have the cake and eat it too.
Yes, that sounds like a significant project to take up. Interesting. The screenshot looks good. Also these features sound cool, though I have to think of what uses they could be put to:

Terminals can be re-arranged using drag and drop both within and between windows

Terminals can be detached into a new window via drag and drop

Input can be synchronized between terminals so commands typed in one terminal are replicated to the others

The last one reminds me a bit of kibitz, a tool written using Expect (IIRC), that I had tried out some years ago, on Unix. I think it allowed you to have a sort of session with a user on another computer, and if you were in say vi, they would see the same vi screen on their machines, and your changes as you made them - something like that (like screen sharing on Skype nowadays, but this could have been there from before Skype, Hangout, etc.) Might not be quite correct about the description of what it did, since I only used it briefly and some years ago.
Medicare and social security pays for the millions of people who have help build this country. Yes the government might be inefficient. How many google, Facebook, and apples are coming out of Ireland or India?
"If we let our lawns die, we'll see more property damage due to soil erosion."

I've heard this before, and I've tried to imagine how that would work. The lawns I see in just about every city, most of them are surrounded by streets and usually sidewalks and sometimes curbs, too.

I try imagine what'd happen if the grass all just died and soil erosion started to kick in. Where's the soil going that's now going to erode? Is it liquefying in heavy rains and flowing up and away over the roads?

I just can't picture how lawns are doing all that much to prevent soil erosion, but would love a more detailed explanation.
(I studied math and computer science. Walked out of a math Ph.D. program before starting one)

>I'm not a mathematician and was miserable at math in school, but I apply these habits in the business world every day. They help me cut through a lot of crap that comes from other people's sloppy/lazy thinking.

That's possible. The OP does not claim that the traits he listed apply if and only if you are a mathematician. It's certainly possible that you hone these skills without being mathematically inclined.

I do contest, however, that these habits apply to all "highly" rational people. I know plenty of people who are rational (or so are they deemed to be by their friends and colleagues) yet decidedly do not possess some of the listed habits, especially "scaling the ladder of abstraction" and "Being wrong often and admitting it".

On "being wrong often and admitting it," based on my experience, it's not that you become modest as a result of studying math. By studying math, you realize how prone your mind is to arriving at a faulty, unproven conclusion, and you learn to be more skeptical of your own thinking and become more at ease with being "wrong", allowing yourself to let your intellectual guard down.
Then most of the upper and middle class would incorporate, leaving the poor to pay income tax.
I'm baffled by this attitude.

A developer chooses to develop something and give it away for free. Why they do that is up to them... perhaps it's ideology? A sense of charity? Community?

Whatever it is, though, they're choosing to release that work to the world. And barring a non-commercial use clause, they're opening up that work for use in for-profit settings.

That's a choice. By definition it cannot be exploitative as there's no coercion involved.

If the developer doesn't like it, relicense the code to bar commercial use (gSOAP is the first example that comes to mind that does something like this), use the GPL to discourage commercial use, or don't release it. These are your choices.
This. As an artist, I found Gimp too precise in its pixel-drawing. You want a dot, you get exactly that. Krita, however, uses an algorithm that smooths its brush edges so that the result - even after holding the brush in one spot for awhile - doesn't come out pixelated.
I use Gimp for general editing, and particularly filters and such (e.g. liquid rescale (seam-carving)) - which is what it seems to be best at anyways.
Netflix really does send me movies to watch though. Their selection is poor and they constantly remove content which is annoying, but that only lowers the value and doesn't set it to 0.
The argument is that income tax for companies is a terrible idea and it's better to move taxation to different places. Places where you can be both more efficient and more fair at collecting.

It's impossible to make income tax fair. The simplest example is selling rights to trademark or some licensing to friendly company located in tax heaven. You will never be able to assess fair value of a trademark and you will always be left with litigation hell. It's just the worst possible tax.
Or tax wealth.
Could you post some references I could read? I am quite interested why they didn't work.

As far as I see, popular licenses are:
1. Commercial source
2. Open source - copy left eg. GPL
3. Open source - liberal, do whatever you like eg. MIT

which are just handful, when software is eating the world ;)
Because, in the case of FOSS, that is making good software available to all of humanity. From the $200k SF developer who can afford Paw easily, to the lowly paid eastern European developer, to the broke student.

That is of course assuming that the copy is done to have feature parity with the original. Copying solely to surf on the popularity of software while at the same time making it awful is a problem.

Also, if you don't want your work copied, don't put it out.
I don't think it will happen that way. It's as easy to live in a regular van as a self driving van. Sure some people do it but not many.

I imagine that far less people will own cars and instead there will be a fleet of self driving taxis.

But I'm not sure, interesting times - like you said.
They were (and mostly still are) heavily statist countries. "Capitalist" they were only if you would think about this word as a scale. Like North Korea being slightly capitalistic.

Those countries though lack attributes of classical capitalistic societies like

- proper ownership titles and their protection from third parties, including the state

- low barriers for market entry

- free(r) flow of capital, including across their borders

All of these were practically absent in those countries. Good luck establishing your broadcasting service being a christian/jew/<minority> and without connections to the feudal rulers/police/military.

Which capitalist society does employ it's military to produce basic goods, like milk?
And watch participation in the stock market fall off a cliff.
That's why Apple is s**t
> the structure of the job market for academic scientists

Fixed that for you. Few scientists are anti-open access, especially for reasons of ego. In physics and mathematics, for example, virtually all papers are published on arxiv unless a particular journal forces them not to. It instead has to do with publishing in high impact journals as well being required for (a) people to read your paper, as their peer review processes are a first filter to separate the wheat from the chaff and (b) because they generally keep their jobs by virtue of such publications.

Unless you're a rockstar in your field, nobody is going to read your paper if all you did was put it on arxiv, and as a result it won't be taken as evidence you should keep your job. This isn't the scientists fault, it's just a relic of a time when the publishers of journals did provide a worthwhile service.

There are some fields where people tend to be greedy about hiding their research before its done lest anybody steal it, but this seems to me to be an acceptable level of "ego". Would you object to an open source developer wanting his authorship to remain clear in any derivative works of his code?
Taxes on profits would be deferred indefinitely. This increases everyone else's share of the tax burden regardless of whether they've invested in the company.
Additionally, plenty of people already commute long distances in relative comfort without having to drive themselves--it still sucks.
To me, a proof would have to be a Turing complete procedure for verifying a theorematic result. Often times, proofs, however, only amount to convincing arguments (convincing to adepts, that is, who have not yet discovered a flaw in the proof). Furthermore, yes, I truly believe that proofs provided through computational analysis are perfectly legitimate, even if mere humans can hardly cope with them.
Paying taxes isn't a virtue, it's fair trade for services and security, which all of these companies benefit from within the U.S., and without which they would likely have never come to be.
They have an intro to the myStorm board at https://folknologylabs.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/a-perfect-st...:

"myStorm is the perfect combination of a $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, a $1, 32-bit ARM microcontroller and a $5 versatile low power FPGA – an open hardware platform – brought to life with innovative open source software."
Any hint how much faster? Not looking for defensible benchmarks, but are you talking an order of magnitude? Multiple orders?

Does it make the same probabilistic guarantees as the methods used in Stan etc? Or is it trading validity for speed?
I associate 'hordes' with the Mongol Empire's invasions, and I know that by the end of their campaigning in Europe the majority of their army was made up out of (what would now be) Turks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_or...
> Did you read the article? Men in China institute the vast majority of divorces,

Yes, I read the article and nowhere does it state that men institute the vast majority of divorces.

The article does provide some numbers: the base fee for disrupting a mistress is around $45000. This is not an article about poor, destitute women.

> contrast, men in the US get custody as much as women when they pursue it.

The key phrase here is "when they pursue it", which, as you are probably aware, is not very often because any decent lawyer will advise the man not waste tens of thousands of dollars on an almost certain failure. That's why women get custody over 90% of the time.

The article refers to costly divorces without explaining how a divorce that costs less than $10 to file by filling out a few forms can be costly.

I have provided numbers but you take issue not with my numbers but the fact that I have raised awareness of a mirror image scourge that has for several decades destroyed more lives in the West, where most on HN reside, than this nascent problem in China. Log/mote, eye, hypocrisy, etc.
More specifically, the law doesn't consider it a crime, and being hated by population/government/etc is not a reason to put people in jail. This is a good thing: due process.
I don't get it, isn't the arbitrator supposed to be an unbiased third party? Whether or not he's chosen by the company should be irrelevant.
“Should this even be released?” Deep learning tool that may be used for doxxing
>The reason a lot of people (especially young people) have been flocking to walkable cities has a lot more to do with self-identity and lifestyle choices than with just merely commuting time. No self-driving card will change that.

For me personally having a self driving car would make suburban living much more attractive. For a lot of people having a yard/garage/space to tinker is a really big selling point.

There is a big difference between having to spend an hour driving yourself and having an hour of freeish time to read/watch netflix/do work. I think the other big factor is being able to go out for drinks. Living in the suburbs today means either insane cab bills, having to organize a dd or driving drunk.
Iceland sent 29 bankers to prison for the 2008 crisis.
"Traditional" program synthesis to me means the kind of stuff Dijkstra was doing 50 years ago, which works quite a bit differently than a lot of the constraint-solving based stuff that has really become hot in the last decade. But, answering what you actually meant to ask:

Oh certainly. DARPA's "MUSES" program (which I'm partially funded by) is $40 million into incorporating big data techniques into program analysis and synthesis. There are systems like FlashFill and Prophet which develop a statistical model of what human-written programs tend to look like, and use that to help prioritize the search space. There are also components in the problem other than the actual synthesis part, namely the natural language part. Fan Long and Tao Lei have a paper where they automatically read the "Input" section of programming contest problems and write an input generator. It's classic NLP, except for the part where they try running it on a test case (simple, but makes a big difference).

The reverse also is happening, with people incorporating synthesis into machine-learning. The paper by Kevin Ellis and Armando Solar-Lezama (my advisor) is a recent example.

I do get touchy when people label this kind of work "machine learning" and seem oblivious to the fact that an entire separate field exists and has most of the answers to these kinds of problems. Those examples are really both logic-based synthesizers that use a bit of machine learning inside, as opposed to "machine learning" systems.
gSOAP has a separate commercial use license. They use a mix of GPLv2 plus a separate license for companies that want to avoid having to relicense their own products under the GPL (as a consequence of the viral nature of GPL vs something like LGPL).
I don't think so. The cost would be extremely prohibitive. It would be far cheaper to print it in plastic and then add some reflectie coating.
Singapore would be overrun by poorer neighbors in a week if not for the blue-water navies that other nations "waste" their money on
Government, by definition, can be more efficient than any private entity because it never needs to produce a profit. Businesses need to be able to skim a little off for the owners. Government can provide services at cost, no mark up.

If you're unhappy with the implementation of a specific program, like Medicare (which is, of course, more efficient than private health insurance in the US), let's talk about that.

My pick is the military--very wasteful. We could fold 90% of that budget into university and health care and live in heaven on earth.
"Satire" isn't "funny things"; satire indeed is social criticism posing as art. Satire may often employ humour, but neither is necessary for the other.

Unfortunately, in recent times, large sections of the English-speaking world (or maybe just English-speaking Internet; I'm not sure) have taken the word "satire" to mean "something that shouldn't be taken seriously". I think it can be partly blamed on the fact that English speakers are introduced to "satire" via Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal; which indeed extensively employs exaggeration, irony and black humour and isn't meant to be taken literally. But this is not a defining characteristic of satire. There are plenty of works that can just as rightly be called satire, and contain hardly any of these. Animal Farm is a satire of communism. Brave New World is a satire of consumerism. Black Mirror is a satire of technological progress (or rather, humanity's irresponsible use thereof). In neither of these works humour is a major element; you may find a few gags here and there, but the message of each work would have stayed intact if those had been cut out.

I think this semantic shift creates a situation where the average person's natural response to something being called "satire" is to stop taking it seriously, or thinking about it at all. Which is another way satire can fail. It's been worrying me a lot lately.

PS. Relevant — DFW on irony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKdZU9Db6fk&t=2m33s
I'm curious how certain things fit into city living.

Examples: Rockband the Game. You can't play that game in an apartment in the city without being a total dick to your neighbors. You can play it in a house in suburbia. Arguably the same is true for the home version of Dance Dance Revolution

Another is room scale VR which pretty seems to demand owning a large enough place to have your VR room. Maybe some people can move stuff to the side one in a while but if you have to spend a bunch of time prepping the room every time I can imagine room scale VR to ever get that popular.

Yes I know the world doesn't revolve around video games but they seem like an example of activities that are designed around sprawl. There's plenty of others, many non-game activities as well that, for lack of a better way to describe it, would compel me to still prefer a suburbian house over a city apartment.

I guess what I'm wondering is how much cultural inertia there is for one or the other
A commercial company writing software dependent on your GPL code is obliged to release their modifications/code under GPL. Not neccissisaraly so with other licences. So it's a way to force them to give back if they want to use your code.
This is a great idea, especially for TAILS users.

I've long been concerned about updating a TAILS image to get the latest security updates and leaking forensically-useful data. By using hidden services for apt-get updates, everything is over Tor, so this becomes less harmful.