skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Good point; "a rising tide lifts all boats". If that were true, then yeah, it'd just be a psychological question of how OK people will be with seeing a rising class of professionals get accelerated wealth while they just rise in quality of life at a 'normal' rate. And how big is the professional class compared to the others? At what point is there social instability? Where's the breaking point, if anywhere? I don't think anyone really has any idea of the answer, so considering a few historical data points, it's just judicious to be concerned about it.

Also, does the rising tide lift all boats? Working class wages remain pretty stagnant, and dissatisfaction in the USA is growing, at least when viewed through the election cycle.

Any sociologists out there? What does the literature say on societal effects of income inequality?
Working class generally refers to blue collar.
>I'd like to see a dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in of itself.

One main issue is that income inequality decreases socioeconomic mobility by inflating the cost of scarce goods that improve earnings capabilities. So 4K TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can outbid everyone else on.

Policies that aggressively expand capacity and defray costs, such as post-WW2 expansions of universities and the GI bill, can ameliorate this by shifting monies down the socioeconomic ladder via taxation, but high levels of inequality also lead to a powerful political interest group that generally seeks to reduce tax rates that affect them.

There's also the more general economic argument that high levels of inequality are economically inefficient since they result in a lower average marginal propensity to consume, but that's not so much "bad" as "could be better and provide greater macro stability."
This is unbelievable. Never have I used a more corrupt and unfriendly taxi service as the one in Boston / Cambridge. And they are supposed to be subsidised?!

I have
1) been driven round crazy detours to up my cost
2) been forced to drive a detour because the card machine was broken and they only accepted cash
3) been turned down because my destination wasn't far enough
4) been shouted at because I was watching the free tv in the cab

In short, they suck. Badly. Thinking about it, I can't remember a positive experience. In contrast I've hardly had a negative experience with lyft/uber and mostly had very positive or positive experiences.

What's the best way of contacting this senator?!
Morpheus Accelerates Azure for Microsoft Service Providers
I generally agree with you, and often ask the same question. But I do have one possible answer, which is that inequality of economic power leads to inequality of political power. Perhaps it's not so relevant between lower and middle classes, but sufficiently rich people can buy political favors.
Unlike an individual pizza parlor, the taxi fleet in a given city plays an important role in policy planning. Public transit planning takes taxi service into account, and taxis are barred in many locales from refusing medically necessary transportation. Taxis have obligations that go above and beyond those imposed on a generic livery provider, and as such governments might be reluctant to let a few livery providers outcompete taxis into extinction.
Mark Zuckerberg sold $95M in Facebook stock to start philanthropy promise
"Overall quality of life" can mean a lot of different things, depending on how you measure. Do you mean the arithmetic mean, the median, the quality of life of all members of the population, or something else? And while we're at it, it's worth considering how the population is defined -- all Americans? All westerners? All humans?

I've found that the appropriate answers tend to differ considerably depending on these definitions, and there is nowhere near a consensus for which is the right one to strive for.
Inside the category, it's 100%. It's a good way to signal that it's not a vague thing.

Let's take the statement "I'm 100% for punishing people that deserve it". That's a perfectly good statement, and the "100%" shows certainty across the category. Reinterpreting it as "I'm 40% for punishing people" is just being bad at discourse. The scope is not arbitrary, and shouldn't be treated separately.
With rising income inequality the difference between the average Joe and the 1% Joe is growing larger and larger. This seems increasingly unfair to more and more people. Eventually all those disillusioned poor people will act on this by bringing to power some radicals who will bulldoze the current system much like the Bolsheviks bulldozed the Russian empire.

If you need evidence that income inequality is itself a bad thing, ask anyone who happens to be on the poverty side of the inequality. There's much, much more of such people than rich people. All these poor people hold a lot of latent power.
There are quite a few places where you can look into whether or not you think an increase in income inequality is a bad thing or not.

Feel free to start here - https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/impacts - or here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects
Methinks you don't know what uberTAXI is.
How does Charles handle gzip,deflate?

I use a short shell script for MITM.

It simply runs two socats and netsed in between them.

I create ca.pem and server2.pem with openssl, install ca.pem on my device and sign server2.pem with ca.pem.

I redirect traffic from device to my computer running the script.

Low complexity, works reliably, costs me nothing.

Downside is it only does one remote site at a time.

sslsplit works well too but it does not handle gzip,deflate.
"Everybody's got a big 'but'." --Pee Wee Herman
I know most people hate Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged here but that is literally what happened in the book. Roark Steel was made to give "green steel" to the unprofitable competitors to keep them in business.
I think this legislation is a tacit admission that those standards don't make sense.

If the taxi regulations had any benefit, then there would be something better about taking a taxi than taking an Uber. But in the real world (especially in Massachusetts) taxis completely suck. From the user experience point of view, Uber has done a great job of regulating itself.

So the government has decided not to make things worse by putting the regulations on Uber. The taxi owners complain that this is unfair. The government says "you're right, have some money."
Nabokov’s ‘great gay comic novel’
Đào tạo thiết kế đồ họa tại hải phòng
I don't get ads, I have them all blocked in a hosts file.
That's because it's a blog article, the homepage does exactly what you want https://www.charlesproxy.com/

FWIW, Charles is sort of a legendary app in the web development community, it's something that can definitely be discussed without an introduction on HN.
Ask HN: What should I buy? Macbook Air or Dell XPS 13?
I'm looking for a Linux (well, Unix based) laptop for programming. XPS 13 is too tempting.
How does it compare with Macbook Air in terms of performance (mainly SSD)? Also, would you recommend getting XPS 13 and installing Linux? or get the XPS 13 Developer Edition?

I have not used Mac yet and am not a fanboy of Apple (yet!). Anyone who has used both?

Thanks!
For the foreseeable future, a driver will be an important component of any ride-hailing solution, whether it's a taxi, a black car, or something more informal, and whether the dispatcher is an algorithm or a company's employee.

This is really about the taxi companies and the dispatchers, not the drivers.

Of course, driverless cars are likely to someday displace the drivers. But the taxi companies would be thrilled to be in charge of fleets of driverless cars, I'm sure. And that's a long way off. As has been said innumerable times here on HN, short-run city driving is likely to be among the last places to get swept up by driverless technologies.
Aye. Plenty of trees in UK older than this, including one at 4,000+

http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/discoveries/newdiscoveri...
I didn't, never used it. So it's an app that hails you a taxi.

Does that make Uber a taxi service?
It's not clear to me what questions you're asking. I've re-read your comment several times, and I think you're asking one of the following:

A) Which web framework (e.g. Rails, Django, ...) should I spend time learning on my own, because it will help me get my first job after my degree?

B) Which full web stacks, including front-end (e.g. React or Angular) and back-end (e.g. Rails or Django) are popular among my potential employers, and why?

Is it A or B, or something else?

Also:

- What is your level of experience in programming? Zero? Some projects as a minor during your degree? Several years writing your own pet projects?

- What language(s) do you already use?

In choosing a framework to learn, you're not making a lifelong commitment. If you intend to be a professional developer for the next 40 years, I doubt you'll use the same framework or type of language for the whole time.

The most important thing is to pick something which allows you to be productive early on. That will help provide motivation to keep at it, to learn more, and to get better.

If you are starting out, then trying to learn Rails and React at the same time seems like a steep path. Unless you have a lot of concentrated time, you might be better off learning one at a time. If you pick React first, then build a React app that consumes some existing APIs. If you pick Rails first, then build server-rendered sites first. Then learn to present the same content via APIs. Then add React.
Setting Up a RethinkDB Cluster on Docker Swarm Mode
I've used Charles for the last year but Charles 4 is consistently crashing for me, and local rewrites often fail (it says file doesn't exist?).

YMMV upgrading - I wish I had not.
TempleOS Games: X-Caliber, RawHide, Wenceslas
They're also on MacOS and not in alpha.
> While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.

You seem to be asserting this without any explanation, but it's pretty clearly wrong.

Do the math. Cab driver making $30K is displaced and has to take a different job making $25K, with the result that $30K of value is captured by cab riders via lower fares while the former cab driver suffers $-5K. But cab riders are just regular people. Between the riders and the drivers we're net +$25,000 to regular people. That's a pretty sizable decrease in wealth inequality.

And that's assuming the former cab driver can only find work that pays less than driving a cab did. He could train to become a plumber or carpenter and end up making significantly more money.
Ask HN: How careful are you with food safety?
> What I would like to see in Unix is better support for anonymous files and directories. You could use this with things like `renameat()` so that the temporary never touches the filesystem and is automatically cleaned up if the rename fails.

Exactly. This approach makes the various calls orthogonal. Various syscalls create anonymous reference-counted inodes on a filesystem (which disappear when all references to them do), and syscalls like linkat or renameat or installs such an inode (referenced by file descriptor) into the filesystem with a name.

O_TMPFILE allows creating an anonymous file inode. Ideally, a syscall would exist to do the same for an anonymous symlink inode.
Yes. I got a nice lecture from a cab driver who was moonlighting driving Lyft about how I was destroying taxis using Lyft.

Yes, I am, the faster the better. To hell with taxis.
how about "suck it up and do it anyway"?

I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but this doesn't really address the question, which is about what happens to an industry when it's made redundant by technology. Cab drivers competing with self-driving cars can't "suck it up".

"what if they don't want to" in regard to people working?

Again, I feel you haven't read the spirit of this comment accurately. What happens to an entire class of working people (truck drivers, for instance), when their trade is replaced by tech which is 1/10 (conservatively) the cost to produce? I too want to say innovation is worth it, but it's definitely worth the thought cycles to consider what happens when we make an entire workforce obsolete.
> Why should a taxi service have to perform a regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it?

All cars in MA have yearly inspections.

Any extra inspection for taxi is total nonsense, probably invented by the taxi companies themself as a barrier to entry by others.
> it inherently increases inequality.

As does every successful start-up. But please note it only increases inequality because a handful of people get comparatively more rich in the process, the rest gets salary and everybody gets better (more efficient) services.

The latter point means also reducing inequality because other people can now afford these services who couldn't do so before.

> but I think someone needs to be thinking of the swaths of working people who are afraid of losing their jobs.

By this logic the industrial revolution shouldn't have happened (or at least it should have happened more slowly). The fallacy here is that "things to do" are finite. In fact, they aren't, the things to do just move up the hierarchy of needs. In the old days, "things to do" meant just "build basic housing, hunt and gather food", nowadays they are "build efficient and large houses, build smart phones, TVs, computers, Pokemon Go apps" and there will be other things to do once transportation is taken care of.

> Many of them don't want to go back to school or get technical training.

Unfortunately (and this holds for all of us) this is not sufficient. I also just want to have some income and be with my family and friends, yet in order to get that I have to return something of equal value to someone else. If my services are no longer needed due to technological advance, I cannot just sit on it and hope that people in power force others to give me more for less.

Finally, the taxi industry is only as "rich" now because of the constant regulation in many states/countries. If it weren't for this regulation, salaries would have been much lower for years already and many more people would have chosen other jobs to begin with. The problem is just exarcerbated now because of this and it's definitely not the fault of the "disrupting company or industry" nor is it its responsibility to care.
Erlang the Movie II: The Sequel
Those things aren't a goal or desired feature of most JSON use. There's a reason people hated SOAP. XML is better suited for documents. For everything else, XML doesn't work very well.
Ah, so you're the guy whose code I have to re-reformat back to the proper format.
آفر تور کیش در هتل داریوش و شایگان – تور کیش ورود ۱ شهریور ۹۵
Of course it's relevant. The "government" doesn't make apps directly ever.

The difference is who speced the project, or came up with the ideas.
Sure, anyone can do equality as a side effect of a race to the bottom. But that's not a great outcome nor one a country should aim for.
Chrome will show an overlay box if you press backspace a second time (seeing it not work the first time as you expected) telling you to use Alt + <- to go back.
I'll bite although this isn't the most researched of my opinions that's for sure.

Humans happiness isn't concerned with absolute standard of living but more comparative standard of living. I don't mean just conscious comparison in a competitive manner, I mean in setting what counts as normal to our brains.

Consider the standard of living we've obtained compared to what humans had for the vast majority of our 200 000 years. Regular hot meals, basic medicine, and being able to fall asleep without fear of waking up to tigers ripping you and your family apart should have resulted in us all walking around in pure bliss 24/7 if advancement in standard of living was all that was important in absolute terms. But we're not. Some of us are happy. Some not. Some so unhappy that we straight up kill ourselves. Neither do I think past generations of humans, or any other animal that hasn't achieved our current standard of living yet, are all walking around in misery.

Instead we care about comparative measures. How am I doing compared to how I was doing before. How am I doing compared to my peers. How am I compared to the guy down the street. How am I doing compared to all of those people I see on the internet/tv. Again, although phrased as if it's a conscious mental decision here, it's about subconsciously setting a 'normal' that's greater than we have. Think of the whole facebook making people feel inferior thing because they only see their friends highlights reel making life seem like it should be one long maldives vacation, except with inequality it's not an illusion and you actually are being exposed to better lifestyles.

So inequality isn't fundamentally detrimental, however exposure to it is. At its most extreme it shows you fantastical lifestyles you could never realistically imagine to live. More realistically it's your neighbour buying a nicer car than you have. Either way it takes the great thing you have going and puts it in to a context within which it can't compete.
Or you can run the Windows Subsystem for Linux and have real apt-get or yum!
I don't know. When you bring it up (other than maybe market/ecosystem flux risk), lot of the major VC types are pretty dismissive and say "yeah, yeah: startups are risky". But people who don't spend 40+ hours/week evaluating startups seem to appreciate a pretty frank discussion of the things that could go wrong and what you are doing to minimize the odds of that happening or how you will respond if they do happen.

I've helped some new founder types develop business plans and pitch decks over the years, and they all seem to be very hesitant to have this kind of (let me call it "adult") conversation with people, but I personally find a slick/happy/always-sunny-here pitch to be a little too used-car-salesman for my tastes. It certainly wouldn't be out-of-bounds to have one of the five projections be "total loss", but it doesn't add much information to the discussion, so while I mention it in passing, I don't include that in chart form. But, it seems to me that if honesty turns off investors, they probably aren't the kind of people you want on your board anyway... Nothing worse than a noob investor asking all the wrong questions all the time and harshing your zen when you've got a company to build.
I have seen this approach also used when constructing complex SELECT FROM and WHERE clauses in MySQL
Uber drivers are like employees, but without employee rights. This is great for Uber and its investors, but not so much for "working people".
MacPorts isn't; Mac OS Forge is. From your own link:

Copyright © 2011 Apple Inc. All rights reserved

MacPorts is hosted on Mac OS Forge, but it is not run by Apple; it merely uses Apple-provided infrastructure.
> So 4K TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can outbid everyone else on.

Except that such goods are increasingly not priced via the market.

If you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you don't have to worry about the cost. Full stop.

That being said, I do think we have a societal responsibility to set things up so that this applies across the board. Personally, I think income inequality is fine and maybe even good if we can also have:

1) Basic income, so that even if your parents aren't wealthy you still have all the necessities.

2) Well-funded and high quality public education (from pre-K up through college)

Personally, I actually think income inequality can make these things easier to achieve for 2 reasons:

1. Each individual dollar matters a lot less to billionaires, so they're a lot more willing to give away a huge percentage of their wealth. This trend is very evident with tech billionaires. If Warren Buffet had his wealth spread amongst millions of families, would each one be willing to give up 90% of that wealth?

2. The winnowing of the middle makes redistribution more palatable. A large part of current politics is moderately well-off people feeling morally superior to slightly less well-off people. If society becomes more bimodal, it's a lot more possible to pass aggressive redistribution policies.
The problem is that a lot of the demo programs are hooking Int 21h, which is provided by DOS / Windows.
Office is also on the Mac. As for the other apps you mentioned, well, that's very subjective because I completely disagree with your assessment that nothing even comes close on any other platform. To imply that IIS and SQL Server are best of breed is ridiculous.

Also, VS isn't exactly a compelling reason to stay on Windows. Last time I installed VS 2015 it sprayed 30+ GB's of files all over my SSD and installed about 30-40 apps in the process. To say VS 2015 is a bloated pig would be an insult to bloated pigs everywhere.
Nobody should have to do any of it. That the taxi industry is stuck doing it is not Uber/Lyft's problem.
Yes: the United States.

EDIT: This answer probably comes across as cavalier and perhaps dismissive without some sort of effort to substantiate my claim, so I'll edit this in:

The United States ranks sixth in the world for median cost-adjusted household income. It ranks highly, along with many European countries, for overall quality of life, according to the Quality of Life Index (2016) - countries like Switzerland and Germany are higher, while countries like the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan are lower.

Quality of life can be a vague and murky measurement, but pretty much every index attempting to measure it presents the same set of countries topping the list. The US is not perfect, and I'll accept arguments that it would be better off with less income inequality, but I'd like to see evidence that this is the case.
Landlines all have a fee that subsidizes service in rural areas. Hotels have to pay hotel taxes in addition to property taxes, which are often earmarked.
>One main issue is that income inequality decreases socioeconomic mobility by inflating the cost of scarce goods that improve earnings capabilities. So 4K TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can outbid everyone else on.

Tuition rates didn't go through the roof until the government started guaranteeing/sponsoring tuition loans. When that happened, the colleges and banks knew they could charge whatever they wanted and still get paid, so tuition cost became detached from ability-to-pay, and there was no incentive to keep prices affordable anymore.

The victim in this is the student, who gets saddled with decades of debt, or alternately, an eviscerated credit profile with an albatross that can't be discharged even in bankruptcy. That, however, is obviously not something that disturbs the educational system.

Things go screwy fast when you decouple the classic economic checks and balances. While a small number of wealthy people would be both willing and able to afford outrageous rates for tuition, most of them would want a good value, and there's not enough fantastically-rich Americans to support something the size of the education system without drawing from the middle class for pupils.
The kind of living in India that he is comparing with, nobody defecates in your drinking water either. You are talking about the bottom end of the spectrum where the cost of living is 20-50x cheaper than that of the US.
Yeah, it's a shame there aren't any technically inclined universities in Massachusetts that the government bureaucrats could turn to. Would make it a lot easier.
A bunch of software I need just isn't available from brew.