skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The opposite of Luddite is believe that it will all get sorted out in the end inevitable.

As the fall of Rome, the middle ages, and several other dark periods in human history show, this is now always the case.

>There are lots of things that will likely never be cost effective to automate or are impossible to automate.

Several things, yes. A lot, no.

And even if those types of jobs were many, what matters is the number of positions they give us. E.g. being a brain surgeon might not be easily automated, but we don't need that many brain surgeons anyway.

On the other hand, truck driving can be automated, and when it does, it will take with it 1-2 million jobs. Automating fast-food serving and cooking? There go another 2-3 million. Automating office cleaning? There go some millions more.

As for more artistic jobs, like a musician or painter, those might not be realistically automated (because we value the human source of an art work etc), but they aren't going to pay much either, especially since most people wont have proper jobs and thus much money to spend on music (and even less so on art).
I guess I always figured those things were strongly related (in the causation sense, not just the correlation sense).
> As another poster indicated, if you want someone to terminate SSL for you, you're going to need to hand them a key.

Didn't Cloudflare invent Keyless SSL to solve this problem? https://www.cloudflare.com/keyless-ssl/
Why Aren’t We Building More Mobile Homes?
I did not have the impression that world needs 100m mediocre programmers or did you ?
We need a concrete problem solvers. If society gets fucked up because a lot of people will have nothing to do and a handful of other people will have all the money and power then I think that is a problem a programmer or a scientific researcher cannot fix.

Or do you really think that because you are a programmer you are safe ? :-)
Disclaimer: I work in the Q&A team at Stack Overflow.

What people don't understand is that SO serves literally all developers. No matter what choices we make there will be upset people. Do we reduce moderation? Help vampires take over. Do we keep moderation as is? People complain we are too strict (or not enough). Do we allow only English? We are elitist. Do we allow SO in other languages? We are fragmenting the community.

After a few years, I've heard it all.
Similar community problems happened on Wikipedia. Give many users moderation power, and they'll each enforce their own view of what the site should be.
> There are lots of things that will likely never be cost effective to automate or are impossible to automate.

Could you give examples that are capable of providing living wages to 160-250 million people, in the US alone?

Technology has completely destroyed the value in human labor for most industries, in much the way we no longer use horses for farming, and is rapidly doing the same to "white collar" jobs.

I'm honestly curious what you think it is that <95th percentile humans will have to contribute to the future economy.
It's not exactly banning an outdoor light so much as regulating outdoor lights for the sake of public health.

And yes, it is reasonable to do so. For one, everyone's got to share the same streetlights. For two, if these lights really are harmful to sleep, then the cost of using lights that are engineered to not produce certain wavelengths is probably minuscule compared to the net public benefit, even if you only want to limit the criteria being considered to things that are easily assigned a cash value.

Mandating Flux on phones, on the other hand, is a very different proposition in every way but the most superficial of similarities. People can make their own decisions about their phone's color scheme, and those decisions don't really affect anyone else in any direct way.
Saying "it's so common it has a name" implies the reason it has a name is because it is common.
> more researchers and programmers but not everyone can do those jobs.

Research is suited to fairly scientific minds but I think programming is totally something anyone who's interested can do.

Software development continues to modernize and become more accessible. If you're motivated, I'd say you can definitely do programming. And the best part is that it applies to virtually any existing job.
In practice, I could see a simple description of the intensity of visible along with a percentage of the 'bad' light within that intensity. That is an analog for how our eyes actually function. We have a retina that sees specific wavelengths, but an iris that regulates the amount of light hitting the retina based on an average intensity across the visible spectrum.

Harm comes to our eyes when 'unnatural' non-blackbody light plays tricks with the system. Looking at an eclipse isn't harmful because of some new light that only exists during an eclipse. It's because the darkness allows our iris to open despite the presence of harmful UV light. (The same goes for vintage sunglasses that don't block UV.) So to discuss the biological safety of light one needs, at a minimum, both the average intensity to judge how open the iris will be, and some reference for how much harmful light is present. Imho that can be expressed as an intensity and a percentage. An eclipse is a low visible intensity with a high percentage of harmful light. These blue-heavy LEDs could be similarly described.
At this point, I have grown sour on Guaranteed Basic Income and would rather a Prorated Guaranteed Minimum Income. I do realize it would be more open to fraud, but I just cannot see something without means testing going into effect. I would also hope the thing pays out in daily amounts, as opposed to the once a month problem of our current payments.

I still believe there will be non-ai jobs. In the near term, I'm wondering what an industry / government acceptable certificate (trade program) would be for robot technician. The government could probably help a lot of job prospects if it banned companies from barring third-party service of robots.
Make art, educate themselves, read books - but the reward mechanisms of those activities are much less stimulating than those of video games.
In fact it's not 70% out of town but more like 70% Charlotte residents and 30% surrounding areas. The citizens of Charlotte and the surrounding areas are the rioters violent or not.

>“I didn’t quote facts,” Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told the Observer on Friday.[1]

I think it's important that this fact is known. The Union Official who does not represent the Charlotte Police Department is trying to frame it as Charlotte versus the outside agitators.

[1] http://fair.org/home/far-right-runs-with-outside-agitator-li...
Swaying is not necessarily indicative of a problem. The Sears Tower has a fair bit of sway as well. The general idea is "bend, don't break" and allow some give in high winds.
Things can go many ways...

Once being supported by other humans is no longer a requirement for power, large portions of the population will be to the mercy of elites.

When that happens, it will be up to elites to decide what to do. They might be already deciding what to do (e.g: http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/press-release.html, item #9).

They can either:

1) decide that limits will need to be imposed on our demographics and start a plan of population control. if that population is not already in effect (zika?)

2) let the market regulate itself, pushing people into poverty and reducing their fertility and life expectancy.

3) be altruistic and ensure wealth for everyone.

Personally I think altruism will not be a thing. The planet has limits, and within a few generations we will be reaching our planet's carrying capacity, this in the context of major nations accumulating armament (e.g: https://youtu.be/YoC0Xcjko0A?t=28m16s, https://youtu.be/rXSh3ur5XnQ?t=1h16m26s).
> All the common questions have already been answered.

This is true if there are no new languages or frameworks.

> The main problem is people don't research their problem for more then a minute before asking a question.

This has been true since the beginning of time. However, it does feel that the responses on SO have gotten more trollish over time.
Are there not many projects that cater to what your preferences? Why would you care to comment about this one?

Maybe Google, Microsoft, Facebook or some other worshipped employer has a "well-documented codebase" project that "facilitates understanding" for you to work on.

Sometimes software written by only one person turns out to be the best software available for the job, because it is the smallest and fastest. No one is forcing anyone to use it. We should be thankful for persons who do this work that they share it with us.

On the contrary, there is a cargo cult mentality that pervades the large, popular languages where online discourse continually devolves into attempts to persuade people to use the popular language as a solution for every problem.
Essentially any LED bulb that you can buy is a blue diode with a down conversion phosphor. The composition of the phosphor, and the relative amount of blue light vs. phosphor emissions shape our perception of color temperature for these LED sources.

Due to an effect called metamerism, our brains can perceive the same apparent color from sources with different underlying spectral power distributions (power vs. wavelength).

So in a sense, the color temperature of a black body does not have much underlying connection with the spectral power distribution of LED lamps.

With that substantial caveat, the lower the correlated color temperature of the bulbs that you purchase, the less of the overall spectral power is from the diode, and the more from the phosphors.

If there ends up being a link to blue light exposure for circadian effects then bulbs with lower CCT that have more emission from the phosphors are the safer bet.
We are approaching a level of technology which is not human-oriented but software-oriented: the crucial idea here is that the transition will be not about "jobs will be harder or require more intelligence" - its about the emergence of artificial labor pool that is inherently better, smarter and less demanding. There is no way to "retrain people" to compete with robots, there is only "retreat to segments" where automation hasn't arrived yet - a narrower subset of potential jobs(there are no magical 'new jobs' coming).
Lets take for example Joe The Programmer as someone who doesn't fear being automated.:
He is confident he can write software better than a program trained to do so, and all his life beliefs hinge on that idea.
He could do a less mentally-challenging job - but they are all taken by robots and automatons, doing it at fraction of minimum wage.
Suppose a neural-net generator emerges that can produce software from requirements and diagrams of the middle management types. At first its used only for the simplest, mind-numbing tasks or viewed as debug aid. It develops to covers creation of modular pieces of code and its code quality is superb. Now the time come and grown complex enough to create functional software by itself without human input.
The management looks at it, and decides to cut down on their software division. Jobs in the segments become fewer and fewer.
Joe The Programmer now has to retrain himself to do something the code generator can't do, or hasn't expanded to area yet. But with progress there is nothing left, the most complex software can be done with minimal bugs and without unreliable human programmers. Software proven itself much cheaper to maintain with minimal staff - even it will be eventually replaced by helper software.
Joe The Programmer is now fired. Now that there is no need for much middle management, as there is little to manage: the company shrinks and becomes more productive. At ultimate point the key personnel/directors/Chief officers are replaced by expert systems trained with their domain knowledge and the company become a purely digital entity producing income for its owners or shareholders. There is no point adding human back in the chain, as it will reduce efficiency and increase complexity(labor laws, taxes, paper trails,etc).

What is key here, is we only lack the software..the hardware is here now.
i.e. all this retraining/re-specialization of the labor market will not matter, when software will be also "re-trained"(neural nets, generic algorithms,general artificial intelligence ) much cheaper to do equivalent of a human mind-work. Now it simply a hardware problem:
At X investment a machine would outperform similar X investment for a human worker/employee, with none of the extra needs/limitations/laws regulating labor.
Obviously the result in mass poverty and breakdown of class-based society if there is no moderating factor: basic income becomes a necessity, not an option "to stabilize the economy" - without it there is no economy and no society(as even third-world countries depend on job(for a very liberal definition of a job) income existing).
http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

There are definitely dead-end jobs that don't make you want to get out of bed in the morning. Maybe something like the CCC would help with the feeling of meaningful labor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
> as light as in the day

It's got nothing to do with intensity, which would be impossible to achieve, for all practical purposes. The article misused the word here. Rather, it's about color temperature.

I think this problem is overblown, because I've not heard similar complaints leveled against mercury-vapour lamps. I've grown up around them nearly all my life.
The reason no-one wants means testing is that it adds a massive bureaucratic overhead to the system, which actually defies part of the point of basic income, which is to get rid of most other, costly to run, social programs.
This time it's different. Our most valuable asset as workers is our minds, if AI can make inroads into white-collar work as well as blue-collar and pink-collar work, what will be left for humans to do? We're not just talking about low-skilled workers losing their jobs, we're also looking at previously safe jobs like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc... due to be facing very strong competition from the growth of AI (both in terms of cost and aptitude).

If we do continue to work, the only scenario that makes any sense to me is if we do work for self-satisfaction rather than need. There's still going to be enjoyment to be had in refining skills and pursuing goals.
I've used C* (36 nodes/20Tb) and it was pleasure to manage it even in the early versions. At the time of picking the db (3 years ago) Riak was slower as they only had http available so C* won by a large margin.

One case I thought Riak can be a good choice for is for quick prototyping / interacting directly from web clients (as it has neat http API).
> Perhaps SO will end up getting overtaken by a new similar site

It will, and then in 5 or so years we'll be hearing the same complaints about that service.

SO's problem is people, so unless you can come up with a service that removes them you're going to have the same issue.
Those were historically used to prevent damage to window panes, not block light. They are popular in areas that were settled when glass was very fragile/expensive and receive strong winds. Pre-glass, they were used to keep weather from blowing through the house.
Anyone see real alternatives to LinkedIn built around users?
I'm not seeing any tools/apps/platforms out there that are built around users. LI is built around recruiting and ads. Other services are built around really basic pages for 'personal branding'. I think there is a need for both, and especially something built for people (i.e. no spam, leave ads off my profile page, how about user-focused UI/UX considerations?). Also, how about something more open that leverages/partners with other really cool professional measurement/growth services (plum.io, etc...) I know LI is upgrading their UI as we speak but looks very very reactive to me and a further play at greater social interaction vs coming up with new/forward looking ideas. I personally would love something that I felt like I owned and was more personalized to me/my story. Thoughts?
Last time this was mentioned on HN, someone asked me to go take pictures of the building. I did:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vonguard/albums/72157672701771...

You can see the bowing of rht sidewalk outside, and where the foundation is breaking away from the ground.
Well, if truck driving were automated, they certainly wouldn't lower then.

Personally, I imagine a lot of companies will use that extra money to buy out, take over, or otherwise eliminate their competition. I doubt the consumer will win.
So what if it doesn't survive in the long run? Strike while the iron is hot, move on to something else when it cools.
I don't think there is one about mass surveillance, which is not the case.

It seems the case for individual, case-by-case basis is pretty clear (though there seems to be an issue with false positives)
In the US at least,wealth does not seem to flow downwards. Much labour was outsourced to cheaper countries with less laws and morale constraints. I don't see the guys displaced from US factories enjoying those savings. More likely the profits were taxed at low rate in another country while the real money went to exec compensation.
I stopped reading autobiographies for the same reason. No human alive has the self-awareness to write about themselves objectively.

But non-auto-biographies!! So many history books are the high level "this happened in that year caused by whatever-just-trust-me" while biographies dig into how the world actually worked. Especially if they're set in the last few hundred years and not the last 30, there's a tremendous amount of primary sources to base the writing without over politicizing the topic. What kind of history won't have a survivor bias? Is this an excuse to ignore history entirely?

> I also try to read as many anti-biographies, i.e. people who don’t like the subject

That's introducing it's own bias. But you might as well read The Power Broker if you're going that direction. Fascinating story.
Very true. In 2014, the average tech worker salary in San Mateo County was $291,497.

But if you took out one specific tech worker, it dropped by $80,000 to $211,000. Mark Zuckerberg's income alone impacted the average by $80,000 across an entire county [0].

It impacted the median by, probably $0.

Edit: For completeness;

US Median Household Income: $51,939 [1]

San Mateo County: $79,548 [2]

Not quite as newsworthy...

[0] http://valleywag.gawker.com/average-tech-wages-up-to-291-497...

[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

[2] http://citylab.news21.com/data/types/19/
I believe that GMI also gets rid of all the other social programs. I just don't think it will fly that Bill Gates gets a payment. That is going to be a big opposition to overcome.

I don't get where you can say "no one" since plenty of people want means testing for Social Security, etc. right now.
As someone who sometimes ask non-trivial questions that other people sometimes find useful I don't think this is the complete answer:

I, and I guess others, can easily hesitate a full day, doing search after search after search, before asking on SO.

On the other hand SO makes it really simple to create new accounts and ask questions.

If they really were concerned about answering the same questions again and again they would implement some basic rules like limiting new users from asking questions untilntyey had been active for a full day or something.

Weirdly enough it seems people like to complain about the workload while at the same time refusing to do anything to reduce it.

In fact it is almost as if they enjoy moderating noobs :-|
Why amazing video games could be causing a big problem for America
I'm continually dumbfounded by how Americans are so concerned with holding onto jobs, rather than moving forward.

When the automobile was invented think of all the farriers and hay people that went out of business and had to move on.

Think about the milkman or the guy that used to put ice in the back of your ice-chest out in the back yard.

When we eventually move off coal, think of all the millions of people involved in the coal industry that will be out of work.

Those lay-offs are a good thing, and we should be doing everything we can do expedite the process.

Of course for individuals in an industry that will be soon redundant it sucks, but that's the nature of life. Move on, adapt, re-train. Job security was fleeting in the 70s and 80s. It's not real anymore.
That's basically the point of the site. I think SO's owners are ok with this trade off.

FWIW it wasn't always like this. I have a lot of points on SO mostly acquired about 5 years ago. Back then SO was a much friendlier, and much more interesting place to participate in. I haven't actively participated in about 3 years or so.
Ehn, his advice is pretty generic and survivor-bias-y. "Do what you like", "adapt", etc.
ISIS is run by Western Intelligence.
People who seriously think a basic income future is desirable should invest the bulk of their research efforts in automation technology. How do you build a fully automated farm? How do you build a fully automated factory and logistics network? How do you build a fully automated hospital? How do you build robots capable of maintaining and fixing all these automated systems?

All these things are way beyond current technology. If they could be built, we'd effectively be in a Star Trek post-scarcity economy, and money would probably no longer be needed. That day is a long way off, though.
Sure, Stack Overflow kind of sucks sometimes and people are sometimes really up their own asses about things being exactly right and having a question worded explicitly, but it is by far the best resource for programmers to find help from other programmers due to its ubiquitousness in the programming community. I haven't found any other alternatives better; Quora isn't useful for programming questions (a general Q&A/opinion style question is better suited for Quora, but not "What's wrong with my code?"), and I wouldn't use ExpertsExchange. Are there any other notable places to ask these kinds of questions?

So it sucks, but there's no resources to replace it. You might not like it and because it's not something that you have to help with you are free to stop contributing (e.g. you can't just say, "I don't like this, I'm going to stop working on it" at work), but why not help everyone and contribute, either to Stack Overflow or by making a new, better resource, rather than being grumpy and only helping your pessimistic self feel better?

An aside: The header image lags considerably when I scroll (on Safari 10)... Why isn't it just a static image on the page, and have JS to detect when the aspect ratio changes on a page level rather than an image level?
How does automated truck drivers unequivocally equal economic inequality? It's theoretically possible that this labor is now freed up to create value for lower income households..

The only reason self driving tech won't be commoditized will be regulatory barriers. You can imagine why entrenched interests would lobby for such.
So the next step is to add AI to answer duplicates automatically?
You are describing an area that is perfectly acceptable for unattached 20-somethings but more or less untenable for young families.
Top Best Android Games 2016 – FREE NEW MUST PLAY GAMES
Competition will disappear, if companies start having excess liquid assets due to reduced costs. That competition will be lobbied, bought, or acquired right out of the space they were competing in.

Capitalism has a tendency to optimize for a monopoly.
I'm not an eye doctor. It was explained to me that LEDs output blue wavelengths not present in the natural environment. Our eyes filter out many wavelengths but never saw these during evolution so the light goes right through their filters. The energy then dissipates in your eye and causes damage.