skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So you're proposing a massive tax[1] increase on urban workers who live with urban compromises (traffic, higher prices on goods, higher real estate prices, crime, terrible schools, high taxes, pollution, etc) to be near work so that other workers in the suburbs can enjoy big lawns and beautiful single-family homes?

Well, that's been our strategy with these red state rust belts for decades and it doesn't work. These states receive much more in taxes than they pay. These get doled in various ways, and some ways very close to what you're proposing[2]. It didn't work. Unemployment and wages are still poor.

The larger issue here is why do you get that wonderful suburban home and I get a tiny condo and yet somehow I'm taxed extra so you can live, and lets be frank here, a wasteful and high-carbon footprint lifestyle? Urban migration, telework, and re-training are the real solutions here. Everything else is just welfare with 'make work' jobs that will evaporate the second those tax credits get cut or the company in question has a bad quarter and realizes it can just eliminate that office, that only really exists as a tax shelter, for cost savings.

Lastly, the "come to the suburbs for savings" is a staple in business. Every suburban mayor is constantly flirting with urban companies to move jobs there as he's empowered to give significant tax sweetheart deals and other incentives. In fact, this is one of the main policy platforms for suburban mayors: bring in jobs. This is a normal part of suburban political life. Its not a new idea, its the status quo. One of my previous employers moved from downtown Chicago to the suburbs exactly for this. Ultimately, you can only poach so many jobs, so its not some magical solution for suburban and rural unemployment.

[1] Because thats where the money ultimately comes from, we wont cut medicare or SS or our military in half to pay for this, we'll just raises taxes on the middle class.

[2] Tax credits for creating jobs in poor areas are common public policy on both the state and federal levels. For example and were vastly increased after the 2008 meltdown. These were so popular many corporations not only didn't pay tax but received free money from the government for it! Worse, they're easily abused eve before they create jobs (if they even do, its easy to take these credits for new offices you were planning on opening anyway):

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/08/11/1B-Tax-Cre...
I'm not sure which meme is more offensive. That old people can't learn or that old people don't want to learn.

The real problem is that for many old people it's certain they'll never be able to get back to the status (financial, social and professional) they have now if they have to start all over again. As long as there is any promise of them being able to keep doing what they have experience in, that's what they'll aim for.
> Consider the mismatch between what the media was reporting, and the undeniable fact that Trump's rallies attracted a far greater number of people than Clinton's.

By itself that doesn't mean anything. Sanders got way bigger rallies than Clinton too and still lost.
In response to clifanatic:

I believe the Ron Paul rule was seen to block Ted Cruz rather than help Trump (semantics, I suppose).
You obviously don't live in the Seattle area. You can't move closer, because real estate is literally twice as expensive as where you currently live, and you can't change jobs because all the jobs are in the same places with the crummy commutes. About the only factor you can optimize is picking jobs that are along mass transit routes.
All I can say is I wish we elected Romney 4 years ago.
If someone holds a private and public"shitty" opinion and another holds a public opinion as a demagogue and privately holds the same "shitty" opinions, who would you rather? The one open and honest with their opinions or the dishonest one who will lie and say anything to win the popular vote?

>but to me that point is far overshadowed by whether the ideas are any good

Mind telling me where his ideas are bad? Most of his beliefs are both long held, progressive, and in my opinion, largely agreeable.
There's almost a 100% chance that the country will be at war by the time Trump's first term is up. It's going to be his only shot at a second term given that he won't be able to run on nonsensical rhetoric anymore.
I think the mistake this post makes is that this revultion isn't just about the politics. It's also and much more so for me, and the person.
All of my questions about whether I am on the right career path just got answered.
Sigh, around and around we go.
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
MIT is raising $150M for a new VC fund
Nah, it's expressing the right emotions at the right time for the right reasons.
We just don't have a system like that. I grew up in Appalachia the county next to mine has yet to get cell phones or the internet. There is no viable economic activity their and everyone who could has left. Those that stay cling to the idea that coal will create jobs again.

We don't even have a basic agreement on how and what kids should be taught, and since we don't have public healthcare or social insurance for all its a big risk to move in order to search for better economic activity.
Why are you assuming I'm a Republican? I'm not registered with any party, and I voted for Hillary. But in the primary, I voted for (and donated to) Bernie. Sad that he lost.
Thanks for that bit. We are working on an integration project with Epic, but I've never really even seen it.

(Epic throws some SOAP data at us, then we pop up a sub-view of a web app with a form to complete which Epic puts in a frame or something like a frame)
If you throw out MacOS (and you can, given the product in question), it's nearly 1/3.
The rest of the republic party is going to be less eager to burn everything to the ground. There's a chance that they'll choose to just ignore obamacare as there's not much to be gained by attempting to repeal it.
> The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed.

Indeed. But whose failure is it?

> Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing.

You're assuming that everyone who supported Trump is racist. I know several intelligent, non-racist people who voted for Trump - they did it acknowledging that he was a piece of shit, but that he was a piece of shit who didn't hide the fact. He has opinions and he speaks them, instead of hiding them behind changing words.

Further, they see him as a chance to disrupt the current broken state of government - by brute force of personality.

Outside of the fringes of racists and homophonics [sic] , I think this is what won him the election.

> They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people.

Painting everyone who did vote for him with the racist/homophobe brush ensures that there's no path for things to get better. People on average are not stupid - they're just frustrated with the state of things, and want to see change.

Change with a wrecking ball is still change.

As the father of a bi-racial child I'm terrified for his future this morning. But this is tempered by knowing that 51%* of the country doesn't hate my son or others based on skin color.* They hate where our country is going, and saw voting for this person as the best way to change that.

[1] [edit] 47% apparently.

[2] Okay, I don't know it, but the data strongly suggests it.
Oops! That's embarrassing, sorry. And great news. Please disregard this then.

(In my defense, I believe the main product pages were out of date when I posted.)
> Trump's accusations of Clinton being "a liar" and "a criminal" (IOW a typical career politician) were pretty harmless compared to the hyperbole (deserved or not) hauled at him

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Now maybe it's my liberal tendencies talking but the things that have come out of his mouth are flat out dangerous for a person who has that much power (now). Not much of it was hyperbole because it didn't have to be. He was already after foreigners, women, "the washington elite", the internet etc. before any of the media got involved. He was addicted to the cycle coverage but he still said all of those things and you can't wish that away.
You think Apple doesn't care about macs anymore because they didn't make it waterproof?

Also, this is the most "startup" comment I've read in a while.
If central banks of the western world had run countercyclical monetary policy meaning higher than average inflation when unemployment was high, these people would have had almost uninterrupted jobs and careers, not just people in educated urban centers.

I know people don't grasp this because it is all very mathematical but hawkish monetary policy was a massive factor in this.

This graph summarizes the situation:

https://twitter.com/kocherlakota009/status/79619007692137676...

Here is my attempt at an explanation:

https://medium.com/@b.essiambre/the-world-deserves-a-pay-rai...

But also taking a more sociological perspective, if you haven't seen it, this Cracked analysis is worth a read:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...

As well as this older Scott Alexander post:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
Yeah such a shame for all super soaker fightning professionals, impossible to use in a proper office environment.
Or don't bother to fill out surveys.

I need to update my LinuxCounter [1] profile after years of neglect.

[1]: https://www.linuxcounter.net/
Why did they have to go public? Had they not, their bio would read like:

GoPro. A private company with a cool brand and strong following which sells versatile cameras, is testing out a drone and makes millions along the way.

Of course, not every IPO leads to warmth and smiles but for this company in particular it has seemed like such a burden.
I am an engineer, not an economist or policy wonk, but I feel like I got a lot of insight on issues like this (and a lot of other modern, political/economic issues) from reading "Connectivity" by Parag Khanna
Which is unfortunate since many of these out-of-work Trump supporters who are never getting their factory jobs back would likely benefit from basic income.
Yes, even the vendors they show sum up to 1.3x, and the PC line keeps going for some time. The PC world also has a set of machines with generally premium-grade specs but have much cheaper cases, which meets many people's needs.

Apple has always had this "advantage" in sales. It has never meant much, in either direction.
> But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay

Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
Your example is different, because the isp in question would need to verify the absence of violations. AirBnb just needs to check the presence of a registration, much like a bar checks ids for <21.
>I'm yet to hear Hillary's version of "I can walk right up to men and grab them on the cock"

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." --Hilary Clinton

Not that this quote is anywhere near equivalent. It's far more egregious. Trump made a lame comment, in a private situation, about how he picks up women. Clinton, in an official capacity as First Lady of the United States, said she view men as so unimportant that they are not the primary victims in their own deaths.
Similar to this http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gu/the_best_textbooks_on_every_subj...

From the link, here's a quote:

>There have been other pages of recommended reading on Less Wrong before (and elsewhere), but this post is unique. Here are the rules:

- Post the title of your favorite textbook on a given subject.

- You must have read at least two other textbooks on that same subject.

- You must briefly name the other books you've read on the subject and explain why you think your chosen textbook is superior to them.
I start conversations but then it just stops working
Exactly, they're both unlikeable, and if either party had nominated someone who was likeable, they probably would've crushed, rather than the dead heat we got in the popular vote.
Mexico pay for the wall - yes, this is now a sure thing. A number of prominent Mexican politicians badly insulted Trump early in his campaign and are now in a very awkward position. My guess is that they have undermined their position at the bargaining table with this and are likely to end up 'paying' for the wall in some way, shape or form. We've never had a president as adamant as dealing with the immigration issue as Trump. Even Bush/McCain wanted some partial amnesty programs. Remember that we already have a partial wall with Mexico. Completing that wall and increasing border security is now likely a done deal.

Deportation on day one - this will never happen. There is a large complex body of laws dealing with immigration that will not be superseded by some desire to deport people without a hearing.

Repeal Obamacare - yes this will happen is some part. We already have the news stories of the massive increase in premiums coming and that combined with a stacked, house, senate, judiciary and executive branch makes it look very very likely that the worst parts of obamacare are going to go. It's not clear wether or not some of the more popular reforms (pre-existing conditions, kids under 26) will stay as part of some other reform bill.

Renegotiate NAFTA - yes. A president that has the cost of everything on his mind combined with the lack of decorum from the Mexican government might very well trigger this. This is especially true if the Mexican government continues to behave badly towards the new government.

Bring back coal - I have news for you - coal never left. West Virginia elected a Democrat for governor but was one of the first states to elect Trump last night. Coal has never forgotten Al Gore/Bill Clinton. Last night they made the point again. I think more seriously subsidies for green energy might decrease (with the exception of ethanol with is all produced in red states).

Reduce taxes for the rich - personal income tax no, corporate taxes yes. Corporate taxes in the US are the highest in the world and Trump will work to fix that to allow companies to come back to US soil to operate.

Ban muslims - no. Trump wanted to slow or stop immigration from Syria in particular until the people are better vetted for links to terrorism. This has been simplified to 'ban muslims'. Muslim immigration will not be prevented but it might be slowed to allow for better vetting.

Prosecute Hillary Clinton - yes. Trump will appoint a justice apartment head and a FBI director that is likely to reopen the case into the emails. It's not clear what the outcome of this might be. Ultimately the truth will prevail here.
> winning that would bring about the biggest amount of disruption and change

This is an interesting point. I've toyed with the notion lately that maybe the American political system is "antifragile"[0]. It's plausible, at least, to me that the system as a whole is stronger when it receives major shocks that disrupt the ossified structure in there. If you have the same politicians with the same policies as normal, then you get ties between the government and industry, and handouts and a ruling elite, etc. Now I don't think Trump is all that much of an outsider or has that much chance of disruption here (I voted Johnson, partly in this hope), but it's interesting to me you raise it as a reason.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile
The average salary of an undocumented immigrant is $36,000[1], which is far below that of the average trump voter, a median American above $50K although he did OK with people in the $40K bracket. The only group likely to see wage increases from mass deportation are high school dropouts [2]. From Wikipedia:

Research by George Borjas found that the influx of immigrants (both legal and illegal) from Mexico and Central America from 1980 to 2000 accounted for a 3.7% wage loss for American workers (4.5% for black Americans and 5% for Hispanic Americans). Borjas found that wage depression was greatest for workers without a high school diploma (a 7.4% reduction) because these workers face the most direct competition with immigrants, legal and illegal. [3]

Assuming ALL recent-ish immigrants are all mass deported and the economy adjusts immediately, you will see a ~7.4% shift of real wages for high school dropouts making the low end of <$36K, most of which voted for Clinton anyway. You'll see almost no issue with those above this rate because they are not competing with illegal immigrants. (This makes it more likely capitalists who see wage increases for non-service positions (eg manufacturing) will automate faster to reduce costs, but I think this is a side point considering that most jobs in the US today are in the service sector and not as easily automated away.)

Of course, you could also give the suppressed income bracket a 7% tax cut and end up in roughly the same spot without mass deportation; the undocumented immigrants aren't paying income tax anyway, and this would be HIGHER than necessary because the above study takes into account legal immigration as well.

[1] http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthor...

[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm...

[4] http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=...
It appears that Trump won because of...

You missed the point I was making - I was speculating why electoral predictions were wrong, not speculating why Trump won.

I rather hope liberals don't develop empathy for the wealthy Americans who handed the election to Trump. Empathy is truly a destructive force in the world. We feel far more empathy for those close to us, those who look like us, those who are blessed with attractiveness. If we follow our empathy Indians and Chinese will remain poor just to help wealthy white Americans maintain their social status.

Wait, what? I thought you liked to present yourself as a male- and white-supremacist of the long, proud scientific racism tradition.

No, your (and those of other likeminded folks) attacks on me are not representative of how I present myself. They simply represent what you believe to be the easiest attack mode.

I have also expressed a belief that black women are innately "better" than others in certain qualities that I value: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8300225

That particular belief has explicitly motivated more action on my part than any of the beliefs you criticize me for. Does that make me a black female supremacist?

Somehow I suspect you will be unwilling to apply your original logic to this case, and in fact you'll apply some weird reverse logic to support the same conclusion.
Companies are (generally speaking) founded by people with type-A "go go go!" personalities, who love to be in the center of large cities with all kinds of hustle and bustle. The kind of people who couldn't even imagine living anywhere else.

That's not to say they're idiots, of course not. But it might be to say that the reasons for placing their company in the center of a large city aren't very rational or well-considered.
I'm curious as to how instrumental automation and illegitimate poll voting have been in producing this result. I'm talking about things like pro-Trump Twitter bots[1], 4chan's /pol/ board mass-voting Trump in online polls, and automated thread voting to keep /r/The_Donald at the top of the trending subreddit list on Reddit. Does anyone have an idea?

1. A third of pro-Trump Twitter activity turned out to be automated. See: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/technology/twitter-bots-dona...
And I suspect that for skilled visa programs, labour demand is actually somewhat elastic, so that one additional skilled worker creates some fraction of a new job. The supply of jobs isn't fixed.

Consider a company like Google, who doesn't hire on quotas, but just grabs all the talented engineers they can. In what sense is a visa worker taking a job away from an American, when Google will gladly hire both?
But consider, "got 'em by the balls" is a commonly used expression. If Hillary had said that she had got Col Ghaddafi "by the balls" no-one would have batted an eyelid. It certainly would not have alienated the entire male voting population. The double standard meant that focussing on this one line, undermined Hillary's campaign.
Well, I'm not an American, so there's that. I'm actually a real lefty, you know, one of those people who care about income inequality, and who want real change, and think the US too much resembles an oligarchy, with a tendency of authoritarian corporatism (=fascism). I get the protest vote that Trump represents. Except I believe his pandering to the poor is only pandering, in reality he only has a his own interest in mind. But also, he's a xonophobic, sexist, racist with fascist tendencies, and he seems to have invigorated those tendencies in people. "Overcoming" pc is one of his big accomplishments.

If saying that makes me a 'smug style liberal', so be it.
This isn't about losing an election, this is about the next 40 years. Trump will sit one justice immediately, setting the lean of the court, and likely 3 more over his presidency. He is setting the SCOTUS for the next 40 years.

He has all 3 branches.
A drone for every purpose
I am a member of the technology community making computers and related devices more enjoyable for people who must use them everyday. I guess you're insinuating that we differ to such a great degree that I should not be present.

I was in the industry before a lot of startups made their first pitch. I will be present long after.
Do us all a favor and go back to reddit where you'll fit right in with that sort of dialectic.
Where did you buy this?
Too bad you can't do basic math either. America has spent/committed trillions of dollars on two wars that it has lost. That money got us nothing but more terrorists to be afraid of.

If that money was invested in a sound "socialist" manner we wouldn't have the level of despair that would incite millions of citizens to vote for a candidate who promised to "blow up the system".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study...
Well there are Trump supporters and people who really dislike Hilary. Based on the exit polling it looks like very few people loved who they voted for, and instead voted against someone else.
Well your problem is you are using the wrong news sources then. I'm not even American and I know at the very least that Trump started out with a very bombastic and completely un-Republican plan that immediately got the people's attention.

He promised huge tax cuts, a reformed health care system which is more accessible and tariffs that brought back manufacturing jobs. He promised a lot of other things but I'm mentioning what attracted the working class towards him.

He only started attacking Hillary much later.
Might be good if she didn't leave a trail like the one she has left with the Gaddafi, Iraq+Syria and ISIS, Haiti, and so on and so on.

Really, she hasn't achieved much good for the world if any. She is good at being a power person in Washington though.

I'm not pro Trump, by the way.
Nice. You quoted something I didn't say. Twice.

That says a lot more about you than it does about me.