skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Apple's cash pile includes a lot of overseas holdings. There simply aren't enough things for them to spend $60bn on. They don't want to repatriate the money because they'd get hit with (wait for it) taxes. If we eliminated corporate taxes while raising capital gains taxes, Apple would have an incentive to repatriate the cash and the piper would still get paid.
What is your proposed change?
I've been using the bose quiet comfort series. They're expensive, but they've got good active noise cancellation, if needed in loud areas. They do support the Apple microphone cable, so you can do phone calls with them. When at my desk, though, I use a Blue Yeti mic.
I don't know much about the new MBP specs, but I was a little surprised to read this:

This taxed the system hard and it was very hot, with fans running

I was under the impression that these didn't have fans.
This is exactly what I do. Surprised to find such a specific combo already in the comments.
Simply the ones built into my macbook or my headphones (depending on how much privacy I have). I use basic Skull Candy earbuds when I need them. I do 3 to 5 meetings a day and some pair programming.
Or have vote share = tax paid - service/goods provided. The democracy is weird corporation structure, the more share you have the less power you wield.
> ... where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

When Castro asked that question in 1991, around 60% of people in East Asia were living in extreme poverty. Today it is 3.5% [1]. The change is mostly due to China switching from a socialist to capitalist economy.

[1] http://www.vox.com/world/2016/10/2/13123980/extreme-poverty-...
You seem convinced that $PATH handles everything. That's not accurate. Deployment scripts can make automated changes to config files and need paths. One package assumes a hardcoded path for another package- typically a symlink, but if those symlinks are moving around, that could break.

And the package management system isn't off-topic if one of the reasons for moving paths is to become more standard. Apt, Yum, Pacman, etc. all have different ways of doing things, and if the goal is to become more standard, then you have to wonder why the Linux community has not banded together on a single packaging system standard.
So the US as a nation is evil.

BTW, you are wrong: cubans do vote, too.
Three Strikes, You’re Out: Habitat III’s Doomed Urban Agenda
The USA has some of the highest corporate taxes in the developed world while simultaneously being the state that is arguably the most controlled and dominated by capitalist interests. It seems like a paradox until you put it under a different lens...

As a Marxist I'm actually for the abolition of corporate taxes. I think they're an ineffective and counter-producitve means of raising revenue and simply make the state more dependent on corporate profits and power.

But in return for the lowering of corporate taxes, I'm for socialization (which is not necessarily nationalization) of a whole bunch of key assets, legal and state support for worker-owned business and cooperatives, and broadly the transfer of power of much of what is now in corporate hands into the hands of the population as a whole.
I have a USB headset (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0091F8F7A ) hooked into my Macbook, that I use for calls with Skype, Google Hangouts, and UberConference (the last two via Chrome).

Fairly regularly, the USB-C jack slips out, and the call switches to the MacBook's speaker and microphone. When I reinsert, and then switch back to the headset's speaker and microphone (by selecting them after option-clicking on the volume icon), the call stays on the MacBook's speaker and microphone. I then need to hang up and redial to get the headset working again.

Any ideas on how to switch to a headset mid-call?

It seems ridiculous, but I've solved for now by switching to this headset that hooks into the 3.5mm jack instead: https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Analog-Stereo-Headset-Microp...
Increased wages (for the average worker) is the last thing companies will do with more cash - it's the gift that keeps taking if incentives are considered.

We Americans manufactured and believe in a host of fables to explain the prosperity of the last 70 years...
Folks might be downvoting because it isn't a valid point. If you incorporate you're required to pay yourself. The IRS will come down on your like a ton of bricks if they believe you're underpaying yourself. Unless you're a tax attorney, it's a very hazardous line of thinking to believe yourself smarter than the tax man.
While in this case I can't think of any specific reasons beyond performance to need to implement objc_msgSend in assembly, there are absolutely instances where assembly is the only option.

Example: when performing a context switch in a kernel, assembly is required since C abstracts away architecture-specific details necessary to swap out the register set, swap the page directory pointer, etc.
Source for debunking?

Many people indirectly purchase stocks through investments. For example, I might invest in a mutual fund which buys stock.

Also, bonds and other instruments are linked to stock prices. So if stock prices go up, interest rates of bonds and debts go up too.

Even if the 99% are not investing in stocks currently, they can in the future; so they can profit from corporate tax abolition.
Agreed these are very good for an included product. I also have a pair of the Apple in ear buds that I find quite good when you have background noise.
Sennheiser ME3 microphone connected via a USB audio "pod".
Someone has to sell shares for Apple to buy them. Those sellers pay tax.
Normal users literally don't care. It was invented as touchpad so touch pad it is, no matter what Apple wants users to call it now. Don't see a point get butt hurt about that.
I am curious to hear why the device you are looking for should be a compact and portable device. You listed it as your very first requirement so it must be a must-have.
No-brainer in the sense that it doesn't work and no one should support abolishing corporate taxes.
Very true about the speakers -- I never cared either, until now. They're so good. Also true about the trackpad -- not a big problem, but it does sometimes move my cursor when typing, and there's just no need for it to be this huge.

As for the keyboard, I've been using mine (sans Touch Bar) at home for four weeks now, and it's great. It took a while to adjust, but now when I use my Air at work, the keyboard just feels so... suboptimal. It really is a pleasure to use. (In contrast to the Macbook keyboard, which was terrible.)
More to the point, this should set supply-side economics on a bonfire. The idea of cutting taxes to stimulate job creation is ludicrous when corporations are already swimming in cash. The problem isn't insufficient capital - it's risk aversion and a lack of good places to put the cash already in the system.

Supply-side made a lot of sense in the Reagan era, when we had near-runaway inflation and a massive cash crunch, so there was no capital to invest. Now we need things to invest the excess capital in. We need demand. That comes from wages, and no individual company is motivated to raise wages. Tragedy of the commons, in a sense.
> Besides, liberated from corporate taxes, they'd have more freedom to increase wages.

That would be impossible unless the law itself changes from the way it is currently interpreted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
People making arguments about free markets must remember that they assume free movement of labour - which we don't have.
A Simple Explanation of How Shares Move Around the Securities Settlement System
It's not chauvinism; American truffles are a different product.
Sure, some businesses will employ more people if their income isn't taxed. But many others (especially in the tech sector, like you pointed out) won't. Apple alone accounted for 4.4% of all US corporate income ($72.67 billion vs $1.637 trillion according to Wolfram Alpha). I think more jobs could be created by using those taxes to fund e.g. infrastructure projects.
"Start With Great People" is wrong advice. If you knew who are great people you would be rich anyway.

Totally disagree, especially since there can be great value in putting together a team of "great people", even if you do little else besides give them the tools they need to "get shit done", which is how he boils down the selection criteria.

I myself did that in starting up a student run computer center back in 1980, when computer resources were dear; I myself didn't have much time to contribute to it due to Real Life putting me in a full time job, but having procured everything (machine and peripherals, room, a few dollars for the needed electrical work) they did almost all the rest. Similarly I've saved at least one company by recognizing a "human resource" need and finding and selling the position to that person (LMI was the first example).

This stuff doesn't self-organize, especially since we're not talking about the domain of rent seeking.

And there's a whole technique of customer development that you evidently are not aware of that at least gives you a fighting chance to "succeed". Without following something like it, it's pure luck, often just being at the right place at the right time (think Jobs, SV and the dawn of more polished microcomputers, or, heck, Ken Olsen being a grad student working on a Whirlwind successor).

You say "do build it", but do you have any inkling "it" is anything anyone wants??? If it's something that requires more talent or time than you can devote to it, how do you get others to lend you their time and/or money to "build it", and if you have no idea if anyone wants it, how can you morally justify wasting the resources of others?
So where are those high salaries in Denmark?
Your argument doesn't prove violence is cultural. Maybe Scandinavia is peaceful now because most of the people with violent genes left. You're descended from the guys who stayed, not from the ones who left to colonize Iceland, Greenland, Britain, Normandy, etc.
The example is very helpful for me, brilliant works!
I wouldn’t. I’d gladly pay even more taxes, tbh. Because taxes are the best RoI I can get.

Every Eurocent of my taxes goes back to better education of society, better infrastructure, more investment in innovative technologies.

Sure, I don’t get more money directly from it, but a very educated, modern society, with perfectly maintained infrastructure can save a lot of costs in many places, and increase your income even more.
It has two.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inch+Touch+Ba...
You can likely use curl in a script to do it.
Is the real question not about taxes but what to do about all this cash?

Taxes are necessary. But in the case of corporations I think the problem is not about what the right corporate tax rate should be but instead what does a company do when they effectively have so much cash they can not find good options to invest that money in.

If one of these companies suddenly reports a significant drop in cash due to aggressive investments in something that is failing (say, perhaps building an autonomous car) their stock will be punished, a very negative incentive.

The real question: is a company investing this cash the right thing to do? IMO it is, we want that money at work, building something. I don’t believe taxes can solve this. Instead can we need to find a way for companies to be able to invest this money in new ideas but not be so punitive via the markets when they try things that fail.
When having more than one person in the room, I'm using the Samson Go Mic¹.

When I'm alone, for calls and everything else really: listening to music or just cancelling the noise (AC, on flights etc.), I'm using BOSE QC35².

Both products I would highly recommend. But the headphones in particular are probably the best investment I've made to boost my productivity.

1. http://www.samsontech.com/samson/products/microphones/usb-mi...

2. https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/over_ear_head...
I simply find it ironic as hell that people demand Facebook "ban fake news" on one hand and then bash it for developing "censorship tools" on the other. Come on, what's the difference between the two at all? So what kind of authority is Facebook to decide whether a piece of news is "fake" or not? This is very, very dangerous and stupid if you are truly trying to hold on to your proclaimed "freedom of speech" or whatnot. As Greenwald very well put it, the Democratic Party are just scrambling to find every kind of scapegoat they can find, without ever admitting they themselves are the problem. Come on, people didn't vote for Trump because they were misguided by "fake" news, or to put it another way, news that don't work in the Democrats' favor. People did so because the alternative is simply too horrible/hopeless for them to contemplate. Simple as that.

So either you admit that what China has been doing is essentially not anything different from what you're demanding all over the place now (actually, the majority of the "censorship" in China is against smearing campaigns which entail totally false accusations against the Communist Party, which could be potentially very socially unsettling in their eyes), or you admit that what you've been demanding is some absolutely stupid and dangerous nonsense. Otherwise it's just another example of western hypocrisy, bias and double standards against China at its finest.
When money talks, bullshit walks.
> to be the bare minimum
> for a decent society

So if a utilitarian-leaning society could show it was improved by killing people, you'd be fine with that?
>"Intel wouldn't risk to annoy AWS, they are a far bigger customer than Google."

Do you have a citation or something showing such numbers? What is this statement based on?
The point is that this policy disproportionately benefits rich people, who invest a lot more, and thus stand to gain a lot more.
I'd like to propose a rule for politicos to follow when discussing fiscal policy. I don't expect them to follow it, but I suppose everyone can dream.

The rule is this: all proposals for changes to government spending must be revenue-neutral. That is, if you propose a tax cut somewhere, you must propose a tax hike somewhere else to explain how the cut would be paid for. Or if you don't want to propose another tax hike, you must specify what service will get cut as a consequence. Conversely, if you wish to propose a service, you must specify how you will raise the funds to pay for it.

Anything else is wishful thinking, and is storing up trouble for the future.
I use Sennheiser headphones (don't remember the model and it doesn't seem to be on them; I bought these 3-5 years ago).

My rMacbook Pro 2015 sits on my desk under a monitor, right side toward me, with the lid closed. Because I've never really had a problem with people hearing me clearly (as long as the connection was okay), I haven't bothered to buy a mic. This is true even when the laptop's fans are racing due to, say, Docker for Mac struggling, as it does.
Great article && Great future ahead of us. No more blocked donations from Visa and MasterCard to organizations like WikiLeaks.

Small note: you have some images not showing up.
> If I were to stash trillions of income overseas to evade taxes, I'd go to jail, not have the law changed.

Yes. But you see, if the state did that to you there would be no unpleasant consequences, whereas doing that to a big corporation will bring on a wold of pain.
The president is meant to represent the populace more closely than it does, as should the House. The Senate is meant to protect less populace states.

Really, the problem is capping the number of representatives at around 450. We should have something like 1000-3000 members of the house, which if distributed by population would fix most people's problems with the electoral college.

Basically, Congress got selfish and broke the balance of power for the country to entrench their own, and now the states that don't do much have too much say, and basically slow the country down.
Sennheiser PC31, I'm not sure if the speakers on those are shared with the PX headphones, which sound by the way very nice for music.

https://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-31-II-Binaural-Headset-Mic...

and in case your laptop/desk doesn't have mic and headphone jack you can use

https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-External-Adapter-Windows-AU-M...

that works with Linux, not sure about windows/mac.

for the cellphone plantronics voyager legend, which is expensive but works every time very well.
The tech sector is not 10 times harder than all other sectors with low barriers to entry. Unless by "tech sector" you mean only the part of the industry focused on trying to create billion dollar household name companies.

A guy who knows how to fix a car is not going to have any easier of a time launching a successful business than a guy who knows how to build an app or website. If anything, I would think it would be easier for the tech.

The E Myth is a best-selling book precisely because of how hard it is to go from being someone who knows how to do something to creating a successful business that does that thing.

The sad part about this blog post is that the woman who posted it doesn't seem to be good at the thing she is trying to build a business around. The group she is an affiliate of seems predatory.

My experience: I own 3 retail stores, and a SaaS product. I have been in both the brick-and-mortar retail space and the tech space for over a decade.
Hitler wasn't left-wing or right-wing. He mixed elements of both.
I've read Delivering Happiness, and I thought his review made it sound like he hasn't. Here's what he says:

It’s solid, Tony’s a smart dude, but light on real tactics and not truly relevant to most startups. More for a corporate crowd I think.

But if he'd read the book, he'd know that it's not for a corporate crowd. It's for people who do customer service. That's what the entire book is about, and why it's so on point. It has nothing to do with tactical startup tips.
Definitely have fans. The design video[1] has a segment at 2:30 about thermal management.

1 - http://images.apple.com/media/us/macbook-pro/2016/b4a9efaa_6...
Intel has been under intense pricing pressure as the server market has consolidated into a few large cloud providers. Some of the largest providers have used their weight to really turn the screws on Intel. Providing exclusive access to top-end child has effectively turned Intel from being viewed as a commodity vendor to a partner.

In the past some of these players have threatened to turn to ARM processors to extract more pricing concessions from Intel. It will be interesting to see if that was a bluff or if Intel's technology advantage does really give them a TCO advantage even with their margins factored in.

It's also interesting that Google and Facebook are leaders in machine learning and I wonder if there isn't some additional collaboration in the works for custom silicon in the works. Google has their own custom silicon for machine learning and maybe could be encouraged to help Intel enter the market if they knew they would have exclusive access to the newest generation of chips.

Given the market caps of Google, Facebook, Apple et-al it makes me wonder why nobody has bought out Intel.
If the science explained anything sufficiently we'd have drugs that treat obesity.

Excess is enough to explain the problem.
Could also be useful, if extended with webfonts, for something like a custom T-shirt/mug/etc preview generator.
It is scary to what extent corporate taxes can be avoided. Something is there is seriously broken and radical ideas are worth contemplating when the there is such a discrepancy between plan and outcome.

Should profit be accruing unchecked in corporations? Certainly there should be some pay back to society as society bears some external costs. Not only that but there may be better places capital could be deployed. These can be different at different times - management doing reinvestment, shareholders moving capital elsewhere, employees spending and taxman spending. A robust scheme would employ a balanced approach. At any time one may be preferable and some will argue for extremes. But things are changing - always - until this time it will be different - only to return shortly later violently to mean.

Discussion of corporate profits requires to also be looking at income tax and the treatment of dividends and capital gains is always being simplistic. But the essay is not trying to propose a solution. It is simply pointing out that there is a systemic escalating credibility problem:

> It could be argued that the existence of a tax that countries cannot properly enforce is one of the factors undermining trust in governments and feeding populist movements.

Bloomberg is not known for its social attitude and one may argue that they are advancing here a very liberalist agenda by talking up a fake problem. I give some leeway this time due the next paragraph:

> There are other ways governments can keep corporations in check -- for example, through environmental, safety and labor regulations, which U.S. Republicans and Brexiters dislike but which ultimately benefit consumers in a way the corporate tax doesn't. There are also other ways governments can get the revenue -- for example, by paying more attention to private income from corporate dividends and pass-through entities, or the European way -- by placing an additional burden on consumption through a value-added tax. In the U.K., VAT contributes 10.7 percent of GDP to the budget. To compensate for the absence of a corporate tax, it would need to go up from 20 percent to 25 percent -- the level that currently exists in Sweden and Croatia, for example.

Finding ways to tax that can not be escaped is critical. Also important is to find ways to tax that don't burden labor too much. However this approach needs to take into account that shifting (or acknowledging the fiat-accompli) of collecting tax from less sophisticated and mobile citizens and workers is putting pressure on well paid full time employment. Tariff free zones may not be so compatible with that approach.

Last but not least - hoarding profits (most extreme in case of Apple) as it going on at the moment is a recent phenomena. There used to be a tax on that called inflation. Any balancing would need to look at where and with volume new money is entering the system and going nowhere.
I actually do get the core premise. Tax the owners via dividends and capital gains. An added tax in the middle is inefficient. Of course let's see this done in a revenue neutral way!
2012 27" iMac built in mic/camera
I'm concerned about anti competitive policies, whether ethnic or not. I attach no moral weight to ethnic groups.

I am concerneded about the harmful effects of democracy that you bring up, but I prefer disenfranchisment as a solution. Preventing people from working is far more harmful than preventing them from voting.
I guess even within tech, some areas are easier than others.

I think that basically; the more innovative your product is, the more unlikely it is to succeed.

It's always easier to find a concept that already exists and is successful and copy it (with minor key differences) than to actually innovate with something completely new.
The issues are complex.
Castro lived in the shadow of US aggression for 50 years.

But in summary, not in all cases does freedom of speech, free elections,'free market' etc favor national stability.

Singapore did very well under Lee kwan Yew in what was essentially a one party state. So did Libya so is modern Rwanda. Not every country will blossom under western democratic prescriptions. A friend of mine whom I had a conversation with a few years ago, pointed out that universal suffrage and free elections if adopted in China would be the fastest way to destroy the country.

There's a lot of room for debate here.