skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Such individuals are usually unable to detect real signal in the thing they're hiring for, so interviewing in and of itself doesn't provide them any qualitative information.

They also know the people judging them are in the same boat.

Thus they fall back to the only thing understandable to themselves and people who will judge them: big brand and prestige/shininess. If the project succeeds, you take credit. If it fails, you can't be blamed for "buying the biggest and the best" (even if the biggest and the best are just a bunch of stary-eyed ignorant grads with a salesman/project manager at the head).

/that's the good version. The bad version points out how many of these firms gets business through networks, personal connections and "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" type dealings.
//it's not a rant if it's true.
Globally. That mostly illustrate that the size of the population in developing countries is an order of magnitude larger than in developed countries. The number is kind of meaningless.

Percentiles makes more sense within a country. The only thing I found for the us is the article bellow which puts the threshold at $8.4 millions...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-t...
Slickdeals.net is your friend. Some TV deals and SSD deals. Amazon discounted all its hardware stuff around 15% it seems. Picked up the fire 4k box for $65.
Well, you should volunteer on the Stockfish engine and show everyone how it's done.

I don't believe your comparison between fundamentally different games is sufficient to support your conclusion that an extremely large number of calculations does not pose a challenge for computer programs to solve.

Rather, to the best of my knowledge, to support your conclusion what you would need to do is to prove there exists a method or formula for reducing the number of permutations to a manageable number while still coming to an optimal solution. Apparently if Sudoku is easy to solve, that exists in Sudoku, but it certainly does not yet exist in the realm of human knowledge in chess.

The fact is that Sudoku and many card games are easy to solve, while chess is in fact a much, much more challenging problem for a computer program, and there are a lot of very smart people that have worked on that problem.
Well what you mention about ultrawealthy individuals doesn't really matter since one billionaire is still only one person. In terms of setting the bar for where the 1% threshold is, it wouldn't make a difference if someone has $1B or $10M. So what matters in the quantity of people who own more than $750K in assets, rather than exactly how much each of those people own.

>Cumberbatch

It says he made $2.6M from Dr. Strange. His paydays from movies are on an upward trajectory, so he may crack the $5m/film mark in a few years. Also, I assume this is ordinary income, which is really tax disadvantaged, especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance), which probably means that they pay both sides of the payroll tax.

http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endor...

But these very visible people can wield tremendous influence. The three pillars are power, money, and influence, and you can trade one for the others. Celebrities may not be as powerful as governors or as wealthy as tech billionaires, but their voice often travels much farther than their counterparts.
No, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs, usually fungible.

Bitcoin is all of those.

It's for this reason that the USCFTC ruled that Bitcoin is a commodity. So not because I say so; because the people whose job it is to say so, say so.
I guess anonymity is also a luxury that the super wealthy can easily afford.
Do you not having savings you put into a retirement account? 401(k)? Who do you think the clients of the investment/trading firms are? Do you keep your money under the mattress?

> I really don't believe that the amount of money the financial industry is making is commensurate with its value provided to society.

I am not going to argue with your beliefs here, but just want to point out the amount of money someone gets paid or how much money an industry makes is not determined by "its value provided to society" as what would that even mean?

I live in LA, the entertainment industry here also seems to make a relatively large amount of money.

While the financial services industry is quite large and made up of many different types of companies, it is not a government public service or anything like that, where does "value to society" come from? Who gets to decide it?

Edit: I just want to add that we are using Hacker News which is part of YCombinator - YC is an investment company and part of the finance industry too.
On the other hand AlphaGo proves that computers can scale, even if they are inefficient, whereas the only way to grow that 20 Watts brain would be to use multiple brains and that's not going to be any good in Go matches.
It's worded as clear as a bell, and you are 100% wrong. It states unambiguously that they are donating, "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com"
It's not revenue, it's wealth.

s/make/have
the world’s households owned property and net financial assets worth almost $256trn in mid-2016. That is about 3.4 times the world’s annual GDP. If this wealth were divided equally it would come to $52,819 per adult.

I can understand why it's tempting to perform this calculation (you've got two numbers, may as well divide them), but I kind of wish people would stop doing so then trying to draw conclusions about the result. Especially if they work for an organization that calls itself "The Economist", which implies that the author knows something about Economics.

Because all it serves to do is convince people who don't understand how economies work that there is in fact some big fixed pile of "wealth" out there, and that all those rich people have hoarded it already and are now sitting on it, preventing anybody else from having any of it.

... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that.
Well parent is surprised that $750k only gets you 1%, despite the large population of developing nations -- the opposite of what you are supporting.
I just thought it was to give positive and negative error values the same treatment. Moreover I think that it's debatable that one big error is more important than many small errors. That is conceivably a bad strategy, in some cases -- if most points have low error, do you really want to penalize your candidate function for having a very few bad outliers? To me that is no better than giving extra favor to a few points that happen to have low error.
Free Harvard Business Review E-courses Only for Indians
> In a tangent, Grübel [former CEO of US and Credit Suisse] gave his thoughts on what makes a man rich: "rich is a man when he goes to bed in a carefree manner and wakes up without care." He is then asked if, by that definition, a billionaire is rich to which he replied: "No. Money has little to do with wealth. The real rich are carefree. Those who are healthy, are not dependent. The greatest wealth is independence."
It wasn't just "overlooking issues" many loan officers directed borrowers to lie on their applications and in some cases falsified income on loan docs themselves [1]. There was also falsification of appraisals [2], not to mention the robosigning debacle.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/upshot/how-mortgage-fraud-...

[2]: http://www.bergermontague.com/blog/index.php/countrywide-whi...
Coala 0.9 released – unified static code analysis supporting over 60 languages
I agree with the general statement but, to be pedantic, Kenny Boy died three months before he was to be sentenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay

Other recent Caucasian white collar criminals include Bernie Ebbers, CEO of Worldcom (currently doing 25 years in Federal prison) and Dennis Kozlowski, CEO of Tyco (he was a guest of the NY State Dept of Corrections for about 9 years).
So wealth is meaningless and the rich hoarding tons of it aren't materially better off than the homeless sleeping in your doorway?

If there isn't a single limited pile of wealth, then why can't we helicopter drop on everyone millions of dollars, and raise all boats to American lifestyle level.
Vim:

When being on the road (battery) & working on HPC machines.
With a nice dotfile kit (https://github.com/rscircus/dotfiles)
inside tmux.

Atom:

When being plugged in somewhere. Also with a nice synced
setup (https://github.com/atom-community/sync-settings).

Atom is nice to the eye. I.e., Markdown Preview, Minimap, etc..., however, it's just a huge battery drain and therefore I usually prefer Vim.
I'd dare to say, that Vim is still more powerful, as the contact to the terminal (and its powers [1]) is very good.

And it's just plain FAST!

[1]: ripgrep, git, fzf, ctags, piping stuff through this and that, etc...
As someone who emails from a Nextcloud instance online, writes and reads a lot of text and logs into a Linux cluster for data analysis in Jupyter Notebooks. This could completely replace my company issues HP Elitebook (price around 1200€), the screen is even better.

I would like it even more if it were just a Raspberry Pi (possibly with a very fast ssd if it were possible) inside, simply because of the support and trust I have in them.
> I can't think of any way in which Cassandra would be better than using {Zookeeper,etcd,consul}

This is the correct answer. Zookeeper & Curator make it nearly foolproof to implement a distributed lock correctly, whereas with Cassandra, its the other way round.
Even though an argument can be made about computers being able to scale, energy is always the only constraint that matters.
If it was 100%, all you would need to do was intervene in some manner where that likelihood dropped to 0%. For example, if the system can predict you will beat your spouse, then force the future-perp to come outside 10 minutes before and modify the scenario to the point where they wouldn't beat their spouse.

With minority-report scenarios, it's not like you actually need to punish people as if they really did commit the crime, even though the crime is in the future. All you need to do is prevent it.
It sounds like that's exactly how it works (two months ago):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12069784

The NitroKey HSM requires all previous setup (DKEK?) passwords and PINs. Anecdotal random unnamed vendor? Not so much:

They did, with undocumented commands, export the key from the device in an unencrypted format and loaded it into the other model
Coding stuffs that we learn but are actually wrong
Coding stuffs which are mostly learnt or perceived wrongly.
EU commission and Erdogan will ignore EU parliament vote to stop accession talks
5 Best Free Nook Tablet Apps for You
Brexit: Sir John Major says 'perfectly credible' case for second referendum
No discussion of where these datasets came from? They're probably training the nn to recognize mugshots vs normal shot. -10 pts for research being conducted by the chinese. -10 pts for this "research" coming out right as the us is entering a new fascist regime.. I call bs.. not to mention other excellent points raised in this thread...
Think of all the people who have that much money simply tied up in their house, because they happened to live in an area that experienced a housing boom after they bought.
Martha Stewart as well.
OK, can't we just have Zen and AlphaGo play each other?
If it really isn't limited then why don't we give everyone a million dollars.

In effect, we have.

I work, earn a dollar and put it in the bank... who lends it to a company who pays it to somebody else... who puts it in the bank...

There's orders of magnitude less pie to go around than has in fact gone around. That's essentially the basis for the world economy.
am waiting for the safari books online subscription deal. Last yr they had a 50% price drop.
Also... why do you want TOTP rather than U2F? U2F is better in every way (unless you don't have access to a USB port).
Ah thats why. I loved that blog.
The biggest factor being real estate. As houses appreciate in value, home owner become wealthier on paper, but that doesn't change anything to their way or quality of life. They can't afford a nanny more than before. They can't buy a bigger car than before. But these statistics would suggest the contrary. The only way home owner can monetize their asset is by selling it and go live in a cheap place. That's only a meaningful argument if tens of millions of people do that which they do not.
Yup, I agree with that.

But:

In the example you gave, the people most closely committing fraud are regular Americans. Not the banksters.

A) A loan officer hinting to people to lie on their applications does not absolve the loan applicant from fraud.

B) A few loan officers here and there does not an economic failure make. It took failure all the way up and down the system.

But to the point - it's not the CEO's and Wall Streeters committing fraud in that circumstance. Sure, they bear responsibility for not locking down their front-line staff better ... but those examples don't indicate they committed anything near a crime.

Lying to other banks about the quality of assets they were selling to them - if we could prove it - might actually be 'Wall Street fraud'.
cause linear algebra is a beautiful framework to think in.
It includes a surprising number of Americans (over 21m), whose debts outweigh their assets.

Coincidentally there are 20.5 million college students in the US. That 21 million number actually seems small to me just from college students and grads alone, let alone other sources.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
Indeed, but the real fix would be a voting method that has defenses against it, as opposed to the electoral college, which is a lot easier to affect than more advanced systems that have been developed in more recent years.
you don't make the dollar. You get it from someone else.

You can't arbitrarily make assets. The total capital in the world grows but grows slowly. And doubly slowly for you if you are poor. I think Piketty wrote something about that.
Thanks Steeeve, really informative answer.
Don't worry, it's turtles all the way down.
I t didn't work on CHrome as well but opening it in an incognito window made it work for me.
> Since we are getting to the point where the HN formats are making lines be quite short

Just click on any of the comments to make them the root.

> If anything, grouping people based on race or gender without a very specific context seems to loose all the attributes of a allied group with aligned interests and goals.

But "allied group" and "aligned interests" are very different things. When we study groups, we don't always care what one person in the group feels towards others in the group, or whether person X and person Y are business competitors. X may really want Y to fail, but even the opposite outcome is better to X than a communist revolution. Anyway, it is a fact that white men have been more powerful than white women or black men in the West, at least for the past few hundreds of years.

> The distinction is in the strategies of attaining those goals, the values behind it

I think that different values result in very different goals, and I think that conservative and white Americans have very different notions of how they want the world to look. Jonathan Haidt has a nice talk about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86dzTFJbkc

> often witch explicit implication of testosterone as a biological cause for violence

I don't think that's the implication at all. It's unlikely that feminists would emphasize a biological cause, and besides, I don't thing they (should or do) care what the cause is.

> I would even go as to say that the strategies should simply focus on reducing the human behavior of turning verbal arguments into physical confrontations, rather than focus on gender.

I don't know.

> if we want to stop racism we can't only talk about white men.

Again, I don't know how to stop racism, and I must admit that I haven't closely followed the political messaging by different advocacy groups, so I'm perfectly willing to accept that the messaging was wrong.
Once I ran my salary in a statistical tool, I was in the 8% highest salary of the country. That felt strange, I live in a rented 3 bedroom apartment, no car, no savings.
Look at that massive butt plug
Apparently there are still bad sections, but more of the highway has been upgraded.[1] China is providing most of the money. In 2010, a major earthquake caused landslides which created a new lake, taking out part of the highway. It took until 2015 to build a new route with 5Km of tunnels.

Here's a partial list of projects being funded in Pakistan by China.[2] China's government seems determined to get a land linkup to Europe. Yet this isn't the main "New Silk Road" route - that's further north, through Iran and Iraq.[3] With all the wars in that area, China apparently sees a need to have multiple alternate routes for trade. Good thinking in Beijing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_the_Karakora...
[2] http://boi.gov.pk/userfiles1/file/List%20of%20MoUs.docx
[3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/silkroad/english/index.htm
Not to mention that $53k in Laos makes you live like a king, while $53k in central Tokyo makes you homeless.
Let's first tackle something a bit easier than absolute value, which is relative value. If we can't agree on the answers to these questions it's unlikely we can agree on anything:

1. Does it make sense that four hedge fund guys got more money than all the kindergarten teachers in America combined? [1] (I used the word "got" instead of earned because "earned" presumes an answer.)

2. Does it make sense that Zuckerberg is worth tens of billions and Albert Einstein maybe had a net worth of one million at death? Or that Einstein earned a modest professor's salary for his enormous contributions to science, but his estate earns $10-12 million on royalties for his name and likeness (photo, Baby Einstein license, etc)?

You can't answer that it makes sense because that is what the market determined, because that would be begging the question (whether the market reasonably and fairly compensates people).

--

[1] http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5688794/these-four-hedge-fund-gu...
I agree with you that there is no point in arguing with people on HN, the civility rules make this place beyond toxic with sarcasm and betterperson trolling. Practically every single comment is an opinion ala "how can anybone even THINK that? wow im so baffled" and nothing else.
You are technically right (the best kind), but the underlying idea is valid, that this is just cussing out a product with no technical detail, and that's not constructive.
I upvoted you. I think your account is genuine because it was created on the date of your username, and the other date username accounts are a joke as they were created today.
Kalliope – modular voice controlled personal assistant for home automation
The way socialism puts people before money is via government control of resource allocation. That is by necessity authoritarian (even in the USA).
To expand on this poster's point (at least, I think this is where you were going with it), one of the biggest differences in perspective between non-economists and economists is that the former focus more on money and the latter more on goods. Economists recognize that money is in and of itself useless, it is simply a store of value. At the end of the day, it matters not who has more money in their bank account but who has claimed more of the scarce resources of the world for themselves.

Seen in this way, statements about redistributing the monetary wealth of the world are pretty much useless, since people spend money in different ways. It may be that everyone holds $52,819 after the great redistribution, but the value of money and price of goods would have to change drastically such that the number is meaningless and not representative of what such a state of the world would be like (we would have to build a lot more big screen tv's, medium income housing, etc. if the plan were taken to fruition, and a lot fewer opulent dwellings in big cities and yachts).

Furthermore, the very wealthy invest and save a lot more (how else would the great wealth accrue if they spend it as quickly as they earn it?). If the wealth of the very wealthy were redistributed we would quickly learn that what really limits the welfare of your average consumer is the production capacity of the economy-- not the total amount of nominal money they hold.
So, since their use of UPDATE is problematic, what is the correct way to release the locks?
Thanks for sharing. For someone that has zero knowledge and wants to get started in AI, which language would you recommend?
It gets even worse when you see how those billions of dollars are then used. One of the founders of Renaissance is Robert Mercer [1]. He invested millions in the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart and Trump's campaign.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer_(businessman)
Debian's reproducible builds would allow allow anyone to grab the source to a package and build it the same way as Debian does, and get matching builds. This would allow a Debian mirror to host self-built but binary matching packages. Not sure if these kind of mirrors exist.
We could give everyone a million making everyone a millionaire. But the value of that million will be pretty low or, put in another way, this will generate a lot of inflation basically returning at the starting point.

The thing is that the dollar as no value by itself, its value derives from what it could buy. If the economic activity increases generating more value, the value of the dollar will increase. And that's not just theory, that's what happened in the last 20 years were a large number of population in developing countries were raised out of poverty. Check the Milanovic chart for seeing it [1].

The second problem is that it is not necessary that a society that has an unequal wealth distribution is also unjust. Suppose to have a society where everybody between 20 and 60 years old works for 1K a month. Before 20 years old the could use debt to leave, after 60 years old to their death (let's say 80 years old) they live with the savings. You would agree that this society is just, everybody makes the same amount of money. And yet there is inequality in wealth distribution. Youngs just before turning 20 will have a huge debt, people turning 60 will be, conversely, in the top 1%.

This example could sound naïve, replace it with student loan and pension funds and you will see that is pretty much the status of US economy.

[1] http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/files/2013/10/Change-in-real...
I am thankful for the internet and all the opportunities it has provided me.
https://youtu.be/EtuDS0ntaJY?t=6s
The most popular resolution nowadays is still 1366x768, so I would not agree with you there. I have that resolution on my 11" cheomebook and its fine, a 1080p panel would be a big improvement sure but its very far from unusable.
What good would someone's eye do to you? Is eye transplant a thing?
The terms people are likely to understand are "short squeeze" and "long squeeze".
Money has little to do with wealth once you have enough. I doubt that there are many wage slaves that are rich according to that definition.
Internet Bubble great escape plan into reality. We're in for a thrill.
On Twitter: "sorry, no big sale this year. Contact us via http://bit.ly/1aK0wMg and we are happy to talk about available discounts."

- https://twitter.com/safari/status/798558536905224192
Though in central/eastern soviet Europe it was regulated rationing with low crime ratio. So dire situation, but somewhat under control, while Venezuela looks like chaos.

Soviet Block deal with it by providing paper coupons for food and necessities. Without them you can't buy a lot of stuff.
4MLinux
The employee in question is also the person that made that [Microsoft rebrand concept](http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/2012/7/3/the-next-micro...) from a while back.