skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why don't we do a basic income lottery?

- Anyone except previous winners can enter.

- You can only enter once per drawing.

- As the pool increases the payout does not, only the number of winners.

- Winners get a basic income for life.

- As another condition they agree to an amount of monitoring so that we can effectively study how they behave with the basic income.

- This one would be hard, but you might have to be made ineligible for other government assistance programs maybe?

State lotteries already offer annuity payouts and even better they sometimes have 100k for life lotteries. These aren't perfect as the amount is too high but it's worth studying anyway. The basic income lottery described above would be an even better approximation.

EDIT: I just did a bit of googling and it looks like this has been tried before [1][2] , but the amounts were time-limited and low. It would probably have to be state-sponsored to take off.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-...
[2] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-proje...
What alternative form of currency was that now? I must have missed that while the blip was ravaging the land.
It's worth noting that Tatham's coroutines are very widely deployed in PuTTY
"The Russian hacking allegation is a classic piece of red scare propaganda, right out of the book"

The Russians definitely hacked the US, as surely as they invaded Ukraine on two fronts.

The effects may be overblown, but it's not 'propaganda', it's just a simple truth.

'Propaganda' in the US works more like this:

+ US soldiers with Iraqi gov. is fighting ISIS (terrorists) in Mosul.

+ The Russians/Syrian regime are fighting 'rebel groups'. But those 'rebel groups' are mostly Al Nusra i.e. 'Al Queda in Iraq'. Basically as bad as ISIS. But they are called 'rebels'.
So it's a softer kind of propaganda, generally.
It's researched and concluded by CIA.
But it does kind of make sense in China. If a prospective client has a solid history of paying debts on a timely basis as well as well-documented statements of dissent or disapproval on Chinese social media, that person is more likely to be arrested and therefore less likely to be able to pay the debts back, which has the double effect of more accurately estimating credit worthiness as well as punishing dissidents in advance.
The world’s tiniest radio – Harvard Gazette
As Basic Income is being introduced, unions will be slowly sunsetted. They may still be useful to oversee work quality and workers' rights, but movement to BI means at-will employment and that's not something they'll get to haggle with.

The idea of BI is that you won't be able to live off it in Montreal. It might be sufficient to live off in some small remote town, but not in megapolis. They'll have to still wait tables, or move from Montreal.
To those wanting to avoid the paywall, click the 'web' link under the submission title.
Ubuntu does source-only uploads. Binaries cannot be uploaded by anyone; everything is built on Launchpad's infrastructure (managed by Canonical).

Debian traditionally has done source-and-binary uploads for the maintainer's architecture (usually amd64), and builds for other architectures via the its buildd infrastructure (managed by contributors, AIUI). More recently it is possible to do source-only uploads to Debian now, but I'm told it doesn't work for new packages.
In related news, experts expect sales in Lotto tickets, malt liquor, and Taco Bell combo meals to explode in Finland.
Global food shortage? If you're talking about ethanol from corn, that doesn't sound correct. Corn-based foods are dirt cheap
"HN has an older userbase and why do they dislike Millennials (if for reason different than the article)?" - Disagree with the premise that HN dislikes millennials.

As for claims in the article:

1. "Millennials want to be a part of something they find meaningful. Their work needs to matter, both to them and to the world."

- Hence the spate in "meaningful" startups, like "Yo" and the anonymous gossip and social shaming apps (is it called whisper our secret?)

2. "Millennials want to build deep, authentic connections with people. They want real relationships."

- this is merely the author's opinion. Divorce rates among millennials are Just as high, if not higher, than boomers. Empirically, dating millennials didn't really increase the seriousness of the relationship.

Millennials face a shrinking job market from the outset - unlike the boomers. Robots will make many careers obsolete, and no amount of "against the grain" attitude for the sake of it will hide this fact. Then there's outsourcing, which you cannot run from.
But it has?
The article deals with this, slightly tongue in cheek, as:

> A funny pattern in animal behaviour seems to be that whatever difficult task you devise will eventually be done by pigeons

A charitable interpretation is that scientifically, we ascribe the simplest possible behaviour (no conscious thought! No tool making! No tool using!) to animals and treat it as a notable result when these assumptions are proven wrong.
The explanation was right there in the comment: disincentive to work.
Hey, I didn't want to say that you were taking favors from the guy. I reacted to your defense of him here on HN - you initially described him as awkward and sexist but later said that he was just treating you fairly. If he was awkward there's no point pretending he wasn't. If he provoked others to hate you, there's no point pretending he didn't. It's not your fault anyway and coworkers were wrong to retaliate on you even if provoked.

And maybe my yesterday post was too harsh. I take your word that you don't want favors. But be careful with how you present this guy - I doubt that he was exactly awkward, sexist, equal and fair all at the same time :) And you wouldn't want to give appearance of rationalizing somebody who actually happens to be unfair to others, that's what I wanted to say.
>sub-millimeter survey grade accuracy

Could you provide some links to read? I just can't imagine how it's possible.
Don't expect any management engine/system management mode instructions any time soon/ever.
There are other options for in-memory datastores on Linux though, such as Redis.
The End of Cloud Computing
i suspect the danger is if they don't position the piece correctly, the hammer drops on it, and something goes flying or shatters and mauls someone.
While your analysis may be accurate, I don't think this case has anything to do with freedom of speech. If the attacker had walked up to the journalist with a strobe light with the intent of inducing a seizure, it would have no different to what happened here.
> The intelligence can act on itself more readily

I have a feeling that the closer such systems come to general intelligence, the harder it is going to be to prevent them from putting themselves into a positive feedback loop and "blissing out".
This reminds me of the show "How It's Made" which I watch religiously. One take away I always get from the show is how much is automated and how much isn't. Metal work always seems to requires a tremendous amount of skill (e.g. one of the episodes was making shovels and spades and an apprenticeship requires like a year of training). Even metal casting requires skill because of the finishing (sanding + polishing) required.

Regardless I highly recommend the show if you like watching things like this.

(funny side story about me watching the show: my wife hates the show and told me to change the channel because she said it is like "watching paint dry"... sure enough next scene paint was being dried).
You do realize that the permit is just a cash grab. They don't inspect the car, do any sort of analysis, etc. It's just paperwork. That's all. You really support that kind of mindnumbingly stupid bureaucracy?
Practicality of management (as opposed to actual good management). This isn't really the fault of MBA, but rather the fault of office politics.

In a large modern corporation with a constantly revolving door, everyone moving their careers through that organization is looking out mainly for themselves. How does someone who has just moved into an executive level at a business he doesn't understand cope with all of the office politics around him? High performance big name people constantly looking out for promotions, bonuses, threatening to leave if their demands aren't met?

In the age when the owner of a business built that business up himself, knew how it worked, and knew the people he worked with, it came down to real experience. But in this new age of modern professional short term management, most of the people up and down the organizational chart don't really know anything about the depths of the business. So the only real solution is to simplify the business into "units shipped". If you can put simple numbers and KPIs on everything, you can tell right away who is valuable. Everyone now knows who is valuable.

It cuts down politics dramatically as everyone is now pulling in the same direction. Instead of one employee doing all the work being outshone by another employee who does nothing but brag about himself to new hires, you have real hard numbers. Everyone knows how to succeed - make some number go up.

Obviously this only works if the numbers actually align with the business. Most of the time, they actually do correlate, which is why this system continues to be used and why it makes profits go up. Does it correlate particularly well? Usually not. But it doesn't have to - the loss from the lack of correlation between reality and the simplified numbers merely has to be less than the lack of production from uncertainty and misalignment.

So "units shipped" wins out. What you really need to be blaming is the concepts of professional management and job hopping. I'm hopeful both of those concepts will be uprooted within a century or two by smaller, more focused, and more efficient companies. I believe the future of companies will be single person businesses with zero employees all linked to other single person businesses through an efficient market. With each business being owned, run and controlled by a single expert individual taking the optimal choices.
This is not really a low friction or cheap solution.
Under the present system in the UK it really doesn't make much sense to work <=16 hour at around the lower wages. I know this from personal experience when I was unemployed (graduated uni at the worst possible time during the recession) and was offered a low paying job that was only 16 hours. I had to turn it down because it would mean I would have less money once I factored in travel costs because the benefits got withdrawn at a 1:1 ratio (in some cases it got withdrawn faster than my earned income grew), and I was barely getting by as it was. I was unemployed for another 3 months (6 in total) before I got near full-time hours offered to me. I was miserable for the entirety of my unemployment - there is nothing cushy about it.

This bug/feature in the welfare system is actually a major motivation behind the UK government's long beleaguered universal credit system, which is meant to support this kind of part-time work. The idea being that a worker should never ever be penalised by the benefits system for working, but should always earn significantly more in work than out of work and working more hours should always result in a net increase in income.

They are trying to do this by unifying almost all benefits (unemployment, disability, housing, child benefits, etc...) under a single administrative umbrella, and then only reduce the net benefit by £0.66 for each £1 earned through work. Its been delayed significantly because it requires a major IT overhaul, and that project has so far been a £1-2 billion black-hole of incompetence by a series of IT consultancies that have all failed to deliver the system needed to merge all these complicated means tested processes together.
Those CVEs are private. Could you provide a public source?
Frustrated scientists turn to online sites for research money
The stance that they don't have 'inner lives similar to humans' could be seen as going against Occam's Razor—for some definitions of 'similar' of course (we wouldn't expect them to have linguistic thoughts for instance, but it might be fair to say their experience of temperatures is similar). This is the same basic inference we use to determine that other humans also have inner lives: we observe correlations between our inner state and external states of ourselves and others—others appear to be the same sort of thing on the outside, and we understand how external changes are dictated by internal changes in ourselves (e.g. facial expressions changing with emotions). It would be adding unnecessary complexity to say that what causes all of the similar external changes in others doesn't have the same internal 'stuff' driving it as in ourselves. What justification is there to think I would be set up in one way completely differently from everyone else? For (many) animals, you also have external behaviors that map roughly to external human behaviors driven by certain internal emotional conditions (e.g. when presented with a threat, or when feeling relaxed, etc.). I think it's a better hypothesis (not proof of course), that animals also have similar inner lives (again, for an appropriate definition of similar...).

Probably the bigger thing here, though, is that questions about 'inner lives'—if we're talking about subjective experience—are outside the purview of biology anyway.
None of this is personal to me, I have no idea where the inspiration came from; I'm just trying to share the beauty I see in the concepts. So I get a bit frustrated with anything that steals focus from my mission, like history lessons. I don't really care who thought of what first. Sorry if that came across as hurt feelings, there is no conflict here.

I'm glad you like the humble beginnings of the library I've always been wishing for :)
Does that have any negatives that basic income doesn't? To me it sounds like a direct subset of that UBI aims to achieve. So a solid stepping stone towards it.
So... there exist predictions where being able to do better than a coin flip does not mean you can make money over time. This is in direct contradiction to what you said above:

> If you can do better than a coin flip in ANY prediction, you can make money over time.

It's also not true even in the case of predictions where there is a relevant liquid market. If everyone can do better than a coin flip, then I can only make money doing better than the rest. And even if I can do better than everyone else, if it's not better enough that the earnings cover my costs I am still losing money over time.
The article overplayed the contrast and underplayed the comparison. China has civil rights organizations parallel to the ACLU, and in America civil rights activists and journalists are routinely finding themselves charged with crimes, in prison or harassed. I myself have been harassed (followed, gaslit, personally surveilled, and threatened) by state police in America, for sharing Snowden documents and their contents. My mail between my relatives and I were opened. All subtle hints and threats: stop being outspoken.

Following the state of the law with regard to providers and services in the United States, I think you've overemphasized the capability for companies to fight back, as the pressure from the state is incredible and at every front. Primarily, PR is used to emphasize that businesses are really on consumers' sides: that they'd like to not provide data and access. But in actuality, being a successful company at the scale you need to survive means working hand in hand with the US government. We saw how large ("trusted") brands worked hand-in-hand with government by the Snowden documents and we've watched it slip further since.

> I hope Americans don't get cynical enough to discredit that we have more rights and they are worth fighting for, because it could always get far worse.

We have the same rights worth fighting for that the Chinese have.

Government does not give us rights. The rights are independent of government. Americans and Chinese have the same rights. Both governments are impeding on them. Washington DOES NOT give Americans more rights than the Chinese. Rights have never been something Washington can give.

What you are seeing is Washington taking rights, and pointing fingers at the Chinese, telling you that they're taking more.

You want to fight for rights? You can't fight the Chinese for your rights.

You have to fight Washington for your rights.
I think in an effort to understand exactly how the mechanics of the big bang worked and how you can go from an infinitesimal point of incredible energy to an enormous and expansive universe with the diverse laws we observe today.

From the article:

> If the forces were indeed one during the “grand unification epoch” of the universe’s first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, then particles that now have distinct responses to the three forces would then have been symmetric and interchangeable, like facets of a crystal. As the universe cooled, these symmetries would have broken, like a crystal shattering, introducing distinct particles and the complexity seen in the universe today.
My company's style is a culture of consensus. No one really "gives orders," because that's too aggressive, and someone might feel hurt. I find it fucking awful. If there's disagreement about something, usually another person is brought into the mix for "input," ad infinitum. This happens until the issue becomes a non-issue or a disagreement over a new issue occurs.

I might disagree with someone if they ordered me to do something I think is wrong, but I actually admire them for making a decision. There's nothing worse than making no progress because no one has the balls or authority to say "there's contention over this issue, but I think X is the best course."
I've been predicting the death of privacy and the rise of the social score for a decade. It's the logical next step in society, and I can't wait for it to concretize. Mainly, it should focus on trust and reliability.

In the future, the only crime will be to lie (which includes doing what you promise not to do). Naturally, privacy will become a thing of the past.

Once we have reliable trust scores, the world will be a lot more efficient and the workforce will become liquid (no interview, the employer will trust that you're the right fit for the job).

All other forms of currency will disappear, and only in scarcity will those with a higher score have priority over others.

Naturally, this will also be the end of copyrights and patents, as these cause artificial scarcities that are no longer relevant.

Thank you China.
I wonder why the participants couldn't be chosen from the whole working-age pool. Unless, the final system is not meant for working people at all, going against everything the universal welfare meant to solve. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
Dude, I'm on a mission; and it's not a history lesson.
Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theatre" phrase, it's not actually part of law in the US. [1] The standard for restricting speech in cases like this is if it poses a "clear and present danger". That's likely the case here, as a premeditated attempt to cause a seizure is a clear and present danger to epileptics. There's plenty of law to cite that doesn't depend on over-broad censorious decisions that got overturned later on.

https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...
These are distinct concepts. Anyone can receive the benefits, so it is universal, but there are conditions.

Advocate for the Unconditional Universal Basic Income. All citizens deserve an equal allotment of the benefits, especially because no nation's populace is ever 100% mobilized as workforce.
I'm interested in hearing why it's a bad thing to disincentivize working more. Is it so bad for someone to not be working should they have enough money to live on? (I'm not sure if the benefits in this specific case are enough to live on, but I guess I'm thinking about the general principle.)
Didn't even realize there was one. Thanks a ton.

ps: experimental printfriendly.com pdf sharing http://pdf.printfriendly.com/pdfs/1482008632_de749b/download

pps: reminds me of that article shared on HN not long ago http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/09/23/the-milo-criterion/

limits of system evolution
1. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately wants to be employed again.

How wide is your social network (by this I mean people you actually know and see)? How diverse is it? My experience, living in the Rust Belt in the US, just north of Appalachia, is that many people are more than happy to live on the dole for as long as possible. I chalk some of this up to laziness, and some of it up to the lack of reasonable work.

3. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in long-term.

Again, my sense is that your observations are true for some given demographic, but are probably not entirely accurate for people who are truly living at or near the poverty line. Those people may have been working, even steadily, but they probably didn't have a home, and may not have even owned a car.

You are right, of course, that if I lost my job (as a software developer), I'd be okay for three to four months without benefits, but it would be hard to maintain a home and a vehicle after that. That likely goes for many on HN. But we generally aren't the demographic best served by unemployment benefits.
> A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without this in it to see how a people react.

One example we can look at are university students in Finland. They get 340€ per month student benefit plus €200 student rent support, a total of 540€ per month.

This student benefit is not decreased as long as a student earns less than 1000€ per month from other income. And yes, the students are quite eager to take part-time and short-term jobs.
Source code is in CWeb: http://cube20.org/src/

(Can be transformed to C or to PDF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CWEB)

Basically mostly written with 1 and 2 chars variable names.

BTW Finding the God Number is pretty amazing!
I was in a lecture by James Blackmon (cool dude, has some really interesting points about AI consciousness) He gave this example of testing for a Moral Patient, he stated "you would not hit a dog with a hammer, not because it can feel pain, but because it has an adverse reaction to the sensory input." By that conclusion he was saying that similarly an AI could be a moral patient because it can react to sensory input.

Interesting to think about.
I guess it comes down to what you mean by "important". I for one hope that airplanes, power plants and medical machinery are all programmed with something else.
You've skipped my point though, I'm saying that your definition of conscious isn't a useful articulation of the difference, so of course it doesn't yield a satisfying result.

Then compare the life's work of Picasso to the life's work of most cats. Art is evocative. Cats poop a lot.
> [a], [b], [c], [d], [e], [f], [h] and you find that China is Characterized by corruption and opportunism?

The two are not mutually exclusive.
Wow. I looked into what you are mentioning. Just wow...
Yes, that's likely what the author meant. But, also, the author might have access to development specs or early samples not publicly announced yet.