skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Those sound like more senior accounting positions, which are least vulnerable to automation.

The problem is at the bottom end of the ladder. As software gets better, the entry-level positions will disappear. There will be no longer be a viable path from fresh CPA graduate to 'making judgement calls on tax matters', and you'll have a bunch of people who paid for a useless degree.
They created jobs too, a lot of which people assume are done by robots because they're done in other countries.

Apple may only employ 100,000 people in the US but 1.3 million not-robots work for the company that actually makes those phones.

The argument that it automation is "naturally" creating fewer jobs that it eliminates is refuted simply by looking overseas where all those new jobs actually are.

Or are they just temporary?

Foxconn threatened in 2011 that within three years their 1.2 million strong workforce would be largely replaced by robots:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robot...

Here we are 5 years later with them employing another 100,000 warm bodies while making identical threats.
How is the cradle any less annoying than micro USB? It only seems more restrictive than the cord.
It doesn't have $75B, that's its market cap. Crunchbase claims it's raised $8.5B.

We'll see if investors continue to be as enthusiastic about investing. My bet is "no," though obviously I could be wrong.
A Modest Proposal for Facebook News Feed
> I mean that for a lot of things, doubling our brainpower would would only extend our predictive horizon by a tiny amount.

Unless you come out with some algorithm that is sub-exponential for the important cases, and only gets slower for stuff you don't care about, or happen very rarely in practice.

People invent those algorithms all the time, for lots of kinds of problems.
> Then you could easily get creature comforts such as:

> typedef uint8_t[16] guid_t;
> typedef uint8_t[20] sha1_digest_t;

> These typedefs would then have copy assignment, pass-by-value semantics and everything else you'd expect from value types.

What does this accomplish that a struct can't?
"...how is the value created shared among the people in the economy? ...Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital..."

Capital as the term is usually used is getting a severe beating right along with labor. Goods used to be much more capital-intensive than they are now. Look at the rotting carcasses of factories in Detroit.

And I am sorry - but you immediately switched from "wealth" to "power" and in a service economy, those are disjoint - perhaps in-opposition - things.

Buildings are built to the aesthetics of rich people - in the "mount the TV over the fireplace" style. There's a critic who tears apart crappy McMansion aesthetics all day long. Things like strip malls are an artifact of incentives in real estate development. And good quality food is plentiful and in cases, quite cheap.
There's a rough transition, but eventually we'll get to the point that everything is so cheap that people will produce it for fun, not profit.

Think of how much free open source labor there is, people working together to produce software on their own free time because they like to do it. I see much of the future economy functioning like this, but it only can when automation reaches a level where people can produce enough having fun.

If everyone can purchase a small factory that lives in a room which can built copies of itself, large portions of the economy disappear which is excellent. It could turn most of the economy into small local barter-economies where people did what they wanted and exchanged the outputs with other specialists in their area. (There have been and still are local economies that still function very much like this at least to a degree)

For it to work you have to remove scarcity which is what automation does. Switching from one to the other will be awkward, but it will work eventually.

This is quite a lot like what Marx thought would happen, he was just wrong in his estimation of how effective 19th century automation was going to be.
I used to believe this was true and thought that Facebook comments was the end-game to these problems. Then I realized that there is a giant shift that occurs with people and the internet, because the crazy cruft that was being posted was still being posted, but now tied to a Facebook Identity.

I think this will likely be solved when human beings actually SEE others and see the reactions from others faces - thousands of years of evolution have honed this part of our social selves and that is what will be necessary to keep our less troll selves at bay.
Good to know, it was a terrible idea.
local NAND flash?
The will of the majority of the voters, outside of California, anyway.
Who remembers WinPopup?
They give the same information that TCP/IP traffic analysis does.
I should say I am also a subscriber, I'm not trying to shit on the contents. Literally the combo of underlined main link then the paragraph underneath and the author in lighter grey looks just like a Google ad/dodgy search engine.
You're right, it's not really the product of some set "G" with itself but hooooo boy a programming/hacker forum is probably the wrong place to be defending the syntax of mathematical notation
I'd be surprised if an insurance company would determine fault without a police report.

Fair enough on minimal accidents. As a very young driver (< 6 months experience - i was reading a paper map propped up on the steering wheel as I was waiting for a light/coasting to a stop; bad idea) many years ago I did have a very minimal accident (low speed bumper to bumper), with no visible damage, but I insisted we not involve the police/insurance and agreed I'd pay for everything. That cost me $800 bucks (which was more than a paycheck for me at the time, had to post date a check to her), because I think the lady I bumped into got had by a mechanic.
>I'm glad that you've never been in a position where you were under mental stress.

I have, and distracting myself only made it worse, and made it harder to come up with solutions. Why aren't the people who watch TV meditating instead? Rest isn't why people watch TV.

If the harder you worked, the more entertainment you needed, CEOs would be spending 12 hours a day watching TV.

Again, the root problem isn't socioeconomics. There is an inequality, but it's in mindset. It's inside, not environmental.
What are you asking HN? There is no question here.
Isn't that just another example of the author's point? Automation hasn't changed, the world around it has
Encrypted cloud backups with Duplicity
Countries that have no rich people are never prosperous. You can raise marginal income tax rates from, say, 60% to 70%, and maybe that's a good idea overall, but it doesn't get rid of billionaires. High-tax Sweden has as many billionaires per capita as the US does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedes_by_net_worth

If you raise the marginal tax rate to 99%, then you get rid of billionaires, but you also kill your economy. There are all the failures of communist countries, of course, but even the UK tried this during the 60s and 70s. The government went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the IMF. Inflation peaked at 27%, unemployment was through the roof, etc.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_Crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent
Tell President Obama: Pardon Edward Snowden Now
This is by an antiquated measure. The accepted rate now is 20.6%, first in the nation. Discussion here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/09/28/why-does-...
Aurelia > react
Google/Apple could also receive a NLS ordering them to write and install a keylogger on your specific device in their next OS update. There's really not much you can do about that.
Integrity PC, LynxSecure, and Turaya Desktop being commercial equivalents being sold now. Genode a dual-licensed work in progress. Minix 3 did it for availability with NetBSD layer.

Definitely proven to be doable but just few doing it.
Your argument on this thread is incoherent. You begin by suggesting that GCM is problematic because it's a component of a larger platform library that gives Google control of Android phones. When it's pointed out that GCM push can be supported without that platform library, your argument shifts: it's the messages themselves that are dangerous. When it's pointed out to you that the messages are empty, you invent a scenario in which GCM push messages enable a kind of traffic analysis that on-the-wire traffic analysis can't already accomplish.

Were this my argument, rather than pointing me to a thread where my points were continually and reliably refuted, I'd take this opportunity to instead restate my argument clearly.
I honestly disagree, but I do recognize how one could see it that way.
This is sort of the same idea!
I am not yet convinced, probably because the response is too short. Can somebody explain the problems with the effect system more detailed? "Eventually people just took to making everything io, at which point it was a noise word and we decided to remove it" this is not happening in haskell, is it the domain rust is used that just doesn't have that can't tolerate much purity?
We are pack animals, it is why dogs evolved in to our family. Isolation is a severance from our natural social state and is hurtful. I think one of the great benefits of the internet is that it is possible to meet and befriend people outside of the normal social routes. It is not a cure for isolation, but friends you game with or chat with or share stupid stories with is a help.

The problem is that reddit and digg killed the conventional forum, so no one really cares who you are any more (unlike when people would start to 'know' regular posters on forums). Now it's a crapshoot of random people and a smattering of comment replies if people vote on your comment. No personality, no real interaction.
G is a 4th dimensional vector space over R so it's underlying set is not R^2. The geometric product of two vectors is not an element of R^2 - it's a real number + a bivector. We are really working in the exterior algebra.
> SR and GR explicitly allow time-travel into the future.

I presume you're talking about time dilation here. That's... a little bit true, but not really? At a minimum, it's sure a strange way of looking at it.
> just as everyone "rallies" around EventMachine in Ruby.

You can't really compare things this way. Very few people even use EventMachine, as it has significant issues.

You can't just show that rotor and tokio are two different libraries; you've claimed that there's significant ecosystem fragementation. That's a very different claim. The same goes for the other three sets of links below: that you can find a bunch of GitHub repositories does not mean that there's actual fragmentation. Writing a memcached or Redis client is a good way to learn a language, even: I've known two people who independently did so for memcached + Rust, tossed them up on github, and that's it. (one of those is one of the links you've provided above, even.)

> Oh wow, a great redis library - objectively the most popular. Completely incompatible with all of the above AIO implementations.

Because it's synchronous. Once tokio has an actual 0.1 release of the full stack, which is to happen any day now, you'll see more consolidation.

> until a single solution is blessed by the Rust team.

Two of three of tokio's core team members are Rust core team members. We had a full talk on it at RustConf, and it was mentioned in the keynote. Mozilla has sponsored development of it in places.
What's his reason? I got halfway through that and realized I didn't understand.
If the something else is physical but outside of our current understanding, then it doesn't prevent us from creating AI by simply simulating a biological brain. Thus, that is the same as the physicalist view in the context of the argument in question.
> don't relish the thought of using either language

Why not?

> only choices

Obviously not, according to the linked article. However, many people like Python and/or R. Perhaps you should find out why before dismissing their choices.
It's not at all binary. Read some more philosophy. Materialism hardly encompasses all the non-supernatural views. First of all, the world could be mathematical, informational, computational, or a simulation. It could have universals in addition to material particulars.

Consciousness might not be reducible to the material, or the material could all have a conscious component. There might be other things, like societies or biology, which are strongly emergent. Or maybe there is no material world. Maybe it's all mental. Perhaps there is a third substance, a neutral monism giving rise to mind and matter.

Maybe the noumena is beyond human categorization and perception. Perhaps our experience of the world is such because we are the animals we are, and not because we have access to reality in itself. Man is the measure and all that.

And on and on. There are various anti-realists debates. There is Humean skepticism of causality. None of these issues need invoke the supernatural, although they don't necessarily rule it out. David Chalmers can propose consciousness as an additional feature of nature which is nonphysical (tied to informationally rich processes like certain mental or computational states), without proposing any supernatural element.
Extracting a stronger signal from your mailbox
Thanks for the sci-fi, but you underestimate the scarcity of other things : land and natural ressources.
The problem with this precautionary reasoning is it leads you to Pascal's Mugging, where you are ready to believe very unlikely things because of the enormous impact they'll have if true.
The "non-capitalistic" goals are Mozilla's entire reason for existence.
A Walk in the Land of Never Was
"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

- Dick Cheney
Not Good Enough
And what is your point? California is a state just like the rest.
But doesn't our understanding of what is natural and what is supernatural - where the line between them lies - evolving constantly? Is it vitalism (or some other investment in the supernatural) to believe that what constitutes the material world is not yet fully explored or understood, and that the answers to some of our questions on humanity and consciousness will be found there?
Humans made it through Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, chattel slavery, WWII and various flu epidemics. I doubt we'll end ourselves in 10 years.

"Removing socio-economic status" SHOULD be a goal, to the extent that that status comes from rents ( which it usually does ) . Status seeking is a huge drain on us, and if production starts to go exponential, then the "economic" part fades in importance.
> Capital as the term is usually used is getting a severe beating right along with labor. Goods used to be much more capital-intensive than they are now. Look at the rotting carcasses of factories in Detroit.

What the heck are you talking about? Those factories didn't shutter because you don't need a factory to make cars anymore.
That was probably SHAZAM - based on the Captain Marvel character that is now owned by DC comics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmm781WHxdk
But it can't all be explained just using neurons. Those neurons exist as part of a body. That body lives in an environment. Those environments include other people. You can't understand the totality human behavior without including bodies and environments. It can't all be reduced to neuroscience.

It's true for the worm as well. You can't understand everything about the worm without emulating the other 600 or so cells, and putting it into environments similar to what biological worms occupy. The lego mindstorm worm is interesting, but it's hardly the natural state of the worm.
This will not be tolerated.
There's a longstanding philosophical argument about this. Google 'Searle's Chinese Room'.
What if you're the first human on an island full of baby tigers? I think most AI alarmists would argue that this analogy is vastly more appropriate.
50% isn't arbitrary in this case. Preventing people from being excluded is egalitarian, and the specific actions they are taking differentiates this from some sort of virtue signaling or tokenism. Hackathons and meetups are also great cases for this because everyone is better off if more people participate.
"Thank God for Mississippi"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_God_for_Mississippi
From an outside perspective, people would see you as a millionaire. But from your perspective, you wouldn't feel like one.
I must be going to the wrong bars. Everyone I go regularly has people minding their own business.
A lot of our greatest inventions or discoveries were "mistakes".
You're really looking at the dichotomy intelligence / consciousness here, actually.

We know what intelligence is. And yes, you can actually have dead intelligence, no problem. Intelligence is computing, nothing more.

What we don't know is what is consciousness. You seem to belong to the category of people who believe consciousness is mandatory for intelligence. A lot of us feel differently. Even, there are some who believe consciousness is basically an illusion (I do not share this point of view).

Look at the Chinese Room thought experiment.

Read the novel 'Blindsight' by Peter Watts.
I highly recommend Dash. It recently got yanked from the App Store, but the iOS version was subsequently open-sourced: https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-iOS so you can build and install it yourself. I'd like an e-ink version, too, but an iPad is a close second.

I use the Mac version constantly. I haven't had to open the Xcode documentation window for months.
Since ever fewer people are able to extract the profits from ever more goods it seems clear that there should be a natural tendency toward wealth accumulation and stratification.
I have been "lonely" most of my life. I have lived in a terrible town growing up where everyone lived on the other side of town.

I went to college where nothing was happening and nothing is really interesting and I didn't connect with anyone really.

Now, I am reaching 30, and have spent the most of my 20s trying to find a way to move to a place that will make me happy. I'm hoping this will eventually happen, but I have lost a lot of hope.

I don't feel connected to humans whatsoever. However, the greatest joy for me is sitting in front of my computer interacting with you folk.

I don't get social interaction...
Out of interest, what are you migrating from?
1. I'm not HN's resident crypto luminary. I'm HN's resident crypto loudmouth.

2. I endorse 1Password without reservation, but only the standalone version.
Online hackathon weekends, attend from anywhere
There are if you want to have a functioning computer in the middle of all that energy. There are laws governing heat dispersal (speed of light in only 3 dimensions) and laws governing the collapse of information processing structures into black holes.
Yes, that's what I meant by this this is a "cultural thing". In some organisations turning up to a meeting and not having done the pre-work would be unacceptable, in others it's not. It's something that the whole group has to buy into.
EE (Enterprise Edition) and CE (Community Edition) are two separate projects indeed. Before each release, CE is merged to EE manually.

We encourage you to start a project, try to monetize it and also open-source it. The benefits of open sourcing are huge. Take a look at some of blog posts about that:

[0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/08/7-myths-about-open-sourc...

[1]: https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/07/trends-version-control-i...
> Which might be a fine way to teach in those nations where college is free, but even there, ignoring the interests of the student, and sticking with a standard canon of course work, undercuts the uniqueness of each student.

Public college here and throughout most Europe is almost free and most students attenting public universities do not incur much debt (if any at all). That is a trap that you have set up for yourselves (assuming you're from the US).

Nevertheless, every student (computer engineering, that is) can chose is own courses, so, they can follow their own interests. We just make sure that each student starts from a good technical point so he can be a "true" engineer (as in having an engineering degree).

> There is a teaching style that caters more to the full circumstances of the students, taking into account their age and their economic situation and their interests, so that the teaching empowers them with knowledge, without also disempowering them in other ways (such as crushing them with debt).

1 to 1 teaching, although desirable, would not come cheap in any place in the world!
>I'm curious how you guys build features for EE. Is it a completely separate Rails project you handle manually to keep base features in sync with the community edition?

It's the same codebase with some additional code. Every few days we merge CE into EE[1], which always ends up with some merge conflicts – though those are getting better as we learn to engineer around them – and its own problems, but it works pretty well. I think this is a great system, even with its drawbacks, if you want to keep the base product as FOSS. Just be aware of the problems you'll likely run into, and avoid implementing any EE-only features that will cause crazy merge conflicts.

>EE is open source but requires a license. Do you just trust companies won't download the source code and run it. Do you have heartbeat code injected somewhere to ping servers that are running EE to homebase?

It has a built-in system for uploading the license and verifying that the license covers the users of the instance. The license (as in the copyright license) says that users cannot use EE if they get around that. We don't have many cases of piracy as far as we know, and don't care too much. No major enterprise customer would realistically pirate software since that'd be a legal nightmare if they were caught.

>I'm thinking of starting a project, charge money but also open-source it. Curious what your strategies are, especially since the project is still greenfield.

Best of luck! It's awesome to see others try to go for this kind of model, I hope it works for you :)

Some others to look at: Sentry, Mattermost, and Code Climate.

[1]: Example of a CE-to-EE merge request: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/merge_requests/991
Quality food is cheap? Have you ever lived in a big city?

If you come to Europe, you'll see that building a nice house wasn't reserved to the rich. And anyway, if we believe GDP figures, a rich man 200 years ago had the purchasing power of a middle-class american living in a McMansion.

Capital can depreciate, of course. It did, and wealth went from the rustbelt to the techies and financiers who own the algorithms.
Cluster Federation in Kubernetes 1.5
Meaningful exits for founders
As a paying gitlab ee customer, we love to use gitlab. I just have one gripe with review apps. We would really like you to open it up with an API.

Allowing us to create the infrastructure outside of gitlab-ci and setting the reviewapp url/domain etc using the API would be extremely valueable for us, as we are stepping off of the gitlab-ci, but would very much like the UI interface upgrades review apps provides.

We are stepping off of Gitlab CI because of:
* Only a single pipeline allowed per repository. We have a monorepo as we have a lot of small artifacts that make no sense to split out to multiple repo's and have to manage using gitsubmodules or having a separate code review process (we use merge requests a lot!)
* Gitlab-ci's "stages" and not allowing dependencies on cross-stage is not helpful
* No "skipped" status that can be supplied during the pipeline. E.g., we want to ignore changes to our documentation .