skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not the cloud - it's the sad downside of the democratization of hardware design, as in fabs like TSMC and IP companies like ARM making it relatively cheap to make your own chips with competitive functionality in a wide range of areas. There's a lot of custom hardware outside the cloud, say in embedded electronics, that's just as closed as the stuff in server farms - closed specs and no way to program the thing, increasingly often no ability to run binaries unsigned by someone in a small set of vendors.

Moreover, the GPUs and more so, DSPs and ISPs in your phone or PC are hidden from you in that they run code written by a very small number of people. You don't even have an idea how many small DSP cores are scattered throughout a desktop-class chip, let alone what they do or how to program them. Effectively it's for internal use of a very small number of hardware and software vendors, and the software is very much tied to the hardware.

The reason computing hardware used to be open is that very few could make it and they only stood to gain from making it usable in as many applications as possible, or at least so they thought. Once (almost-)cloning hardware products became increasingly cheap with less and less vertically intergated hardware vendors (from fab to design), vertical integration moved to design+software because that's how you fend off competition today.
Crash Like a Duck; or Why the Future Is Compiled
skill is not obsolete and is heard in everyday speaking as in "å skille ut".
Thank you for your inspiring words!
I've been to a lot of National Trust and English Heritage houses. The country is lousy with them. I feel sure one or two can be parted with. This isn't America where anything over 100 years is automatically some kind of national monument. We sold them London Bridge, can't we offload a Little Pifflington Stately Home or two?
Thanks, not sure how that slipped my mind.
absolutely right - wealth distribution isn't a zero-sum game
React-Cssom – Css Selector for React Components
Historically this has been achieved with pitchforks and guillotines.
Algebra or equational logic systems to handle multi threaded concurrent systems?
The Stable Matching Algorithm – Complete Walkthrough
For those who want the TL;DR;

What has changed:

• Double the RAM (now 1GB, up from 512).

• Now uses the BCM2837 processor

• 1MM thicker

• New 'lite' version which will allow you to use your own SD card (no more having to fit everything within the 4GM eMMC)

• Pulls more current and will get hotter (just like the RPi3)

• Version 1 is now being obsoleted

What has stayed the same:

• 1 for 1 pin compatible with the compute module V1

• Same 4GB eMMC for the non lite version

Source: http://raspberry.piaustralia.com.au/
A Review of Our 2016 Predictions
This is better explained by the amount of impoverished people in the world.

I thought poverty was down! I would rather fight inequality by eliminating poverty. Tax the robots and redistribute wealth to social safety nets!
The process of compensation can be made much faster without a meaningful loss of private ownership. Look at pretty much any Civil Law country, for instance.
Yes, I've always thought it was completely ridiculous. What's the 'justification' for it ?
Thank you! I live the idea of an anti textbook :)
Bezos is borderline retail
>Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights

Actually the Chinese government builds a lot of the high speed rail tracks on elevated tracks in order to avoid interfering with the owner. Which is why most of it looks likes this:

http://www.people.com.cn/mediafile/pic/GQ/20160229/56/325223...

If you have, say, farmland beneath a track you are virtually unaffected after that section of the track is completed.

They also build a lot of the stations on the outskirts of cities for the same reason (and then connect it up to the center with a metro).
The biggest issue is that people confuse popularity for merit. Just because your startup didn't become extremely popular doesn't mean that it wasn't a good idea. People only have so much money and attention. Making a hit is like winning the lottery. Even having a successful business these days is a bit like that. People who say it is easy don't realize how lucky they were or the advantages they have.

If you are depressed its because on some level your mind wants you to take a different tack. If you are frozen it means your subconscious mind hasn't figured out what direction or change to do.

Come up with a change to your approach or expectations and convince your subconscious that this will lead to more positive reward signals.

It might just be lowering expectations a bit because business is harder and requires more luck than most people make it out to be. OR, maybe you are giving up on your ideas too soon. Maybe consider giving an idea up to three or even four years before you declare it a failure.
Publishers want to get paid for the opportunity (CPM) but Advertisers want to pay a portion of their revenue (PPA): PPL, PPV, PPC and PPM are all proxies for that customer acquisition, so if you want to buy effectively, you need to start by figuring out what your costs per acquisition are. If you can't even hypothetically afford anything close to $17/lead, you might not be able to purchase customers yet, but if you can, then figuring out your lead-to-sales ratio is a lot easier than working out everything between the impression and the sales.

You might consider looking for an agency that specialises in PPL/PPA; basically doing revshare, and letting them build appropriate site lists, and user demographics, and copy testing and so on to help figure out what makes your product sell -- they will put skin in the game because they can leverage their expertise.
It's amazing how little they actually have to spend to make people think they are philanthropic, and not just greedy assholes.
> With the exception of Ortega, Buffett and Slim, that's a lot of wealth concentrated in tech. Hmm...

How is this surprising?
I don't mind maintaining the repo, if you would like to pass it off. Until very recently I maintained a popular Gibberish-decoding website and my native language is not ASCII. I've got quite a bit of experience with encoding issues, more than I'd like anyway.

My Gmail username is the same as my HN username if you'd like to speak. Thanks.
That's exactly the reason; people own land, buildings are protected, etc. China has less of this problem (benefits of an oppressive or at least assertive regime that puts economic progress first).

I'd compare what China is doing with the high speed trains now with what the US did with the regular train tracks. Look at what it did to the US in terms of economy, and the cost for the native people and nature.
This is an incredibly misleading statistic because they use NET wealth, which means that they subtract your debt from your wealth. That means that if you have more debt than wealth (not necessarily a bad thing), you have negative wealth. This is the case for roughly 40% of the world's population.

This means that, by the same metric used in this headline, your average groundhog or newborn baby has more "wealth" than the poorest 2.85 billion people in the world. It's also the same metric Donald Trump used in that story his daughter liked to tell, about him walking past a homeless person and saying "that guy is 700 million dollars richer than me".

Income and wealth inequality is a huge problem, but stats like these are incredibly misleading and shouldn't be used to make the argument.
These measures I don't think are a good way to measure, because I think there's a difference between someone who's very wealthy on paper because of high stock prices, and someone whose's wealth because they got a disproportionate share of income. The latter represents money diverted in the here and now to someone else, and the former represents money that can be diverted in the future. Of course, you can ask Elizabeth Holmes how much of a billionaire she is now with Theranos, as an example of how paper wealth doesn't always translate.

It's possible for someone to be very IPO stock rich, but not actually have received much income. This is especially true for founders who started with their stock, instead of being given it as a bonus.
These measures I don't think are a good way to measure, because I think there's a difference between someone who's very wealthy on paper because of high stock prices, and someone whose's wealth because they got a disproportionate share of income. The latter represents money diverted in the here and now to someone else, and the former represents money that can be diverted in the future. Of course, you can ask Elizabeth Holmes how much of a billionaire she is now with Theranos, as an example of how paper wealth doesn't always translate.
It's possible for someone to be very IPO stock rich, but not actually have received much income. This is especially true for founders who started with their stock, instead of being given it as a bonus.
The alternative would have been to tax them more and use the tax results to help people. Let's compare:

Taxes:

- Predictable income
- Democratic control over the spending
- Big risk of misuse due to lobbying

Charity:

- No predictability, depends on the whim of those who could spend
- No democratic control
- Small risk of misuse due to lobbying

I welcome everyone to add to both lists. From my comment history it should be pretty clear that I'm not a fan of hoping that those with money are in a charitable mood, but I know there's a strong faction with an opposing view of the world, which could help balancing such a list.
If poverty if viewed as a lack of resources for certain individuals, then understanding the allocation and distribution of resourced over all of humanity is relevant as a means to understand the problem.
Oh wow. That model is atrocious in terms of providing decent security.
I'd argue that the main problem with US environmental law is that it isn't handled by a beaurocracy in a straightforward way but rather by giving pretty much everybody the right to sue to stop a project on environmental grounds. If the St. Louis only had to jump through the EPA and FRA's hoops then the whole thing would be much, much simpler and easier.
Flow: static typechecker for JavaScript
What if those 8 people spent all of their wealth buying goods and services from those poor people?

To spend all of that wealth, every fish would have to be caught, every forest mowed down, every drop of oil burned, to have enough natural resources to spend all of that money.

I'm sure I'm wrong and others will correct me, but I still can't help but feel it's in some ways good that the wealth is so concentrated it can never be fully spent.
I think it may be a zero sum game.

This universe and planet has finite resources. There is only so much iron/steel to build cars, rare earth metals to build electronics.. Fundamentally that's a zero sum game?

Sure in the recent short term, we've got lucky that population was small relative to planet size and we got significantly better each year at extracting resources. Even if we get lucky again and find a way to extract resources from space and energy from some amazing new tech. At some point that too levels off, especially as population keeps increasing exponentially, but energy capture/generation does not. Then we are back to zero sum game.

Historically most tribes/kings etc got rich at the expense of the workers/slaves they exploited. Wealth distribution has and long term mostly will be zero sum, or so it seems to me?
What comes next is universal Franchise:

http://sonomavalleyhigh.org/home/CA49709534937256/.blogs/pos...
If you've never come across Hans Rosling before, I highly recommend watching one or two of his videos on world statistics.

His overall point is that the world is doing much better than you may think. He uses a lot of data that he makes publicly available and shows which metrics are the best measure of progress and why.

Aside from that, he's also a very entertaining and engaging communicator.

Here's a relevant article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822
"I (/my company) should be allowed to avoid my taxes because the government will just waste the money" Is a pretty antidemocratic sentiment. You may think it's inefficient but you're a constituency of one and you don't get to make that call for everyone in the country.
Obama went to Paris (I live in downtown Paris) several times I think, and there have been multiple reunions of numerous heads of state here, I don't remember any particular perturbations, other than 5 or 7 subway station blocked. The most notable was after the november 2015 attacks, there was some trouble because Obama kept changing* schedule.

Not to downplay this, but maybe in some cities it is more doable than others.

*guessing they weren't "changing" the schedule and they were in fact keeping it very tight and putting out another schedule altogether
What's more, that half are focusing their philanthropy carefully where they can make an impact on humanity.

The (Buffet and) Gates foundation, for example, have reported new malaria cases are down 25 pct globally.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Mala...
It is if you care about the poorest.

It isn't if you care about your message and narrative.
Oxfam released a similar stat last year, and the BBC's More or Less team didn't think much of it. The wealth numbers they're using aren't necessarily well-behaved when they're totted up the way Oxfam has done, as there are a lot of cases where wealth as-measured isn't an intuitive measure of "richness". For example, a new graduate with tens of thousands in loan debt will still have a chance at better long-term income than someone with neither the qualification nor the loan who has higher numeric worth.

That said, it's harder to find examples where the a high wealth implies a low buying power, so this doesn't necessarily contradict the crux of the piece. Either way, it's worth being skeptical of misapplied statistics.

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26613682
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03fj84x
Surely English sk-word "skoal" is used in Norwegian.
Not yet, but I am currently evaluating using the CM in a medium volume (~200pcs) self-service kiosk product.

Due to the volume, I still might use a regular Pi3 and off-the-shelf add-on boards, because designing the motherboard (which will need ethernet hardware, PSU, RFID and touch interface) will take a large chunk from the budget.

The CM might only make sense for large volume products.
Easily Automate Your Content Distribution with SocialPilot
Oxfam released a similar stat last year, and the BBC's More or Less team didn't think much of it. The wealth numbers they're using aren't necessarily well-behaved when they're totted up the way Oxfam has done, as there are a lot of cases where wealth as-measured isn't an intuitive measure of "richness". For example, a new graduate with tens of thousands in loan debt will still have a chance at better long-term income than someone with neither the qualification nor the loan who has higher numeric worth.

That said, it's harder to find examples where the a high wealth implies a low buying power, so this doesn't necessarily contradict the crux of the piece. Either way, it's worth being skeptical of misapplied statistics.

Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26613682 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03fj84x
> military age males

> Civilians

Not mutually exclusive.

> but the majority of those killed were combatants

You mean all men aged between 16-49 regardless of who they are or what they do?

Remember that the definition for a militant/combatant was changed due to the terribly high number of civilians killed by the US. What a disgusting thing to do. Ranks as one of the lowest points of the Nobel peace prize winning President

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-o...
https://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
I was surprised to see Zuck and Larry on the Giving Pledge list, not that they gave, to your point, but at least they've promised to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge
The real issue is here is how much assets with finite supply and cruicial to human existence (e.g. food and water supply, real estate, cruicial technology) can be brought under control of few individuals with such wealth. For example if someone buys the majority of land, there will not be an easy way out even if the monetary wealth distribution will change.

I am wondering why isn't it more often discussed that wealth yields assets that yields even more wealth, because this is how capitalism is set up. This means that the situation cannot be easily improved because wealthy individuals have supeior knowledge and assets to enrich themselves further.
"A phone number is nothing you can just keep. Also i OWN my emails domains."

I don't get the distinction the author is trying to make: if you stop paying the renewal fees for them you'll find you "own" those domains exactly as much as you "own" a phone number.
Convolutional networks for fast, energy-efficient neuromorphic computing [pdf]
> This means that, by the same metric used in this headline, your average groundhog or newborn baby has more "wealth" than the poorest 2.85 billion people in the world.

But isn't that true? If you are not born into a family that will give you a huge dept and a second mortgage on the house, you are better of.
This is my favorite bit long-S trivia: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sun%2Cfun&year...
Ask HN: Should I invest in a desktop PC in 2017?
I'm currently using a Thinkpad X201, with a first gen i7 processor, 8GBs of ram and an SSD.

I want to purchase a new computer to own a faster machine.

Currently I'm mostly using the thinkpad on my desk with two external monitors.

On the other hand, the battery life of it is pretty good and I like that it's small and lightweight.

I'm not a gaming person, so I don't need a discrete graphics card. I'm mostly using either Linux or FreeBSD with single-boot, but for Photoshop and school-work I sometimes need to work with windows. If I had two graphics cards I could forward one to QEMU and get near native response times on VMs.

Last but not least, one part of me wants to experience building a desktop.

Calculating the expenses, building a desktop would cost me arround 550 euros. But in the same price range I could buy a low-end 7th gen kaby lake laptop.

I know that desktop processors are much better than their laptop counterparts.

This question has been eating me away for the last 6 months. On one hand, the performance of my current machine is bearable, on the other hand I think I'm missing out on the speed of newer processors and limiting myself.

What would you do,

is desktop still relevant for dev-work in 2017?

Will I experience any difference in day to day use (heavy browsing, emacs, photoshop, occasionally an IDE) if I buy a 7th gen laptop instead of a 7th gen desktop?
Application Rewrites – Getting Started
Agreed. It's still an indicator, although it shouldn't be taken alone. The yearly energy consumption of a person is another that is often recognized as relevant, especially since the duration of our species is now determined by our glasshouse gas emissions.
IoT and Smart City trends boost smart waste collection market
Not sure I understand the difference between renting a telephone number and renting a domain, or email address, or even a home address. All can be taken away for various reasons, failure to pay rent/renewal/mortgage, legal confiscations, etc.
As a dutch person ive heard this complaint as well. Although we dont really understand how it comes they dont feel like Dutch, the remark is common enough that there has to be something there.

I do want to add that strong social security doesnt seem to help with integration. I think part of the success of the US together with generational patience, is that to make a living you have to play along. So any economic mismatch is corrected by "force". Whereas here you can get a situation where the cultural values and habits that do not econonically fit (like raising your daughters to be housewives) are essentially supported by the welfare state, creating the opposite effect of how it is intended.
From the article: while the CM1 (which isn’t being obsoleted)
From their blurb: "To qualify for your official ALISON Diploma, Certificate or PDF" (emphasis mine).

In their Knowledgebase [1], they acknowledge "ALISON courses are not accredited or recognised by any institute"

[1] https://alison.com/knowledgebase/entry/44/
I don't see how "inexperience" have anything to do with it.

Sure, experienced users may be more adaptive. But that does not mean they enjoy it. In particular when they have been through the process a few times, and it always ended up feeling like a red queen's race.
Swift lead: “My decision [to leave Apple had] nothing to do with openness”
Review: Microsoft’s Surface Pro 4 Leaves MacBook in the Dust
Sure, installing Linux a bunch of times probably makes you good at installing Linux. Does that seem to you like a skill with much in the way of wider application? It does not seem so to me, and I've installed Linux a whole bunch of times.
I wrote WireGuard. Happy to answer any questions.

https://www.wireguard.io/papers/wireguard.pdf

That paper has a bit more in depth elaboration, if you're interested.
It's been frequently discussed, even more since the publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

(which is thematically centered on wealth concentration)
Not long ago (historically speaking) one could get a cuppa joe for one thin dime. Not great, but usually drinkable. So with inflation the equivalent would be a quarter. A basic affordable cup of coffee could have a significant market.
>> Are there really "Teach yourself in 21 Days" books that have examples with this pattern that people are following?

Yes. From Learning PHP, MySQL, Javascript, CSS & HTML5, Third Edition, from O'Reilly publishing:

So, to create a cookie with the name username and the value Hannah that is accessible across the entire web server on the current domain, and will be removed from the browser’s cache in seven days, use the following:

setcookie('username', 'Hannah', time() + 60 * 60 * 24 * , '/');

And that was published in 2014, not 2004.
Æi løved this. Please write måre.

As a Norwegian citizen I really loved this. Would love to see a blog about English words and names of places with Scandinavian origin. It goes for words like "trim" and places with names ending with -by.
No. That would be an utterly moronic claim if someone made it..
How to Improve Low Email Engagement Rates [Soundest Email Lab]
yes i am booked essentially whenever i want to be. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13302154 for my portfolio. I can't tell you if it's rare but I can tell you that the stated rate was within reach of twenty-something me back when the portfolio was not nearly as good and i didn't work at google or anywhere like that. higher rates require more free-time investment and better portfolio (obviously worth). I have a friend with a worse portfolio who writes Scala and is always booked though i dont know if he is making $125 yet.
Consumption of resources is measured in trillions of dollars per year.

These incredibly wealthy people have captured a very small slice of overall human productivity.