skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not sure why both of our comments got downvoted, but thanks for the clarification.

Yes there was a new bill and there was a shift, but most of the burden is still on the state of California which makes sense since CALPERS is an agency of the state of California. Isn't CA still ultimately responsible for CA pensions?

I just felt that CALPERS was in trouble years ago when they were selling their members an advancement in years for the pension if they paid a fee upfront (which could be deducted from their paychecks) in order to meet current pension obligations.

Current CA pension debt is $965 Billion. It'll become $1 Trillion soon.

http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php
> It could actually be useful to know the exact css before running the minifier who crashed/got stuck.

I was actually thinking this could be used to speed up computation a bit too. If you're going to add a set of minifiers to the end of the chain, caching the intermediate results (really just the last one) would let you avoid reprocessing from scratch each time you need to do cssnano | cssnano | csso | *, I don't know if it does this now but the description didn't talk about it either. That'd let you look at the chain and find where a mistake propagated from.
Because I don't want my friends and family and neighbors to suffer and die
> which I don't see the value of, honestly, given that tech workers are near-uniformly salaried in this country

You can't see how working extra hours can increase productivity enough to warrant a small increase in pay?
The data show that birth rates fall AFTER child mortality rates decline. This causes populations to surge during the period that birth rates are still high, but child mortality rates are starting to come down.

If this really concerns you, the humane and practical way to approach this is to be very pro female empowerment. Giving women reproductive rights, access to education, the ability to support themselves and a few other things (there were five in the list I saw, I am only remembering three) improves quality of life for everyone and also brings down birth rates.

If you can't see having kids, that's fine. Don't have them if you feel strongly about that. I have also seen studies that show that animals who experience severe overcrowding see an increase in things like homosexual behavior of members, presumably as a means to reduce new births.

So, I think the way you feel about this is adaptive and part of the solution. But if you want to find a means to get other people to have fewer kids, the optimal way to do that is to help women get lives and careers on par with men. Women who are educated and empowered tend to limit the number of kids they have.

I am female and I originally wanted three kids. I chose to stop at two due to health issues and other personal issues. I have several years of college and was in a more empowered position than many women. So, this is both data I have seen in college classes and first hand experience of mine that backs that up.

Best.
I wonder what the impact would be on the US insurance market if the state with the largest GDP dropped out?
I have an common sense observation and questions. Apple, Microsoft etc you name it, all get their hardware products manufactured in china & Asian countries mainly to drive down costs (People blame CEOs but really ? do they have a choice ? Will wall street show mercy on them ? It is easy to forget that US consumers are the primary beneficiaries, and Wall street is happy - means - 401ks, IRAs of regular US citizens grow ! ). How come pharma companies dont follow that model and drive down the prices of drugs/medicines ? How come healthcare providers dont use "globalization" for cutting health care costs where apparently it matters the most ? One can live without iphones or electronics, but cant live without necessary medicines or proper healthcare. Without driving down drug prices or hospital costs, how can healthcare problem be solved, no matter what system is used ?
Well, the very first claim the article brings up is that women face a pay gap, which is simply not true when you control for other variables. So that's not a good start.

Also, the origin of the quote 'Nevertheless, she persisted' is from a completely non-gendered context, where a woman persisted in breaking the non-gendered rules of the US Congress.
Just agreeing with what others have said: I'd prefer not to live in a world where bad luck means easily avoidable pain and suffering, or where many people live in semi-constant fear that a malicious or incompetent company will prevent them from getting vital care or create an acute financial crisis.

If you only care about yourself, ask what would happen if you developed a serious illness or were in a bad accident: very few people have the millions of dollars needed to survive something like that and you have no way to know if that's going to happen or avoid it even if you did.

I'd say I'd gladly pay more in taxes not to have to worry about that except that the experience of every other developed nation suggests it'd be a massive price reduction.
Your site is very nicely styled and easy to read... I like how large and legible and clean-looking the font is.

Also, your writing style is funny, nice work.
Meet PipeCandy, AI tipster for sales execs, that raised seed funding
Then it becomes an earnings gap and not a pay gap.

I do agree that having an earnings gap is a problem that should be addressed (especially with regard to superannuation). The problem is when we are told that there is a pay gap and that it is due to sexism in the workplace - disallowing discussion of the cultural factors that you highlighted.
>in what way is making it dangerous to express certain views advancing the "fight" against them?

Because the inconvenient truth of liberty is that authoritarianism gets results fast and delivers "solid" security.
So in theory, it shouldn't matter how racist someone is, or how much they disagree with the current government/religion, or whatever; our ability to hurt or kill them should override that need for self-actualization.

And it works. If you are (or feel- being implies feeling) in danger, it's much less work to trust another individual if you already know they share the same values as you; and a community that has very rigid standards helps suppress the values they don't share with you. You can see this work in poor countries; extremist groups and local communities in general aren't attractive without their moral strictures (religion is usually the tool for this task).

The downside, of course, is that authoritarianism by its nature fails far more violently when enough of the people under it gain the power to disrupt it; and since oppression breeds resentment they tend to be very angry and negatively affect a large cross-section of that society. Liberty doesn't fail like that and allows for a far more flexible society, but it also takes longer to work and depends on other forces to make that happen (usually for company profit, like if a business makes enough money on Sunday to pay a fine levied on businesses open that day).

So liberty is the long-term solution... but since authoritarianism is the short-term solution it's way more likely to be preferred by society. And you can't stop the human bug of desiring short-term gain unless you make that preference dangerous to express in which case we've come full-circle.
https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-20...

“The five states with the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates are Tennessee (9.46 percent), Arkansas (9.30 percent), Louisiana (9.0 percent), Alabama (8.97 percent), and Washington (8.90 percent).”
But please don't try to convince people its all flowers and unicorns.

Oh my! No way! More like tantrums, stinky diapers, strongly curtailed freedoms, opportunity costs and grey hair and/or hair loss.

But I can count at least 12 other "irreversible" life choices a person could make that will lead to more or less similar results. So, there's that.

Each person needs to make this decision for themselves, but once you do, you are in it for the rest of your foreseeable future. If you can't make that kind of commitment, for whatever reason, stay the -eff away!
etcd v3 read is linearizable by default.

Also I believe the authors of the paper tested against the old etcd v2 API/backend although they use etcd3.

The new API/backend has significant high performance.

I work on etcd.
As much as the facts you've listed are generally accepted, there's grey areas between the "Browser crypto is good" and "browser crypto is bad" that are worth considering.

I'm working on a form submission that I know is going to be used by a lot of enterprise clients, in many cases with passive MiTM SSL devices.

Browser based crypto can prevent the contents of that form leaking to a passive firewall admin, and the very real issues you've raised don't apply to the threat I'm interested in resolving.

Now if I had a marketing team go off and call it "military grade end to end encryption" we'd have a problem, but I won't be letting that happen.
> The levels, nevertheless, were still 50 to 100 times lower than in smoke from conventional cigarettes

While I'm sure that avoiding any unnecessary benzene exposure is the best plan, it does sound like e-cigarettes are at least quite a bit less risky than regular cigarettes. So although e-cigarettes are not the risk-free panacea that a lot of users would like them to be, they still might be the better of the two options.
I would be extremely curious to find out what modifications were made by the minifiers in round 2 and onwards that it couldn't have caught the first time...?

JS or HTML I suppose I could see, because they're more complicated, but CSS by itself is very simple, so I'm wondering what actually got left out.

Do you have any diffs or info on what it was removing or doing?
Jerry Brown says there is a projected 1.6 billion dollar deficit. Where did you get your numbers from?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-budge...
MARTIAN HABITATS: MOLEHILLS OR GLASS HOUSES?
I understand that's the conservative/libertarian position - however the government forces you to pay taxes to support infrastructure and other things. Are you against that as well?
YC recommends https://www.clerky.com/formation
You can use the Google cloud storage connector (https://cloud.google.com/hadoop/google-cloud-storage-connect...) which works with hadoop (and therefore spark).
I found that rearranging by desired output seemed to work better, especially once you consider that compression works best on repeated longer strings. With minification as it stands you're forced to have the longer strings once, with the short strings (the CSS properties) repeated a lot.

This is exactly backwards from what you want. You want the short strings to appear infrequently, and the longer strings a lot.

CSS resets sheets are a bad example for this kind of thing, as they're strongly sorted by desired output property, but for general CSS for something with a lot of components, for example, or a CSS sheet with page template specific styling, it seems like it should minify and gzip a lot better.

Plus, you can group your CSS by relevant section, i.e. keep your colours separate from your alignment, from your fonts, etc.

Except the problem is that doing it this way requires a bit of rearranging of the rules, which may cause some trouble in a fairly small number of cases, so that's why it's out as an automated way of minifying things.
The rules state that the person must be living, but in the theme of disobedience I felt it pertinent to ignore that.
This doesn't explore where the additional savings are coming from so that they can be contributed back into minifiers.
This isn't something a minifier could do without also modifying HTML and JS, and since a lot of JS automatically generates CSS names (something like $(`.list-${i}`)), this would be nearly impossible.

The programmer could shorten it when writing, but is the extra half a milisecond worth having to work with x, y and z as classes rather than more explicit classes?
Yes, They guarantee consensus per key ( which is in this case per bucket as they aggregate them).
You won't be able to have atomic operation across bucket neither you can have serialisation of transactions across bucket.
It's a trade-off, my guess is that their use case does not require a consistent view of the overall k/v store.
I'm an undergrad doing some neuroscience research; I think the existence of such tools are essential to progress. As soon as you can start doing CompBio on the web, more people (i.e. students, non scientist programmers) will be encouraged to start playing around which will lead to more progress in our understanding of complex biology, and spur the people's excitement about recent progress in the field. The beautiful thing about code is that it is tremendously empowering – your writing a computational biology library for the web will empower individuals to get into computational biology. Furthermore, it will enable individuals to write blog posts with live JS examples, etc all to further broader progress. Lastly, I'm sure it will a learning experience for you too (albeit probably of much lower magnitude than a PhD). I say do it!
> You may think medicare, for instance, is run horribly -- but I'm pretty confident that seniors are far happier with it than they were pawning off their possessions to get medical treatment prior to it being created.

Sure, but empirically, seniors are far happier with privatized Medicare plans than they are with publicly-administered Medicare plans. Original Medicare has the lowest satisfaction rates of all major Medicare plans - far lower than the lowest of the privately-managed plans.

Medicaid is run at the state level, but the same applies there as well - privately managed Medicaid plans are gaining popularity because they deliver better medical results at lower prices.

> The USPS (which, let's be honest, is freaking amazing for the price)

USPS is a mixed bag, but it isn't a straightforward comparison, because the USPS is statutorily protected from competition. For example, by law, all private carriers are required to charge at least twice what USPS charges for a first-class letter - so when you say it's "amazing for the price", we're already dealing with a warped perception of what mail delivery costs.

Most of the other examples you list don't address OP's question ("Do we have examples of the government running a service better than the private sector"), because there hasn't been a private sector for those in modern history for us to compare them with.
Not to put too fine a point on it but...

> In Puerto Rico, for instance, the pension funds are so short of cash that money contributed by working teachers basically flows straight out to retirees. ... That is, essentially, a Ponzi scheme.

Is that different by anything but degree than the US federal Social Security system?

> Puerto Rico... ran off the rails by using debt to spend beyond its means. Year after year, the government could not balance the budget and borrowed instead

Is that different by anything but degree than the US federal government?
Vermont is 32nd in per capita GDP. Poorest would be Mississippi, dead last. California is indeed a massive economy and we're ranked 10th in per capita GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...

One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.
> Physician pay (last I checked) only makes up about 20%

Does that number include specialists? Nurses? Lab technicians?

If not, why are you excluding them?

You basically have 4 expenses: Durable Equipment, Medication, Salary, Facilities.

I suspect that Salary is the largest one, and the hardest to reduce.
My point is that you can't just tell someone this simple equation and expect them to adopt it due to the elegant rationality of the solution.

Somebody who is using food as a coping device has an underlying issue they have to tackle before they can reduce their caloric intake. I mean, you could force folks to eat less, but you really want them eating less because it's healthier for them and that they themselves recognize and embrace that truth so they adopt the healthier habits as their personal culture to re-transmit to family and friends.
> HW-wise we are now in the 3rd gen of chips

I stand corrected. It's been a time since I've looked at the performance. I didn't realize they caught up so quickly.
You are arguing against the fundamentals of taxation.

Why are others entitled to his money (for healthcare)? Because we decided that we are all good people and take care of each other.
That reminds me of an Asimov story, "Founding Father", involving ecosystem change on a planet by stranded astronauts.
I'm pretty confident that if you get rid of individual mandates while not disqualifying sick people or enforcing benefit caps, premiums will skyrocket. I'm not sure there's really a middle ground here, it's just unavoidable actuary math.

So if it is, as you say, a moral imperative, what are your choices?

Maybe the EBI will need to be ridiculously high to actually provide the coverage you agree is a moral imperative to provide. But that doesn't really solve the problem, it just ends up meaning that sick people don't have that EBI to cover stuff everyone else can pay for with it. Like food and housing.

I'm open to hearing other ideas on how to do it, but I think that you'd have to vary the EBI based on how expensive health care is for the individual getting it, if your goal is to meet the universal coverage moral imperative. And that's very different from what EBI is supposed to be. I don't think it will solve the problem that you're describing.
The LEOs you've dealt with are clearly not Florida sheriffs from non-urban counties. Brevard County sheriff Wayne Ivey is well-loved for his stance on the matter: good people should be prepared to shoot bad people. His department offers a tactical shooting course. BTW, this is a "Stand Your Ground" state, so there is no duty to retreat or otherwise let an evildoer control you.

I try to imagine a San Francisco or Berkeley police chief telling people to shoot bad people dead. It's... not working. :-)
If men become doctors and women become nurses, or if men become Software Engineers and women become Test Engineers, then there's still something wrong with the world.

"Adjusting for profession" ignores the cultural context of terms like "pay gap" -- we come from a world where women couldn't work certain jobs at all.
>How do you deal with illegal immigrants?

You deport them? Doesn't seem like a big problem.
And how are they going to pay for this?
This is a horrible argument to make, because you're basically saying that a woman could never feel that sexism is overblown.

Do you really think no women in the world think that the talk of sexism is overblown?

If so, I'm curious what other opinions you believe women aren't allowed to have?
>> that said, sales tax and state tax rates are high, so if you just mean that, you are right.

This is a result of the property taxes being fixed(ish) though, isnt it? Since they cant get true value from that, they have to raise other taxes to make up for it.
Yeah, but a pound of water is not a cubic foot. A pint has nothing to do with inches.
Those topics you list make for cool presentations, but at the end of the day some poor schmuck does have to write that "capture the phone calls from Skype" and "exfiltrate the IM messages" code. That super-meta rootkit certainly isn't doing it on its own. It's boring, there is probably XML involved, but so is that CRUD web app that is rewritten thousand times over on every continent of this planet.

DLL injection seems like a perfectly fine hammer in the toolbox for that purpose. Nobody is claiming that they are using it for anything more than targeting specific applications once they have already gained system access. How they got that access might make for more interesting documents.

The CIA is in the business of obtaining information, not malware research.
> The thing I find fascinating about this solution is that it doesn't even require the rule that you can't place larger discs on smaller discs - it simply is never optimal to do so anyway.

It seems like without that rule, the game's solution is 2n-1 steps (dump n-1 disks from the left to the right, move disk n to the center, then un-invert those n-1 disks on top of disk n), rather than 2^n-1 moves.
What is your perspective on having kids a bit later in life than most?
If the chilling effect is the same and the curbs to your freedom is the same and at the end of the day you still cannot say what you want for fear of reprisal, does it matter whether the coercion comes from someone directly on state payroll?

If the government outsources the jackbooting to private sector, does it stamp your face less hard? What if I design a governing structure that's distributed between a small elected 'government' branch and a large, permanent network of corporations?
i agree with you that the logistics problem is incredibly hard but we may be disagreeing on whether instacart has cracked the problem (or even can). having talked to shoppers (instacart's workers) in the past, i don't believe they have solved the logistics challenge yet. their recent tips fiasco tells me that they're still gross margin negative and needed to fudge those revenue numbers into fitting with this valuation.

it's certainly possible that they have a credible story around how they get operationally profitable with the delivery business, but that's a margin-limited business that i don't think investors will get excited about. data and services are relatively high-margin businesses and that's why i think that's the play here.

but i agree that whoever solves the very hard last-mile logistics problem is going to be fabulously well-positioned (amazon, walmart, fedex, ups & uber seem to be the leading contenders). thinking that scale/volume will solve the problem is enticing, but so many companies have chased that holy grail only to fall short that i'm not sure that it isn't a mirage.
It's really ridiculous, too. I went to the ER for stomach pains in california for 3 hours (ct scan, IV, and morphine). It was $3500 (no healthcare). I was in college and talked to them and paid around $800. I went to the ER in Japan overnight (12 hours) ct scan, IV, and it was $40 (insurance covered 70% so it was about $130).
> The amount of people able to become doctors is artificially limited.

It is not artificially limited, and this is a common misconception that simply won't go away.

The bottleneck is currently the number of people who can complete residency training. Residency programs are not self-sufficient, so most of them are funded by Medicare. That's not an artificial limit - that's a natural one (the sheer economics of the process).
California confiscates 13.8% of every dollar I earn (my husband's income puts us into that category). There are already two "millionaire" taxes that kick in for incomes over $1,000,000.

Californians are evil, so they try to always tax "other people" and not themselves.
> Using force / aggression (aka the government forcing you to do something) is a violation of your most fundamental rights, and strips you of your agency and dignity as a human being.

So you assert, as if this were universally accepted.

I assert being bankrupted or killed for want of affordable, accessible healthcare is a violation of my most fundamental rights, and strips me of agency and dignity as a human being.
> it sounds nice in theory I'm hesitant to believe the finances actually work out.

Many places pull it off around the world, though at a national level. Probably few are as wealthy as California.
Are you in your 40s, or did you start developing software in your teens?