skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that's very dismissive of the importance rebates play. The PBMs' defensibility comes almost entirely from their ability to use their scale to drive up branded/specialty medication costs up by demanding larger and larger rebates from pharma. In terms of revenue, branded and specialty meds already make up more than 75% of the market today. They are the real problem here, not generics.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Maybe they got a very promising idea and chased it into a different subfield? Or maybe there is a filter effect where only the brightest and most ambitious can be bothered to change fields.
I don't think you can necessarily say that. There is a reason why so many governments choose to subsidize auto manufacturing (and aircraft manufacturing) over other industries: there is an entire chain of highly skilled work that goes into making these products. And that chain is reflected in the revenue paid for the product, which is then passed through the chain as "costs" for the auto company and "revenue/profit" for everyone else.
API stands for "Application Programming Interface". A website that serves up data is not an API. The best way to explain the difference is that you can write an API on a piece of paper and it is still an API (i.e., you don't have to implement it). It documents how different parts of an application interface with each other. Normally it consists of things like the definitions of functions that you can call to achieve various results.

An API is specifically not a service. You can have many services that all use the same API. REST itself is an API. You can build another API on top of REST. So if someone says they have a REST API for querying movie information, that's sensible. If you have a service that serves up movie information, that's not an API. That's a service. It uses an API.

It might seem pedantic, but I have talked with otherwise talented programmers who didn't actually know what an API was. They mentioned using "the API" in their front end code and when I asked the only reasonable question, "Which API?" they didn't know how to respond. They've got about a billion libraries in their front end code (like everyone else ;-) ) and each one of them has an API -- otherwise they couldn't use it. However "API" only meant talking to the server to them.

I realise common usage is trumping the original definition of the term, but I think that's to the detriment of everyone involved.
None of this is ok.
It was bad for Google and the investment banks, good for investors. It got an astoundingly low price, in part because banks boycotted the IPO to punish Google for the auction -- share price nearly doubled in the first 2 months, tripled in the first year, and kept growing.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/history/fi-126.1...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109036846726869268

https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archiv...
They certainly can't stop it if they promote it... Facebook is social media, so it is excused, but Google prioritizes according to ad payments, so whoever is paying for the ads has more control over the approved content and the ad content. Spreading fake news by demonizing certain videos that aren't agreed with and such. Now, it's not exactly up to Google to stop fake news either... They just shouldn't promote it as have.
Home Network

|
|
v

ISP <---> Internet

Home Network

|
|
v

ISP ---> Internet --> VPN <--> Internet

Your ISP cannot see what you do on the internet when you use a VPN, except for the fact that you are connecting to a VPN. The VPN is connecting to the internet for you, and your ISP cannot see anything beyond your and your VPN sharing encrypted data.

The point is its more than just an IP. Websites you connect to aren't actually sites you're connecting to, your VPN is connecting to them for you and sending you back what it sees, and so your real IP is hidden and, in theory, the encryption between the VPN and yourself makes it impossible for your ISP to see what it is you're doing online, it only sees garbled nonsense. But when your computer receives that garbled nonsense, it turns it into, for instance, data that will load into your browser and show you a site you don't want your ISP to know you are visiting.

There is always the danger of your VPN/hosting provider handing over your actual IP and a list of all your traffic, neatly folded and ironed in a log, over to a company for money. This is why some people avoid free VPNs and others set up their own on a server.
Telebit: A Telegram bot for double your Bitcoins
http://thomasokken.com/free42/
It's a selection process for technology, patents, and marketing, not for the person.
Stack Overflow Unveils the Next Steps in Computer Security – Stack Overflow Blog
The system that encourages the, generally, emotional response of likes, rather than the, generally, intellectual response of likes.

Stories that challenge a person's world view are generally ignored, stories that support a person's world view are liked.

I enjoy casual conversations with people i disagree with. In person i can keep it genial and friendly. On line i don't have that control, and criticizing an idea becomes tough to distinguish from criticizing the person. Because the person i'm interacting with isn't really thinking much at all, and just reacting in an emotional way.

At least that's how i believe they're reacting, because i catch my self reacting that way more often than i like to admit.

edit

As a concrete example, I've had a bunch of in person conversations about gun ownership, and a fair number of online discussions. With the in person examples, generally, i feel like i've learned something, and my interlocutor has a better understanding of my point of view. Any time i try that online, i just get pissed off and i'm pretty sure my interlocutor does as well, judging by being unfriended.
If that's a problem, then I'll be a happy ancestor
Why? Wouldn't you rather Ellison spend virulent internet racists' money, then spend Java licensee's money?
Hi - I'm the developer and I didn't know this was here til I found it just browsing around. :) Anyway there's a new build up that might address the issue. Let me know how it goes. -- matt
An ontology is an attempt to define any divisions beyond "all of that which is". Whatever I "am", philosophically, is whatever label describes somebody who does not presume to make any such distinctions.

Or, rather, always does that, like all of us do all the time, because that's what permits us to continue to live and think in the conditions and on the scale we find ourselves inhabiting, because that's the basis on which our minds work. But does not attempt to claim that any of the distinctions that happen to be useful to me have any fundamental basis in the raw nature of reality.

"Materialism" of this type is the default position in the same way atheism is the default position. The burden of proof is on the claim that there's something beyond material reality, and both dualism and theism are making this claim. It is the same claim. The only difference is the details of exactly what the supernatural thing is.

That is something there is not and cannot possibly be any evidence for, beyond "just take my word for it". In that way, dualism is indistinguishable from the existence of god or gods or magic or reincarnation or any other supernatural thing. To permit the possibility of one is to permit the possibility of the other. And there is no more evidence of one than the other, nor can there be. Again, there is no reason besides chauvinism or wishful thinking to believe in a theory of reality that makes you or something about you special.

I'm not going to extend the slightest benefit of the doubt to any theory of reality which says "I, and people/things/systems I recognize as like me, am intrinsically special and set permanently apart because something about me is fundamentally different from everything else", which dualism always comes down to. Any more than I'd be inclined to trust the objective truth of any theory of politics or economics or anthropology which says "I, and people/things/systems I recognize as like me, am intrinsically special and set permanently apart because something about me is fundamentally different from everything else".

----

EDIT: I am definitely, full-heartedly, whatever Daniel Dennett is.
It is official. Algolia was funded by YC and when I've contacted YC with requests for HN data I've been referred to Algolia.
Just to provide more info - for a given pharmacy, Atorvastatin 20mg is $.0629 per pill, so $1.887 at cost. For most pharmacies the real cost is going the pharmacist filling the rx. An insurance company would probably reimburse <$5 and may or may not just make that the copay. $10 is way higher than pharmacies would charge for generic lipitor.

Also claiming:
Avg. retail: $132.52
You save: 96%

Is the complete OPPOSITE of transparency. $132.52 might be a realistic price for branded Lipitor, but that's not at all what is being sold here.
Let's remember that this is a 24 year old guy worth half a billion dollars. Young and immature leads to expected behavior. Young, immature AND rich leads to this.

I know people expect more from their corporate leaders, but this shouldn't really be surprising to anyone given the context
Here's the 6 part NPR series Unfit For Work from 2013
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

with an accompanying This American Life broadcast
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/490/t...
and
Why would John Carmack -- who revolutionized graphics processing and led development of a frikkin rocket ship, mind you -- waste his time with Luckey if Luckey didn't bring anything to the table?
AirBnB is known for being shady. Everybody knows that many AirBnB listings are illegal but allowed because profit, except when they're silently removed just before public data release[1].
Making a profit over illegal listing is all fun and game until someone dies due to that illegal rental not being up to safety code as with that canadian woman in Taiwan[2] but as long as you conveniently offer 2 millions dollars to the heirs and not mention it the safety report it should not hurt business that much, let's top it with a PR stunt of offering carbon monoxide detector for good measure.
Let's not forget that the host protection was added after a similar trashed apartment PR crisis[3] at first capped at $50,000 then later upgraded to $1,000,000. Let's not forget either that the first answer to the host was that she would not receive any money from AirBnB.

There are numerous horror stories of dealing with AirBnB where the refused to pay until the press runs the story [4], or being evicted due to guest abuse[5], some are more exotic such as using the place for prostitution or this guest turned into squatter that the host had to find a way to evict on her own[6]. There's even a website dedicated to collecting those horror stories: airbnbhell.com

So yeah, if you're unlucky and your AirBnB experience is not smooth, be prepared for more non-smoothness from AirBnB but if your case is high profile enough, going to the press usually helps to solve the case.

[1]: http://insideairbnb.com/how-airbnb-hid-the-facts-in-nyc/ and https://www.recode.net/2016/2/10/11587752/did-airbnb-purge-p...

[2]: http://www.aswllp.com/content/images/Taming-The-Digital-Wild...

[3]: http://allthingsd.com/20110801/airbnb-apologizes-and-offers-... and https://techcrunch.com/2011/07/29/airbnb-victim-speaks-again...

[4]: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-an-airbnb-guest-trashed-a...

[5]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/airbnb-orgy_n_49788...

[6]: http://www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-host-cant-get-squatter...

[7]: http://www.airbnbhell.com/
The new FDA head is actually very anti PBM, so he might be a force for good here.

http://www.drugchannels.net/2017/03/scott-gottliebs-radical-...
'Doomsday Library' Opens in Norway to Protect the World's Books from Armageddon
Yeah I'm not disagreeing with the author here. It didn't occur to me immediately what was being done. Scaling and limiting seems like antonyms but I get the point. Especially if it's free (the API access). Even premium/paid would need limits.

For the case here, where the client insisted on keeping the 500/hr limit, I cached the query-results with a database as the values don't really change. But if they did change in the future that could be a problem, so you'd have to update the "cache".

Regarding handling overflow, that's something I haven't done yet myself, still stuck in the LAMP days, and have not done something like bench marking my server to see how many concurrent connections/requests it could handle.

note: LAMP isn't an excuse, I'm just making a note that I'm behind in using other technology that could be better. But I've heard of modular Apache configs/routing... stuff beyond me at this point.
Yes you are being partisan and not seeing how the D's do the same things. If I wasn't on mobile I'd explain more in detail, but essentially its a corruption, oligarchy, corporatacracy problem that transcends parties.
This comic/guide is wonderful. I particularly like the summary on trials by jury[1]. It's not great, but it's much better than the other legal systems we've had.

edit: I also like this sequence explaining why thoughts are not crimes. [2]

[1]: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=337

[2]: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=380
Already major appliances are generally crap quality, with a lifespan of 5-8 years as opposed to the 20-30 years obtainable in past decades. I want a quality war on appliances, not a price war!
Just like the way pepe the frog changed. The connotations around shitposting changed.
I think two things happened that are interesting:

* Traditional mass media has failed at manufacturing consent (stealing Chomsky's title here because I like the book and it fits). Election was lost to a TV personality even though mass media was supposed to prevent it. Google and Facebook didn't waste any time after noticing this market vacuum and signaled they are ready to be the new manufacturers of consent. "Pay us money and we'll properly inform people of your favorite brand/policy/candidate and block competing brands/candidates. Don't rely on TV news anymore. Come to us". That was a very good move on their part.

* Fake news term was a good PR term. It works well as a slogan, is short and very expressive. However it was appropriated by others. Disarming by appropriation is an interesting technique. So now the same media companies talking about fake news are defending themselves from being labeled as such. It went so far that WaPo journalist explicitly asked everyone to stop using the term as it apparently is backfiring too much: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-time-to-r... I think studying how appropriation happened so quickly and effectively is worth it just as much as the effect of lizard people or chemtrails on the outcome of the election.
Depends on what you mean by VPNs.

Traditionally a VPN was an overlay network, that interconnected a number of private networks and/or individual hosts over the Internet. For example, between your friends you could set up IPsec so that peer-to-peer IP traffic was encrypted between all participants. There's no client or server role in IPsec so either side can initiate the connection.

Then, it was used as a moniker for corporate PC software that connected the salaryman on the road to the mothership "intranet". Which was mostly about selectively punching holes in their own "intranet + firewall" network setup.

Then lately, the term has seen use in home computer use to circumvent their last mile ISP, to impose a small level of obfuscation in order to BitTorrent stuff more safely or curb ISP data collection. The traffic is still piped out to the public Internet at the VPN provider.

It's kind of a full circle and the term VPN does not make any sense for the latter use. You make a "virtual private" connection to the public internet, and there is nobody on the VPN that you share privacy with?
It depends on your goal. To improve your listening skills for conversation, you'll have to engage in conversation and it will improve over time. It is normal to not be able to catch everything. Politely asking people to repeat themselves is perfectly fine.

One trick I use is to repeat what I thought I heard so the speaker can correct me. As opposed to just saying "what?" I would ask, "The cat was rolling weird?" This might get corrected to "The `Cart` was rolling". I find people will emphasis the word you're having trouble with.

I too had a decent TOEFL score(108/120), but I quickly realized that I could think of words in my head but not pronounce it. I still struggle with this and I get corrected all the time. Eg: My "bear" "beer" and "bare" sounds almost the same.

Reading books and articles helps with learning new words and keeping your vocabulary. Colleges generally have "writing centers" for help with formal writing. These people also help you with conversation and are generally happy to talk to you. I've also utilized places like #english on freenode.net sometimes.

Mimicry also helps. If you hear someone talk fluently, you should mentally commit that to memory. Some native speakers aren't good role model to mimic. So you want to actively make sure you're not copying wrong model. Most of this is initial work. Once you get to a thresh hold, you'll have easier time more or less.
This is the smart way of dealing with this kind of situation. Better have light moderation than risk being seen as taking a partisan stance and protecting your own interest.

Then again bribe does not feel out of place. Offering direct deposit money outside of the official documented channel is akin to giving cash under the table. Even more when the recipient has to ask repeatedly to use the proper channel.
It wasn't just "pro-Trump". It was self-proclaimed shitposting:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/22/palmer-luck...
The GPL variants are not widely understood. They are closer to widely misunderstood. But due to their popularity and importance, specialized experts who do understand them, well and in detail, are available for hire. Heather Meeker, for example.

I like the GPLs and what they stand for. In another post, also popular here on HN, I wrote:

> The last [great idea in open-source licensing], not found in The MIT License, builds off license conditions: “Copyleft” licenses like the GNU General Public License use license conditions to control how those making changes can license and distribute their changed versions.

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-b...

In another post, again channeling my own thoughts and feelings, rather than those of a broader, abstracted business community, I wrote:

> As an attorney, for one, and a coder who came up on FSF software, for two, it kills me to see students and pre-exit programmers write off good licensing hygiene as unnecessary. It makes me queasy to read, via the closed, hood-welded-shut social network du jour, that "open source has won". How smoothly both disdain for "corporate interests" assailing community values, on the one hand, and utter disdain for the GPL, its politics and its moralism, on the other, roll off the tongue. It’s a cruel, cruel world.

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/05/13/What-Open-Source-M...

Copyleft licenses are more complex than permissive licenses by design. GPL-family licenses add idiosyncratic style and politics to that mix. There is a whole body of signals and accepted practices filling in interpretive fissures in that complexity---for FSF projects, for Linux, for MongoDB (AGPL). Consider the recent "enforcement principles" release and the disagreements that led to it. Corporate copyleft users have to do that homework. Corporate permissive users get the night off.
Because they're anti-abortion, they get an enormous pass from people who believe they have some kind of moral high ground.
Happy with mine too: 4557693.79
I sincerely hope you come back to explain in some more detail, because this sounds like a bullshit claim to me. The Democrats aren't the ideal ruling party, but they are not nearly as bad as the Republican party. I wouldn't say they're even in the same ballpark.
I certainly see a beach with a few hundred or so stones when I close my eyes but I don't think that matters. It is simply the idea that stones on a beach - a lot of stones on a very long beach in a very specific arrangement relentless reordered by Tom Hanks for billions of billions of years according to a very long list of rules overseen by Wilson - could really feel joy and pain that seems absurd. I mean this is a common argument that it is just the sheer scale that would be required and that we are unable to imagine that leads us astray but in the end it just seems wrong that stones on a beach can feel pain, at least to me. But if you think about a computer simulating a brain at the level of neurons, something that is somewhat in reach, does this make it any easier? Does it sound so much less absurd that a data center packed with GPUs could really feel pain?
But "what [I] do on the internet" is available to anyone snooping the internet between the VPN and whatever website I'm going to. HTTP request headers carry a lot of information, e.g. https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/with-a-few-bits-of....

This is an arms race. If there is value in my data, surely someone is going to try to obtain it from the data flowing out of the VPN. No?
Be that as it may, this is pedantic quibbling outside of the point the GGP post author was actually trying to make: speculative pressure by investors (lazy or otherwise) conflicts with the aim of stable long-term equilibrium doing +/- one thing well.

If you actually care about building a sustainable business, not Unicorns and moonshots and other things investors want you to become and do, don't take investment, or at least not much.
Nasa was spending close to 5% of the federal budget back then, about $35-40 billion per year in today's dollars. The space program cost hundreds of billions.

spaceX has done it by raising less than $1.5 billion total
Is there room for such a term as "strongarm tactics" in your lexicon? And how do we feel about the gross imbalance in power between AirBnB and an individual?
There may be some relationship between that and subjective experience, but it's not really the same thing. You're describing essentially "know how" instead of "know that". But here we're talking about something that doesn't actually seem to be representable in terms of physical

Why is it that there's something it's like to be zukzuk? zukzuk could simply be like a computer program, simply responding to inputs. Or you could simply have an erroneous memory of actually experiencing things (instead, you simply just responded to inputs, one of which was to record an apparently subjective experience). That doesn't seem to solve the problem to me; it's just kicking the can down the road a little.
Australia hasn't had a recession for over 25 years
And its not even available, at least on the linux desktop version.
You're bending over backwards to try to rationalize a sexist term, and digging yourself deeper by then stereotyping fraternities.
> I find it interesting that the host is only sending a bill for $8000. It seems as if he is only trying to get paid for his damages and not even considering the damage and disruption to his neighbors

Could be related to the fact that those are not covered by the AirBnB guarantee:

What’s not protected?

The Host Guarantee should not be considered a replacement
or stand-in for homeowners or renters insurance. The Host
Guarantee does not protect:

cash and securities
pets
personal liability
shared or common areas
"Poison pill" has a very different, established meaning in corp law. "Exploding" here hews well to the old Mission Impossible bit: "This message will self-destruct in ten seconds."