skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First of all, Walmart I'll note consistently pays one of the world's highest corporate income tax rates, at around 30%. Their income tax is about equal to what that article claims the subsidy is.

Ok, let's present the alternative then.

Walmart automates its massive retail operations substantially over the next 10-15 years, using robotics and AI.

Their goal is to match the dollar of sales to employee ratio of, say, beloved Costco. And or try to keep up with Amazon's ability to highly automate its operations (competitive pricing advantages etc).

There went one million jobs, consisting largely of employees with few skills and very limited alternative employment prospects.

Now what? Here's the reality when you remove the one-sided emotion-driven premise in the article: it's better to subsidize those employees to a modest extent, than to a 100% extent (which is the scenario coming for tax payers; the harder / more expensive you make it on Walmart to employ those people, the faster they're going to automate their jobs away).

Also, if you want to reduce the subsidy, raise the minimum wage (or the earned income tax credit, a vastly superior approach; which then begets a further debate on the subsidy), which Walmart has routinely supported. They support it because it harms their weaker competitors, whereas Walmart can deal with it. When you raise the minimum wage, Walmart will either optimize by firing workers / using automation further, or they'll push increased costs onto customers, which gets you right back to the same place in terms of tax payers paying for Walmart's employees (hint: every employed adult in America pays for their employees, they have $485 billion in sales).
I think you are under-estimating the police response time by a fairly large margin. It's not like cops have shotspotter (TM) information going to straight into their heads and can react at a moment's notice. The information goes to a command center, then if a unit is available, they might send them out for a look, which means going through the dispatcher. There really isn't some police reaction force just sitting around waiting for calls.

It's dumb technology--it's like everything the MIC has done to try and re-market to police agencies, it's unnecessary and pretty much worthless.
If they used code that they downloaded without a license, they have violated copyright law. (All code created in the US and most other countries has a copyright at creation.)

So they either accepted the GPL or violated copyright.
Paying people less or hiring people getting government benefits is nothing like dumping poison into a water supply.
The video wasn't very good at explaining the system, and the website itself didn't even use the same effects that were used. For instance, there was heavy use of parallax scrolling in the video, but the website didn't have it at all. Seems like a missed opportunity.
I work in the auto finance industry. I totally understand your point of view. There are a lot of games the dealers play to make a profit on each vehicle they sell. It can be really trying on the customer.

I would love to disrupt this auto dealership industry. Tesla business model is compelling but I don't think it needs to be manufacturer driven. I think there is still a place for dealerships but their business model can be upended. Some guys working on this is AutoFi and Carvana. I think there are ideas out there. I would love to be a part of that.
Better writeup:

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walm...
Apple Comes to Washington
Title is a bit clickbait-y.

Better:
"With unix's join command you can join files somewhat similar to database joins"
Shutting everything down seems like a really rash response, especially when these systems seem to be used for critical communication e.g. the phones too. The Twitter messages seem to suggest that doctors are seeing this on their personal machines, but why would this impact the phone system? Are they not separated out?

I'm also really curious as to how this started. The article mentions a "bug" in the IT systems - some sort of novel zero day in the software they're using that was exploited remotely? Or is it more likely someone screwed up and ran something without thinking?

Edit: There are reports on twitter that this is impacting X-rays, pagers as well as the phone system. This is ridiculous if true and suggests there have been some major failings when putting this infrastructure in place.
That's not how the attack works though: the fob sends A, but the car doesn't see it because of the jamming. The fob then sends B, and the car still doesn't see it. Then the attacker stops jamming the car's receiver, and replays A, so the doors open. B is stored by the attacker to replay later.
Is there a way a phone could know which finger was used by using the camera too?
One of my good friends was an investment banker who specialized in IPO's from 2000 to 2011.

When ever I asked him about Sarbanes-Oxley chilling IPO's he would always say that the only people who claim the legislation slowed down IPO's were people on chat boards who had no relation to the process at all.

From an auditors perspective it might raise some complications but from a companies perspective, it just codified rules that almost all public companies were already doing.

I mean, even on hacker news, you'll find people parroting the sentiment that Sar-box slowed down IPO's but they never really seem to be able to identify just why, or what specific rule it is that is keeping companies private. n

Its always some non specific thing they point to, like more regulation or liability of C level executives. I mean the retort is probably what percentage of public companies have been brought private strictly because of this rule or how many executives have been sent to jail under this rule.

The below article is from 2012 but it lays out my point pretty well I think:

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2012/07/27/sarbanes-...
For most voters, faster internet isn't one of their top concerns. Depending on the voter demographic it is more likely:

Young People
* Housing Affordability
* Uni Fees
* Centrelink
* Employment
* Climate change

Middle Aged People
* Super
* Eduction
* Health
* Taxation
* Infrastructure

Old People
* Pension
* Health
Why not? Read it as "if and only if." If you disagree, then explain your disagreement.
It still takes fuel to make those spraying chemicals and get them to you.
I have a slightly older article series on Machine Learning in Javascript, teaching algorithms assuming only JS knowledge: https://www.burakkanber.com/tag/ml-in-js/
5 Steps to Startup Success Recommended by Many Gurus
> low un-liveable minimum-wage

Why does a grocery bagger need to have a livable wage? Seems like a great first job for someone in high school or a nice part-time job to help generate a little extra income.
That is the most important issue, but not the most important issue here. This ruling hasn't gotten that far. This merely throws out Hancom's argument that because the contract wasn't signed it wasn't a contract.

Contract terms should be up next (but I smell a settlement, frankly).
The website has plenty of parallax scrolling, especially with the background. Maybe it just isn't on mobile? It is subtle.
THE END OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN CONTEMPRARY NIGERIA
Yep, that's me!
It depends entirely on location. Maybe your salary figures are true for London but they are not elsewhere.
>>If Uber suffered hard enough, do you think VC money might shift or otherwise move into Lyft?

Probably not. The main reason Uber got so much VC funding is because they promised investors that they would be treated as a technology services company, which would allow them to ignore various laws and regulations taxi companies are subject to and eventually drive them out of business to become a monopoly.

If Uber fails at executing this business model, it's not clear why investors would take a second chance with another company of the same type.
Well obviously their contention is that you're buying a license to use the software and not the software itself. You're free to disagree but it's internally consistent.
> There is no need to sign anything, what matters is if the EULA was included in the sale contract (so, the buyer was aware that the willingness of the seller to sell you the product depended on the buyer accepting those additional terms as part of the contract).

Yes, it doesn't have to be literally signed, but it needs to be an agreement made at the time of purchase. If I agree to buy Windows under the condition that I won't use it for the development of nuclear weapons, so be it.

But it's still not clear why I would need Microsoft's license just to use a copy of Windows I have already bought, sometimes even as part of a computer, which is what parent seemed to claim.
> “Upon discovering Hancom’s abuse of the GNU GPL and infringement of Artifex’s valuable copyright in Ghostscript, Artifex demanded that Hancom cease its infringement and remit to Artifex a reasonable royalty for Hancom’s years of unlicensed use of Ghostscript,” the company said in its complaint. “Rebuffed by Hancom, Artifex turns to this Court to enjoin Hancom from further infringement and to seek relief and recovery for Hancom’s abuse of Artifex’s open source license.”

So the suit was filed only after Artifex had notified Hancom of the license and attempted to work out a solution out of court. There's no way to argue they didn't know about the license beyond a certain date, and it sounds like they willfully continued to infringe upon the license after said date.
I think the issue is that anything involving custom magnetics is a niche area for hobbyists right now. I think most hobbyists and tinkerers prefer off-the-shelf parts to one-off motors, transformers, inductors, etc.

That being said, I've already seen quite a few videos of people winding their own magnetics, so perhaps there is a market to be capitalized on.
Marx and Engels might not have been evil but virtually all other communist thinkers / politicians were. You should go read the writings pre-Bolshevik revolution to get an idea. A big problem with Marxist thinking is that it encouraged pseudo-science and the belief that there was only 1 possible correct interpretation of history. So pre-Bolshevik thinkers competed for who was right, spiraling towards more and more extreme thinking, with the more strong-armed Lenin eventually winning out (and killing his rivals). What happened later was pretty inevitable once you understand the appeal of Marxism and understand that it's targeted at affluent intellectuals, not at the poor.
This looks an amazing project however I am very concerned about just how secure it is. Anyone remember the vulnerability disclosures of the existing in car systems and their ability for remote exploit resulting in a malicious party having control over things as essential as the cars velocity? AutoPi, while undoubtedly cool, definitely feels like quite an exploitable attack vector if not very carefully engineered. So I'd personally wait for an independent audit before buying this product.
In my opinion, software equivalent in functionality to Ghostscript should be written using a BSD or similar license. Is there anyone willing to sponsor it?
Fair enough. Though the commenter even admitted to not reading most of the article.

And IMO it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask if you're willing to have a discussion about the topic but you're unsure if the other party is even capable of having it. There's no point in discussing an article with someone who has not read it.
A friend of mine, who is a software engineer turned IP lawyer, made a good point about the GPL - the reason it "has never been challenged in court" isn't about uncertainty, but about certainty. The GPL is based on the most simple, bedrock copyright law. Despite being a clever hack, there's nothing legally exotic about it.

Any judge in the country or anywhere else would laugh a GPL challenge right out of court. Any any IP lawyer reading it would tell their client that that's what's going to happen if they try to challenge it. That's why it's never been fully tested in court... no need.
They don't say it at all, but perhaps the biggest change here is that they're making headings big and bold now. For quite a few years, Apple, Microsoft, and Google (even pre-material) all seemed to be competing on thinnest, smallest, ultralight-est headings.

edit: I stand corrected. Their marketing site and all their videos are (apparently) inconsistent with their guidelines: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/typograph...
"...I just think you're splitting hairs." And splitting hairs is pretty much what the legal system is about.

It matters. The difference is the defendant said "yes, we entered a contract" and not that the judge ruled "whether you admit it or not, you entered a contract." The former does not set legal precedent. The latter probably does.
You are directly involved by installing the Whatsapp application and agreeing to the ToS, which clearly states:

>We collect information about your online and status message changes on our Services, such as whether you are online (your “online status”), when you last used our Services (your “last seen status”), and when you last updated your status message.

And

>Your phone number, profile name and photo, online status and status message, last seen status, and receipts may be available to anyone who uses our Services, although you can configure your Services settings to manage certain information available to other users.

"B-but people don't read those!" - well then maybe that's something to worry about instead of complaining about an API which is the nature of the product.
Every time you give something for free after a user registers.
Monitorama ticket giveaway
This doesn't make sense. Companies that pitch they are "Uber for X" aren't competing with Uber. They are using Uber's business model in other markets.
>I don't pensions funds would invest in Start-UPs since they have a low risk threshold.

You seem to be mistaken. Here's a 2014 article titled "Behind the Venture Capital Boom: Public Pensions" from Bloomberg. Specifically, the article claims (sourcing a Dow Jones report) that "In 2014, they contributed 20 percent of the sector’s overall haul, down slightly from a 25 percent contribution in 2013." It's not that a massive fraction of each pension fund is in venture capital, but a sizable chunk of the money in venture capital is from pensions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-23/are-publi...
Not only do ABS fumes smell bad, they can actually be quite dangerous. I believe PETG is much safer in that regard.
Are you suggesting those are the only people in those types of jobs?
What Recruiters Don't Want You to Know
Answer to stupid question: Nothing is stopping you doing that. As it would be a derivative work, your users/customers would be entitled to your source and have distribution rights.
I agree with the parent comment here, the system allows this so I can't fault Walmart on it. What I can fault is them lobbying against/killing labor unions [0]. Labor Unions would fix this problem in a capitalist way.

It is interesting to see the numbers in this article ~$6B in subsidies, and then compare that to dividends/buybacks: oh, look $6B-$7B [1] not even including buybacks. That is a direct redistribution of wealth [edit] from bottom to the top.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-survei...
[1] http://www.vuru.co/analysis/WMT/dividendsBuybacks
No, the article is pretty clear that this isn't about the terms of the GNU GPL itself, just about whether there was a contract in this particular case.
Given that there are thousands of startups that YC alone has funded, and probably hundreds of thousands in the Bay Area, naming three doesn't really contradict the author's point.
A physical key ;) like we used to have.
A recent book called The Plant Paradox argues exactly this (among many other things). (But, also see my question about the author of the book elsewhere in this thread).
Null and Void
Go to a store and see the people actually working in reality.
Basically: If you admit to having a contract, then you have a contract.
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14320121
A Flask extension with lots of common time-savers
> Feilding wasn’t interested in performing the operation as an extreme form of body art, but because she believed it would have a life-changing effect on her. She hoped that a hole in her head would increase what she terms "cranial compliance," that alleviating the pressure in her skull would allow the heart to pump more blood to her brain, thereby giving her a new feeling of buoyancy. "If you don’t have that expansibility," she says of the prison of inflexible bone that most of us have for skulls, "then the heartbeat pushes against the brain cells, which isn’t very good."

She wasn't doing it to get rid of evil spirits.

> Archaeologists have speculated that the operation was performed as a religious rite, an initiation into the priestly caste, or as a treatment for demonic possession—symptoms we might now diagnose as epilepsy, psychosis, or migraine. A hole in the head served as a mouthpiece to the gods, it was thought, or as a window that would allow bad spirits to escape.

People might have done it for that reason previously but she wasn't.
Academia under fire in Hungary
0) You can appeal arbitration awards within the arbitration company[0].

1) You can appeal arbitration rulings to the court system for a subset of situations (like misconduct or fraud by the arbiters)[1].

[0] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VjU7-9v...

[1] https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/adr/artic...
Sad, but predictable. There's a mantra in Bitcoin: if somebody else has the private key, you don't own your cryptocurrency.
Ah ok. With the lack of information on the site, and you didn't say anything in your post, it's hard to tell what your intent is. The language you have now is pretty vague since you don't really explain anything more about it, and only include a Contact link. I'd beef that bit up a bit to explain all that a bit. Also only having a gmail link seems a bit sketchy, or at least, not professional given domain names are very cheap these days.
> If someone fixes or adds something valuable to GPL source code and wants to charge for it, then why not just charge for the patch or the additional code?

You can legally do this, but it will not be easy. You cannot distribute a binary in this way, if you do your patch becomes GPL so the first person who buys your patch can legally give it to everyone else. That means you have to sell the source code to your patch and your customers have to build the binary themselves. You need to ensure that your customers understand that they cannot distribute any binaries they make. (they probably can distribute it within their company but they need to have some process to ensure that their employees know they cannot distribute this)

If anyone is thinking about this, make sure all sales include your lawyer: you will need to ensure that your customer understands all the subtleties otherwise the courts might decide your patch is GPL.
This is good advice even in conversation.

Yesterday I talked so someone who went on and on about being in the alternative energy space. Quote unquote.

"So what do you sell exactly?" I had to ask a couple of times.

Turns out they buy solar panels wholesale, sell at retail, and install the panels if you want.

It sounds a lot less sexy, right? But that's what they DO for money.

When I see websites full of mealymouth prose (such as the sites that OP admonishes), I think that the people behind them do not fully understand what they do for money.

Keep it simple. Words of one syllable or two syllables will force you to think.

Know your business. If you really understand exactly what the customer is buying from you (not what you think you are selling to the customer), it is easy to describe your business or product.

But yeah. OP is right.
So these people would be better off if they didn't have a job at Walmart?
With Firefox on Xubuntu the site is unusable -- zooming down to 30% you can see most, but not all, of the text.

Maybe it's my system, but Microsoft doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
What a Murder in Kansas Says About Politics, Immigration and Tech
Because they didn't realize that the mechanism of the game make there pay for playing like it's a coin machine.

You can't compare micro transactions in game that you already pay and candy crush, you didn't pay for a full game, if people want spend their money they are free to do so, I'm also free to call them dumb for that reason. I personnaly play CS:GO sometimes and I have sell all my skins, cases, etc., and thus make the game free for me more that 15$ earned, then I can only say that others people are a little dumb to pay for that.
yes, it's better :) thanks
They sandbox many of the different systems. Carmakers won't cede deeper control to Android Auto or Carplay because they want to hold on to being the main user interface. There's also safety, security, and data-sharing issues at play.
80% decrease isn't that much on a log scale. 99.99% decrease would be more worrying.
ICO is a joke. £400k fine for 100million calls? That's probably way under what they paid to make the calls in the first place, so can just be considered a cost of business.
Even if it's not scheduled that doesn't mean it's not illegal. In the US, it could fall under the Federal Analogue Act,[1] making it illegal despite not being specifically scheduled.

There is debate on r/1P-LSD regarding its legal status.[2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue_act

[2] - https://www.reddit.com/r/1P_LSD/
I did my undergrad at U. of Michigan, and my master's at NYU. I would highly recommend both programs, although there are many great ones out there. I probably have a list of ~30 schools that I think would be excellent for a master's in CS with a focus on machine learning (although it is worth considering a master's in Data Science, as this makes sense if ML is your primary interest).

I am happy to give more targeted advice on grad school. Please send me an email at andrew [at] mrdrozdov.com.
I'm guessing Stallman is completely disgusted by the possibility of dual licensing. But the legal copyright holder has the right to establish whatever licenses they wish, whether Stallman approves or not.

As to your question, you've already agreed not to charge for your patch by the fact that you've utilized the GPL to access the code in the first place. That's one of the points of the GPL after all.
I run my own time tracking tool over at https://logmyhours.com - great for both freelancers and small teams! Built in invoicing tools, report exporting and mobile app for both Android and iOS.

If Log My Hours is missing a feature you need, reach out and I'll be happy to help :).
I don't understand why more people don't use push reel lawnmowers. I've used one ever since I stopped living in apartments, and they are not that difficult to use. They are lighter-weight than their gas-powered cousins, and you don't have to fill it up with gas every damn time you mow. Also it doesn't make 9000dB of noise.
Says the guy using Xubuntu lol. (and I'm on Fx + Arch myself)

I say this because you don't even know that Xubuntu has nothing to do with Fx, it's all gtk. So you're not qualified to comment. Yet, it's all MS's fault.
Because oftentimes it is the wage by which they are forced to live?
As a patch or addition, your source code is likely to be considered a derivative work, regardless of whether you actually build it into a binary.