skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I like the motivation. But it looks like everybody's afraid to start. (Me too. I've had a lot to say on pretty much every topic that's covered or even touched here. But I don't want to risk attracting a dogpile on a day when I lack the wherewithal to juggle a lot of arguments and give each the respect it deserves.)
Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes.

>Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold

You have crossed a Threshold

>and you're now North Korea.

Nice strawman you have there.....

>it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!

Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing
What does any of that to do with your argument that people won't do something that they clearly are doing?
You said "their own CEO". The Foundation's CEO is Mark Suman, has been for almost a decade.
You are confusing a mistrial with a not-guilty verdict.
Why doesn't he mention Raiden? Won't that solve most of this? Also I've heard rumors that Raiden is close to being ready? It's supposed to provide multiple orders of magnitude increase in transactions per second.
http://raiden.network/
Since you're commenting only on the inflammatory title which we explicitly changed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14653304, I moved your comment to this thread instead.
>Increased diversity could lead to new project-wide perspectives and overall community enrichment, if solely due to life-experience-based heterogeneity.

Are there any plans to measure the impact of this? That way the Rust project could show other projects the actual, concrete, benefits of diversity.
Yes!

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/...

You'll see here that the package emacs-minimal actually inherits from the emacs package definition, and then all fields afterwards are essentially overwrites of whatever was in the emacs package.

Unfortunately, I just noticed that the manual alludes to this, but actually never explicitly documents it in the "Defining Packages" section :/
That is definitional. I invested in it because I don't think it's a pump and dump. I could be wrong. If you're investing based solely on the opinion of others on the internet, you're making a mistake anyway.
The fact that you can do this make me very paranoid. I am so glad I don't use facebook. I'm pretty sure with the rise of face recognition, object recognition and NLP you can create insanely targeted ads that are almost ransomware by crawling people's social profiles and correlating them with hacked datasets.
Y'all're getting way too hung up on the colloquial connotations of "value" here. It's descriptive, not normative.

This is marginal value, the stuff that someone would give up in order to have one more of a thing.

A celebrity often makes money because, for whatever reason, nobody can easily and reliably produce an equivalent one on demand.

Folks working for wages in less-glamorous positions are doing valuable things for society, but fundamentally their pay is based on how easily society could replace them.
You can easily blow his claim out of the water by showing a video that is fully computer rendered but looks real.

Parts of the video you offered look very realistic, but the content breaks the sense of realism, e.g., vegetables shattering into tiny pieces, rocks tumbling upwards, etc.
I think about this problem a lot because the whole biomedical publishing industry is so backwards.

One of the reasons why scientists are currently dependent on the journal industry is because the journals control peer review. Unfortunately, instead of merely reviewing manuscripts for correctness, the journals link peer review to "impact," which is a prospective measure of importance (i.e. whether they are likely to get many citations). Every journal you submit your manuscript to will put it through a new round of peer review looking for both correctness and impact. Massive amounts of time are wasted by working scientists and journal editors attempting to prospectively "grade" manuscripts on how important they will be (along with checking the correctness of the manuscript). Upon rejection for either correctness or impact, authors resubmit their manuscript to a lower tier journal (+/- revision) and wait for the next round of reviews. Rinse/repeat. Eventually, assuming the paper is not awful, it will be published.

How could we do it differently?

One idea is to disentangle impact from correctness and eliminate the journals from peer review. Scientists already review each others manuscripts pro-bono, so here's a proposal: Scientists submit manuscripts to bioRxiv as "pre-prints" for a nominal fee (say $1000) and request peer review. An editor selects 3-4 potential reviewers and reviewers are paid a nominal fee (~$150) to perform the review. The money paid by authors covers the reviewer fees and editors salaries. After peer review, authors can decide whether they want to submit their articles for additional peer review and fancy publication in a journal.

Impact is thereafter judged only by how many citations a paper gets, not which glossy magazine it gets published in.
Most of those writes don't need to be serialized transactions. Other p2p data structures like CRDTs and torrents are sufficient for posting comments and uploading photos; see the decentralized social network Patchwork[1] (based on scuttlebutt[2]).

The blockchain itself will only be needed for certain types of transactions, for instance those around identity (e.g. name registration), and reputation/spam prevention (forum moderators).

1. https://github.com/ssbc/patchwork
2. https://github.com/dominictarr/scuttlebutt
This is exactly what I tried to describe to a non-engineer, and failed.
> Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.

Is it? It's not a necessary thing that we must be willing to bear to have freedom of speech in the United States (if you believe we have freedom of speech in the United States). We have libel and slander laws, and other exceptions. I don't see people shouting those down often. Do you believe those should not exist? If not, what makes the internet different?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
To play devils advocate, just let them all starve and the population will balance out naturally. At the moment a lot of population growth is fuelled artificially by aid shipments.

People rely on the aid and have babies, if the aid wasn't there they'd either not have babies that they couldn't provide for or die.

Probably the best thing to do is stop all involvement in those countries and let them find a natural equilibrium, but that can't happen because all the western countries want the rich resources in those places so they create this vicious cycle.
I'll echo the disagreement of some other posters: despite your good intentions, your post misses the point of the article entirely and focuses on one specific thing that's only tangentially relevant.

The point being made that the rentier class, usually applauded for their success, in many cases does not take the risks so widely ascribed to it, and creates wealth for select few beneficiaries simply by having more wealth.

Surely you will agree that in a given locale, the amount of land is a fixed amount. A single entity is able to extract more value from land simply by denying others use of it, which is of dubious value to the society at large. I won't go so far as to declare property = theft, but you can't help but wonder about the negative externalities of a few parties owning the vast majority of land and developments in a given area.

Without ill intentions, people are forced to pay rent, allowing the rentier class to accumulate more and more wealth by simply doing nothing. This is in contrast to innovative companies that provide real value to customers and create wealth for all involved (e.g. a farmer buying a piece of machinery to produce more food)

The article is mainly about a subset of capitalism where money is produced for the owner class without the tangible value exchange for the people from whom that money is extracted, and about how surprisingly well it scales.
In one sentence you say 'most' and in the next you state 10%.

So by even your own figures 90% of people aren't using it for the use-case you seem to have an issue with.
Do you have a source for that 8x figure? I have heard the term tossed about in the context of engineering, but agriculture is a surprise!

When I picked blueberries as a summer job there certainly wasn't an 8x difference between workers. Perhaps between us and the you-pick people?
VCs ordered by percentage of female founders in their portfolio
Modified human crania provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult
They do, and candle and lamp-caused fires kill tens of thousands of people every year.
> Why do people find this idea so threatening?

Because a lot of people want to believe they "earned" what they have and they weren't extremely lucky.
The AppleTV part of the app is native tvOS.

It's using SSE as well... there are a few ways to do it, here's an example https://github.com/neilco/EventSource/ I'm doing something quite similar in swift, had I known about this, I probably would have just dropped it in!

Every player uses their own phone and that part is just straight JavaScript.
How would that work in the case where the employers have the majority of the bargaining power? What motivation is there to keep pushing up the wage? It would seem to work if the employer is choosing only one potential candidate, but in reality employers have an almost constant supply of people who are able and willing to work for almost whatever the employer is asking for. Almost never will two employers go head to head to bid over a candidate.

This is precisely why labour unions exist, because the employer owns the means of production and the employee does not.
To confirm that it's not only a joke, you can try the examples online in PasteRack http://pasterack.org/pastes/72418
This is amazing (or at least seems to be).

Yesterday I installed a tool called piknik to help me move things (basically copy-pastes) between my home computer and my VPS, but it is so complex to use, not to mention the bizarre setup, having to keep a server running and so on.

This one looks clearer, easier to type and it comes with a server already!
I've had the past two generations of this computer and I am very happy. I have been using Linux for the past 20 years and am more than happy to buy a computer that has the goal of a working Linux install out of the box.
Or especially Semantic Designs' tool that gets a ton of mileage out of GLR:

http://semanticdesigns.com/Products/DMS/DMSToolkit.html
>>But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater,

Please stop with that

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

>or threaten the president,

Actually you can, the Secret Service will investigate to determine if it a "True Threat" but the number of people actually prosecuted for threatening the president is exceeding low, don't confuse the Secret Service Investigation with a suppression of speech.

>Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.

Speech that is popular and not offensive does not need protection int eh first place
> First, this guy went out of his way to lie and insert extra bugs in his code to make it appear like manual labor. Second, this guy is doing it all the time

I don't see the difference. I've known people who intentionally work slowly or pretend to do manual labor when they've already got a process for automating it. They'll just goof around for a while and then run the automation.

Whether you're introducing bugs to fix yourself or pretending to work - the effect is the same.

Not as extreme in terms of time as this guy (more like doing a process that took 4 hours in 2 and pretending it took 4 hours).

Initially I felt it was unprofessional. I kind of still do. However, I also knew the management, and the behavior was consistent with the types of rewards management provided: The reward for this kind of increase in productivity was never financial, and was always "OK, now you can do even more work". One person's boost in productivity would raise the bar for the whole team - everyone felt punished. So as time went on, people would come up with process improvements and ensure the management did not know about them.

Why do I still feel it is unprofessional? Behaving like this is not why I became an engineer, where solving problems makes you regret you solve them. So I thought about it hard, and realized I should find a job that encourages and rewards improving productivity, and not uses it as an excuse to give more work.
No it is not.

You are allowed to pay by the peice, but you must pay at least minimum wage, you must pay sick leave, you must pay health insurance, you cannot fire for unjust cause (at least in Europe). That marks the definitive end to piece work as we knew it in Adam Smith's time when a stranger could show up at the factory door and be paid by the piece for one day or one afternoon, something which really was even common in the era before the "Fair Labor Standards Act" was passed [1]. To quote from your linked article on the Act "All individually covered homework is subject to the FLSA's minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements. Employers must provide workers with handbooks to record time, expenses, and pay information."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage
San Francisco's Civil War Over Affordable Housing
I think its an allegory. The cycle of seasons, of leaves hiding their brilliance within an overbearing green, finally revealed at the end but clinging on to life by a small thread, to be blown away to become worm-food, and the life force from which the next generation is born.
Totally! I appreciate the brainstorming.
Only if the contract says so. Since it wasn't a development job, there's a chance that clause isn't there.
In case the linked article is behind a paywall for some, there's a shorter write up in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/28/turkish-site...
Why is it bad for the employer to get 8x as much out of some workers?
That's a pretty harsh way to respond to someone expressing another diverse perspective. Different cultures have different concepts of propriety and politeness. One person's "tone deaf" is another's "respectfully forward". We can't ask for diversity while demanding people adopt our particular cultural norms.
I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.

There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.

I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.

Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction.

Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
> I mean, we wouldn't be having the same discussion here if the company had instead hired someone (perhaps even the OP) on contract specifically to automate the job, and that was it.

A small fallacy to this idea: An automation contractor would have been paid differently (i.e. more, maybe even dramatically more) for the job, so it's not directly equivalent. The rates for semi-skilled data input labor vs creating a tool that will yield ongoing, long-term value are completely different, which is the real source of conflict here.
You don't sell them that code. You sign an agreement and write new code.
I will try it for a day, but it looks like this is the end of me using google news, a site that I have visited daily for the last 8 years. I was still clinging to 2-column view despite their efforts to change it.

* Too little information on the page

* WAY too much blank space on desktop

* It seems optimized for the brand new user experience, rather being than a powerful tool. Stop getting rid of options

* Fact check section is useless - it should be in-line related to the story if you're going to have it.

* "More about" seems like a less useful google search. Where's the value here? Picking "NASDAQ:SPLS" doesn't even show the stock price, while if I enter it into google I get links to company stats and the stock price

Imagine if the NYTimes did a design like this - they would be out of business.

So incredibly frustrating.
> I couldn't disagree more. As a society (and this goes from a community to a global scale) we should make it a priority to give everyone the resources to meet their maximum potential. I don't mean that we should give everyone a million dollars to invest of their own. What I mean is that we should ensure that everyone gets provided with a good education and food/water/shelter, etc.

Although I totally agree with this, individuality also plays a big role in development. The unfairness for someone is the good luck of another one thanks to his parents or grandparents. All conditions been equal, individuality will always makes society unequal. I think we should at least guarantee a worthy life to everyone.

But then what you do with someone that can't make a living but don't want to get educated? If you give him enough to live, he will still be a second class citizen.
The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.
Here is the source code for anyone interested in creating something similar: https://github.com/sacert/Meow
I'm getting worried. I've been harping on the Maersk downtime lately. The ports of the largest shipping company in the world have been shut down for two days by a cyber attack. Trucks can't unload or load at many of the world's ports, including the main container ports of LA, NYC, and Rotterdam. They're going to be down tomorrow, too. Maybe partial operation by Friday.[1] Maersk even lost phone and email systems. One of the few good sources of info has been somebody at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who sends out alerts to truckers.

It's a distributed outage. The usual forms of disaster preparation involve geographic dispersal. That doesn't work against this threat. Few companies are as physically dispersed as Maersk, which has major facilities in 61 countries. It didn't help.

What happens when someone figures out how to take over Windows Update or the Intel Management Engine or Ubuntu Update?

[1] http://btt.paalerts.com/recentmessages.aspx
Social class is inseparable from quality of life.

80% of the hierarchy of needs is immaterial, so at best your argument is weak. In many cases people will actually sacrifice physiological needs to fulfill the spiritual, intellectual and social ones (flipping the need pyramid)
> you'd find a whole lot more waste with restaurant cooking for example

Why would you say this? When I worked in restaurants, I remember very little waste (other than actual food waste and spoilage, of which there was tons.)
If I remember correctly DogeTipBot shut down after stealing a bunch of funds from its users, removing a significant use for DogeCoin.
I just noticed this paragraph on the lightning network homepage. How far does this go toward what you're discussing here?

https://lightning.network/

"Cross Blockchains. Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules. So long as the chains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to make transactions across blockchains without trust in 3rd party custodians."
If millions of people each like Oprah enough to give her a dollar, she makes millions.

(pardon the napkin math) If you live in a town of, say, 25k people and your town has 10 garbage collectors (napkin math: each pair covers 1000 people's trash every weekday) each earning minimum wage 15k/year (if it takes 1min to pick up trash for an average household of 2, we get just over the standard 2k work-hour year. To me this sounds like fast operation and low house size. But the low end of the trash costs demonstrates the point), then each person in town is paying $6 to their garbage collectors. Even more considering benefits and non-labor costs. If healthcare, garbage truck maintenance and, I dunno, landfill fees (are those a thing?) cost the city a mere 100k/year, every person is paying $10 for garbage collection.

So in the napkin scenario, for each individual, garbage collectors are valued at 10x what Oprah is. And that's with all my napkin math assumptions choosing the lowest costs. Plausible scenarios could go as high as 100x individual value for garbage collection over Oprah mic talking. But Oprah can do her less-individually-important job for 1000x more people. It's an issue of reach.
I'm selling jackulusrift.com if anyone is interested.
Governments alone won't. Nor will markets alone.
Because they are strongly tied; we are social animals. Are you saying for millions of years, our ancestors on average had lower quality of life than the developed world's poor?

It turns out electricity, air con, motor vehicles, and the internet are not the source of happiness, as much as advertising would like us to think otherwise. I bet your average homeless person in America would happily trade for a life in time past if it meant family, community, offspring, and the like. So much of our work today is meaningless, the same can't be said for our evolutionary history as apex predators.

Along many facets, yes, life is much better. But let's not pretend that we haven't regressed in many ways, for much of the population on Earth.
The fact that minumum wage/sick leave ect must be paid is relevant to this specific example, because it is very much unclear how these rules would be applied to the person working 2 hours a week on a job they have automated away. Is that a full time worker who should get mandatory health insurance or a part time worker? Does that status change over time as the automation improves?
> How do you find marijuana affects your coding ability?

I feel really easy to get into the "zone" (or how you call it) programming high. And I usually find clever solutions to problems I'm stuck too. Also, if I'm totally not in the mood of programming but I have too, a joint sure helps a lot.
Moreover, Homer > Bart > Marge > Lisa > Maggie.
The Census counts prisoners according to the "usual residence rule," assigning them to their prison for purpose of location and, of course, redistricting.
A prison is a good way to get a lot of bodies to populate a district and ensure they won't vote.
But in Case B, wouldn't they have to pay the corporate income tax on that $100,000 before they buy the next property (39.1% in 2017)? I thought each property is a capital expense which gets depreciated over time. So you can't buy a second property with your profits and deduct it as an expense in the current year. Am I missing something?
Basically it is that same old USerVoice widget for your site, except it's not UserVoice?

I liked it, but I also think it is too expensive AND you're hijacking my scroll bar.
A tragedy that has doubled in value in six months.
Japanese airline forces disabled man to crawl aboard