skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Perhaps. Another way of looking at it is that they have an intuitive and successful connection with the mechanics of gambling.

Cryptocurrencies and ICO's as they stand today conceptually have a lot more in common with the old urban numbers rackets[0] than they do with the concept of currency.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game
HBO produced a documentary [0] on that case a few years ago. I would recommend not watching it, only because they show the hospital photos of Stella Liebeck (the plaintiff in the case), and they are absolutely horrible.

[0] http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html
How does Mozilla earn $?
Even if it's not perfectly decentralized, the fact that users can fork and create their own cryptocurrency acts as a fail safe. Miners with > 51% mining power would only be destroying their own long term profitability if they destroy the network.
Software gets maintained (somewhat) by those who make a career out of it. Build something in your PhD, get a postdoc where you can add some more of your own things to it, and get funding for follow on work in which you get your own PhD's to work on it. That's the only model I've seen work, but it's usually very implicit, because when you get to the tenure track stage (or even beyond), you have an incentive to make it look like you're not yet again re-using that thing you were doing 10 years ago. So it's not called 'maintenance' or even 'upgrading' - you call it something else that sounds new, yet has enough links to the old thing to give you validation because people have heard of it, and in this way drag this mutant bastard code through 5 or 10 iterations over 25 years until your career is 'done' and you can finish off the last years in standby mode.

This sounds negative but I don't mean it that way; it's just how it is, no judgement meant. But it's not something you really hear anyone teaching new PhD students as an option, and even if they would, it's highly uncertain and success depends on many factors out of your control. So I wouldn't call it a career path, or even viable career advice.
Why are they not letting people decide? If it is not harming anyone's privacy, and they make it clear that it isn't, then what is the problem with letting people opt-in to it?

Instead, it's telling that they are choosing to force people to opt-out. They know that their users don't want this, but don't care.
What I liked most about this one: getting so absorbed in code that you forget to eat or sleep spans generations of computer scientists.
Go's spec is much smaller than most mainstream languages. Seriously, it's a weekend read to understand the entire language specification (and it's actually readable)
I live in Denmark where we have had phonebased money transfers for years now (since around 2013 I believe). I've used splitwise for tracking purchases at a festival where whoever had money on them would buy beer or food and we would just track it in a group budget.

Since you didn't have cash transactions when adding you don't need too much security so there's lower friction. Further you reduce the amounts of transactions going on, while still retaining decently detailed logs. It also gave the option of solving things with cash when splitting with people from abroad who may not have the same access to easy money transfer.

Just to add some perspective.

I'll check out pocketsmith - it does sound kind of cool and I'm looking at the possibility of merging my finances with my partner soon-ish.
Real title was, 'Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart'.

Despite some of the recent coverage, this chart indicates that gains are not going to the top 20%: they are going to top 1%, and particularly <1%.

To be clear, this is not many programmers:
"In 1980, the top 1% of adult earners in the U.S. made $420,000 a year, on average (before taxes and measured in 2014 dollars) — 27 times as much as the average for the bottom 50% of earners. Today the top 1% of earners make an average of $1.3 million a year — 81 times as much as the average for workers in the bottom half."

HBR also found that gains are increasingly going to the top firms: there is a global set of winners and losers. Inequality is growing everywhere, in all fields. https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/03/corporations-in-the-age-...
Just look at how the EU consumer protection directives are working over here. You're simply not allowed to waive your guaranteed rights as a customer in some sort of EULA or TOS. And if you are forced to, the whole contract is void in it's entirety and you're free to walk away from it.
It's an interesting question. Most of peoples incomes are rising, it's just whose incomes are rising more than others. Is that still fair?
Correction: American Arbitration Act (aka AAA).
I think the interesting issue here is the legitimate reason for location access to be granted. They say it will allow you to get local severe weather alerts, so a decent number of folks may be interested in that and allow access, unaware AW is sending the GPS information to RevealMobile.
This is great. A principled well-considered approach to collecting useful information in a way that respects people's privacy. Go Mozilla!
Why Artificial Intelligence Needs Neuroscience for Inspiration – The New Stack
It's a year. From the "Questions" article:

> (...) and I have some questions for the Common Lisp experts out there in 2017.
It is none of their business, but they desperately want a piece of the pie so they brand their phones (and probably sell them at a small discount - this is the value proposition here). Branding also results in shifting responsibilities from OEM manufacturer to carrier with regard to testing and stuff.

Also, plenty ISPs actually do sell branded wireless routers with branded firmware, so it's not uncommon practice in other neighboring industries.
Are there any privacy guards that can be applied to number plates that are effective in protecting you from being tracked?

I’m immediately reminded of Jon Ronson’s article ‘Who killed Richard Cullen?’[1] where companies such as Experian sell relational geo-data on people to whatever companies want to use that data to target and potentially manipulate people.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2005/jul/16/creditcards.de...
A great addition to this would be radar to track vehicle speeds. In my neighborhood we have an issue with jerks doing 50mph down our street(speed limit is 25mph) to bypass a traffic light on an adjacent street. Kids are often out and we've had a few near misses. Most of the offenders live nearby and I'd love a way to shame them into slowing down. The city is unable and unwilling to do any enforcement or install traffic calming on our street so we don't have any other options except moving.
I'm not shutting my mind off to it, my point was that it's not proven at as large of scale yet.
Yup and I had a go at that but it got weird with the javascript state appearing to be the same on both profiles. Might look at it again.
How your digital self could 'live' on after you die
Couldn't patent trolling also fall into this category (the category of legal "shakedowns")? If so, there are some stats on that.

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...
A great book on income inequality for those interested is Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland.
There is a difference between what VC's claim they look for, and what they actually look for. What they actually look for is momentum and all these conditions are 'bent' when that weird FOMO feeling takes over.

Anyone who thinks that all this data is pertinent to make the investment decision will most likely never say yes to any startup.
> Dart 1.0 has optional typing, but Dart 2.0 will be statically typed (with type inference though).

Not quite; it's more that compile time typing is getting cleaned up. You can still omit types, which will then either be inferred or set to `dynamic`. The following is valid strong mode Dart:

f(n) {
if (n <= 1)
return 1;
else
return n * f(n - 1);
}

The following will no longer work:

int x = "foo";

In short, you can still omit types. It's just that if you declare them, they are enforced [1]. Dart will also infer them if possible, i.e. the following is illegal:

var x = 1;
x = "foo";

Here, x is inferred to be `int`, which makes the assignment of a string illegal. However, the following works:

var x = true ? 0 : [];
x = "foo";

Here, the type of `x` cannot be inferred, so it becomes `dynamic`, and therefore the assignment of "foo" becomes valid.

You can turn this off with --no-implicit-dynamic; with this option, all types must either be declared or have to be inferable.

[1] Sometimes not at compile time, though: Dart allows implicit downcasts and covariant generics at compile time and will insert runtime checks to catch those situations.
Episode #126 Kubernetes for Pythonistas – [Talk Python to Me Podcast]
Rat running is from narrow UK streets, largely residential, being used as through roads rather than access to homes.

The use of traffic aware GPS also encourages more traffic down these roads.

You might think it as efficient but it changes the levels of safety for pedestrians which are usually parents & children at the time of day this is more prevalent.
There are also laws that mean you can't put whatever in a ToS and have it be a binding contract. If any clause is considered surprising it's void.

It mostly fixes the whole "read this and click continue" insanity because it makes any clause that isn't law anyway unviable.
Within the new European GDPR framework, IP addresses are to be considered as personally identifiable information, so the concern is warranted. What's decisive when characterizing an information as identifiable or not is not the fact of being actually able to perform the de-anonymization of the information (e.g. via the ISP in case of an IP address), but the mere possibility of it.

Legally though Firefox would be allowed to collect this anonymous data from the user by having him/her send the data e.g. to an API endpoint they provide via IP-based communication, they would just not be allowed to associate the data with the IP address of the user submitting the data. In the end, it comes down to trusting the party that collects the data, at least if they don't perform anonymization of the IP address via other means, e.g. by passing the information through a third party proxy server.

BTW, GDPR does forbid to turn on such data collection by default (privacy by default), so they would be required to get the explicit opt-in from the user for that.
Hundreds handed over their Tinder to a chatbot to get young people to vote
Answer (if you want USA investors): https://coinlist.co/

Answer (if you don't need USA investors): http://cryptovalley.swiss/
exactly. I don't get why the need to take away choice of privacy from the user, in hunt of better performance.

I'll gladly send an error report or something similar you mentioned, but please give me right to choose. it might seem a small difference to you, but it means the world to me.
Yes especially when and how long people are parked for, couple that with face and/or financial tracking and you can target marketing to people or locations.
Oh sure if I re-read it about 829 more times while CNN plays in the background, I might care about that. Hypnotizing!

Libertarians aren't angels (except perhaps in a relative sense, when considering any POTUS other than Carter elected in my lifetime), but they never get 3% of the vote, for one office. Yet they're some sort of crazy powerful bogeyman that every progressive of correct thought must constantly fear and agitate against on threads that originally had nothing to do with that. Besides didn't you get the memo? Instead of caring about Libertarians, now you're supposed to care about a much smaller and stupider group of statue enthusiasts! They're going to destroy the nation with their passion for old statues! In the meantime please ignore the wars and brutality that the two wings of the mainstream party keep doing...
Richard Florida is Sorry
btw, is there a mindset about centralization efficiency (as in large scale manufacturing) vs small scall distributed ?

If everybody bred these as they see fit, the scale issues might not appear. But I'm surely missing something.
Individuals haven't owned much in a very long time; we've been physical serfs living on someone else's land for even longer.

You only "own" something so long as you pay taxes (aka rents) for the right to do so, otherwise someone, usually the government, will take it from you. Even if you don't want to play along, you can only be somewhere public for so long until you're loitering and subject to fines (more rents), confiscation (again, more rents), or removal.

The whole system is pretty blatantly anti-competitive [1], detrimental to individuals [2][3], and rotting the system from the inside out [4][5].

1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rent-seeking-is-too...

2. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-22/us-economy-perverte...

3. https://hackernoon.com/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-the-subsc...

4. https://devinhelton.com/2013/04/14/rent-seeking-economy/

5. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-13/banks-and...
I expected to find a comment like this. It's easy to dismiss something and make a cutting remark, rushing to assume that the obvious solution has been missed. I'm glad the OP has posted with the reasons, to make you look at least a little foolish.
I'm a huge fan of Apple products in general - and firmly believe their laptops are the best on the market.

But there's incredibly little ground to call any of their current laptop lineup upgradable or repairable. I'm not sure there's a single upgradeable component left on any laptop they currently offer. The Macbook and the Macbook Pro have both moved to soldered CPU, RAM, and flash memory. The Macbook Air I believe still has a replaceable SSD but it has the proprietary connectory. To further complicate things - the batteries in the Macbook and Macbook Pro are both heavily glued in, so even that's difficult to replace.
His tweets are actually considered violence by some. But to answer your question, he has never doxxed anyone.
Just want to add a little volume to the general opinion here that collecting user data, no matter how anonymous, is a terrible idea for a product whose only appealing quality is that it respects its users privacy.

Data is both highly alluring and addictive as evinced here by Mozilla potentially willing to shoot itself in the foot to get some. What's to keep this from becoming a frog in a boiling water kind of situation? How can I trust that Mozilla is going to adhere to their own stated standards? The easiest answer is that I won't have to because I can just use something else. Personally, the only reason I use Firefox is because it's slightly less convenient to set up a secruity-patched version of Chromium.

Other people in this thread have made the excellent points of the fact that not enough people opting in to data collection is in itself a critical piece of data. Moreover, things such as "Which top sites are users visiting?" can be answered by looking at data from page ranking services and then they can go to those sites on their own testing equipment to answer their other questions. A little investment in acquiring this data by not spying and maybe getting a wider array of testing equipment is probably less costly than the potential for loss in market share that they're already struggling to hold.
Contracts in the US are allowed to include clauses forbidding class-action suits and mandating binding arbitration in their place.
If it's so harmless, let users opt-in. Adding data collection via an opt-out is shameful, it shows that you know people would not want this and yet you'd prefer to get more data anyway.
Show HN: Pandas in JS
try playing music that is stored on your phone the sonos... it keeps cutting the effing song off short and starting the next song too early.

a bug that's been around forever and they plain refuse to fix it.
That's very interesting. I've looked at Google's lack of human support as a bug in the past, but when Google is used to protect currency that could be a feature.
Yeah, you're right. Thanks for the correction. It's eTLD+1, I just erroneously used images.google.com as an example.
But still there are seemingly a few people that threat dollars as peanuts.

The data on the page on Etherscan:

https://etherscan.io/address/0x29d7d1dd5b6f9c864d9db560d72a2...

does provide some insight at a quick analysis.

The total sent is (at the 494,170.68/1492=331.214 rate) almost exactly 500,000 US$ (499,821.59) of which, in four operation of 373 Eth each 1492 Eth were withdrawn 494,170.68.

Of the 212 total operation 4 are withdrawals, 3 are 0, that makes 205 "IN" operations.

The distribution of the amounts of the single operations/deposits is interesting, I quickly put together a few "classes":

a. >30,000 2 Total 66,243 US$

b. 20-30,000 3 Total 70,840 US$

c. 10-20,000 6 Total 82,803 US$

d. 5-10,000 14 Total 102,576 US$

e. 2.5-5,000 23 Total 80,125 US$

f. 1-2,500 33 Total 54,225 US$

g. 0-1,000 124 Total 43,010 US$

If the "targeted audience" was around 9,000, roughly 200 or 2.2% fell for the phishing.

A handful of people (classes a., b., c., 11 in total, i.e. coincidentally roughly the 0.1%) contributed for almost half the amount 66,243+70,840+82,803=219,886 219,886/500,000=43,98%.
"Most Americans would look at these charts and conclude that inequality is out of control. The president, on the other hand, seems to think that inequality isn’t big enough."

Would nobody else reading this want some further information to back up this statement? Its a shame it wasn't nearer the beginning of the article as I could have stopped reading earlier.
If everyone gets 2x as much tomorrow as today, income inequality rises.

Ask people if they would support everyone getting 2x their income tomorrow.
Why wouldn't it be harassment bullying a public figure?
> However, rest assured that it does not take long for the person who is complaining of unwanted or unwelcome statements to see that, historically at least, they are viewed as the problem.

The amount of actual time that "long" takes can vary wildly, and assumes that businesses are generally competent at identifying and eliminating "threats." "Long" can sometimes be years of the behavior. Many businesses, even successful ones, are not fully aware of what goes on inside the company.

Even with those issues aside, none of these things you mention will stop you from being the first victim of someone who manipulatively uses complaints about objectionable comments to screw you over. Most places need a pattern of behavior established before they're willing to assign blame to the complaintant, especially if the complaintant is difficult to fire for other reasons (e.g. is a member of a legally protected class or is connected to someone up the corporate food chain).

And yes, I know you're talking about comments and other things that are subjective like that. Those are the ones most likely to be abused, because they can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Even opt-in is a problem. There's no way to be 100% sure the checkbox in the UI is and always will be respected. It maybe something as innocent as logic woopsie or something as nefarious as intentionally and quietly changing it to opt-out during an update. A better option, keep the data sharing code out of Firefox; opt-in to log locally; if they user decides they want to share something with Mozilla, give them instructions on how to email or upload the files.
I really don't see how you can think this is pompous or terse after reading math textbooks.
Right, because the State is the entity with a Monopoly on Violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
If they do this, I will uninstall Firefox and start recommending some other browser. Mozilla has really sunk in my eyes the last couple of years but this is the final spike in the coffin for me.
A Primer on Blockchains, Protocols, and Token Sales
The way I interpret this, if you don't collect, process or use the IP address beyond it being incidentally involved in the transmission of anonymized data, it shouldn't require explicit consent.

Otherwise literally everything that connects to the internet in some way would have to treated in that way, and that's not how the law is currently enforced.
Journey into a Time Warp: Chernobyl
It is a factor in openness, the Browser Extension API as being developed by FF, MS, and W3c is very very limiting far more limiting than the old XUL based model

It can be a factor in security both positive and negative as XUL was very powerful and could be abused, but it also was used by some projects to enhance the security of FF or provide other security related functionality that is now no longer possible unless FF allows or builds it into the browser directly. Same for Privacy.
If you ever read Umberto Eco's novel "Foucault's Pendulum" this is a key plot point. Specifically some shadowy "conspiracy" group was set to meet, but the meeting never happened because some countries had revised their calendar and some hadn't so they missed each other. Its a great novel about secret societies, conspiracy theories, and peoples willingness to believe them.
Because the risk of paying litigation expense is in the four, five or six figures.

Chasing a return with a potential risk of loss several orders of magnitude higher is insane.
Interesting, because Googles "AI" deleted war crime evidence from Youtube recently out of "good intentions".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429

This isn't AI, it's just a stupid search engine.
Show HN: Smarter computed properties for Laravel Eloquent
As I said in another comment, does that matter? Homeworld is from 1999. How many people who worked at Relic in 1999 are going to be working on AoE4? My guess is zero.
Probably because bots ended up beating random events and they just use other, better tech now
I see your point regarding pure cycle counting, but as I posed the puzzle it's still open :)
Economists don't generally buy the buy idea that you can make some people better off without making others worse off.

In short, if all the gains happen for one group, even if the other group isn't directly losing money, their purchasing power will be eroded by the rich. And I'll add that this sort of thing keeps stacking up, because as the rich continue to be able to buy up things like land at a higher rate than the poor, the rich are then able to extract even more money from the poor through rents.
The courts do, or buisinesses who lobbied congress for the mechanism do? Speculation, I don't actually know how this sausage got made, but I imagine it had a lot of grease from big companies.
There is no correlation between WH claims and facts.
These days Runescape (RS3 anyway) is an installed app rather than a browser plugin.
CrashPlan is exiting the consumer market
Yes, this is how inflation is leveraged by those at the top to dilute the bottom 98%.

People think in terms of dollars instead of purchasing power, the fed need only boil the water slow enough for people to remain compliant.
Why not create an AI bank instead so you never suffer the $30 loss anyway?

And we could say turn to the blockchain and smart contracts which market themselves as replacements for both real money and real lawyers, but we saw what happens when real techies write the smart contracts (case in point $150M DAO scam and then a fork of the blockchain itself), so we are definitely going to need to replaces software makers and coders with AI too.
The ritual isn't really complete until someone has complained about the people complaining about people asking simple questions and someone else has posted the ESR document about how to ask smart questions, a document so astonishingly, vastly patronising that it probably ought to be compulsory reading for every developer starting out, with the addendum, "If you've made it all the way through this soul-crushing drivel, congratulations! It can't get worse than this!"
@raphlinus: well, if you can get it better than one iteration per cycle, I would love to see how (truly)