skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love the Netlify-CMS approach, but is still too opaque to me. I wanted to get a better understanding of what was going on in the repo, so I wrote https://github.com/fiatjaf/coisas
If it can be demonstrated that your'e intentionally and knowingly deceiving someone in order to separate them from their money, it's fraud.
How Highways Squeezed Taxable Land Out of Cities
Perhaps, as a society, we don't need everyone "working" (as in participating in work-for-wages, as opposed to other forms of ad-hoc and uncompensated work). In fact, the idea that we do is very new - it's only really in the last 60 years or so that women, a good 50% of the working-age population, have entered the workforce.

Instead of using involuntary sexism as a basis for shrinking the working population, perhaps building a system in which working several hours 5-7 days a week for a wage is more voluntary would be a good thing and allow the rebuilding of communities and society.
Generally monopolies are illegal in the US.

But public utilities have always been an exception. The theory is that it's so expensive to run residential infrastructure like wires (electricity, tip-ring phone, cable) or pipes (gas, water, sewer) that a single company gets to do it and charge for it. In return they

a) must build their facilities to serve the entire community. No cherrypicking dense or wealthy neighborhoods to jack up return on investment.
b) must, in the case of cable TV, offer public access.
c) must submit to public utilities commission regulation

This theory helped push through widespread rural electrification, which was a major progressive victory in the first third of the 20th century.

Is internet-over-Cable-TV infrastructure regulated like Cable TV is regulated? After all it is a repurposing of the regulated infrastructure. In many jurisdictions that's a gray area. Lobbyists and change-averse businessmen LOVE gray areas. They can use them to make legislators' heads hurt, and then say, "pass this law and your heads will stop hurting." It's a tried and true lobbying tactic.

Making the case that a public-utility monopoly should be abolished means convincing everybody involved that the infrastructure cost isn't a driver any more. For broadband it generally isn't: the electric utilities usually own the poles and are happy to have another tenant utility.

The problem is convincing people. You gotta make the case. Good luck Fort Collins.
As trevyn says, you need to make sure you get enough sodium. Ketogenic diet accelerates excretion of sodium ("natriuresis of fasting"). Look up Steve Phinney's videos or books if you want more info -- he recommends drinking a few full-sodium stock cubes every day. Another common issue during adaption seems to be not eating enough fat.
No, but monopoly abuses are. Wikipedia's description of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

There's much more to it and the matter is, as you might suppose, complicated.
Thank you for sharing this. I hadn't heard of Kernel, and it seems to be highly relevant to a line of inquiry that I've been pondering for some time (you could say light research) in the area of language design. There seem to be a lot of interesting topics in the related dissertation [1]. Thanks again!

[1] https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-090110-124904/unr...
In risk adjusted terms bailouts lose money by having easier terms than private investments.

Further, bailout money came from loans (bonds), and the government lost money both from the loan payment and the higher interest rate from selling more bonds.

People in prison do no work yet society has plenty of surplus to cover them. The reality is minimum wage jobs are a tiny slice of the economy because they create so little value. If BI means 1/2 of those jobs don't get done then no great loss.
> You shouldn't blame economics for this. Nor should you blame states, banks, the rich, or anyone. The only things to be blamed for it is thermodynamics. Of course the universe couldn't exist stably without those laws, so maybe math itself should bear the guilt.

Could you elaborate on how you believe thermodynamics is to blame? I don't quite follow your argument.
Yup, those are engineering trade-offs. Making your life a little easier by causing users a disproportionate amount of resource waste, frustration and security issues is just shitty engineering. Even though the business types may like it, because externalities are good for profit.
If anyone wonders, "pas a pas" means "step by step" in Catalan.
> As a user it infuriates me when I fill out a long form, hit submit and find out I forgot to select the proper “Mr. Mrs. Ms” title and my password, credit card number and PIN have all be blown away.

I'm quite sure this is a sign of poor development, regardless of the form being validated on the server or the client. There is no reason for the server not to send back a fully pre-populated form.
~ $ abbr | grep git | sort
abbr af 'git kit autofixup'
abbr amend 'git commit --amend'
abbr fixup 'git commit --fixup'
abbr gb 'git branch'
abbr gcan 'git commit --amend --no-edit'
abbr gcm 'git commit -m'
abbr gco 'git checkout'
abbr gcop 'git checkout -p'
abbr gfa 'git fetch --all -p'
abbr gkdm 'git kit del_merged'
abbr gl 'git log --oneline --color --decorate -n20 --graph'
abbr gp 'git pull --ff-only --all -p'
abbr gph 'git push -u origin HEAD'
abbr gre 'git rebase'
abbr grec 'git rebase --continue'
abbr grem 'git rebase -i master'
abbr greom 'git rebase -i origin/master'
abbr greum 'git rebase -i upstream/master'
abbr gs 'git status'
abbr gxa 'gitx --all'
abbr namend 'git commit --amend --no-edit'
I think UBI needs to be thoughtfully and strategically phased so as not to disrupt the status quo derogatorily. An overnight switch to UBI seems politically unfeasible because of typical quixotism of so many people. It's an experiment on a grand scale which always unnerves markets.
Fingerprint Game for iPhone – Now Absolutely Free
> you have to learn man-years worth of category theory

No you don't. Most of the most prolific Haskell programmers (Don Stewart, Neil Mitchell, Lennart Augustsson, probably SPJ himself) would tell you they don't know any category theory.
Learning Tree Data Structure with Python
I think maybe the relevant bit - kind of a job to find in 16 pages:

>. Another plan is to distribute very large
numbers of very simple central processors all over the memory. Each one deals with
just a small part of the memory and there is an elaborate system of interconnections
between them. An example of such a machine is the Connection Machine made at
M.I.T. It has 64,000 processors and a system of routing in which every 16 can talk
to any other 16 and thus 4000 routing connection possibilities.
The author also has a series of different ideas on how to pay for it without raising income taxes. I found that more interesting than this, but I already fully support and believe in the capacity for amazing stuff from people who are set free

https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare-and...
If they were really carefully crafted, then they likely can be carefully repackaged into a solution that could be included in those 10 different places with zero - or close to zero - runtime overhead on the code sharing mechanism.

But it takes actual thinking - and care - to do that. Something that seems to be in short supply with the current web trends.
First Women, Peace and Security Index
Does anyone know what are the pros and cons between this and “online learning” ?
Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose – Quantum Black Holes (Oxford, Oct 27, 2017)
Maybe that's why they have only killed a number of them
>I do not know any fellow users who "want javascript". [...] They have no particular affection for javascript, let alone any knowledge of why they need it.

Framing it as end users "do/don't want javascript" isn't helpful for analyzing the advantages/disadvantages of javascript. Obviously, end users don't think of it that way.

We could also say that we don't know any users who "want polycarbonate on their face". That's true, but they do want clear 20/20 vision and we just happen to use polycarbonate as the material that combines the attributes of light weight and inexpensive manufacturing compared to glass.

Nobody wants to "ingest fungus poop" either. Except they do because that's what beer is.

Users also don't want a "30 minute barrage of explosions 5 feet from their body", but they do indirectly want that because they would rather drive a car to the store instead of walk. (Some might extract the wrong idea from that example and insist that we shouldn't be dependent on fossil fuels anyway. Well, people also don't want "volatile chemicals" either which is what lithium batteries are. They also don't want a steel tube shoved up their butt which is what bicycles are.)

(To get back closer to the tech world, end users also didn't ask for "HTML" or "want CSS" or "HTTP" either. They don't think in those terms.)

You're right that they don't want "javascript" per se. What they want is a "fluid experience" in the UI. We happen to use javascript to provide that fluidity.

>I know many who do not want a number of common annoyances though. And I know these hassles are in many cases enabled via javascript.

True. But it ignores the benefits to users that javascript enables. Things like airplanes also bring hassles such as noise but that ignores the fact that people wouldn't want to give up flying because planes also enable convenience.

Therefore, people do want javascript -- indirectly. They want autocomplete in amazon and netflix search fields. They want smooth map repositioning in Google Maps without page reloads. They want up/down voting buttons and expand/collapse outlines to work in stackoverflow, reddit, HN without jarring page reloads. Many pages in wikipedia also work better with javascript.

Yes, the abuses and misuses of javascript that hijacks scrolling or javascript that breaks apart a single page article across 20 screens with tracking and ads are annoyances we don't want. However, it shouldn't keep us from having a balanced discussion that includes how javascript improves the web experience for the average user. The uncompromising insistence on avoiding of client-side javascript in favor of server-side page regeneration&reload is hostile to the user. Many web users do not browse from desktops with fast fiber optic connections. They browse from mobile phones with ~500+ round-trip latency.[1]

Like most of you, I'm a "power user" so I should be a prime example of an uber geek who "doesn't need javascript". And yet, I use regex101.com every week that relies on javascript. It would be a total hassle if I had to press "submit" everytime I changed a character to experiment with regexes.

[1] https://serverfault.com/a/573815
A £200 EPIRB (10 yr battery life, waterproof, float) would be more sensible.

However, if you are a poor coastal fisherman with no intention of going far offshore... ?
"HEML is designed to take advantage of all that email can do while still providing a solid experience for all clients."

Except mutt, mu4e, notmuch, and friends. :(

Actually, I have my mine fillets set to pump html through w3e, so if you're lynx-friendly, then maybe it'd be passable? I usually just delete html email without reading it though.
> how using it is different from using a dynamically typed language

It's not different for that type. The point of using a statically typed language is you can give static types to other entities in your program!
Life, like free will, is just one of those words that mean less and less the closer you look. Whether they are alive or not doesn't matter.
I got lost in a swamp in the middle of my own small country (Estonia) for 2 days and I was only 10km from the closest place of people. Problem was, I kept going in circles, phone battery was dead, and I should've been smart enough to follow the sun to figure out how to go straight, but these days people of my age are lucky to remember that you can drink swamp water because seaweed is a really good filter thanks to watching Discovery Channel.
> Technically an image sensor is an analog device and the voltage increases with each photon detection by an increment that is subject to noise of all sorts and pre-amplification before hitting ADC. Don't jump me on the photon counter thing.

But it's rather important, and not even for those reasons. This is not meant to jump on you! (and I really loved your article, like you said it's not a crucial point at all)

The 1:1000000 or 1:2^20 contrast ratio only corresponds to exactly 20 bits if the 1 on the low end of this ratio corresponds to exactly one discrete unit of light (photon). If it's off by a factor of 0.5, 1.618 or whatever, that's what the whole argument is about.

First, the sensor counts not photons but a value relating to photons per second (because exposure time). If the 1 on the low end of the range corresponds to some exact minimum number of photons, it's going to be "one discrete unit of light per <exposure time>". Making the whole thing analog from the start.

Second, those sensors most probably aren't able to count individual photons any way[0]. The human eye, after about 30 minutes to get optimally adjusted to darkness, can sort of perceive individual photons, or small bunches of maybe 2 or 3, kind of. Those barely-perceptible specks of light in the utter darkness aren't the sort of resolution issues we're worrying about in the dark end of these types of scenes. And, as soon as you make a light source that can be described as "emitting single photons" in a certain context, you get uncertainty effects and all that quantum jazz (show me a photon/path tracer renderer that gets the slit experiment correct[1] and you can have your integer photon counters :) ).

So the sensor output values can (and should), for all intents and purposes, be assumed to be an analogue value.

The amount of bits you represent it with just puts an upper bound on your signal-to-noise ratio (as per Shannon entropy). But since we're dealing with 2D images, the distribution of this noise over the spatial resolution (either as a result of sensor noise at the input or explicit noise shaping dithering at the end of the pipeline) also comes into play when considering the quality of the output.

If the signal-to-noise ratio of a sensor output happens to allow for 20 bits of precision, for a sensor that happens to have a 1:2^20 brightness range, that's coincidental. Sure it correlates because higher-end sensors tend to perform better in both range and SNR. But I don't believe that the 1 on the very low end of a discrete range represents precisely one photon per <power-of-two times minimum exposure time>.

[0] correct me if I'm wrong about this btw. There might be specialized scientific equipment that can, but I doubt even high-end cameras bother to go to the accuracy of single photons. But, I mostly know about digital signal processing, not about state of the art of camera hardware. Yet even if they are able to detect individual photons, that's going to be a probabilistic and per-unit-of-time measurement, so the rest of my argument holds.

[1] these probably exist, but aren't used for games or photorealistic rendering purposes
well actually-actually :-),

(1 to: 10) do: [ :i | Transcript show: i ; cr].

also works in Pharo. Both are valid because:

"to:do:" is a message understood by the Number class

"to:" is a message also understood by the Number class that yields an Interval object, which understands the "do:" message.
Partly because feedback makes a lot of people feel worse. It's emotionally exhausting to phrase something in a tactful way.

Something as simple as "not good enough team" is very, very difficult to phrase properly. Maybe the team just doesn't feel smart enough. Maybe they have that one guy who they instinctively feel is a douche after meeting thousands like him, but can't explain why they feel that way. Maybe the team is smart but immature. Maybe they realize they could actually be wrong about the whole team and don't want to give false feedback.
> So then, why would I work hard to become rich

Why do you think that working hard will make you rich? For the vast majority of people, this isn't the case at all.

Let's not revere the rich. Most of them acquired their wealth through a mixture of luck, unethical behaviour, and corruption.
Your argument fails at the reality. For example in Germany there is social security since a very long time. Some people there get money without doing any work! Still, the country works, pretty good actually.

And that is because states don't work always in ways that are intuitive. If you always follow your intuition, you might end up writing what you did.
Can you explain this more?
Imagine when the inevitable economy kicks in, it would be cheaper to render retired/dead actors and continue their franchises instead of having new actors entering the showbusiness with risky reception. Today's GAN video here hints at that possibility not very far away. So in a way Jackie Chan can indeed keep kicking forever...
Happidrome – Part One by Adam Curtis (2014)
"First, saying basic income is socialism is as absurd as saying money is socialism. It’s money. It’s all it is. What do people do with money? They use it in markets. In other words, basic income is fuel for markets."

The brilliant flow of thoughts and deduction just blew my mind.
Do things like speed and drive dangerously? I'm sure they'll pass a higher level as well. Unless you'd implement a psychological test that'd reject too temperament people.
> the compiler (type-prover) can do its proof-thing

I've noticed a common pattern amongst Clojure programmers that statically typed languages require "proving stuff to the compiler".
I want to write a loooong point-by-point rebuttal but I'm just too lazy. Now if I were awarded a basic income maybe I'd take out a day and write it up! But here's a summary:

I am in the top 20% whose income is still going up and whose tax will be used to pay out the UBI. What's in it for me? Why should I care? I really don't. And all the politicians are also in the top 1% (POTUS is a fucking billionaire, former POTUS gets $400k for a speech). Even a poor man becomes rich when he is elected. Why would he care about the 80%. There is no rational world in which a UBI will work or be implemented as envisioned by the author.
Comparing it with laziness is not far away from saying poor people are lazy. Laziness has nothing to do with it.

More often than not, such claims are often connected with not seeing hidden privilege as a competitive advantage. Of all of my successful friends, only one come from a socioeconomic environment that isn't middle class or above.

The ability to climb on the socioeconomic ladder is much harder for those without means and connections - these means and connections are almost always directly correlated to your family.

As a personal anecdote, all of my kids friends have parents which are able to support them financially and are able to work 40-hour weeks. They are all academics and their kids get the benefit from having the language and mindset of academics from an early age.

At the same time, my cousin is a couple of steps down on the same ladder. Her kids friends parents are working part time, often several jobs, and still have a hard time making ends meet.

My kids are according to studies (on phone so won't be able to reference - an easy Google away) more likely to achieve economic success, go to college and have a better chance ending up one step up on the ladder. Her kids are more likely to end up in crime, less likely to go to college, more likely to stay in the same socioeconomic class.

I'm pretty sure my work gives me more slack and ability to be able to be lazy than the part time factory worker. "Free money" would probably create more equality and a better chance for all kids. Your statement is shortsighted.
to give you an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/british-climbe...

and that is not the ocean, and yes he died
Things to know about sleep as the clocks go back
Yup.

But the thing to consider is - a lot of things can be pre-rendered and cached. Your server can render it once and serve to many clients. With client-side rendering, each client is rendering the same thing for themselves, possibly slower than on your server because JS is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. So you've saved yourself $N in compute but externalized $N * number of users * relative JS inefficiency. This is not a nice thing to do.
Yes, it was an unusual article in that the author was doing a lot of work to strawman-out conservatives and then make the UBI pitch.

It wasn't a bad pitch, but it felt really loose and meandering, like it could have ran a third of its length and been much more cogent and direct. Instead of direct and succinct, I got the feeling of an author standing out in a field, waving their arms around, while breathlessly making all sorts of tangentially-related generalizations and responses.

And I think that's the problem here: folks on both sides of the UBI issue would rather deal in generalities and grandstanding instead of just trying the dang thing out a bunch of times and seeing what works and what doesn't.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. was obviously in need of some kind of revamping of its healthcare system. Instead of trying hundreds of things out and quickly iterating a learning over time, what happened was that the issue was argued at the highest level of abstraction and in generic terms: what kind of modern country doesn't provide healthcare for it's people?

It took decades of argument, and in the end we got a one-size-fits-all solution that is now going to take decades to modify and adjust. If you want responsive government, this way of discussion and change is a dysfunctional way to improve the quality of people's lives.

So with UBI, I'm quite interested in the various experiments and the low-level details of what was tried and what kind of results are produced, much more so than some nebulous arguing and strawmanning around the concept in general. I support the concept in general -- if we're going to spend a lot of money on the poorer folks in society (I believe that isn't changing), then we should be constantly looking for ways to make the outcomes better. Big, animated discussions around what socialism is or isn't? Not part of an effective national dialog.

Also, Alaska is not a conservative state. It's a libertarian one. Many, many people seem to want to conflate libertarianism with conservatism. They are entirely separate (Insert long discussion here about the differences between libertarianism in the states and conservatism. Also another discussin about just what the heck conservatism is after the election of the recent president. Neither of these discussions are probably useful or germane to the topic of the essay)
Win for Music Listeners in Florida: No Performance Right in Pre-1972 Recordings
Depending on your definition of programming language, that crown might actually go to HAGGIS. It's an "educational" programming language which is not executable (or intended to be). It's possibly the worst idea in the history of computing, and that it is taught to anyone is (IMO) a public offense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAGGIS
A Healthy Environment for Ethereum Trading Is Underway
> with no issues

Demanding a probability of zero can make anything impossible. And you're not even asking for zero fatalities, you're asking for zero "issues", whatever those may be. That is a wildly unrealistic demand. Human drivers are not that reliable either, especially in bad whether conditions.