skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> Now it's hard to get her to navigate to a URL and (even using Google) she struggles to find the information she needs because she's not used to accurate queries anymore.

Haha, if my mother needs to navigate to a URL, she opens Google, types the URL there, then clicks the topmost result (not kidding ;-)

I completely agree that we are on a slippery slope when it comes to technology that tries to be so smart that we don't have to think for ourselves anymore. I sincerely fear for the future of society if I see how easily people are already influenced and cognitively limited by their dependence on technology. We are turning into a society where expending effort to learn and understand things has to come from purely intrinsic motivation, which means a very significant cross-section of society will never acquire basic skills and intelligence we've taken for granted for ages. Imagine the day there will be no Google to help them out, for whatever reason...

Edit:
One analogy that comes to mind, which is sort of a pet peeve of mine and is (IMO) side-ways related to the perils of making things 'too convenient' for people, is giving people 'too many options' to choose. I see a parallel between giving people 'choice and options', and 'making things convenient' by removing the need to think for yourself. Everybody agrees that choice is good, and everybody likes convenience. But if you treat these almost as religion, you get 1001 kinds of toilet paper which are probably all shitty (pun intended), instead of three choices that are actually different. The same goes for convenience. Too much convenience will have unintended side-effects.
did NOT know this, thanks a lot lol. (vim user for 5 years)
College Dropouts and Student Debt
That's the only reason i don't quit.

Other than that, i make clear to people that i rarely check my FB messenger, and just don't use websites whose only login option is through FB.

I haven't posted on there for years.
There's definitely a scale I think — showing me local pizza places is great. What about guessing my budget & ruling out places it thinks I won't book? That's getting into a grey area & personally I'd find that uncomfortable/undesirable.

What about applying it to non-transactional stuff like news? Should it personalise results based on what it thinks I like?

Again with subjective/objective distinction — I know my friend will tailor movie recommendations to me based on mutual interests / past discussions.

I expect though that a library catalogue would point me to the same info on global warming no matter who I am.

The trouble at the moment is that Google is conflating these two types of interaction & the user doesn't know which of their queries are personalised (and to what extent / based on what criteria).

> How do their algorithms know what should and shouldn't be personalised? Do humans even agree on where to draw the line?

In my opinion, this is the crux of it — are we happy with algorithms filling this blank unfettered, based on their own learning. If not, it's something that we have to discuss and agree on, and then enforce / bring visibility to.

At present, Google aren't negligent (legally anyway, as we haven't set any bar) and may not be acting maliciously. But if we think change is necessary (at least for visibility of what's happening under the hood), we need to ask the questions around these services to drive that change
They don't care how bad the strategy is. The goal isn't to combat revenge porn, albeit that is a noble goal, and one that individual actors will care about. The goal here is to partner with governments, 3-letter agencies and others to condition people to accept ideas about their privacy rights that we would normally find exceedingly objectionable.
It is so, so important to our social contract that everyone plays by the same set of rules.

Right now, I think that a lot of people (such as small business owners who will never employ an army of offshore tax lawyers) are realizing that this is not the case.

Hopefully this disillusionment will be a vehicle for positive change, but the past and present provide abundant evidence that there are tyrants and charlatans aplenty waiting to capture the popular anger and turn it to their own purposes.

It is in all of our interests - from the richest to the poorest - to keep this from happening.

We need to return to the lesson of the Progressive Era. There is an alternative to chaos, and it is to build a society in which the average person can justifiably say that the system works for them, too, and not only for the wealthiest.
There is an amount that the gov loses by allowing tax breaks and other perks to such businesses. Is this amount recovered (by some measure) through the assumed economic stimulus?

I'm certain that someone has looked at these numbers in case studies, but I don't have the time to wade through literature currently.
Congrats! Looks like Typeform meets SurveyMonkey :) .
What do you mean?

A few points, but I am not sure which one you are referring to:

- interesting enough actual taxation in the US seems to be mostly flat in practice (after a certain threshold): rich people get more deductions and can hire lawyers to use all the loopholes

- you can have a mostly fixed marginal rate of taxation on income, but still have progression in average rates. Eg give everyone $10k/year as an allowance, and tax at a fixed 20%.

- for taxes on income there's a trade-off between equality, ability to pay, but also blunting incentives and raising revenue. Luckily, if you tax land value instead, you can tax away essentially the whole of land rent without blunting any incentives to work or invest. (So the whole conundrum about the right way to tax income can be mostly side-stepped.)

I'm about to move to Singapore. They have a progressive income tax system with almost no deductions, but the maximum marginal rate is 22%. (VAT is 7%.) Since there system is so simple and rates are low, it's usually easier to just pay instead of trying to find loopholes.
As a programmer that works alone and by myself, I would sometimes like to outsource parts of my work, and there are indeed very modularized parts that could be outsourced like that, but I'm very very afraid of the quality of the code that will come back from something like that.

Also, even if the code is of good quality, maybe it has lots of boilerplate I dislike, or is written in a style too different from mine.
with(image):
post = facebook.post(image)
if post.is_deleted():
image.is_blackmail = True
otherplatform.post(image)
This and "US healthcare subsidizes cheap healthcare for the rest of the world" are 2 of the stupidest, jingoistic statements that people make for paying too much for so little.
local paper-famous, or Jesus-famous?
I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with your democracy, and that needs to be sorted out first.

I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.
So... Basically Apple is increasing the suffering by creating all those laptops and iphones? That is very difficult for me to grasp. Apple creates computers and phones which make peoples lives a lot better, and people are willing to pay for those. Why is the suffering increasing? I guess world would be a better place if apple would pay more taxes, but I'm pretty sure that world would be worse place without Apple, whether it pays taxes or not.
Archaeologists are getting quite a lot of their data and clues from literal garbage. (See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midden )

We are producing quite a lot of very durable garbage these days: aluminium cans, plastic, etc.

So even if archive.org and Google etc go under and we lose all their disks, we will leave plenty of evidence in the archaeological record.
Soon, maybe not, at least without a VPN: https://www.sciencealert.com/controversial-free-research-sit...
Not all the shareholders oppose it. The image of the company "doing the right thing" would be favorable to its shareholders.

In fact, the same article suggests that apparently many of them agree with Cook:

> "If that's a hard line for you," Cook continued, "then you should get out of the stock."

> As Danhof sat back down, the audience applauded.
Show HN: Paleotronic Magazine Kickstarter
Yes, I know the UK drill... But how do you hire someone in Poland being a UK company? I thought that's not possible
> takeaway pizza

I searched for "takeaway pizza" but didn't get a local match for pizza delivery, so I changed my search query by adding more keyword qualifiers

> takeaway pizza in san jose

Works!

> cricket

I actually _wanted_ to search for the sport so I added additional keyword qualifiers to bypass all the Cricket brand results

> cricket sport

Works!

It's like how I know I must use "Golang" or even "Golang Stackoverflow" to find relevant results to my query -- I didn't need all the "personalization help" that Google likes to offer -- I'm actually capable of crafting decent search terms.
This is a bit misleading. When you maximize Chrome's window the space above the tabs disappears, making Chrome's footprint smaller than that of Firefox.

Though I still wonder why Chrome's menu bar enlarges when the window is not maximized.

Edit: A screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/yabXSEz.png
But i could choose to pay less taxes, and i don't.
Honestly i'm pretty happy with socialism right now, i lived in the bottom 20% for 23 years and still got to go to the hospital to get surgery at 3 y/o, my little brother did not die from his appendicite and my mother breast cancer was detected before it spread too much. I never suffered from malnutrition and access to free education allowed me to get into the top 20% with no debts while attending social gathering and studying in other countries thanks to erasmus.

I agree that i don't have the choice on what my taxes will be used for, and this is a problem, but the other choice is to count on charity? to pray that everybody will act like homo economicus and take rationnal decision on how to improve everybody well-being without being greedy and acting like children?
Sicilian orphanage is what you get when "charity" is in charge. I'd rather pay taxes and have the state manage that tbh.

Now if someday, everybody become smart and decent enough, i would totally agree with you to ditch socialism et start a liberal anarchy.
The old devtools were amazingly slow and heavy. The new ones are much much better. Almost as fast as Chrome's.
Read again DoctorPenguin, you might understand the message this time.
Complicated solution for a simple problem.

Don't let your partners take photos when you are intimate. End of story.
Visit "about:preferences#search" and then uncheck every search engine under "One-Click Search Engines" list.
https://pngquant.org is worth looking at as well. It's lossy, so not for every image, but the size reduction is often dramatic.
Sorry, I can't. I am a working man, not a philosopher.

But please look around you. Every great thing around me was created by a free(-ish) market: this PC, my car, my job, the materials in my home, the heating engine, the food I get in the restaurant, the entertainment on my TV, everything.

Then every crappy experience in my existence has something to do with the government: state hospitals, infrastructure, the DMV and other bureaucratic institutions, my and my children's schools.

I tend to judge systems by their results and so far the free market seems to produce much better results.

I don't think anybody can argue for a world without governments, but not to the point at which they stifle the free market. And I am afraid that is the direction we are generally taking.
> I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way

The know that they are test subjects. Read "An Astronaut's Guide to Living on Earth", and they know it's a part of their job to be test subjects.
Since governments make the rules, I propose let governments fix the rules.

I agree. Which means that opinion pieces (what ought) cannot be argued against using legal arguments (what is).
Looks good. One suggestion: it doesn't work with JS off, so I don't see content when I arrive.

I made a personal commitment not to use Facebook's software (React) whenever there are suitable alternatives available, because I don't want to support that awful company in any way, but hope that your project goes well.
> HN's body text is actually pure black (as far as I can tell) and works alright because it's on an orange/grey background, but if you play around with black text on a white background, you should find that a few HEX notches above #000 (say #333, for example) is much more pleasant to look at.

And I immediately tried that. My impression: it miiight be pleasant to look at, subjectively; but it's harder to read, which is the actual purpose of text (most of the time).
Is that setup legal over there? It is not in the EU countries I know about; the UK company would be seen as a defacto company in the country you actually reside and do the work (Poland for instance), unless;

If you don't mind travelling then you can, very cheaply, pay very little to no tax being a small company. In many countries it is legal to do so.
This is from pre-57 versions, right? I'm on 58 and it is much smaller than that.
I can't remember exact scenarios that triggered it, but I've seen situations where Chrome autofills data other than sign-in passwords as well (also ignoring autocomplete=off).

There was a form where administrator can change certain details of another user profile, and if e-mail (or name) field was empty on a profile, then chrome would autofill it with administrator's e-mail, which can result in unwanted / corrupted data.

Some replies in this thread suggest configuring chrome differently in organizations where this is important to avoid, but when you are SaaS vendor, your users will inevitably blame you for Chrome's behavior.
Hold on! You have to pay 10 euros or so every year or no? I remember there was an outcry many years ago!
I'm open minded but in terms of evolution, 3000 years is a very short time, so changes in human physical capabilities requires specific and compelling evidence. In contrast, bronze age mirrors certainly existed and noticing and leveraging the effects of non-flat surfaces seems fairly inevitable to me given you only need to look at a spoon or something.
Rich people and corporations will never pay full taxes. The only way to make it fair is to lower taxes for everyone.

EDIT: downvote me all you like, but the facts and all human history are on my side. Taxes are and always have been paid mostly by poor + middle class. Rich people used to collect them and now have a ways to negotiate a better deals or to avoid them. Look at Trump and his loans schemese. Look at multinational corporations. Look at our local oligarchs in eastern Europe. If you are in middle class, your only hope is to fight for more fair society where tax hells dont exists, and taxes are low for everyone. Because high taxes will never be paid by everyone.
On Firefox 57 that is indeed solved.
You are building a Zynga-like company and writing vague comments instead of direct answers here. Why do you expect positive replies?
There are taxes that are harder to skip than others. (At the risk of sounding like a broken record, land value taxation is basically impossible to avoid if you are using land.)
I completely agree that it's naive to expect big corporations to selflessly pay more taxes. It's never going to work.

But it's not really up to individual countries' tax code either. The problem is that you have a global race to the bottom with these companies, they'll move to the countries with the lowest tax rates. See the current competition for which city will end up hosting Amazon's new complex.

At the very least the solution has to come from the European Union. We need to figure out a better to unify our tax codes and retaliate against multinationals that don't pay their fair share of taxes. We need to stop this competition between member states that leaves all of us poorer in the end.

I'm sure the EU is capable of coercing Apple and friends into paying more taxes, as long as it's united. This is clearly not the case at the moment and that's the problem SZ should work on, not begging foreign multinationals to please pay more taxes.
Alt +D. Left hand friendly :)
Let me guess. You're in favour of private healthcare, private security, private education, and no social safety net. In short, nothing to aid social mobility, and nothing to restrain powerful people who have gained the upper hand.

You know, to some of us, that libertarian utopia sounds like a fucking nightmare.
Now there's data on where it came in and went out where as before it was all daek. A lot of people have a lot of explaining to do.
3000 years is to soon for significant changes in human DNA. Every population world wide would have to have very strong selective pressure for such a change to occur. Alternatively, everyone worldwide could simply have some environmental difference resulting in changes to the eye, but that also seems unlikely.
Facebook couldn't do what they do if Disney didn't "clear the way for them", so to speak.

Imho it's all part of the same trend where "intangible goods" have become more valuable than actual tangible resources, which seems how we spend our way out of the 2008 recession.

At this point it's pretty much impossible to be a fan of something "pop culture" and not having to pay the IP tax to Disney, or some other massive corporation, for owning that IP.

On one hand, generating money out of writing code or painting a character sure is a good option to have, creative arts need to be properly compensated. But with how copyright law has changed over these past decades this can sometimes have really bad outcomes and as time progresses it feels like more and more of these "intangible goods" are being monopolized.

Happy birthday songs and Christmas songs being "copyrighted", sending out cease-and-desist orders to people singing them, sounds like a bad joke of a dystopian future, but that's where we already have been for quite a while now and it's only getting worse.

And it's not like we'd have to convince just one government to reform copyright, at this point we would rather have to convince mega corporations likey Disney because it's them who actually hold the influence to change legislation for literally half of the planet.
Wait, what? I submit my nude pics to FB, so that they can hash it and identify its copies online? That sounds good, but is that the only way of doing this?

Why not use facial recognition + nudity detector to on-demand find potentially compromising videos online? Maybe even send my Facebook notification that says, "Hey we found what appears to be a compromising video with you in it shared to a wide group of people, are you cool with it?"

Am I mis-understanding the concept being proposed?
> because the only thing people measure or care about as a meaningful indicator of improvement is increased profits.

This hasn't been my experience of large corporations, at all. Tons of things are measured besides profit, tons of other things are considered, and whole careers are staked on contentious debates over strategy.

Again, you seem to be treating Disney as a singular entity -- but it's probably more accurate to view it something like Europe: a squabbling mash of fiefdoms that happen to be loosely forced together, which occasionally go to war with each other, and have some sort of overarching body screaming at them that most fiefdoms half-ignore or drag their feet on implementing the directives of. (This really describes most large corporations -- which isn't surprising, considering that corporations emerged from that period of Europe.)

> I'm not sure you intended this but the wording of this pretty offensive

The implication was that it was laughably naive, yes. (I actually laughed when I read it.) Because viewing a corporation as a singular entity is a naive view: corporations aren't people, don't behave like people, and have internal conflicts that would send actual people to the mental hospital. You also seem to have a really strawman view of how executives operate, how corporate decisions are made, etc. It's like the comic book version of dramatized court decisions.

What we see here reeks of that model failing -- a snap decision made by a department VP which didn't align with the overall plan, immediately axed when the CEO + senior execs heard of it. I'd guess that there's probably a destroyed career, but Disney isn't interested in airing their dirty laundry, so we won't hear about it.

That actually happens a lot -- corporations firing staff for things the public thinks they should be fired for, because the corporate executives are actually of the same opinion about the (former) employees being incompetent in how they handled an issue. They usually just don't air it (and delay it a few months), because training the public to seek the blood of your staff when offended is absolutely insane.

> that is my point: if something is actively producing profit, the plan is to increase profits.

The company I work for likes to decrease short term profits for long term ecosystem health, because a vibrant system is fundamentally more valuable than extracting the maximum wealth in a straightforward way. I don't think we're alone or even particularly unusual in that belief -- though no corporation (including us) lives up to that ideal fully, either.

Corporations aren't angels, but they're not devils either. They're more like forests -- kind of dumb, not particularly coherent, capable of reshaping entire landscapes.
If you don't have control over foreign loopholes, you eliminate them by applying to companies what you apply to individuals in the US. I.e. that US companies may not pay less taxes than they would pay if their activity was all in the US.

It would of course increase the effective tax rate in for US large companies a lot, but the US corporate tax rate is very high vs other countries. If it becomes efficient you can afford to reduce it.
That sounds a lot like this issue with jemalloc and Neovim on macOS:

- https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/5681

- https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/6950
Why Bitcoin Sucks
I'd love to see more terminal interfaces. I've been looking for a modern TUI library for a while.
Wasn't he like 19 when he said this?

I sure as hell said some edgy stuff like this when I was 19.
> running FF58
The way I view it is in terms of an idealized society. What is the ideal society? One where everyone must work their entire life? Or one where people are free to choose what they do with their time, even if they don't want to work at all? I would argue the latter.

Automation offers a unique ability to deliver the idealized society, but first we have to get rid of the notion that full employment is the goal. If anything, modern governments should be trying to lower employment, not raise it (or rather provide more choice to not work). You can't do that without a taxation strategy shift form income to capital gains.
Think about it this way, if I had an objectively better phone than the iPhone I would go out of business because Apple keeps more of their money in dishonest tax schemes. They hurt innovation. And that money is supposed to go to governments to use, which it doesn't, hampering the ability for others to thrive. Now there's is less competition