skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's extremely weird reading his reactions on Twitter - either he's putting a very brave face on it, or he's completely unfazed by (yet another) awful self-own.

I never know if James O'keefe and his ilk are really into this cause (not sure exactly what, something vaguely conservative?) or if they're just grifters trying to make a buck by whatever means necessary
> Private equity associates very rarely don't get carry, which is why they co-invest instead

The vast majority of partner co-investment vehicles I've come across contain partners' capital. A rounding error may be from associates, who are usually counted against the limited number of unaccredited investors such funds can, with great legal liability, be marketed to.
I have a share of AAPL stock. I wish to sell it.

I place the sell order with my brokerage, and I get fiat USD deposited into my account. This is exactly how Bitcoin is exchanged.

Where exactly lies the fundamental liquidity problem for my brokerage/exchange?
I would assume double entry land to refer to the current system we operate today, and triple entry land would refer to a system where transactions occurred in crypto currency.
Triple entry is well laid out here: http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html And point to the fact that transactions between two parties are digitally signed by a third party, thereby creating a third record
That paper isn't the right one. I can't find it now. Here is another interesting one though...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a240839.pdf

I will update this if I find it again.
A No True Scotsman would require an attempt on my behalf to refute something you're saying. "In fact," I did no such thing. It was just clear to me that y'all were talking about two different species of libertarianism without explicitly acknowledging it. This leads to long drawn conversations full of misunderstandings. I made an attempt to add some explicitness.
US and UK publishing businesses are radically different in subscription revenues. They have traditionally made up a tiny proportion for UK publishers.
Those stats are for internet users including people who use the apps you mention. Further, Syria has a history of internet censorship and even large outages. I'd imagine people in Syria don't trust the internet, much less a tool from a western company like coinbase that offers a way to store an instrument that is completely foreign to someone who doesnt use the internet

All of finance is built on trust. Trust in enforcement of securities and property laws, trust that banks or debtors won't disappear overnight, trust that counterparties will not disappear, trust that someone won't lie to you and take your money, and trust that, when the above inevitably happen, there exists a set of institutions that can protect you

You may trust blockchain more than a bank, but you are the minority by a massive massive margin. The reality is that banks, while not perfect, are accountable. They are run by people whose jobs depend on them not totally screwing up. And despite the bad / shady things that banks do, overall they do a pretty good job at maintaining a stable financial system

With bitcoin and other decentralized systems, there is no accountability. You must rely on the perfection of the technology. It will break, and when it does, there is no legal system to protect you and no bank that will reimburse you for fraudulent charges

You may not care about this, but 99% of the world does
> outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit news organizations seems like it can come back on your no matter what happens.

Not when your clear history of willingness to do that is what drives donations. It's literally the entire reason Project Veritas exists and gets funded.
>Coinbase has to get the $9000 from somewhere

yeah, from the person that just bought BTC for $10,000.
I had a large argument about this on r/conspiracy with someone recently.

They were claiming since the CIA uses AWS to the tune of ~$900 million a year, the CIA has a direct line to WaPo.

Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue, but it does pose an interesting, all be it slight, conflict.
Ah yes, The Gulag Archipelago
Founders, employees, institutional and retail investors got together and voted for the SEC?

Are you sure about that?
I don't have any questions, because I'm in more or less the same situation - working at an Amazon FC to pay off my programming degree because it's more stable than trying to get a job in tech right now.

But... don't look too closely at the internal tools like the stow app or bintools. You'll weep.
For 7 years?
See also: Microsoft Continuum, Motorola Atrix (probably the first Android that turned into a laptop)
I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and make it harder to do real journalism.

The story on right wing websites tomorrow will probably be "one of the accusers was obviously lying - this raises questions about the other ones," never mind the lying one was paid by a right wing site.
Which was a brutal failure as well, for virtually the same reasons.

Guessing ‘learning from the past’ isn’t Apple’s strong suit.
I thought Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was actually the only kind of talk therapy that showed greater effect than placebo.
"Please keep comments respectful as they own the IP and do not have a public download url."

so, they want to waste their money sending spam to all the fake emails everyone enters in their website when they reinstall windows

i think they could have thought that through a little better
Not saying you're wrong, but this argument is irresolvable unless you can give evidence that either 1) Coinbase/similar are using bank facilities to provide liquidity, and in essence, being the market makers. Or 2) They're using market makers who might bow-out in a similar fashion.
Try changing how you take notes. I felt the same way until I discovered mind mapping.

Writing and linking concepts is almost like putting chapter markers in a video or flags on a page. It helps you recall what was said in what context.
They still have better control over Bitcoin transactions than say Monero (from a fraud point of view). So maybe if it comes to that, they will keep Bitcoin but not cryptos with higher privacy.
Thats not how this works.
Funny that PV brings their undercover actors right in the front door of their offices. I'm guessing they aren't going to be doing that from now on, knowing that at the very least WaPo is watching who enters.
<I think that every adult US citizen should get an annual share of the US GDP.

I am going to ask people i work with at my union and non union jobs and get their response to that sentence.

I'll report back what comments i hear.
Well, if you throw enough crap at the wall...

The question is if the truth they stumble upon outweighs the misinformation and lies they spread to come across it.
How AI Startups Must Compete with Google
What else did he probably do?
> I was talking about corporations and if you're talking about net neutrality then you have to be talking about corporations.

Why, though? You asked for an argument against net neutrality from libertarian first principles. I gave you one that's so basic that it applies to all other government legislation as well. So if you'd like, you could take it as an argument against corporations as a government construct as well, since such a construct comes about by legislation. Does that satisfy you?

If I must make my argument under the assumption that legal corporations exist and must continue to exist, that really doesn't change anything. Libertarians still fundamentally don't want the government to tell people or groups of people what they can or can't do, regardless of how that group came about.
Bitcoin itself is a fractional reserve system.
> Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service.

Notwithstanding the conclusion, the argument is a bit naïve. It's not like we have third party candidates winning left and right. There are established players who crush outside competition, regardless of the quality of the candidates. And there's no guarantee that even if you have any influence, you'll see the benefit in your lifetime. The idea that every problem can be solved peacefully isn't a bad one, but it's just something you have to accept in faith, not something you can ground in truth. Pretending that simply being dedicated to a good cause is all it takes to fix a problem entirely misses why people are proposing other paths in the first place.
Was this headline generated by a silicon valley startup name generator or something?
Funded by Google, uses MapBox
I agree. But if a field tech knows that a low voltage line is incorrectly in his work space and that someone will fix it if he does cuts it, then the tech may just cut it and let someone else deal with the problem.
Yes, that all sounds fine. Protect average people, not startups trying to get rich. Yes. Yes. Yes. Life does not revolve around startups. Yes.

Also, the people applying for home loans weren't compulsive gamblers. The banks literally told them they were qualified.
congratulations. This is what you get if you let governments like Germany, US... work with Facebook to combat "online harassment", "offensive content" or insert-phobia-here. It all seems like a nice idea, but it always backfires.
And $4/mo? I just subscribed.
--> Combination of webs of trust and machine learning to both shape tastes and politics and harden networks from their shaping.

Can you elaborate on this with an example of a future scenario? Thinking about this is throwing me for a loop. Are you talking about some deeper level of web curation not yet achieved? People ever more entrenched in their own AI curated "bubbles"? "Harden networks from their shaping" Qwut?
Drawing from noise with Processing, and making animated loopy GIFs
younow is very creepy. a lot of it is middle school and high school aged kids dancing around in their bedrooms or entertaining teen talk for thousands of viewers. I just get a really bad creepy vibe from the site in general
> Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue

Guess I'm irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely substantial chunk of change for even the largest companies in the world.
> If I know bitcoins will continue to increase in value because math, why on earth would I ever exchange them for something that doesn't?

You wouldn't, until the marginal utility of an item or service outweighs the future value of those bitcoins.

That's like asking, why would anyone ever buy a new laptop? Just wait until next year, the models will be faster and cheaper. It's true, it will always be better to buy a laptop next year. However at some point it becomes more valuable to consume the laptop now than to continue waiting. In the aggregate when considering the varying time preferences of consumers, new laptops are sold all the time.
The related github issue https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/is... has more context:

> Telerik reached out and is asking that the Fiddler package be removed as it is giving direct access to a download location they no longer show on the site. Since they have an information gateway to receive information prior to download, they have asked that we remove the package so that folks obtain the downloads directly from them.
Not sure what evidence you're basing that off of. An alternative explanation would be people calling for taxes on the rich to be "raised" aren't really sure what they currently are.
No, it stands for "Portability."

HIPAA does, however, have a section explicitly governing the privacy of patient medical information, under Title II, generally known as "The Privacy Rule".

EDIT: Tone and specificity.
No, _you're_ missing the point.
Your comment is bad, even for a bad sub-reddit standard, the joke is not funny and the only danger after such protests this days is that the prime minster will have to resign if the protests are not handled correctly.
I put 20% of my salary away from 22-30. 12% after that, but I bought a house that appreciated 50%.

Now I could literally walk out the door and make at least what I’m making in my own in 3-5 phone calls. Not because of any magical talent, but because I’ve been around and have a decent network.
YC's whole model is making many investments which are likely to fail, assuming a lucky few will pay for the rest. It only works because they diversify, rather than going all-in on a single one.
Cognitive behavioral therapy is a more standardized and measurable type of therapy than things like interpersonal therapy or problem solving therapy or psychodynamic therapy, and thus it is easier to study in a controlled setting. So there are more studies of CBT than other types of therapy just because it is easier to study

I don't have references offhand but there are controlled studies that show benefit of other types of therapy

Overall all though, all psychotherapy studies are messy
Certainly bitcoin is immune (mostly) to central bank manipulation for better or for worse - I think that’s a given. But any currency can enter deflationary regimes, as witnessed by central bankers’ desire to intervene during recessions. It’s not clear that the properties of bitcoin make it any more or less vulnerable to this.

As an aside I’d say the factual evidence of the efficacy of central banking is controversial; many would put as much blame for historic and recent recessions on central banks as would credit them for the recovery. Certainly bitcoin by its philosophy and design is pretty skeptical about central bankers and their motivations.
>Maybe I am too dumb to understand LN, but what gives BTC an edge over, say Litecoin, if both BTC and Litcoin have LN fully implemented.

You have to understand the end goal of the LN. A future with LN is one with off-chain instant transactions with unlimited throughput. This is enabled by a network of LN hubs where each "edge" is a payment channel. Then sending a payment on the LN is a matter of routing your payment through existing hubs. As long as you already have some locked amount on the LN and there is a route between you and your intended destination, the transaction can happen instantly and immutably off chain. Once you close your connection then the transactions are settled on chain. Essentially an unlimited number LN transactions can occur in between an on-chain settlement. But this requires widespread deployment of LN hubs which only happens if there is enough incentive by sellers to join.

If enough of their customers have bitcoin they want to spend, they will join. If some alt-coin has all the tech ready for the LN, but lack the widespread distribution of their tokens to incentivize sellers to join, it won't happen. This is why the idea of bitcoin being a store of value is a necessary step in the mainstreaming of bitcoin for payments: it gives people an incentive to buy and hold it now. A "currency" that only greases the wheels of transactions (i.e. bought for the duration of a tx then immediately sold) is no currency. It has to be worth holding in its own right and "store of value" bitcoin provides that.

>I never see anyone ever claim LN will allow +10x transactions. Most claims I read are 1.7x-4x . If you have a source on that I'd really appreciate it (I will read it.)

I'm guessing what they mean is that Segwit reduces the signature and thus increases the on chain capacity by 1.7x. People say this in an attempt to cloud the issue of Segwit vs bigger blocks. The LN isn't about stuffing more transactions into each block.

>Great, but people are hungry now and they will just go to other restaurants (and maybe the other restaurants are almost as good as this one and so the patrons will stop coming to yours.)

But most people aren't hungry now. For most people, paypal and VISA works just fine. They will only switch when the advantages over these legacy systems are great enough. This only happens with the fully deployed LN. For the small number of people that want anonymous transactions now, or need to circumvent the banking infrastructure now, they will use bitcoin or any number of alt-coins. But the value this service provides as it stands just doesn't warrant multi-billion dollar market caps: there simply isn't enough simultaneous transactions (i.e. instantaneous demand) to drive up the cost of the service.

>I never see anyone ever claim LN will allow +10x transactions. Most claims I read are 1.7x-4x . If you have a source on that I'd really appreciate it (I will read it.)

I don't have any good authoritative sources on hand, but a recent comment I saw on reddit really drives home the value of the LN (warning, its a bit ranty): https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7fde71/im_switching_to...
Okay, but the same can be said for Media Matters, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, and so on.

They're all doing shady shit, but sometimes one of them hits on something useful.
> outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit news organizations seems like it can come back on your no matter what happens.

Why? News organizations should never accept fabricated stories. If they do, then something is wrong with their vetting process, and it means that non "pen-testing" fake stories can get through as well, where the intent is to have some effect in the world(say, getting a person out of an election) as opposed to just making the newspaper blush.
iPhone Users Complain About the Word 'It' Autocorrecting to 'I.T' on iOS 11
Thought this would be about Viuly (https://viuly.com) but I guess there’s a few cryptotokens trying to compete in this space.
>Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service.

playing by the rules of the game one can play varying game sessions, yet the chess will stay chess and Go will stay Go. Rules define the game. The set of available scenarios under given rules either covers the target outcome or not. In case of the latter the rules change is needed, and the given rules may not allow for the necessary rules change.

>Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out.

if only somebody of that group of lazy cowards applied for the Colonies tea tax collector position 244 years ago... though even if a one applied and was accepted, then what? I'd be really interested to learn your thoughts on that matter.

Btw, interesting that after that violence, a pretty successful rules were written by many the same people - those rules have been working for those 2+ centuries since then allowing for the society to successfully adjust to and frequently lead the changes in our civilization during that time with only one major violence outbreak related to the rules.
> You are misinformed. The people who provide the dollars to this market are the customers of the exchanges. It seems like you are not familiar with how a currency exchange works.

I fear you're misinformed. Besides localBitcoins, how does one get fiat to an exchange?

That's right — a bank. Exchanges like Bitfinex only survive because of things like Tether, which requires other fiat accepting exchanges.

If all exchanges were like Bitfinex, there would be a liquidity crunch, as the OP is saying.
Bids on an exchange's order book are definitely backed by dollars. I don't know why you insist they aren't.

You use strange language. Maybe the scenario you mean to describe is not about lack of deposits or lack of float, but is a classic panic sale (ie. order books not deep enough to absorb all asks). Yes, this could happen with Bitcoin, or basically any financial instrument: stocks, forex, etc.

As someone who has been trading bitcoins since 2010, I will retort that market depths have definitely been growing over time. I don't have precise data to show you, but for example GDAX's BTC/USD order book accounts for 1/20th of the worldwide BTC trading volume. Right now selling 3600 BTC on GDAX would net $30M and dip the price -20%. Assuming the same depth at other exchanges, this means traders could globally sell 72000 BTC at the same instant for $600 million and dip the price by only 20%. That's a pretty decent market depth.

If market depth grew proportionally to Bitcoin's price, it would mean that 7 years ago when Bitcoin was trading at $0.25 (1/36000th its current price: http://bitcoin.zorinaq.com/price/) then a sale of $16k worth of Bitcoins would have dipped the price by 20%. I don't know if we can find archives of MtGox's trading data from 2010, but I roughly remember selling blocks of 1000 BTC at a time on Mtgox for $0.70-1.00/BTC in February 2011 and each of my sale would dip the price by a few percents.

So my (vague) recollection seems to indicate I'm probably right that market depth increased proportionally to Bitcoin's price. Therefore Bitcoin would have been at an equal risk of a panic sale at any point in the last 7 years. And the fact there has never been a long-term panic sale is a testament to Bitcoin's resilience. The markets are deeper and are more resistant than you think.
How to Lose Weight Using Tim Ferriss’s Slow Carb Diet
Newspaper editors could arrange for their journalists to be approached with fake stories once in a while. If the story makes its way close to publishing, they'll know it's fake and can take it off. That way it stays an internal pentest. Sounds good to me.
While simultaneously, you can have a person clearly unable to provide self care who is denied access to any kind of inpatient care because they are not "a danger to themselves or someone else."
The problem is the bar has been way too high until now. “He’s important/beloved/whatever, he wouldn’t do that. It’s just your word against his”.

And a lot of men escaped a LOT of charges because of that.

I think we’re still pretty far from the pendulum going too extreme. We’ll have to figure out the balance.

But what’s happening right now still seems pretty healthy. The fact that so many stories can be found so easily and corroborated shows what has been waiting in the wings.
Not even sure what I'm supposed to say to "we need millionaires to take out journalists, the only way, really".

As for "sexually harass others via their platform" .... what does that even mean? Who? How, exactly? What a bizarre comment.
"Pardon me" but rental income is deductible more than it is taxable; everything to do with owning a property and generating "investment income" from it is incentivized to be deductible; it's a great and super fast way to make lots of money.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I have two graduate degrees in accounting and economics, as well a decade and a half researching and studying this very problem. The solution I outline would work... if the goal is to empower people with "equity" as Sam's article suggests he wants to.
The high-tide of Apple machines in genetic research actually has nothing to do with what most people might presume and has a very specific, very technical reason.

The AltiVec (“Velocity Engine”) present in G4 and even more so in 64-bit G5 machines was discovered to be extraordinarily efficient at performing the calculations required for the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (commonly known as BLAST). At the time, the G4/G5 architectures had a massive lead on other chips present on the market at the time (i80x86-derived machines such as Pentium III, Pentium 4, and Pendium M; but also other exotic architectures such as MIPS, SPARC, and DEC’s Alpha.

Eventually other architectures caught up by adding vector units or vector instructions of their own, and Apple stripped any basis of fact out of this when they switched to Intel, but by a form of institutional inertia, Macs still rule in the genetics segment.
This is a telling look at the intense self-righteousness felt by that segment. They knowingly engage in fraud and deception, believing that it is justified because their enemies do it more or first or something.
Wireshark is still listed, it's a lot more powerful and open source: https://chocolatey.org/packages/wireshark