skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's actually a tax on wealth transfer, and it has far more favorable terms than tranferring wealth above gift limits while still living. In some sense, the entire estate process is a massive loophole that allows wealth transfer without realizing any income, but a fairly understandable one given the nature of family relationships.
Show HN: Profbit – Track your Coinbase profits
Presumably they're referring to lands held in public trust, like National and State Parks, National Forests, BLM land, and National Monuments.

I question the sense in developing large stretches of arid wastelands (among other biomes) that feature beautiful, unique and delicate ecologies.

No, it makes far more sense to appropriate all existing developed land and rebuild as extreme density. The original owners can inhabit the top floor of each new building.

We could even graduate the heights of each new building according to existing property values, ensuring the continuity of our arbitrary class system. The taller the building you inhabit and the further up it, the more remarkable you must obviously be as a person.

My modest proposal maintains these unique landscapes held in public trust for future generations while ensuring that the wealthy can continue to look down on the rest of us.

Win-win!
I expect this is intended to be a rhetorical question, but there's a lot of hidden premises here.

First, it assumes that Bill Gates did in fact work hard. Please define exactly what you mean by "work" and "hard", since I'm not sure there's an obvious thing that he could have done more of, even if he were so inclined.

Second, it assumes there exists some direct relationship between Bill Gates's personal work ethic and Microsoft's outsized success. Maybe all Microsoft needed was a good idea at the right time and would have succeeded about equally well with any minimally competent execution. Maybe they would have done even better had Bill Gates founded the company and then retired at 30.

Finally, it assumes that Bill Gates work ethic had some direct relationship with his financial compensation level. It is quite possible that he would have been more than happy to still give his best possible effort in return for being, say, a mere hundred millionaire. Moreover, plenty of people do hard work for all sorts of other reasons, from duty to boredom to artistic vision. Why do we assume that Bill Gates's internal motivation is predominantly financial in the first place?

None of those premises appear obviously and indisputably true to me. Maybe they are, but it'd be nice to see the case actually made (and made about real humans in the real world, not about perfectly rational actors in an idealized market).
I still use my 2005 quad G5 with Mathematica. I don’t really understand all this hand-wringing about supposedly bank-breaking power consumption. Electricity (here, at least) is so cheap it is largely irrelevant as a proportional variable cost. (Or at the very least, I have never thought of it in those terms.)
Your comment can be summed up as "Just have money." If you can't afford health insurance, you can't make sure you're covered. The only option is to not have it and to go to the ER whenever there are problems.

Cities find ways of ticketing you. They make $20M/yr from parking violations. If that revenue drops, they'll change the rules until it goes up again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto

For example, there are tow traps that don't look anything like tow zones. I've seen at least five cars fall into it, myself included. The city won't change it, and you can't fight it.

Another example: Street cleaning. It's a euphemism for "Move your car or we'll ticket you." No one shows up to clean the streets, ever, but they're there at 8AM to write you a ticket. When you're forced to park on the street, you can't get away from this. And the notifications for street cleaning often appear between midnight at 8AM, meaning you can end up late to work or with a $150 ticket if you don't pay rapt attention every day.
how is that similar, considering that a deleted file just get deregistered in the catalog and not actually deleted?
I see a comment like this on HN quite frequently. A generic "maybe X will inspire a decentralized solution for Y". While I think this is typically fraught with user experience nightmares, I'm not sure how decentralization of ISPs would even work. Wouldn't that simply mean MORE ISPs, something that is almost impossible to do in the Untied States (and thusly one of the biggest reasons for needing net neutrality)?
I rarely read the opinion pieces... they seems to be deliberately designed to provoke a discussion. And occasionally, just plain clickbait.

But they are clearly labelled "Opinion" and then I don't have a problem ignoring and being very critical when I do happen to read such an article.
At the very least the regulations in place granting local monopolies should be immediately rolled back. If a municipal entity wants to provide broadband, any lawsuit against that should be dismissed.
>Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing.

How is that?
That's why we have money - so people can say things like "No it isn't, because if it were people would have given you billions for it."
> It is extremely harsh. But life is harsh.

Oh please. We don't live in the forest, we don't scrape the dirt for nuts and berries, we live in modern industrialized societies with extreme concentrations of wealth. Life is not innately harsh due to uncontrollable circumstance; modern life is harsh because of the greed of corporations like Amazon and the indifference of comments like yours. In a modern industrialized society, there is no legitimate reason for laborers to work torturous 60 hour weeks. Scores of countries have banned these sorts of working conditions but we turn a blind eye to it because at the end of the day the software industry is utterly indifferent to the harm that it is doing to the rest of the population. We've seen labor riots and civil unrest going back hundreds of years to protest these sorts of labor conditions. These aren't random, unavoidable forces of nature: these are the cruel practices of an industry that treats humans like nothing more than numbers to be optimized.
First you gonna have to climb from the rock bottom while the entrenched monopolists (and the government) are trying to keep you there.

OTOH American people chose this, so it's not some evil corporations who are to blame, it's the people, your friends, neighbors, etc. People forget that sometimes.

Also IIRC there was a case in the 90s of an ISP not playing ball with the government WRT surveillance IIRC and it ended up out of business and IIRC the CEO in legal trouble.
I'm not telling you not to bring your values into politics.

I'm not some kind of relativism evangelist. That's a strawman that multiple commenters here are standing up.

This all started with one commenter saying that his outgroup is uniquely evil, and me replying that it was a matter of perspective. Both sides get to bring their values into politics.
> The funny thing about this is: All of the negative effects are hypothetical

No they aren't; many of them are things that the FCC responded to in if years of enforcing net neutrality principles through case by case actions, such as mobile and fixed broadband ISPs blocking services that competed with their offerings, and blocking other lawful services or content, sometimes for political reasons.

> Nobody offers "fast lanes" now, is planning to introduce them in the near future, and nobody offered fast lanes before the regulation was put into place. And yet, it's the top net neutrality supporter panic call.

“Fast lanes” have gotten blown out of proportion because of discussion of a possible weakness in an earlier draft of the 2015 order. They aren't actually a concern for the non-neutral net, they are a concern about a potential end-run around a net regulated for neutrality but with a loophole. Unfortunately, a popular distortion side that that draft was designed by enemies of neutrality rather than people trying to save it who might have designed the draft insufficiently tightly, and so “fast lanes” have become associated with the goals and plans of the anti-neutrality camp rather than just a potential weakness in a no-longer-relevant pro-neutrality draft regulation.

I mostly blame John Oliver for that.

Although, in point of fact, edge provider preference much like fast lanes exists in the form of zero rating, which is occurring in the mobile broadband space. It's not precisely the same thing, but had much the same issue.
Tatsuo Horiuchi – the 73-year old Excel spreadsheet artist
Drowning in Garbage
Good propaganda campaigns only require that they are based on fact, like the fact that the line was removed from their stock statement. As long as you build your propaganda on a base fact, you can say almost anything you want with it.
I did it for years. I was single, had a mortgage. Ate out. Went on reasonable vacations. It's doable.
What’s you’re point?

Do you point out that the BBC is owned/paid by the British government when someone posts BBC? (or NPR for that matter)
See how this Millennial Techie reacted after Trump humbled him
Given the high marginal tax rate at that income level, it “costs” very little to max a 401k. The first $1400/mo in savings should be easy with the tax advantage. To save substantially more than $1500 on top of that, you’re probably going to need roommates and/or an hour-plus commute.

I think $3k is totally doable, but “way more” involves very substantial loss of quality of life. Also some of that after-tax savings will be eaten by medium-term projects like travel and moving.

$70k in the Midwest and $120k in the Bay Area are pretty close on CoL calculators.
The Senate doesn't reflect majority rule based on population. California has 38.3 million residents, Wyoming has 600K residents [1] but both states have 2 senate votes. Due to this, Wyoming residents have much greater voting power in the Senate than residents of CA.

Edit: And since bills must be passed by both the House and the Senate, Wyoming residents have much more power over what becomes law than CA residents do.
[1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
Edit: there's a correction on this in the child comments.

The math on this is misleading. $10k invested for 30 years to become $1M implies an interest rate of 16.6%. Even as a nominal interest rate in the US, that would be an extremely lucky result to consistently achieve. My advice to you would be to start a hedge fund immediately with whatever secret knowledge you have, and then all money concerns will become irrelevant. :-)

A good choice for a real ('real' meaning non-nominal) interest rate in these types of projections is 7%, which would make $10k equal to $76k in 30 years. Because you used a real interest rate, the $76k is $76k in today's dollars, not in 2047 dollars. The conclusion is that you will need to invest a bit more than $10k today to retire in 30 years.

I like to use this type of calculation to frame my short-term purchase decisions. Would I like to spend $20 on this thing I don't need? Yes. Would I like to spend today's equivalent of $300 on it 40 years from now? No thank you.
I agree the bigger issue is lack of competition. Why isn't there equal outcry about that?
Citadel's Ken Griffin Says Bitcoin ‘Bubble’ May End in Tears
Fearless shared postmortems – CRE life lessons
What if someone has a deficit of over 7,000 calories/day for an extended period of time (suppose they eat 3k calories and bike for 14 hours/day)?
> Also misleading. An IQ of 200 vs 130 is just one kind of difference between intelligences. For example, a person with IQ 200 can't necessarily consider 10x the amount of possibilities than 130, but an artificial intelligence can, simply by giving it 10x more computing power. In other words, IQ 130 vs 200 may well be within the limits of human capabilities, but AIs would not have those limitations, they can scale differently, and so might explode.

It is also false. There's heaps of evidence that IQ correlates with impact. For the skeptical, gwern has written a lot about this, I'm sure you can find something here: https://www.gwern.net/iq
Their event actually "started" around midnight on Sunday with a midnight madness event or something. I think that's when the announcement was made. My wife works in AWS Elemental and stayed up to watch the announcement.
This looks even more promising than Qualcomm's chip?

https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/

Either way, competition is definitely heating-up in the server space. If I were them I would price these chips super-aggressively (near-cost) for first few generations to get rapid mass adoption and software support. Worry about profits later, when they are established as serious players in the server chip market.
Comcast has a very slow lane for all BitTorrent traffic (they effectively blocked it back in 2007/2008) until the FCC died them to not do that.

You’re argument is probably false. The fears are real we’ve seen ISPs provide tired bandwidth in the past. Everything except BitTorrent traffic was in the fast lane and BitTorrent traffic was in the slow lane.
"Provider" and "service" aren't always distinguishable.
I think you should limit political campaign website access to subscribers that purchase the ultra-premium $500/mo. package
Thanks, I'll get that taken care of.
A lot of games are low latency specifically because they worked with ISPs to reduce latency, or worked with a server provider that did so:

https://www.polygon.com/2016/2/17/11037220/league-of-legends...

As I understand, the monopolies like Comcast and Time Warner have almost no incentive to actually improve their infrastructure unless they have the ability to shake down the services that want speedier connections when they need them.
Does anyone else feel this is a massive non-issue (just as it was before these rules were applied in 2015)?

Have none of you visited an amusement park? Some guests pay for express passes that let them ride more rides. Others choose a budget option that means longer waits for lower cost.

The feeling of being a victim originates with the state-imposed monopolies of cable franchises. People don't grouse about ATT vs Verizon because they know they can switch.
Kubernetes Security: How to harden internal kube-system services
It is the evolution of it indeed. Amazon got the code after Goo Technologies went bankrupt, added some integrations with AWS and rebranded it.
> LOGIN WITH COINBASE

Hmm. How about you give me a little more information about what exactly your service does before propositioning me to do something as instinctually terrifying as that?
Related is Feynman's comment on where trees come from: Most people think they grow out of the Earth, but they really grow out of the air.
Image hashing with OpenCV and Python
Isn't there a loophole in this argument - if we could only include "building specialized sub-AIs" in the set of problems our AI can solve? Is there any fundamental reason why this can't be done? I agree that there needs to be more subsystem in AI for 'learning' and 'improving' to even work.

Not really sure where I stand on the AI debate, surpassing humans at everything seems misguided to me, like why would you include all this human-like cruft in the AI when you can put in stuff humans could never have?
No you're not, I explicitly said 'some'. I'm also a man. I abhor the shitty behaviour, but I recognise that our current conceptions of masculinity enable it - and trap us too. I've been through a few phases with my discovery and reconciliation with feminism, from ignorance, to ridicule, to acknowledgement and some very uncomfortable realisations about my own past behaviour, to now being full-on on board. Feminst arguments aren't just about women, they're about everyone living in a society where masculinity is just one of many forces, balanced with others. Parts of my life are now like this and it's awesome, and actually freeing from all the dullness of traditional masculinity and dominance.
That guys is basically the reason I started using my (different than his) middle initial everywhere across the interwebs. :/
You can walk. If you are at 50 + lbs of weight and haven't run at all fast walking will put you in the same cardio zone as running for a lighter weight runner. The math of calorie loss as it goes with running is the simple equation of how much weight are you moving and what cardio zone is your body operating in to move that weight. If you can hit low aerobic fast walking (most non runners can do that easily), just do that.

Beyond that I am not sure about how running impacts the joints of heavily overweight people. I would advise a very slow and conservative ramp of up mileage. I think as long as the body is given time to adjust it can do so with minimal risk of serious injury (even if you are running). The problem with running is your aerobic capacity will likely outstrip the rest of your bodies ability to absorb punishment. This is why so many "I am going to run a Marthon, but have no prior running experience" people end up injured and then wander about telling people how bad running is for your joints, etc.

(https://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/runners-have-m...). Could just be a self reporting bias, but it is interesting. Several studies over the years have looked at life long runners knees and they seem to be fine compared to a non runners.

I didn't even go into some of those "soft" benefits of regular exercise, such as the mental boost it gives (which seems like it would support weight loss), along with the obligatory lymph system circulation which is likely to improve immune health and help with waste cycling. As long as someone isn't overtraining, that is :)
Isn't it good that efforts are duplicated? It commoditizes the work and results, provides more jobs so there are more people who understand this field. It's unlikely each approach will be exactly similar.

Similarly, take a look at the deep learning library market: caffe (I think out of Stanford?), tensorflow (google), pytorch (FB + MS)... each has different strengths, but I'm sure glad the pytorch people pushed ahead, even though google put a ton of marketing effort into TF, simply because now we have more awesome things :).

Once a market or product is mature, then I can see the "duplicates are wasteful". But a nascent, exploratory field like ML/DL needs as many different approaches as is possible.

Now, if only we could gradient descent to find the optimal approach ;).
German domestic spy agency hits out at Silicon Valley
Only if the tax revenues are spent wisely. In the US, some 42% - 57% of the tax base goes to defense spending [1]. It's extremely arguable if that is a good way to spend such a large quantity of tax dollars. One could argue "we should elect representatives who make better spending decisions," however the defense lobby makes sure to get involved with all lawmakers. Once again it comes back to campaign finance reform as the necessary first step to straighten out the political system.
If I recall correctly, the leadership of LessWrong espouses "Politics is the mindkiller".

Consequently, their followers will find all manners of justification to avoid applying their rationality to political subjects, in the guise of some holier-than-thou enlightenment.

Ironically, this actually helps to sustain their membership. Broaching politics would risk schisms within their enervated movement, as a group who believes "Global Warming is irrational" but wouldn't otherwise discuss it, would be forced to confront an opposing group which does.
The ability to make a billion identical somethings would seem to be more valuable than any possible improvement you could make.

The other trade offs you are imagining seem to be worse than any possible gain.
The headline is somewhat click baity but an interesting find nevertheless
Yes, but can vary much from department to department. A decade back the immunology department I was in gradually switched almost entirely from Windows PCs to Apple Macs. Primarily by people seeing how much nicer and more productive a user-friendly Unix-based system was than Windows; even the die-hards eventually switched over. We also had a large number of Linux/Unix people as well, particularly for bioinformatics, who bought fully maxed out Mac Pros from the G5 onward to do work which required a lot of memory and disc. Back then, they were good value for money.

Today, Mac usage is declining. The cost:value isn't there and they don't manufacture any high-end kit. Given how much PC you can buy for the same price as a MacBook, like a 32- or 64-core Threadripper or EPYC with a massive GPU which blows any available Apple hardware away, it's not hard to see why. For computational biology, running Linux on it gives you a much more capable and productive system, and even Windows 10 with the Linux subsystem is perfectly adequate. Apple's mistake has been to focus upon only profitable consumer product lines, and drop the ball entirely on the high end. They didn't sell as many high-end units, but they were the driver for Mac adoption in many places, and without that Mac usage will continue to decline. A mediocre laptop isn't good for a lot of scientific uses.
Viewed with a more holistic approach, I understand a lot of those case by case issues, and have a lot less panic about them. It's easy to paint a pile of different events with a broad brush, especially if you already view a group of companies as inherently evil by default. (I get why the net neutrality propaganda campaign has been so successful, it's super easy to convince people to hate Comcast and Verizon, we all already do.)

But for example, the paid fast lane situation... does not currently exist. The whole "you might have to pay for the social media package to see this tweet" nonsense? Not only doesn't actually exist but has no chance of even remotely existing.
Opened 3 years ago. And I would argue forcing a light FF theme while using a dark GTK theme is not a "fix". Oh, and, why doesn't it "just work"?
I cannot read the paper there - How is "judges take gender, but not race, into account in determining the amount of bail" determined? Purely from correlation between bail amounts and above factors?
I sometimes wonder if this type of policy would result in me using the internet less on a point of principle? I mean I watch netflix but could live without it
If they want to build a faster parallel pipe, and charge more for it, I don't see a problem with that.
Comcast has $5 billion USD on their balance sheet in cash. They can afford to add more capacity.
I am also one of the developers of the original Goo Create (worked on it between 2014 and the end of 2016) and I can confirm it is indeed the same app (including colors, icons, etc). Amazon basically just added some integrations with AWS and a new logo.
I mean my living expenses, including rent, utilities, food, transportation, health care, etc, add up to $1.5k per month (or ~18k per year).

As in, I could make $25k (at a level where the tax rate is effectively near-0) and still save > $5k per year.
What you are describing is <10% of, say, the linux kernel. The rest of it reads very much like user-land code (and dereferencing a null pointer will often earn you a nice warning message if not a panic).
If it is decentralized, then why do I need node-js? Why do I need a webserver?
but do "lab workstations" really equate to "workstations of people in the business" or "computers this school got a good deal on" ? I think the latter. I suspect that they're irrelevant to this discussion.