skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Third world means poor countries now.

A citation would be nice. Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition?

EDIT: Note that I asked what countries would be SECOND-world with this definition. Not third-world.
Surely it's just at the behest of the host governments? i.e. The ones who can threaten to block Facebook from their entire countries? That is to say it is a business decision.

At this point I think we can be entirely cynical about their motives. To the extent that there is any semblance of a moral dimension to their actions (perhaps someone can point to those occasions if they exist) it is probably still just a business decision in that they don't want to harm their brand.
Because the government can very easily seize your etf? They could even physically confiscate the gold rendering your note useless.

This equivalent is logistically impossible with bitcoin and the more nodes the stronger it becomes to resisting censorship. They would literally have to buy every single bitcoin (probably at tremendous price increase) and throw away the private key. Even leaving just 1 satoshi would render this plan completely useless. And because around %15 or so of the bitcoins have been lost to los USB drives or forgotten passwords, etc that a government would never know how many are still in legit wallets. Plus satoshi has a million..
Little late, but my two cents as someone who majored in a humanities field (although working in tech now):

Our lectures were almost always intended to be heard after doing the readings. They were comprised of helpful info professors knew from academic experience, not easily found in any print material. Relevant historical context was especially hard to pick up without knowing what exactly to look for.

I felt like my humanities lectures were more analogous to demos and labs in my STEM courses, learning that relies on a certain spontaneity and physical presence, even if not all of the material is strictly "necessary". As for a counterpart to my STEM lectures, I too would've been bored out of my mind listening to most humanities professors read our readings to us...
I don't know what those are. I have been working as a packer mostly and our place has a minimum of 200 items per hour.
I don't think this is quite right. Currency is not equity. It does not confer ownership rights, nor command any dividends. It's really more like company scrip that can be used in the company store, that is, the portion of the economy under USG jurisdiction.
This is a good point. We associate Italian food w/ pizza and pasta but traditional Spanish food with...paella? Rioja wine? There's nothing for the common person to really grasp w/ Spanish food unless they go to some sort of overpriced tapas restaurant.
Honest question - why are people so enthusiastic about Chocolatey? Most packages, including the Fiddler package, just run a small Powershell script that downloads an installer from a known location (in this case https://www.telerik.com/docs/default-source/fiddler/fiddlers...), verifies the checksum and runs it silently. As far as I know, it's all just wrappers on top of stuff that's always existed in Windows Installer. Is it simply the convenience of the chocolatey.org catalog and the ability to avoid visiting a bunch of websites looking for installers? I thought ninite.com had that cornered for most uses.
How do you pick a wife and get married and have kids by 25? That’s simply impossible for people that don’t marry their high school sweetheart and stay together through college
It's probably both, but leaning much more towards the grifting side of things. There's something about conservative politics in the US which encourages grifters and cons.

When my very Republican stepfather fell into dementia, I helped my mom monitor his mail so he'd stop spending so much money on things he didn't understand. It was a deluge of stuff every day. Often from groups I had never heard of who wanted money to stop Sharia law or stop the "war on Christmas" or whatever the big conservative cause was that day. And even the mainstream GOP got into the act. More than once, a FedEx envelope would show up with a plea that everything was doomed unless a check was overnighted. Once the GOP FedEx solicitation contained a letter accusing my stepfather of no longer being a member of the Republican Party, but he could clear up this misunderstanding by writing a check.
The, "the real victims in all of this are the men!" takes on this are getting pretty old. False accusations are extremely rare. Whereas harassment and sexual assault are actual, real things that women have to deal with on a daily basis.

You know what can really ruin someone's life? Being harassed/assaulted and not being able to talk about it for fear that you'll be ostracised by your friends and family.
So that's correct to the extent that when most people think of co-ops, they think of the seven principles or whatever. Which makes sense, because the labor movement has had a huge influence over what co-ops today look like.

I think though that an equally valid alternative vision is what's laid out by the Howey Test, where the value of a token needs to come from the network participants rather than from a central party or a promoter. This naturally leads to a situation where the most successful co-ops are the ones that best incentivize their members to create value, e.g. by giving them ownership for creating value. This is the great race that's currently happening in the space as companies are fighting to figure out how to best do this, since every single industry is ultimately going to get reimagined and every sector of the economy is up for grabs.

Over time we'll likely see a hybrid between the minimalist game-theory driven co-ops (e.g. FileCoin) and the principles of labor-movement-style co-ops, as they make sense and as they're (re)proven to actually incentivize people.
No, that's not what OP is saying at all. Read his posts. He's under the impression that exchanges take out bank loans to pay dollars to their customers, which is false.

When banks refuse to deal with an exchange like Bitfinex, it has nothing to do with liquidity concerns. It's because banks are required by law to verify who they are transferring money to (AML/KYC), and they don't believe Bitfinex abides by those laws (they are right).

BTW, Bitfinex recently reopened bank deposits and withdrawals.
Exim use-after-free vulnerability while reading mail header
So wait, after everyone called George Soros a made-up bad guy for funding progressive things.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/24/washington-p...

Now, Peter Thiel, "is" a hidden evil overlord pulling the strings?

Because if you're going to suggest that hidden evil overlords can and do exist, then why are we giving Soros the benefit of the doubt? Why are journalists meeting with this guy and speaking at his events if he has nothing to do with politics?

I'm asking honestly, which is it: Are billionaires trying to manipulate us, or not? And if so, why do we give an exception to one specific man? And if not, why do we give exception to one specific man?

[Ooh, downvotes without replies. I must be on to something here. Katastic, the most dangerous thing to Hacker News, is a guy with sources. I can't wait to hear how sources and logic are the new arm of the Patriarchy and Neo-Nazism.]
Apologies for being a grammar nazi but I thought I'd let you know that it isn't 'all be it', it's "albeit."
Amazon has many different interests, much of which could be affected by negative press. Amazon has a 600 Million dollar contract with the CIA, and regularly does business with many other agencies of the US government. It would be safe to say that between its fledgeling media content group, its online sales group, and its cloud computing group, there are a huge range of potential conflicts of interest between its news-reporting subsidiary and the others.

Besides the fact that it is not in the interests of the company to report in a way that could negatively affect the stock price, it is also in its interests not to report negatively on topics which could impact its lucrative customer contracts. And on top of it all, if Bezos - the richest man in the world - just gets something in his craw, that could also affect what gets reported, as it has been with every media baron in history.
It's probably time for new ideas. Clinton administration to present has shown that regulatory agencies are very easy to capture. "Hands off" hasn't worked that well either. The senior citizens who rule us are just going to keep squabbling over the same busted ideas that were popular back when they were still sexually relevant. It is going to be a long ride...
".. could have gotten through if they had been a bit less sloppy"

.. and if my aunt had different bits she'd be my uncle. Of course a perfectly executed plot with hard-to-fake corroborating details and no holes whatsoever could have fooled them. WaPo reporters aren't perfect.

But they ARE genuinely interested in the truth, and interested in doing due diligence to ensure they're reporting it. Above personal politics or personal likes/dislikes of public figures. Conservative media don't seem to understand that. Maybe they can't understand it.
I use https://www.shiftpayments.com/ I buy everything with BTC
Then he should've used capital letters. mm means millimeters.

Edit: you guys really will downvote anything, won't you?
It isn't the government's job to "increase participation in the market".
about a year or two ago. in one extreme case, somebody maxed out their CCs and used their student loans to invest in eth. He was a bit on the obsessed side.
Trying to compare the Second and Fourth for reworking does not work well since they are fundamentally different concepts.

In the case of both amendments the laws enacted surrounding them are the issues. In the case of the fourth amendment there are problematic laws such as civil asset forfeiture that are overreaching and result in the lost of property loss with little to no resource. In the case of the second amendment the laws are usually created by people who don't even know how guns work at a fundamental level.
Ha, ok then. I will happily swap my mega coins for your crappy government currency.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, like I said, Phillips blundered by giving them her real name. WP is definitely allowed to publish it.
I can recommend subscribing to Most recent announcements from AWS[1] for keeping up. You'll get weekly summary emails with headlines, HN style. They link to articles here[2].

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/subscribe-to-aws-announcements/

[2] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2017/
Exactly. Here's a revised "worked example".

Day 1: Alice buys 1,000 Bitcoin from Bob for 1 USD on a street corner

Day 2: Market price on the street corner is 1 Bitcoin for 1,000 USD

Day 3: Alice sells 1,000 Bitcoin to Charlie for 1,000,000 USD on a street corner

The street corner doesn't have to borrow 1,000,000 USD from a bank.

Charlie brings the USD to the trade.
1. I don't see how increase in bandwidth made it possible to shape traffic. Certainly, demand for more bandwidth made traffic shaping more interesting, but it doesn't mean it was impossible before. Maybe it was unnecessary before, but then if it is necessary now, banning it is not exactly the smart way to go?

2. Again, that makes the case that it only became necessary (or attractive) lately, but the capability always existed. In this case, given that the underlying causes for this still exist (namely, growth of bandwidth and proliferation of streaming) is it smart to ignore it and say that site that pipes out gigabytes of hi-res video is the same thing as site that has kilobytes of text and there can be no difference in handling traffic between them? I don't think it's the smart way to do it, neither technologically nor socially.

3. So not only Netflix is not a small business, it could very well pay what providers asked from it in exchange for the capacity. So where is that "small businesses are hurt" part again? I only see "large businesses figuring out pay structure and doing it just fine" part. That's the point I am trying to make - Netflix is not an example of "small business" that would be - or has been - hurt by absence of (strong) neutrality. It is true that in presence of strong neutrality Netflix could probably be more profitable (at the expense of other users of the same infrastructure and end consumers, which would then have to pay for increased infrastructure costs and capital investments needed to support it) but why would I want it to happen?
> I don't think he cares. The goal is to muddy the waters and make it harder to do real journalism.

I think, generally, the result has been that it's harder to do fake journalism; at least when it comes to the undercover work.
The OP's position is naive. So is yours.
For me personally, state lotteries work great. They're a very regressive tax. I also don't like them much and appreciate that, at least in my state, advertising and promotion was largely phased out.

[ADDED: In case anyone missed the sarcasm I'm not a huge fan of state lotteries because they target the people who can least afford them. That said, I realize many buyers would go the less regulated route if they didn't exist.]
Except for the pathological example of Bitfinex (another story), every $1 of coin sold is backed by the $1 that a depositor has made. There cannot be a 'bank run' like you describe unless the exchange is running a fractional fiat reserve. This is not the case is which you describe.
If there a massive withdrawal of billions from coinbase, it means that there is a massive deposit of billion TO coinbase to make the trade.
In the case of bitfinex, they appear to be doing peer to peer bank transfers to get round their own banking problems. (ie: you want 10m out, i want 10m in, we trade A->B, rather than through the exchange as a middle man).

You simply cannot sell it if there is no buyer to take it. You never 'sell' to coinbase -- this is a front for GDAX, their exchange. Every buy is taken from a seller on their market. The money is exchanged between you and their account, and they take fees.
We already pay people to do nothing, in the form of dividends and capital gains. And we pay them a lot.

I'm a fan of UBI in that I believe we have the ability to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life, and providing it without demeaning means-testing and the attendant labelling and stigma seems the right way to do it.

But I'm not a fan of only giving money. That money ultimately comes from the corporate economy, which owes a large debt to the common purse. For example, we pedestal google, amazon, etc, but they wouldn't exist without the DARPA (government) funding which created the internet, and even more basic research before that, law and order to protect it, education to allow people to even read it, a road network to allow it to spread, I could go on.
And then there are what should be commonly-owned monopolies like land, radio spectrum, etc, etc. So I think corporations, rather than just paying this "common debt" in taxes (which they don't appear too keen to do), should be part-owned collectively.

So, we should have some kind of Universal Basic Income, but it should come in the form of dividends derived from Universal Basic Ownership, eg a system something like all companies should be 30% owned by a Universal wellfare fund which everyone gets a share of.
Takeaway: WaPo vets their sources and stories a lot more than certain political figures claim they do.
> But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its behavior any more than that of an individual.

You're actually reversing the directionality and stating the contrapositive - being able to call something a corporation does not imply it should be shielded from government interference. For example, government bodies themselves can be considered (and often are even legally constituted as) corporations, and obviously libertarianism has much to say about constraining those!

This is not simply an academic distinction - this entire debate hinges on whether individuals actually have a choice between ISPs, or whether the local ISP basically constitutes a de facto government. Furthermore, most incumbent ISPs were even built using government money and privileges! We wouldn't be having this debate if there were a vibrant market for Internet access.
How much have production costs dropped from print to the web? I'm guessing it's not 80%, but it should be a fairly substantial amount.
Anything people do in majority out of necessity and without enjoyment. Take your pick.
Sure, but the Washington Post may have refused her story if they couldn't verify her identity. The real problem is that for Veritas is that they apparently can't hire someone with a clean identity and no public record of conservative beliefs.
Washington Post silent on AMAZON warehouse conditions? Of course! 'Journalism' ends at owner's paycheck... (link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/timed-toilet-breaks-imp...)
Why is it a self-own? If his objective (cast shade on real allegations) is achieved, then he's doing fine, he'll be paid by his funders (and protected).

He is a political hitman and stalking horse.
I guess you're right. Never thought about the nested Divs.

Anyway but for things like Form elements, Cards, Panels wherr the classes remain same but each Css framework has its own set of classes, i was wondering if it makes sense to have a fixed set of tags like <panel>, <card>, <col>, etc and then we can have a transpiler that coverts those tags to Bootstrap panel or a bulma or uikit, etc panel.. Just like we transpile Sass into css.
I agree that it's an argument but it does not satisfy me.

If libertarians were on record and known for objecting to the corporation itself as the infringement on individual liberties that it is, then that would be one thing. But applying libertarian principles to something which is an inherently unlibertarian government construct is just nonsense.
Right outside Dino Valley (at least in the late 1990s) was the Creation Evidence Museum. It was housed in a double-wide trailer.
I think it's interesting that you replied to this comment, but not my other comment (the one referencing John Oliver).

I'm sure the situation you are describing is difficult to deal with.
SpaceX raises another $100M
> You've even managed to save around $10K in cash from various summer jobs and gifts from relatives. The consensus advice investment management professionals would offer is to sock it away in a well-diversified set of Vanguard Funds.

Put half of it in a Roth IRA with Vanguard. You can still do a lot of risk taking and self development on $5k, and the compounding from being in the Roth IRA that early really will make a big difference.
Why hasn't James O'Keefe been arrested yet? He he been caught committing fraud multiple times.
A lot of good laughs from this incident. I actually feel a bit sad for the woman who got hired to play the fake victim. She was recently laid off from from her mortgage job when she apparently accepted the job with Veritas, but she needed to start a GoFundMe just to move up there (and she only got 2 donors, one of which was her own daughter)

Veritas tasks her with the main role in busting the Washington Post with an undercover sting. But it doesn't look like she got any training or preparation at all. She used her real name when talking to the WaPo, had a phone number with the wrong area code (given her claimed state of residence), and Veritas didn't remind her to remove her GoFundMe page, which is how the WaPo ultimately confirmed that she was a fraud.

I'm definitely not a fan of Veritas or O'Keefe's bullshit, and this woman has to bear responsibility for her poor choices. But damn, if your mission was sincerely to expose the truth about the purportedly corrupt media, wouldn't you put more prep into it? It's not like Veritas is lacking in resources -- their latest 990 says they had an operating surplus of $1.3M and O'Keefe received $235,471 in salary https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3454912-Project-Veri...

edit: the 2016 990 was just released today. O'Keefe's salary is $317K and the org's revenue increased from 3.7M to 4.8M. Not bad at all.
I think I read OP as defending Ms Philips' mistaken expectations of privacy. My bad
It's literally what the question asks. It asks what rate high earners should pay: “should pay” is effective not nominal, because it asks what should be actually paid; “high-earners”, without limitation to some subset of their income, is total, not marginal.

Of course, this is reinforced by the fact that people don't even generally understand marginal tax rates all that well, but that's secondary.
Looks like I left out a "not".
> In the case of the second amendment the laws are usually created by people who don't even know how guns work at a fundamental level.

That's funny, I've described a lot of computer laws like that, often specifically with regards to government search of people's data.
And the marginal effects of having 100M in the bank over 10M in the bank over 1M over 100K are all still huge for any feasible tax scheme I could imagine.

What does your world look like where you'd be too taxed to bother wanting to be financially independent?
How does the above scenario of limiting who can invest fall under these?
He proposes a soft version of Socialism [1]. You can own a company but you will have to pay additional 20% income tax or 20% VAT (I am not sure how to gather in taxes 20% of GDP).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms"
> Accredited investors requirement is what allows one not to be a subject to Blue Sky laws.

You think its a fair trade to lock 95% of Americans out of the investment market in order to protect the elderly?

New law: accredited investing means passing a 1 week course to obtain an investment license, which must be renewed bianually.

Now we can keep Grandma Suzy safe (because she hasn't passed the class) without locking 95% of Americans out of the investment market.
dammit. Oh well, I'm doing $10/mo for digital, seems like a good deal. Same for NYTimes, and a subscription to the Economist. Then I hit someone else's paywall and start seeing red...
He also got funding from Trump's charitable foundation.

Maybe Trump was correct to claim he invented fake news.
ARM on desktop or server will be tightly controlled closed SOCs with zero driver support. These will be nothing like the relatively open systems in the PC world, so there is nothing to look forward to.

This is ARM's model and they have shown no interest in improving things beyond kicking open source developers between the ARM and SOC vendors each blaming the other for years on end.

Intel, even with something as nasty as ME, look like an angel in comparison.
The Case for Not Being Born (2017)
> • No throttling,
> • No paid prioritization,

That wasn't in 2010 one. The only requirement is that it is not "unreasonable discrimination" - which of course means in fact "whatever District/Supreme Court wants it to mean" but in the meantime can be interpreted as "whatever you can plausibly find a solid business reason to do" (which excludes anti-competitive ones by "no blocking clause"). 2015 one seems to go much further and exclude much more.
A good that has no use to any person other than the hope that another person may buy it from them later for a price higher than what the original person paid for it.
No, you show it.

I already showed that you were completely lying about wealth taxes not existing anymore. Only a fool would trust a proven liar like you.