skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Since those terrible people exist, that’s why we have people doing these sorts of plans. It’s naïve to think that if we just abolish militaries that bad people go away. Letting the Soviet Union even exist amounted to being an accomplice to mass murder. They were the most evil regime in the 20th century in terms of body count. And that includes Hitler. Just the way they shot their own retreating troops during Stalingrad should turn one’s stomach. That doesn’t even consider their progroms as well as famines caused by farm collectivization. Look at Mao as well — literally millions died because of his aversion to sparrows. This moral relativism casting the US as some evil empire is ridiculous. The alternative to US hedgemony in the 20th century would have been far worse than anything imaginable. All of Europe would have been like East Germany. Asia would have been comparable to North Korea. War is a horrible thing, but sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Apparently this was possible some 60 years ago. A recent PBS documentary[1] noted that "atomic tourism" to Las Vegas was great enough that Nevada Senators were repeatedly lobbying against a ban on atmospheric testing in the 50's.

[1] http://www.vegaspbs.org/the-test/
I hate Black Friday, stop spamming me
Imagine a future version of IPFS that can recognize partitions and form sub-networks within an isolated network. Then, there's no difference between offline, isolated network, and public mode except for connectivity, and the way to import data is to have your inner nodes pin it!
"Now that I'm rich you people should do _________."
Looks like CAT scan image reconstruction in reverse!
Except those social welfare programs would still be essential. If you're poor and get sick, or you're disabled, you get a lot more (and need a lot more) than $1000/mo from today's social welfare programs.

Also, your math doesn't make sense. You say we currently spend $927B on social welfare programs and propose BI as a complete replacement for those programs. But that number includes Social Security, and you subtracted the people on social security from your list of people. Social security cost $917B by the way, almost all of our social welfare spending.

You also can't just subtract all the people currently employed. A large portion of people on welfare are employed.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...
I just got a new 30k Kia for 2.2% with 5k bonus cash. They also offered 0% and 3k bonus cash but taking the extra cash was better for me.
Enough do that you can build a solid portfolio of startups. https://wefunder.com/ (YC W2013) has many to choose from, and they make the mechanics of investing easy (it is a substantial amount of work if you invest directly).
Its a stupid stance, and rather easy to refute. Good reasons for Taylor not to say anything: she doesn't want to.

Nobody complains about my stance of not talking about unicorns as being pro unicorn. Complaining about Taylor Swift not taking a stance on trump as being pro trump is a failure in logic at the most basic level.

How about we stop caring so much what celebrities think instead?
A new unique random id generation library for .NET
> For instance, Wal Mart makes more money if you shop their frequently.

So does Costco; they are profitable even before membership fees, and that's including fixed costs; so more unit sales means more profits. But the membership fees are pure profit on top of all that (and actually encourage people to shop more.)

> On a side note, I wonder if that's the reason that lines at Costco are so miserable and their hours are so short?

IME, the lines are long because of the quantity of items people tend to purchase (but they also move quickly for their length.) The hours are short because hours with low sales volume accumulate costs quickly.

> Conversely, my Wal Mart is open 24hrs a day and the checkout process takes a couple minutes.

IME, checkout at Walmart is much more variable than Costco; the average may be less time, but the range seems to go much higher. The longer hours, including hours with very low staffing, contribute to that, because there's more opportunity for staffing to not be aligned to a cluster of customers.
Is your argument that there is a strong connection between people who don't want to dance and people who are schizotypal/avoidant? Or are you no longer talking about reasons why a large percentage of the male population does not dance?
scientists I know have osx laptops and run jobs on linux compute clusters.
I am embarking on my third attempt at major weight loss -this time medically supported.

The first two times were a success as I was doing Weight Watchers and they stress always 'tracking' - meal logging and accounting for your meals before eating - and planning your meals ahead. All of my failures came after stopping Weight Watchers for one reason or another (inconvenience of weekly meetings, wanting to save some money instead of paying for the subscription, etc).

Moving into medically supported weight loss has changed my view toward some of the pseudo-science of Weight Watchers, but one thing both approaches have in common is keeping a food diary or accounting of what you are going to eat and holding yourself accountable to that. I'm down ten pounds over the last two months and well on my way thanks to getting back into using a food diary (in my case, MyFitnessPal).

I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to lose a lot of weight over the long term, but it's also good for generally accountability. After I lose the amount of weight I'm trying to I will continue to keep a food diary.
It's generally an entry level position in a company that operates in the "organized crime" market sector.
Tumblr is Tumbling
> "Correct the Record, that is solely focused on defending her record."

> “Correct the Record”, a rapid rebuttal unit

Portraying them as some sort of superhero warriors/defenders is precisely what OP was talking about.
Capital gains tax + inflation is a wealth tax. Each year you have to grow your money by inflation for it to maintain buying power. 2% inflation * 20% top rate LTCG tax means the wealthy pay a deferred 0.4% wealth tax yearly.
> Tax incentives for employer tuition reimbursement makes more sense.

Just when you thought tuition costs couldn't go any higher...
Ask HN: What are the strongest arguments *against* Net Neutrality?
Proponents of Net Neutrality: What do your best and strongest critics say and where are they mistaken?

Opponents of Net Neutrality: What are the best and strongest arguments against Net Neutrality.
It really was a wonderful case in many ways. It was heavy as hell, though.
Well, the rich generally leave a place due to what season it is.
> I didn't know about it, or I would have gone to visit the site!

Just an exit south of where you grab your Kolaches. There's a historical marker [0] (actually, I think it moved to [1] ...so same exit).

0 - https://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=35909

1 - https://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=59674
I think cyber security is going to be huge too, but not sure how to make a play on it, don't see any obvious winners in the security space. What approach do you take?
YouTube fixed an autocomplete bug that suggested how to have s*x with your kids
> GNU/linux usage has been growing along with MacOS.

That's a euphoric way of saying that Linux desktop systems (the actual thing we're discussing) has nowhere near the same market share, but it's growing I swear!. And of course Linux fanatics can't help but mention how widely the kernel is used even if it's completely off-topic. Should we mention how widely Intel ME/Minix is installed too just for kicks?

> I use Ubuntu for everyday work and have no more problems...

That's cool. Some people also bike to work instead of driving a car and they don't have any problems with that either.

> Let me know when any real modern OS becomes "unstable".

Right now. Linux doesn't even have an ABI for drivers and just this year I think Linus promised a whole 6 years of stable interfaces for drivers. Furthermore, historically and currently, next to nobody makes serious commercial software for Linux desktop systems because of the wildly unstable environment. Look at any discussion thread comparing Linux to Windows or Mac and you'll find plenty of people complaining about Linux drivers, lack of software, unstable/unfit desktop UIs and general fragmentation.

> The only reason I can see for using a Microsoft based platform over any other platform is if you're heavily invested in VBA and macros...

Oh, I thought your opinion would have been completely different after reading the first couple of paragraphs. Let me guess, you also think that command line apps are better than GUIs right? Oh and you think that configuring your system by opening up text files and typing in free-form text is better than using a GUI too.

Obviously the city of Munich and just about every other city and business on earth disagrees with you because none of them want Linux on their desks.

> You're working from a very old mindset of operating systems.

Nope. Your ideas about the state of the Linux desktop are altogether fanciful.
That's because the ground doesn't hold up trees, trees pin down the ground. Also, trees grow into the ground, not out of it.
+1.

And whence the money for the share? Taxes. So this is just a UBI.

This, like all UBI proposals, seems like a way to dress up a massive tax hike: "but you'll be getting your share of GDP!". The only way to get me to like a UBI is to have UBI replace absolutely all (and I do mean all) welfare programs so that we can just haggle at every election over one headline UBI number + necessary taxes. And the initial UBI and tax rates would have to be no more burdensome than the current total of welfare it would replace, and preferably significantly less burdensome than that. Many UBI proponents, of course, would not mind this because they'll aim to ratchet up the UBI and taxes for it in a way that becomes culturally irreversible -- and that's a reason to be against UBI.

And incidentally, all instances of "soak the rich" in American history have actually been "soak those who aren't rich but have high incomes". The truly wealthy have no income as such -- instead they have capital. And why don't we just tax capital? Well, because every time it's been tried anywhere it's been a disaster for the overall economy: capital (and wealthy people) flees.

I'm ready for the downvotes, by the way.
> companies being started by dropouts and other kinds of "miscreants"

But founders are not hired
Book Review: Database Reliability Engineering
Destitute people don't pay taxes.
Inflation does that. Cash in your mattress loses 2% a year. A wealth tax would presumably tax productive wealth as much as unproductive wealth.
Oh, this kind of thing definitely still happens today. Just not in the US. There's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pyrotechnic_Festival

I've been twice. The climax of the event involves pushing three-meter paper-mache bulls through crowds of tens of thousands of drunk people, all the while shooting out rockets and other not-even-remotely-safe-or-sane fireworks in what looks like a cluster bomb explosion. I saw dozens of people get seriously injured... and they come back every year.

Personally, I could do without some of the regulations. It's liberating to go someplace that doesn't feel toddler-proofed.
How Yahoo derailed Tumblr (2016)
Face ID hacked with $200 mask
In Switzerland you can get in touch with the Open Knowledge Foundation https://make.opendata.ch/ If it's anything like the German chapter there'll be lots of projects, often with PR (besides the charity) value

http://make.opendata.ch/wiki/needs:design?do=showtag&tag=nee...
Do any youtube engineers have the scoop on why this happened ?
Our Advertising Principles
I personally prefer 2 or 3 monitors rather than one large monitor. One monitor for code. Another for debuggin. Another for servers,VM, testing,etc.
> A video streaming service, or most API with response time guarantees ...

Preemption, the design of Erlang's GC etc. don't contribute to predictability or reliability any more than other frameworks.

Consider a system written in Erlang, and another written using a very different architecture, say Python/C++ (YouTube).

In both cases, Python and Erlang are basically used for orchestration; the action happens in the systems layer below.

In both cases they use non-blocking I/O underneath, and some sort of adaptive bitrate streaming if not enough bytes are going through within the time bound. There is nothing that is particular to the Erlang system that monitors bitrate and does something about it. In both cases, the soft real time guarantee has to be accounted for explicitly; you don't get it in any shape or form from the Python or Erlang architecture. The only 'guarantee' you get is the promise of using the underlying API in the most sensible way possible, and to push out bytes with as little overhead as possible.

What you get in both cases, is convenience. As a side note, here's BBC's Kamaelia framework (http://www.kamaelia.org/Home.html) written in Python. (I'm not sure if they still use it though).
Geneticist in a large academic lab here, I'd say 99% of all computers in use are Macs. Some instrument-tied PCs, a couple of Windows laptops, and that's it. Any data analysis (and these are predominantly sequencing scale datasets) that isn't running on the institutionally provided cluster is also being done on Macs.

In my ~20 years on the job in various places, OSX really changed everything; labs used to have a few Macs around for non-analytic tasks where the old MacOS was just easier. Post OSX, it's nearly all Macs unless it ships with an instrument of some kind (and then it's likely Windows). The analytic tool chain is/was massively unix based, so adapting to OSX was easy and came with a very nice GUI that also did the aforementioned easy non-analytic tasks.
of course. but that's exactly what the proponents of BI want, disguised as altruism.
> In the long run, every dollar of wealth gets spent.

Not necessarily.

"Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service. That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors." [1]

Also, the top 1 percent owns 90 percent of wealth in the US [2].

"First, economic inequality has worsened significantly in the United States and some other countries. The richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Oxfam estimates that the richest 85 people in the world own as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity.

The situation might be tolerable if a rising tide were lifting all boats. But it’s lifting mostly the yachts. In 2010, 93 percent of the additional income created in America went to the top 1 percent."

> As a practical matter, consumption taxes can be made progressive by combining them with a low-income tax credit or a universal basic income.

I agree that a consumption tax can be combined with other policy to prevent the regressive nature of a consumption tax alone. This requires wealth be taxed in various forms (ownership of investments, land, etc).

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/thir...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-...
Your point absolutely has merit. I know some, but not many, badly overweight people who exercise regularly. I know some, but not many, skinny people who never lift a finger.

I was mostly trying to address the direct cause-and-effect conclusion the parent comment was making with breathing hard == losing weight
IMO, there's substantial benefit to people being made aware of how much they pay in taxes.

I'd also like tax returns to be due 2-6 weeks before elections, so the figures are fresh in voters' minds. (That's not to say I'm anti-tax necessarily, just that a tighter the linkage between "what I pay" and "what I expect" would be beneficial.)
Pretty much everything we produce or consume in the modern world is only possible due to the availability of cheap energy. health care, food, TV shows, pencils, clothes, etc.
I'm not sure that I ever read a piece written with so much certainty and arrogance on a field that is completely unexplored.
Just as an example:

"The basic premise of intelligence explosion — that a “seed AI” will arise, with greater-than-human problem solving ability, leading to a sudden, recursive, runaway intelligence improvement loop — is false."

From the little that we know as of today I call bullshit.
Even Alpha Go, that is arguably a quite primordial AI, managed to achieve super-human performance in a ridiculously short amount of time, just playing against itself.
And it simply crashed all the collective effort of the human players that honed their strategies for literally millennia in what is considered one of the most difficult games.
I don't think the author has any insight at all on what a general AI will be.
Wait, so if I run a Go-playing program from 10 years ago on the AlphaGo cluster then it'll produce better results than it did 10 years ago?
He wants to share your money that you've worked for.
The rich aren't stashing most of their money under a mattress. Gates, Bezos, etc are worth billions, but that wealth is almost all based off of the stock prices in the companies they own percentagess of.
As far as I know, Sketchup is still available and is pretty good for this kind of work.
> Everyone gets an extra $1000/month. Great. That's extra money flowing into an economy

No, it's not, in most proposals, since it's funded by a combination of new taxes and displacing other spending programs.

If you fund it by printing money, sure, it's new money, but that's not what is usually proposed with UBI.
I need to do more reading on this calories per carb thing. I don't get it at first glance.

I also hated the "if it fits your macros" type thing. I'm not a body builder, what do I care? But when you see the real impact of what you're about to eat it actually frees you quite a bit (assuming you generally eat well). I'm actually happy to grab that extra piece of cheese because I can easily take the calorie hit, I gotta eat something, and some protein and fat seems better than carbs.

I did the math on craft beer last winter, and cut back on beer for a bit, but it never stuck. 2.5cal per ounce per % abv. It would not be unheard of to drink half a POUND of calories in an afternoon, say, watching football. As I've switched to wine, even when I have more than I should and input the numbers, I simply cannot believe my eyes in terms of how FEW calories it has. I overestimate my consumption to be "conservative" and yet it still barely makes a dent in my diet. It's amazing.

I've done dry january a few times, and never saw a bit of benefit. But a month is a short time to see a trend, and it's not a time when I'm training for a race or doing much cycling; most of us are indoors a lot, maybe you have a dessert once or twice a week when normally you'd have none, and bam, you get discouraged and it feels like cutting out alcohol entirely makes no difference at all. Again, when you can see the data on a day-to-day (or even minute by minute) basis, it's so freeing.

Looking at myfitnesspal right now, my 'goal' is 2220kcal (which I think is a 500kcal deficit since I set it to lose 1lb/week). goal 2220, -470 food, +1141 excercise and I've got 2934 left to 'spend' for the rest of the day. It's amazing to get to work and have more than your entire BMR left to eat.
This is understandable, of course. In hindsight, I suspect the current concept of an abstract, one-size-fits-all ingress was, and is, going in the wrong direction.

With CRDs, we could have each ingress controller provide its own, native ingress object ("nginx-ingress") that had the exact features it supported (with schema validation). The ingress controller would then create or delete cloud-specific CRDs ("google-loadbalancer") based on what flavour of cloud you're running under, which Kubernetes could pick up and use. Or something like that.

But as you say, some of the friction exists because cloud LBs are limited in the first place. The arbitrary cert limit on GCP is particularly egregious. We run a SaaS solution with about 100 vendor domains, which means we've been forced to use the Nginx ingress controller and terminate TLS there, instead of at the GLB level where it arguably belongs. (We could run 10 GLBs, but that would require splitting our ingresses into 10 separate ingresses, with the duplication and potential for copy/paste errors that would ensue.)

But thirdly, it's also true that several of the ingress implementations are just a bit sloppy. Traefik, Voyager and haproxy-ingress all have issues with using TLS certs (all of them have open issues about serving both HTTP and HTTPS at the same time, I believe). A lot of today's ergonomics could be solved by polishing up these projects.
Sure, equal is unfair. But that's not what people who are concerned about rising inequality are asking for. They mostly want inequality to stop from rising. So what's the point of showing that equal is unfair?
I don't think it was that. It was more focused on the college student bookie.
The note about the amount of fans, and how silent it is despite the relatively large power draw is interesting. I too ended up realising this when I purchased an Apple workstation - not the G5 but a Mac Pro, which was the first desktop I hadn't built myself since I had a Pentium 133 from Digital.

Until the Mac Pro I hadn't considered that a modern, high power computer could also be dead silent. It's stupid, but that was a revelation for me. I couldn't even tell it was turned on or not, except from the occasional hard drive seeking noise - which I fixed with an SSD. And 7 years later it still is as silent.

Unfortunately Apple is now focusing on keyboards with no depth and whatnot, so I'm back to building my own but I do keep in mind the lessons. My system now has 10 fans + 1 PSU fan, all running between 700-900rpm. I can hear myself think again.
> that is, the idea of software that the end user cannot see the source code to, and cannot modify for their own purposes if needed.

Ability to share the software (with or without modification) is also amongst the "four freedoms", which places some practical limits on selling copies of the software past the first.
Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.
You're better off saving and trying to get a job at Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc..

http://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/
I think cheaper compliance means better compliance. A no-suit cure process is a win both for a company that inadvertently broke GPL provisions, and the bodies like GNU who would point at it and require compliance. It also means that a small company can roll out a GPL-licensed solution with less fear of a non-compliance lawsuit.

Litigation is expensive; it makes sense against large and stubborn violators, but the proper process costs a lot for both sides.

Or maybe I'm missing something important here?
If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business".

Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.