skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm trying my hardest to understand this, but I'm not seeing the logical 'meat' here. As the article states the vast majority of people are quite happy. And even those in the worst of conditions on this Earth are not all that dissatisfied with their lives. The philosopher's retort against this is essentially, 'No, you're not happy!' Who is he to say? But then the argument he follows his 'no you're not' with what seems to be a surprisingly shallow bit of logic. He claims that various discomforts such as hunger/cold/tiredness/etc are a major and never ending source of discomfort. Let's consider comfort for a minute -- actually let's consider discomfort. Imagine there was a universe that somehow, absolutely no discomfort existed. Would this be a world where people living there felt or experienced their lives to be ones of constant comfort? No, it would be experienced as a world where the very notion of comfort and discomfort simply do not exist. It would be like considering vision in a world where there was no such thing.

His argument also sidesteps the point of progression. Claiming we keep repeating the same mistake is myopic at best. The vast majority of people are freer and more able to pursue their lives as they see fit than most any time in history. And this positive forward progression is a never ending theme. The further back you go, the worse things become. Unless he wants to claim existence was more pleasant thousands of years ago, it's tough to deny this directionality of progression. And to deny the innumerable masses of people that may be able to live in ever greater comfort in the future their existence, because you're upset about some petty discomforts in the present -- that seems, at the minimum, supremely greedy and certainly far away from any sort of vague appeal to utilitarianism that he seems to try to make at times.
Alternatively, professional help can also sometimes be tremendously unhelpful.
Thanks. I misunderstood. I thought you had a list of preferred escrow services.
return Math.random() <= 0.2
That could very well be the thing, and there's certain value in that, however IMHO that value is limited because:

1) the market value of a settlement system handling is much, much lower than that of a retail payment system with a comparable value (not number) of transactions. If the "payment of the future" is a side-chain that uses bitcoin as the settlement layer, then that side-chain will be the value creator and get almost all benefit of that value, not bitcoin. Offering payment services to consumers and businesses is a huge value proposition; offering settlement services to institutions or technological payment networks is a lot of value as well but there's less market lock-in and network effect so that's going to be much more commoditized and more vulnerable to competition with established channels.

A consumer is only going to use a few payment methods for convenience reasons; a sophisticated institution (no matter if it's a bank or simply a large corporation selling stuff) or a realistic payment network is easily going to use all possible ways to settle their debts with institution B and is going to route every transaction among the cheapest route possible for that deal. Currently bitcoin is order of magnitude too expensive compared to other real time gross settlement systems (e.g. Target2 starts with ~dollar per transaction and becomes cheaper with more volume), so only transactions that require censorship resistance would be settled through bitcoin and all others would not. Even if we're not talking about institutions but a purely technological solution, using bitcoin as the settlement layer is something that can and will be switched to a different layer if that's more attractive.

2) The properties of bitcoin (irrevocability, pseudonymity, censorship resistance) are benefits to many consumer use-cases and markets, but not particularly relevant to large-volume settlement systems. Anyone who has thousands or millions of payments to aggregate and route through a gross settlement system would generally prefer revocability (partners of payment networks explicitly designed revocability in the protocols they designed, because they wanted this feature); they don't care about pseudonymity because they're large enough that they can't hide, and they don't care about technological censorship resistance because they anyway can't advertise/sell their services if they violate that censorship - they're too large to hide, and they'd be visited by angry men with guns if they tried that. Settlement layer has an entirely different target audience than consumer payments, and that audience has entirely different needs - ones that Bitcoin doesn't fulfill particularly well.

I.e. bitcoin can be used to, for example, smuggle capital out of China avoiding capital controls, and there's value in that use-case; but if it's used as a settlement layer for a service or process smuggling capital out of China, then that wouldn't drive up/maintain the price of Bitcoin nearly as much, and having a censorship-resistant settlement layer doesn't enable you to offer censorship-resistant payments unless all your other money flow is also censorship-resistant.
Tolls aren’t a market priced good. Treating them like one is just misusing the mechanism, with the net result being the people getting to use the road are chosen roughly to be the wealthiest people who want to.

There are other resource allocation schemes besides giving resources to the wealthiest, for example by giving resources to the least wealthy. Or, as I suggested elsewhere, giving “highway passes” away by random lottery to everyone (with win probability set so that the expected number of winners is the correct number of road users).
Because capitalism doesn't work without taxation, not in the long term. This probably sounds weird to most people, but it is the truth.

In capitalism money naturally accumulates at the top, but the whole system depends on money changing hands regularly. It's the essence of the economy. With no taxation all money ends up at the top with people who have nothing to buy, the system grinds to a halt and you have total economic collapse. In order to keep the system working the rich needs to keep feeding money back into the bottom so it can trickle back up to them. Human nature being what it is, you can't expect people to do this on their own. A few (Bill Gates for example) will, but in the majority of cases they would rather sit on the money so it can make even more money for them. Giving to the poor is not "fiscally responsible". Plus it would be very inefficient to make every multi-millionaire/billionaire/multi-billionaire manage their own welfare system.

That's why it is the government's job to redistribute wealth downward to keep the economy healthy. We have endless examples of governments that failed to do this and ended up with stagnant economies and endless economic depression. Look at feudal European economies for example, where the lords hoarded the cash and left charity to the church.

If you want to see this in person, crack open a game of Monopoly. The winning state in Monopoly is total economic collapse where one person has all of the money and nothing to spend it on. If you want to make it more realistic start the game with one player having $20,000, two with $200, and everybody else with $1. That's how real life economies are. If those $1 players lose tell them they didn't work hard enough and that they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845: Everything you need to know
Read the bitcoin whitepaper. That's about it (besides the common developer skillset that is necessary for any engineering job)
Yeah, there’s this dating site that charges $1000 memberships, but all the people are super attractive, wealthy, and looking to get married. Actually with sales tax it’s a little over $1000, but close enough. It’s super selective, though, and I signed an NDA so I can’t reveal the URL or the name of it. You’ll just have to take my word on it.
Can you break that down a little more? I'm having trouble connecting those two statements.
Getting unemployed to work is not a goal, it's a possible desirable but unintended consequence. If nobody (or few people) has to work to live, then people can do things with their time that they find personal value in.

> Why do you think companies would stand for such a thing and not oursource their automation to a country that doesn't do UBI?

The "U" is why. Where would a company outsource their automation if every country in the world taxed their automation?

I'm not a politician or economist, so I can't give you a breakdown of every last detail of how UBI might work. That said, the fact that you haven't seen anyone trying to account for the real-world considerations seems to be more of an echo chamber effect than a sign that those conversations aren't happening.
“My vision is to buy a large piece of land and start a new city with all of you…As with everything I will succeed.”

Run roh, bit of a flashing red warning sign with hints of Jonestown.
> Even though I was a Remain voter I have to credit Vote Leave with how dynamic and data driven their campaign was<

what fears to exploit...
Shame on them.
Bokeh is also similar, and quite customizable!
> Time is something poor people have very little of, as they generally spend most of it trying to make money to make ends meet.

I'm not talking about forming a DC lobbying firm. I'm saying they should ask Councilman Chalmers about these problems at the soccer game, after church, at the grocery store, at the Fourth of July fireworks display, or wherever she tends to be. One of the advantages of local government is that it doesn't take piles of money or tons of energy to speak your mind.

And, yes, I've been poor, so I know how things work. And, while young and poor, I have seen plenty of blue collar (at best) folks speaking out at town hall sessions, etc. The show Parks and Rec makes fun of blue collar citizen activism quite a bit, actually. They generally portray them as crazy, loud, and stupid while Leslie Knope (or someone) puts up with them. If they all said "we need a bus line running more often down Grand Ave", the message would get across.
[SATIRE] KPI of the Week: CBM – Customer Breakdowns per Month
I would not define what China does as "capitalism without freedom and with a Soviet 'politburo' type structure acting [...] as a hyper-Keynesian backstop to markets". Compare the Chinese government form to the following bullet list:

- Exalts nation and race over the individual? Mostly true.

- Centralized, authoritarian, and often dictatorial government? True.

- Strong and charismatic leader? Mostly true (strong yes, charismatic no)

- Strict governmental control over opposition, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? True.

- Severe social regulations? True.

- Crucial role of heroes? Partly true, less so now than in the past.

- Strong attachment to moral, nationalistic values? True.

- Glory of the state over the individual? Mostly true.

- The individual is required to put the interest of the state before his personal goals/needs? True.

- Strong governmental involvement in economy an production? True.

- The State has strong influence over investment and industries? True.

- In order to receive the support of the government, businesses need to promise that their main interest is the enhancement of the country? True.

- Opposed to free market economy? Mostly true, freedom within the confines of what the state allows is not true freedom.

This list comes from a definition of fascism [1], not capitalism or socialism. There are many ways to make such lists and none of them have veritable claims to authenticity but in general China does tend towards fascism and state capitalism more than it does towards capitalism. They actually seem to follow a course laid out by Benito Mussolini who claimed that "...dynamic or heroic capitalism and the bourgeoisie could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism only if the concept of economic individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced. Private enterprise would control production but it would be supervised by the state. ..."

This closely resembles current-day China, more or less exactly where it concerns 'state capitalism' and to a large extent where it concerns fascism.

[1] http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideo...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#Use_by_Italia...
Fair enough :) You should write a long educated article about it!
As good as QT and KDE are, I cannot really explain the fact that the most popular Linux distributions seem to show preference for Gnome; is Gnome more stable? is the user experience provided by Gnome more "polished"? or, is it the K-isms that push them away? is Gnome less resource-hungry?
Its not even going to turn out THAT nice. The new tax cuts assume that the poor will always be working, but between the loss of net neutrality and the automation of driving jobs we're looking at the loss of 95% of male work within the next 10 years. But the rich have divested themselves from society so state and local government will break down and most likely when you lose your career you will land in a concentration camp. The only working class jobs will be capturing torturing and executing the former working class.
Precisely observing structural page changes
don't you mean statically? I assumed dynamic linking was largely regarded as exempt from GPL
who coined the inl, inr terms .. I see them often in denotational semantics but never found the origin of it.
If you're looking for a cheap American developer OP, check my comment history.
It's a common theme on HN, I copied it from other comments when I first started commenting here
Anytime I put more than $1,000 into repairs on a used car, I regretted it.
That's what the above poster already said.

> people who were previously were at lower risk of cancer due to their skin pigmentation/higher melanin
Completely agreed.

It is funny, because I do think this is why we are constantly reimplementing things in the new languages, instead of finding ways to connect old programs.

That is, people are so worried about bugs in hooking grep up to their system, that they instead reimplement all the bugs building grep into their system. (Where grep is an easy to type example from my phone. :) )
they're better than humans but they aren't solved.
Maybe, maybe not.

I can see a situation where necessities increase in price, leaving low income household in the same position they have now.
I paid a locksmith $100 for a new strike plate...

I had heard this was true, but now I have seen that there really are people who can't use a screwdriver.
Another vote for sam harris. I'm not a big podcast listener, be he is exceptional
This is an excellent introduction to quantum computing. I didn't see where I could sign up for updates. I'd like to follow this!
I haven't really see the constitutional challenge question come up. Seems like there's nothing really different than any number of other federal assistance programs funded by taxes other than scale.

As for why the down votes it's probably because it's the really tired 'taxes are theft' argument that a lot of people are really tired of hearing and arguing against.
You're getting downvoted because the comment you're disagreeing with literally says "except weekends".
It's more like "there are people too rich to bother with a screwdriver".
Bitcoin, currently, is a mechanism for high stakes gambling.*

People fucking love gambling. So it's a useful innovation, in a sense.

As long as you actually understand what it is and why people are buying it you'll be OK. Calling it a safe haven asset class however, is, in fact, amusing.

* To be fair it's also good for buying drugs, credit card numbers, and child porn.
Lightning Networks: Bunching Signatures Up
It's an exchange so if there's no one to take the other side of the trade then you wouldn't be able to sell. They probably float a little bit of coin, but likely not enough to wipe them out. The question is what they'd do in a crisis. Would they freeze everyone's coin? Would other exchanges do the same?

Now, they could be hacked and lose a lot of customers' coin without realizing it as happened with Mt Gox. This is why it's advisable to hold your coin in an offline wallet, but doing so makes it harder to panic sell. But that shouldn't matter since we're all definitely here just to HODL crypto and see it actually be useful and we're definitely not just to try to speculate off of it. Right?? Right???
Firefighters attempt to contain blaze ahead of the winds expected Thursday night
As well as a pretty big shovel and some boots.
>I suspect if you want the rich to pay for this you're going to have to be prepared to go full French revolution.

The real challenge is decoupling capital from political power. Otherwise, yeah, why would the rich just sit and watch it float away? If "more money" continues to translate so literally into "more influence," it's pretty hard to blame the rich for using their money to influence the government in ways that will help them continue to keep their money—at that point, it's just an investment.

Of course, this kind of supposes that the working class wouldn't vote to do that on their own. Given the recent trends in American politics, I've stopped making too many assumptions about the weird decisions we make as a group.
I'd think of smart pointers as function parameters as a code smell.[0] Heap allocations should be managed with an RAII class (of which smart pointers may be an internal implementation detail), and "sink functions" should take an rvalue reference (which semantically means "take ownership of this parameter").

[0] Whether a resource is allocated on the heap or elsewhere, or, whether a heap-allocated resource has owned or reference-counted semantics, are implementation details that should be abstracted away from your top-level APIs, so you have the flexibility to change them later.
Hmm, no privacy policy?
Hey, can you provide any insights on working there? I was speaking to a recruiter about working on Gdax and will probably interview in Feb., after I'm out of my current equity hole.
I think the real measure of an AIs success in this field is the absence of pathological boards like this one.

https://lichess.org/analysis/8/p7/kpn5/qrpPb3/rpP2b2/pP4Q1/P...

Is it still easy to find positions that alphazero totally misunderstands?
These have a thing in common. They were poor when communist and still poor when capitalist. (Except China, but there the problem was mismanagement and embargoes.)
When I worked in local news I received those pitches. How else do you think news about local businesses gets to a newsroom? Do you think a producer is calling every business in town every day saying hey, anything going on today? This is really part of the broader problem: people don't understand how news works, but are more than ready to hop aboard a choo choo train of tossing around big words like "unethical."

The copy that a business would send us rarely made air. I know, because I was often the person who rewrote it.

Example: At a talk radio station I worked at a number of years ago, we received a press release from a person who was protesting John McCain's policies in a very particular way. It was very positive, and spoke of his mission, and blah blah blah. We had no clue who this guy was, but it tipped us off to a great story; we didn't cover it in the news portion of our broadcast, but the talking heads that evening had a very good time pointing out how ridiculous it was.

This is how news works. PR helps a producer by bringing their attention to something, because let's face it, omniscience is not a trait of local news producers. The producer might help PR with a bit of coverage, or very likely doesn't. (The fax machine at a local newsroom is hilarious to watch.) The angle that gets covered is occasionally not what PR wants. This relationship is push and pull.
I would say, beyond technical understanding of blockchain as a technology, is the ability to discern what it is that founders/principals of the company and its customers believe your product and its capabilities to be. One of the issues with strongly-hyped technologies such as blockchain is that it will attract people who just want to leverage the hype, rather than build something novel that truly requires blockchain and necessarily benefits from it.

You should have the skill to always be asking:

1. Could this business be built without blockchain as a technology? (suitability of the technology for the use case)

2. Could this business succeed without blockchain as a feature? (hype filter)

Then beyond that, you need tremendous CS fundamentals, as well as pretty deep understanding of cryptography, distributed computing, networking, databases, application security, network security, information security.

You should also ask why you want to work at a blockchain startup.
> especially if it's interacting through APIs exclusively and not the interface, which means that it's actions per minute could be astronomically higher than a human player, with unheard of levels of micro

There's no way they'll compete under unlimited APM rules, it wouldn't even be remotely interesting. We're trying to match wits with the AI, not the inertia and momentum of super slow fingers, keys, and mouse.

I'm sure they'll come up with an "effective APM" heuristic which compares similarly to top pros, and feed it as a constraint to the AI.
There is an important point lost here. People are saying 'people who couldn't use the road before now have the option to', but they are ignoring that the restricted hours were increased by 90 minutes in the morning and evening. I used to have an option to get to work super-early, or work till 7pm then head home on a road that was no busier than the rest of the regions traffic. Those options are now off the table. What was legal, fair, free, and without congestion is now blocked by a toll that is pushing early morning traffic onto roads not built for commuter traffic.
> pandas is absolutely terrible compared to the dplyr, data.table, or even base R for data manipulation.

I would really like to hear a bit more about this, because this would greatly increase my motivation to learn more R. Specifically I've fiddled around with dplyr and it definitely feels more DSL-y but I didn't see a crazy benefit there. What are some of your favourite things about dplyr / data.table?
Washington post did a negative article about Amazon?
Download “BorderCross” (2017) Full HD
So containers are as vulnerable as the operating system? It seems like if your kernel has been pwned you’re already SOL? Or couldn’t someone in that position just as easily pwn a VM, or run the same exploit on multiple vms? I’m not sure if I’m missing something
What’s College Good For?
Glad to see the update. Most people associate Qt with GUIs which is unfortunate.

I see that when people think of Qt, they think of WxWidgets, Cocoa or MFC as alternatives. No, I submit to you that Qt framework is a more elegant, easier to use alternative to Boost as well.

This is not to say that QtQuick or QtWidgets aren't solid. However, the success of these two modules ends up occluding the others which to me are the real gems from the QtFramework: QtCore and QtNetwork.

QtCore provides a solid event loop, the most easy to use implementation of the observer pattern via its signal-slot mechanism, robust threading utilities and a bunch of other utilities that make writing apps in C++ an absolute breeze.

QtNetwork for a series of networking utilities that are elegantly simple.

If I were to write a command line app or a database or server, I'd reach for Qt in a jiffy.

Qt is not just for GUIs!
The article mentions that police are asking people to avoid using navigation apps because the apps are recommending the low traffic roads in burning neighborhoods.

I submitted it mostly because I'm curious if anyone has direct experience implementing geofencing for such situations (which seems like a fairly straightforward feature for a heavily used navigation app).