skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Have you tried out YouTube TV? https://tv.youtube.com

Disclaimer: I work at YouTube, but am not on YouTube TV team.
I wish there was a way to align these incentives, specifically the issue around reputation.

I think this is a case where if you fix the incentives then the behavior changes. I think by default scientists want to discover things and collaborate - if there was a way to cause this behavior to lead to additional reputation and funding (similar to how open source software participation increases reputation) that would go a long way.

It'd be cool if hypothesis, experiment design, results, data, and papers were shared and available for open access.
First consider how much is "some battery." E.g. do you really want that more computing work allows higher payments? Bad luck paying anything not cents when you don't have your computer or a mobile plugged in the wall. Who's "richer"? Who has a bigger computer. Etc. Also see my other comment here.
The really big ones that send really huge amounts of data to a really large number of users do that, but that is definitely not a majority of content providers.
I think the downvotes are more related to the fact that their opinion seems to have been formed without viewing the actual website.
In this particular AVX512 use case or in most?
The twitter link needs fixing perhaps:

https://twitter.com/thecomp1ler/status/940724783804645376
The innocence project: false confessions
It wouldn't. That's exactly why UBI doesn't pass muster - the per capita is much higher since 323 million is the entire population, disregarding the unemployed, children, retired, etc. Then you still have to have the requisite safety nets for people too irresponsible to handle a direct UBI cash infusion, or set up even more bureaucracies that handle housing credits, food credits, etc. It just leads to an expensive sprawling bureaucratic nightmare where the end result is even more expensive government services, and prices inevitably end up rising because suddenly everyone has all this extra money to spend that's guaranteed.

The numbers haven't ever and will never add up, unless you just advocate straight-up jacking the taxes on the upper brackets sky-high.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents, the very worst kind of tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Animal shelter faces backlash after using robot to scare off homeless people
>The problem with taxing the wealthy, is that they generally have an outsized share of the political power. I think that a better solution, from a political and psychological standpoint, would involve a voluntary system. If just rent could be covered, this would be the equivalent of $12k per year in many parts of the US:

By voluntary system you mean the wealthy voluntarily turning over the wealth that they won't let us tax them for? It doesn't make sense.
They can garnish his wages after a small livable wage is achieved. Basically it will be almost impossible to ever get out of subsistence living. With his skill he may actually have a chance after a decade or two.
> How's that?

It's what I'm working on right now: http://www.greshm.org

> > The right question is "how do we unlock the economy's prosperity-maximizing capacity?"

> Asked and answered: free-market capitalism. Nothing has resulted in the sort of rapid prosperity we've seen recently with market capitalism spreading globally.

Capitalism can't exist without government and government can't exist without capitalism. They are yin and yang. I agree with you that capitalism is an important piece of the puzzle. By providing people with a basic income, we can make sure capitalism reaches its full potential in supporting social prosperity.
UBI is a direct cash transfer that the recipient can spend on anything. It's proven to be effective in international aid, and much more efficient that financing the enormous bureaucracies employed to decide whether someone is qualified. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39038402
If just the rent was covered for everyone ~$12k/yr, then rents would inflate universally ~$12k/yr because housing pricing is a function of income elasticity.

That German gated community you linked has housing that is owned by a trust. I don't think you can ask residents of the U.S. to voluntarily hand over all their housing property to a trust, or require them to be Catholic to reside in it.
Am I the only one wondering whether or not this was created only because of the irony of a WebAssembly interpreter being written in JavaScript?
Good luck finding a guaranteed rate of return higher than the interest rate on any of your debt. Most credit cards are >10%. Even on the low end, if, say, my mortgage was 4% and I had the cash to pay it off, it would certainly make sense to do it. It would only make sense not to if I could find an investment that paid over 4% guaranteed. Such an investment does not exist, period. (If it does, please let me know and I will put all my money into it).
Google leads in the race to dominate artificial intelligence
Because the professions you listed aren't based on a skill that children develop during play in the same way that engineering is. A lot of engineering is about visualizing how smaller pieces of a larger whole can fit together, even if those pieces are more complex and/or more abstract than the Lego pieces that we give to kids.

The professions you listed primarily rely on memory and pattern recognition which don't differ too much between the sexes.
The direct link is: http://quickref.common-lisp.net/

It looks pretty cool, although it appears to only understand Markdown & plain text READMEs, not org-mode. Adding that is just a Simple Matter of Programming, though:-)
Isn't this sort of solved by rebasing first instead of just merging? (well, and some rules in place which tells people 'we only accept properly rebased branches for review). Then the conflicts are resolved in the branch and there's a clear view of what actually changed in the diff, before anything is effectively merged into the main branch. Or maybe I'm missing something here.
>The program morphed to the infamous bread and circuses, subsidizing a city of a million people that ultimately collapsed.

Rome did not collapse because of UBI, if that is what you are suggesting.
It's simple to explain in the context of this discussion. But probably doesn't seem as simple to the average user, who wants to donate $1 to a creator, and will feel like some kind of scam is going on if they are asked to add $10 to their Patreon balance first.
Well UBI is going to be funded by a progressive income tax regardless. We can toss "Universal" around all we like but the reality is that the rich are going to net lose and the poor will net win.
I actually think there are kids who listen to the radio in school, and I absolutely would have watched TV in class if I could have gotten away with it.
> That said, I'm not sure if mining is the right approach, simply because the proof of work is completely arbitrary for some currencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and has no real value.

Exactly.

> Mining is only necessary to lower the barrier of entry for the consumer,

Even now there is a barrier of entry, which is the processing costs. The goal is to lower them, not to force burning the more hydrocarbons for every transaction.
I'd be inclined to say the gamer->modder->hacker path is generally less accessible in the mainstream today than it was 10 or 15 years ago. The above comment made me realize that's effectively the path I followed too, but can today's AAA titles be tinkered with the way Halo PC, Counter Strike, etc could be so thoroughly modified after a few hours poking through forums? I can remember the first time I used the (fan made) halo editing kit to play as an alien on the Silent Cartographer as a crystallizing moment for me to go from a computer user to a computer creator.

I'd say Bethesda games are likely the exception - though from what I remember, trying to mod Fallout 3 mostly previewed to me how frustrating development can be :p

Edit: For what it's worth, I attended the Syracuse University ischool for my bs/ms and while that's also not a computer science program, my classes were usually at least equally proportioned between men and women. So that's at least a personal anecdote that the runway for women entering tech may be improving.
Could be. There are a lot of places with minimum orders for credit card too. That probably works easier for the business anyway.
Kevin, I just love the graphical look of Spectacle, hope you and your team have the greatest success on this passion project.

Regarding the UBI personally I think if someone manages to make it work without the government I am all for it.

It's a hard problem in some ways similar to a working decentralized currency that seemed impossible and took forever to crack, maybe even cryptocurrencies/blockchain technologies are part of an elegant solution to this UBI implementation problem, maybe a Startup can make it work.
> Asked and answered: free-market capitalism. Nothing has resulted in the sort of rapid prosperity we've seen recently with market capitalism spreading globally.

Kind of. Free-market capitalism has advantages in some situations. But you also have markets that "freely" tend toward monopolies or oligopolies, which end up leaving the majority of consumers in the lurch.

Over time, most systems including markets will be gamed so that certain elites reproduce their privilege at the expense of their fellows. This is true of free markets just as it is true of command economies.
I think this is it : https://smile.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-E...
"Sam makes an interesting analogy with Y Combinator as providing a form of "basic income" to people trying to start startups. "

These two things aren't even close to the same thing. If Y Combinator accepted every single applicant, than yes, it would be equivalent to UBI. They obviously do not.
I agree with my sibling comments that in current OSs, desktop apps — especially ones with root — are generally as privileged as the user, and that's (supposed to be!) a good thing.

However, Chrome's AppleScript support was used almost exclusively by malware, so it's disabled by default now: https://crbug.com/661810.
After deriding UBI for a long time, and believing it won't work, I came up with a trial model that, IMHO, would allow it to be tested out with minimal damage to the economy (even though I still don't think it would work):

Take a country, US for example. Let's say that society determines that a reasonable UBI is $1000/month (ignore the number, this is about the process, not the amount).

When I say "everyone", I mean "every US resident who has been a US citizen for at least X years".

- Year 1: everyone begins receiving $10/month, conditioned to willing to have employment and spending tracked by researchers. Everyone who receives a payout and also receives social support funds, sees the social support funds reduced by $10 per month.

- Year 5: if researches see no significant negative results and the economy continues to grow, etc. the payout is increased to $50/month. Otherwise, if there are significantly negative outcomes, the payout is eliminated.

- Year 10: repeat, payout increased to $100/month.

- Year 15: repeat, payout increased to $200/month.

- Year 20: repeat, payout increased to $500/month.

- Year 25: repeat, payout increased to $750/month.

- Year 30: repeat, payout increased to $1000/month. All other social payouts are ended.
Fossil of giant 5'10“ 200 lb+ penguin unearthed in New Zealand
Which is why this whole debate seems a little silly from a practical perspective. It doesn't matter whether a fee is paid by the seller or the buyer or if a difference in price is a discount or a surcharge, it all washes out in the end. How Patreon or gas stations frame the difference is simply marketing. Patreon's mistake was just poor marketing.
The fact that I would like to see market based solutions does not mean I want "cheap" housing that starts at $1000/mo.

I would like to see enough housing at $400/mo or less to house 2 percent of the population. In any given year, between 10 and 15 percent of the population falls below the federal poverty line, but most do not stay there. Only 2 percent are chronically poor, which is typically defined as falling below the federal poverty line 5 years out of 10.

The chronically poor have intractable problems that are not readily solved. To keep them off the street, we need very cheap housing. But I would prefer to see that housing made available with minimal restrictions.

Achieving this would require policy changes and probably other things. I am aware this is not feasible in the current climate. But climates can change.
This seems to be exactly what SingularityNet is trying to accomplish, on a blockchain.
>Blaming the publishers is not very useful, they are just acting according to their self interest.

Blaming the person who mugged you at gunpoint is not very useful, he is just acting according to his self interest.

Alternatives are great, but it's ridiculous to reject blaming the people who are responsible for and perpetuate the very bad status quo. They could end it, they just choose not to. We can and should simultaneously advocate to strip them of their power while holding them to account for abusing it.
$2 or so (up to maybe $4 in some cases) per song is what they asked for when they sent an initial settlement offer to infringers, before taking any legal action.

If the person would not settle and the RIAA went on to actually sue the person, the RIAA would only sue over a small fraction of the infringed songs.

In the case the article you linked is talking about, they caught her infringing over 1700 songs, and asked for $5000. $5000/1700 = ~$3/song.

When she would not settle, and they sued, they sued over 24 songs. I don't think I've ever seen an official explanation of why they only sue for a handful of songs, but a couple plausible reasons come to mind:

1. They will ask for statutory damages rather than actual damages [1]. Statutory damages are normally a minimum of $750 per infringed work, although that can be reduced to as low as $200 per infringed work if if the infringer was not aware and had not reason to be aware that they were infringing.

They only need 7 songs to win the amount they were willing to settle for when they sent their first letter, or 25 if they think there is any chance the defendant might get the reduced $200 rate.

2. For each song they include in the lawsuit, they have to make sure all the paperwork is in order with the copyright office proving ownership. Copies of that have to be introduced into evidence at the trial.

The defense is going to attack every one of these. The defense is going to ask for all the contracts with the artist and try to prove that the RIAA does not have the right to represent them.

All of this takes time and costs money for no real gain.

In the particular case you cited, the damage award went way above the minimum largely because the defendant tried to destroy evidence, tried to blame her children for the copying, and blatantly lied on the stand. The jury has wide discretion to pick the statutory damage amount from a range, and they picked from the high end of the range.

And do you know what the RIAA did after the jury awarded that large amount? They again offered to settle for a relatively small amount. (I don't remember the exact amount--I think it was around $15000, which based on 1700 songs they caught her infringing would be around $9/song).

That's been the pattern for every RIAA case that went to trial, I believe. (Only a handful went to trial, because most infringers were smart enough to realize that (1) they had no defense, and (2) minimum statutory damages were going to be way more than the RIAA was asking for, and so they settled early).

[1] Actual damages are very hard to determine in most non-commercial copyright infringement cases (and actually they are often very hard to determine in commercial infringement cases, too).
Release 5.1.1 released
I mean, maybe we could just tax the 5 wealthiest men in the U.S. who own about half of the world's wealth?
Regulations provide an avenue for rejecting actions. This avenue can be subsequently abused by bad actors - for example, accredited investment is abused by the wealthy to extend their opportunities at the expense of the middle class and poor.

Feel free to buy lottery tickets or gamble, just don't let us catch you investing in a startup seed round.
> Doing some back of the envelope math, US gov revenue is 3.31 trillion and the population size is 323.1 million. Which leaves about $10244 per capita to play with.

The government doesn't face what we would think of as a typical budget constraint. There is a limit to how much money the government can spend, but that limit is determined by how much spending the productive economy can absorb without causing inflation or interest rates or taxes that are too high. It's the amount that closes the output gap without attempting to push past it.

The only way we can discover the appropriate amount of basic income by gradually ramping it up until further incremental increases no longer provide a benefit.
Yes, liking cute, pink things is a common girl stereotype.

Liking rough sports, guns, cars, and having a lot of testosterone are male stereotypes, among others.

If you need a visual thing you can do to something to make men like it more, you could paint it with racing stripes or hunter/army camo. It doesn't lend itself to a pithy word easily, but it's the same idea.

I'm not saying it's right to stereotype anyone. I'm saying that it's not eye-opening that it's easy to understand a stereotype about one and then fail to come up with something similar for the other.
>Asked and answered: free-market capitalism. Nothing has resulted in the sort of rapid prosperity we've seen recently with market capitalism spreading globally.

But prosperity for whom, most people aren't satisfied with a system that drastically increases the GDP of their country but where they as an individual don't increase their standard of life at all. As globalization and technological progress increase, prosperity will result but it will become more and more concentrated. When you totally sacrifice 10% of peoples wealth (say Detroit auto workers) to make the other 90% better off and you do it over and over again, you're going to end with an extremely wealthy elite of people who snuck past ever being part of the 10%.
Product School reviews?
Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone has gone through Product School (https://www.productschool.com/), and have been able to transition to a product management position.
I'm currently a software engineer wanting to make that move. Any pointers will be helpful.
There's two issues that I don't think have been adequately addressed, or that I missed, in the banter over this issue.

1) What would stop us from recreating the inefficient welfare state that already exists on top of this new one when some people inevitably blow their UBI on drugs/cheetos/whatever and don't have money for rent? It seems that for this to work we'd have to maintain some intestinal fortitude to say "no" - and that to me sounds like a serious culture change in this country...which gets me to my next, perhaps more contentious, point.

2) What role do immigrants play in this? Google's telling me there's 11m illegal immigrants in the US right now (though I've seen higher estimates from more hawkish folks). What about people on a visa who pay taxes? Would they both get UBI from Uncle Sam? My view for both would be no, but some of my peers who support UBI have argued that they should, pretty emphatically.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm detecting, at least in my circles, a lot of overlap between people who believe in the "global citizen" model and those who support this. Perhaps Altman's idea of basically just issuing shares of USG is meant to get around this, but that sounds still half-baked at this point, even if it is just a branding strategy. This, at its heart, is more of a rights question and I don't think we've been thinking about it that way.
Yes, I advocate that.
what if this is merely space junk, not necessarily a probe?
It could be VERY, very old.

Perhaps it's the dawn of a new era where environmentalists will fight for maintaining the cleanliness of outer space?
Why is this posted now and interesting?
Collectivism is really the domain of the small.

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

For human beings, the number where a communal understanding can work and seem like magic is about 350. The missing key to understanding this, is the network of interpersonal relationships that form in any society. These networks are like strong fibers in a composite material, giving it a cohesion and tensile strength that the aggregate wouldn't have otherwise. Those who operate small companies know this firsthand.

A lot of collectivism is akin to selling concrete by advertising using the specs of reinforced concrete. It doesn't hold together as well as it should on paper, because there is something very important missing in the theoretical description. For larger numbers, in the millions and beyond, there needs to be some kind of larger organizational structure. Historically, this has been hierarchical, but other solutions could exist enabled by technology.
It wasn't my intention to detract from the fact that his actions were criminal
Are you sure it's HTTP2 or just HTTP2 that was downgraded to HTTP1.1 over TLS? Last time I checked client certs did not work on HTTP2 due to multiplexing see e.g. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpbisa/current/msg25...
Maybe it doesn't add up in the monetary sense, but economically it kinda does. If you look around, the actual resources are there.

I was born in socialist country (Czechoslovakia) in the late 70s. It was inefficient system (the productivity of the most advanced economies today is about 3-4x times higher), and yet it was able to provide housing, food, health care, education and even decent culture for more than 90% of the population. And all this for about 30 hours of real work week.

So think about it, why is that? I think the social inequality is much larger than people are willing to admit, and much larger portion of it are mostly nonsensical expenses (rents, unneeded business travel, status displays..) due to requirements to maintain the social inequality.
Also when a startup burns out their runway it dies and investors probably won't fund the same idea twice.

What happens to the people who blow their UBI on drugs/gambling etc instead of healthcare and prosperity. Who will pay to re-fund them? (and fund them again?)
This is really cool. The fact that I can, basically, carry around a TRNG in my pocket is like, the ultimate nerd. Other than reseeding /dev/urandom, I don't really have any personal need for it, but the discussions that can be generated from it could be very interesting.