skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Let's talk about Total (french oil company) which didn't pay ANY taxes in France until recently. BTW, it was the most prosperous company in France at that time.

Only when the media investigated did they start to pay some corporate taxes. There was way less hatred against Total than against any american companies as we see today.

Do you know that France distributes so many subsidies to french companies (110B€), that's way more than the total corporate taxes it collects (36B€).

And Total is still the clear winner in the tax cut race in France ;-)
Good point. The commingling of the two is probably more the "failure" of the web than anything else.

There's no reason I should be required to go through the "app" web (Flash, JS, Silverlight) to get something off the "document" web.

... and most use cases don't require an "app" web.
"I'm still not really sure what would lead you to believe that "they would even consider ceasing their advertising schemes if they had this additional income. "

For the same reason Mozilla exists today as 'kind of a non-profit' in the first place without tons of ads.

For the same reason that Wikipedia has no ads.

I'm not 'admonishing' anyone so much as pointing out we can't seem to grasp that nothing is going to happen for free.

The only path to 'ad free' is for someone to pay for it - and that's going to have to be users - or in the very rare case -a 'Big Corp' who sees the strategic value in it.

And yes - I do agree that 'most corps' would try to stick in ads.

Heck - even 'non-profits' like Mozilla - are sticking in ads!

But given what Mozilla is today, if they had the resources necessary, I suggest they would not be pushing ads. It's the last thing they want to do.

Finally - there are tons of services that people pay for that are not full of ads.

I don't get ads when I buy MP3s, and none of my paid apps have ads.

Do you think there are ads for t-shirts in my Salesforce app? Or SAP? Of course not.

Likely because the 'profit maximizing' option for Salesforce is to not put ads there in the first place.

So 'big corp' incentives can definitely align with user needs if things are right.
Perhaps if we append "and your underlying OS won't mess with it", then you'll begin to see some value here?
In case of the banks, fed cut the fed rate to 0%, then banks preceded to massively buy 10 year treasuries. Banks were speculating the fed wouldn’t risk raising rates too fast and bankrupt already weak banks that were speculating on the 10 years in the first place.
Say these were aliens with an antigravity drive. They may be scientists who do not want to disturb the phenomena they are observing. They might have a Starfleet like noninterventionist philosophy. Perhaps the objects are unmanned probes akin to the ones earth sends into space.

Who knows?
>A quick search reveals that all of the inmates doing that job are volunteers.

It's easy to make volunteers out of people if:

1) Their living conditions are so bad in your hellish prisons that that most alternatives seem like heaven.

2) you control their living conditions and can make their life hell if you want to "motivate" them to volunteer.

3) A crappy legal system hands them some of the harshest terms in the world in some of the more BS prisons, and having them volunteer for such work can give them more "points" towards getting our earlier.

What I'm getting at is, volunteering for an inmate is not necessarily the same thing as volunteering is for a free man -- or even the same thing as a prisoner in a place without medieval prison conditions and vindictive attitude towards prisoners volunteering.
And the ideal application of those existing solutions often requires creativity to mate them to the problem domain.

Is an artist not creative if they use pre-mixed paint?
It’s totally anecdotal, and I’m just some guy on the internet, but I’ve seen these, or at least something similar, twice - once above Bath, UK, in 2012 - the first hint something was up was a pair of sonic booms as two typhoons hurtled into the airspace over the city. Needless to say, ran out of the office to gawp, and the fighters were circling a thing hovering at about 20,000 feet - bulky ovular object with greebles and lumps, just sitting there in the sky. As they approached it moved sideways as though on rails, and after a few minutes, a cloud formed around it, which then dissipated over a minute - the thing was gone. This was written up in the press the next day as a helicopter pilot in distress. Here’s the story the press ran with - there was no helicopter, I swear it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129133/Sonic-boom-r...

The other was at night in the Kazakh steppes, watching a triangle of lights dance in impossible fashion, before zooming up into the sky and disappearing - although given that I was near Baikonur, I give more credence to this one being man made.

But the thing over Bath was enough to break my mind. I still struggle to believe I saw anything. Others who saw it with me took the helicopter story and clung to it, because the alternatives are just too damn weird to process. I can understand why the pilot in the story you link was mocked - giving credence to something like this invokes painful cognitive dissonance.

Anyway. I’m just a guy on the internet, but I know I saw something.

Also, don’t forget Foo Fighters - pilots have been seeing odd things since at least WWII. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

Oh, and there was this peculiar sighting a few years ago - not by me, but credible and bizarre - but again, maybe mundane. https://jpcvanheijst.com/red-lights-over-the-pacific-ocean-a...
Koreans have boats, and a very large coastline...
Oh, was their budget smaller than that?
I'm conflicted. You've brought me back to something I was thinking. We - americans for sure - judge people not rationally but according to their outward threat to ourselves. I won't deny that anyone can get addicted to a substance, or that it can happen by chance rather than choice. When you go this far to "understand" humans, there's almost no one bad left. When do you stop "understanding" people for their situation and get on with judging them for what they are?
> Actually I think the U.S. is ahead of Norway here, as cannabis has been decriminalized in several states in the U.S.

Most states are still as bad as or worse than Norway, though. In terms of laws and regulation, US states are more like separate nations in many ways.
I'm not sure I'd classify typical blogging (and HN commenting even less) as "creative hobby". Creative writing is different enough to be considered its own category and I don't think typical blogging falls under it.
Your point seems to have changed. The point of those replying to you is that snap judgements happen, and rarely are they correct. Your point was that we should be putting them into a global database for others to make second-hand judgements from bad data.

Growing up in a racist area and taking a public stand against racism would give one a very poor score, even after leaving.
Youre still replacing me, who isn’t getting paid to drive myself, with a non-free AI.

Add in surge pricing, surcharges for dead-ending routes, etc and you have a cab. Useful, but inferior to controlling the car.
To be slander it would have to be provably false, not to simply be something that they can't prove to be true.
Anything that uses JavaScript?

Or allows only the minimal subset required to implement AJAX type functionality.

The argument for expanding web standards has always been "if we don't, then they'll just appify it and we won't have any say" (see DRM debate).

An explicit decoupling of information from interactivity would lessen the pressure for that.
I bought a Bang & Olufsen Bluetooth speaker this year. It broke after a month. It was just sitting on a table. I've also bought some no-name Chinese crap Bluetooth earbuds that have never failed. All of this is really anecdotal, and it's a complete lottery.
It is not difficult to discern whether a candidate for hate speech violates Mill's harm principle. Speech of the form

"All <insert_ethnic_group> are inherently inferior to <insert_other_ethnic_group>"

does not exist in a vacuum without any corresponding systemic / institutional problem. I think you're saying speech like that merely causes offense, and not harm, which gives me the general impression that you are arguing in bad faith.
> It would be nice if we could build a gossip network which was immune to malicious gossip, but I don't know how one would go about doing that.

TBH (acquired by FB in Oct.) tackled this challenge [0].

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/17...
I don't really think it should be a question of belief. To me it really doesn't matter what I personally believe happened. It's that the hypothetical choice I have before me of whether I have the enough certainty in Bob's wrongdoing to punish him. I'm an HR rep, my job isn't to access truth in the universe.

The stats argument is clever but I don't think I could support it. I don't think a person should be punished because of the actions of people he doesn't know completely outside of his control. In another universe where false accusations are more common it would mean you make a different decision despite all the facts of the case remaining constant.

Why don't you think reasonable doubt a good standard in this case? I recognize that I try to err on the side of not punishing people but if I can seriously say that Bob really might not have done it then I don't think I could hand down judgement.
Apropos of nothing, but you mentioning that brought up a memory of when I was in Helsinki this summer: I took a taxi back to the airport early in the morning and the taxi driver (a black man) asked me (white) to sit in the front rather than the back, otherwise he would get stopped by police. Not necessarily something I was expecting in Norway. But what do I know?
Just so you're aware, calling yourself a computer scientist because you have a degree in CS is something that only college students / recent graduates do. "Software Developer" is a better word for what you do.
Flight Rules for Git
As far as analogies go, I'll rescind my analogy based on the difference you have stated. However, it does not negate the point I was trying to make, that the problem lies not with feedback but with willful ignorance of it.

Since, I didn't realize you were the same person, here's my response for the other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15942520) you made. I think I understand what you mean by saying that what appears unwanted to one party might appear playful and wanted to another party based on their mindset. But then what guarantee is there that if the victim escalates the issue, that the escalation isn't considered playful either. Note that escalations can come in increasingly severe degrees and can also have equally "playful" connotations from the perpetrators perspective. If a victim tells her close girlfriends about the sexual assault, to the perpetrator it can sound as "I made such love that she couldn't stop talking about it". If a perpetrator has violated many victims, who have tried to warn their female colleagues, it can sound as "I'm so good that, some women want me for themselves and are spreading rumors about me to prevent others from getting close to me". I feel vile coming up with legitimate sounding sentences such as these, but I believe putting the onus on victims to give feedback need not make the perpetrators realize that boundaries have been crossed.

In my opinion there is an objective measure of whether a person is welcome or unwelcome. Now perpetrators might have a different viewpoint about it in which case no matter what the victims do to escalate the issue, it need not necessarily mean feedback for the perpetrator. On the other hand from the victim's perspective there is a cost to be paid in terms of engaging with the perpetrator apart from other costs which you already mentioned.

Finally, a few perpetrators might have such a removed world view that nothing below public shaming opens their eyes to the harassment, which is the only time we come to know about it. We might assume that no feedback was given by victims, but it might just be that the feedback wasn't nearly enough.

To summarize, the victims do not have nearly enough incentive to give feedback and perhaps many did and the harassment didn't stop until public shaming. It is definitely not the case of victims not having enough integrity to overcome costs to of giving feedback.
Show HN: Spectrum – Real time color picker
So now docker messes with it?
I think you and the other poster are misconstruing the claims the OP made. He specifically compared false rape in his 10x claim, not all rape as you are. I don't know if this claim is true.

Furthermore, he specifically said that if there's evidence of intercourse, the guy is screwed in a rape accusation, where you're talking about all rape charges regardless of the availability of evidence.

This claim appears to be plausible.
In reality, the majority of destructive rumors take the form of "Bob was impossible to work with", not "Bob sexually assaulted Avery". Meanwhile: a bogus accusation of rape is far more actionable than a bogus accusation of being an asshole; if you actually worked with Bob at all, you probably can't be sued for that at all, since things that can be construed as opinions cannot be the basis of a valid defamation claim. Unlike sexual assault, which, as a crime, is probably defamatory per se.

So relative to the set of all possible destruct rumors, allegations of sexual assault stand as outliers for how uniquely protected the accused actually are.
See how to start a blog and make money online
Commit messages are often leaky about IP and internal processes/personnel.
Yes, "fashion norms for women and men are different" in modern American culture. Of course. That's rather my point. But what's up with that?

Please say more about "the connotative difference between a sleeveless shirt on a woman and a tank top on a man". I don't see much substantive difference. They're both an assertion of physical power.

I actually do think that "burqas for everyone" might be a good fashion trend. For privacy, given that there are cameras everywhere. But in professional American culture, it's actually men who are more constrained to dress modestly.
Whoops! Looks like I posted the wrong link. Sorry about that!

www.modulargrid.net is what I meant to post indeed.

This is what I get for not paying closer attention to what I copy/paste.
"social security contributions.... tax the employer has to pay": that's a great lie, that employers pay those, not employees.

For employers, it's one amount of money paid for hiring an employee: employers don't really care what's salary, and what's taxes. In France, employees don't even get 50% of their gross salary: there are more social security contributions than salary.

Employees should really want to reduce social security contributions, instead of thinking "my boss pays for it".
I made my warning about Mozilla Corp+Found a week ago, and as I recall, it was not warmly received... by anyone!

What a difference a week makes!
>Hiring him to do this is like hiring Robert Ballard to find the Titanic.

No, because the Titanic could be proven to have existed before Robert Ballard tried to find it.
> "I will skip the rest of what you have written for now to first address this fundamental misunderstanding, I might get back to it when we have cleared this up.

I agree that those two statements are not the same. But neither is the standpoint of science generally. "We don't know, at least not yet" does not mean "we don't know but we will know", it means "we don't know and we don't know whether we will ever know", so it is skeptical towards both claims, that we will know, and that we won't know. Not being convinced of some claim does not imply being convinced of the negation of that claim, it is possible, and often rational, to be skeptical of both.

OK?"

The point I'm making which you're overlooking is that those two viewpoints are not equally likely. Just look at it logically. If science needs the accumulation of evidence to build an accurate understanding, but some parts of our world are highly resistant to this process, it is not at all likely that we will break that barrier. Like it or not, "We don't know, at least not yet" implies hope, I'm suggesting there are some parts of our experience that are fundamentally hostile to scientific inquiry, and the sooner we accept that science (whilst very useful in some fields) has fundamental limits, the easier it'll be to take a more holistic view of what constitutes wisdom.

To be clear, I have no problem with the scientific process whatsoever, I think it has been a fantastic tool in helping humanity advance. The issue I have is with stretching that tool beyond the point of utility, but giving it a pass because it's science.

As I sense our debate will soon be winding down, I'll try to leave this on a more positive note. Here's Alan Watts saying in 2 minutes what I've failed to say in much more time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vHnM8WPvU
It's perfectly reasonable for nation states to challenge the EU institutions, because the 'legitimacy' of EU institutions is not arbitrary - it depends on the support of member states!

If an EU institution is challenged by most members - it should absolutely be 'de-legitimized' and closed down!

This is the problem with the pro-Federalist psychology - added to the reality of 'bureaucracies that can only grow' - we 'assume' that a given EU entity should have supremacy, and not be 'undermined'? Why not? Who gave that EU organ power in the first place, and why does it have it?

I don't really support Lux's attempts to continue their low-tax status, but maybe they have a point.

As far as the Lux language - I think your argument is a stretch. Surely you know there are a zillion languages in the EU, each close to some other language. Having Luxembourgish 'recognized' doesn't necessarily carry them any favour or economic advantage, so I don't see how it's super relevant. I see what you are trying to get at - I just don't think that specific case is a good example.
As usual, dang helicopters into a conversation, snipes out the least relevant part of it, makes a fuss and leaves.

He has executive power by dint of the admin controls, but for the health of community driven sites it's important to ignore people like him, or no discussion can be had.

Your opinion and words still stand visible, I'm afraid.
I didn’t mean to stop using FB. It just drifted away. The FB blog writer’s suggested solution is part of the reason. To get the same value out of FB takes much more work than it used to. For me, it became a chore. In the face of every other demand on my time, FB started to lose out about a year ago. I haven’t checked it in about two weeks. 2-4 weeks is the average gap these days for me.
Do you realize that you switched from comparing "speech one doesn't like" to "speech that enables discrimination" in the middle of your argument?
That was back in the mid '00s. Nowadays lots of that is outsourced to low wage labor places like PH. plus, it does not say, but in that example, that person could have been an "ex-" whatever. So they were once an insider, since denounced and now provide insight to evaluate. But again, it's beside the point, lots of moderation gets outsourced --sometimes there is communication breakdown between the off-shore location and stateside management and their guidelines. Often times these misunderstandings result in some content getting falsely moderated away and then restored after an outcry.
We’d make a good case study of a civilisation negotiating a critical juncture. I’d dare say we’d be of interest to sociologists and historians, and given where we’re at there might even be something of a careless stampede to gather data before the idiot quadrupeds wipe themselves out. There can’t be that many civilisations going through the hockey stick/environmental catastrophe stage in this galactic neck of the woods at any given time.

As to contact - doubt it’s happened - it’d fuck up the data, and spoil the case study. So long as we keep on ignoring weird stuff because it’s weird the experiment is ok.

As to distances - well, that’s our perception of it - the best we can do is brute force through 3d space - and if they can manoeuvre as they appear to be able to, they may well have some means of travel that is, well, alien to us, such as some variety of extra dimensional travel.
That's a level of reductionism that I don't recall even in Fred Crews, and which we can well do without here.
Well, that's actually where the SOAP pain is: it used to be that you couldn't make any good use of it unless you were using walled-garden vendor software. A lot of people dislike Windows, Visual Studio and anything else made by Microsoft. Same goes for Oracle. So then you are left with everything else, which basically means: everything without SOAP, Enterprise editions of runtimes, service buses and the likes.

There are a lot more developers out there not working for an enterprise and not using those tools. Especially the developers doing open source work or doing small scale work.

While nowadays it's fairly easy to make a Java Spring Boot application consume and serve SOAP, with automated WSDL imports and all the WS-* specifics, this wasn't pretty much never the case with anything new and free (as in speech).
It's not at all a problem for me. However, maybe it's a problem for them. Prudent men won't comment or act out. But many men (and women) will judge. Like it or not, it's what's so.
I think the trouble is that the "web" is an overcomplicated BS clusterf___ for exploiting the plebes.

Some guy posted here a week ago in wonderment over how Mozilla can maintain a browser for a mere $400M+ a year. $400M+ a year!!!

If it takes that much engineering to deliver something which is not substantially different than what we were using 17 years ago, I'd count that as an engineering failure.
HN seems to also treat connections from Tor differently. If I visit HN from Tor and click on "login" HN pretends it takes forever to establish a connection. But if I first click on an existing HN link and then login, then pages load ok. HN could do better to protect the privacy of its users.
Linux distros are a terrible example.

Not only do they all rely on Torvalds and everyone else for the kernel (heavily funded by donations, companies, etc), but most Linux distributions are just cosmetic variations of the largest upstream distros.

If Debian died tomorrow, Ubuntu is on life support.
Why is having pedophilia so intensely dramatically shamed?
Profits are increasing because they stopped expensive marketing and promotion to attract customers. Solar city was actually losing money with new customers.

So just by Tesla stopping new customers they increase their income.
Not that Helsinki is in Finland, apparently :-)
Just don't leave your hand in there for too long.

And try to avoid any liquid nitrogen droplets getting caught between your shirt cuff and your wrist (cold burns hurt)

OA: I shall miss Dr Wolf.
Thank you for your kind words. I borrowed the idea from a previous project in which curious students could evaluate the computational performance of their various implementation using a similar plot: https://github.com/sniklaus/teaching-minichess
Sorry, but these kinds of excuses always remind me of homeopathy zealots explaining why there technology didn't work in this case.

REST, just like OOP, is not a means to an end. It's fundamentally wrong. It's trying to shoehorn strange philosophical viewpoints into what's a technical problem. It's trying to decompose problems that can't be decomposed. It's... never the right solution. I've never seen it succeed. Like, ever.
Fish's FAQ already explains why it doesn't use `!!` – it says that editing commands from history by pressing the up arrow is more memorable and flexible. I don't find it a problem to type “up Ctrl-A sudo” instead of “sudo !!”.