skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What is missing from your equation is “power” - Weinstein had all the power.

Same goes for dictators - Saddam Hussein had all the power, until the equation changed.

But a random iraqi soldier in the mid-80s can’t be blamed for having an ambition to not die.
Like the new Coke recipes? Then the introduction to the original recipes.
Seed-Funded Project | Remote | 4-6 weeks | Fixed or hourly ($60-$80/hr) depending on experience

Looking to hire an experienced full stack React & Rails developer for a short-term freelance engagement. I'm a solo dev working on seed-funded project. It's a SaaS web app that does various background scraping jobs for financial professionals. The app is 80% done, but I need some help making the final push toward a polished production-ready beta. Specifically: Helping me finish some React front end components, writing more specs and functional tests, proper error handling and reporting, cleaning up code smell, etc.

Looking for someone who can commit 30-40 hours a week over the month or so. Long-term employment possible depending on how it goes.

Stack: Rails 5, React (not a SPA, just some strategic use of React components), Postgres, Sidekiq, Redis, Heroku.

Start date ASAP. If interested please email: rich(at)proinbox.com. Thanks!
Conversely, people get too enamored of rebasing as a way to solve the problem of merging in lots of junky commits.

There are lots of ways to rewrite history and clean it up. Rebasing is just one of them, and it's one that can force you to spend more time resolving conflicts than you otherwise might have to (since you have to replay all of your commits and resolve any conflicts caused by each one individually).

There's no reason why rebasing is a better way to clean up your history than squash merging (or even -- carefully -- using git reset).
> Doesn't UBI reduce the economic productivity by both driving up the cost of labor through increased taxation

No. First of all, there's no reason that basic income has to have any taxes associated with it. A common mistake people (including the government) make is to assume that government spending must be funded by taxation. It doesn't have to be.

If the government spends and the economy responds productively to that spending, then you're fine. Taxing is a separate issue. You should only really tax when you want to remove money from a specific part of the economy.

To put it succinctly, increasing taxes does not increase the amount of money the government can usefully spend unless you directly taxed the use of some resource and the spending is going to put that particular resource to use in a more desirable way.

> and lowering the supply?

Labor is a resource that goes into production just like any other resource. Depending on the context, labor can be substituted for various other resources (including foreign labor, automation, etc.).

So it's possible that some forms of labor could become more expensive under basic income. But it could just as easily go the other way. There are plenty of jobs people would love to do if only they could afford the low pay. These desirable potentially socially beneficial jobs might get cheaper.

It's hard to say exactly what the effect of basic income will be on the labor market. But, in aggregate, we do know that the economy is capable of producing at levels higher than current output levels. If we give more people the ability to spend money, we'll produce more stuff to meet the demand.

> I don't see how 1 Apple can offset 1 million unemployed, and really skeptical such a company could grow to that size/profitability under the necessary labor/tax system to support UBI.

I can understand why you're skeptical. Just keep in mind that we're currently introducing many inefficiencies into the system just as an excuse to provide people incomes through the labor market. And even then, we're still not maxing out the productive capacity of the economy.

I would encourage you to ponder what you think might happen if the government stopped trying to balance its budget and just spent as much money as the economy could absorb without causing inflation?

What amount should that be? How does the distribution of the spending affect the amount they can spend? Surely if they spent it by tossing it down a hole, there would be no limit. But there is a limit. Where does that limit come from? How do taxes factor in?
California will start charging a $100 fee to EVs at registration each year for this.
Words are hard. Anyone got an idea for a better word? Send your ideas to the security-dev mailing list (at least, I think that's the best forum...): https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/secur...
Perhaps it's easier to see from the other side: the monkey is getting the same expected returns as "buy one of everything on your list," but the index fund is not, because the index fund is employing a different weighting strategy (e.g. buy the 30 or 500 largest companies). Of course, if you define "market" using the same list that an index fund uses, the monkey's expected performance converges with that of the index fund.
...you entirely missed my point about port blocking (perhaps my fault).

The point I've been trying (and apparently failing) to make is that this is an email port that is being blocked and sold as a premium feature. In other words, ISPs are deciding that it is OK for you to use your internet service for browsing, but not for hosting email, unless you pay extra. Just like your power company deciding it's OK to let you have a toaster, but not a fridge (even if the fridge draws less power than the toaster [yes, I realize in reality it's probably the other way around, but a fridge is more like a server...]), unless you pay extra. And this is something people are okay with, and which they vehemently deny to be a net-neutrality concern.

Okay, fine. So far, I'll swallow this.

But at the same time, people are freaking out about a whole variety of scenarios, a pretty significant and frequently-repeated one of which is the idea that their ISP might decide "you should pay $X for social networking, $Y for videos, $Z for VPN", etc. when net neutrality is repealed. They very clearly see those as net neutrality issues and are vehemently against them.

So, to recap: blocking email and making it a "premium" feature is perfectly OK and not a net-neutrality issue, but doing the exact same thing with VPNs or pretty much anything else is a net-neutrality issue.

To me, these two positions are blatantly contradictory. It means people are either overreacting about the whole thing and the fears are baseless, or otherwise have incoherent & inconsistent positions on what the entire concept of net neutrality they're advocating for even is. Which would not be surprising, considering that the question of "what is net neutrality?" was one of the top questions here, which, in light of all this, I was very glad to see.

If people object to idea of their ISP choosing what kind of traffic they can transmit, then the ship sailed away from beneath their noses long before anyone noticed it, and it's clear that the subsequent "net neutrality" rules didn't bring it back. If, on the other hand, they're okay with the idea, then they need to examine and correct the inconsistencies in their positions (perhaps through the addition of more nuance rather than emotion in their discussions) and stop spreading all the "If this rule is repealed then your ISP will charge $5 for social media, $15 for email, and $999999 for VPN!!" FUD.
Its not only the journals. Another thing that costs shittons of money are standards. A single two-dozen page ISO, DIN or comparable standard can easily amount to a couple thousand Euros. And it's not like you need one. You might need a second or third or fourth one because they just chain their references. "Test Devices can be found in ISO-123" In ISO-123:"The devices listed here have to be configured analogue to the devices mentioned in DIN-2153" And so on. And don't get me started about versioning. A couple of same-number standards in parallel because they are from different months or years or just small amendments (Single Sentences). And there is only one company selling em. It's laughable. Oh, and it's not as if anyone gets paid to write standards. Standards are written for free by engineers and scientists in their free time. It's a money-printing machine.
Equity for Early Employees in Early Stage Startups (2011)
It'd be nice if some of the money were used to make it easier for charities to convert to cash as quickly as possible. Bitcoin pointlessly consumes so much dirty energy, I imagine many environmental charities see bitcoin akin to blood money.
I think it's not just the UK. In fact, in many countries you don't have enough protections for security researchers. So no one bothers reporting these things because it would get you in trouble.
Blame the taxpayer. We as a nation should demand we get access to what we pay for. At this point we are funding publishers to make free money off of what was already paid for.
This is bikeshedding. The only users who would be able to distinguish the meaning of "secure" and "private" in their address bar are people who already understand what https is and isn't.
> TLDR: Aggregate on a single day, but pro-rate the second month, not the first, so there isn't a "runt" payment up-front.

That was my immediate thought reading this text. Of course it'll confuse some users, but since it's the fairest way, it should be the way to go. Also, just don't charge for the prorated period if the feed is going to be as big as the contribution (e.g. for a couple days for someone contributing $2 a month)
Except the president clearly doesn't represent the will of the people, as evidenced by his loss in the popular vote.

So how is this at all justifiable?
>Dividend taxes are the price shareholders pay for getting limited liability and all sorts of government protections and incentives.

We provide for limited liability because we think it is beneficial to society in encouraging investment and risk-taking; it is not a sacrifice or expense we expect compensation for.
HSTS Preloading solves that problem.
Look at the cousin post to yours in this thread. As is often the case, the use-cases of the programmers are quite different from the use cases of many other users, but the system is optimized only for the programmer's use cases.
What is the exact problem here? Who would be doing a MITM attack on someone and how?

It doesn't seem to matter to me if my ISP is MITM, because someone inside the ISP would need to cause that. If my ISP is forced to MITM by government etc, I am in trouble anyway.

I could see that it could be done by using a bad/spoofed wireless or a public network connection somewhere. That makes sense. I don't do that though; I only use my own secure home network in a wired fashion when accessing my bank account.

If people are able to spoof my network connection, they could interfere with non-https software updates on my machine, which would let them replace the root certs of my browser potentially, in which case https wouldn't matter. Is the assumption here that all software updates on my machine are happening via https and only the bank website is a danger?

My point here is that while I agree what the bank is doing is bad practice, I don't see how it would affect me in any way.
When you were 19/20, you didn't realize creating a botnet to take down competing businesses would be illegal?
An individual whose BTC holdings (that they are willing to give away) are worth almost 100 million. Mind blown...
Lol, i used to think the same thing. But in > 1 year, only Bitcoin has world integration and ethereum has none.

The alliance seems to be just that, they joined it and do nothing.

Don't forget that a lot of etherum transactions are used through the same wallets
Apple is already massively undervalued.

$884B market cap.
$150B in free cash (which you can effectively take off the top of the market cap).

So an adjusted market cap of $734B.

A net income after tax (yes, they still pay tax) of $48B.

So an adjusted P/E of 15.3x.

Some other P/Es of popular tech companies:

Facebook: 33.14x
Google: 35.03x
Salesforce: 12,992x
Amazon: 293.84
Intuit: 41.36
Twitter: Can't have a P/E if you don't make money.
Computers suck: episode 17787 of 31279
The original comment is about the interviewee making sure that the employer is offering a salary above a certain threshold, before going through the whole interview process. This doesn't have anything to do with the employer asking about past salary information.
It was an honest question. I don't see what your beef is. So many top level employees show to put their name on something for a year and leave with a payout. I've fallen scam to this a number of times myself.
I dunno, every calculator I've looked at says I get a bit back.

But that's just for me, and it's the simplest look at the rules. I may get screwed on some other tax, others might as well.

I also live in a state with no income tax. (WA)
>Do you have specific information about Windows Defender which suggests they're using voluntary revocation of token privileges?

Sure, just dump the security token for MsMpEng.exe. Here it is: https://pastebin.com/ukMPUWA7

IntegrityLevelIndex is 01, MandatoryPolicy is 0x3 , Privs are a subset of the full list.

https://www.nirsoft.net/kernel_struct/vista/TOKEN.html

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb5...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb3...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb625963.aspx
He's referring to how the language and it's ecosystem will evolve from this point forward in comparison to the C++ ecosystem. In addition, the programs that are there should be just fine. There is a lot of room for advancing the Rust compiler to generate more efficient routines from the same code. The Rust compiler, after all, is not taking full advantage of all of the available compiler information. A significant volume of information is simply discarded at the moment. C++ compilers don't have the same degree of headroom for possible future optimizations.
Yes, the "electric" GUI was incredibly fast and effective. The K2 GUI was basically the only GUI system I've ever used in which it is easier to write a GUI for a simple system than a batch command line. It looks basic and wouldn't have won any design awards, but it was crazy fast and crazy effective. See e.g. The S- spreadsheet (copied here in its entirety), see near the bottom of http://nsl.com/papers/spreadsheet.htm for screenshots and discussions

S..t:".[`D;(;);{. y};S[]];S[.;`f]:9$D[]"
S:D:.+(`a`b`c`d;4 6#,"")

Other examples: http://nsl.com/papers/puzzle15.htm , http://nsl.com/papers/calculator.htm

I suspect the reasons it was removed were:

(a) it was a lot to maintain compared to the rest of the k environment, as it needed to be implemented for all systems independently (X, Win, Mac at the time), and introduced dependencies that were about 10x larger than the base system.

(b) it wasn't actually a selling point - being simple and local GUI meant that while it was nice for the programmer users, it wasn't useful for end users, who usually had no K license of their own, and who expected everything to be web-able and importable to Excel.

(c) it wasn't extendable with more widgets. Needed a small HTML control or video player in your GUI? touch luck.
Couldn't "private" also not mean "private"? For instance: when you're on Facebook, couldn't people think they are exchanging private messages because the address bar says "private"?

"secure" means "secure connection" to me, and it sounds perfectly appropriate. Maybe you can't find a better term for "secure" because it's perfectly fine, already..?
Natwest is RBS - there is no point interacting with them - useless. Same with many UK household names, once they reach a certain size you are not a person and what's in your head is of no interest to anyone.
> Even if you agree electric vehicles are good for society overall, we will need to find a new way to fund road maintenance.

The simple answer is a mileage tax on registration of vehicles, thoufh California’s EV fee coming in 2020 is simpler if not as well scaled to impact.
Fair point. I think the main thought is can the concept be revisited? Definitely using a market driven pull model versus a forced pushed model of course. Does the advent of the following change the equation:
1.) Amazon on-demand self driving delivery
2.) Free, fully automated production of consumer staples
2.) Lower cost broadband with low cost education like Khan academy and free crowdsourced entertainment like Youtube
3.) Cheap renewable energy/batteries
4.) Other solutions from Sam A/YC funded startups
"How a Dorm Room Minecraft Scam Brought Down the Internet" https://www.wired.com/story/mirai-botnet-minecraft-scam-brou...
>how does it make the least bit of sense to focus on increasing volume?

It's easier to amortize the investments in quality. Also, a less expensive car tends to be less complex, it's easier to make a high quality bare bones car than a high quality luxury car. Tesla is unique in that they started with luxury cars, all the other car companies that have started in last 100 years have started with more basic cars.

>Electric cars being simpler to manufacture makes it more of a red flag that Tesla is struggling with build quality

Yes and no. Compare Tesla to a bespoke car manufacturer, Tesla isn't shipping cars with loose radiator hoses but Lotus sometimes does (or they used to).

>It indicates that build quality is the harder-won competitive advantage, rather than the ability to design electric cars, the PR boost of having a "visionary founder", or being able to tap Silicon Valley for cash.

I think you're right on this point. It's a fundamental reason I'm not an investor in Tesla.

>If that's the case, it's probably easier for Toyota to design, build, and sell electric cars as well as Tesla than for like Tesla to manufacture cars as well as Toyota.

I completely agree. The only reason we haven't seen a battery electric, mass produced Toyota is because batteries just don't perform well enough. Toyota has uncompromising quality standards for all their cars - they need to work in hot deserts and cold tundras, batteries can't function in those environments very well. That's one of the reasons they stuck with NiMH for so long in their hybrids and one of the reasons they seem to have the most interest in glass batteries.

However, quality isn't the only thing that sells cars. More people bought Mitsuibishis/Nissans/Renaults from Jan to October 2017 than they bought Toyotas. I think there's room for one more good automaker, and I think Tesla's quality is 'good enough' for rabid fans, I think they can get there for 'normies', but the overlander / jihadist / 3rd world taxi crowd isn't going to give up Toyotas for Teslas any time soon.
I have successfully integrated Okta SSO to SSH via Hashicorp Vault, using it as a SSH CA to issue short-lived SSH certificates.
Hmm. Not off the top of my head. The intuition is pretty straightforward though. Imagine the difference between doubling total amount of money in the economy by either:

a. doubling the amount of money each individual person has.

b. distributing that new money evenly across every person.

In the former case, the demand curve would get steeper, no? And in the latter case, it would get flatter.

In case a, you'd decrease the price elasticity of demand and people would have an incentive to raise prices. You'd have inflation.

In case b, you'd increase the price elasticity of demand providing an incentive for producers to keep their prices lower and compete with each other on price.

Of course it all depends on where on the demand curve we're talking about. But for many of the goods we produce, their market-clearing prices are at a quantity such that they would benefit from an additional even distribution of income to every person.
"The other way is thinking of the billions of brains wasted every generation just trying to survive, exactly what humans did 2000 years ago. Now imagine if all these brains could be freed and god knows how much innovation, progress and intellectual output can be unlocked into a completely different kind of society. That's a vision."

It's not so cut and dry. I don't believe that incentives under UBI will lead to greater innovation. I see it as wonderful gift to the most intelligent and self motivated, while killing the incentives to achieve anything for so many others.

I grew up in a poor rural area and have seen many examples of what guaranteed monthly checks does to ambition. I believe kids growing up in the inevitable "UBI communities" will be trapped even more strongly than in disadvantaged communities now.

My objection is not about taxes or wealth distribution, but the ethics of giving millions such a choice, much less making it the "default" one.
Academia's emphasis on reputation isn't only problematic with respect to the adoption of open access. It also impedes the dissemination of important results that come out of less prestigious labs. I've often felt like science in particular would benefit from a sort of embargo period, during which time pseudonymous authorship would be obligatory, and after which researchers could collect their due credit. Too much focus is given to "rockstar" PIs and their labs rather than the substance of their findings.

An interesting historical example of this was an early breakthrough in interpreting genetic code by Marshall Nirenberg and Heinrich Matthaei [1], both of whom were considered unremarkable and largely ignored by more established geneticists at the time of their discovery, who were fixated on finding a hypothetical "delimiter" between genetic instructions coded in DNA.

This, however, is a digression for another day.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirenberg_and_Matthaei_experim...
Whats unethical?

I understand its not exactly fun to be at the receiving end of that treatment but i fail to see what values it is really violating
Show HN: ViralQuotes – A bulk image content generator for social media
Hello! I launched a webApp ideal for social marketing. ViralQuotes (https://viralquotesonline.com) is the ultimate social media content generator. Choose from a wide range of topics and enjoy an original set of custom quotes, with backgrounds chosen from our quality set of royalty-free images. Boost your online presence and never run out of content again!

Any feedback would be great, Thanks!
From SPARQL to Pandas with Gastrodon
The Black Belt Communists
Banning data caps is very different from not allowing higher charges for higher usage.

Most data caps are of the type where you pay a flat fee for a fixed amount of data and then pay an outrageously high punitive fee for overages that is vastly out of proportion with the amount you are paying for the data below the cap. In other instances your speeds get dramatically throttled after reaching the cap or are completely cut off if you go over the cap too often. I think that should be outlawed.

Those aren't good faith attempts to charge people for what they are using; they are attempts to shut down heavy users, often because the ISPs are also in the cable TV business which competes with streaming video that is responsible for heavy data usage.

A good faith attempt to charge heavy data users fairly for their use would probably look something like the billing models used for electricity.
> valid certificate trusted by a fake CA

I don't think that's possible. A fake CA can't issue out valid certificates because you wouldn't trust their certs to begin with -- it's all about trust and if you know they are a fake CA, then you would never trust them or anything they issue. It's like if a known counterfeiter claims to be selling legit products, you probably wouldn't trust them.
Quickest intro to SBT ever
It is a totally valid point, but you are jumping to conclusions if you presume that those questions will always lead to negative answers. Sometimes they will... but sometimes startups do pay market rates, and sometimes you just want to take a chance on something new.