skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So in the name of changing labor laws, we should cause tens of thousands of people to lose their jobs, effectively. For something like that to work, labor and consumers would have to be on the same page, and do something like a national week of no tipping, which would still hurt only the workers, not the businesses.

This needs to happen in Congress.
For what it's worth, Fractional Reserve banking could still work fine with bitcoin. You'd simply need a pool of coins and restrictions on full withdrawals and how the coins are stored (aka end users don't know the specific coins they have been loaned, just that on request the holder will transfer coins up to their balance to a third party.
Wealth inequality leads to a form of centralization of power. One could even say that libertarian inspired deregulation of the past few decades has accelerated this centralization of power. So it shouldn't be surprising if people are looking for other political systems to decentralize power.
> Are tech companies supposed to hold back on new ideas until every possible stakeholder has had a chance to weigh in?

I did not propose this strawman at any point. I merely said that tech companies should be actively engaged in solving the follow on problems from their creations, not that they shouldn't be allowed to create things.
People typically spend around 5-10% more when they pay with plastic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/your-money/credit-cards-e...
People get upset when you print USD, so Bitfinex instead creates USDT out of thin air and then uses it to buy BTC on its exchange. This would be OK if the Tether was actually backed by USD reserves dollar for dollar, but there is zero evidence that this is the case.
Thanks for the "centrist" perspective, but over here in reality we are experiencing the negative effects of runaway capitalism, including the existential threat of global warming. But I'm glad you're getting quick service at your local fast food chain.
IoT, Autonomous Vehicles, Robots: Safety Will Determine Success
>Historically speaking, the US has survived robber barons

Because of socialist policies.
Most people are limited in storage space and canned foods aren’t very calorie dense as you’re storing mostly water. Inside cans are also coated with a plastic liner and over time that liner breaks down and can contaminate the food. This reduces shelf life especially for acidic foods like tomatoes or fruit. Families that want to store a couple of weeks of canned food need yards of shelf space and need to eat a lot of canned foods to rotate it before it deteriorates.
That we could have quantum computing "accelerators" in our computers and maybe even smartphones by 2030, just like we're starting to see machine learning accelerators now (or GPUs for graphics processing in the 90's).
This article does not say that capitalism is a danger to society, it says that Runaway Capitalism is a danger to society. I think there is a lot of evidence out there of the damage that too much free market causes, just as there is a lot of evidence for that damage that too much centralization in an economy causes.

I don't disagree with you in some of these points, but I do disagree (as someone who thinks that the author of this article makes some good points) about being a "die hard socialist". Wanting universal healthcare, funded education, infrastructure spending, and corporate oversight does not make me a socialist. Or if we've moved so far to the right that it does make me a socialist, so be it. I'm not moving.
> Essentially, the gold standard commits a fallacy by assuming that the value of money comes from the commodity that backs it.

Talk about a strawman, nobody believes that. Gold (or any form of money) derives its value from being a commonly accepted medium of exchange.
Why the Traditional 4-Year Degree Isn't Cutting It Anymore
Significantly decreasing intergenerational mobility is very concerning. Especially for those who aren't wealthy already.
That artificial super intelligences are not science fiction
Not true.

A massive majority of that code you download is from 3rd parties.

Ads, tracking, analytics, Instagram & Facebook embeds, etc...

Now you can suggest that we should move to not having any of these but from a business perspective that’s... very hard.

Trimming is possible, of course, but the reality is that npm is not the problem- sites were bloated with JS before it came along.
> This scenario sounds absurd to most people, yet there are a surprising number of technologists who think it illustrates a real danger. Why? Perhaps it’s because they’re already accustomed to entities that operate this way: Silicon Valley tech companies.

This argument is not from technologists! The major proponents I'm aware of are Nick Bostrom, a philosopher, and Eliezer Yudkowski. Musk is simply repeating their argument, because he found it convincing. It strikes me as extremely dishonest to psychoanalyze an argument based on the celebrity who repeated it.
> when implemented properly you forget it's there because it just works.

I think that's the link missing for most developers. SOAP was intended to allow machine-generated SDKs to remove all of the sharp edges of dealing with it, and in that regard it was largely successful. What brought it down was the advent of non-"enterprise" web development—development happening outside of a .Net or Java IDE that generated code for you. If you ever had to handroll a wrapper for a SOAP endpoint though, god help you. I honestly believe SOAP was the thing that made XML seem uncool by comparison to JSON and REST. JSON still doesn't solve data representation problems as well as XML, we've just learned to accept "good enough" in its stead.
inflation isn't wealth destruction, it's wealth redistribution from everyone into the financial industry.
Bitfinex prints Tethers, not Bitcoins.
What's Up, WhatsApp? Google's Beating Plastic
and not a single mention of taxes in the article as a source of demand for a currency. Roughly, the US collects about $3.3 trillion in tax every year, and the US states another $700 billion.
re shitty MS products: There still isn't a spreadsheet either commercial or open source that is as good as Microsoft Excel.

Second, you can accuse him of preventing technological progress, but he was responsible more than probably any other person for bringing personal computing to the masses. I think he said his goal was a personal computer on every desktop and he pretty much achieved his goal.

Finally, the Gates foundation's work on malaria and maternal mortality has and will do more good for more people than many thousands of the "disrupt the world for good" startups ever will.
1) I specifically didn't want to focus on technical limitations and implementation details. Yes, scalability is very bad, but my main point was that even if it were fixed, Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies still can't be viable currency.

2) Why wouldn't debt work? Wouldn't loans come from the pool of currency held by the creditor?
1. Yes. Economic models are challenging, especially if ads don't work well anymore. (One thing I'd point out is that most ad revenue is sucked up by Google and Facebook, and they're the entities most ripe for disruption.)

A core motivation for Beaker is to explore new political systems which control information, software, and Web communities. If you view the existing Web as a political system, you might say that clients only have the "rights" to consume and filter information, whereas servers have the "rights" to publish, moderate, and set the software. Clients have to borrow publishing rights from the servers, and that means that all authority is derived from the citizenry of servers. A peer-to-peer Web unifies publishing and consumption rights under one class of device (the "peer") and so it equally distributes the authority over moderation and software among the peers as well.

I bring this up because it alters the service-driven packaging model for the Web. Rather than having software be delivered in a one-size-fits-all package from a given .com, the peer-to-peer Web is a customizable network of packages. There's no builtin authority over the composition of software. All users can customize and share customizations. Therefore no two devices have to share the same application code; they just need to share data formats and protocols.

I'd keep an eye out for how software is packaged for non-hacker use in the p2p Web, because that's probably one place for economic models can emerge. It makes a lot of sense for indie programmers to think of themselves as content creators, and to then cultivate patreons around their modules and packages. For larger projects, we run an Open Collective [1] and have found some initial success there.

The reality is, without a mechanism of user/data capture, it is very hard to create huge profits, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'd rather trade a situation where 1% of the population gets stinking rich if it meant we get the general wealth of FOSS and open data. I think enough incentives will remain to do good new work.

1. https://opencollective.com/beaker
Crossing the Atlantic does not mean it cannot be fought. In communist France, they organized a couple of strike-like episodes this year [1]. And I really hope this recent "auto-entrepreneur" status which is mostly used to bypass temporary worker laws eventually get repelled entirely.

The solution is not tipping, the solution is applying the law and closing loopholes.

[1] http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2017/08/26/en-colere-...
> Capitalism is danger for civilization? Writes who? A buzzfeed. A very, very leftist media site.

No. Capitalism is good. However, runaway winner-take-all capitalism will destroy our planet and lead us back to feudalism. The great success of the United States has been its' ability to restrain unfettered capitalism with social responsibility, while not hampering the progress of the former. That contract has begun to break down, and it is causing the horrors we now see.
Civilized? Us? You must have America confused with some other global superpower, like, say, ancient Rome. We've been pursuing one or more wars more or less continuously since WW2. They don't feel like wars to us, because our economic heft is such that fighting a war on foreign soil is pocket change. We just don't call them wars until later, when the historians can finally control the narrative.
It's weird how the sub-14nm date keeps getting pushed back. The end of 2018 is going to make it 4 years between chip generations. They still might fail though. Could this be the start of the great silicon stagnation?
> I imagined "a hacker", an individualist person

You _cannot_ build a society on individualism. We have shared needs that only scale with our shared contribution. We also have _plenty_. We have the resources to ensure the health and well-being of every human being on the planet.

We need capitalism to innovate and respond with agility to market forces (when THERE'S ACTUALLY A FREE AND TRANSPARENT MARKET), but we need socialism to check their power, as a corporation is wont to become singular, which, as you've stated, a singular, centralized power is no good either.
Counterpoint: tribalism is what makes us do great things. The US went to space because we wanted to beat Russia. Spain re-discovered America because they wanted to beat the Portuguese. Rome built an empire because they wanted Romans to be wealthier, stronger, more civilized than everyone else.

I like to think of ancient China as the counter-example. China built a huge, self-sufficient empire. It had almost everything it needed and a stable trade network for the few things it didn't. It was well-protected by natural borders and had a large army for keeping the peace. It developed enough technology to lend it's people a relatively good standard of living. The end result was that China stagnated and lost the ~2,000 year head start they had over Europeans. China's goal was to provide stability, and it did that very well, at the cost of progress.
Your worldview is common, but doesn't really understand where left-wing, pro-democratic socialists are coming from. Like you, we are driven by a deep mistrust of power. We hate absolute authority, like decentralization, and are especially interested in out of the box thinking.

Right now, the box we find ourselves in is a capitalist society where capitalist ideology is completely pervasive. The most powerful and dangerous authorities are corporations and excessively rich individuals. The best hopes for decentralization lie in genuinely decentralized solutions that give power back to workers, like worker cooperatives, democratic labor unions, and political protest.

What we reject is the idea that capitalism has any of the right answers here. To the left, capitalism is the primary agent of centralization of wealth and power and authority. I don't expect you to agree, but I hope you better understand where we are coming from.
I have a simple service I would like to put in production. It is a simple ML code + Rest API + testing sandwich.

I only have one (virtual) server to run this on, but I still think Kubernetes looks really helpful, allowing me to throw new versions in test and update the production server without downtime.

Minikube is really nice to use, and everything seems to work well, however everywhere I read, I am told minikube shouldn't be used in production. Can anybody tell me if there's a reason for this? And if so what is the recommended setup for a single-node Kubernetes?

(Side question: Why does minikube run everything in a virtual machine? Doesn't that hurt performance?)
That’s interesting to see. Had a feeling it wasn’t great but didn’t realize it was that bad!
Please provide proof for or source:

1. Boner pills or hair replacement is worse or better than curing malaria or exploring space.

2. That the end game for every capitalist is leadership that can be paid for and bought.

3. That treating workers as useless and interchangeable cogs provide more profit than treating them fairly (assuming profit is the goal).

4. That abuse of McDonalds and Coca Cola being worse than abuse of literally anything else (Water in big enough quantities will kill you too).

5. That people are 'fucking horrible' and their second-to-second motivation is horrible.

You sound like every extreme socialist I envision. It sounds like you want a totalitarian government (made of humans) that dictate what exactly what people can do, eat and what not. It absolutely frightens me that you can condemm the entirety of the human race and also have the ability to vote.
No inflation stat is actually "accurate". Each person has its own consumption basket and the rise of prices affects him/zir differently.

In any case -- what matters is that the inflation index of note is wrong in the same exact way every week.

This isn't the nature of economics, it's the nature of numbers. My masters' thesis is about simulating certain physical systems. There we stipulate G=1 and get the fuck on with the real work.
So what kind of stuff can we do with that?
Better to say, when one blocker issue is solved with EUV, 2 or more new ones are discovered. And further you go, more people question "whether it all worth it?"
Yes, agree that it gets way more complicated. But the point remains that nobody has control over the supply lever with a cryptocurrency, and that causes problems for the value of the currency.
interesting, because the mineral content of food is a matter of chance usually. For example certain plants accumulate certain minerals more than others (e.g. brazil-nuts:selenium, cocoa:nickel) but the soil they're grown in may have more or less of those minerals, so it's hard to control one's intake
Predictions for Journalism 2018
I recently went to Homestead in Oakland, which includes tips. The service was top notch, despite what the include-the-tip naysayers claim will happen.
This is the no-true-scotsman fallacy applied to REST. In point of fact, if REST has been around for nearly 17 years and there are so few of these APIs in the wild, then its been incredibly unsuccessful in its aims.

The truth is that these sites are, in fact, RESTful and that REST is just mediocre at what it professes to do. The requirement to treat all operations as resources + HTTP verbs is the primary leaky abstraction that everyone seems to want to gloss over.
The US government ruled that MS was a monopoly, and for the US government to do that, you're really pushing things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[15] Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.[16]
I understand that, but my question is why would anyone buy USDTs in such quantities? The total is now close to a billion dollars, as far as I understand.
Thanks for pointing that out(I learn something new every day). I looked into this and attestations are published here: https://dashboard.healthit.gov/datadashboard/documentation/e...

On a quick scan (the spreadsheet file was 300MB and it looks like I wasn't able to load everything on my computer at work), there are at least 300+ OEMR attestations (this is the non-profit organization that represents OpenEMR for MU certification).

Will plan to look into this further and thanks again for pointing this out.
*> the damage that too much free market causes

This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the term "capitalism". While many people who call themselves capitalists would like everyone else to think it means a free market, the capitalists themselves don't mean that. They mean simply that they acquire control of more capital, by hook or by crook. If they can most easily acquire control of more capital in a free market, they will support a free market. But historically, most capitalists have acquired more capital by buying monopoly privileges from the government, usually because they have failed in the free market and so turn to plan B: outlaw your competition.

What seems to be new about companies like Google and Facebook is that instead of buying monopoly privileges from the government, they are acquiring them, and hence control of more capital, by exploiting bugs in the human cognitive system to get people to take actions that satisfy short term needs but have potentially disastrous long term consequences. In one sense this is still a free market, since people voluntarily choose to use Google and Facebook. But in another sense it erodes a free market, by eroding trust. Unfortunately, I don't see the buzzfeed article engaging with this aspect at all.
And what would your solution be? Because I imagine it would be government control on what we're allowed to spend money on. You are a totalitarian, and while it might be a "good" thing in some situations, that kind of power is quickly and easily corrupted. How long do you think you can last before regulatory capture happens? How long can you last before you're persecuting people for thoughtcrimes?

I'll take the "people can spend money on what they want" dystopia before I take yours. Because the capitalism dystopia to presented can be fixed by people changing their minds and changing their spending habits. Your dystopia can't change without deaths.
Think of it like casino chips. The house is giving them out instead of money when you win, hoping you'll lose them playing instead of cashing out. That way they only need the money they expect to have to cash out instead of the value of the chips on the floor.
Also might want to consider what is the opportunity cost of what else a literate person could do instead of mining.
Errr... I guess go to yellow alert?
Yes it does. From the paper: "We assume that the
complete structure is maintained at cryogenic temperatures (∼1 K or less) inside an electron spin resonance (ESR) system, which will be used to apply qubit control pulses."
They could simple increase the required reserve rate to reduce the amount of money supply banks can generate. They could also apply negative interest rates across the board so that any amount of money stored in any account decreases over time.
>Over 800 serial rapists, criminals who have struck 10-15 times without being stopped, were identified. 127 convictions have been made this far.

The definition of serial rapist is 10+ victims. That's a lot of them in one county. o_O
I think there will always be a value in middle men for something, but to me the argument is about how many. As time moves forward there are fewer and fewer domains we go to for things. Facebook Google Amazon. Sure there will be competitors and that's what makes this still fair. But over time, the largest entity of each domain captures an ever larger percentage of traffic, revenue, etc..

The current method of aggregation is to empower fewer and fewer companies to control the rules, what you see, how to sell, what percentage they will allow a sale to generator for the seller, how products are shippped, and how returns work.

This works great for buyers, it always works great for buyers, but behind the scenes what is this doing to our economy and distribution of wealth. It also tends to have a major effect on the country of origin of products - everything is globabalized, so when we purchase something from Amazon we are purchasing something made also increasingly from a single country. Yes other countries will need to address that (as a separate issue too) but still the effect of letting fewer and fewer companies control the market, its no longer a free market.

Is there a way to regain independence? Can Cryptocurrency help? What other peer to peer technologies need to work in concert for us to break our dependency on Amazon, Google, Facebook?

Another way to ask the question: How do we make the online like the offline used to be (we drive down the street and go into a shop - except without the Walmart) but still make this fast-trustable and simple for the buyers.
A month. Bitcoin has in the last few weeks become next to useless as a currency. 30+$ to get a trade executed within an hour is unacceptable. So it isn't currency anymore. It is now just an investment vehicle. Skyrocketing price + no underlying use/value means this looks more and more like a pyramid. When the pure investors start pulling out their profits (a monthly thing) only to find that more difficult than anticipated, the panic selling will start.
I'm currently re-watching the 90s UK TV series Gamesmaster - they did a feature on this game in their usual sardonic style.

I didn't realise there was so much more to enjoy, thanks.
If they doubled money supply and distributed 1 for 1 to all current dollar holders, lots of debt would get immediately paid off. Unless you are also proposing doubling everyone's debts. But, if not, then this will cause "debt deflation" rather than the inflation you are postulating.
Show HN: Xkcd-1930 Generator
If asking kills the romance then clearly they don't actually have feelings for you. Speaking as someone who asked, and has had fantastic success.
Liberterianism !== Anarcho-Capitalism. And Socialism !== Centralized Authoritarian Communism.

There's not just the one polar spectrum of political ideology that's demonstrated by modern politicians and its far extremes.

You can hold both Libertarian and Socialist value axioms at the same time, they aren't mutually exclusive.