skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> No, you mentioned it yourself: Bitcoin is a store of value. Moreover, it's one with a high liquidity, strong brand, limited supply, available in 180 countries, without banks involved and super reliable (gold doesn't have that features and please show me any other asset that has these features). So, it has a use and value.

I said Bitcoin's usefulness is diminishing by becoming less useful due to the high transaction time and price. Other coins are taking over the exact use case you're refering to.

> Maybe you should check the definition of a Ponzi scheme again.

It's more a greater fools game at this point and I only mentioned ponzi scheme as it was what I was responding to.

> However, do you own or did you ever own any BTC?

Yes I've owned and used BTC a while but recently stopped using it since it doesn't make sense for me anymore as it's too expensive.
Neither of these situations should trigger no-knock forced entry. The response to most situations should be careful assessment of the situation at hand, the involved actors and the dynamic of the situation, especially since swatting has come up. Police truly need to expect that an anonymous tipster is trying to goad them into action. There’s few situations that should probably trigger an immediate forceful response, active shooter for example and that should be relatively easy to confirm on site.
It makes me wonder if we'll see a Gresham's Law effect as well. A financial services company creates a new fund ABC which exists solely to hold shares of LTSE company XYZ. Its fundamentals should be completely coupled with XYZ, except for the voting rights and restrictions on trading. ABC is then listed as an ETF, with no restrictions on trading, and weights votes on XYZ based on number of shares with no tenure restriction. Because new holders of ABC have more rights than holders of XYZ, all new trading would occur in ABC.

The LTSE serves its purpose of incentivizing long-term ownership of XYZ, but it's a pyrrhic victory: whenever an XYZ shareholder wants liquidity, rather than sell, they could borrow shares of ABC with their XYZ shares held as collateral (by definition, they have the same fundamentals) and short-sell the ABC. Or if they truly want out, they sell their XYZ shares to ABC (no other buyer would be interested, if they can get the same ownership claim with fewer restrictions by buying ABC directly), which then issues new shares on the normal public markets to maintain the peg. Either way, owners of XYZ are still incentivized to care about the short-term price movements of XYZ (through its ABC proxy) on the public markets, because they can achieve liquidity by proxy.
I think I do a lot of toe first walking around the house. My wife complains it's so quiet I'm like a ghost always suddenly appearing and startling her.
Chemists know to stay far away from FOOF. It's so reactive it will burn water.
On the subject, I remember reading recently that most psychology studies are observational, and when attempts to duplicate the findings are made they mostly can't. I realize that GP's statement is qualified with 'clinical', and decisions based on observational studies are probably better than just making things up, but how much have we actually progressed?
Great take. So, I'm a relatively smart guy who tries to be fair to all parties. I think it's unlikely that I'm the only person who has this misunderstanding about these situations. I wonder how you make this dialog scale?

Also, I wonder how much the "another man is the enemy" component adds to it? I wonder if you take the type of person drawn to law enforcement (or even worse, SWAT) and add the lizard brain fuel of "this is a life or death competition with another man", how many of these outcomes are even the result of conscious decisions.

How much of the wisdom from those restrictive high speed pursuit laws could be re-applied here? They seem to have figured out that the officer will choose the competitive course in the moment instead of the right course, at too high a cost.
Arguably we did - both WhatsApp and Facebook messenger were originally based on XMPP and built around their shortcomings (setup and discovery)
I like it conceptually but I'm not sure how different it is from schemes where the founders have 10x voting rights to big chunks of stock (like Facebook and Google). These companies, from a voting perspective, can't get bullied by activist share holders but it doesn't help.

The pressure on stock price and its desirability comes in part from using it as compensation (it goes up and your employees with ISOs stick around, it goes down and that 'stock offer' has no drawing power) and using stock to buy other companies (virtual capital). These pressures exist outside the function of voting and are just as prone to creating 'short term thinking' effects. After all gaming the stock price is a universal executive sport and to get rid of that, you have to get rid of the association between high stock price and tangible short term benefit.
>Since day 1 I thought Bitcoin was a pyramid/Ponzi kind of scheme.

So, how well do you actually understand it?
SA is dead compared to even just a few years ago. Everyone got old and left.
Why Startups Aren't Hiring You
Ask HN: How to analyse results of FB ads/Survey for startup idea?
Hey HN

I recently ran an ad campaign on Facebook which linked to my landing page www.fintechreport.info

The campaign resulted in 12 survey completions for a cost of about £30.

I am not experienced in this kind of thing (engineering background). What is a good way to analyse these survey results and determine if the idea is somewhat viable.

Many thanks
Swatting exists because it's common knowledge that US SWAT teams are effectively military death squads in terms of both behavior and equipment.
Ponzi or not, there is a new phenomenon where the ecosystem has created more individual millionaires than the ones created by startups in the last few years. Many people are reinvesting their funds in new ventures, spending more money than angels or VCs in the typical startup world. It is obvious that this is connected to the high exchange rate of cryptoassets but it can have good historical consequences: there are good projects that the general community is not hearing about because they don't follow the typical ICO marketing route.
No, WHO has done an excellent job of recognizing the exact things which you invalidate. Please give evidence and examples to support your claim that they are politicizing by attempting to alleviate and bring more attention to previously neglected demographics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035450

From your other comment in this thread, it is clear that you are not well educated on this subject to speak with such authority. Calling somebody who feels their gender identity doesn't match their body as mentally ill is offensive and inaccurate, how can someone who is born in the wrong body be at fault? Organizations like WHO are doing a great job.
See above - our rules do handle derivatives and options elegantly (imho), but I can’t say too much about how it works yet.
Maybe a brochure once a year giving tips on how to not get murdered by the police?
I have been thinking about the same thing, and I agree with the benefits you have stated.

In my part of the world (Sweden) we have two market places for quite small companies, Nasdaq First North and Akitetorget.

Akitetorget is somewhat strange, I think it is formally not regulated as a stock market, and that the companies listed there does not need to be "publicly listed". Like the grey markets for non-public companies I've read about, but perhaps less grey.

First North however is a "real" stock market that works the same way as its big brother Nasdaq OMX, but with lesser demands and cheeper entry.

Still, even First North is probably to expensive to list a startup right at incorporation.

I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is to balance the requirements of public disclosure and quarterly reports etc. with cost of listing. If almost no requirements would be set, it would be very cheap to list but also very hard to safely trade on the exchange (alá ICO's). On the other hand, with too stringent requirements it would be too expensive to list as an early stage startup.
See PapersWeLove
I get where you're coming from, but the person who called it in named themselves SWauTistic and makes a hobby of this behavior.
I'm not in the business of predicting the future, since that is beyond my control. What other people do with learned indices is up to them.

I'm just stating my concerns.
Where is the proof that the Israeli officials are directly involved in closing these accounts? Couldn't find any in the article.
I'm pretty sure that guy got his theories from the the Born to Run/barefoot running crowd. Scientific validity is suspect.
> It is becoming exponentially more difficult to mine them, and there is only a finite number of bitcoins in that can be mined.

This was planned and one of the greatest features (for a store of value): Limited supply. With limited supply you won't have inflation but deflation which is good for storing value but not good if you want to use it as a cash system. But for p2p cash use cases newer system like Stellar/XLM which integrate controlled inflation (1%/yr) are better.

> Buying bitcoins is making these 2000 people richer.

Guess you are confusing matters. Running a local wallet as a full node doesn't mean you make tons of money. You can run 20 nodes but your friend who is BTC trader could still have 100 times more BTC than you (so, running a node != holding a shitload of BTC).

> Actually I don't understand anyone that puts money in a cryptocurrency that is supposed to have "intrinsic value".

From another post: Bitcoin is a store of value. Moreover, it's one with a high liquidity, strong brand, limited supply, available in 180 countries, without banks involved and super reliable (gold doesn't have that features and please show me any other asset that has these features). So, it has a use and value.
What we really need is something like this for the phone scammers, particularly the "IRS" scam I've been getting regulars calls from most of this year.
Nine years later, one feature in GTA4 has never been bettered – here's its story
Now imagine cp ing a private key...
> At the moment 50% of all Bitcoins are controlled by less than 2,000 people(assuming 1 wallet per person).

This seems like an unreasonable assumption given that many people own bitcoins through custodians, such as exchanges and funds.
What you are asking them to be is super human

Here is a cop being fired for NOT shooting someone https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/12/...
Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems: http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/seoc/2005_2006/reso...

Even though it's from 1986 it's enlightening how useful it is to think about reactive systems using statecharts - especially as a UI developer this seems to make total sense and was a ah-ha moment when I first read it a couple months ago.
Link to video of the shooting: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html

Couple things are clear:
1. Police took shelter behind cars, outside of handgun range, but within the range of their own rifles.
2. The victim clearly didn't carry a rifle, or any weapon with a range that can threaten the police
3. The police didn't know if the victim, who was being shouted at and shined at with high beam and confused, was the supposed hostage or hostage taker, and shot him anyways.

It's a fuckup, and the police should serve better.
Indeed. We don’t list most of or employees to protect their privacy. This is a pretty controversial project.
What an odd way to troll.
if you want to recite Kremlin propaganda on this website, please respect the readers and use more sophisticated tropes.

Reasons your text is a poor attempt:

Kremlin propaganda about "democracy = subjugation" predates Ukrainian situation by at least a few decades if not a century; and then Ukraine is not the only "young democracy" Russians could check out as an example, so why do you even bring it out here? especially since attacking Ukraine themselves definitely taints "the analysis of the benefits of democracy".

Even if we take a bait with "Ukraine is a reason why Russians don't want democracy":

Ukrainian history in your post is (on purpose?) not told exactly right and some important elephants in the room (like Crimea and Russian military involvement) are conveniently ignored; subjective statement about corruption levels is thrown, what's your measurement methodology?

again, other "young democracies" might have a better situation with everything, why Russians don't look at those?

I indeed believe that you are sincere and find that because Ukraine is failing and still labeled a democracy then Russia is never going to be democratic, but it's tragic that such a shaky views are just blindly adopted by Russians.
Of course there are scams involving Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. How many scams involving US dollars do you suppose there are?
Google retires the Pixel C
So what's the point here? That income inequality doesn't exist because the average person in the US today is better off in most ways than the average person in the US of 100 years ago? Or that income inequality does exist, but it's okay, it doesn't really matter, because the last hundred years have given us more toys and comfort?

This is brought up often as some kind of contrarian rebuttal to the politics around modern inequality. It used to be one of Paul Graham's favorite counter-arguments. It's still as boring now as it was then.

Conjuring up a convoluted thought experiment just to try to take the wind out of people arguing about income inequality isn't insightful. It doesn't add anything to the argument. Literally the best point you're making is that as long as human progress doesn't stall completely for a hundred years, we should all be happy.

Oh, and choosing Rockefeller is hilarious, given his status as an oft-criticized robber baron in the political discourse at the time. (I wish modern political cartoons were as sharp and well-drawn.)
Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to track any stats about how often it reaches a spammer, whether it's interacting with the same spammer multiple times, etc?

While I think the donating of DNS records is an interesting idea, I personally wouldn't want to risk giving permission to an outside party for the domains I use, and I don't think it would be worthwhile to try and correctly maintain a domain just as a donation.
Every year in the US cops kill ~1000 people. Of those ~50% are unarmed or armed with something other than a firearm. ~18% are unarmed.

Nationwide less than 100 cops are killed every year by some form of assault.

~25 people are executed via death penalty every year.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/...

https://www.odmp.org/search/year

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year
Facebook did two things: make everyone part of the network (from your grandma to your 9 year old nephew), and made it not nerdy to use. the raw web, irc, newsgroups, were all for nerds.
Most of the OS terrain data is now from pairs of aerial photos using photogrammetry. The older products were actually based on contours that were surveyed using more traditional techniques.
> No, you mentioned it yourself: Bitcoin is a store of value. Moreover, it's one with a high liquidity, strong brand, limited supply, available in 180 countries, without banks involved and super reliable (gold doesn't have that features and please show me any other asset that has these features). So, it has a use and value.

As I've said before Bitcoin is absolutely a garbage "store of value". It's not going to exist for decades, let alone for centuries, because of the nature of technology. As you yourself have pointed out there's nothing inherent about Bitcoin other than a network effect that's made it a brand. It isn't backed and guaranteed by a government, there are no organization that are demanding to be paid only in Bitcoin as America demands to be paid only in dollars.

Furthermore There will be better technologies that will emerge and supplant Bitcoin. Land, Dollar, precious metals all far exceed as stronger "stores of value", both because of their historicity, and also because of their technology, that is a technology that is stable.

Not to mention the complete and utter lack of privacy of Bitcoin because of it's public ledger. Everyone knows everyone else's entire transaction history, and any large enough actor can find that out. Traditional stores of value don't have that problem, or rather not nearly as publicly visible.

Cryptocurrencies, and digital currencies do have place, but I don't think we've come to any sort of equilibrium as to what its role will be in society, which is why I don't think Bitcoin will succeed as "store of value", or currency.
Ridiculous. Pyramid and Ponzi schemes do absolutely nothing other than redistribute wealth. Bitcoin obviously has some value and if you can't see that you're willfully ignorant. The article suggests that Bitcoin "promises insane returns" but Bitcoin doesn't do that at all. Speculators want you to buy so the price goes up, just like a stock.
The way the LTSE is designed allows it to participate in the same level of liquidity as conventional exchanges. There’s absolutely no difference from that POV
Correction: The headline figure is the motor’s maximum power rating. I tried an electric bike with a 350W hub motor, and on a moderate hill it did not have enough torque to move. Power = Work ÷ Time, Work = Force × Distance; 0 distance ⇒ 0 power.

I understand that mid-drive motors can deliver much more torque than hub motors. Maybe the OP is being realistic about what he needs in the Arizona hellscape where he lives.
"it might be weird to store the same point 4 times in a buffer, but I could not find a better way"

Couldn't you use a geometry shader to convert points into triangles (or quads)?
Toe walking is often idiopathic, but it's also a symptom of autism, cerebral palsy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_walking
Istanbul çilingir
> "The Catch" is one of the most impressive things in the history of sports period.

So I finally got around to watching the catch. Cool catch, but isn't the catching ability of a receiver augmented by tact gloves?[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protective_equipment_in_gridir...
I'm pretty sure that ADHD without hyperactivity is ADD.
It’s a paradox of startup life that the best way to sustain a long-Term vision is via rapid experimentation. Amazon is a great example of this, if you want to see it at scale, but there are many others. So I don’t see any irony here.
Beylikdüzü çilingir
> for every one of these, there are a dozen right-wing sites saying similar or worse things about minorities

But the premise was not "the root balances the scales of alt-right internet injustice"; It was "the root is not an appropriate source". Those other dozen right-wing sites are also inappropriate source material, whatever the quantity/rarity.
> I agree with the rest but underpaid, no. For the Oakland Police Department, where I live, the starting salary is $69,912 to $98,088. Retirement starts at 50.

For a job dealing with crime reports and disputes all day and one of the routine job hazards is being shot dead at any moment, that's hardly a particularly attractive deal. Hell, I doubt there's very many people on HN would take that job for twice the pay.
In what sense does Bitcoin have high liquidity?
With bloom turned on, it looks really good.
That's a good point. I also didn't get a cell phone until very late in 2004, and most people I know got them in 2003-2005. I prefaced my comment with my graduation year (2003) because I think the thing that maybe matters a lot is when you came of age between ~1999-2007. Technology was changing so fast on almost a yearly basis in that time frame it's probable people with a 2 year age difference has a widely different experience of being teenagers and young adults. I don't think the same can be said of 2009-2017.
Do we know what it is?

You seem quite confident.

Americans have 101 guns per 100 citizens. Finns have 34.2 guns per 100 citizens. Icelanders have 30.3 guns per 100 citizens.

America has 110x the murder rate than Finland has. America has 13,000x the murder rate Iceland has.

Whatever the cause is, 3x the guns ≠ 110x the murder rate (or 13,000x the murder rate).

A more interesting comparison might be to examine countries with similar murder rates to the U.S., regardless of arbitrary "developing or not developing" boxes, and ask what the two countries have in common. For instance, countries with similar murder rates to the U.S. include:

• Burundi (1.2 guns per 100 residents)

• Cuba (4.8 guns per 100 residents)

• Kazakhstan (1.3 guns per 100 residents)

• Kyrgyzstan (0.9 guns per 100 residents)

• Latvia (19 guns per 100 residents)

• Niger (0.7 guns per 100 residents)

• Rwanda (0.6 guns per 100 residents)

• Somalia (9.1 guns per 100 residents)

• Turkey (12.5 guns per 100 residents)

• Turkmenistan (3.8 guns per 100 residents)

• Ukraine (6.6 guns per 100 residents)

What about the U.S. makes it more like these countries, murder-rate-wise, than more developed countries with higher gun ownership, like Finland or Iceland (both of which have far and away higher gun ownership than all the countries on that list)?

We know it's not guns. So what's the cause?
Feed the capitalist machine or lose all your money. Great.
"You" can always try harder and one day you might get hired. But as more work is becoming outsourced or automated this sort of advice only means the "you" who gets the job is forcing someone else not too. Startups aren't hiring because there is a massive collection of desperate people and they only select a tiny minority.
The transaction costs will hopefully come down once Lightning Network is implemented.
This was apparently a SWAT team that initiated a confrontation in response to a report of a situation involving firearms. Why weren't they already behind cover so that if the guy really did come out of the door shooting at them, they were protected? And if they were, why was it necessary to shoot first when the situation obviously wasn't clear at all? Nothing about this adds up.
I’ve seen limitations that even go back to paper records. I worked at a medium sized company where at least 20% of database variables were limited by the number of characters on a paper card system developed in the 50s.
I don't have any stats, no. I assume most spammers are using random domains, so they wouldn't be very accurate anyway.
Forwarding from gmail to sp@mnesty.com results in

554 Recipients' domain disabled
No he isn't. Some people are better suited to these situations than others, and people can be better trained for it too. I've talked to more than one Iraq veteran who's troubled by how ready police are to discharge compared to the rules of engagement they used in Iraq, which were more than sufficient for them to maintain public safety.

Part of the problem is that police in America offer the default excuse of fearing for their lives in virtually every situation where they shoot someone. I doubt they're actually that cowardly, but it's been a successful formula for them in administrative proceedings.
Find what's different in America and fix it

The average American spends several hours a week watching TV and movies where the rule-breaking shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later cop is the hero. Probably most people who join the police see themselves in that role.

Here in the UK our cop shows are like Midsomer Murders. Most episodes don’t even feature a gun...
I wonder if the GSG and other special units see the use of violence as a colossally embarassing failure.

"That tactical team couldn't even do their job right and had to resort to shooting the guy."
It makes sense if you realize that actual voices in our so-called-democracy are drowned out by people who have power/money and extremists (who are often funded by the former).

In an oligarchy, your opinion doesn't count unless you have money.