skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The original libertarian explicitly argued for public ownership of almost everything: Joseph Dejacques, in the first use of the word libertarian, used it to chastise Proudhon as being "just" a "moderate anarchist" and "liberal" rather than libertarian over his views on women, but then went on to rail against the limitations on humanity, including property, setting his views strongly apart from Proudhon by going much further, and in particularly by denouncing property much stronger than even Proudhon's "property is theft" [1]:

> Be then frankly an entire anarchist and not a quarter anarchist, an eighth anarchist, or one-sixteenth anarchist, as one is a one-fourth, one-eighth or one-sixteenth partner in trade. Go beyond the abolition of contract to the abolition not only of the sword and of capital, but also of property and of authority in all its forms. Then you will have arrived at the anarchist community; that is to say, the social state where each one is free to produce or consume according to his will or his fancy without controlling, or being controlled by any other person whatever; where the balance of production and consumption is established naturally, no longer by the restrictive laws and arbitrary force of others, but by the free exercise of industry prompted by the needs and desires of each individual. The sea of humanity needs no dikes. Give its tides full sweep and each day they will find their level.

The argument against public ownership came first about a century after libertarianism was first conceived, with the rise of right-wing libertarianism, which took left wing libertarianism and turned it pretty much upside down by adding a focus on property right enforcement which is in direct opposition to the original principles of libertarianism.

A key point of Dejacques original libertarianism was the view that enforcement of property rights pretty much inherently deprives the public of liberty by using the state to add restraints on people that take away far more liberty than they grant.

Having grown up in Norway - one of a few countries with extensive freedom to roam [2] - I will tell you that nobody can convince me that strict enforcement of property rights is anything but theft from the public; once you are used to it, you feel the loss of that freedom deeply when you go elsewhere and are quite literally fenced in in situations where you'd previously be used to be able to roam free.

[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Maybe it's different where you live, but my experience is that the only people that can afford to not fear the IRS are precisely the "politicians and their buddies"...it wouldn't surprise me at all to see task forces being formed just to identify under-reporting via Bitcoin and issue threatening letters (e.g. pay what is due or say goodbye to any assets you have) to whoever comes up on that list.
Not sure what data you are basing this on. I tend to think we are heading into a cooling period.
When you say constrained types do you mean generics? You have generics and concepts (similar to C++17) in Nim, not too sure about Ada.
Trump will tax americans for $30bn per year in imported goods/raised domestic prices. Many cheer their increased costs. :D

There are no global benefits to limiting trade, which this action is. Neither are there any overall regional benefits. Certain industries will benefit, and certain industries will lose, on both sides of the border, as markets adjust.

Some people will be forced to do their trade with different people for higher prices, rise prices, or close business, or suck it up in private life. That's about it.
How is that even a prediction?

> store the history of all Bitcoin transactions

Bitcoin conveniently does this for them

> and try to identify all wallet owners

That’s the headline here

> check if profits were reported and if taxes were paid

Which is the IRS’ job
Web application prototyping as MVP
What I don't understand is if it is a "government-ordered block", which wouldn't be surprising, why is it limited to Vodafone users? I would expect half-government hold TTNet and even Turkcell to block as well.
for those who find regex not very readable:
https://github.com/VerbalExpressions
// Create an example of how to test for correctly formed URLs
var tester = VerEx()
.startOfLine()
.then('http')
.maybe('s')
.then('://')
.maybe('www.')
.anythingBut(' ')
.endOfLine();
Launch Your Own Taxi Booking Business with the Help of Uber Clone
In Ada, you can get similar concepts via tagged records and generic packages.
Interlace displays every other field shifted half a raster line down -- it doubles the vertical resolution not horizontal.
I had a feeling that another World War is long overdue. At least this time we can hope to get it over with a bit quicker.
G Suite vs. Office365
Basically, we're at a stage whereby we need to have a look at the technology we're using i.e. we're not just using random tools because there's two of us - we need to be using a stack that works well together.

At the heart of that seems to be the G Suite/Office365 debate.

My initial thoughts are that Office365 is still the standard and what employees are expecting but that Google offers a more competitive price point and is more flexible in terms of integrations with other solutions.

Would love to hear other peoples thoughts/experiences though!
It isn't limited to Vodafone. The original headline is "ProtonMail is being blocked in Turkey. Here’s how to bypass Turkey’s online censorship."
> I think all experiments are began with some premonition of what to expect. For example Michaelson and Morley very much expected to measure the speed through which earth would pass through aether ... except they couldn't. An the results pushed physics toward theory of relativity.

> I disagree that's it's an entirely bad process to bankroll experiments based on unproven promises. This is exactly how the Manhattan Project happened. The physicists promised that it was very likely they could create a very large explosion, but they did not know if it would bang or fizzle. So, the US government began a huge industrial scale operation to enrich uranium and to assemble the bomb. The first atomic bomb explosion was very much empirical science that was bankrolled by "unsound" promises.

What you're describing is the "hypothesis" step in the scientific process. Properly done, a hypothesis isn't a promise--it's simply a statement of the possibility you're testing, without any commitment to the possibility being the reality or not.

A good hypothesis results in the same experiment as its negative: "There are more supersymmetric particles at higher energies" is the same hypothesis as "There are not more supersymmetric particles at higher energies" because you test both hypotheses in the same way. Contrast this with a promise: you can't promise something and its opposite.

> In this sense going beyond LHC would be kinda ground breaking - big budget science with absolutely no clue on what to expect. It's how discoveries are made, yes, but I'm not sure if any large scale scientific project has been funded without at least some clue on what to expect.

I don't think we have absolutely no clue what to expect--the article goes into some of the possibilities.
How to use docker to create and cross build C and C++ conan packages
http://mp3-tech.org/programmer/encoding.html

Source code for a lot of early encoders is available to study. Probably easier to understand than the modern implementations. LAME started out as a set of performance patches against the ISO sources until eventually being rewritten from scratch.

Toy MP3 encoders are not horrifically complicated, though ones that sound decent are. It's astonishing how much improvement there's been over the past few decades even with the same underlying format, modern 128kbps MP3s don't even make your ears bleed.
https://blog.malwarebytes.com/security-world/2018/03/graykey... is the original article I believe.
Out of curiosity, do you know of any examples of seemingly misnamed objects in the kernel?
The fine shouldn't be that low. Here's the best formula I could figure out.

Let's say R1 = actual risk of harm to yourself and others, M1 = magnitude of harm to yourself and others, R2 = your perceived risk of harm to yourself, M2 = magnitude of harm to yourself. Both M1 and M2 should be based on market price of QALY (about 50K dollars?) without overvaluing you specifically. Then the fine should be set at R1⋅M1-R2⋅M2.

That's a generalization of Pigovian tax to a spectrum of behaviors: pollution (R1=R2, M1>M2), skipping medical checkups (R1>R2, M1=M2), speeding (R1>R2, M1>M2). Does that make sense?
I'm not sure that matters: either use of the word is a form of bias.
It is common for roadblocks to be erected on election days in order to stop/search cars with bundles of cash in the back to pay the non-enfranchised to vote for a particular candidate. Sadly, lack of political awareness means many are ok to give their vote for cash.
Dynamic secrets on Kubernetes pods using Vault
I guess that is partly because of changes in architectural tastes. Large staircases in grand houses are more as likely to be concrete or steel today. I suspect most woodworkers would never be asked to create something like that today, so perhaps there is no way to learn it?
I also spend some time with stored procedure programming, mostly PL/SQL, most of them are also Ada based, and I find them quite productive, actually.
Meet the Man Who Has Spent $70,000 Playing a Mobile Game [video]
Considering the direct correlation between high earnings and dating success, I would agree.
Not all driver are there, of course. Many are out of tree.
Fine to setup.
But I don't understand how to reload a project after closing the REPL.
More generally, too many tools to master and understand...
And didn't find a simple tutorial to start with the ecosystem.
You could just avoid counting any vote in the "count" box that doesn't have a matching vote in the "discard" box.
Am I the only one that does both? I use OpenVPN to connect from my remote devices to my home router. My home router then uses an OpenVPN tunnel to PIA for all Internet bound traffic.

For those saying that anyone setting this up at home doesn't value their time, my router has built-in support for OpenVPN in both server and client mode. The VPN connectivity and tunnel to PIA took me about 15 minutes to configure a couple of years ago and besides having to update the PIA password has required no real maintenance.
> While I do agree that you should be able to do experiments for experiment's sake, and to just "see what happens" so to speak, projects like the LHC and the fusion reactor projects are all multi-billion projects; that's a lot of money to be spending on something where people don't know what to expect.

On the contrary, not knowing what to expect is exactly why you should spend money on it. If you know what to expect, there's no reason to spend billions of dollars testing what you already know.
>Which is the IRS’ job

Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?
I would love to know what the goal is here. Interactive Brokers has traditionally been the finest model of how to run a low cost brokerage. They have great tools, and charge an appropriate amount for a good sustainable business, unlike etrade and the such.

And despite having a small fraction on the market share and a small fraction of the markets available, RH raised at the same value as IB'S market cap. The only reasons I can think for this is that RH has a plan on how to become scummy like etrade, or SV doesn't know how to value brokerages.
He claims to follow the “letter or the law.” There are many actions within the law that are nevertheless unethical and wrong.
So, if you were American, had a coinbase account, and made significant capital gains in the years under investigation, would you not be worried?

Because it seems to me like they are very much capable of enforcement, as exemplified by the article.

Rich people in the US don’t avoid taxes by stymying investigations they give 5% of their income to Republican candidates and PACs, and have the law changed for them.
Most people don't go into science in a completely calm, cool search for raw data. They go into it because they find it exciting and want to solve interesting things or discover "cool" things. Scientists aren't robots. The US went to the moon because it was an exciting challenge, it inspired generations of kids to become scientists. We could discover lots of meaningless facts about logic, but most people want to do something exciting, and the people who discover meaningless facts about logic do it because they think it is interesting and exciting to an extent. Spending money on something that could be exciting is better than paying bean counters to discover meaningless logical facts. Especial when the bean counters don't really find anything, either expected or unexpected.
The law says he must "keep and retain" any funds not used to feed inmates. Well he didn't keep nor retain it, he spent it to buy a house. How is this considered "following the letter of the law" ?
Because, historically, many important discoveries (I would guess the majority) came from things people thought weren't terribly important. Often things that most thought had no value at all.

I think of it like central planning vs free markets. It can sound good to plan things out and direct things towards the outcomes you want, but it's less efficient.
As well, dynamic typing is much less of an issue in Lisp than it is in most other dynamic languages because the debugging and error handling features are really that good; they pick up most of the slack that the less-present type system creates. It would still make a lot of static typing proponents uncomfortable, of course, because not nearly as much is being statically verified. I think that the reason people become so infatuated with static verification (and testing) (not that they're bad things or anything, but just the reason they get put on such a pedestal by some people) is frustration with languages like Python, Ruby, and Javascript, which all lack a lot of the tooling that Lisp or Smalltalk has to make working in a very dynamic environment not only tolerable, but preferable. People get frustrated with the lack of tooling around mainstream dynamic languages' dynamism and attribute it to being frustrated with the dynamism itself.
> It’s a PR disaster that particle physics won’t be able to shake off easily.

I really don't see this. As a non-specialist, I assumed that the LHC was pottering along making useful if non-spectacular discoveries. The fact that naturalness is in doubt due to its data sounds exactly like the work it should be doing. Blame physics for not having a clutch of new particles ready for discovery, not physicists.
I was reminded of an Einstein quote I'd heard multiple times before. Apparently there is some debate over this, but it has been claimed he said that, apart from maths, all physical theories "ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.'

Other physicists have said similar; while still others, like Feynman, have said what sounds like the opposite.

Source: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/22410
You misunderstand, the particle physicists are having a blast discovering properties, they're just not finding any more particles. Finding particles is sexy, and sexy gets funding, so the risk is that they run out of funding with their run of the mill sciencing.

That's why they're postulating, maybe if we had a slightly larger collider we could find sexy super symmetry. The author thinks that is disingenuous because the argument that a slightly larger collider would find supersymmetry is speculation, not based on real science.

Anyway, even if there was a solid argument for there being supersymmetry just around the corner I don't think a larger collider would be funded, the LHC offered many many sexy things, so the stars aligned and it got funded, but would the stars align again for such a huge amount of funding, just for supersymmetry? I feel as a layman the idea of supersymmetry is not captivating enough. Not in the way the higgs boson was.

Anyway, there's so much applied physics research just waiting to be done right now, maybe it's time for theoretical physics to chew on it for a bit.
The map is simply incomplete, so it only lists some sample of the network card drivers there, otherwise it would be a mess.
The 4th amendment does not prevent combing through public data (the blockchain), nor does it prevent going through due process to obtain data (the coinbase order).
Right - and regex makes you think about function and variable names as strings, instead of as the higher level abstraction that an IDE with proper refactoring support lets you think. Regular expressions are not the right tool for that sort of work in 2018.

Look, I used to write web application in the 1990's with vim on computers with video cards that didn't have X drivers for them. I'm well versed in regular expressions, having used maybe a dozen flavors of them over the last 20 years. Being snooty about how useful regular expression should be (in your opinion) to the work of every other programmer out there isn't going to change the experiences of those others. I maintain that for web development there are quite often uses, but for scientific software (which is what I do), embedded, non-web based CRUD/LoB, and many other applications - it's just not what it used to be.

EDIT: turns out I was mixing up the tone of your comment with that of bmn__ down below so I replied more belligerent than your comment warrented - no offense, I'm just going to leave it up regardless.
Because there is a third category, 'exciting but not true', which is at high risk of distorting the decision making process and getting funding that is badly needed elsewhere (see, for example, Scott Kelley's DNA, anything to do with homeopathy, etc).
What if the judge (in their quest for consistency) considers both their wealth of health and dearth of wisdom?
Linux is such a mess that it needs a map.

It's no surprise they're paying massive technical debt over it. Work that would take a few hours in a well-structured system does take months on Linux.

Isn't surprising either that Dragonfly BSD's outperforming Linux in network throughput, despite its small number of developers.

They went for a components as concurrent lockless system servers approach [1] instead of a complex mess of fine-grained locks like Linux (and FreeBSD, following them) did.

[1] https://www.dragonflybsd.org/presentations/
Cross-referencing a public ledger is not an illegal search.
How a Norwegian comment section turned chaos into order–with a simple quiz
Packaging C/C++ libraries with Conan [video]
> There is no reason why you couldn't have GC when it makes sense, and deterministic reclamation where it is required.

Which is actually available in quite a few GC enabled languages.

I think lack of exposure to multiple programming languages has created this urban myth that there is only one way of doing resource management in languages with a GC.

That is what happens when professional schools adopt "one language to rule them all" teaching.
That second one is a bit... unclear. I think it's the 18th century grammar and its propensity for a dozen clauses. However, it seems to contradict the generally held belief that the poor have a much higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich do.
Garry Kasparov: Open-Ended AI [video]
Will Mobile App Development Survive This Wave of Innovation?
Bridging the Physical World and Blockchain World, with Erlang
Coinbase has already issued tax forms for those who owe capital gains taxes because of cryptocurrency sales. So this isn't in any way new or unexpected.
Tagged records are one possible in-memory representation of sum values, perhaps the most sensible one. But I don't want in-memory representations of sum values. I want sum values themselves.

ML modules are much more than generic packages. ML's module system allows you to take an existing module, hide some of its components, make some of its concrete types abstract, and get a new module. My methodology of enforcing only one invariant in each module is impracticable without ML modules.
> Which is actually available in quite a few GC enabled languages.

In existing implementations, not with Rust's static safety guarantees about dynamically allocated resources, sorry. “Just provide some way to disable the garbage collector” raises some obvious (at least to me) questions that are nevertheless not addressed by the alternatives you usually propose:

(0) When does it make sense to disable the GC?

(1) How do we know we are using resources correctly by ourselves?

(2) How do we know we are cleaning up resources correctly by ourselves?

(3) How would you rigorously prove all of the above? (Yes, unlike most other programmers, I do prove my programs correct.)
Remember: county jail holds people waiting to go to trial. Many of these people have not been convicted. Often these inmates are coerced by their appointed attorney (who is swamped) to waive their right for a speedy trial. Torturing prisoners in the US is bad, but torturing the untried is truly evil.
You are right and wrong. It's not 'politicians and their buddies', the line is much much lower than that but there is absolutely a bright line between who pays the IRS and who hires people like I use to be (I sat across from the IRS times innumerable cutting them to shreds) to make sure they pay almost nothing.

Anyone that can afford accounting services from the Big 4 (PwC, Deloitte, EY, KPMG) is getting this golden glove treatment. I am sure that there are numerous mid market firms with significant amounts of ex big4 staff that are also helping their clients just as much. Small CPA shops will be hit or miss with mostly misses. My results were 20% experience, 20% skill, 50% training by my Big 4 employer, and 10% fear of my employer escalating the situation if they didn't get a sign off from me (I'm not the one that would get sent to represent the client in tax court).

The vast majority of the IRS's work is based on incompetency and fear. Nearly all of the charges they tried to leverage against my clients were false and due to paperwork errors (more often on the client's side than the IRS but not always...not even close to always) that were easy to resolve with minimal penalties and interest.

To be clear, they didn't get to throw the middle finger at the IRS and pay nothing, they paid what they owed which was practically never even in the same ballpark as the bill the IRS came at them with. The people who can't hire a professional Tax CPA to sort it out for them get fucked not because they are the only ones paying what they owe but because they are the only ones paying way fucking more than they owe. That's a whole other ethical problem that should be addressed with the IRS.
What if a discovery (or a side discovery in the engineering work on the experiment) on some totally unrelated field leads to a breakthrough for getting to commercially viable fusion? This is the problem with science. You are never 100% sure what you are going to get (if you did why do the experiment?)
14 hacks to help you become a Google Drive expert
Sure. And so has the IRS, which “persuaded a federal judge”, according to the article.

I guess they thought it was a reasonable request to get the data of the 25,000 US citizens who made significant profit with bitcoin in those years, when only a few hundred reported such earnings in total.