skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Bring Modern Product Development Methods to Legacy IT Operations or Be Disrupted
Why can't we use countries and states that already pay citizens as examples to study the effects of UBI?

In Alaska and Saudi Arabia citizens receive a portion of the income generated from oil sales, and have for decades.

Can't we just look at what the effect has been on those economies? Did it incentivize smarter decision making and long term planning. Did it result in decreased productivity in the bad way (laziness)?
A limited test is hard. In my view UBI needs to be a life-long guarantee. Otherwise you would be crazy to leave the workplace only to find out that your UBI has been cut 10 years later and you have to scramble to find a job again.
> KKR et al lost money on this

I think it's hard to say conclusively without being their tax accountants/lawyers:

> > all the debt payments are tax deductible

After declaration of bankruptcy, they probably get tax credits they can use in the coming years... Excuse my inexact terminology, I'm not an Accountant.
Isn't that at risk of becoming the worst of a planned economy? We've already seen plenty scope for fraud with benefit systems with voucher schemes, fraudulent claims, multiple claims, problems getting back into work, etc. Governments can use it as an easy target to save money (those in need don't have large lobby groups), so will disproportionately bear the brunt of cuts.

Basic income is given to everyone. All you need do is prove citizenship so it's orders of magnitude cheaper to manage, and should be far less vulnerable to fraud. No weeks waiting on a claim when circumstance changes, no prosecutions because you didnt report being back at work correctly or fast enough. If govt cuts basic income they will also be cutting income of veterans and those in work - more noticeable, and with a little time, less politically expedient.

It has the bonus of minimising govt involvement and punishments for those who had the misfortune to get ill or be unable to work etc.

OK, so we just give people the things they need. Who decides? e.g.

People need food - give them "approved" food, regardless of whether it's things they like or dislike intensely. Every week they get things they will not use because govt says they "need" it.

Giving people food is expensive - give them seconds and rejects from retail. Why not out of date? Give the nationwide contract to the cheapest bidder. Those in need eventually get to live off the modern day equivalent of gruel. (See prison and school catering contracts)

Why not just put them in the workhouse and be done with it?
A lot of folks got screwed this way. Being a company lifer is risky.
I use Newsblur and have been a happily paying customer since Google Reader went down.
What Is a Snow Tunnel?
Cutting, Pasting, and Rearranging Reality in Las Vegas
> Why not just give the people who need things the things they need?

We already have this. It turns out that you wind up with lots of overlapping bureaucracies that waste far more of the money than any fraudulent usages that you actually catch.

It's like drug testing people on assistance, it turns out that poor people use drugs less than the population at large. Funny that.

> Is this really an economic problem or a cultural one?

Yes to both.

The cultural problem, at least in the US, is that the politics of the Southern Strategy (ie. racial politics in the South) have made this into "How dare those undeserving so-and-sos get free money?" instead of "How many genuinely needy people did we help with the limited resources we have and can we help more?"

One other thing that a basic income affects is that you may find people willing to relocate to very low cost of living area with high unemployment since they know that they can survive even if they don't have a job. That can kickstart bringing the unemployment rate down because you wind up with a critical mass of people and those people need services.

There are lots of good possibilities. I'm hoping more experiments like this get tried out as some form of UBI is going to be required in the very near future when automation has replaced most manual labor jobs.
They are a way to subscribe to notifications of updates from your favorite content providers. But they don't use a standards-conformant protocol when consuming those notifications.

By becoming popular, they reduce content providers' incentive to support RSS. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
> and the protocol is being pushed by the Android's creators

I think it's really being pushed by the carriers who want people to use it. Google is just implementing it.
I prefer Scuttlebutt because of the P2P architecture which allows offline-first and no-backend. With Mastodon I still have to have an internet connection, and create an account on a server.
Webforms was all about composition of rich components with an elaborate scheme to hide the fact that everything is playing out over http. This is completely different, it looks more similar to old school php than to webforms.
1. There was a lot of competitive selection pressure because nothing was complex enough to have any defence against anything else eating it: that is, complex enough to have any homeostatic abilities to continue to survive when a neighbouring organism dumps metabolic waste products into the environment that make it less hospitable; or complex enough to survive when any neighbouring organism gets close enough to just start using its constituent proteins as reactants in its own metabolism.

When you haven't yet evolved adaptations like "strong cell walls" or "the ability to recognize and excrete substances antithetical to your metabolic processes" or "the ability to store metabolic energy for times of resource scarcity", you have to spend a lot more of your time as an organism either moving away from danger, or reproducing away from danger.

And, in environments that cycle between resource-rich and resource-poor, the "reproducing away from danger" strategy is highly preferred: you can always shoot off a germ cell specialized to survive under such resource-poor conditions—i.e. a spore—until it enters a richer/safer environment; and so, when you're in a rich/safe environment, it pays off to have another morphogenic stage specialized toward "thriving" rather than "surviving." (If you're wondering why you'd do this rather than just "turn into" a spore, and then "turn back into" an adult organism, like some bacteria essentially do when dried out—well, that turns out to require more genetic code, especially when you're already doing mitosis anyway.)

2. Things that didn't have robust reproduction mechanisms couldn't evolve these other complex adaptations (cell walls, homeostasis, etc.), because every reproductive step would introduce too many errors for the adaptive "signal" to survive well-enough to spread through the population.

Before any other adaptation, the most important and urgent adaptation an organism that relies upon reproduction can evolve is to increase the robustness of its copying logic to the point that other traits can be constructed cheaply, through focused, linear adaptation rather than random chance.

Or: the probability of any random complex adaptation evolving without DNA is very low. That includes DNA itself, of course. But the probability of any random complex adaptation evolving given DNA is much higher. So you'd expect that, of all the evolutionary lines that survived, they all ended up adapting to use DNA first—because the ones that did some other adaptation first would still have to also evolve DNA [through random chance] to preserve that adaptation for any useful number of generations. Organisms with DNA will strictly outcompete those without, because DNA makes you able to get to any other adaptation much faster—and keep it once you have it, and build on it with further adaptations, until you've got a complex feature.
If paying 11% is Absolutely obscene I would like to know what the adjective is for Amazon paying 0%.
>free money (for awhile)

That destroys your argument.
At the very least, parsing the Release History table seems way better than looking for a particular phrase in the text.
That's exactly what we're doing. The problem is, those aren't generally exciting stories to print.

"Ex-google 20 year old founder raises $73 million Series A to build Uber for Cats" would raise eyebrows and gain clicks.

[1] https://www.recapped.io
Yeah, not really, since it's not even an argument but an empirical question.

Feeling like you can loudly assert things not in evidence is a sign of some pretty tall ideological blinders.
I would guess the conspiracy that the US government paid Kubrick to fake the moon landing.
Movable Type preceded WordPress by a couple of years or so, FWIW.
I think this is misdirected criticism. WebAssembly runs at almost native speeds on a single very lightweight "VM".
Radio, a technology which most us would consider old, was used extensively used to brainwash the populace in Rwanda to commit grave crimes. How is the current technology any different this time,
> In my view UBI needs to be a life-long guarantee

Even a nation-wide UBI scheme would be vulnerable to political risk. This sounds like a No True Scotsman risk. If a UBI scheme fails, you want to be able to learn from it. Not discard the attempt as not having been ambitious enough.
Unlikely to be true in general. I'm having no troubles hiring Haskell developers.

Hiring good front-end developers on the other hand....
There's literally no information in this article other than the government decided to end the trial. One reason it might have been ended is because there were anti-social effects. However, it might also have been ended at the behest of anxious rich people afraid that positive results would increase their taxes. We'll have to wait for the full report.
If everyone got it then it would simply be called inflation.
What you're describing is more like a negative income tax. As long as the tax brackets are narrow enough (or better yet: tax rate is a continuous increasing function of income!) so that at no point does increasing youre before-benefit income reduce your total after-benefit income. With negative income tax, you have the problem of people cheating on their taxes to get free money, so it's often assumed that implementing it would require the abolition of cash.
Huh? That quote says the union negotiated a deal that did exactly what I said it did. The subject of the piece continued to work at the Times for another 38 years, until his voluntary retirement.
Hackers Targeting Healthcare Machines Like X-Ray, MRI
>In my entire career, I've never seen a single unit test case that matches this description.

That is not an argument. The fact that you have been doing something your entire career does not make it correct

>If it's loosely coupled with the internal code then by definition, it's called an integration test.

That is your own definition. The article defines an integration test right at the start. It is ok if you have your own definition but that does not mean that everybody has to agree with you.

>Anti-pattern number 5 is basically the author admitting that internal unit testing is a problem in terms of productivity but then they fail to offer an actual solution which doesn't contradict the rest of the article.

The article has an example and shows both the problem and the solution. The solution is to make your tests not look at internal implementation. What more could I do there?

>unit tests actually discourage you from making the necessary changes

you are just describing again what anti-pattern 5 says.

>What is the author proposing?

I am the author, so I know what I am proposing, that is for sure.
There's nothing inherently scummy about a market, either. But black markets can get pretty scummy. What's the difference? The Clientele?
So there’s noise pollution on a grand scale, it depends on natural gas extraction or a breakthrough in electrolysis, and it will produce CO2 when burned in flight. Great. It will also cost a fortune, and even SST isn’t viable, yet somehow this will be?

I could not be more skeptical.
I don't remember this from the 90's very well, so I read the wikipedia page. I saw the following diagram and wondered how many washing machines and dishwasher's considered themselves to use fuzzy logic because they simply kept track of the temperature instead of just being in hot / cold states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic#/media/File:Fuzzy_....
How did you sell those platforms to them? How did you explain that they're better than Facebook? And, given that all the people they want to talk to are already on Facebook, why should they go off to this thing they've never heard of, that they're going to have to administer, which doesn't have any of the people they want to talk to.

It's not that any of them are lazy. They simply have other priorities for what to do with their time, and other priorities for how a social network should work. To them, those alternatives don't provide the value that Facebook provides to them.

If you want to convince others to not use Facebook, I highly suggest you not fall into the trap of deciding that people who don't share your priorities are "lazy".
The headline "Finland's basic income trial falls flat" implies that the results were poor, but the actual article just says that the government decided not to fund it anymore and the OECD doesn't think it'll work without going into what the results were.
Why should it be cheap?
What if say you bribe someone with access to the private keys to append a false entry?
That's why the osmo-fl2k page has the following text:

"Before transmitting any signals with an FL2000 device, it is strongly suggested that you check the resulting spectrum with a spectrum analyzer, and apply proper filtering to suppress any but the desired transmit frequency.

Operating a transmitter with the unfiltered FL2000 DAC output attached to an antenna outside a RF shielding chamber is dangerous. Don't do it!"
> Doesn't testing this on unemployed people only quite silly.

Not necessarily: if the purpose of the test is to determine how basic income affects outcomes over a period for the unemployed, having the experimental group to whom BI is given be exclusively drawn from the set of people unemployed at the beginning of the experiment and comparing that to a similar group of unemployed people not given BI is a fairly sane experimental design.
Now you're changing the subject. Is your point that loop holes exist (which I don't dispute), or that loop holes are the reason why corporate taxes don't raise much money (which is wrong)? Those are two different points.

Google's 11% tax rate probably is the result of loop holes. But most companies don't deal in bits and IP that can be moved around to take advantage of international arbitrage. Walmart pays 29% taxes.

The result is that even accounting for Googles, our effective tax rate is high compared to European countries: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the... (see the second chart). 18.6% versus 11.2% for France.

"Republican tax policy" will bring that down somewhat. But corporate income taxes only bring in 9% of revenue. Even if you doubled them they'd be only 18% of revenue. But your effective tax rate would be more than triple that of France.
My bet is that Google is poised to become a strong market protagonist in the Public Cloud / Infrastructure space, within the next few years.

I have admired the stability and the maturity of their technology platform since my AWS days.
Alacritty's primary focus appears to be performance (GPU accelerated, no scrollback, no tabs, no native split panes).

Hyper 2's primary focus appears to be features and extensibility.

I doubt they will be in the same ballpark.
Lots of straw men, poor assumptions, bad analogies and more in this article. He starts with some weird dumb swipe at "the Left" for thinking tyranny is impossible. And ends with a something I've never heard of: a class of people "vehemently demanding the confiscation of rifles". He ticks off countless wars to prove that states of violence is common, but conflicts that reach the state of "war" are going to roll over you and your family and all your prepper gear whether you have one, ten or zero AR-15s.

And the author is extremely naive in his assumptions about the relative risk of having an assault rifle in your home versus the marginal increase in safety said assault rifle would grant you in the case of a massive societal breakdown. If anything, at best it would be a wash: Carrying the rifle openly would just get you targeted by military, militia, gangs, or other preppers who would at such a point have nothing to stop them from employing pre-emptive lethal violence against you. You might be able to protect your home from random lone-wolf raiders, but organized groups could overwhelm you pretty quickly.

As for his two-data-point calculation of the likelihood of violent rebellion based on the history of the United States, the Civil War was a fairly straightforward war between government-equipped armies, not a period of random anarchy. And the Revolutionary War was relatively small-scale given the expanse of the American colonies at that time.

The sadly common European wars up until 1945 were horrific wastes of human life, but again, I'm not sure how having a rifle handy would appreciably change the lives of the folks impacted by the wars. I don't know about earlier wars but I'm pretty sure most every healthy fighting age male in Europe was in their respective military, not holed up in their basement protecting their tins of sardines from the looters across the street.

Point being, the chances of a societal collapse where your AR-15 will make a difference for the safety of your home and your family is miniscule. And the risk of the gun's presence in your home over the decades you wait for the apocolypse which never comes is much, much greater.
Apps - yes. Addictive electronic entertainment has taken over. I imagine many other parents also have a few piles of toys that were cool / must have / licensed by the popular things, that just sit in that pile and take up space while phones / tablets / consoles other addictive electronics get used constantly.

Why waste money on things that get an initial "wow!" - only to be tossed into a pile and never used, when there are tons of privacy stealing ad supported free things that take all the time and attention.

Last holiday I looked through the TUS online and offline catalogues for 10-12 age range, found 2 things that may be interesting to the youngin' here; one was a watch.

Strangely card based games like pokemon yugio mtg can actually get groups of kids involved without the need for electronics, but I don't think those alone would keep a large warehouse in business. I am also not driving across town when target has the card packs a mile from here, and specialized card shops are all over town.

I did see TUS expand it's electronics section, but the ad supported freemium models don't sell many games, just hardware once every so often.

Sad to see TUS go, unlike GP commenter, I don't think the author is crazy, I believe that shareholders often influence places to make decisions that may raise profits in the short term yet lose the war after a couple of years. It may not be the only reason, but I'd wager it's one of the main ones out of the top 10 perhaps.
That's a relatively simple case, that a developed country's welfare system does indeed handle well. But what about transportation, housing, education, entertainment? The list is long.
Set Meja Makan Ukir Mewah – MAJUO
Please make a game with this. I would pay money for such a thing. There was a rather large hype over a game called 0x10c with mechanics like this that ended up being vaporware.
> Doesn't testing this on unemployed people only quite silly

Testing it on a series of population subsets before testing on the entire population seems reasonable.
I had a cognitive science professor relate a story about a similar liminal dream. He had a long dream about a visit to the library. Every element of the dream built to someone yelling "look up!" and when he did, he saw a large book falling right towards him, so he was about to knock it out of the way. He woke to find a book falling from a high shelf right above his head - and his hand already extended to knock it away.

Did he have a prophetic dream? Probably not. Probably he saw the book through barely-open eyes and his brain generated and stored the entire dream instantaneously and he only thought he had experienced it in normal time.
The project page covers all of this, and takes the time to recommend various filtering strategies. It's not like this stuff is much worse than a faulty washing machine or hair dryer doing the same, or that the very same equipment under control of its official driver couldn't spew junk in exactly the same way
Of course, missed that part. My point was more about the 560€ which is ridiculous as an incentive to anything. The RSA is regarded as poors staying poor and profiteers gaming the system to keep having it. It was pretty clear an unconditional 560€ wouldn't have changed anything.
This doesn't sound like it itself "exploits" anything, just deflates Nintendo's attempted scheme to exploit their customers by booby trapping their hardware.

If you rigged your car to destruct 30 minutes after it went out of cell service, sold it to an unsuspecting buyer, and then laughed when they got stuck in the desert, you'd be rightfully thrown in jail. But yet these companies keep attempting to pull the same shit with impunity.
Cool. I hadn't thought of risk calculation as a Bernoulli process. Hey, I
know next to nothing about risk calculations!

However. If we work backwards in time and keep to the same reasoning, the
yearly probability of a violent revolution goes up for every year you get
closer to the last event (because there are fewer years to sample from). For
example, the chance to have a violent revolution in 1866, after the US Civil
War, was at its maximum for the period after the Civil War (0.57 by my
calculation). That is intuitively wrong. Surely, the probability to have a
violent revolution must be minimal right after the end of the last one, when
the new status quo is in its most well established, everyone is tired of
fighting, etc etc.

I guess you can argue for and against that- but the point is that revolutions
cannot be accurately modelled as a Bernoulli process, with a constant
probability depending on time, else there is a risk of wildly over- or
under-estimating the chance of having another one.

Finally- I think it's very dangerous to assume that just because you can model
someone's reasoning as a rational process, that person will actually follow
that process and reason rationally. Or in other words- someone else might be
able to come up with rational arguments to back up preppers' actions, but that
doesn't mean preppers themselves are thinking rationally. You can get to the
same behaviour through very different lines of reasoning, not all of which are
necessarily consistent.
Any ideas why energy companies have highter RPE than tech? Perhaps they have a larger rate of subcontracting?
The reality is that grammar is one way that people are judged. Instead of throwing a fit, realize that it's an easy way to get a leg up on the competition.
I believe this has been known for a while, even though it's just now been "made public" as far as the press is concerned. In the meantime, disassembly of OS updates for the Switch imply that they're adding support for a newer version of the Tegra processor, which many speculate to be a silent hardware upgrade on new systems to boost security, not for a new model with speed upgrades.
That happens to be a case where it's easy to get an eligibility list (I think there are a lot of such cases). But the way in which aid is distributed is still just plain cash.
Because perks and satisfaction are on the rapid decline. And salary too. Last year new employees were told that a new policy enacted after they joined would make then ineligible for stock refreshers their first year.
The Valence technical white paper: a new type of blockchain application platform