skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem of China's huge bike graveyards [video]
I've been working from home for over 6 years, with young kids and a stay-at-home-wife the entire time. I wouldn't have it any other way.

1) You need a good chair. No, a good one. If it's not at least $500 new, then it's not something to consider. I picked up a used Aeron chair for $350 (drove 90 minutes to get it), which goes for $900. Unless you are doing a standing desk thing (which I wouldn't at first unless you are already someone who does that), then you need a chair that will let you sit for a while and not feel a thing. It's the most comfortable chair in my whole house, because it needs to be. No other one gets used 40+ hours a week.

2) You need an office. You can't work from the kitchen table or the couch or your bed. The office doesn't need to be a den or bedroom, but it needs to be dedicated and ideally somewhere you can be undisturbed. Honestly, your kids shouldn't be allowed near it, even when you aren't working.

2) You need to keep set hours, and you need your family to respect them. This is a job. You aren't on vacation or fooling around. Do work at work times, and home at home times. You'll find you can blend them once you get the hang of it, but you shouldn't let work bleed too much into home time, and you can't let home intrude onto work when you aren't in a place to accept it. Ideally these set hours should match the rest of your team, or at least heavily overlap. In the end you need clear "work time" and "home time", like everyone else gets, except you don't have to commute in between.

3) Family buy-in: your family needs to understand that you need to be professional and are NOT available whenever is convenient for them.

4) Environment: I don't think any specific desk will help you more than others, but you shouldn't be sharing it with the kid's homework or your wife's projects or anything like that. It should be work only, and either be clean and empty, or have work stuff on it. In terms of other equipment, that's very specific to you and your needs. Of course, I've really only had a single network outage in that entire time.

5) Sometimes working from home is awful for you, and you shouldn't do it. It's not for everyone.
If you have an idea and can't reduce the bus factor by getting other people on your team to co-sign it then it shouldn't be part of the project. That shows that either it's a bad idea, that you're not able to communicate it well, or that the other people are overly cautious. All of these things are good reasons why your idea would be too much risk.

If you can get other people on board then it's a very good sign. The bus factor is just a shorthand test for that.
I can’t do it. I go to a share office.
It's not even that they aren't held consistently. Honestly, nobody (outside of philosophy papers) lists out their axioms and derives beliefs. They have beliefs and "reverse engineer" the supporting axioms, and don't particularly care if the axioms required for one position conflict with the ones required for another.
The fact that lobbying/bribes are legal in the USA is a bigger threat to democracy. Companies being considered people whenever it's convenient is not really helping either.
I'm sure that FB will respect user privacy and won't mine your economic data for advertising purposes.
Without a government they can start to take this authority themselves in much the same way that local warlords do. Gradually by force, because they have power and you don't.

A small / weak government can't do anything to stop them.
That's a common view, but I don't think the evidence supports it. What "corruption" and "regulatory capture" did Amazon or Google leverage in coming to dominate multiple verticals?

Instead, I think technology is the culprit. Technology pushes out the boundary where economies of scale give way to diseconomies of scale. Mom & pops can't compete with Amazon not because Amazon has a few senators in its pocket. They can't do it because Amazon's immense scale (multiple robotic warehouses, in-house shipping and logistics expertise, etc.) makes it impossible to compete on price and quality.
Corporations are more than happy to take on that mantle if they are able. You saw that with the East India Company's full army and navy, you saw that with company mining towns that issued their own currency and controlled every aspect of their employees lives, you saw that with the Pinkertons investigating and dispatching extrajudicial punishment, and you see that today with Nestle paramilitaries.
There are several valid places to draw the line between what is and isn't a social network, but aren't there enough similarities between Reddit and HN to not draw it between the two? Subreddits is the main difference I think, but that sort of thing can't be a requirement because Twitter doesn't have something similar.
Capitalism as a social framework that “looks” like what we know wasn’t a thing until the mid-1800s

150+ years of “guidance” by experts, stewards of industry, and government making claims of operating roughly along that framework

And this is where we are

Humans are the problem with every social system they have built. Humans bring it down because humans get sick of propping up the dead past

These silly abstractions rely on getting everyone on board and the ones that aren’t are treated as heretics

Capitalism has never been about a free flow of capital and information

It has since its beginning been inherently about benefiting the owners who, due to HUMAN nature, not government which is used as a straw man, an abstraction away from reality (humans are doing this, not “government”)

Our economics, including capitalism are, like Trump, a byproduct of the broader cultural feelings. The words and attitudes flow; might and power bring gains. I will fight to protect them. Capitalism

You can wave the math around and I’ll say ok yes they followed the rules of math. But it’s applied to the wrong context

Humans are corruptable, emotional first animals. Capitalism manipulates that reality to favor conversation and action in support of owners

It’s inherently intended as a framework to control conversation; protect my stuff and way of life

It’s another religion. Belief and support of it are rewarded. Anything else and you starve

In the land of the free. Ha
> This is propaganda for the middle and upper class

uh, how would this not be propaganda against the middle and upper classes?
>an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business

The nature of Capitalism is always to press for this. Like a liquid, it will find any crack in your Democratic system to permeate.

The answer is not no, or even not exactly, the answer is probably always at least a little. Democracy's job is to make it as little as possible.

In America it seems we have gone the other direction once you start to dig in. See: political ad season and SuperPACs.
Do you mind elaborating on why do you think social media was a bubble?
Just stop now and give your money to Beaker Browser

https://beakerbrowser.com/
Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality of course. It quickly led me to the list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia, which are, basically, the answer to introspection question by definition.

The book is here for free: http://www.hpmor.com/
No! At least not in the sense that its alternatives are.
Lightning Network: Don’t Buy into the FUD
i believe that point is nicely encapsulated in gödel's incompleteness theorem (which is primarily about number systems, but analogous here nonetheless).
I agree, for me it has become an advanced phone book more or less. I use it as a directory for those I don’t regularly talk to via phone, text or in person.
They hover up and cover half of the screen on mobile
And what if you are free to purchase that political leadership and use it to curtail the freedom of others? And use it to skew the system and hoard wealth so nobody can ever buy it back? Hm?

I swear, an-caps just don't consider the actual consequences of their ideology. Just once I wish y'all would think something through all the way to the end and consider the possibility of non-ideal situations.
Care to suggest why?
Learning RapidMiner Livestream Volume 2
Democracy is a system designed to give representation to the vulnerable. I suppose you're saying that it's possible to have a poorly designed democracy such as one that gives representation to the majority at the expense of the minority, which I agree with.
Sounds like capitalism to me. Corporations have just managed to leverage it for long enough to create what we have now.
Perfect! A game that I can play at work while not working but looking like i'm working. Rename warrior to latest project name and boom, I code all day.

But in all seriousness, the floor map idea is pretty neat.
Short answer: No.

You can't have political freedom without economic freedom.
I agree that there is a lot of inevitability in this result. This is often a debate in the implicit context of "we should make the government even stronger, probably socialism or communism", but in those cases instead of two entities who at least sometimes struggle for power, we're just giving up and giving all the power to one entity.

So, if the problem is that corporations and governments tend to get too close to each other, what exactly is the nominally-better solution that we're supposed to be comparing against?

What if this is already just about the best we could hope for? It does sometimes seem to me that people have this implicit idea of a world in which, basically, nobody has any power, or everybody has the exact same amount to an arbitrary number of decimal places, but even by the standards of Utopianism, that's Utopian. What, exactly, is the goal of this conversation?

It'll differ for different people, of course, but it's still a valid exercise. There is a lot of "1. Identify problem. 2. Propose solution. 3. Fail to observe that proposed solution couldn't possibly have solved original problem, even if it worked as designed."

(For another example, see the last few mass shootings, and the subsequent proposed "solutions"; without reference to whether or not they would be good idea and whether or not more gun control is good or bad, it was frequently the case that even if the proposed solutions were in place and perfectly, unrealistically functional prior to the incident that the solution still wouldn't have prevented the event, e.g., "more background checks" that the shooter still would have passed, etc.)
My latest livestream. In this episode I show you how to share processes in XML and RMP formats, how to open Views, install Wordnet and configure it properly. Then we try out @mschmitz_'s Word2Vec process and realize that it'll train for over 30 minutes.
The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield, Revisited
True. You probably mean GNU Emacs and (not so popular right now) XEmacs.

Even I usually prefer to use other Emacs variants for Lisp programming: Fred, Zmacs, LispWorks, CCL, ... I prefer embedded Emacs variants which are written in Common Lisp.

With Lisps without embedded Emacs variants, usually GNU Emacs / SLIME is the best option. I can understand that this is for people used to other editors (like Eclipse, Intellij, Atom, ...) not very tempting.

GNU Emacs is especially used because that's the most widespread programmable editor, which can be extended in Lisp itself. For a non-lisp programmer that's initially not very important.
Whether or not you believe God exists, ideas and stories about gods are part of the foundational myths of our society. Properly interpreted, they shed light on how the subconscious works.

You might try reading the book Sapiens by Noah Yuval Harari. Among other things, it shows how intersubjective realities such as human rights, religion, and money make civilization work, whether or not the objects of those stories 'exist'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
I concur. If anything, I have these spammers to thank for making my life so much better. I check my phone at least 75% less now
Carvin Guitar on Sunset was a truly unique store and concept. You walk in, play some guitars, and buy everything a la carte. They would mainly sell you the parts, and you'd go home and build it yourself (though I guess they'd build it for you as well?). It was definitely higher end and those Carvins have a rabid fan base.

I'm not really sure if they had guitars prebuilt, but I'm bringing this up because Carvin turned into Kiesel.
Lua added goto just recently, and it's benign, because it can't escape its calling context.

Users were agitating for `continue` to join `break` for control flow interruption. Lua instead chose to provide all the non-structured control flows you would like as a primitive; scoping it lexically keeps it from breaking composition.
One can consider that status quo as their infancy period. Once they're big enough, they'll be able to exist and thrive without corporate welfare. "Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries." according to http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html
Nobody is denying that total government control over money flows will make it more difficult to launder black money.
Surely this is a benefit of abandoning cash. But there are also drawbacks:

- you are forced to pay fees for a bank account

- in most countries, banks require you to be registered at a home address to open an account

- not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance
Low-key prohibition.
The lack of forced labor camps or worse, the existence of a free press which can expose corruption, mean these systems are not extremely similar...
The Block 5 version of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket goes for attempt #2
I think programmatic organisational structures with economics and voting built in are pretty interesting. We're building tooling for something like that with https://aragon.one

It's still pretty early days but right now you can create your democracy based DAO in a couple of minutes with no programming. You can issue tokens, vote and and tie in any action of a dapp to another action (like transfer of tokens to the result of a vote).

I think it's an interesting vision of a future where you can very easily create programmatic cross-border organisations that can have economic value creation attached to them, and operate based on how the token holders vote.
Not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for but I just stumbled upon the Dat project myself.

https://datproject.org/
Of course they do. Adam Smith already understood this.

However, just because any group in society wants to change the rules of society to their benefit, does not make the existance of those groups a bad thing per se.

Sometimes people act as if that was unique for capitalist. In fact Unions, Activists, Government burocracies and so on have the exact same insentives, they want to change rules to benefit them.

The reason leftists call Imperialism the highest statge of capitalism is because these leftists had a very limited understanding of both history and the reasons behind imperialism. Their theory never made much sense and much modern history has desproved these simplified Leninist notions.
> I agree with the sentiment but almost no other profession does this

Almost no other creative profession doesn't do this. Our profession is much more similar to actors and musicians than it is to doctors or lawyers. You also have to factor in practicality and gatekeeping (for lack of a better word) - it's not very practical for a doctor to perform mock surgery for an interview, whereas it's very feasible asking someone to write some code on a whiteboard; and if you're a surgeon you have things that indicate you know how to perform surgery at a much higher level of confidence than knowing someone can problem solve (well) just because they list "developer" on their resume, surgeons have to go to many years or medical school, they have to spend time in residency, they have to pass their boards, if software development had the equivalent of all this (and I'm not necessarily saying it should) then yes there'd be much less need for "auditions" in our field.
Bangabandhu Satellite-1 Mission – Falcon 9 Block 5
He reframes religion (specifically Christianity and the Bible) as a symbolic guide to living as opposed to a historical text that should be taken at face value. i.e. God is a symbol for the greatest good. Christ is a symbol for the human ideal of that greatest good.

In his view, the value of the Bible is not as a pre-scientific historical account of the world. Instead, it's a survival guide for generations of people (who had no concept of science anyway) told in story form.

When I look at his religious metaphors in that light, they seem relevant and meaningful in the context of his 12 Rules.
Because that's how you make them go away.
Have you tried a coworking space? Look into it! I'm actually trying to come up with a way to regularly do this and expense it, just got to pitch it the right way :)
Not to mention the enormous environmental and social costs of having to move for a new job.
Ethereum news gathered from different feeds so you don't have to
Disable viewing them on other videos?

or allowing others to comment on your videos?
Muneeb Ali, Blockstack co-founder here. I'm a technical consultant to the Silicon Valley show (season 5) along with my co-founder Ryan. So yes there is a link to the show but the project is not based on the show :-)

Blockstack was in the R&D phase until early 2017 (building the core tech & infrastructure), we launched our browser last summer and now have decentralized apps built on the platform that are live. These apps can scale to millions of users today. We're excited about enabling developers to build new apps like decentralized social networks.
How does blockstack compare to alternatives like Dat (https://datproject.org/) and IPFS (https://ipfs.io/)?
I like you. Most of the people criticizing him didn’t bother to watch his lectures or read the book and still act like they know him.
If you're limited to going at walking speed, why not just walk?
I'm having trouble seeing how you made that jump from corruption to big government.
Is capitalism a threat to authoritarianism?

The Chinese Communist Party certainly was worried that capitalism would pose a threat. Turns out the Party is doing just fine.

"capitalism", i.e., a market-based economy is flexible and can be harnessed to serve whatever purposes a society desires.

So, no capitalism is not a threat to democracy, or communism for that matter.

Let's not forgot that capitalism is a recent invention. Kings and emperors were imposing their rule on their poor subjects without the help of free market economies for most of human history.

Right wing resurgence is back because the parties of the left forgot who gave birth to them - the working class. "Working class" is anachronistic now. The children of the working class became middle class. The new working class is now the middle class, increasingly being hollowed out.

What's to stop authoritarianism:

1. remove proportional voting. Coaltions allow parties to divide up the electorate. On the other hand, forcing parties to win 50%+1 of the vote forces parties to take broad-based policies that appeal to wide swathes of the electorate.

2. Invest in a social safety net. Education, healthcare and affordable housing promote social mobility, and more importantly, give peace of mind to those in the middle class who are afraid of losing the gains made by their parents.

3. Campaign finance reform. Its easier to turn out the vote and raise funding when parties turn to identity politics because nothing is more personal - and fires one up more - than appeal to one's identity.

Identity politics is cancer on democracy. Both left and right play the game and identity politics should be banned in a liberal (the John Stuart Mill kind) democracy.

4. Ban targeted political advertising. A liberal democracy needs a shared public space, and a discussion among all voters. Targeted political advertising breaks up that public space into millions of shards. Another option could be to force parties to post publicly all political adverts for everyone to see.

I ought, indeed, need to know what a party's policies are regarding pensioners or education even though I am neither a pensioner nor have children. Why? Because my taxes will be funding such items.

5. The left needs to be remember its origins. Sounds simple eh?

6. Finally, we need to drop the left-right way of identifying policies. It reduces policies which impact people and society into a basic for/against divisive manner. There is a better way.

Enough for today :)
You’re right it’s either/or at a given scale.

But if you think in terms of multiscale, the difference between systems stops looking so qualitative and looks more quantitative:

Either you have an absolute property law system, and a limited commons forms on top of that through land trusts, etc.

Or you have an absolute communist system, and a limited free market forms on top of that, within a system of exceptions and exemptions.

Technically you could implement identical 50/50 socialized/private systems in both of those schemes.

In practice scale matters so which system runs which scale will affect the outcome.

But the long term outcome will inevitably be “the right things are socialized and the right things are privatized”... the two systems each do experiments and make concessions when they lose. They’ll end up being quite the same, although in the short term they are quite different. And we need both to exist to run all the experiments.
That's pretty nice to see.

If I am not mistaken, Tor Browser has already been using this technique for some time to thwart malicious connections from leaving the browser. All traffic is communicated to the tor client via a unix socket.
If I see one more comment that starts with "Short answer:"...

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
WHY CNN FIGHTS IN COURT?
People use decentralized things all the time without a problem. Email, for example. They can use a shim like Gmail, decide one day they hate it, switch to something else, and still email everyone in roughly the same way without convincing all those people to migrate somewhere simultaneously.
A Primer on the Day
IMHO it is the best bet for actually changing the foundation of the internet back to a distributed model.
It isn't, really. Socialism just seems to be far more susceptible corruption than capitalism does, if historical data is anything to go by.
...and an inexperienced 3rd mate was alone on the bridge.
Haha, I thought it might be obscure around here, but I suppose it's not too surprising to find out that computer nerds are also instrument nerds ;)

It's such a fun festival, though rather dangerous for your wallet.
As one of the other posters mentioned, big government _helps_ create big corporations. Even the legal idea of a "corporation" with the corporate veil to protect employees & those who control it from direct liability enables mega-corporations. If we simply eliminated corporate legal entities, we might have more careful business dealings. In the absence of this idea, you'd be free to take legal action against someone who harms you.

It is a similar thing with the EPA and FDA, if a corporation meets their requirements, you can't sue them, even if they are polluting your town. It actually _enables_ a legal limit that they can pollute rather than strictly reducing pollution. The most effective anti-littering campaign was the Keep America Beautiful, Crying Indian campaign, not really the EPA.

A lot of this has to do with culture, if people aren't okay with big corporations and corruption, then they would do something different. But on a certain level, people don't really care or believe that corporate entities somehow help the economy. Two-hundred years ago, the culture was different and people made things go a bit differently; the culture we have now generally supports corporate and governmental power.