skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Where does this basic income come from? If everyone is entitled to a basic income as a matter of right, that means others must be coerced into handing over the fruits of their labor. When the government no longer serves to defend people and their property rights but becomes primarily a means of redistribution, I think it loses its legitimacy.
I would really beg to differ on that, based on the sheer number of ads I´ve seen over the years on reddit for people to write blogs praising bitcoin, to say nothing of the blatant pump and dump schemes you can find on the dark net.

At least some of the people who got in early, seem to know how to spend money on advertising.
Anonymity doesn't stand on its own. The right to anonymity is only important because it protects other rights. If we're not trying to preserve people's ability to express ideas that the government dislikes, then who cares if their identity is public?

Anonymity is a tool to shield people from otherwise unpreventable consequences. Separating them is like saying, "you have a right to privacy, not a right to encryption." One of these things allows you to get the other thing.

Think about why voting is usually anonymous. Most countries recognize that even with the general restrictions on government retaliating against speech, it is fundamentally impossible for us to block all of the many avenues it has to punish citizens. The only way to block that is to not allow it to know who specifically to target.

As a more modern example, America's current administration was willing to prosecute a bunch of inauguration protesters. If they had the ability to identify every single person at those protests, that would be a major deterrent to people attending them in the future. The government wouldn't even need to prosecute future participants; they'd just need to make sure that people kept in the back of their mind, "we could put you through a year-long legal battle if we wanted to."

Intimidation, targeting, and threatening is a form of suppression. We're not talking about marking a form opt-in or opt-out, we're talking about government interference into people's lives with the explicit goal of discouraging speech. It's not about whether or not people's speaking habits happen to change, it's about why they change - because they're frightened of government power to punish them for searching or expressing unpopular opinions.

People aren't conflating anonymity with free speech because it makes the argument stronger, or because they're trying to sneak it in on the side. I couldn't care less about anonymity, in except that it is the only strategy that anyone has ever come up with that allows me to have a large number of other fundamental rights that I do care about.
> Would you bet your life that reputation alone was enough to keep an airliner from crashing?

Please review the history of the DeHavilland Comet and the Lockheed Electra for what happened when an airliner acquired a reputation for being unsafe.
HN 2015: Bitcoin is bullshit, don't waste your money on it.

HN 2018: people who got in early in bitcoin have more of it, thus it's bad.
>Not everything has to be a market, for example healthcare can be provided using market or non-market logic.

There's still physical limitations on resources available; picking a different distribution doesn't lift the limit of how much stuff we have.

>we can just get rid of the parts we don't want through laws

Successful market design is quite a bit more complex than that. Every market intervention has all sorts of second-order effects.

>In homeownership we want to get rid of most of the frictions of the market that rub up against long-time asset holders.

I'm still quite aggrieved that homeowners in 1978 decided to vote themselves a structure that enriches themselves at the expense of newcomers to the area. More generally, it's a mistake to focus on the benefits of a policy without considering the costs - prop 13 does good for long-time homeowners in the region, but at the expense of literally everyone else. I don't think that's a tradeoff worth making, especially given the dead-weight losses from restricting sales and price communication.
Show HN: Pesky Adblock – Blocks site access to visitors without an adblocker
why are they using this unsafe tech (Pu-U) when molten salt reactors are safer?
https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html
Both Feller volumes have some good stuff. E.g., volume 2 has the renewal theorem -- roughly, arrivals from many independent sources look like a Poisson process, i.e., times between arrivals are independent identically distributed random variables with exponential distribution where the parameter in the distribution is the arrival rate. E.g., expect that between 1 PM and 2 PM, arrivals at a popular Web site will be Poisson, and might use that for capacity planning or anomaly detection.

But as my main probability prof summarized, an unguided tour of Feller is not promising. I believe he was correct. Look elsewhere for the first intuition, common applications, or the high quality math, e.g., based on sigma algebras and the Radon-Nikodym theorem, the limit theorems -- laws (weak and strong) of large numbers, central limit theorem (the strong Lindeberg-Feller version, irony here), the ergodic theorem, martingales, Skorohod representation, Kolomogorov extension theorem, Lebesgue decomposition, etc.
The Economist has really gone down hill in the past few years. I expect them to publish numbers, not vaguely Marxist reflections lamenting an age of supposed increasing hardship, although I was amused by the idea of social inheritance.
No UBI. The problem with UBI is social programs. we spend billions on safety nets for specific cases and purposes. safe nets for food. safety nets for healthcare. safety nets so parents can feed their children. this is a good thing. this helps people do something they may not have been able to do

basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to have them. UBI is just increasing taxes

i’d rather add more safety nets to help those really in need than raise taxes to pay everyone some small amount
Well, last time i tried Haiku i tried to write a simple program and at some point when i pressed save in the editor the entire OS crashed, so there is that :-P.

ALSA not playing either means that there are driver issues - and i highly doubt Haiku solves the problem of drivers having bugs - or there is some configuration issue.

But this (configuration) issue and the desktop focus do not seem to require getting rid of the entire kernel and - most importantly - the systems it supports. If X11 doesn't do (which i doubt, X11 ran on way more restricted hardware than what is available even on $5 "computers" today, but lets roll with it) you could simply write a new window system from scratch and provide a layer for everything you may think a desktop system needs so that any application written on that layer will keep working if the backend library/tech changes.

And from my understanding of Haiku, this is basically what happens already (<Stuff>Kit depends on some popular open source library for <Stuff> that is already available on Linux but exposed to applications through the <Stuff>Kit API), except with a kernel that doesn't support most things that people need today.

Personally i like the idea of Haiku as a desktop focused system, i just do not see what exactly having a custom kernel with its own need for drivers and hardware compatibility provide that a layer on top of kernel that exposes a similar API doesn't (beyond of course the hack value and the fun of making a kernel - something i am 100% totally behind as i personally write a lot of stuff just for the fun of it).
Saying simple it comes from the same place where jobs eliminated by automation go.
Would you mind describing some of the cfg recovery problems IDA can solve that open source tools can’t? This sounds quite interesting.
> I also think the author should be willing to accept 100% blame for the debt, which it seems like they aren't.

This isn't a productive way of treating bad debt - and it is particularly questionable in light of the treatment the major banks received in the 2008 crisis.

The system, and it is a pretty good one, is that the lender is responsible for judging the risk of who they are lending to. If they judge correctly and the venture succeeds, the money comes back with interest. If the venture fails, then the money is lost in bankruptcy and the slate is wiped mostly clear.

Debtors prisons are stupid, holding people to the past is foolish. Once someone can't pay money back, then they can't pay it back and that should be the end of the matter. This idea that student loans can't be discharged through bankruptcy is one of the grossest unfairnesses that the US foists on its young people. Pretending that a lenders hands are clean when they have given $100,000 to somebody studying an English major is crazy.
Not just Musk, either. Any major account associated with cryptocurrency, or even with technology in general, is a target.
Why would the mouthpieces of the neoliberal rich (the Economist is one of them ) , all want to give away free money?

Are there any other times that they gave away something for free without a concomitant benefit eventually accruing to them?
> runs in build time

> site is blank without javascript

:-/
Do you think the government can protect the right of people by buying more missiles and tanks? Subsidizing more gentrified neighborhoods and private prisons? I think within a few decades UBI will be the cheaper road to go down. A doctor can administer a vaccine, and this is 'pathogen redistribution'.
> ... especially considering the new administration?

Not to be rude, but it sounds like you are a lawful permanent resident. Do you have any evidence that suggests that lawful permanent residents are being treated any differently by the government now or in the future by the government? There’s a lot of FUD trying to conflate what’s happening to people entering the country by bypassing official immigration processes and those, like yourself, who have done things by the book.
This is the hero the web deserves. A web free of advertising and advertisers is a web free of for-profit privacy violations as a service.
> they reshaped themselves to become dependent on it

What does such a restructuring look like, in concrete terms?
I think you are missing my point. If Bitcoin is “marketed” as anything, it is by people who got interested in the technology, learned about it, and started to spread the word to other people.

You could say the same thing about many open source software programs or apps.

What I was saying is that there is no company behind Bitcoin that represents it or speaks for it. When you say “Bitcoin was heavily marketed” you mean that people explained it that way to others.
Real life Battle Royale match broadcast on pay per view. Solves the salary problem nicely.
They're "coerced" into handing over the fruits of labor exploitation.

Money and power accrete more money and power. Government must serve as a redistributive force, to some degree, unless we're all-in on exploitation.
Well, this is the reason the gpl v3 came about - to ensure the four freedoms even when faced with "trusted computing".
I think it was what we call "vomit".
Universal basic income is an old libertarian idea. It's greatest advocate is probably Milton Friedman. It's seen as more equitable than welfare programs, which libertarians view as too highly regulated and thus an infringement on individual freedom. That's the libertarian argument against welfare. You add that to the libertarian argument for welfare (that people can't be truly free if they're having to pay for things like health emergencies, etc) and you invariably conclude that the way to maximize individual freedoms is to provide a universal basic income, if you're going to have any kind of welfare program
This reminds me a lot of https://via.hypothes.is/ . Could someone familiar with both explain why to prefer one service over another?
The economist is self-avowed libertarian. UBI is a libertarian idea.
Most enterprise ThinkPads (X, P, T, W) and their HP counterparts (elite book IIRC) are solidly built and very much user serviceable. Do your research or course but those are solid contenders and easy to find as enterprise customers are leasing new ones.
Interesting, I would be curious to see some of these ads. Are you referring specifically to Bitcoin or other crypto currencies (many of which are flat out scams)?

That said, my point was that any “marketing” was not done by a dedicated team or company. It was done by individuals who got interested in the technology and wanted to share it with other people.
There are a whole bunch of Yucatec Maya speakers in the San Francisco Bay Area -- reportedly tens of thousands!
You might read the Bitcoin paper written by the inventor of Bitcoin. There is absolutely no doubt that Bitcoin was originally and has always been marketed as a currency. I can see why you might want to deny this but, please, it's insulting to try and rewrite history when the facts are widely known.
Kubuntu is perhaps not the finest example as it has not been what I would call stable or optimal. I honestly think your analysis is in error. It has forever been the wort kde distro you could pick. You could get a more stable experience by picking a distro by throwing darts at printout of distrowatch.

A number of things have been historically sub optimal on the linux desktop but while the way linux is designed as a bunch of loosely coupled projects DOES seem to be the cause of it being able to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people example different window managers, compositors, file systems its not equally clear that the defects present exist for the same reason.

It seems likely that haiku expanded to thousands of different types of computers could easily be worse or better than linux in practice insofar as buggy behavior while still definitely being objectively worse insofar as not being modular.
I feel really sorry for the author and the author's parents. I know so many people who spent so much time and money on degrees like English literature, history, arts, sociology, etc. Today, most of them cannot find a job in any related field. In fact, I only know a single person who managed to make a good career out of studying a subject like that.

As a teenager, I was close to choosing this type of major myself. Almost nobody tried to talk me out of it. Instead, there were many people around me who encouraged me to choose something I found interesting and let the rest take care of itself. Reading articles like this, it reinforces my belief that this is almost always terrible advice and those who say things like that to young people should feel ashamed.
One more thing, debtors' prisons take a private debt, and then compound it with public spending.

Prisons aren't cheap. They get outsourced. And then private debt becomes a vehicle for private profit (at taxpayer expense).

Follow the money.

P.S. I didn't actually RTFA, yet. The contemporary resurgence of support for "debtors' prisons" and the like, pushes my buttons. As well, letting Wall Street and kin off the hook while foreclosing on (and, per the previous, maybe locking up) some of their suckers.
Post-Doctoral Position in Experimental Quantum Metamaterials – Quantiki
Many of the mega rich are terrified of a repeat of the French Revolution. They want to stave that off if they can, ideally without disrupting the status quo.

A basic income is perfect for the task. It will make many people complacent. Let them stay home, smoking legalized marijuana and playing video games all day. Young men, especially, who are pacified with such creature comforts are unlikely to take to the hills with assault rifles and sleeping bags.
The thing you linked seems to be 'annotations generally' whereas Fermat's library is 'curated sequence of academic papers with an annotations feature'
What is government if not a system for redistributing labour and resources?
O'Henri: Alibaba.com Flash Deals
How exactly is redistributing income a libertarian idea? Seems like the exact opposite to me.
If somebody can’t find work, it would take a lot of social programs to ensure they can live. And I’m not convinced a state is more effective at spending the money than individuals are. Social programs are a huge spend and the quality of the programs leaves a lot to be desired (governments aren’t exactly known for being cost effective.)
Regardless of what you think of what the regulatory role of the EPA should be, the scope of Pruitt’s bilking of the american taxpayer is truly stunning. This is not run-of-the-mill influence peddling. From violating regulations to pay severances for public servants, to using taxpayer-funded positions to run errands and trying to get his wife a chick-fil-a franchise (lol), to just straight up fraud with his phone booth. The cost of this one persons little mini federal fiefdom is beyond words.

The worst part is that apparently the political divide has gotten so great that we can’t even agree when a grifter goes this wild. This portends greater and greater abuses and wastes of our tax dollars.
> The data you submit is encrypted in Firefox and not decrypted until it is on a server that is not connected to the wider internet.

This is a good approach.
It's nothing. From a neutral article without an axe to grind or a political message to send:

>The state lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals, or about 0.04 percent of the roughly 312,000 people subject to the tax increase, said co-author Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Dozens...

Ideally, the mods would replace the top link with the SFChronicle one that puts the number in context and gives way more details, but it may not be worth it.
> others must be coerced into handing over the fruits of their labor

This is exactly taxation of all kinds. And your framing presupposes that these fruits that would be obtainable without the social structure that those payments support.

Not to mention that, 'fruits of their labor' is a highly tendentious way of talking about a capitalist system. The fruits of their capital, perhaps. By and large, capital owners already extract a very large proportion of the 'fruits' of their employees labor.

I think it is a very dubious argument whether basic income would all balance out, but it is no different in kind from any other social collectivism.
I personally am against UBI but...

> If everyone is entitled to a basic income as a matter of right, that means others must be coerced into handing over the fruits of their labor.

...is not an approrpiate response. Just because the government is funded through income at present doesn't mean its the only way to fund government. You could fund the government (and UBI) with a land-value-tax, for example.
It's funny that at the time I wrote this comment another front page post is about people escaping high taxation areas: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476342 .
I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would not be allowed to be used to purchase food? The libertarian perspective on this is that we shouldn't tell people how to spend their money. If they can't afford food because they have no money, then give them money. Those who buy food will not starve. Those who don't, will, but they can't say they weren't able to buy food.
> Rustc memory usage on Linux is also high, but it never runs out of memory. I would like to figure out the cause of this issue.

Strange. I hope this isn't simply a case of wildly over-committing memory and getting away with it on Linux. But then I guess the bsd folks would have is yes too?
I don't know if linking to ublock origin specifically, is the right call. I just did it because I prefer it, and I had to link to something. (otherwise it kind of screws non-technical people)

Hopefully ublock lasts longer than this script does.
I personally went through defaulting on student loans and being hassled by bill collectors, so I can relate to that situation - it totally sucks.

I also agree that the laws pertaining to bankruptcy and student loans should be revisited. I also think predatory lending practices are a big problem.

But despite all of that, I really feel like the author should own responsibility. It can simultaneously be a bad system and still be his fault.
> They also are some of the most active contributors to the underlying container technology in the kernel, including namespaces and cgroups.

This is what I was referring to when talking about their breadth of work. I've collaborated with them quite a bit, and it's always amazing working with them on a hard problem.
I agree. Didn't follow that logic either.
This is an idea I've been toying with several times, but it never gets beyond the thinking stage because of the obstacles interacting with the rest of the world: getting at least two cloud provider accounts (one for regular operations and one for secure off-site backups, ideally with a different provider), estimating costs (because good luck actually calculating them), buying a domain and transferring it to the cloud provider, the intricacies of configuring email to not be black-holed immediately by other providers (something I only know from rumours), and I'm sure a host of others. Even an effort to make some of these things slightly easier would be most welcome, but I don't think 10,000 work days is enough to get something like this to a "turnkey" level. It would be absolutely the best to be proven wrong, though!
That's one way to look at the world.

Here's another - the whole world (all the land in the world) was claimed by people just because they were born before me (and had guns). Those people who were born before then arbitrarily hand that land/resources to other people, with really no objective justification outside of tradition.

Of course, we treat these traditions are nonsense when it's convenient -- if we really believed them then we'd give back most of the land in America to native Americans.
The TAO of Hashicorp
Unfortunately with the new provincial government (elected to a majority with a strong 37% of the vote...) Ontario is starting to look a lot more like the US in its attitude toward immigrants, among other things. I would suggest Vancouver instead, if not for the astronomical cost of living (although I guess not compared to San Francisco).

Edit: Fortunately the provincial government doesn't really have any say over immigration, but I am disappointed to see these attitudes spreading.
Why Netflix and Amazon Are Struggling in India
I think your parent post's implication may be that those receiving UBI who are on specific government programs would not responsibly budget the right amount of money to the right need, and that there will still be cases where people have run out of money and need the same safety nets as before. If someone (or their children) is starving to death, or in need of urgent medical care, are you going to tell them that they should've budgeted better?
I dunno man, but Milton Friedman, the saint of libertarinism that he is, was a huge proponent [1]. It's a topic of frequent interest in libertarian publications, such as the economist and reason. Gary Johnson (libertarian nominee) was also in support. To say that it's not libertarian is easily dismissable, considering the number of traditional libertarians who support it.

Of course the corollary is that all other welfare programs are immediately ended, but this is not typically included in these modern implementations.

[1] http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/03/the-indestructible-ide...

More libertarian resources:

[2] https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basi...

[3] https://basicincome.org/news/2016/08/us-johnson-supports-bas...

[4] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragm...
To Learn Programming, Be a Wordsmith Not a Programmer
Some people would inevitably fuck up and spend all their money and have none left to buy food... so you’d still need food banks or stamps.