skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No it wouldn't.

Amazon's operating income is up to an annualized $10 billion now. Their profitability has exploded higher in the last three years (thanks heavily to AWS), drastically out of ratio with their sales growth.

Another three years from now, their operating income will very likely be up to $20-$25 billion (I'm using operating income here because of recent rule changes on what's included in net income). That would still be a rich multiple on today's market cap, no question. There's a massive gap between AMZN having a 40 or 60 PE ratio (ie a very rich multiple), and your claim that they'd need ~$1.5 trillion in revenue (Russia's nominal GDP for 2017) to justify their valuation.

Amazon's net income margin now exceeds Walmart's and is heading higher due to the fat margins of AWS. At $400 billion in sales (five to seven years out), they'll very reasonably be able to generate $30 billion in net income (old net income calculation) on the path they're on. At $30b in net income, you're talking a ~30 PE ratio at today's market cap (ie a traditional valuation), and it requires nothing even remotely like an equivalent to Russia's GDP. Microsoft and Google both routinely sport valuations that are 30x multiples of earnings (as do dozens of large tech firms). The issue with Amazon, is that their future returns have been pulled forward, not whether they can ever justify a $900b market cap with a traditional multiple.
The Trump Foundation isn't a donor advised fund so that article is irrelevant.
Let me answer on behalf of programmers employed by Facebook.

The most unethical thing I have done as a programmer is going to work everyday.
From the TokTok site (which is linked to from Tox):

"Neither the Tox protocol nor the implementation have undergone peer review, and its exact security properties and network behaviour are not well-understood, yet. We are actively working on improving that situation. Until said peer review, Tox is not recommended for use cases that require proven, high-assurance security."

https://toktok.ltd/
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I read this differently.

Disciplined companies return capital. Bad ones squander it on bad projects.

All things equal, I would prefer a company invest my capital in new, good projects. But barring that, I would much prefer it's returned as a dividend/buyback than blown in silly, wasteful spending that doesn't do anything for the firm or its investors.

It takes a lot of courage and intellectual honesty to return capital. It's far easier to spend it on bad things.
I never realized license plates were able to be utilized by a well funded private data aggregation operation. Great observation. How far do we have to go with allowances for information and actions that are taunts for death and destruction? It seems to me that the only fair way to shape society and well..shared reality..is to allow everyone to do everything and anything and allow others who feel strongly to enact responses..ie punishments.

This will eventually maybe be the case ala Star Wars, independent agents roaming reality, with no law other than consequence by others.

It seems this is untenable too because it evolves into unfair reality, biased on wealth and capital of weaponry and defense. Not only physically but on a knowledge and information and technological basis.

Isnt the real underlying archtype of license plates and well..any authoritarian laws by the government a sort of protectionism for those of us without the money for defense and offense of our own free persons?

[1] https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA

I am libertarian..but freedom in reality is a function of resources. So I cannot square this circle... laws are a hard issue.
But why?

Family plan on coveredca site costs about $13k/year. Or even less if your business is not yet profitable enough.
I used this once to have an Arduino and an ESP8266 communicate and I love it. I'm not great with C++, and I found the super simple implementation extremely helpful, as I could focus on what I wanted to do rather than have to wrestle with the protocol. The one-wire connection is similarly a boon to speed, since I don't need to connect a bunch of stuff up, I just connect one wire and that's it. The author was also very responsive, helping me immediately with a bug I found.

I definitely recommend it for most use cases, if you don't need a very high speed bus.
Mostly because it comes out of the RDF/Linked Data people, who have always had strong ties to the web and thus HTTP.
Ah, yeah I was thinking of a different f word.
lung transplantees only live for around a year post-transplant. rejection is much more common with lungs than other organs
This problem in bridge is what make playing it competitively (either in tournaments or for money) a bit frustrating. I still enjoy it and love to play the game, but at elevated stakes the possibility for partners to cheat by secret communication is too high for me to enjoy it. I even sometimes start to think about how my own normal behavior is illegally signaling to my partner. That is no fun.
Kernels, a free hosted Jupyter notebook environment with GPUs
Does http://www.metafilter.com count as a niche community? If so, that. Great discussions enabled by a small fee to join and active paid moderators.

Also http://www.owbn.net international live action roleplaying (LARP) network of games, mostly in the US and Brazil. I have friends from all over I've made through it, and as an introvert who sometimes struggled socially when I was younger, it's done wonders for my ability to socialize and understand others.

Also my writing, persuasive ability, and organizational ability are much much better thanks to having taking part in it's management in the past.
This sounds to me like placing too much of a burden on individuals. In general, when dealing with people of at least average competence, when things go wrong, I blame process, not people.

Software engineering will probably mostly provide what the market requires and rewards, and for most things where you don't have lives at stake, it takes a lot of cash and process to drive your defect rate toward zero.

Viewed through an economic lens, an economist would say that we have an optimum level of environmental pollution, where the marginal benefit of cleaning it up or preventing it doesn't surpass the marginal cost of tolerating it.

So, I disagree. Work will get done to the necessary standard, and our industry already fetishizes overwork and heroes. I don't think anyone should bothering driving themselves crazy with extreme personal perfectionism when the market doesn't demand or reward it, and the software engineering field doesn't gear itself toward producing those results via process.
"What will China actually gain from this? Not much besides scoring some political gains at home which they don't need anyway."

China views Taiwan as inexorably part of their homeland. The existence of a 'separate Taiwan' is kind of like a permanent stain to them.

Imagine if during major American political upheaval, Texas became it's own state again, and after takeover by Central/South American political entities, decided not to rejoin the rest of the US as the political situation stabilized.

Americans wouldn't rest until they reclaimed it.

I'm not justifying it and personally I would have liked to have seen a 'Chinese Federation' i.e. Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China, possibly even Manchuria as separate entities, possibly with 'Tibet' as managed-but-autonomous region. Instead of a single autocracy.
In the internet age, victims of brutal regimes beg for help. The world watches
Highly doubt PR China would do something like that. Part of the contention is that Taiwan (aka Republic of China) still lays claim to the land occupied by People’s Republic of China, but at the same time refuses to grant citizenship to the People of the People’s Republic of China.

The Korean war, similarly, has also been prolonged by the South, which is the only party that has not signed the peace treaty.
Myths are not necessarily false. They are just things people believe.

To a physicist there is nothing unmythical about a contract. It is based on the belief that the words on the paper will entice the other party - like some sort of golem that can be commanded with words - to act accordingly. It is one of the wonderful unbelievable symmetries of human behaviour that often the other party will belief likewise, and this common belief makes the contract actualized.

Note - there may be several reasons why it is rational for the other party not to brake with the contract, but constructing the complete cost benefit scenario for the other party in ones head is quite labour intensive - this is not how fundamentally people in general approach things - but rather people follow accepted norms and believe they will work as expected.

It is totally wonderfull and unexpected that this common web of belief and action makes the human civilization work.

I think Harari's description of human interaction is philosophically deep and cuts to several points if one wants to create a "system theoretical" model within ones mind how and why humans can function as a coherent civilization.
Taiwan also views China as part of its land.
Also about this, from two months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17126875.
This article is fundamentally misleading here:

> When it comes to D.A.F.s, the United States tax code rewards the promise of good intentions. Wealthy donors — including many of the Silicon Valley billionaires who have asked the public to trust them with their digital lives — pledge to distribute their funds to charity once they get their tax break.

A contribution to a donor advised fund is irreversible. Once the donor has given that contribution, it is no longer "their funds." The NYTimes makes it sound like the donor could make a gift and then later spend that money on themselves. That's not how it works. They have the ability to advise the DAF where the grants go, but the grants must go to charities recognized by the IRS.

Giving money to a donor advised fund is giving money to charity. You don't get it back. It's not a promise to give later. It's a charitable donation.

I'm bewildered by the tone of this article. If the author wants to take a donor to task for giving to charity X instead of charity Y, that seems fair even if I disagree. But asserting that someone who gives hundreds of millions of dollars to a DAF -- an irreversible charitable gift -- is "Hacking Their Taxes" and somehow cheating is just disingenuous.
He just uses the word myth to mean "social construct," (which he explains in the book). Social constructs are those things we all pretend are real, but aren't objectively real in the scientific sense (e.g. a country).

He probably chose to use "myth" instead of "social construct" because it sounds less pretentious.
Nanny state is killing public markets with regulation. The regulatory burden goes only one way- up and up. Only the largest established companies are semi-comfortable with this regime: it sets a barrier to entry. After all, they helped to lobby these regulations. That's all.
Aren't there massive gas fields suspected in the ocean around there? Extending the territory and claiming the fields could be a motive.
Something the skeptical community talks about when dealing with conspiracy theories is that it's not enough to counter arguments and correct factual claims. You need to give them an entirely different narrative. They've bought into an entire narrative, a particular view of how everything works. THey're not going to let go of that if they can't replace it with something else.
“Keep doing what you’re doing” would certainly be bad advice for someone unhappy with their current prospects.

But some combination of “improve yourself” and “examine your expectations” will work better than “pretend to have qualities you don’t” as a long term romantic strategy.

E.g.: instead of faking confidence, work on improving actual confidence.
I fully agree. I work half of the time with Mathematica, the other half writing Fortran. Now you can guess what my job is ;). There is just no general purpose replacement for Mathematica. The language (everything is an expression) is beautiful and powerful. Whenever I tried something different I spent too much time looking for missing things or circumnavigating quirks and limitations. Other CAS are certainly useful when you can live with their limitations. Second place for me goes to Matlab, which occasionally performs certain tasks better (faster), but I don't like the language very much.

I can't say anything about Matlab, which seems to be fully focused on engineering applications.
> extracting wealth from people who actually work for a living

This is the Labor Theory of Value, which is regularly debunked. Capitalists create value, they don't take it from others. (You can see this on the balance sheet - the business is worth more than its "book value".)

> Capitalism isn't a system that benefits the vast majority of people

The vast majority of immigrants arrived in the US with little more than a suitcase, yet capitalism made them wealthy.

> bad for our planet and society

Non-capitalist societies are far more destructive to the planet.
An openexchangerates.org service API wrapper for Python
I don't think that's the case.

> And because organizations that manage D.A.F.s are not required to report which funds give money to which causes, it is impossible to know how much money individual donors are giving away to nonprofit organizations.

That doesn't mean the donor advised fund isn't required to report the givings the fund makes, it means it isn't required to report who gave to whom.

I would be shocked if the DAF managers aren't required to report spending/giving, because they are also 501c3 themselves.
I was just watching Firefly yesterday. Thanks for the little moment of joy.
The NYSE's Owner Wants to Bring Bitcoin to Your 401(k)
i went by it in 01 on a boat. there was. an incognito security guard on a wind surf rig out front. he was just sitting on the board with the sail in the water. amusing.
There's literally no information here.
I understood what the project is about as soon as I looked at the first para of README. I guess it takes some patience and some topic related knowledge to get the most of READMEs. You can't really expect the software authors to explain everything in a README, like their audience are 12 year olds.
!npm config set user 0
!npm config set unsafe-perm true
!npm install -g --unsafe-perm ijavascript zeromq node-gyp node-pre-gyp webpack
!ijsinstall --install=global
!jupyter-kernelspec list
!apt-get install -yy git build-tools

After talking with Google support about adding the kernel, there probably isn't a menu item for it, so you have to set the language in the .ipynb json manually.
Many people are not joking. Which I use as a check on any time I start thinking "Surely people won't believe..." There are people who believe the world is not round, which implies that there are not many limits on what some people won't believe.
For fun I do knot theory and using Sage and snappy I feel there are more functions that are relevant to what I want to accomplish versus what is available for me in Mathematica.

Also, Mathematica has a very terse and somewhat confusing syntax (I have used lisp before). On the other hand Python is a much simpler way for me to write code in.

Lastly, it eliminates the price which if you aren't a University or a corporation you won't have access to those tools. This makes it easier for people to reproduce their work.

EDIT: corrected typo
Your objection is that he earned a 30% return and only donated 5%?
Your reply appears disingenuous to me. Obviously the smart-contract has control over the tokens, the problem is that tokens are the only thing they can control or even be trusted to reason about. People don't care about tokens, they care about all the other assets that blockchain enthusiasts are always talking about tokenizing like houses, art, land-deeds, shipping containers etc etc. None of that is workable. If your only point is to tell me that blockchain tokens can be moved around autonomously on the internet... great, welcome to a decade ago, now why is that useful?
Adventure Rider (advrider.com) is a fun one if you're interested in that niche of the already niche motorcycle hobby.
I'm not so sure the Dukakis example is fitting in the context of persuasion. It's not what he decided or how, but the simple fact that, evidently, a large percentage of voters disagreed with his answer. It wasn't about him. It was about them. If they had their doubts, that was a deal breaker; a deal breaker defined by the receiver.

With that said, if you want to persuade someone then empathy is your number one tool. Convincing them of your opinion isn't as important as understanding their current place and nudging them away from that.
I was referring to VRAM. It was < 500 MB. But you are right. It's more than enough for beginners projects.
I've noticed that too for the Antox Android client. It's a definite red flag. The TRIfA Android client doesn't have that problem though.
And I did say "hard" and not "impossible"...
It may be a long time before special purpose parallel processing unit become more useful than general purpose parallel processing units.

The advantage of general purpose parallel chips is both economies of scale (GPUs serve purposes from games to cryptomining to AI) and the tendency of AI to switch from algorithm to algorithm. There's been a long history of "AI Chips" that prematurely choose the particular AI algorithm that would be optimized.
There is a timeline in the bottom of the article which is linked to many articles
It's important to note the money is usually invested and getting dividends and capital gains during the 10 years it sits in the fund. And those capital gains and dividends are required to be dispersed to charity as well.
I’d much rather screw something up at work than something that really matters to me.

That's OK right up until the point screw-ups materially impact other people's lives. I mean noone cares about some cheesy website sure, but these are people's homes.
Beast works on TLS 1.0

The die-die-die draft would never have been written if we were looking at a situation where TLS 1.0 was gone in practice on the web, let alone SMTP and other slower-moving environments. Even PCI's day-late, dollar-short June 2018 deadline would have been irrelevant if you're right. You aren't right.

No, BEAST's story is much more interesting than that, there were three mitigations and one remains widely in use.

One "configuration" mitigation was to move to RC4 since that's not a block cipher so the CBC mode attack doesn't work by definition. This is no longer considered acceptable because RC4 is way weaker than we'd thought at the time.

The next mitigation is "empty fragments". An attacker only gets to peak at certain data using BEAST (and then they expand the attack and get everything) but we can arrange for the vulnerable block to have zero length, and then the attacker didn't achieve anything for all their effort. We waste a few bytes on the wire, but this works fine by the specification. Alas, some real world implementations had been written to reject these "empty fragments", which had never been needed previously and so you couldn't actually use this in products like web browsers.

Instead client implementations began doing 1/n-1 split, which moves a single byte instead of nothing. The attacker has 1-in 2^16 chance to guess this using BEAST, but it's a single byte, so they had 1-in- 2^8 chance to guess it without BEAST, and thus BEAST is worthless if you can do this.

Of course it's still _wasteful_ but it's both protocol compliant and an effective mitigation. How about that?
"it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US."

No, this is simply not true.

South Vietnamese did not generally like the notion of the North Vietnamese Communists either.

The North was invading the South, the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection!

Vietnam is more nuanced than most terms can capture.
This is a big area with many active researchers. Your problem definition / solution seems a bit fuzzy to me.

What do you want your system to do that eg. aristo doesn't do? https://allenai.org/aristo/
High impact public speaking and presentation skills Z – Zest
Maxima is more than hobbyist grade.
If you worked on something evil for the NSA, would you mention it? I’d like to think most HN posters aren’t that stupid.
Rewatching tng from end to end I found myself disappointed that the cast didn't know what they were doing in seasons 1&2 and seemed like they were phoning it in in season 7...

There are some truly good episodes in TNG... One of my favorites is "the first duty" which apparently was at some point required viewing at the United States air Force academy.

Overall though I like ds9 better because it's a more "honest" look at humanity... But darkness aside there's kind of an optimistic broad character arc/thesis where the good guys each in their own way is on a journey overcoming impostor syndrome (sisko, Kira, odo, Bashir, ezri, Jake, quark, rom, garak, and nog all fit this model to some degree, and even damar when he becomes a good guy basically fits this model), and the bad guys all are brought down by their classical toxic leadership attributes (dukat, Winn, weyoun, FC, but also minors like admiral leyton).
> I'm bewildered by the tone of this article.

It's a propaganda article that intentionally lies about what's occuring. It's very unlikely that the NY Times writer simply didn't understand anything about what they were writing on. The most plausible argument is that they're pushing an agenda and are willing to lie to do it. It's at least semi-widely believed that large foundation giving by eg Gates or Buffett (or any other billionaires), is a tax dodging scheme for their own benefit (as though they can freely spend billions in foundation money on themselves). You'll see those comments by the droves across forums when this topic comes up, despite the anti-logic, anti-factual nature of the claims. It's a sort of 'the rich are evil, even in charity' dog whistle for people that buy into that ideology (the Times writer is pitching to their base here).
There is nothing unethical about this. In fact I applaud your boss. If you can automate something instead of pay people to do it, you should do it.
Wait... so you are unable to install drivers unless signed by MS now? Wtf...
At some level, I think one should have privacy concerns with baby monitors ... did your baby choose to opt-in?

(Three kids here, and no, we never used a baby monitor...)
I've never seen any marketing materials, where Mozilla limits themselves to non technical users with zero home network. Did you?
Isn't this mainly a reflection of increasing monopolization? Even if merely as a description of what's so?

With the various mechanisms and influences just helping to drive that?