skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Or you could argue that it originated with Unix coming out of Bell Labs and being passed around universities on reels of tape, with new extensions contributed along the way.

When Stallman thought seriously about open source in the 1980s, it wasn't because he was the only one to ever imagine a culture of sharing around software and information. I think he was reacting to a sense that an existing culture was being erased by growing commercial interests.

One could also argue it originated with gentleman-scholars circulating letters about their new physical science discoveries during the renaissance and feeding into the subsequent industrial revolution. But, I expect it is an emergent property of humanity which is probably exhibited throughout history and pre-history.

It's essentially the same idea of commons and culture applied to yet another domain of knowledge and technology. Was it sustainable for the first farmer to teach his techniques to another? For one chef to teach another how to prepare his dishes? Open source software can be sustainable as long as there are needs and resources available to produce and execute software that does something different or better than could be done without the software (or at a lower cost than other available options). The subsequent sale of additional copies need not be a motivating factor at all.
Many are qualified dividends so they are taxed as long term capital gains if you’ve held the stock for at least 60 days. If you are wealthy and don’t draw an ordinaryincome then this also means your tax rate is 0% on your qualified dividends.
> - Laziness can be hard to reason about for newcomers

Yes

> - You have to learn a lot of concepts from category theory right off the bat, because it uses IO and monads.

No - in particular, you don't have to understand monads to use the IO monad. You just have to understand the IO monad API. That's pretty similar to not having to understand how motors work in order to drive a car.

> - The community is full of clever tricks and idioms that aren't really necessary to write haskell code, but a beginner might think they need to know it.

Yes, and that's the major mistake people may do when starting Haskell. You don't need (and you probably can't) know everything you read about in order to be efficient in Haskell. Just use the simple stuff and live the happy life.

> - The type system is substantially more complex.

Yes, but it shouldn't be a problem. See point above, learn only what you want/need and live the happy life.

(also, Ocaml is an amazing language. It's fine if you enjoy it and don't enjoy Haskell)
Android Things: Expression Flower
It's odd seeing so many people here confirming they have trich. Ive never even seen someone pull their hair and it's pretty obvious as someone who does it. Although I did see this girl on a bus one time picking at her scalp but that's probably just dandruff/psoriasis because I have psoriasis too.

I pick my beard hair. I think I've damaged the hair follicles because I pick exclusively with my left hand and so I pull the left side of my beard. Only the left side cant grow hair anymore but the right side is fine.

It definitely happens in "binges". Only when I'm anxious about something, whether a work problem or some other issue that I worry about. Just yesterday, I looked down on my white desk at work an saw hairs littered all over the desk. Didnt even notice I was doing it. I can go months without doing it and then suddenly go back to doing it.

I shave frequently but it makes it worse. I'll find a hair that is "just right" to pick and it'll be too short to pull with my fingernails so I'll pick and pick and pick until the skin around the hair gets swollen and the hair "sinks in" making it even harder to pull. It's a terrible feeling not being able to pull it out. Like chewing food and then spitting it out instead of swallowing it. Like eating all of your food and then leaving exactly one last bite. Like masturbating but not finishing.

I do have a range of other mental problems including chronic depression and bipolar disorder (mild) but not many other "ocd" habits. The human body is weird.
I don't see how stock buybacks are meaningfully different from dividends. If anyone cares to explain without any gaping logical holes in their explanation, it would be nice.

In buyback the money comes to shareholder in the form of increased stock price (and the investor can choose if he wants to get the value by selling). In the case of dividends, all investors must buy more of the stock. That should be just technical difference, not a substantial issue.

For example, if buybacks are forbidden because CEO pay is a problem, obviously the compensations will change to reflect the change. In the end total compensation will stay the same.

As a investor look at the total return of stocks (price + dividends reinvested) and it has little effect on my decisions if buybacks change into dividends.
(2015)

Wonder if there is more recent info available
That's interesting. My econ understanding is pretty wimpy, so excuse the basic question here: is the broader theory here that "rising rents + increasing housing prices" = some sort of rent-seeking capitalism, whereas consumption of the not-real-estate kind is actually sustainable, desirable and beneficial long term?
That's not double taxation. The corporation is a different legal person. When you receive income from a corporation, that transaction is taxed, just like when employees receive their income from their (usually incorporated) employers.
Those people could easily be full time employees with benefits---only employed by Lionsbridge, rather than Microsoft.

Heck, before Microsoft, Lionsbridge primarily contracted out to Nokia.

It's an independent company, that worked in an industry that consolidated around two parties---Android and iOS---and LionsBridge didn't have a significant part in either of those.

They simply bet on the wrong players.
I've asked numerous friends who work in finance and do graduate studies in econ. for their perspective on buybacks, and they truly don't understand why the lay press has become so obsessed with the maneuver as a moral evil. Yeah, it can temporarily juice a stock's price, but other major players in the market and board members at the corporation in question aren't as stupid about short term gain as we've been led to believe by these journalist jeremiads. If a company wants to unleash its pent up capital into more efficient allocations of the economy, i.e. the companies that will grow and invest in workers, and the sellers on the other end of the buyback want to trigger capital gains taxes, by all means let them do it. Let's not leave out that other side of the equation in a rational discussion.
"It was better next year" has been my running line. I rather like this one too.
> but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.

I am a developer of a dozen very popular apps and I couldn't disagree more with your position.

Developers having a wonderful experience or sustained livelihood isn't the goal here. It's to make sure consumers are protected and cared for. As Tim Cook would put it that's their North Star.
Yes it is. A stock buyback increases shareholders' wealth with a tax of 0% on the shareholders.

The tax code makes a bright line out of the distinction between income and capital that is, economically speaking, quite fuzzy. Depending on your need for liquidity and your means of acquiring it, it might not be really there.
Im the exact opposite. I pull my beard and when I shave, I still have the urge to pull except the hair is shorter now and I have to work harder to pull it out. I continue to pick and pluck at it with my fingernails until I damage the skin and it gets swollen.
Regularity. Dividends are typically given on a frequent, predictable schedule. Buybacks are not.
> The stranglehold of this doctrine of “shareholder-value maximization” over corporate decision making has been a leading cause of ... sagging productivity.

lol...maximizing shareholder value is a cause of sagging productivity? Do these people even read their own words before they publish them?

This whole 'stock buybacks are evil' meme is beyond silly. The only difference between dividends and stock buybacks is tax efficiency. So yes, corporations are avoiding some tax burden by doing this, and that may be a bad thing - so change the tax policy. But there's no reason to expect stock buybacks are the cause of anything other than a slightly lower tax bill, and, predictably, this article doesn't even bother to try to make the actual case otherwise. It just makes a bunch of blanket, baseless and unsupported assertions.

It's seriously irritating the absolute garbage that gets published in places like the NYT these days. This article doesn't even try to make its case. It just pushes a narrative with innuendo and bald assertions. How can something like this possibly get past their editors?
Microsoft does both also.
I've seen you post. I know you're smart. So answer me this: other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
> 100,000 to 300,000 is common in consultancy style services

Sure - it’s a very different business model. It’s far easier to put more people on the project than convince clients to pay more for top talent.

> I mean even Google has ~100k people on ~100bn which is 1M per person

And how many of those people contribute directly to Googles main revenue source? Only a tiny fraction.

Google is not optimizing for max revenue per employee.
They could clear up rents rising faster than savings and consumption by copying Taiwan and implementing a land value tax as Sun Yat Sen and Henry George originally recommended. However Xi has consolidated power, begun promoting Marx more heavily, and claims Marxism is still totally correct for the future of China, so they probably won't. With a greater push for Marxism, if the economy begins to slow we should expect greater nationalization of Chinese industry. Hopefully investors realize that Taiwan is the more sustainable political-economic system in light of current conditions.
>whose sole purpose is to let Microsoft have all the benefits of full time employees without the protections

You have evidence of that?
This idea of consumption being the indicator of health for an economy is troubling to me. Less consumption certainly appears troubling to shareholders, and as some have pointed it should be viewed as a positive thing re: environmentalism - less consumption means less resource utilization.

But from a purely economic standpoint - saving is not a bad thing. Murray Rothbard wrote the following (fairly obvious statement):

"To increase production, man must form capital. To create it, he must restrict his consumption and transfer his labor for that period to producing immediately-satisfying con­sumers’ goods."

The article explicitly mentions the -goals- of those who are saving - to buy homes or raise children. Henry Hazlitt writes:

"But when money is invested it is used to buy capital goods–houses or office buildings or factories or ships or motor trucks or machines. Any one of these projects puts as much money into circulation and gives as much employment as the same amount of money spent directly on consumption. “Saving,” in short, in the modern world, is only another form of spending."

In other words - Why would it ever be bad that people are -expanding- the time horizon of their goals (favoring long term investments over short term ones - ie:
houses instead of lattes)? If anything, this ought to be an indicator of a strengthening economy, even if it means "slumping" share prices in the meantime.
i am in PA. could join if there is critical mass.
>I wish more big stocks (looking at you, tech giants) paid regular dividends instead of buybacks. It gives me a real, irrevocable return on my investment and benefits all shareholders equally (on a per share basis).

That's exactly the reason that some companies don't pay dividends. It leads to irrevocable gain, which means it adds to your tax liability.

Whereas, if a stock rose in value, there's no immediate tax implications for the investor. A lot of investors prefer that. In fact if the stock is donated instead of cash, there's never a tax implication.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous here.

The point of republishing old programs is to make sure they are running against the latest SDK. This is an important aspect for the ecosystem. It forces apps to work properly on the latest OS as well as support technologies like App Thinning.

It's not just to mess you around for compliance reasons.
Unions are by their very nature levelling mechanisms, the only real situation they can be of any use is in non-competitive and relatively low skilled labor markets. Anybody who wants to develop their skill set and advance their own careers would want to have nothing to do with unions. If a union negotiates a contract for me, they're not actually doing it for me, they're doing it for everybody, which will mean that I walk away with compensation equal to the average value of all people in the union. If I negotiate compensation for myself, then I can get employer to pay me what I'm actually worth, and none of my salary will be used to subsidise other less ambitious/competent union members.
He's not making a normative/semantic claim, he's describing why it's not financially sensible. If I'm considering two ways to transfer money to a target, and one of them passes through a taxation checkpoint twice, I'm naturally going to avoid that.

I am happy to make the normative statement that any tax code that creates such an incentive probably is badly designed, though.
Pretty sure DRIP is still taxed.
Or the multiple phones you go through before you will find it included.
New ICODashboard Client: Introducing YANU by Robolabs
For small sats in low orbit it can be a very big deal. Before you can start snapping pictures accurately you need to confirm the actual orbit. You let the thing whip by a couple times to confirm its speed and altitude. Then it will likely be spinning a little. You need to wait for the aerodynamic forces to smooth that out.
I'm pushing 40. It's split in my circle. Less than half use it. Of the other half, it's mostly women. I personally tried it and rejected it after getting a feel for how it works.
That's true, but the title isn't "End Stock Buybacks, Save Average Joe". The authors haven't made a particularly convincing case that following their suggestion would save the economy.
Not as much as you might think, the iPhone is going to be doing a single decryption and checking action per attempt. If this takes 90 milliseconds because it's also going out to the secure chip to do the key derivation with the device uid so that the cpu and main ram never sees all the information to derive the full key on it's own then once you have both of those pieces of information (as was stated in this hypothetical) then you've eliminated the slow communication and slower processor involved. This could easily mean you can now do the derivation of the key in a much quicker fashion (I'd be surprised if it's not 10s to 100s of microseconds). But that's assuming that the bulk of the time isn't being spent on something like a modern key derivation function from the user's pin which is quite possibly a bad assumption (nobody knows these details outside Apple as far as I know). So let's say it's that, we've now got maybe 80ms of real cpu time on the iphone (not counting the communication to secure chip). This is still going to just be one core of the iphone's cpu doing this (no parallel KDFs that I'm aware of) and it's still trivially parallelizable. I don't know exact specs but lets say a modern intel cpu is going to be only 4x faster at this KDF because apple put in special cpu hardware to help accelerate it and other crypto operations. Now we multiply that by however many cores we can get (RAM isn't going to be an issue here even if it's a memory safe KDF, on a real computer or server we can always add more, terabytes if needed). So at this point we've got ~10-12 checks per second (80ms) times 4 for just the single core speedup, and then we can multiply that by the number of cores/threads we can throw at it, 256 wouldn't be too hard to get at (amd 2x epyc 64 core cpus). That gets us to 10240-12284 password checks per second. Even if that 4x is 2x or 1.5x it's still relatively easy to just throw some more servers at it since the actual check is so trivial to do in parallel. This would be very easy to be within a state actor or even a large corporation's budget if they had the need.

That's why Apple is so hard on making the secure chip they use for the encryption and holding the device uid. It's really the only thing that can keep that from being within a $10k-15k budget to break a bad passcode/pin. If they aren't using a modern KDF that has memory safety, branch safety, and other defenses in it then all the above goes out the window since you can now throw some really cheap GPUs and do it in parallel at a scale that's even more insane.

Have a look at some of the GPU benchmarks for John the Ripper

https://openwall.info/wiki/john/GPU
Dont forget their software shenigans also. The new Air will have the worse keyboard, and the OS became almost unusable. Now even without OpenGL.
The paper (https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_...
) cited by the paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/m...) cited by the article says an interestingly different story:

lifetime emissions of CO2 that are saved by different actions (US)

Increase car’s fuel economy from 20 to 30 mpg 148
Reduce miles driven from 231 to 155 per week 147
Reduce number of children by one:
Constant-emission scenario 9,441
Optimistic scenario 562
Pessimistic scenario 12,730

So basically fighting climate change, or having kids who consume less, has a much greater impact.
In my experience it depends on the site and the app. Streaming vids seems like a perfect job for the browser.
Ask HN: What's your favorite monitor for programming?
I have a 2018 13" MacBook Pro that I use at my desk, and I'm looking for an external monitor to accompany it. I wouldn't say that I have poor vision, but I've found that extended use of my existing setup is giving me eye strain--I can see text seemingly well, but it's difficult to focus on it for hours on end. I'd prefer something with more space and lower eye strain. Any recommendations? What's your favorite monitor for programming? Thanks!
Not having kids is a personally financially prudent decision but not so for society (it causes huge demographic problems if there aren’t enough kids).
Don't under estimate the value of being able to shoot down a satellite with no advance warning. Existing anti-sat weapons are typically launched from a platform that is visible/trackable long before it can actually kill a satellite.
Days is about right for a large company to respond
Capital should be rewarded, but it's rewarded as a winner-decide-all manner right now that is also wrecking the whole system.
Oxidative stress and inflammation go hand in hand. Aging has rising levels of both.

Mitochondrially targeted antioxidants such as SkQ1 were first approved for use against inflammatory eye conditions. They act to dampen the consequences / amount of inflammation, and do this by cutting down on oxidizing molecules produced within mitochondria. They were first developed out of an interest to slow aging through this sort of modulation of mitochondrial oxidative stress and damage. They do slow aging to some degree, but don't do anywhere near as well as calorie restriction - say 10% in flies, something less than that in mice, which isn't impressive.

The first earnest human trials for mitochondrially targeted antioxidants such as MitoQ (which from the studies is actually less effective than SkQ1) suggest it can reduce the impact of oxidative stress or inflammation on the smooth muscle cells in blood vessel walls. Their dysfunction produces some fraction of the stiffening of blood vessels with age. That stiffening causes raised blood pressure, which in turn causes too many bad things to list here.

So these are not massive effects. You can probably do as well as MitoQ by bumping up your exercise level to the next tier. But then you can always both exercise and take a mitochondrially targeted antioxidant. The costs are not high, so it may be worth it based on the preliminary data.

Not a cure for aging, and thus not worth spilling immense amounts of ink and effort over it. Just something to think about doing and then get on with better development projects with better expected outcomes.
I live in an agricultural area, have worked on industrial farms and hatcheries installing and maintaining computers and machinery, and keep livestock in my backyard.

The videos you see are extremely one-sided and manipulative. You cannot do anything right by these people. I am personally against, for instance, debeaking, and the production of foie gras is horrible on a Holocaust level. But for example I saw one recently that criticized the use of nipple drinkers that guarantee clean water for the birds instead of letting them drink water from the ground that's contaminated by feces. Another campaign I was exposed to this year misrepresented a cattle crush as a device that actually crushes cows, instead of its actual purpose to immobilize an animal while it receives medical treatment. There are a lot of good points to be made about cruelty in industrialized farming, but they ruin it with these shock videos and ridiculous assertions.

These tactics and misrepresentative propaganda, while they may be effective at fundraising from young and gullible city people, have caused states to pass laws making it a crime to film undercover at farms, and I believe that this is a setback for the animal rights movement, on top of some of the proponents' general dishonesty.

Vegetable farming is not a great thing for the environment either, and sometimes "organic" production does more harm.

Battery cages bother me and eggs produced differently are ridiculously priced (a dozen normal eggs costs $1.10 at my walmart today, recently the price has been below $0.30.) So I started my own flock. Today I have nine happy birds and am not supporting the battery cage operation, which incidentally was the subject of a salmonella-related recall this year. I hope to be bringing home some turkeys from the farm fest in the next county in a couple weeks.
They can't tell you when their own government goes fishing in their pond so they talk about Iran instead.
When the shareholder realizes the gain from the share price, that gain is taxed. And if it is a short-term holding, that income is taxed like regular income. Nobody is getting taxed at 0%.
He has very few savings to invest, and derives almost no benefits from this, compared to his wealthy neighbour. Tax advantages for shareholders are a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
> Google's not a charity and made the choices they made to get to where they are.

That's my point. They chose the option where everyone wins the most, especially themselves. The alternatives would have set the smartphone industry back several years as Google would struggle to make phones and phone manufactures would struggle to make a halfway-decent operating system. Google's policies are "anti-competitive" in the same sense that charging money for their operating system or enforcing copyright is "anti-competitive." In one case, you're forcing companies to pay for your product. In the other case, you're forcing the companies to follow a set of rules to use your product.
In order to realize this tax free wealth gain, the shareholders would have to sell the stocks and pay taxes, right? It sounds like then the most important factor is not the double taxation, but that you get to choose when the "second" taxation occurs.