skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can enable this now in Firefox 62 (latest stable)

> In advance of removing all trust for Symantec-issued certificates in Firefox 63, a preference was added that allows users to distrust certificates issued by Symantec. To use this preference, go to about:config in the address bar and set the preference "security.pki.distrust_ca_policy" to 2.
This Time article details enforcement action by the FTC against a sugar industry ad campaign for their fake claims: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4088772/suga...

It’s pretty good as it includes some of the original ads...”sugar is part of a balanced diet” “sugar doesn’t just fast good, it’s good food” “eating sugar will help you lose weight”.
Yes, clearly the point of this bill is to directly hurt Jeff Bezos.
Hmm... This actually makes sense. And seems like it would make sense from any party's perspective... Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green... If anyone opposes this I'd love to know why.

But I don't see why Bezos in particular is singled out.
Explicit administrative overhead is one thing; the question is where is the money going. The "other" bracket is a big mystery, but even in the best case, the actual money is being given to people (instructors, etc.) who perform some acts, possibly measurable, possibly not, and not really in a competitive marketplace. Adding more oversight here would increase administrative overhead, so there's a tradeoff. Mc­Clure and D'Amico encouraged Bobbitt to enter rehab; and thus did some "work" for which they could grant themselves "reasonable" compensation. It's obvious that they went a bit overboard with the stealing of money, but it's just a slightly more accountable version of the endless quagmire that is government bureaucracy. And by accountable, I mean that if all goes well they will suffer a punishment for what they have done.

My point is not so much that state-run welfare is worse than what these criminals have done to Bobbitt, merely that it isn't an open-and-shut case. For that matter, I'm not sure how this compares to other countries with a more extensive social safety net. And really, how this compares to various well-run charities, which often have funding structures that are as arcane as any government agency.
Off the top of my head, this would better deal with situational differences between workers such as someone with no dependents versus someone with 5. It's a novel idea and doesn't have the baggage of minimum wage increases, nor would it need to be continually updated to deal with inflation.
WKRP: Venus Explains the Atom
No, I just got very good deal. Most of what I saw for sale is about what you paid.
FWIW, some people might appreciate that charity is voluntary and not coerced.
1. Haha I wish congress was as good at legislating as it was at naming.

2. The way I see it the ideological argument that will probably spring from this has no way of being settled. This bill is basically a stealth minimum wage. Economic evidence provides enough studies on both sides of the issue that everyone can fight it out, cite one or two things and go home believing exactly what they already thought.

3. Why the 500 employee minimum? I'm not sure I see the rationale behind my tax dollars subsidizing any business that doesn't pay their employees a living wage, not just the big ones.
"Eating sugar will help you lose weight" has got to be up there for the most bold faced lies of the decade, if not the century.
Mindfulness: Whenever you catch yourself performing the undiesrable habit, watch your thought patterns. If you think "Ugh, there I go again, failing to remove my bad habit", you'll have a rougher time than if you think "It's okay, I forgive myself for this slight lapse."

Beyond that mindfulness, if it's hands specifically, I do pen tricks, tap along to my music, plant my hands on my sides/thighs, and generally keep my hands away from the problematic habit.
Programs are big because peoples needs are big.
Clever title, but "politician introduces a bill" is a leading class of non-story (because most proposed bills go nowhere). This is even more dilute that: it's an announcement that a politician will introduce a bill.

In other words, it's an announcement of an announcement, the most off-topic of offtopicness.
Consider getting your testosterone levels checked, and if you have a strong libido, try to limit masturbating if not completely stop.
What is an elite consulting marketplace? Where do I find one?
Agreed - a ridiculous omission. Imagine if Microsoft in the 90's tried to exert an appstore level of control over all software that could be installed on Windows? And took a 30% cut of revenue!
We almost always think we decide rationally, but frequently it's just random...
> Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful for a large employer to ask employees whether or not they qualify for federal benefits.

…But then how would the employer's tax department know how much to pay in the proposed tax?
What if they are not, how do you then drive leads.
I realized that for me most of these sites:

- don’t use browser navigation

- need a specific login to have any use

- they are pinned,and I never close them, ever

With that in mind, I stopped thinking about them as web sites, and use chrome windows as application containers, while doing all my browsing and search in firefox.

I wish there was a simple way to have dedicated chrome windows acting as independant applications, like Gears was. For now it’s just too much friction to my taste to have each site in an electron style wrapping.
There’s more to life than HTTP: VerneMQ a distributed MQTT broker
the current state of artificial intelligence

unless you mean putting more money into AI research, which they are

still, the jury is still out on whether the laws of nature allow to build AIs that can do every job and totally replace human resources. and whether reaching that point implies you’ve just built a new sentient being that will be unionizing and campaigning for equal rights and equal pay and better silicon in no time.
My first thought was that since the welfare benefits to the employee are tax free this becomes a (marginally) more effective way to “pay” your low-wage employees.

But the marginal tax rate at that part of the curve, taking into account the EITC is close enough to zero that it’s not an issue.

I like the plan, I think that it needs a slight tweak. The fine should be 200% of the subsidy, and perhaps it should only apply to workers working at least 20 hours a week.
How to Reserve a Seat in a Library
These aren't employer subsidies, and calling them such is a lie. The money doesn't go to the companies.

We have decided that there should be a minimum standard of living for people that live in the US. Paying for that decision falls on all of us, not just the companies that happen to employ those with lower paying jobs.

This is essentially a special tax on companies that happen to have business models that require low skill labor. Why should companies(1) with business models that only require high skill labor get off the hook when it comes to paying their fare share of the bill for our countries social services?

1. or more correctly those companies stockholders and employees
Clever alternative to raising the minimum wage by a large amount. The Libertarian in me sees a possibility that this will reduce the government's burden and (potentially) reduce social services by a teensy amount.

Surely there are detriments I haven't considered, and please do share them if any come to mind.
Syntax highlighting is all I think they should do. If they want to color "http:" red to show that it's insecure, fine, but don't hide it entirely.

In 69, the version that just came out, they have begun to sometimes hide the subdomain. It threw me for a loop, because someone sent me a link to the mobile version of Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/

but the URL bar said just:

https://en.wikipedia.org/

The page layout was very different, and I wanted to switch to normal. But at first it looked like I was at the normal URL and maybe Wikipedia had changed its look and feel overnight.

Thankfully you can disable this in chrome://flags, at "Omnibox UI Hide Steady-State URL Scheme and Trivial Subdomains." But this still doesn't bring back "http:"

Firefox too now hides "http:" but you can get it back in about:config, by setting browser.urlbar.trimURLs to false.
People have different priorities. Having worked in both environments, if I had to choose between a private windowless cave with no sunlight and an open bullpen fishbowl with ample natural light, I’m picking the fishbowl every time. You can wear headphones to block out the noise, but it doesn’t work to just hang a picture of the sun on your wall.
I've definitely experienced reading a sentence, knowing all or almost all the words in it, and still not being able to assemble the meaning of the sentence due to an unfamiliar grammar structure. Many times.

I think the best way to tackle this is to just try and try again: read the sentence a second time, read the next sentence and see if you can understand the previous sentence with the added context, or just be content with an incomplete understanding; maybe that grammar usage will be easier to understand the next time you see it. Another good way is to read textbooks. Textbooks are great for grammar (although spaced repetition tends to work better for vocabulary).
Have you looked at xkeysnail [1]? I've heard it's OK but I haven't got around to trying it myself.

Personally I just hit Ctrl-W to close tabs when I get to somewhere I can't use it. `fixamo` and `set csp clobber` mean that I only really ever get trapped in PDFs (as I rarely open about: pages except to do a specific thing and then immediately close them).

[1] https://github.com/mooz/xkeysnail
Nah, you can be a consumer and not give a shit about the company that produced it. i think the things I use are good, but if something came along from a competitor, I'd be willing to buy that instead. Brand loyalty doesn't make sense to me personally (cool, you used to make something good. Is the new thing you made good? If yes, will buy. If not, will buy elsewhere)

I think OP is talking about the sort of blind fanboying that happens for some of these brands. "Every apple product is always better than every non-apple product because apple makes good products"
Very interesting idea on the service, that will never pass. Anyone with a vested interest in a large company, (e.g. almost everyone in congress) will have every incentive to see this thing die as quickly as possible. Also I'm not even sure it's a good idea to begin with. Color me intrigued though
You could break off the network itself from all the other businesses, including the ad business. The network would then have to provide a regulated interface to all advertisers, with strong regulation of what data they are allowed share and target.
That's a very educational video. The use of the queuing theory for capacity utilization and the asymmetric payout for increased variability are really insightful.
Do we want company's to dominate an industry because they are pumping in money from their domination in another industry? A unprofitable business is a failure and should be replaced by other firms with better business models
I would love to see the tech for something like this.
I am little disappointed with Sanders that he has failed to build a real movement. I like a lot of the things he does but he is pretty much alone. Compared to the way Trump has bent the Republicans to his will it's disappointing.

This is a nice stunt but nobody in Congress will have the balls to vote for it.
It's not efficient if it doesn't pass.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/15
I'm unclear on why China would want to crush Africa into social catastrophe. Why do you think they would?
Ruby and Javascript.
I’d be curious how the valley compares to other places. Fog Creek (in NYC) famously trumpets their strict “offices have doors” policy. Here at Esri in Redlands (SoCal, 80mi out of LA) we have individual offices with sliding glass doors — an idea which I think we got from Microsoft in the ‘90s (also non-valley).
fucking commies
Sidenote, I appreciate your viewpoints to this complex subject and that we're able to discuss it calmly. These things can boil out of control even if you try to be as gentle as possible.

> We can go reductio ad absurdum and go all the way back and say that, for example, men were given the opportunities in STEM 200 years ago not because they were any more qualified, but because they were the ones allowed to go to school, causing an artificial cycle of inspiration and societal expectations around the profession. Do men or women in the sciences today feel guilt or resentment at that?

That's a fair example. Today? Likely not. The 1st generation however? I imagine plenty of women/etc felt resentment towards men for being unfairly chosen in the market. I mean, that's why were discussing this now - right? There's a group of people that some claim are being chosen for unethical reasons.. of sorts.

> I'd also argue against framing them as "unqualified women in STEM", as the basis of my argument isn't about, for example, shoehorning a hairdresser into a rocket science career, but just taking into account context when looking at similar candidates.

Yea, and I'm not trying to straw man here about hairdresser/rocket-science bit. I just mean that, the moment we stop choosing based on criteria that matter to the subject (skill/talent/etc), and instead choose on criteria that matter to a 3rd party subject (skin color/etc), we cause new problems.

We may solve problems, but we also cause problems.

As an easy example; I think this whole conversation would be far less common if everyone, and I do mean everyone, believed that hiring was truly always based on color/gender/etc blind skill, ethic, etc. If we believed that hiring truly had no bias towards white-males, then by forcing "other" people into it would inherently be hiring less qualified individuals. This would be done with goal of spawning a new generation of children who are more attracted to STEM, but my point is, there is a cost now. So I think we'd need to be very sure that we're acknowledging the costs now and if they're worth a perceived gain in the future.

Another HN user[1] had a really interesting viewpoint too, about another country. His/her example really highlighted why I'm even unsure that shoehorning more women into X field is really an effective approach.

Likewise, if we're going to discuss this I think we also need to discuss historically women driven industries, and need to force less women working there and more men working there. Culturally there are a many professions that are heavily dominated by one gender. Yet we're only talking about STEM, for example. As with all of this, lets be equal.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918184
If there's anyone who's been trying to do that in the past few years, it's Bernie Sanders. That's where the "$15 minimum wage" idea came from. But even most Democrats aren't on board, let alone Republicans.

I'm guessing this bill is made so that it appeals to Trump, too, who's been attacking Bezos lately. Fingers crossed it passes. Amazon has benefited from low taxes, which has catapulted it into a monopoly in several markets. Monopolies are bad for consumers, competition, and employees.

The low taxes is part of the reasons why it's been able to invest more in the company, subsidize Kindle ebooks for years (Apple has called it a price dumping tactic), it enabled it to offer free shipping with a relatively low subscription, and of course cheaper products in general compared to offline retailers.
If congress is good at one thing it's making an acronym for proposed bills.
I created a vehicle plate recognition system before ML got cool, but I can't get any ML job with my less than bachelor degree (associate? dunno how to translate) here in Brazil. I think there are only 2 positions open for machine learning less than 100km from where I live.

I feel left out.
It's a large intervention into the free market and a significant tax distortion.

Why should companies that employ lower skill workers pay higher taxes than those that employ higher skilled workers?
They switched the 911 over to water-cooled in the late nineties, yes. Prior to that, Porsche got the idle temp problem somewhat under control using powerful electric fans positioned in front of some of the oil coolers, but there's essentially no reliable way to cool four-valve cylinder heads with a purely air-cooled engine (the 959 used separate water cooling just for the heads), so they decided the whole thing was a performance dead end. The air-cooled 911 Turbo did get up above 400hp with two-valve heads before the change, though.

> I had that fan breaking once in my Miata and temperatures went into the red really quickly in LA rush hour.

No doubt. Once you train yourself to hear that fan, you realize how much the car depends on it.
What’s not so easy is going through their approval process to become zero rated. They claim to be equal to anyone that wants to implement “their tech” but are reluctant to work with anyone that isn’t a large company.

Note: that was a few years ago and I have no idea what’s changed. I gave up trying to deal with them.
It comes down to whether a judge believes you or not.
Google Refused to Even Show Up to Senate Hearing on Election Meddling
What a moron. The idea Amazon is the problem... is he too much of a wimp to take on the actual subsidy recipients (ie Agriculture - particularly in livestock, Finance, and Oil/Gas).

Bezos is rich because he had a huge position the company he started and presided over taking to a $1T market cap. He pays himself relatively little in salary and stock grants on an ongoing basis. You might as well go after Warren Buffett.

Oracle stands out among tech companies, if anyone wants to create a cutely acronymed bill for them: https://www.asyousow.org/reports/the-100-most-overpaid-ceos-...

edit: "This brings me great sadness, as Sanders' career has been to improve the lives of his constituents, and American people as a whole. I think this is uncalled for." It brings me great sadness, too, because I think it's opportunistic grandstanding on his part, and far beneath the standards he has set. And what saddens me more is that it appears to be part of a trend for him in the past 3 years.
Doesn't BEZOS increase the price of labor for Amazon, reducing the number of employees they employ? IMO, this looks similar to a minimum wage law for large companies.
>> The polynomial x^3 −3x +1 is represented as Poly [1, -3, 0, 1]

> It starts with the 0th coefficient and goes up.

Is a list in Haskell canonically written in the opposite order of what I expect? I expect that the 0'th element of the list [a, b, c] is `a`. In Haskell, is it `c`? Assuming `a` is the 0th element, then the coefficient for the highest-degree term is the 0th element of the Poly. And since the degree of the two polynomials doesn't necessarily match, matching up the two highest-degree coefficients and adding them is obviously wrong.

Or am I going crazy here?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919329
They even bring up MS trust busting efforts as a reason to go after Google. The article falls all over itself in multiple places (also Amazon) to reach its ends.
Show HN: An Ethereum Dashboard
Remember when all of Sanders' supporters said he wasn't just another politician? Well he's certainly pandering to his base like one.
I'm curious what the macroeconomic effect would be. Is this just shifting public costs to private companies? Workers actual compensation wouldn't change since they would lose government benefits as their wages increase.
why is that something you want?
Developed countries (ie, the US) who have fucked up the environment trying to use the threat of force (law) against poor subsistence farmers in the rainforest as a last-ditch effort to save the environment vs. finding solutions that help these people survive in ways that preserve the environment.

Another great example of this is how international fishing outfits destroyed the lively hood of Somali fisherman by literally killing people with their fishing boats and also overfishing -- then poor fisherman can either die from warlords, die from starvation, or die trying to hijack international ships. The third option includes a chance of a million dollar payday.

Instead of working to help these fishing villages, the solution is private security firms and UN navy ships.
> What a moron.

This brings me great sadness, as Sanders' career has been to improve the lives of his constituents, and American people as a whole. I think this is uncalled for.

> Bezos is rich because he had a huge position the company he started and presided over taking to a $1T market cap. He pays himself relatively little in salary and stock grants on an ongoing basis.

Then tax his stock grants at wage based levels. Your argument is that there are "bigger fish to fry". There's no reason not to start with a trillion dollar company.
I think this entire thread boils down to choice.

I don't have an option, the fishbowl is thrust on me and has been for many years over many jobs.

Similarly; I actually prefer the dark, but were I in a situation where I walked into a dark room in the middle of a building- I would probably not like it.
but good for the shareholders! /s
My bad, you’re right, i was thinking the idle times spent in Dresden.
How We Massively Reduced Our AWS Lambda Bill with Go
Maybe we should adopt something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax
Lots of people on this discussion board probably make money in some way from one or all of the companies discussed or potentially in that category. This makes it a difficult ethical question if ever confronted as such - who could one work for if that were a filter for companies one could choose for which to work?
My first thought is Bezos has probably dispatched aggressive lobbyists to try to kill this bill.

America will only continue to become more corporately corrupt until we have a Congress with enough backbone to PERMANENTLY BAN all forms of lobbying and limit congressional term limits immediately.

The American dream isn't to monopolize the entire country with 3 or 4 mega corporations. CALL YOUR SENATORS.
As best I can tell:

1. There is a ton of money at stake for a ton of actors. Farmers, processors, manufacturers, restaurants and pharma have huge incentives to not change things.

2. From my observation, nutrition scientists tend to suffer from herd mentality more than anticipated, for reasons I'm not certain about (although grant money certainly is part of it). Hell, they will even prosecute their own members who don't conform 100% to the official story, it's nuts.
Nice! https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/doc/html/boost/contain... and https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/doc/html/boost/contain... for reference.
> I'm still dumbfounded how we can have advanced so far in so many areas of science and technology and yet we are in the dark ages when it comes to nutrition science. Why is that?

We're not really in the dark ages when it comes to nutrition science - we've actually learned a whole lot in the last century, but we take a lot of those advances for granted because food is such an integral part of our daily lives.

That said, nutrition is also much more difficult to study because not only are there ethical concerns that aren't present in a lot of other scientific fields, but there are an incredible number of confounding variables that make it difficult to perform conclusive, properly controlled experiments for anything but the most basic and straightforward hypotheses.

And that's all before you get into the issue of genetics and nutritional effects varying across a heterogeneous population.
Bobbitt was checked into rehab recently, too. Coke binge much?
Also, maybe US patents(and other intellectual property) should be taxed regardless of where the corp is that owns them.
I agree the logic of calling market wages a "subsidy" doesn't hang together. I wonder where this idea originated; its frequent appearance in labor policy debates seems recent.