skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'll join you and take some of the downvotes you got, because I have a pet peeve on this topic to complain about.

Too often this fallacy is used to criticize e-voting:

1) find a flaw with electronic voting,

2) support paper ballots.

Opportunity costs are completely missing. If paper offered perfect security, that would make sense, but it doesn't.

I would have enormous respect for anyone willing to build an honest list of pros and cons on both sides.

Let me take a first naive stab:

- Electronic voting complicates auditing (in the worst cases making it all but impossible).

- Machine manufacturers have a poor record of discovering and correcting vulnerabilities.

- Mechanisms to force corrections of vulnerabilities are weak or unenforceable, or raise impossible policy dilemmas if vulnerabilities are discovered near an election.

But...

- Paper ballots are sometimes ambiguous in ways that skew results.[0][1]

- Paper ballots have no mechanism to guarantee "availability." ie, ballot boxes have gone missing, switching recount totals, or sometimes aren't counted at all in close races.[1]

- Tabulation is more costly, and often involves separate systems or equipment than recording and storage. "Introduce more unique systems and complexity!" is not usually a good way to guarantee security.

On the pro side for both too:

+ Paper trails improve auditing (but what do you do if there are discrepancies, given the history of both lost paper and flaws in electronics?)

+ Estonia has had some flaws in their system, but also has tried some innovative solutions to guarantee identity (private keys for all citizens) and prevent coercion/vote buying (votes are revocable up to election day)

Everything has flaws, risk mitigation is about shifting those flaws around. Pointing out a flaw in one system isn't a security analysis. Too often that's how people treat it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_(paper)#History

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/virginia-election-reco...

[2] https://www.wired.com/2008/10/florida-countys/
Walmart recently learned that paying people more than enough to get off of government benefits would more often precipitate better engagement and loyalty to the company, resulting in less frequent turnover, etc. (https://qz.com/work/1094309/walmart-yes-walmart-is-making-ch...)

Amazon has yet to learn this one little trick. They think they're being clever by underpaying unskilled labor and leaving them to rely partly on government benefits, but then they end up having to make up for it by hiring more often, losing time to training, having to load up schedules to make up for lost time (making each employee more expensive anyway), and ultimately defending themselves against nasty articles documenting their work practices.

If Walmart--the company which practically invented the practice--can move on from it, so can Amazon... a company that's mastered the art of reinvesting profits both for continual growth and to dodge Wall Street payouts for well over a decade.
Because profits convert to a valuation multiple. Currently Amazon enjoys a sweet sweet PE ratio, so it's more efficient to maximize profits, get rewarded by investors, and then donate personally.
I think you're mixing up "ethical" and "legal" responsibilities

Putting humanity first over shareholders is not an "ethical" problem
Google Pixel 2 XL Screen Replacement – Sydney CBD Repair Centre
That's not an ethical responsibility, just a fiduciary one, and only on behalf of the subset of anethical (not a typo) suppliers of capital.
My perception is that cherry browns require less force than the MS natural 4000. I say this after comparing the two side by side.

There is another advantage to the cherry browns (or mechanical keyboards in general)... they last a LOT longer. I've had my main work Kinesis for 4 years. The key strokes feel the same today as the day I got it. I would burn through an MS natural 4000 at a rate of 1/year; the spacebar & alt/ctrl keys would become too sticky after.
In a society where "mega-corps" and "small businesses" do exist and aren't the same as a simple "grouping of people", you're right, it's not going to really help navigate the current landscape. But, it can help to raise questions about where we went wrong assigning what boils down to a grouping of people the special privileges that enables them to become things like "mega-corporations".

In the case of copyright and patents, I believe the intention was to give small business a head start, but the reality is that they empower mega-corps far more than the small business. Mega-corps can support the continuation of copyright and patents in the name of the intended spirit (using their resources) while consistently acting against the spirit without most people noticing. Pointing that out is my overall intention.

I think we'd all be better off if we could just copy each other freely without fear of legal repercussions, then we could all compete on quality of service and efficient use of available resources.
It’s the best split keyboard on the market right now.

Maybe VEA is better but good luck finding the first revision and second one is nowhere in sight
Banking has do be done daily, can reverse bad transactions, and has no requirement to keep the customer’s activity so secret that even the bank doesn’t know what they’re doing.

Elections, on the other hand, happen once or twice a year, can’t be reversed in the event of fraud, and need to protect the voter’s privacy to such an extent that even giving them, and only them, confirmation of how they voted is considered far too dangerous.
I know the answer!

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
Washington state’s first bust was staggering, with lessons for today
> He has a responsibility to mistreat them. Doing anything else is unethical.

That’s not how ethics works. Ethics is concerned with what is morally correct, not what a business can get away with. In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical.

By the way, I’m a business owner, so I’m not anti-business. I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one.
what right do they have to decide which day you can work or not? Asia has thriving commerce in comparison with Europe precisely because there is no fixed day to close and you can always go out and find something open.
Fall semester student intake :P
I get different looking 5-year charts for symbol HYG when I look on stockdaddy.io and finance.yahoo.com. Where do you get your data?
Spark is by far my favorite email app. Unfortunately, I’m a bit weary of using it because they get access to all my emails. I know they use it for push notifications, but I still have to blindly trust that they won’t over reach.
The rich are well aware of the risk of pitchforks. That’s why this is done.
You can make an argument that a workforce which can’t afford proper housing, healthcare or food is less effective (and therefore more expensive) than one that is paid more and has a decent standard of living.

You can also argue that a company being a good corporate citizen adds intangible value to itself by way of excellent reputation. You can see this happening with Amazon because they’ve done so much evil good engineers no longer want to work with them. This is directly related to their shitty shortsighted policies.
Why not give A's to C- students? Because it sets an inaccurate perspective of the rest of the world's expectations, setting them up for future failures.

Homelessness is a real problem that requires creative, focused and ambitious solutions. If Bezos can even partially match Bill and Melinda Gates' accomplishments the world will be a MUCH better place (https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-bill-gates-loves-2017...). Here's hoping Bezos gets some singles in philanthropy paving a path to home runs.
Because he’d go out of business and then couldn’t: grow and create billions of wealth for everyone, create and improve new technologies and have thousands of employees gain a bunch of skills and then have to downsize and employ less or raise prices which will kill their competitiveness and harm millions who buy their product.

They are following the rules. The rules have given us soooooo much over the last 100 if not 10 years. They can be vastly improved but lazy, monolithic ideas that take no consideration of cause and effect is the wrong populist movement to effect meaningful change.
They're not condemning the act of charity, they're condemning the working conditions he subjects his employees to.

Yes, the act of charity is better than nothing but it seems people think that money might be better spent on improving the quality of the jobs he offers from the dismal self-destruction they are famous for. Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display of giving and that treating your workers with human decency would be a selfless act he seems unwilling to do.
Ridiculous argument. There are laws governing how many employees can work a week and no employee can be made to work 7 days per week. The only solution for an employer is to arrange shifts between different employees and this is how it works in practice.
I definitely think this is true. Paying as little as possible doesn't necessarily result in increased profits. It can be so shortsighted, when all your employees are miserable and hate the companies guts.
Agreed, awful idea. Interaction with other patients is one of the last things anyone wants in a hospital setting.
Dirty commie
But hey, come build your company on top of GCP!
Deep Work by Cal Newport. Very good read. Next book is going to be Code Complete 2 by Steve McConnell. Followed by Zero to One by Peter Thiel.
You just slog through it and use the free time to dive deeper in your other courses or to go above and beyond what's required for the course.
https://github.com/airbnb/react-dates/blob/master/package.js...

A devDependency is not the same as a dependency.
The library in question is nowhere near 2MB. You're tilting at windmmills.
He doesn’t even have the claimed legal responsibility to do so either.
Also, CostCo. But the king has to be in-n-out -- no one treats their employees better than industry peers. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/01/25/n...

But, if I'm allowed to be cute and meaningless, Bezos' wealth comes from Amazon stock, whose value comes from its future earning potential. Pay workers more, and that stock becomes worth less, so there is less to give away. But because Amazon doesn't earn any money today, the present valuation comes from promises of future fat profit margins, so a simple statement by Bezos that he will continue to increase worker wages with revenue would instantly make the stock almost worthless. And of course, Amazon can't really pay workers more today, since it doesn't have fat margins, all it could do is shift expenses down, but that doesn't really end up being so significant. At a 5% discount rate, Bezos networth of, say, 100 Billion, would be enough to pay each current Amazon employee an extra $5 per hour in perpetuity, and over time, inflation would eat away at that.
You might want to consider slightly newer precedents:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/basr.12108
The lower class is angry at the billionaires because their working/living conditions are bad. The middle class is angry at the billionaires because they're the ones who end up subsidizing the poor. Bezos dumping money on poor people is not a real solution, because it doesn't address any structural problems.
Because it looks good, and companies need some pressure to adopt new practices that go against their institutional assumptions, even if the new practices are better. Not sure if I agree with her about employee votes or community votes or thresholds, but they're interesting ideas to think about. Obviously it's not getting passed anytime soon, so I read it as a starting point for a conversation. I think both make logical sense, thinking of it as required unionization and an adjustment to require companies that have more power than towns take those towns into account somehow. Definitely an approach to think about.

Occasionally, industries will ask as a group to be regulated because it's too hard or risky to take a step on their own, even if they all agree it's a good idea. Salt would be an example where the big companies all generally agree they can easily reduce it without anyone noticing if they all do it at the same time, but if only one does it they'll taste noticeably worse. So the only way they can figure to start reducing salt is by getting a regulation written to make it happen.

It's a curious system.
For the record, morals and ethics are a bit conflated in this discussion. People choose morals. Organizations and groups have ethics. Your morals are not mine, and your group’s ethics may not be my group’s. And if you think morals are universally absolute we will have deep pointless threads.
That duty is very real.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/basr.12108
Maybe because if he paid people at amz more, he has to face the shareholders? If he does it privately, he answers to himself.
This doesn't make sense to me and are not mutually exclusive.

Amazon Inc. employes and pays people, where as a CEO he has certain responsibilities and duties, and is answerable to the board, which he needs to take into account.

Here he's donating his personal money which does not require any such considerations and he can do what he wants.
Erica Chenoweth would agree with you. She's done the research that shows that "start killing people", in many situations, is ineffective.

https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw
'Gel-like' see-through fish discovered 7.5km down on Pacific ocean floor
Because she intends to run for President in 2020 and is interested in making a very public grand gesture that will fail to pass in the legislature.
WTF, Fifa? Correlation does not imply Causation. More likely lots of September students started a web dev class. But that also is not proof of causation.
Perhaps Bezos will make investments in research on cost effective air conditioning for warehouses.
Dogecoin Defies Bear Market (And All Logic)
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doo...

Articles like the above suggest the rich aren't really aware enough or trying hard enough to avoid a dystopian nightmare future. Their luxuries require a functioning world. Locking themselves away in a bunker like a self imposed prison after they make sure everything goes to hell appears to be their current idiotic plan.
This isn’t that special. If you control the DNS for anything you can serve your own version of their updates if the software isn’t checking the remote certificates and package checksums
To play devil's advocate, if Bezos donates two billion, that's basically a one time fixed cost. He can decide not to donate any more money down the line if he chooses. If he raises wages, he will be paying at least that much in labor costs in perpetuity. He can't easily walk back his salary bumps later without enraging his workers.

In addition, if he gives people raises, they will be pleased....for about a year. Then people will establish that as the new normal and demand further raises because he capitulated the first time so why not try again.
It can be worthwhile, even though you are getting ripped off very badly. That 4-year degree gets you about 1 year of valuable education, 1 year of nice-to-have education, and 2 years of disinformation.

If you just got the 1 year of valuable education, you'd still need 2 years (only part-time though) due to long chains of prerequisites. This is easily demonstrated at some schools by the fact that a person with an AA degree (totally generic liberal arts, like repeating some high school classes) can upgrade to a BS degree after 2 more years. Since half of those classes would be outside the major, the clear conclusion is that the 4-year degree only gives you 1 year worth of valuable education.

So there you are, giving up 4 years of salary and paying 4 years of tuition and living expenses, to get just 1 year worth of valuable education. It sucks, but it might still be your best option.

Higher education is sort of a cartel. You are offered what they feel like selling, even though the customers are really annoyed, and every place is roughly the same. It's like dealing with De Beers or OPEC. The colleges even exert control over the accreditation organizations, ensuring that no college can cheat.
I'd say Amazon can start with just simply allowing employees to use the bathroom without it affecting their performance target. It seems some employees piss into a bottle while at their work station.
I ordered mine a couple years ago but honestly it'll be worth the wait. I don't care much for the mechanical keyboard, what I'm itching to finally use is the on-board remapping of keys.

At the moment I use dvorak and there are some applications that simply refuse to listen to the OS configurations. Especially remote desktop on windows and anything that isn't rdesktop on linux (which like to read direct keycodes an use the guest OS' configuration I guess?).

Having the keyboard handle this in-hardware means the computer can never make these mistakes, it'll just think it's a qwerty. Also in going to other people's desks at work, I can just carry this tiny KB with me instead of switching my brain over back to qwerty on their KBs.

On top of dvorak though, I though to myself "why only move the alpha keys in the name of ergonomics?", so I've also really mangled my non-alpha keys using .Xmodmap and autohotkey for my windows machines.
https://i.imgur.com/4Q51VIL.png

As ridiculous as it looks this is an amazing setup. Having shift pressed by the thumbs is incredibly easy, especially contrasting it to using the pinkies. Moving backspace and other command keys to the centre was also a really liberating change, I never have do move my hands.

Like dvorak though, using software to implement this is problematic. Autohotkey/windows for instance likes to lock my shift key in occasionally when I use my moved alt key, requiring a logout :/ Having these issues dealt with via a hardware solution is going to be extremely satisfying.
> Would you rather he just donate nothing and keep everything else the same, rather than donate? The scrambling to condemn this act of charity doesn't make any sense.

It's not really charity if you have a hand in creating the problem. A thief who pledges to contribute 10% of his loot to help his victims isn't doing good. Likewise a multi-billionaire businessman who employs people at low wages isn't deserving of kudos for setting aside a little of his wealth to help the poor, especially when he could make decisions that would help much more.
If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage.

If Americans would like people to have proper access to healthcare, they would not make it dependent on having a job and make it a universal right funded by the government, but they don't.

I actually am an advocate for higher wages for all, and more government subsidy of healthcare, education, and access to daycare / pre-school; but we can't leave achieving these to whims of each business or the largesse of billionaires.

Americans recently elected a president who enacted tax cuts that benefit Jeff Bezos and the wealthier segment of society, at the expense of government programs that could benefit the poor, the homeless, and the children in need of care.

Also, from a purely business viewpoint: Walmart employs drastically more customer-facing retail employees compared to Amazon thus (1) their morale and behavior has a direct impact on the immediate customer experience (2) the training costs (hence the cost of replacement) is higher due to the need to train soft-skills and customer-facing skills etc. Amazon does pay hard-to-replace employees way above minimum wage, including software engineering, marketing jobs, automation, managers, etc.
How did you figure this out?
Ultimately it is up to government to set the rules by which businesses operate, because market forces (and shitty business owners) tend to maximize profit at the expense of everything else. Government dictating certain bounds means that businesses which want to do things that don’t maximize short-term profit - like paying employees a living wage, not dump pollutants into rivers, or manufacturing non-contaminated foods and drugs - aren’t competing against businesses which are willing to burn down the world for profit.
it is a red flag alert for an alternative reason....they have that hidden agenda going, they won't test anything unless it is beneficial for their agenda...we all need to wake up
midnight commander and htop come to mind
Paying employees better hourly rate, improve work conditions, and provide them chances for self-improvement. They could even hire homeless people and provide them temporary accommodation. There are tons of ways
I mean I'm happy he's donating, but why bother with the exploit -> profit -> donate to exploited cycle when it is fully in your power to break it in the first place? I think the reason it is getting flak is that it seems disingenuous considering the massive amount of power he has to improve the lives of his workers.
> I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies.

That's very interesting. Denmark, IIRC, does or recently did have a similar political deal between employers and employees: Low restrictions on the labor market in return for high unemployment insurance. The effects were similar to what you describe: Employees with more freedom, not being tied to jobs, able to take risks, and a much more liquid labor market. (If you're interested, I think the article was in Foreign Affairs maybe five years ago, but no promises.)

I've always liked that concept but didn't think of taking it to the extent that you're suggesting. I'd still put some limits on it, but that's a very interesting idea. Thanks.

I'll add that I'd define the safety net as providing food, shelter, healthcare, and all the education they can make use of (with something like a GPA minimum to prevent waste of that resource). At this point in history, with the incredible wealth of advanced economies, nobody should face shortages of those things.

Good talking to you.
Ooh wow. I feel stupid for not at least seeing what the AI page was about, haha. That's awesome.

I tried using the default AI, and since nobody else was connected I picked "Play vs AI". Apparently the bots also use the same AI... and so they all proceeded to engage in a hilarious (and cute) sped-up standoff dance with each other.

And regarding making my own bot, I originally did mean that to mean figuring out/reverse engineering the world state, etc. This is absolutely trivial because this is computed by the clients so there's no server to headscratch about. But the AI system you're using is several levels cooler.

The only suggestion I'd make is to include a socket.io+etc bootstrap that lets people run bots using Node. A rainy-day project might be a login system that lets people tie bot instances to specific rooms...

I had no idea you'd poked the various browsers. Sorry about joining in the flamewar on that, heh. I (honestly) wonder why FF is so much worse than Chrome :/ I wonder if everyone who had issues was using it on Linux.

This is fun, btw. Thanks for building it. :P
I've had two frustrations with the McMaster-Carr site:

1.) It's slow

2.) It's hard to generate a permalink

So far Amazon hasn't even come close and this wanky bit of tech doesn't change that.