skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Renewable Energy (RE) activists make the claim that RE is cheap already, but my basic math doesn't check out well.

Here's a calculation for Solar from (sunny) India: A 5KW Solar Rooftop costs in the ballpark of Rs 300,000 (~4000 USD), which takes care of a bill of less than Rs 5000 per /month (~60, 70 USD). That'll take 5 years (at least) to recover the cost of install. Then there would be the added cost of maintaining the setup.

Now, USD 4000 might not sound like much to invest in a healthy future, but it's still a LOT of money for the majority of Indian households, and the idea is quite difficult to sell.

So the only help can come from the government subsidies. Unfortunately, while the govt has set huge public targets, the subsidy doesn't reach common people. The current Energy lobby is showing it's ugly face here, and the government is warming up to the idea of taxing solar products.

There's also the troubling fact that large corporations are setting up these huge RE powerplants (with backing from govts), when by the very nature, Solar energy should be rather distributed.

I just hope we talk about the hinderance by governments and large corporations in the RE space a lot more and not let them collude or slow down this natural progression.
Is there the per-race data available somewhere?
And what is Econ 201's solution to pervasive unemployment, or lack of spending power due to underemployment? Is that also classified as "societal value"?
There's a proposed rule working it's way through the system to increase the LSA weight limit to 3600lbs. It would essentially bring Cessna 152/172 class aircraft under the rule and make LSA much more attractive. One of the main complaints with LSA is that the aircraft are too light to be useful even as trainers.
"I don't buy that the model was poorly designed or ineffective."

Just because some groups have competencies in this area, doesn't mean that others do. I've worked at big tech companies that couldn't get their HR systems to work properly ... IT was abysmal even though we made 'high tech'. Also, it's an internal project, not a product, so the scope of investment etc. might have been very different than otherwise.
Other people are explaining why you're wrong, but I'd like to point out that even if you were right, your comment would still be nearly worthless.

Merely pointing out that someone else isn't correct might even have negative net value. For one thing, it can be construed as simple disagreement, opening up a debate that shouldn't happen when there really is a definitive answer. For another, it's insulting (especially as you did it) and that's not a necessary part of correcting someone's understanding.

Invest a few more minutes next time to actually make a substantive comment. You'll be helping the person you correct, you'll be helping whoever else reads the thread, and you'll ultimately be helping yourself – by opening up your views to an actual constructive process.
These capital requirements are regulations that have been introduced as a response to companies fleecing the poor-ish, the uneducated and those who had a bit of cash, but decided to put it into one (fraudulent) investment.

Drop them and you'll see what already is happening in the cryptocoin scene: people getting exploited left and right. Point is, no sofa investor will be a shark and get rich, contrary to the ICO promises.
yeah, dude is beast.
That could create a moral hazard, where businesses court mom & pop investors, who don't have the means to pursue legal action against the company should they do something less than scrupulous with their investments, instead of investors with the means to hold them accountable.
The data is pretty useful in penalizing states that don't educate their students well enough to even get to the standardized testing stage.
> Robots replaced humans that paid tax. The society still needs income.

Robots should pay tax in exactly the same way that the wheel, internal combustion engine, fire, chemical fertilizer, electric motor or stone axe paid tax.

You're trying to do macroeconomics (calculate tax revenue) with a microeconomic analysis (looking at one task/job in isolation). What happens in practice is that the people displaced by productivity gains (shoemakers, maybe) eventually find work in the broader economy doing jobs (like programming computers) that were previously infeasible due to labor costs but now have access to cheaper labor.

Obviously there are social aspects about distribution and justice inherent to rapid change like this. But they have nothing to do with tax revenue.
The original Art of Programming I read when I was ~16, and I found to be extremely influential in how I thought of programs and data and their interrelation.
> What if the lower class is getting simultaneously bigger and also better off? Do you think the bottom 10% is living as bad as they were in 1940? 1980? Things that used to be luxuries are now normal across all income brackets... That's a good thing. :-)

Ah yeas, the good ole "TV's and refrigerators" argument[0]. They have luxuries! Even homeless people have cell phones, what a world!

Now how about things that actually matter:

* Housing

* Healthcare

* Education

* Transportation

* Income security

All these things are less accessible now than they used to be.

As for the "luxuries": when everyone is expected to have something, it's not a luxury anymore, it's a necessity.

Before most people had a fridge and a car, daily grocery delivery and grocery stores a walk away were the norm. It isn't now because cars and fridges changed the infrastructure. You are screwed without either in most places (and yes, relying on McFoods instead of a fridge is "being screwed").

Public bathhouses aren't the norm because most people aren't homeless and have access to those at home. In that regard, the very poor are worse off than a hundred years ago when a lot of tenements didn't have showers/bathtubs[1].

Before everyone had a cell phone or a computer, people weren't expected to find jobs online. Now this is a requirement to be a member of the society in most cases.

And so on, and so on.

In short, "Poor people now have ________, so we're better off!" is a bad argument. If these people had good lives, you wouldn't call them poor. Their lives suck. Yes, in a different way than a 100 years ago.

But back then, nobody would be out of job because they couldn't answer recruiters' email either.

[0]https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/poor-people-having-nice...

[1]https://journals.ku.edu/amerstud/article/download/2244/2203
We have the same thing in actual England, our rail system was the first and now we have to live with tunnels and bridges not high enough for double decker trains. Most of our railways are limited to 125mph due to lack of in-cab signalling rather than because of track curvature though, tilting trains handle tight curvature problems.
You realize that "cottage industry" is not necessarily an aspirational concept, right?
The article leaves a lot open to interpretation, including what was expected of the tools... that could range from providing some beneficial hints to replacing all hiring. As you rightfully remark, having the tool rank candidates for highly specific jobs and its tech requirements would be a great achievement. But is also a big challenge, thus they probably were aiming at something more basic initially. Building models for broad categories like "manager" or "box packer" and hope they will detect soft skills or work ethics seems more achievable. Thus the additional star rating that can be used for hiring and provides some value.

Now having known limited capabilities isn't great. But those can and will be worked on. Unknown / unexpected biases wont, making finding them important.
That's more or less my argument. At least by my own standards, local storage space is really cheap, and the argument that I'd get 100,000 songs instead of 20,000 songs in the same amount of space just isn't that compelling.

Arguments about sound quality are in my experience largely doomed to failure; they usually end up devolving into meta-arguments about testing methodologies. (And invariably mocking audiophiles about $2000 USB cables or whatever, an argument I've grown really, really weary of seeing despite agreeing such things are profoundly silly.)
I hadn't considered hibernation, and indeed, a deeper reading of the manual confirms that hibernation doesn't count, which is rather interesting (given the implications of hitting disk), but I don't really see a good way around it, short of aborting the hibernation, or providing a mechanism to inform the program that those pages were lost. The man page (later, annoyingly, after its initial description) notes this:

> Memory locking has two main applications: real-time algorithms and high-security data processing. Real-time applications require deterministic timing, and, like scheduling, paging is one major cause of unexpected program execution delays. Real-time applications will usually also switch to a real-time scheduler with sched_setscheduler(2). Cryptographic security software often handles critical bytes like passwords or secret keys as data structures. As a result of paging, these secrets could be transferred onto a persistent swap store medium, where they might be accessible to the enemy long after the security software has erased the secrets in RAM and terminated. (But be aware that the suspend mode on laptops and some desktop computers will save a copy of the system's RAM to disk, regardless of memory locks.)

I would be rather disappointed if a hypervisor swapped out my guest (at least, in a context like AWS; I suppose if you're just running qemu on your laptop, that's a different matter), but I hadn't considered that either, and it is certainly possible.
Which of the problems listed in the article are solved by it?
Mono is MS.
"outsold" ??

Does that include actual deliveries?
> Depending on what year the quote is from

It's from "On the Management of Computer Programming" published in 1970. He complained about some of programmers being Haight-Ashbury hippies and disliked programmers' desire for "beards, sandals, and other symbols of rugged individualism."

The more things change, and some such...
That wouldn’t be enforceable, the user won’t have even read it.
They didn’t. It was discovered through other signals (mention of membership in “women’s” clubs etc.
Wow, some minor complaints on language formality issues, then discredit the thing as a whole.

But in the end, the author probably does not understand PB solves the inter-language data sharing problem, which makes all its complain secondary and inconsequential.

It's like complaining a car that drives fast and has great gas efficiency of cannot talk. (Well in 2018, it might be less of a stretch to demand a car that can talk)
MS owns xamarin now, so I think also mono?
I wasn't around two generations ago to make the comparison but I imagine that with the higher income has come much higher expectations that you'll be in the office for 12 hours a day and weekends. You also have much higher wealth in western nations which correlates with higher ability to seek jobs that fit your preferences. Back in the day most people didn't go to uni and had a much smaller choice of positions. There are hundreds of ways the world and job are very different, and you're flipping the argument to say that I have to assert the one specific causal link. If you're proposing an argument "it's misogynist culture, as evidence compare two generations ago". Then it's more the case that you need to demonstrate that the conditions and job are the same, for your link to be valid. Or that all the ways they're different are irrelevant, which they're just obviously not.
Chainlink is offering Town Crier/SGX for offchain computation also. This means all the complicated smart contract code can now be ran off chain and save on ETH gas costs... and take computation load off ETH.

Checkout Sergey Talking about it a few days ago.
https://youtu.be/G5TQzHIFV-A?t=930
Google Drive Electron – A Cross-Platform Desktop App for Google Drive
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but unemployment is at a multi decade low.

We are not seeing pervasive unemployment, we are seeing the opposite. A situation where there are too many jobs, and not enough workers to fill them

So econ 201 would say that there isn't any societial problem right now.
You'd need to open your entire home dir for that. In VSCode, you normally open the specific directory that contains the source for one particular project you're working on, so in that model, it would only be granted permission to that directory.
Really good article, great idea for a blog too "A site dedicated to exploring Ann Arbor civic engagement through technology."
JSON or graphql. Personally I think the typing, API compatibility and extensive language support make protobuffers currently the winner though, despite the warts
Versioning was the biggest disappointment for me. I just want a middleware layer that can handle clients of different versions reliably. Surely everyone has the same problem.
There's a collector in Provo that has the original case files (including, I believe, DVD recordings) from his trials. (Source: I've seen the physical media.) There's a lot of answers to the public's common questions in there.
The point is, it's introduced there because it's profitable even if the robots suck but are more productive as a human. The experiences gained, though, will lead to the robots becoming cheaper and cheaper until the robots are on par with Western wages, and then hell will break loose.

Japanese society right now is paying the R&D and the western countries, especially the US, will suck up all the profits.

The one question that remains, though: who will buy all the products when large swaths of the population don't have a job to feed themselves?
If that happens, YouTube will start squeezing the independent musicians and things will be as bad or worse than before
Mostly lost me at "Make all fields in a message required. This makes messages product types."

Your constraints on protocols can change over time and context, changing something that is required to something that is optional can cause crashes in prod. Unless somehow the 'optional' design has a way to handle that? You also will have to do custom validation anyways, as your storage format will never be able to enforce all constraints you care about.

Also, it would seem like the 'debate' of optional vs required is harmful was resolved, as proto3 makes everything optional.
> I think it's important to keep in mind that when a process allocates a large amount of virtual memory, it does not automatically allocate any physical memory.

It will, if you mlock() it, I believe. The manual page notes "real-time processes" as a main user of mlock() (the other being the cryptographic uses I hinted at); it cites their use case as locking the page to avoid delays due to paging during critical sections. In order for that to work, the OS would need to bring the pages in, at the time of locking; so at that point, a large virtual allocation becomes equivalent to a physical one.
Which is very silly, in the end: I am thrilled while thinking how many iPhones Apple will sell worldwide once we have 6.9 billion people unemployed.
I had heard about prolog for years, but, it was not taught at the university I went to. But, as other have mentioned, I have always wondered about it, hearing whispers here and there. The recent resurgance of interest came from working with Erlang. Erlangs syntax is from Prolog (because it was prototyped in Prolog first) I am reading the basic intro text: https://www.amazon.ca/Programming-Prolog-Using-ISO-Standard/.... which is nice. All I can say is, its very strange and interesting.
In that changeover, farmers remained farmers, while their children trained to work other jobs. The attrition happened on a generational scale. There are only so many times you can ask a single individual to change careers during their lifetime.

Our ancestors, all the way up to our grandparents, changed careers zero times. Our parents changed careers once. In the acceleration of technological development, we may be required to consider changing two or more times, even as the market cost of retraining and education increases. Nobody will have time to become an expert, because the domains old enough to have any of them will become obsolete too quickly.
I read that book the other day. At one point they seemed to land on a policy where only signed memoranda were accepted as actual Presidential orders by the rest of the executive branch, meaning that Trump’s tweets and stray utterances could be ignored if he was distracted long enough not to formally turn them into orders. Once an order was delivered, they could also selectively slow down implementation of it.
The main goal of this article was to refute such research. So, if you want to show that their methodologies are superior, I think that would be great.

Also they were assessing efficiency, and since the cost component of efficiency (performance/cost) is measured as per-pupil spending, then we wouldn't get very useful results if performance=f(per-pupil spending).
> no way to get past the warning.

You are right, but there's always a chance that the various documented HSTS bypasses might filter down to normal people. People might be willing to find and use them if they /really/ need access to the site.

e.g. Typing "thisisunsafe" in Chrome on the error screen, or flushing the HSTS state in the browser.
Then why are wages so stagnant?
Like, 5 lines later:

> For example, we can rebuild optional fields:
Because it's possible that you can't clone from the https endpoint but you can from the git endpoint, which helps them (and you) debug the cause.
Fun fact: For most cars the sweet spot on the speedometer is about 40 to 60 mph, and generally, doubling your speed requires more than double the horsepower. Speeders likely already spend more than $0.25 in gas per trip from lost fuel efficiency. Even more when there are stop lights and other traffic.
> The Question is if Robots should pay income tax? Robots replaced humans that paid tax. The society still needs income.

That's not a sensible question. Every tool or piece of hardware is an efficiency multiplier for the human benefiting from it. You wouldn't charge income tax to a carpenter's table saw, even though they're suddenly not having to use a handsaw that takes 10 times as long. There's no rational way to implement an income tax on efficiency boosting tools.
From an initial speculation on the subject, I don't believe we should tax robot workers, on the basis that it would be too difficult to logically create legislation for, especially considering the tech-knowledge of our legislators.

How would we measure? If it's per-robot, businesses would just figure a way of linking the computers together and calling them 'one'. If it's per-output, then what is a 'robot' vs computer/software, that exists in virtually every business already? Would it be fair giving small businesses another tax, for investing in computers and technology instead of human manpower?
People are under the assumption that high skilled jobs are safe, because that's what the actual facts on the ground show.

Engineering salaries and jobs have skyrocketed in the past decade, and they only show signs of continuing to increase.

I have heard people yell about how we are all going to be replaced, every year, for the last 10 years, and yet here we are, with that future not coming true.

Eventually, after making so many predictions, and getting it wrong so many times, people need to reevaluate their guesses, and instead use a fact based analysis of what the market looks like.
I always think that GCs are incomplete in a way. They can reclaim memory in cases such as:

x = [1, 2, 3]
...
x = []

But not in cases such as:

x = [1, 2, 3]
... (x not used)

Of course, determining if x is used might be uncomputable in general, but in practice it might be computable in a lot of cases.
What's Behind Netflix's Sky-High Employee Salaries
These look like maps rendered/exported from GIS software such as ArcGIS.
Parameterization of types, off the top of my head.
If you would continue reading, there is an explanation of how optional would work almost immediately after this quote.
oh good, now they can do the same in the USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns
I have wondered at what point will job cuts start affecting the overall supply demand equation as more and more people get out of work and will have less spending capacity. Who will buy more 'stuff' and how? We don't know at what rate the jobs will be replaced, if at all. What will be the equilibrium point then?
I'm not sure that OP was referring to people being swindled, specifically, so you speaking on behalf of society (the "we" stuff) probably wasn't needed.

I think it is understood that the regulations are in place to mitigate risk for the most vulnerable. Whether this has been the right implementation (income vs some other means) is what I think OP was getting at.
Did they use the same Store Closing signs as your local Toys R Us?
I remember I read an article about how in Japan, they see robots as their friend, as something innate with spirit because in Shinto everything has a spirit, so they embrace them much more easily. Whereas we in the west see robots as our enemy, something to compete against.
I'm a socialist and yet I believe that neither Stalin's Gulags nor Mao's mass hunger deaths are something that should be repeated. Authoritarian socialism has been proven to not work, what the world desperately needs is liberal/libertarian socialism.

We can learn from history - ok, those who openly fly the Nazi flag not, but majority of society can see the problems like homelessness, drug epidemics and exploding rents.
Who Really Wants a Massive, Contiguous, Single-Shard Virtual World to Explore?
So they did. It should be obvious that if you don't want to include gender, then you have to sanitize gender-related data.
And those processes with large VM usage also have a problem doing an exec (fork/execvp pair) because of address space exhaustion.
Curious: why?
Yield makes sense. Surely heat issues are better done on purpose not incidentally?
That's somewhat appropriate, but, I think having higher standards for identifying discriminatory practices is covered under the umbrella of 'if people would just let them'.

Achieving that level of a standard is a balance.

There shouldn't be excuses being made. All that can do is contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions that presently exist, because the core issue isn't being identified.

Furthermore, if the core issue is the excuse itself, then again, this is covered under the umbrella of 'if people would just let them'. The secondary issue would then be that the core issue isn't being questioned.
Admittedly yes, especially in the current market but it does illustrate the reasoning behind the quote. The shift in labor-market power of developers is undeniable. Realistically it would take me closer to a month from search to first day if I was jumping at the first opportunity. I've certainly known people with a broad enough network and in-demand skills who could land one in a week or two however.
Cronyism is a subtype of nepotism.
> If you found a cheaper supplier of milk, would you feel obligated to reimburse your milk man?

According to the TWU, yes - the MTA is required to pay the TWU $450,000 whenever it uses a machine to bore tunnels, because forty years ago, that job would have been performed by a human instead.