skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I mean, there's several answers to this.

The most fundamental one is this: capital is mobile, people are not.

If you increase taxes on capital, it will flow to a lower-tax jurisdiction relatively quickly. A decent legal system and financial infrastructure is necessary, but the hurdles aren't as great.

But if you increase taxes on salaries, people will be hesistant to leave for personal reasons (e.g. friends, family), cultural reasons, security reasons etc.

As such, tax competition between jurisdictions on capital is much more fierce than it is on labour. This is typically why you see lower taxes on capital.

The other reason is that labour tends to be viewed by part of the voter base as a normal tax, and capital as a double tax. i.e., if you earn $100k a year and save much of it after taxes, you now have capital to invest. And getting that capital taxed again is sometimes viewed as even less popular, a sort of tax ontop of tax, particularly as these wealthy people are more mobile and can more easily choose a lower tax jurisdiction.

As for the notion that his capital doesn't create jobs, I don't know if that is true. Fact is that if people like him withdrew their capital from the market, rather than invest it, you'd see many financially-constricted companies that would bin their expansion plans, cancel their investments in R&D, withdraw from new products and markets etc, and on the whole, generate far fewer jobs. It's essentially what the credit crisis looked like. The notion investments like his aren't creating jobs seems erroneous.

That doesn't mean I'm a fan of low capital taxes, by the way. But tax reform is incredibly complex because it requires essentially all countries around the world to work together, to give up some control over an important component of sovereignty (taxation), to restrict tax competition somewhat. There's been a lot of decent work in that regard already by the way in the past few years, with the worst aggressive tax planning and tax havens being dealt with (e.g. BEPS), which allows countries to implement more sensible taxes on capital without worry of their tax base shifting abroad.
This exploit has been known for a while.

Example: https://github.com/mikeyy/nonoCAPTCHA
> I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than the keyboard and mouse.

Easy counter example:
"I have yet to see an interface to a computer faster than a touch interface while working as warehouse manager who's constantly on-the-go."

See how you're pigeonholing the whole concept of what a computer is or should be?
You could literally be Firefox talking. You don't want us to do this? But when we do, where are you going to go? The other guy is worse.

edit: I feel like I should footnote this with the observation that Firefox is at the lowest marketshare it's ever been, and continues to shed users. It currently only exists so to be used as a defense in future antitrust actions against Google.
In Its First Decades, the United States Nurtured Schoolgirl Mapmakers
This is fantastic - really pleasant to use, and a very obvious upgrade to the default client.
This is dead on. You could approach directly but it's probably better to bring up issues with someone else first then escalate to the CEO if necessary. Flat organization means you can go directly, but you probably shouldn't. So the structure exists.
Wasn't it proved that trickle-down economics does not work?
The central point is that investment income is treated differently tax-wise than working-at-a-job income. If you have a large enough kitty you can live off investment income.

I wonder how a higher tax rate for investment income would change the pools of money available to startups? Would more of it flow to other asset classes, like tax-free but lower returning municipal bonds? Would it make no difference?
I'll agree that one case doesn't make the rule bad, but the rule hasn't been proven yet either.

> There are complex dependencies among the subroutines which can probably be simplified with refactoring, and which should be explicitly called out, but are allowed to "hide" in the original code where, locally, we have 7 global variables shared by 4 inline subroutines -- not a good situation.

What is locally global supposed to mean? This piece of code can be written at least two ways: as a single function with comments or as a function calling four other functions. Just because splitting it up into multiple functions a certain way requires multiple returns or long argument lists doesn't mean that the original code is necessarily bad; It could be that the splitting points were chosen badly or that this code is simply better off as a single function. These "complex dependencies" you're worried about form a DAG in the example which seems simple enough to me.

Anyways, most of this is moot without real code.
I always think C/C++ is not a good first language to teach, because you need to understand some general concepts about computer systems before diving in. Probably more than half of the beginners in their first C class give up when handling pointers/arrays - it's not because the concept is hard, but because they have no idea what the "memory" in the computer actually is and how it works. You're left with a naive analogy of home addresses and phone numbers, but it really doesn't give pointers justice (especially when dealing with arrays and dynamic memory!) Every student learning C should have a basic idea about the stack and the heap, how function calls work, and how assembly code is executed, in order to get the full picture.

Anyways, the problem C++ has for beginners is that the language tries to obscure the already hard to understand low-level behavior with high-level concepts (to be fair, that is the language's ultimate goal: to provide a high-level abstraction for low-level code.) So maybe good for your second/third language, but definitely not your first.
I absolutely agree – it's the specific usage in the class that I don't like. Having a factory instead of using the constructor, with that IMHO not that obvious interaction with the context manage. A factory that is actually a context manager just seems non-trivial, and given that there is more straightforward solution available, I would avoid it.
I try to impose my personal preferences and beliefs on others whenever I vote. I see nothing wrong with this. I also believe that people in my income bracket should pay more in taxes. I'm not going to voluntarily pay more whilst others don't. It's an aspect of the free rider problem. I'll continue to vote for higher taxes and continue to take advantage of the stupid tax system we have. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite. So what? The belief that taxes should be higher for people like me is true/false independent of my hypocrisy.
Ask HN: Best way to take a technology to market? (solution seeking problem)
Hi

I have an antenna technology developed from graduate school, that has many benefits over existing mature technologies. But I'm having difficulty figuring out the best starting market (lots of markets use antennas) and best strategy (sell product or license).

The military is very interested and I have a bunch of grants that are coming through but would like to develop a commercial/consumer application for derisking.

Any advice on go-to market strategy would be appreciated.
Paying in terms of write units adds so much complexity to what would otherwise be dead simple code.

Normally, you just write to a data store until it's done. The faster the disks the less time it takes.

Now, writes can "fail" so you need to wait/retry or put it back on a queue to reprocess when you have write units available (both of those and the associated logging will cost you $ on AWS).
ah jeez better tell all my friends that we aren't actually friends since I don't have facebook...
Most operating systems default to using Privacy Extensions which will cycle your address at frequent intervals, unless you specifically disable it.
I doubt anyone cares about efficiency or I wouldn't find people storing IP addresses in JSON, as text. Unnormalized too, so IPv6 is almost guaranteed to be broken.
Please, show LIDAR that can create decent realtime 3D map of the environments for "around $100".
You can do the same thing with v6, the difference is problem space. TLS is about the client and the server upgrading while IP is about every box inbetween as well. If you look at TLS and HTTP version changes when the inbetween infrastructure is involved (even just a single corporate FW, not the whole path) you're held to legacy versions just the same as IP is held to legacy versions.

Eventually some protocol is the bottom of what a group agrees to speak rather than individuals and that protocol has a completely different set of deployment issues than abstraction layers that can be built between end stations at higher levels.
> The party that is out of IPv4 addresses needs IPv6.

That party is not an ISP though. An ISP is interested to provide IPv4 internet no matter whether there is IPv6 or there isn't.
> so they're supposed to give you a chance to pick up your litter to avoid the fine but some don't do that.

That seems like an ineffective mechanism. Just litter and pick it up in the very rare cases where you get called out.

If I were council dictator for a day, I would make the fines stiff and immediate but require that 100%^1 of the revenues are refunded to all residents at the end of each year.

That way there's still a stiff disincentive to littering, but no significant incentive for abusive/dishonest enforcement.

[^1]: (perhaps sans some low and more importantly fixed amount to cover enforcement costs)
Does it still consume vast amounts of CPU and memory? A few years back I used it on a few hundred GB and it almost constantly used 1-2 CPU cores. On the server it racked up thousands of CPU hours, i.e. it cost real money to run.

Apart from that I don't recall any major problems - which is very positive for anything related to file synchronization.
That's bad reasoning. Every dollar you give helps people. What other people do doesn't affect that. So, yes, hypocrisy. You just don't want to pay more.
> A lot of people want OTHERS to pay more in taxes

If "a lot of people" is simply the 99.9%, and "Others" are the super rich 0.1%... I'm pretty sure the 99.9% would massively benefit... and the "others" would probably still be extremely rich.
It’s strange how they celebrate going to the moon and yet most of their citizens still don’t know about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protes...
Then you wouldn't sign in to sync. They wouldn't have your data. What was your point again?
I don't understand how an article about writing less code would recommend adding more code to avoid comments.
I like the concept. It sounds like a modern take on some of the plan9 ideas. Decoupling of system components into components that work together through a message passing framework.
> The populace might think they're right around the corner technologically, but there's a lot of obstacles, both technical and human that make it pretty unrealistic.

And let's not forget regulatory/legal obstacles. Even if we convince doctors and patients of the benefits of AI in healthcare we still have to teach the old farts in Washington what AI is, what AI isn't, and convince them it isn't dangerous. Anyone who watched the Facebook hearings can see how steep that learning curve will be.
Is this a good thing to use to, say, keep two git repo checkouts in sync between a laptop and dev server, to avoid the need to do "deploys" for hacking/testing? Or is that overkill?
Dear Mr. Millionaire,

As someone with a significant amount of wealth, you have the option to spend it entirely on yourself. For example, you could have consumed all of it already, enjoying non-stop parties, expensive toys, buying the temporary, albeit intense, adoration of an entourage etc. Thank you for not doing those things.

Instead, you have invested this capital. You have put it into a variety of investments, each with their own risk-reward profile. I am hopeful that as you grow wealthier, you will become more charitable, both by donating more wealth to help others, and also by accepting a lower rate of private return (or higher private risk) for investments that have a bigger social return (e.g. biotech investments, space exploration, etc). Even there, I hope you exercise some prudence and a portfolio approach, since it doesn't help anyone ex post if you lose all your money developing an invention that doesn't work.

In the meantime, we (society) are grateful for your concern, but would probably rather that you did not dump more money into our tax coffers. If you want to give money to the people, give money to the people, Give Directly style.

And if you still feel that the government is necessary to solve some of the problems that are bothering you, spend it instead to incentivize better government, or to design and build a government that allocates each tax dollar more efficiently as the years go by.

Thank you.
Most common routers and systems will automatically register and resolve names automatically on the local network. Plus there's zeroconf on top of that. You don't need to manually edit bind zone files for your local network unless you really want to.
> Almost nobody ACTUALLY want to pay more in taxes.

That's a silly conclusion.

I'll gladly vote for a policy measure that benefits a group of people at the expense of a group of people among which I find myself.

But I won't vote for a policy measure that benefits a group of people at the expense of just myself and nobody else. In that case, I would prefer a straight up donation of my own choosing. As such, this Danish bank account would see no money from me.
The idea the governments spend money productively is mind bending and against everything I see every day in the United States. Go figure, maybe it’s different in Europe, but I can’t imagine that people who can’t make it in the private sector—and that’s really all government is, people who otherwise can’t make it in a competitive market environment—would somehow be efficient and productive in the public sector.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5030/

Personally I’d rather the rich hoard wealth than pay taxes and thereby justify the idea that planned command economies lead to anything good.
Consumer IOT devices really should be peer to peer so it just works without the manufacturer having to deal with security issues on the server side. And because there are two types of IOT providers, those that don't want your data nor the security headaches that entails;those whose business model is about spying on people.
That’s one way of looking at it. Here’s another way.

Consumption is what drives the economy, not investment. You can invest all you want in a giant rubber duck factory, if nobody wants to buy giant rubber ducks your investment will be worthless. Investors either gamble where demand will occur or create it artificially through marketing, but in neither of those circumstances is consumption the direct result of investment.

The last thing you should tax is consumption, since it is the fuel for all other economic activity. Less consumption, less everything else. Also, taxing consumption tends to be a regressive tax policy in practice, which leads to economic inequality and reduced quality of life.

IMHO what should be taxed is income in all forms, whether out of labor or out of investment, since that’s the most fair. Consumption should not be taxed. Additionally tax rates should be progressive since there are many engines of inequality in the economy and we need a bit of counterbalance to that.
> For the last couple of years we now have a mature market for IPv4 addresses.

Which highlights the utter failure of v6 - people are willing to pay for access to technology that v6 was supposed to make obsolete over a decade ago.
Sounds a bit like QNX actually
I have nothing but applause and kudos to add here, they are really deserved. Syncthing is fantastic.
OK. I'm a hypocrite. I do vote for higher taxes on myself and others. So I guess the last sentence you wrote isn't entirely correct.

You do realize that people do seemingly contradictory things, right? And sometimes have overtly contradictory beliefs relative to their actions. As Saint Paul referenced; the thorn in his side.

My beliefs versus my actions in this instance is an aspect of the free rider problem. Look it up.
> The .bss segment has been zeroed, for obvious reasons, since the advent of modern linkage.

For your amusement: in the Linux kernel, at least on x86, .bss isn’t initialized when the kernel is loaded. Instead, the kernel memsets it to zero a little later. I don’t know why.

Also, because all this stuff predates any concept of security, there is no read-only equivalent of .bss in most systems, meaning that you get suboptimal code for:

const int i = 0;
Class of 2019: artists and writers whose works have entered the public domain
> https://youtu.be/Mj3thHKeKyg

This was entertaining. Thanks for posting it.
Your example is not analogous to medicine - there is consistent and highly specific naming conventions for a reason
Almost nobody ACTUALLY want to pay more in taxes.

I don’t want to pay more taxes. I want myself and those in my peer group to pay more taxes. Your referenced experiment proved little other than that a few of the Dutch don’t understand game theory (or are just really philanthropic).
In my view this author falls into the camp of people calling C++ a mess because it gives them too much control when they ask for it. One of his examples which he calls "The Abyss":

#include <iostream>
struct A {
A(std::initializer_list<int> l) : i(2) {}
A(int i = 1) : i(i) {}
int i;
};
int main() {
A a1;
A a2{};
A a3(3);
A a4 = {5};
A a5{4, 3, 2};
std::cout << a1.i << " "
<< a2.i << " "
<< a3.i << " "
<< a4.i << " "
<< a5.i << std::endl;
}

which outputs:

1 1 3 2 2

he claims to be mysterious but is actually pretty reasonable.

In the case of:

a1: There is no initializer list in the variable declaration, so ctor 2 is called.

a2: An empty initializer list should reasonably behave like a default constructor, and a default constructor should be more efficient than processing an initializer_list, so ctor 2 is called. In general, the constructor with the matching number of arguments and correct types is preferred over initializer_list constructors. Makes sense, being able to specialize on number and type of arguments is more powerful than a design where a single initializer_list ctor invalidates all other ctors.

a3: No list, ctor 2 is called.

a4: Non-empty init list and no specialized non-init-list ctor, so ctor 1 is called.

a5: Several-variable init list and no overriding 3-variable constructor with matching types, therefore ctor 1 is called.

Complex? Maybe, but that's what you get with C++: very fine control of program semantics, benefit being expressive libraries. No other language fills this niche that I'm aware of.

I agree that C++ isn't a good language to teach in a CS 101 class. But no other single language is good either. The goal of CS 101 is to not make students give up before they get hooked, and that can happen because the material is too challenging or not challenging enough. For people in the former category, give them a scripting language and visual feedback, like Lua + Garrysmod. For the latter, give them assembly, haskell, C, C++ (teaching it like "C with templates" not "C with classes").
It never has for me, and I've got some large sync'd dirs (~70GB being the largest). Been using it for several years and it's great.
If I understand what the Loop is, then I know what endwhile does.
It seems a really optimized and simple library to transfer nested objects to clients and powerful way to retrieve information.

I am curious to know how it will evolve.

I am kind of tired of feather and react...
I'm not exactly clear on what you're looking for.

Reducers, by definition, take two parameters: the current state and the action. They should return an updated state based on those two inputs only. The `payload` field is simply a common convention for consistently putting the "arguments" or "data" for that action type at a known key in the action each time.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "calling actions should wrap `dispatch` inside of them".
> clicking around a site, waiting for server responses, when nothing has changed

> flip the script and notify the client, rather than the client clicking around, uselessly consuming resources?

What are they clicking on that is being useless? Are you putting buttons on your page making requests for no reason?

When its server side you send them a mostly-static page with a bunch of links or submits to make more requests with. All those requests are for either sending data back or getting something new off the server. If your use case would involve a lot of user generated input in a streaming fashion then yes, SPA client side programs are th way to go, but if all you are doing is throwing mostly-static CRUD applications you aren't getting an efficiency advantage dumping all the data on the user at first request and then hoping to only get one response of everything they want changed later. You're burning a ton of client memory and CPU cycles to do work you could have done more efficiently with page caching on your end anyway.
This looks great! I was thinking more on the lines of writing and adding custom components by myself. It'd help in cases which require more nuance or components like sidebars or parallax divs which the current library is missing. This is just a passing thought though.
Not really. Many parts of standard intelligence tests are pattern matching. In many cases the patterns can be generated and verified algorithmically and the number of elements as well as time limits are varied. The maker of the test would not necessarily do well on it.

In general, detecting and analyzing an ability does not require the ability that is being analyzed.
I like that sort of thing because otherwise I never see my background image. Being able to see what’s behind a window through correct transparency does have usability features, though.
Last time I used syncthing was couple weeks ago v. 0.14.54 and it's still hit or miss for me in terms of upload speed. Whenever I'm sharing something with friends the upload speed is completly random from 1Mbit to 20Mbit(my max upload speed).
I didn't figure out how to debug this issue but I've tried even running my own relay just in case but that didn't solve it either.
What does this even mean? I know what all of these words mean, but I can’t for the life of me understand what you’re even saying here.

Pretty odd.
Global poverty rate drops to record low 10%: World Bank
Adnan Khashoggi is a different person who happens to have the same surname. The title is referring to Jamal Khashoggi.
little of column a, little of column b
Function calls have clutter overhead.
No. I write sufficient code for what is required of said function at that moment in time. It is only if and when required would I then add any additional parameters and code to that function. Or write new functions.

I'll add that sometimes the more general solution also happens to be the simpler one, and in that case you should always take the simpler one even if it's more general, because then you have both the advantage of simpler code now and flexibility for future change.

To put it succinctly, "increase generality only when it decreases complexity."
You’re really displaying your total ignorance of medicine now - our anatomical naming conventions are highly specific.
Anterior, superior, distal, medial, ... hell, even phalanx means finger. Your lack of knowledge is causing you to make very general assumptions about the teaching and learning of medicine that are incorrect
People are not that mobile yet! A lot of people now wish to be more mobile and Upwork "thinks" half the existing jobs are being remote in 15 years. Though they have a huge incentive to be massively biased.