skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Profitable by EBITDA could be profit of $1.

Current valuation? Who knows, but I see ~$30B being mentioned in a few media reports.

Assuming that AirBnB eventually becomes an enormous, stable, established company with a P/E ratio of ~15, that would mean ~$2B in profit per year.

Will be interesting to see if they achieve that!
Where do you live that you can get a "nice" entrée for $13? That's what McDonalds costs here...
Are there British politicians brave enough and capable of becoming PM ... and willing to say "This is a bad idea and I won't do it?"
I don't think this is quite "whataboutism" (and no, that's not what you said, either), but if I were to speculate about your parent post's intent, it looks like they're suggesting that many more governments than the Chinese are doing this sort of thing, and any solution to this class of problem needs to take in the larger landscape.
A possible explanation for why one would participate in a lottery:

What if $5 per week for the rest of their life doesn't impact an individual's standard of living, but $10 million would drastically improve it?

Does it then make (more) sense to participate?
> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction.

how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doing things that only hurt themselves?
> completely slowed down my senior engineers
> if my engineers were more enthusiastic and proactive

You should definitely get rid of all of them. They're holding you back. Free them to pursue other opportunities, because it's obvious that you would be taking over the world if you weren't hamstrung by lazy, coddled, overpriced, whiny complainers. After all, even if you don't have the budget to offer what the absolute best and brightest might command somewhere else, I'm sure that the most talented engineers would jump at the opportunity to work for and with a true visionary like yourself.
Then that's what we get. There's no guarantee of a good outcome: if the majority of people want to do stupid things, a democracy will let them.

In such a case we'd probably be fucked regardless of what form of government we had. A dictatorship, monarchy, or oligarchy lets a minority of people do stupid things, and if you have a majority, it's fairly likely there is a powerful minority contained within them.
...and keep asking until you get the answer that truly answers the will of the people?

Could you make the same argument that people voted yes for multiple reasons?

I think it’s difficult to see an outcome where a single referendum would be sufficient to solve all doubt.

Especially with three options, if no option has majority would you stick with original referendum? Or not exit?
Hey Chris, glad to hear that is an internal focus!

I hope for the sake of the Internet that one day discussions about privacy aren’t needed because it’s the default everywhere. Then everyone wins. :)
Too true. Sites like 99designs might deliver something useable, but working with somebody that knows their stuff will pay dividends.
It stretches credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the UK reneging on all its existing commitments to the EU in a fit of jingoistic pique whilst suffering the consequences of not having properly prepared for that outcome is a situation likely to lead to the EU offering more favourable trading terms.
how did we convince Trump to do that?
Here's what happens next:

- A motion of no confidence has been tabled and will be debated and voted on tomorrow

- If the motion carries (i.e. the Government loses):

1. Theresa May must resign as Prime Minister

2. There can be a 14 day window in which a new government is formed, which must be approved by a motion of confidence. This is likely to be waived

3. There will be a general election. Theresa May will remain leader of the Tories. The Tories will lose

4. Corbyn will then seek a deal that retains customs union. This is likely to take time, so he will likely seek a delay from Parliament on Article 50 for such a deal to be agreed

5. We leave with a customs union probably in Autumn of 2019

- Most Tories know this, so will support the PM in a vote of no confidence, and the Government may win it. In that scenario:

1. Theresa May stays Prime Minister

2. She will go back to the EU and demand a new deal, likely with a hard time limit on the NI backstop, the main issue that caused tonight's defeat

3. At the same time, she will ask "senior Parliamentarians" what they would need if that were not possible

4. The only thing that will carry a vote in Parliament right now other than a customs union deal (which she has personally refused to engage with), is a second referendum

5. If the backstop isn't removed, it's therefore quite likely Article 50 is rescinded and a new referendum happens this Summer. It's likely such a referendum will have two questions: Do you wish to leave or remain?; and, in the event of a vote towards leave, would you accept the backstop or would you prefer "No Deal".

6. This will either result in a Remain vote and possibly a civil war (no, seriously), or a Leave vote that risks breaking up the UK with the NI needing to align with the Republic and, so, a civil war but contained to NI, or a Leave deal with support for "No Deal" and a default position of WTO rules

All outcomes have downsides. There is no winning here, and there is no situation in which we get to revoke Article 50 and the UK remains in the EU and all is well. It will leave 17m people in an absolute rage, and they have already murdered one MP. It'll get worse.
> How are referendums brought to a vote?

Parliament votes to have them

> We don't have such a thing in the US.

Well, Congress doesn't choose to have them (separation of powers helps here; the Brexit referendum was very much about electoral strategy in a system where voting for a district legislator is also voting for a particular executive administration.)

> Certain states do, but not the country.

What many US states regularly have is binding referenda with Constitutional force and process; while these may sometimes be of legislative origin, they could do Brexit-style referenda (because of their general powers) but, again, separation of powers kind of eliminates the political use of them, or at least that of Brexit specifically, and a non-binding referenda on a non-profit proposal isn't something that makes a lot of sense outside of very particular political circumstances.
Theresa May's Brexit deal has been rejected by MPs
Tougher stance on relations with United States demanded by Mexican officials
To be precise. I do not in any way believe in perfectly intelligent or omniscient markets. I do believe that large professional financial entities have mastered short-term trading to force things such as margin calls and other behaviors that an individual such as myself has no real tools against. This is what I mean when I say "the house wins" not that the market is in any way always correct. I assert that in any situation where an individual could make a bet, they are inherently competing in an uphill information-and-tool-asymmetry battle against far better equipped entities.

This explanation should be very familiar to those who have frequented groups like bogleheads that drink the indexing koolaid. (I admittedly do, as one could probably tell from the above)
Ask HN: Running your company fully remotely bad idea? ​
Hi HN. Long time lurker here.

An opportunity has presented itself for our company to go fully remote (our last in-house employee left so we have nothing holding us to a physical location any longer).

We are based in a European country and are looking to move the company to Dubai at the same time.
I really want to build this company, yet I'm 30 years old and have not done any serious travelling and seen the world. At the same time, I'd save a lot on taxes.
We need to stay out of our country for at least 5 years to not become income taxed on return. And I think I want to return at some point.

My questions follows;

Are there any HNers here that run their companies completely remote?
What issues have you encountered?
Did you lose a lot of productivity?
Is it harder to grow the company?

I'm a bit scared of feeling rootless. I don't have a partner but I'm a very extroverted person, so I think I should be fine in terms of loneliness? I will be moving around living a few months in different places to start with.

What's your experiences?
​
My friends like to shit on me for eating organic, but it looks like hormones and pesticides lead to weight gain

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=pesticides+obesity

On the flip side, there probably isn't enough land for everyone to eat organic, so it's not a global solution
Theresa May's Brexit deal rejected by 230 votes
May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the Tories have to ally with to get a majority) will never support it. There are other issues with it too, of course, but that's the general gist.
Bungling the split up a union is far better than ignoring the will of your constituents.
I wonder if someone could use this phenomenon to get away with insider trading...
>You're ignoring a massive market for vacation rentals outside of major metropolitan areas that AirBnB has conquered from craigslist.

But it’s still at the end of the day just a real estate play. If AirBnB wants to make another dollar, they have to list another property. They can’t just jack the prices like Netflix because they have serious competition on every front. There’s no services they are launching which will provide the kind of returns that technology investors are looking for. It’s linear growth at best.
It is scary. I probabbly have done many things that someone could misunderstand or misrepresent and .... probabbly could get a lot of people angry at me. Not that I did it, but then once the wave starts I don't think it matters.
What makes this the simplest possible algorithm?
Someone in that state would not likely think to shout into thin air. At that point you operate more on instinct and midlife decision-making inertia.
Wendy's can get you 4 four for four meals at only $16. I say that is a marvel of the modern world
"you can't fly between UK and Europe;"

These problems are temporary - do not believe all the scaremongering. The same goes for the economy. Life well go on for christ's sake.
Frankly, I find so much netflix-shows on netflix, but rarely good movies not produced by them.

I wanted to show my GF Star Wars... but it wasn't on it. Same for James Bond, Die hard 4, Oblivion, MI1, etc.
It's a shame, really. I would gladly pay 20$/month, but in this case, I want ALL available movies, not just some cherry-picked ones.
The problem is, many people wanted Brexit for different reasons. It's easy to find a consensus to the question "should the UK leave the EU". "Brexit" is an abstract, but "single market" and "passports" and "trade deals" and "Ireland" and "Scotland" and "financial regulations" etc are all details that need to be sorted out, and many people feel very differently on them.

It's easy to find a consensus to the abstract question "should the UK leave the EU". It's much harder to find a consensus to the all of these questions when asked together. All the people who wanted Brexit are backing away from May's solution because she needs to answer all of those questions 100% correct for 51% of the population. Any disagreement and the deal is off.
The core of the issue that this deal is a compromise.

It basically saying the UK is leaving the EU, but not really as we still follow EU law. As such it is not acceptable to brexiters.

For remainers, well they don't want leave anyway.

Thus no one supports it.
In Nebraska that'd be about right.
Apple Is United’s Biggest Customer
It's not that the Beatles didn't make stupid movies at that time.
I wanted to know the long-term value of my recurring revenue company. Being a programmer at heart, I wrote a python script that tested out 100,000 random scenarios of customer churn over the next 50 years. This gave me a histogram of future cash flows from the business, allowing me to state with some level of certainty what the range of future cash flow was likely to be.

I was really surprised at how valuable the company is when analyzed in this manner. And there’s no bullshit. You assume a churn rate and randomly try it out over thousands of scenarios.
People abuse Linq a lot though; enormously complex queries over very large datasets without really knowing what you are doing. When people need .Each, some will just do .ToList().Each(. Etc. I found a bigger issue even with abuse/overuse) (or use at all really) of dynamic. I wish there was a way of to ban it at compile time.
Signal v Noise exits Medium
Referring to something from 1996 as an app and a modern web app as a page is a bizarre conflation of terminology.
> Why not just leave major decisions to a committee

We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.
I'm arguing in favor of representative government where elected people decide on what makes the most sense for complex issues. Relying on advice from experts, but ultimately making the call that's in the country's best interest.
Polling has pretty consistently been anti-Brexit for awhile now, once the clear scope of what Brexit entails has actually been better understood. If another referendum were held today it would fail.

Why should a single non-binding vote taken at one point in time two years ago be considered forever irrevocable? Especially considering all of the pro-Brexit fake news and false promises at the time? Most of the promises made by the Brexiteers have turned out to be lies; the UK will not be better off, the NHS will not be better funded, etc. Given how so many underlying rationales for pro-Brexit votes have turned out to be false, of course it makes sense that a different result would be obtained today.
> the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy

Literally, no. The size of the margin is a direct factor in many democratic processes and determines how resilient the decision is to subsequent challenge. Major, foundational changes are rarely decided by simple majorities in one event.

> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same kind of bullshit

You just called some referendums "bullshit". Not very democratic of you. Follow-up referendums are totally valid democratic process, for example because sometimes you have widespread fraudulent claims that are later exposed to be lies. As the public becomes more educated, repolling to verify the public will is absolutely proper functioning and indeed and very essence of democracy.
>>Shell also bought a Dutch company called NewMotion, which makes chargers for electric cars in Europe. They can recharge a battery in 30 minutes.

Problem of charging electric cars solved! Existing gas stations will add 1-2-3-4...-X charges as needed.
From a euro centric perspective Korea is a proxy war. MAD blocks major conflict directly between two nuclear states or states with strong nuclear allies. It doesn’t prevent wars fought in other territories backed by nuclear states (eg Syria)
As a Cultural Anthropologist, I talked about this with other grad students and professors. We concluded it had a lot to do with the disintegration of the nuclear family and proliferation of fast food and a much faster paced lifestyle.

Mother and father are working longer hours with no set office hours, the kids are constantly on the go with athletics, school clubs or after school programs. Nobody has the time to really take the time and prepare a decent meal. Heavily processed food just became a substitute for the time it took to prepare a real meal. Fast food then became a crutch for families on the go even replacing the heavily processed food that replaced the real food people used to prepare.

The end result is kids and parents both eating poorly, heavily stressed at school and at work. They eat poorly, they don't get enough exercise and now they gain weight and other issues that affect their health.

As many people have pointed out in various other threads, in the 50's and 60's people hardly ever ate out, the family dinner was a big deal and most families ate at the same time every day, had set schedules and the kids exercised a lot more (whatever happened to recess??) by playing games, athletics, and using their imaginations.
Probably outside of the US where entrée means starter instead of main course
Tensions were very high in early 20th century Europe. If you're honestly saying this you either have not read history books on the era, or you know something very scary about Merkel that I don't.
It's only a steal if everything you want to watch is on Netflix.

If you want to watch stuff that's not on Netflix, when you start adding in $7.99 for Hulu, $9.99 (?) for Disney, $14.99 for HBO, etc then you're getting into the same price range you used to pay for cable. Netflix used to be a much better deal when it had a much larger movie catalog, but as content owners have cut back how much they are willing to license to Netflix (and/or made it more affordable), it's not such an amazing deal any more.

I'd gladly pay a provider $30/month if they had all of the content that was available. I don't think music streaming would be nearly as popular if you had to subscribe to a half dozen different providers to hear all of the music you want.

It doesn't even have to be a monopoly, providers should set one rate for their content, and others can buy it and monetize it any way they want.
There are two films I want to watch releasing this weekend and season 2 of The Punisher, those alone pay for it for the month, they've had some corkers in the last year - The Ballad of Buster Scruggs was brilliant.

Our house has both Netflix and Prime Video and that about covers me, my partner and the little boy (Trollhunters is fantastic if you have a child in the house also created for Netflix).
> Google is still king at knowing and giving you the exact results you want

Not for me, it's not. The quality of Google search results for me has been falling for years now. These days, DDG and Google are about equally good on that score.

I suspect that it's because Google tries to tailor my search results to what it thinks I'm looking for rather than just giving me the results I actually asked for, and it's really, really terrible at it.
Netflix is the cost of renting The Office and Breaking Bad forever.
I am the first (and so far only) person to bicycle to the South Pole AMA
The newspapers will scream that ranked voting is a conspiracy of the liberal elite to deny the will of the people.
I don't understand her endgame either. Or how she can handle the stress. Her predecessor basically ordered the biggest bowl of shit [1] in the recent history and then bailed out. Now May's job is to eat it all. Masochistic.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ
I haven't tried the script, the documentation says you need PerfView to view the data so I didn't bother running it.

For generating symbols, (I misspoke a bit, I mean downloading them) I'm talking about the native CLR runtime symbols. According to the docs if you want those, you need to use dotnet-symbol and manually download the symbols for the CLR alongside the CLR .so files.
Sometimes they also have multiple listings for the same content at different resolutions.
> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit

Former PM David Cameron put Leave/Remain to a vote, but publicly said he voted Remain. Resigned after the vote results. Theresa May took his place after some debate; she was vociferously pro-Brexit, and looked like the best option if Britain was to act tough when negotiating with the EU. A number of people dropped out of the succession race, gambling that the Brexit hassle wouldn't be worth it.

May survived a no-confidence vote in late 2018, but a number of members of her party have resigned because the deal on the table didn't sync with what's important to their constituents.

There are a number of factors, but May's insistence that net migration would fall to 5 figures was something people expected her to deliver. It's not going to happen.
>Theresa May was initially against building a submarine out of cheese, obviously. Because it’s a completely insane thing to do.

Leaving the EU is not a completely insane thing to do.

The UK (and many other countries) have legitimate grievances about some things the EU is foisting on them (immigration for example) and the EU is giving them the cold shoulder and fining them if they don't comply. Labelling people who are against that as "insane" isn't going to help anybody.
This is spot on.

The "word on the street" among lawyers I knew when the UIGEA[1] was passed in 2006 (which paved the way for black Friday[2]) was that Sheldon Adelson & the Vegas Lobby had pushed hard for this.

The long-term aim, in their opinions, was to capture the online gambling market on a state-by-state basis via regulatory capture, because they had already missed the boat and were being out-competed by Pokerstars et al.

It's no surprise that the regulations in e.g. New Jersey require a "partnership" with a land-based casino.

edit: also, I should note that Vegas probably shot themselves in the foot doing this (at least short-term). Online gambling brought a surge of business to Vegas, and though the recession had a lot to do with it, the banning of online poker definitely hurt them a lot.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg
Literally yes. Some elections right here in the US are decided by as few as a dozen votes, and people accept the results.

> You just called some referendums "bullshit"

You're putting words in my mouth Cathy Newman style here.
Why would colonizing the moon in a self-sufficient way be faster than doing the same thing on Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean? The only thing I can think that would make it faster is that people will romanticize space colonization so much that they will volunteer for a suicide mission.
> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May?

They resigned.

Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary resigned. David Davis who was literally the "Brexit minister" resigned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/theresa-mays-gov...

Here are more people who resigned.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-ministers-who-have-quit-over-...

My view is that these people lied to the public about how awesome Brexit would be. Once it got to the hard work of making it happen they realized how awful the deal would be and how the economy would be harmed. Because they didn't want their name attached to it they resigned.

Some of them are hoping that May will resign and they can become Prime Minister instead.