skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They're way better than what came before (like PS/2 plugs, those connectors with the dumb screws (DB9 and such), etc.).

Edit: I can't post a reply to the comment below me because HN thinks I am posting "too fast", so here's an update to more thoughts I had on this:

It's also age because USB-A is like 20 years old or more. Back then you didn't plug and unplug USB stuff as often, but today we use it as a charging port more or less, so it's use-case was different when it was designed. Look at USB-C which is for today's "plug and unplug often" use case, it's fucking awesome for that. USB-A was more of a "this is mechanically better than DB9 or whatever" connector than a "this thing is intended to be transitioned at least 20 times per day" connector.
+1 to this, doesn’t really matter how vague the push is so long as someone is putting the monkey on my back. There’s always some stress but it’s infinitely better than no push and I always learn loads in the process.
The Tivo option: prerecord streams and strip out ads.

I will tell you why the VCR was different: TV shows didn’t play on demand, so you had a legitimate reason to record stuff.
No, if you mean ceramic or stone tiles for floors or walls. I spent a bunch of time digging into this when I bought my current house because I initially could not believe that these were unobtanium and that custom cutting would be the only way to install such a pattern in my bath.

In short, there are 2 reasons for this. The first is that at the physical scale required for the nifty aperiodicity of the tiling to be apparent in a typical home (<= ~100cm^2 or 16 in^2, aka the areal size of a "standard bathroom tile" in North America,) tiles are typically sold and installed not individually but in mats of many tiles adhered to a backing webbing. This is not possible with an aperiodic tile pattern where the pattern does not, by definition, repeat predictably.

So that's the first reason: practicality.

The second reason is exactly what you might expect if you have been around the sun more than 2 dozen times: Roger Penrose is notoriously litigious. He patented the aperiodic tilings he "discovered" in the late 70s, but famously sued Kimberly-Clark for making toilet tissue with one of these tilings in the 90s claiming copyright violation - and won. Even though the patent is long expired, copyright lives longer.

Ironically, given that the infringing bog rolls were almost certainly roller-embossed, Kimberly-Clark's Kompetent Counsel seems to have missed a trick - their expression was NOT strictly a Penrose tiling as they are, by definition, aperiodic. You can't emboss a continuous Penrose tiling from a roller.
People don't act against their self-interest unless deceived. There are misleading ads that are immoral like "payday loans can get you out of debt", but the vast majority of ads (that I see) are informational, like "store X is having a sale". That's just giving me information to make a decision about ("$N is a reasonable amount for me to spend on this thing I didn't previously want").

I could make a similarly wrong blanket statement about news articles. "The news is fundamentally about misleading you into believing something against your interest". I could make a blanket statement about conversations between two people. "Listening to someone talk is letting them manipulate your brain into thinking something it wouldn't without this prodding". There are deceptive ads, news articles, and people, but you don't have a good moral argument against all ads, news articles, or people.
I don't think this is true. Forbes says 67% of their list is "self-made", meaning they're a 6-10 on the 10 point scale defined here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2018/10/03/the-forbe...

As you can see, only a 9 or 10 should really count as coming from significant disadvantage. Mark Zuckerberg is an 8 on the scale (where 10 is most disadvantaged), and I think we can all agree he did not claw his way out of poverty. I'm having trouble finding overall numbers for each rank, but I'm certain 9s and 10s are not a majority of this list if 6-10 is only 67%.
That depends though on what you are looking for. In movies, most of the 1/10 reviews I saw were along the lines "I hate this kind of movies and hated this one too" (then why have they watched it) or "this movie pushes some ideas I don't like so I disregard everything else and give it shit rating".

For applications, there are lot of 1 star reviews in line of "the author did not translate this into my language so 1/5" or "I used this in a completely wrong manner and I failed".

For physical goods I mostly agree. Especially on Amazon if I see an item with a very controversial distribution I assume that half of the shipped products are fakes which Amazon lets slide.
> Imagine working on a 'feature' like this for weeks or months, and the end result is simply that people who don't want to see ads now have to see ads.

It's not so much different than patching an hole in your payment system to make sure it can't be bypassed. I sure don't want to have to pay for plenty product, yet it's perfectly valid for them to expect to get paid. Same goes for ads, it's the cost to use that product, whether you like it or not.

It's a sad state to be where people works so hard to not have to pay. I agree that's an awful usage of a developer time, but the same apply to a payment system.
Indeed.

And the fact that requests for Elsevier stuff have "not increased correspondingly" implies that using Sci-Hub has become routine and unremarkable.
Marketing Ideas for Video Production Companies
Airbnb has its own risks, which you multiply by having many, many, many times more people going through your place, and not caring about it like a home.

There's also far more overhead in terms of managing it.
It's astonishing that this method isn't previously widely known and used. It's so simple once you see it.
> John Carreyrou wasn't an expert on phlebotomy or biochemistry. Roger Lowenstein wasn't an expert on hedge funds or technical finance. Eric Schlosser on nuclear command and control? Nope. Woodward and Bernstein and constitutional law? Not so much!

So, your argument against a rule of thumb - a broad, sweeping heuristic never meant to account for all possibilities, and by definition not to account for outliers - is that outliers exist?

Well, I readily grant you: every rule of thumb, ever, has failed miserably at accounting for outliers.

Seeing as how the post you're addressing was written how to triage the endless flux of books given finite time, I rather think their point was, you know, how best to handle the general case - not the outliers.

Rather like, "I will never read fiction whose cover is a sexy lady in all leather holding a knife and leaning on a motorcycle." It's not only likely, but certain, that that will end up excluding really good fiction. But, playing odds on where to devote my time, it's a better bet to avoid such books than not, given my reading preferences.

And I'm very comfortable with the rule that "non-experts attempting to digest and relate complex topics will tend to (a) not be experts, and thus (b) misunderstand, and (c) relate that misunderstanding to their readers, on average, and certainly are far more likely to than relevant experts." E.g., Malcolm Gladwell, who has an excellent reputation for his writing, just so long as you're not familiar with any of the things he writes about. Or 99% of pop-sci books ever written on the topic of quantum physics.
In my daily routine, the thought of printing anything for work seems peculiar.

Anything I have to read that's more than 2-3 pages always gets printed. Especially if it's non-trivial.
I'm assuming he's using the Kragle.
Someone has something. Many people could benefit from them letting someone else do something with it. They don't want to. Where is the difference?
I definitely think the idea of nostalgia with music is complete BS. I've met way too many younger people who prefer music from well before they were born (60s-90s); the music after the 90s really is different from what came before, due to various factors that affected the popular music industry in America (and the west) starting with the rise of the internet. The "loudness wars" are one obvious thing setting newer music apart from older music.
I'm also really fascinated with the lineage of programming languages, and have drawn up some trees myself. Though nothing this comprehensive! In my tree, I put a lot of the dynamic interpreted languages as lisp descendants. I think its reasonable to call lisp a major influence in the development of JavaScript, Ruby, Python, and even Perl (though it does draw harder on unix shell influences). I put Java and C# as C++ descendants, as I feel the C++ style of OOP (as opposed to the Smalltalk style) is a major part of those languages.
We don't have enough money in the supply to provide $1m to everyone annually.

UBI isn't a money-printing operation. It's a redistribution scheme. The money supply is fixed, but some of it is scraped off the top of the mountain and used to fill in the valley below.

Yes, there would be inflation as a result. But not as much as the median increase in income.

Say that gallon of milk is $5 today. UBI increases all incomes by $10,000 a year. Milk may rise to $5.50/gal (10% inflation), but the median income would have risen something like 25%.

UBI might still be a bad idea, or have unintended consequences, but they're going to be more subtle and indirect than hyperinflation.
Seemed like a dubious claim, so tried to find a source and found this old article:

Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'?
https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

Trimming a lot:

"United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says

- 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background...

- 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member.

- 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

- 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

- 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list."

So less than 35 percent would be coming from poverty, if this study is to be believed. This is for the 400 billionaires list though.
Yeah, I think in some ways I've also adopted a sort of bimodal approach:

* If it's a somewhat technical topic, go straight for the textbook/papers. If you don't understand them, you won't understand them any better from reading the "pop" material. If it's too complex (say, quantum physics), walk back and get acquainted with more basic material.

* If it's not technical, e.g. popular non-fiction books, listen to a (couple) podcasts. If it sounds like there's more to it than the 5 bullet points the author keeps repeating, get the book. That doesn't happen very often.
Despite the rampant reporting by the media about US companies not paying their "fair share" of taxes, as of 2017:

"The biggest taxpayer was the most profitable: Apple, which reserved $15.8 billion for income taxes on $59 billion in operating income. Apple reports its effective tax rate as 25.8%"

I think it's time to end this falsehood about Apple as I constantly see it posted on HN.
Yes, the value is that they make money from it through ads.
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."

Gordon Comstock - George Orwell's protagonist in Keep the Aspidistra Flying
The overwhelming bulk of Spotify's revenue comes from paying customers, not advertisers. And for those who are too cheap to simply subscribe, the majority of "ads" are pleas to subscribe (because selling advertising is not the business they want to be in).

The GP's claims are nonsense, discounted by the most cursory investigation. Trotting out some tired rhetoric about advertisers being the real customer to explain away an unwillingness to pay the most trivial of amounts is just embarrassing for everyone. It's especially ironic given that so many are both trying to justify not paying for a worthwhile service while also trying to justify ripping off the same service because...ads, or something.
I don't know about the Forbes list, but it seems the share of wealth being inherited is pretty high & increasing at a good clip:

On the Share of Inheritance in Aggregate Wealth: Europe and the USA, 1900–2010 http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2...
> The framing of the article's headline is bad.

Vice's view of politics is always like a naive high school kid who hasn't ever had a real job or read a single book on economics. Which probably accurately describes their (largely freelance) 'journalists' or more accurately bloggers.

Makes for good clickbait for their demographic though. In an ideal world they should really have stuck to fashion and culture (which their 'talent' is good at) and left the serious topics to people who have a strong grasp of the subjects. But that's boring and doesn't generate outrage on social media aka clicks -> ad views.
Distilling everything into such simplistic and disingenuous examples like "humans as money machines" is never productive, and a rather poor way to argue against thinking more intensively about a subject.

Facebook provides value for billions of people as evidenced by their usage. They don't pay so ads are a trade-off. There's nothing inherently wrong with that unless you have a problem with how business works. And yes, a company that is one of the 10 most valuable in the world has a wide range of roles and there are infinite reasons why someone would work for them.
Then check out the "A very Short Introduction To ..." series from Oxford University Press.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=oxford+very+short+introduction+se...
I do not think we have a moral obligation to eliminate the suffering of animals. Reduction of it is always preferable but sometimes not feasible. Take from that what you will.
>Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance.

Yes, this is the case in the UK.[1] Public sector spending for 2019 is around £842 billion for the UK. £256 billion is spent on "social protection" and €166 billion on public healthcare. That's 18-19% of the total budget being spent on healthcare. Keep in mind though that healthcare in the US would be much more expensive. US healthcare workers earn more compared to GDP per capita than UK healthcare workers.[2] I think it would be rather likely that healthcare such as this would rival social security in terms of cost if it applied to everyone.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-docum... - under section 1.7

[2] https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-do...

>First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right?

I think it's likely that it will increase, but now the government has more of angle to argue why they should have the right to control your behavior.

>Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that.

Most people don't want to be told that they're not allowed to eat X, because a bureaucrat living a thousand miles away says it's bad for you, especially when the evidence isn't stellar. It also allows for corporations to lobby harder on laws around people's habits.

If the government finds that using "a screen" for more than 8 hours per day is bad for you, you probably wouldn't like it if the government would now argue that they should be able to monitor your usage of screentime and potentially penalize you in some way, right?
Hey Fellow LIC resident!

I largely support the deal because, as far as I can tell, only $500m is actually specific to amazon, the rest of the tax credits come from existing programs that apply to all businesses. I would prioritize revoking preferential treatment to banks and luxury developers before trying to improve this particular deal.

That being said, I think Amazon should be pressured to make additional concessions relating to public transit, specifically because that's the greatest factor in their ability to hire. I actually think CBTC did wonders for the 7, it's now more reliably and regular than any other line I've ever lived on (A/C/E, B/D/F/M, 4/5/6, and the unspeakably awful G)
maybe the title should have been top 100 Mediterranean/European foods
This method does seem limited. I have read some of the best nonfiction books from Journalists over the last few years: Vance's biography of Musk, Stone's biography of Bezos and the books from Issacson including Job's biography. Author's missing all these NF books due to his disdain for the journalists.
I find that avoiding ads isn't avoiding wanting to pay for a product.

It's avoiding wanting to be a product.

If my attention has value, then I get to determine what that value is.

It's a sad state to be where corporations work so hard to steal people's time, attention and privacy and give them as little as possible in return.
Zoning trumps economic forces. Local citizens are exerting their rights over their community, which they’re entitled to do.

These are hard problems to solve, I readily admit.
Sort of, but not really. To give a random example, look at Philip Roth book covers.
Yeah that used to happen in decades past - but as a tactic is basically apocryphal by now.

Basically in a gentrifying market (i.e. the very properties "they" are after) that tactic (even if you could pull it off these days) isn't applicable.
There is a different way to look at it. If you accept that you meet the definition of consciousness, and can derive a definition of what characteristics you possess that would satisfy the definition for another bein to be similarly conscious to you then that definition is at least rational. True, we may not be able to apply that definition to specific humans, robots, or other beings but the definition is a rational measure of the answer.

For me consciousness is an emergent property of language that possesses the concept of a self as opposed the the external world. Other things like sensory perception or a concept of a body are better described as awareness. This distinction allows us to say that a cockroach or robot are aware but not conscious because they can respond to their environment but not self reflect on that data as they have no narrative structures to use.
> FWIW it sounds like it's not even a working factory any more.

In that case it falls into the derelict site grey area and genuinely wasteful, not providing any real worth even to the current owner's whims.
Good on Apple. But people are uneasy because it sounds like a old medieval story about a noble family rewarding a random peasant that did one of them a boon. The modern trappings are different, but the story is the same. It's great that the peasant got a fine pair of oxen, but why don't all the peasants in the kingdom have oxen to farm with in the first place.

That's not Apple's fault, but it shows how we live in a modern aristocracy, built on finance and lines of capital instead of noble bloodlines.
I thought people owned the first 500 feet of airspace above their property. Also that's a very expensive solution.
If you read Gareth Stedman Jones' biography of Marx, it's very clear that there was a persisting shortfall between whatever income Marx acquired via journalism - which was, in any case, fluctuating - and the outgoings of his family. He depended upon regular support from Engels, among others.
it's a free service and they need to make money, so they need ads to survive.
But I meant ... aside from eminent domain.
Musicblocks: A programming environment for children interested in music
A lot of apartment buildings have opened on Dexter. I used to live there and got a renewal for significantly cheaper after paying $2200. (I ended up moving anyways because SLU is a giant dead zone.)

Everybody was offering not only cheaper rent, but concessions (1-3 months free). Supply has finally outpaced demand.
A GitHub user is taking over dozens of domains they don't own via GitHub Pages
TL;DR — A user named haxorlife took over 65 domains today, by exploiting a security flaw in the custom domain configuration in GitHub Pages.

Earlier today, my GitHub Pro subscription expired. I let it expire, because a month ago, I decided to downgrade to the Free plan. I downgraded because a month ago, GitHub announced that Free plans would have unlimited private repositories. However, there was a detail I didn't catch. On the Free plan, you can have Pages on a public repo, or a private repo without Pages. But you can’t have Pages on a private repo. So what happened when my plan downgraded this morning? My GitHub Pages configurations got quietly deleted. No warning was given. My websites just disappeared. I only learned about it with an alert from Keybase.

In the time between my sites getting deleted, and my discovery, a GitHub user by the name of haxorlife created a repository at https://github.com/haxorlife/iosref.com, named after one of my affected domain names, iosref.com. And they configured iosref.com as the custom domain for that repo. So when I went to my website, I was suddenly faced with "pwned by FA Haxor [!]".

It turns out that GitHub doesn't require proof of ownership in order to set a custom domain. (Other services like Gitlab require proof via a TXT DNS record.) Worse yet, if I try to re-add my own domain to my repository, I'm shown the error: "The CNAME iosref.com is already taken." And the support page only says: "If you don't own the repository that contains the CNAME file with your custom domain, try to contact the owner and ask them to update their custom domain."

There are 65 repositories owned by haxorlife with identical contents, which means that up to 65 domains are affected by this one user. I personally deleted my GitHub-related DNS records for my domain, and later moved my site to DigitalOcean. If you have an affected domain, I urge you to do the same. I contacted GitHub support four hours ago, but haven't heard back yet.
> "Plug in the cable face-up."

What's the face? Which way is up? Can't you see that these descriptions don't work?
Is there evidence that actually occurs in NYC?
I've been trashing Windows for ages too, but there's a big difference here: people who really want to run some particular (usually proprietary) software generally have to use Windows to do that, and Windows has a lock on non-Apple computers for that and for many other reasons.

Spotify doesn't have any kind of lock on music. The Apple fans are all using Apple Music, after all, and there's lot of other choices out there. Ditching Spotify isn't going to affect your life or digital device using in any significant way.
You can't really logic-puzzle your way out of 'if you are unfamiliar with books written by journalists, you're not in a good position to make worthwhile pronouncements on books written by journalists'. It's not even an interesting thing to try and dispute.