skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's a similar concept to a Pigovian tax for fines, I think of it as a "Pigovian fine", which is the price at which the likelihood of getting caught times the fine exceeds the cost to pay the tax directly.

So if you have a 1% chance of getting caught, the fine needs to be 101x the tax.

This is why so many e.g. banking and consumer protection fines fail to achieve their goal - the cost of adhering is more than the probability of getting caught times the fine, so it's economically rational to not pay.
A depressed person will find a way to be depressed about religion, eg. obsessing over whether they or others are committing various sins.

I think the problem is a type of thinking deeply ingrained in our culture (and maybe built into the human brain) - the deep desire for things to be different than they are, the critical instinct. You can always find something to dislike about your house, the food you are eating, the movies you are watching, the car you are driving, your coworkers, friends, and family members. People are so good at being critical. Is it any wonder they are depressed when they have a hair trigger to detect the negatives in everything?

Appreciating what you have is a virtue, and you don’t get it automatically - you have to intentionally opt in, deliberately try to think of the positives. The rewards are great and you don’t need religion to get them. Religion won’t even help in many cases where it’s more fear-based.
I believe that your CLI tools are not set up to use your personal VPN - so they default to your company one and get MITM attacked.
The article mentions it.

> There exist several closed-form solutions to Fibonacci sequence which gives us the

> false hope that there might be an O(1) solution. Unfortunately they all turn out to

> be non-optimal if you want an exact solution for a large n.
Such a weird bar anyways. I can binge heroin easier than I can binge a good book. That kind of reasoning celebrates the movement towards skinner boxes and addiction.
The problem with algorithms and such that show you what you're interested in is that sometimes they work.

The math and computers don't care, we have to care unless we want to facilitate just about anything.
> It does make me wonder how credit card companies can possibly keep their lock. I'm guessing they'll try to get everyone else banned?

They offer perks. For example, I use cash-back credit cards for nearly everything, including with Apple Pay. It's like everything I buy is slightly discounted. The travel cards are also really popular. The perks offered by the non-credit payment systems are not as good and usually temporary.

The non-credit based systems are popular in countries where credit card use is less prevalent. Asian countries were largely cash-based until now, so it makes sense that electronic "cash" is the next step.
Shorewall – The End of the Road
This piece makes lots of interesting points.

"If You Watched This Elizabeth Holmes TED Talk From 2014, It Was Clear She Was a Fraud From Day One"

https://www.inc.com/john-brandon/the-truth-about-theranos-ho...

Indeed - lots of fluff and buzzwords, without much substance.
Nothing like this can exist without some money for the owners to maintain and create it. Nothing's free. Why can't people understand this?
More like there's no winning for society when we put incompetent people in power. I don't have any crocodile tears for public officials, my concern is the long-term consequences of the actions of our government(s) and how that affects both us and future generations as societies and people.
Not too shocking, unfortunately, from discussion when the acquisition was annoucned (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18978251), we knew that this was the kind of private equity firm that makes money by buying products with existing revenue streams, and then _not_ investing in them.
(And the corollary, laying off staff you don't need if you're not going to be investing in it, obviously helps your profit margin).

This is kind of how private equity works.

It is sad, I had really liked travis as a product, I don't expect I will be able to continue to.

Travis is just _so easy_ to set up for my basic ruby gem and Rails app projects (I don't want to spend time on setting up CI, I just want it to be done), as well as free for open source -- none of it's competitors have seemed to give me that when I looked before.

Travis, by offering an absolutely brain-dead setup, and giving it away free to open source, really created a revolution in actually doing CI for open source, at least in ruby. Everyone's doing CI now, when few open source projects were before in ruby. That anyone offers free CI for open source at all is probably due to the need to compete with travis. I wonder if it'll stick around.
It's hard for me to understand because after I was about 19 years old, I learned to not trust people who tell me everything I want to hear.
The libertarian answer to this would seem to then be "Excellent; now anti-fascist organizations have an optimized channel to get their message to those people."
Yes, but you would have to pay for it. And convince your friends to also. Actually maybe the subscription model would let you pay for their subscriptions as well.
Email never stopped existing.
> I don't know how Idera is planning to expand upon the acquisition...

I would guess they are not, which is consistent with how they seem to have treated past acquisitions.

I am not sure if a developer-focused integration-dependent tool like CI can continue to consistently bring in a revenue stream without getting much development attention... but I think they're going to find out.
They'll take anyone's money. I got a sponsored ad (meaning Facebook got paid) from a notorious antivax organization, these people: https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/phys...
It's possible to use Binet's formula, too, if you implement the exact arithmetic of ℚ(φ).

φ is the golden ratio and ℚ(φ) is the set of all numbers of the form a + bφ where a,b are rational numbers.

So if you create a class like PhiRational where PhiRational(a,b) represents a + bφ then Binet's formula

Fib(n) = (φ**n - (1-φ)**n) / √5

becomes

Fib(n) = (PhiRational(0,1)**n + PhiRational(1,-1)**n) / PhiRational(-1,2)

I wrote up an implementation in Ruby years ago for some students, along with the implementations listed in the blog post and benchmarking code: http://bit.ly/ruby_binet

Remember φ = (1 + √5)/2, so that the √5 in the denominator can be written as -1 + 2φ (i.e., PhiRational(-1,2)).

When teaching I like showing all these solutions because it throws a wrench in (beginning) students' ideas about how shallow/deep simple exercises can be and the relatioship between math, recursion, efficiency, etc.

A lot of beginning students see the naïve recursive solution as mathematical-but-inefficient and draw the conclusion that the math is nice, but ultimately isn't practical. Then you show them an even-faster implementation using more math and they're pretty surprised.
Not only is this statement extremely funny in its own right, it completely ignores the fact that there was a public dns name too with a clear service name. Maybe that same poor technician also fell over the keyboard too. How extremely unfortunate!
Since you needed to look it up, how about you give the author the benefit of the doubt rather than act so offended?

Now, if the quote had been "Arbeit macht frei" I would understand the outrage, but
to me the English translation sounds more like a reflection of the Calvinist/Protestant work ethic from the time when the saying was minted, at least 100 years before the Nazis rose to power. To some people the quote in itself holds appeal, and why shouldn't it? If read without context it is actually quite inspiring.
That seems like a questionable statistic, considering that something like 20% of Norway's GDP comes from oil and natural gas. Or by "energy sector" do you only mean the energy that is consumed domestically?
OP didn't say it had to be free. You could also have a social network that just displayed ads without any kind of targeting and user-tracking whatsoever.
Per both links:

1) Good Technology was valued at $1.1 Billion.

2) The investors lost money, but the employees lost much more.

-> This is the problem with unicorns.

You've completely missed the point.
Yeah looks like I obviously touched a nerve with some people here I guess?
Fix Sexism in Air-Conditioning, Save the Planet (2015)
Definitely where it helps more people. If I have to make tough choices in order to get there, so be it.

As it stands, I work in online advertising by choice and I love it. It's pretty meaningful to me.

It's the hard choices that really attract me: defence, advertising and privacy, pharma, companies like Monsanto. Hated but worthwhile. That's what I like.
I assumed that you are nearly fit for the Olympics, probably around age 30, because riding slower than traffic would be extremely rude. Most of us are not so athletic, and we don't wish to be extremely rude.

It's like taking a Ford Model T down the left lane of an interstate highway with an 80 MPH speed limit, or like taking a horse-drawn carriage on a US highway, or like flying a WWI biplane into Chicago O'Hare airport. Sure, it is still legal to do so, but it is a terrible idea. People will rightly hate you if you do this.

If sidewalks aren't legal for bicycles, then most of us have no business using bicycles. Because of this, most people in the USA do not use bicycles, and the situation won't be changing for as long as the law prevents sidewalk usage.
The Most Reputable Stack Overflow User
> I don't really understand the fascination/surprise at wework and similar

Image and marketing matters, as much as engineers wish it didn't
Who would pay for that though? And why shouldn't it manipulate? I'm fine with manipulating people. Nudging is okay in my book if you're benevolent and aiming to make people's life better. It's just shit when all you want is to make them buy some product to fill the void you've helped create.
Which isn’t far from an even more secular version of my point. Utopian ideologies often rely upon a superior “master race” or “new Soviet man” who has overcome the perceived imperfections and limitations of nature and who can assume a role in the world to come. In that sense, utopia itself is highly reminiscent of religious ideas, except with the addition of crucial missteps.

The substantive value of the idea that humans are imperfect or “fallen” is to caution against these kinds of expectations in the first place.

And there are real examples of this. It is humanly impossible—not necessarily mathematically or logically impossible, but humanly impossible—to achieve 100% success at any metric in the long run. I can’t design a 100% available distributed system at meaningful scale. An airline can’t have 100% of their planes arrive on time. A basketball player can’t make 100% of his free throws over a meaningful career. People miss, people fall short, people make mistakes, and it doesn’t require religion or Utopianism to imagine even attainable improvements.

So my problem with doing away with the notion of perfection at all is that it goes too far. Will there ever be a world where no part of AWS ever has an outage? Probably not. When the next AWS outage happens, will we be able to imagine, in great detail, a world where that particular outage wouldn’t have happened? That’s the job. And so rather than resigning ourselves to the notion that perfection is meaningless, let’s instead accept that perfection is an unattainable goal. That way we can dismiss the fanatics who demand actually attaining perfection while still admitting to the possibility of improvement.
Love Mr. Cheney, hate stuff like this.

Someone who has put the hours in will probably stray from all of this advice, and still end up with something beautiful. Meanwhile, for all of the other schmoes who haven't put the hours in, this is just more fuel for screeching about how this name isn't right or that comment is too long.

Dijkstra said GOTO was bad, and now we have callback hell and 10-layer inheritance hierarchies instead.
part 5. i’ve got a lot of catching up now.
It's called a pigovian tax, and it's widely considered the most efficient way to deal with these kinds of negative externalities.

For most lower income households, they would actually be receiving a net increase in their income, since they emit less than the mean carbon output.
I'm not sure that's inherently bad. In some ways I think it's useful to divorce the medium from the revenue model, and I think the medium (audio content you can listen do anywhere and any time) might be well-suited to some content that just can't be paid for if the only revenue option is ads (or donors, I guess). Maybe it's too niche, or covers subject matter that isn't advertiser-friendly, or has high production costs (for fiction content in particular I think there's a ceiling to the level of ambition that's possible now because voice talent is expensive), etc. I'm interested to see what kinds of content might be unlocked through experimentation with new revenue models.
Ask HN: How Much Percentage of Shares Does a Tech Co-Founder Usually Get?
I'm in talks with getting into a business partnership with someone as a tech co-founder. My main responsibilities would include leading the product development, planning the architecture and managing a tech team. My co-founder's responsibilities would be to lead the vision, bring in clients for our products and putting in the initial investment required to get things running.

In such a business scenario, how much equity should I expect as a tech co-founder? What other factors should I consider before getting into such an arrangement?
It's Blind. 90% wankage and 10% community wankage.
Tell that to my Brazos GPU that lost capabilities with AMD driver's reboot.

Being open source didn't help at all.
Platform as a Service for Algorithmic Trading
Platform as a Service for Algorithmic trading so that your trading algorithms actually make it to production + live markets and not just get stuck in backtests. https://kloudtrader.com/narwhal
> Ok, so abolish the free market worldwide?

Actually, it'd empower the free market, as we'd have more fair competition. Tax avoidance breeds unfair competition. After all, if your competitor is paying tax while you don't, then you get more profit. More profit allows you to invest more, take more risks, do more R&D, etc.

> Removing incentive structures and high taxation does cause the wealthy to leave.

I never argued otherwise; I argued if we, as humanity, fight this problem on a world-wide level the rich have no place to go.

> It's happening in the U.K. right now.

We're not addressing the problem on a world-wide scale right now (AFAICT), and it'd be a process. Not a one day project. During such a process you'll see a lot of rough edges, like with alpha software.

The response: "the plan isn't perfect" is a straw man. Of course the plan isn't perfect. Of course they can move to the Bahama's, Monaco, or what not. It isn't meant to be perfect; it is meant as a first step in the right direction, after which reflection must take place to continue to tackle the problem.

> They didn't come by their wealth through forcibly taking it from poor people. The free market dictates voluntary exchange of goods and services. They are wealthy through a long series of voluntary transactions with the public.

However if they paid their taxes fair and square they'd have less profit, and the little guy who starts their own company would have an easier barrier of entry. Hence, entrepreneurs (for whom you could argue HN is for) would benefit from this climate. Instead, what we have is a few successful ponies who get bought by the big fish.
> The money men have praises Idera for their new and innovative approach to software development.

Buying something that's already been developed and then not developing it further is a 'new and innovative approach to software development'?
That would at the very least, mean that users would pay a fee to use their product. As of now, as a free product that is the only way to monetize. The internet loves it's free, open products but at the same time, ironically, loves to build products whose founders are billionaires and even raises them to near hero status. It culminates in the users having a pretty terrible experience in the way of manipulation and privacy.
The Impossible Mathematics of the Real World (2017)
I just don't understand why Facebook doesn't provide a subscription option. I would be willing to pay $4.99/month or perhaps a bit more in exchange for no ads and no tracking.

What is so wrong about being able to pay for things?
Am I the only one who doesn't mind the targeted ads on FB? Even from a site I visited recently, it doesn't really bother me. I actually like seeing products I'm interested in as opposed to generic targeting like you have on TV. I've discovered some pretty compelling products this way.
By SV, I meant Silicon Valley. If you work for a big company for many years and you do well, you basically guarantee that you'll have a couple million dollars by the time you're 40.

Similarly with finance, law, medicine. There are many high paying jobs that guarantee you to have a very comfortable life. Entrepreneurs have the opposite. Sure you could be worth 100s of millions but most likely you will lose your money. Or work twice as hard to provide yourself half the salary.
...and? Don't they have categories for every political leaning?
Not married but live with my partner for almost 3 years. I listen to podcasts with headphones on at work especially when doing chores. No complaints, though I'm also not doing it 24/7. I've never thought of podcasts as something to do with someone else . Guess it depends on your relationship?
Phone, email, texting, real life activities? Where did the obsession come from with having to be in real time constant contact with a ton of people who we didn't care about staying in contact with before? Other than a common place to share photos, which existed prior, why?
>And why shouldn't it manipulate?

Why should it? And why not have a social network that just serves up ads that aren't based on tracking/targeting users?
Even in a decentralized/federated network there will always be people trying to mine data for the purposes of advertising and political campaigning. It's human nature to try to take advantage of others for personal and financial gain.
What does it give you though? Just because some behavior could be viewed as equivalent to a "hotfix" for something doesn't mean that the universe is a simulation. And just because the universe is a simulation doesn't mean that it needs hotfixes. I don't even see how it could be considered philosophy, much less physics.
You initially explicitly mentioning capitalism as a system where work as a way of providing meaning is a false premise.

Do you have any systems in mind where work exists to provide meaning?

I have the impression that you are arguing as work as a way of finding purpose in general.

And at that point, the whole discussion becomes kind of pointless.
At my last job we worked in internet tech for radio stations. Most of the station money came from the auto industry. I guess that makes sense since a non-smart radio fits with driving better than touch screens.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, all that to say, it'll probably come from markets that fit how/when/where consumers listen: exercise, entertainment, etc.
It won't be a $100B+ company. And that's important to them.
Wouldn't Goldman be the one holding your purchase data?
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree re: the practicality being limited by message sending limits.

Sister comment says Gmail allows 500 messages to be sent per day. 500 messages/day sent in napkin math = ~20 messages/hour. Per https://www.textrequest.com/blog/how-many-texts-people-send-... , American adults sent 128 or less texts per day in 2018. You can send triple that number & still not hit the Gmail limit.

For other email providers, the limit is even higher. I checked for Fastmail's equivalent daily message limits, and it enables 4,000 or more per day.

For me personally, if I'm going to be doing over ~ 50 sent messages in one day, I'm going to ditch the mobile device and move to a desktop as I prefer a full-size Model M keyboard to touchscreens wherever possible. Most of my awake time is at work or home, where desktops abound.

I don't want to speak for you or others' preferences on this, as admittedly I don't text nearly as much as most of my peers, but I suspect others also at some point reach for a desktop UI, whether native (Signal), electron (Slack), or web-based (FB Messenger / WhatsApp / pick yer poison) for in-depth, non-mobile conversations.
Essentially, it's GNOME. The shell is phosh instead of the GNOME Shell, but you can see from the video that the look and feel is intended to match GNOME Shell.

The default apps will be GNOME apps. You should be able to run other Linux apps just as easily, assuming they fit the touchscreen and CPU architecture.
> What do you do?

Offer the old crypto algorithms as a configuration option, or offer 2 versions of the firmware (standard vs. compatibility). Can't be prohibitively expensive, but isn't necessary when it's in the clear interest of customers not to use these old algorithms.
Sure, that's possible, and won't make as much money. Now you're talking about ethical business practices. Good luck!
Also: now we know who the Nazis are.
Lots of podcasts now use ad-serving platforms that splice in ads on the fly when the podcast is downloaded, so if you listen to old episodes today, you get current advertisers, promo codes, etc.
Mastadon?
On the contrary, UBI would free people to leave the jobs that feel meaningless, and do things they are passionate about.

If the problem is that people need purpose, what better than a system that allows people to find purpose, rather than one that keeps them trapped doing work they hate?
You can see this as damage control while still being excited about Purism's Librem 5 project. Heck, I am excited about the Librem 5 because it supports some ideals I find important. Despite seeing this news post as damage control, I still am excited about the Librem 5.
Interview with Artist Dread Scott