skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm thinking more of Youtube, or Instagram, which dramatically lowered the cost of publishing visual media, or Spotify and other digital download stores, which helped make the cost of publishing music almost nothing (Tunecore, etc). Youtube in particular seems to be flooded with crap
I never used to lock my phone, but with fingerprint unlock the effort went away and so left it on.
So you'll pay $500 for an idea you like, pay $1500 after first customer, and then pay a 20% royalty after that. Seems like a potentially good deal.

Can you elaborate a bit more about what type of projects you are looking for? Any specific markets?
The person who initially invested does. I don't see at all how this is a tax dodge.
I'm not convinced that either the unions or one off actions are doing much.
Who told you that? The word "open" is one of the most overused words in American marketing, and has never been an implicit grant of rights to anyone. People were routinely banned from project mailing lists long before codes of conduct became common, and corporate projects labeled "open" were often completely closed.
I noted in another response, but will note it here as well:

I've had some challenging discussions that have made me rethink how I solve problems, and have resulted in deep dives that I would otherwise not have made. ultimately, that helps me, not just those using the software. so, there's a net positive that's sometimes overlooked.
Sure, and we use software memory tagging with things like LLVM sanitizers. It's great.

But a) the hardware Wasm needs to support doesn't have tagging, and b) the software equivalent requires support from the allocator and has a large performance penalty.

So yes, it was a deliberate design decision, taken in order to support existing C programs on the Web.

This is really getting tiring- learning from the past is great, but fetishizing it to the point of denying anything new has any value is... not.
Premise 5: My expectation is that you don't have anything close to what I would expect -- especially for an 80% share -- so why should I waste my time with you?
Personally I have found it a bit sad that in the recent decade people have been so lured by the wealth and glamour of popular startup culture that we have forgotten the value of being in service to others. To master one’s craft for the benefit of others is an egoless endeavor that enriches the soul and not just the wallet.
I like to imagine people who take medication for social anxieties do so because they managed to get themselves to a doctor and ask for such, then willingly continue to take the medication of their own volition.

Howber, now that I’ve wtitten that it occurs to me there may be expectations in a culture that are difficult to see from within.
> But some of those implementations might be unsuitable for the study, just as (at least) one was, in their case.

Unsuitable because?
That is a reflection on which language you use. I prefer a language where a large majority of bugs are type-related. How about you?
Yes, it is a fascinating interview.

However, it's bugging me how they talk about humans evolving from chimpanzees. That's just bullshit. We have common ancestors, sure. But it's not like chimpanzees closely resemble those ancestors, any more than we do.

And for that matter, I vaguely recall that the Pan-Homo split occurred before Pan split to chimpanzees and bonobos. So it's very misleading to focus on chimpanzees.
How does this compare to scuttlebutt and ssb-git? I know IPFS and ssb are different but conceptually in how data is segmented and distributed?
> The "disproportionate price appreciation of housing and the land it sits on" seems to me to be primarily a factor only in some (maybe most) large cities; outside those cities, price appreciation, perhaps excessive price appreciation, has occurred, but it's nothing like that in those few cities.

But those cities are where "the 1%" live or own property, so they're the beneficiaries of the price inflation, which is precisely the issue. A rich person bought a house in SF for $500K and now it's worth $5M, a middle income person bought a house in Detroit for $200K and now it's worth $200K, a lower income person rented an apartment in SF and saw the increase as an increase in rent rather than an increase in home value.

> Further, my feeling is that real estate appreciation is an effect, not a cause. Consider the 2008 event ("circumstance?" "shenanigan?"): it was purely driven by the financial industry. It had, really, nothing to do with real estate at its core; it was caused by bad financial behavior, and the failure of the real estate market was simply how it was translated out of the finance world into the rest of the economy.

It's more like a mechanism rather than a cause or effect. You make money cheap so people borrow and bid up housing costs. This enriches the existing owners who bought before prices increased, which increases wealth inequality because they were already the ones with the most money.

The problem now is that you can't roll back the clock because transactions have already happened. Richard bought a house for $80K and sold it to Michael for $800K, because Michael needed a place to live and the bank was willing to loan him the money. If you now raise interest rates, the housing prices start to come back down, but Richard already has his $720K profit and the loss accrues to Michael who still has the $800K mortgage, and may now have to start paying higher interest on it in addition to the loss in home value.

As a result the possible solutions start to look weird. Like causing general inflation on purpose to devalue everyone's mortgage debt and allow the price of everything else (including wages) to rise to meet the cost of housing without reducing nominal housing costs which would put too many people underwater on their mortgages, and employing policies like relaxing zoning restrictions to ensure that nominal housing prices don't rise with everything else.
Yay. Another bash on the actually hard sciences such as neuroscience and biology, you know, the sciences that have to contend with complexity.
Further information here: http://www.simonnouwens.com/hn/index.php/2019/03/31/init-com...

After reading that, I'm interested. Emailed you.

Also, to the person who asked about who gets bigger share of equity: as mentioned in the link above, it looks like you get 80%, the OP gets 20%.

Nevermind: It's OP 80%, you 20%.
This doesn't make much sense. A 20% royalty is an absurdly high price to pay for an idea, for which you'd do all the execution; meanwhile, if you expect them to do substantial work as a "co-founder", 20% is absurdly too low.
Having empathy for people who are trying to engage with you constructively while denying it to those who are wasting your time is both very important and incredibly hard, in any circumstance.

> deserve to have the door slammed in their faces

Totally, but you need to (try to) be careful not to slam it in the potentially-helpful peoples' faces. There's one very popular open project that I've moved away from due to getting tired of seeing seemingly every single question/suggestion being met with "you don't like it, start writing some code".

Not to say that my decision not to use that project is significant in any way. I'm just one anonymous person. Just a point that it may be possible to be too aggressively self-defensive.

I totally get that I'm not entitled to anything, and you (maintainer) are entitled to do what you choose with your time. It's just that constantly, repeatedly pointing those facts out isn't going to win you much cooperation.
The solution to getting a better job is not simply leaving your current job. A lot of people have a shit job because they can't get a better job. A lot if people are homeless because they can't get a job at all. It's not that damn simple.

Source: white middle class male in San Francisco couldn't get a job for most if 2009, eventually ended up homeless.
How to Set Up Code-Completion for Vim in macOS
In the United States, anyway, local governments' regulation is largely driven by noisy or wealthy local residents. In most places, regulation is a minor hurdle for a decent real estate investor, all of whom regard single-family and small multi-family dwellings as a slobber-inducing opportunity when demand is high. (The high rents you can get from a quadplex are pretty small compared to the rents from a 10-story apartment building.)

So, the question is really, "if it isn't real-estate developers trying to keep rents high, who has the money and therefore power to convince the government to adopt regulations preventing apartments?"
Is labor cost the only input for GDP? That calculation assumes everyone is equal, when everyone is not. An aerospace engineer is far more valuable and rare than a guy that washes cars. A doctor is more valuable than a burger cook. Tim Cook is more valuable than a security guard at a mall.
It's not that failure is eliminated, but you can run a business with almost no risk or capital exposure. If that business fails, you walk away with no damage done.
It’s a fundamental tension in the scientific method. We create models for how reality works. We _know_ that they are imperfect and incomplete, but at times we forget and therefore treat an idea or even observation that violates the model as “impossible”.

Multiple observations ultimately dispel this failure but single observations are easy to dismiss. This is also why crazy but ultimately correct ideas are difficult to distinguish from crazy and wrong ideas.

And academics spend a lot of time teaching people to understand the models, and are always looking for errors that arise from an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the models. So, it is very natural to treat new theories that violate an incomplete model the same way. Especially in fields like medicine where it is nearly impossible to truly isolate single factors and outcomes.
Taxes have an outsize impact on markets.

People shouldn’t really care about the difference between 15 versus 25 percentage point taxes if they feel they’re timing the market right. But if you look at a chart of redemptions and CG taxes (check Wikipedia), it turns out a 5-9 percentage point decrease occurs around 9-40x increases in redemptions during the low tax period. This is basically why you observe Republican (i.e. low tax) administrations experience traditionally low stock market prices—everyone is selling and turning their imaginary paper into cash!

Capital gains taxes are essentially the free shipping of equities. They totally distort people’s behavior disproportionate to their impact on returns, most of all by discouraging normal (retail) investors from selling when their gut tells them to, and then they bear most of the losses. Obviously a more equitable scheme would make capital gains taxes progressive instead of time based.

Just to make it clear about the article, if you made ETFs pay the taxes we’d get even more correlation and asset inflation. The best example of that is the cryptocurrency market.
Try to see how hard it would be to make it true, even if it's for some tangential accessory use. Add some elementary AI function to add a line to a log in your build scheme if that's something you have control over.

Then, if you jump ship, you can put "conceived of and implemented 100% of AI capabilities in former employer's operations" in your resume and cover letter. Win-win.
This seems like a doubly losing proposition. If you created my idea and I only get to keep 20%, I wouldn't assist you very much in maintaining the business. If I were to partner with someone, I would resent shelling out 20% to an absent partner. Ideas aren't worth a fifth, and a fifth isn't a suitable carrot/stick.
Uber Charges More If They Think You're Willing to Pay More
The calculator doesn't factor in IOPS, and that's good to know, thanks. I just wanted a blunt tool to get a feel for these vendors' price points at least using the common denominators of memory, CPU, and storage. I could be wrong.
The underlying investors do when they cash out.
Matt Levine has an excellent explanation of why this isn't as big of a deal as it seems (read down to Heartbeats) [1]

> On the other hand I am not convinced that one should look at the transaction in isolation here. My view of the situation is not only that “an ETF is a mutual fund that doesn’t pay taxes,” but also that everyone accepts that. There just seems to be broad agreement among investors and regulators and policymakers that an ETF is supposed to be tax-efficient, that ETF investors get to defer capital gains until they sell their shares. (Again: This is a very widely advertised benefit of ETFs. 7 ) Some ETFs ran into a bit of a technical problem that might have required them to pay taxes, and so they developed a very technical solution that fixed it. The fact that the solution is a little shammy-looking would be a problem if everyone expected them to pay the taxes, but since people don’t expect that, any old solution will do.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-29/deals-...
Yes, but the investor will pay more in taxes when they sell the actual ETF. It's more like deferring taxes than avoiding them.

Think of it this way, if the fund paid these taxes when they sell their various holdings, that less tax amount would be baked into the ETF valution, which would carry over to a smaller tax bill when an investor sells their ETF shares and pays taxes.

That's still advantageous in many ways, but I think people in this topic are thinking this is some kind of complete tax avoidance. It isn't.
> Today, corporations spend more than $2.6 billion a year on congressional lobbyists

How's that a cheap (or small) government?

Such sums are spent precisely because the government creates way more cost and damage than $2.6 bn per year, so the lobbying is there to offset it.

A truly small government would be characterized by an absence of lobbying because no amount of lobbying would help anyone make or save money on the account of government helping them do that by redistribution, restrictions or legislative burden.
> Shouldn't we

> you do not

I don't think this answers the question. Of course unsolicited pen testing is already illegal; that's not an interesting question imo. What I'm more curious about is security industry opinions about whether or not the current law is a good idea.

Are there any changes you would make to the law if you had the ability to do so, or do you see a more general danger in allowing customers to attack their own accounts?
Leica SL: A Love Story
CSS4 Color Keyword Distribution
> It would seem inhuman not to recognize that some of the chimpanzees' behaviors are deeply unpleasant. And is aggression evil? Yes, I think so, at least when it involves physical violence that is inflicting pain. Violence is the opposite of virtue. I think that a major object of human endeavor and societal ambition should be to reduce violence.

I find this line rather interesting. I feel like there's a whole ball of wax that can be discussed here regarding human observation and the categorization of behaviors based on our understanding of virtue, right/wrong, and ethics.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course strikes are disruptive to the general public; that’s one of the reason people strike. Ordinary citizens who have their lives disrupted will turn to their elected officials to end the disruption. There will always be people who turn unsympathetic when workers withhold their labor. The long-term benefit is worth it.
Populism is a major problem, and one which is based on unscrupulous politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and prejudice while promissing unrealisting and outright impossible solutions to problems that they missrepresent and even invent.

And that has absolutely zero to do with science in general and economic models in particular.

Time and again we see populist politicians fanning up the masses with anti-capitalist rhetoric that is absolute bullshit from the start, and they routinely attack economic problems by disregarding basic facts of nature with assertions involving silly conspiracy theories always attributing blame to their political opponents and scapegoats. Every time this happens it does not mean that science failed or that there is a massive conspiracy theory keeping the socialist man down. It just means that disregarding science has serious consequences that no totalitarian regime can quelsh no matter how many gillotines they set up in feont of Goldman-Sachs.
Every cent that is not taken by the government and instead retained by investors is a win in my book. Better that the money is only taxed once instead of twice. Even better if it's not taxed at all!

No one wants to pay taxes, and everyone tries to use every loophole they can find to get out of them. The only reason your average Joe finds this upsetting is because he doesn't have as many loopholes to exploit. And when he loses a loophole, like the state income tax deduction, he gets pissed!
What Are Your Long-Term Goals? How to Answer
It's often hard to tell the difference between doing this honestly, and just stonewalling.

Even when I'm completely honest about it and would like to see the fix happen, there is a level of my mind where I'm all, "great, now they won't respond and I can forget about this."
I went to an event recently dedicated to CIOs/CTOs/VP's of Engineering where they had a few talks about cyber security.

It's amazing how those people don't really have much clue about it all. Imagine who's not in the tech field.

I had the same idea at the time. I am not sure if people would pay for such service, but they definitely need it.
How do we contact you for a proposal?
To address the timing problem, one could make capital-gains taxes time-independent, or smoothly-varying with time.

Making capital-gains taxes progressive would address an entirely different set of concerns, and applies a different set of forces onto the market.
I don't have a static IP at home. It changes every few weeks. I have a hack where a cron job uploads my home IP to a cloud server so I can know what it is when the IP changes.

Maybe a Distributed Hash Table DNS interface is in order? I think it could work if you cache your peers, and reach out to let them know your current state. Even during the Venezuela blackouts, not all IPs went dark.
E-paper hacking: fastest possible refresh rate
How does a business like Acunetix still exist if that's really the case? Anyone online can use their services to check any website.
I run SwiftMVP.com -- We once tried offering half-price if people give up the white label and credit us. Apparently, $5000 are not the issue.
One why would be, as long as you don't have a clause permitting this in your contract with the SaaS provider (which "ordinary" people as in this context usually don't have) it would be considered an offense in most countries.

If you're a company and the SaaS provider is of similar or small scale you might be able to work with them if you have special security concerns that exceed their regular customer base. You could maybe even get them to hire a consultancy to check or recheck their services but in no case would you ever just go out and do that of your own volition.

Independent of that, even in a personal context, people use SaaS providers because they trust their ability to do a certain job better and/or cheaper than you could do yourself. That usually includes the factor of securing their data, if only because it's in their best interest not to have PR disasters and lose customers.
Breakthrough Trailer
The hyper-inflation fix is the only "solution" I've heard in serious discussions on this mess. It's sort of insane, but when you dig into it, it maybe the least bad choice as far as bringing a healthy equilibrium back to the economy without economically devastating huge chunks of the population.
The fundamental problem with public school teachers are that the “customer” in the relationship isn’t the parent or the child, but the gov bureaucrat. So while the results of a teacher might hurt the child or the parent, who cares as it’s not them to who they cater to.

The incentives aren’t aligned properly and there is no negative incentive when a school fails a generation of children. The teacher and admins will just carry on business as usual(rather monopoly) charge a higher fee and deliver a worse product.
It’s disappointing that there are actually people who think these backdoors are accidental.
>> Incredibly valuable tool for learning mandarin, I bet.

If someone were actually trying to Mandadin, Prof Victor Mair at Penn tells people to mostly ignore the characters for the first few years.

Victor Mair, at Penn, remarks (in an e-mail I quote with permission): “It’s a tragedy that so many young Americans spend years stuffing their heads with hundreds of Chinese characters, gaining no usable proficiency, and then forgetting them all by the time they’re 25.” Mair thinks that “if the Chinese would wake up and permit pinyin to function as part of a genuine digraphia, then I would say it might make sense for maybe 2 percent of the population to learn up to third-year level of Mandarin—strictly romanized, mind you. But there are exceedingly few teachers who are enlightened enough to teach it that way.”

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/03/02/more...
What is the incompatibility?
The Discourse project are using a tool called thpoff to disable transparent hugepages for their Ruby apps[0], and Ruby 2.6+ are disabling transparent hugepages for all applications[1].

[0] https://github.com/discourse/discourse_docker/blob/ade283329...

[1] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14705
I think you have to look at it as a journey as with anything. A good analogy is computer programming. When you first try to write a program you will fail miserably but it will be a major learning experience, with each successive attempt being better than before and offering new learning experiences.

If you are in one swoop starting your first business to share your major passion in life with the world there is a good chance the near inevitable failure will be the end of your entrepreneurship. If you realize that is an almost guaranteed part of the journey you might keep trying.

I want to see the stats on failed entrepreneurship where the person gives at least 5+ good attempts.
For a second I thought I was reading through my post history when this came up!
The cheap end of hotel rates dont include breakfast. You are right on utilities, but the counterpoint is that you have (for example) lost access to a kitchen to cook, pushing other costs up.

I reckon costs being of "similar magnitude" is plausible (if the monthly rate discount is truly ~50%). Interesting trade offs imo
From my years of working in big Banks, none would appreciate a stunt like "hi I gave the approval to hackerX to try and steal money from my account in YOUR bank."

Apart from an obvious black list you are looking at a world of pain both by the bank's lawyers AND the authorities. It may be YOUR money but tampering with a bank's systems is very much criminal activity in most countries.
Presumably the withdrawing investor also gets the fund's cost basis in the stock, so they'll be on the hook for the fund's capital gains themselves when they sell the stock. (The article didn't explicitly mention it, nor does the relevant statute https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/852#b_6, but that's the standard way that stock transfers work.)
IIRC show HN shouldnt be used for blog posts
How to Launch a Marketplace MVP Without Writing Any Code
Yes, I do agree the end result is likely beneficial to the average Joe trading ETFs...
I posted a similar proposition https://webuild.tools (build the software for free and retain the client as the first customer)
I have time/interest to build side projects and built many too. But nothing takes off as it is never backed a solid business need. And I am no where close to solving this problem.
He doesn't advance the story and he doesn't develop the characters. He was easy to cut out of the movie because no changes were required elsewhere.