skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Capitalism as it was originally imagined - transactions between people- is the best system. Unfortunately money is now transacting itself. With ai and financial instruments as they exist, there is an order of magnitude more wealth tied up in speculation than actually being used by humans. Money from financial gains should be restricted to being used on products, services, and human endeavor.
401k by itself is a great idea.

Making it optional, not requiring employer match and allowing fees to run rampant - not such great ideas.

Vanguard is a great example of a low fee fund manager. Many good companies provide strong match and help secure the future of their workforce. But the problem is that these are all optional in the spirit of personal choice and empowerment.

Problem is, to most people these are disempowering because the compulsion to spend is too high. If all make a little less take home, but their retirement accounts are filled like the IRS coffers, overall prices decline because of less disposable income, but in the end, people get to retire.

For those that unfortunately doesn’t make it to retirement, it would be good if the accumulated wealth could be inherited and/or donated.
Any diet will have “nutrient gaps”. Virtually anyone regardless of diet would benefit from magnesium, vitamin D, and a good probiotic.

Also, EPA/DHA is really powerful stuff.
Office365/exchange online
Hospitals do cell therapy etc... so I bet there’s a way. Maybe a clinical trial.
Quick reply as I have to dash back into the physical world! Grounds:

- theoretical: economic 'growth' is (a) central to capitalism, and (b) identical to global entropy increase (decoupling is a faith-based myth). So-called 'growth' IS ecosystem destruction

- empirical: numberless studies showing nearly every ecosystem to be in catastrophic decline. In short - everything is dying (and astonishingly fast - on human-generational timeframes)!

As for 'extreme': in corporatist media circles, sure. But there are plenty to whom it's perfectly commonplace (ecologists, indigenous peoples, etc), and has been well-understood for decades.
This is self defeating, if git was easier to use your team members could take that extra day and learn something more valuable.

Just because something is hard it doesn’t mean it’s worth doing.
“Diagnosis Diet” is being cited as an authority over the WHO? Are you serious?
Laws won’t change this. It will only make it a compliance burden and the same mistakes will continue to happen. Plus standards and practices move way faster than laws.

What investors should be concerned about is the reputational risk and loss of business to competitors that are able demonstrate more transparent and secure practices.

Maybe laws for monopolies, but not for competitive markets where consumers have choice to shop around.

For a competing business these dumps are a powerful marketing tool. It’s a direct client list. They just have to be able to show that their security is better.

Laws would make things so much worse for everyone. The key is to keep hacking away at all systems. Break things apart and build them back together. And win customers by showing that you can!
O365/Exchange Online

https://products.office.com/en-us/business/compare-more-offi...
> But if a plumber, a word-worker or some other artisan used a tool that required a weekly "It's okay, you'll catch on eventually" article, we would have never got out of the Dark Ages

Tradesmen use all kinds of tools like that, which is why trade schools and apprenticeships are a thing. I bet there are weekly articles on how to get the most out of your Fluke in the trade press, we just don't read them.
They were actually bagging on IBM which occurs less often but is probably equally loved.
There was recently a study that found the same decline in dogs, which suggests an environmental cause.
Years ago it was the first place I looked - but now, Stack Overflow has a currency problem. Many programming answers are obsolete, the languages or frameworks to which they relate having evolved, and this is reinforced by aggressive moderation policy and toxic attitudes.

Not sure if the curators are unaware or simply don't care as long as they're still getting fresh questions for whatever's shiny and new.

In practice, nonetheless, it is now the last place I look, not the first, and also the last place I contribute. There are plenty of other forums for relevant and current answers, and without dripping poison.
Very interested in this as well; have you worked with a pre-release or what gives you confidence in switching?
No, I wouldn’t. Because I’d guess that etrade’s average account size is likely 25-50x that of Robinhood. I don’t think encouraging young adults to gamble beer money on the stock market is a long term viable business model.
> I grant very few people a view into the things I consider private, and ensure that every two or three people know contradictory things without knowing the parts that put them together

Sounds exhausting, I can't imagine using that much mental energy to keep up this web, but your life your rules.
Exactly. Individuals are far away from the actual organization goals. In my yearly review I have to categorize my achievements by stuff like "Supporting growth", "Fueling worldwide expansion", "Increasing customer satisfaction" and so on. I am very far away from any of these so either I indirectly support all of them or you could also say I support none of them.

Just filling this out makes it clear that most of the company is about bullshitting each other.
>> If we suddenly took all the money from all the billionaires this would make zero difference to poverty

It would make a massive difference. Without billionaires, there would be more millionaires[1], and their collective ability (and collective incentive) to invest their money efficiently would be far greater. More minds making more sophisticated investment decisions under more pressure using smaller amounts of money.

A billionaire investor is a lazy investor. They can afford to make blanket decisions which ignore all the intricate negative ramifications of those decisions.

When you factor in the inefficiencies created by corporate monopolies and index funds which reward lazy investors without any risk[2], the people who end up paying for those inefficiencies are members of the working class.

[1] When we consider that supply tends to adjust to meet demand, we can deduce that if we were to artificially limit the amount of supply that any single person could reap the rewards from (which is equivalent to artificially limiting wealth accumulation of a single person), then we would need a larger number of people to supply the same quantity of goods/services.

[2] The risk is essentially 0 because index funds such as S&P500 spread risk across many stocks such that only the complete and sudden collapse of human society could result in any significant loss of investment. As a human investor, if society were to collapse completely, you probably wouldn't survive anyway, so within the scope of human experience, your risk of living to see your investment fail is 0.
Isn’t that the problem? That the millennials are not accumulating wealth at the rate of the boomers?
> Two kinds of people in this system.

Three or more if you count more realistic viewpoints.

> Two kinds of people in this system. One of them thinks if you work hard you can climb your way out of poverty through your own self determination and hard work.

Self determination and hard work is necessary for success but it doesn't mean much without opportunity. Opportunity is unevenly distributed.

What one person see as value, which creates someone else's opportunity, is often determined by subjective social and cultural factors and isn't always objective or rational.
You're talking about closure of EXPTIME under polynomial transformations. You could do similar for quasipolynomial and such; there's nothing about EXPTIME that makes it special in this regard. Edited my comment slightly to hopefully clarify.
Mathematically there's no reason the pocket money system wouldn't work with an arbitrarily high income disparity. Is there an interpersonal issue that you see arising?
Ads aren’t crime and ads aren’t universally net negative.
I've learned a lot through Robinhood, trading from a couple of hundred bucks to about $15k (not all gains, a lot of it is deposited), I've gained confidence and knowledge as the platform has grown.

Not sure if $7B is valid but the company is disrupting the status quo of commission based trading.
Can't seem to find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that Paul Allen said it was the worst decision he made in the early days.
Embarrassing confession: For 20 years thanks to my shallow physics education (i.e. for engineering) I always thought Gell and Mann were two people, like Meyers and Briggs, and (appropriately) Dunning and Kruger.
The profits MMs take here aren't zero sum between you and the MM, because there are other participants in the market. An MM can profitably quote a more generous spread to a retail trader, because retail order flow isn't going to wipe out their book and expose them to inventory risk.

Essentially: you are cheaper to make a market for than a giant fund is, and you, Citadel, and Robinhood can split the savings.
In such a case, you have bigger problems than OKRs.
Pijul looks cool, but "replace hard to understand directory content snapshots with easy category theory" isn't a compelling proposition outside of maybe the ML/Haskell community.
Yes removing the limit put on in the early 20th century would have broad ranging consequences, most of them would be to the detrement of the existing representatives.
Really interesting to see everyone's responses. Do you know if there is a survey capability in HN for these types of things? I may revisit the thread later and aggregate the results too if others would find that helpful, but this might be nice as a native Ask HN feature. I suppose I could have just linked to a poll but there is value is in the comments vs the results too.
no ethical consumption under capitalism, and all that
Used VS Code for a year. Realised it was just an editor and not an IDE. Paid for webstorm. Never going back.

If you prefer IntelliJ IDEA to emacs etc for Java, you should probably switch to webstorm. Batteries included, nicer UI.
Silent Spring–I – Rachel Carson's Serialized Publication of Silent Spring
Every generation will eventually "have the most money". The question that matters is "when?". Will they get the most money because they've earned it or because all prior generations have died off enough for them to inherit it.

I can't think of any mechanism by which wealth owned by the rich (i.e. old) can skip a generation.

The only way this proves to be false is if we eventually discover the secret to healthful immortality and end up with a generation that never dies, and therefore never bequeaths its wealth to younger generations. The longer people live, the longer it will take younger generations to inherit the wealth of older generations.

The only other way this proves false is if there is a massive wealth destroying event such as war, revolution, ecological collapse, etc. such that there isn't much wealth to inherit.
Your Blue Zones comment doesn’t account for Loma Linda, California. Not isolated, generic American suburbia. Low smoking, low drinking, high vegetarian.

https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/loma-linda-california/
And here, I thought war (hot or cold) was competition.

I get that momentum is hard to overcome, but I think a sufficiently competitive system will overcome that barrier and eventually outcompete capitalism as we know it; we haven't found that system yet, though it's theoretically possible we've tossed out some better systems that weren't better enough to overcome the first-mover-after-WWII advantage.

I think the major innovation of the next paradigm shift will relate to how groups of people handle intergenerational wealth (and perhaps some related structural questions), as I think this is the most glaring inefficiency of the American system. This is a minefield of a problem with a lot of naive, popular answers.
Most retail brokerages sell order flow to internalizers, so if you're paying fees to trade, you're probably not getting anything back for that money.
Should ethicists be inside or outside a profession?
The unspoken assumption in capitalism is that it cannot exist without humans. The complex corrections to the capitalist goal of maximizing profits comes when its agents realize profits decline when the agents are excluded from the gains. I do not think that Adam Smith or j Keynes envisioned a world when money became intelligent and could transact itself. We need a financial Einstein to present an equation of relativity to restore the human observer into the reference frame of the current economics
And...we could say that nothing has been proven to be correct, either.
No doubt that if the Renaissance were happening now, the masters would be working in VR.
GAAP is so overrated. It's 2019. The goal is to acquire users, not to make money. Unprofitability is sexy. In all seriousness this might as well be 1998 and I just hope they go public before the next big market swing down so I can short it.
It didn't disappearing
> I feel exactly like this every time I try to get nutrition advice, online or elsewhere.

Except when it is Michael Pollan's advice, right? :-P
> I don't agree that capitalism is responsible for environmental decline

> environmental decline can be attributed to the form of democracy in which companies control government policy

These are the same thing everywhere except in theory.
No, you should not intentionally hide text from those who prefer to disable JS. Disabling JS improves site load speed and reduces memory consumption. As a side effect, most of ads and trackers also stop working.
Zdsgdxrfshbxrs
https://www.reddit.com/live/1307zsp3fsd3c/

https://www.reddit.com/live/1307zj1x6l1aw/

https://www.reddit.com/live/13080di3zrjub/

https://www.reddit.com/live/13080wsgd9jk4/

https://www.reddit.com/live/1308159fxbalp/

https://www.reddit.com/live/13081gmtcvk9w/

https://www.reddit.com/live/13081r6dcf0qf/

https://www.reddit.com/live/1308271up8btn/
Replying to my own post :)

I think capitalism at its core: the human traits necessary to wildly succeed in it, are not the most desirable traits to most people. Yet we're optimizing civilization such that we should be striving to achieve them in order to live successful lives.
He showed that the square root of 2 was an irrational.
Capital is a synonym for wealth and a synonym for property.

Being against capital is a fairly extreme position that has been tried and has a much worse track record.

What people think of when they say capitalism these days is more like kleptocracy or corporationism.
> Trying not to be misled feels both futile and exhausting.

Why not try these different diets for yourself and see how you feel? Find out the facts for yourself via self-experimentation instead of listening to "experts" or their regurgitating followers.

That's how I -- and few others (cf. http://meatheals.com/ ) -- discovered the diet I thrive on.
Oh, well, then I seem to have totally misread all the opposition to Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. What on earth are those importers worrying about, anyways? Silly me.
Is it reasonable to assume that a newspaper's contents will have uniform quality? I always figured articles of general interest (politics, big world events that make the front page) were more vetted than articles of niche interest (most science articles). Also, journalists largely have humanities backgrounds, and so news articles related to those topics will derive from that expertise.
As an engineer OKRs are a bit of a conflicting thing, and here's the reasons...

- I don't decide what projects come my way. Product or management decides that.

- My concerns are: "Is the company going to be around for > 6 months?" because if the answer is yes than my concerns are "In 6 months, make sure we don't hit a wall that will be a stop all development situation". I've seen it.

- OKRs are always going to be goals of the company. My question will always be: What can eng do to actually affect these OKRs? Are customers leaving due to bugs? Eng will prioritize bugs. Are customers leaving due to lack of features? Eng will build features. Is the company about to run out of money? Eng needs to build as much and as fast as possible and ignore any long-term problems because we need to get customers.

Basically either department heads need to take the current OKRs and transform them into department specific OKRs or they become meaningless. There needs to be engineering OKRs around things that engineering can affect. Not product OKRs which product will affect. Not sales OKRs which sales affects.

Example of a product OKR:

- increase customer conversion rates by 0.5% every 2 weeks for the next 2 months.

Example of an engineering OKR:

- enable product to A/B test

- enable product to measure more data points to make decisions to reach their OKRs
> Without github's "fork" branches we would most likely still see repositories initialized from plain source dumps

I doubt that. Git inherently allows pushing and pulling from anywhere. You can easily create a new repo on GH and push your branch(es) from your local clone there. Creating a new clean repo is more work. See how Linux works.
I found wikipedia's interface to be pretty unfriendly for me as a new user. Stackoverflow was a lot easier for me to get started with. Maybe that lower barrier to entry leads to more random posts from people that are "low quality?"

Side note: I find a similarity between SO and HN. Both can feel pretty hostile and over-the-top with penalizing you for not saying things "the right way." But as much as it does annoy me sometimes, these are two of the most useful websites for my purposes.
No? Users should be able to decide if they want to run some untrusted code on their machines or not
> Robinhood sells order flow

True!

> meaning your trades are executed by a real market maker but with slower fills, larger spreads and more restrictions on trades.

Incorrect. Retail customers who have their orders routed like this obtain instant execution at prices at least as good as, and sometimes better, than the best available price on public markets, and in the case of Robinhood, they also pay zero fees.

In other words, everything you said is wrong. They don't get slower fills, they get tighter spreads, and lower fees. This is strictly good for the retail investors.
Sure, there's only a few companies that control all the flow but paying fees usually results in smaller spreads and faster execution. It also seems to result in better software and support. Maybe not everyone needs it, RH is good if you just buy and hold, but I wouldn't say fees are for nothing.
Explain how your proposal would fix Equifax
This is not only javascripts behavior, it is the IEEE standard for floating-point arithmetic which most modern hardware and software strictly adheres to.
kst is amazing! I write CSV files with 100 series about 10 samples per second for 8-12 hours a day and it doesn't break a sweat plotting the whole day, any number of series, it does transformations as required, and the next day when I have a new CSV file I can point it at the new file and keep all the plots I configured the previous day.

KST has been a total game changer for me commissioning plants and machines.
I enjoyed Joey Hess's interview on there.

https://usesthis.com/interviews/joey.hess/

An interesting juxtaposition of working on technology in a decidedly austere living arrangement.
Camping is booming thanks to Millennials
You don't need a fork button for that.

git clone ssh://example.com/repo.git
[... Edit ...]
git push ssh://myserver example.com/myrepo.git master

Benefit of the fork button is that GitHub links those repos on their site.
I'm sure there are plenty of educational opportunities outside the USA.
Amazon is 3D-scanning people's bodies in exchange for gift cards
Having over 10 million dollars seems to exclude eligibility for failure to me.
The thing that is odd about Robinhood is how it's a myth that has evolved pretty dramatically in how it is popularly interpreted and understood.

Previously it was about a world where the productive class had their wealth usurped by the taxman and a man who took that money back to give it to those that produced that wealth.

Now it's interpreted as a story about a man that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. There is no longer any consideration for who generated the wealth in the first place.

Nowadays, your wealth still goes to either the taxman involuntary by threat of licit force by the state or to voluntarily people that provide you goods and services that you deem beneficial. The difference is the Robinhood now steals from the latter instead of the former.
AmigaOS actually did use : as a volume marker and / as a path separator below the volume level. "Volumes" on AmigaOS were actually more like generally-usable filesystem namespaces; the feature covered not just "hardware" volumes like DF0: or DH0: (equivalent to A: or C: in MS-DOS) but "logical" ones as well, which worked a bit like chroots in a modern OS.

You could even use a physical medium label as a volume, and the OS would interactively request (via a dialog box) that the user insert the requested media into any physical drive, so that the system could interact with it; the whole notion of "is this media/physical resource available right now" was something that the OS would abstract away for you! (I think the closest thing to this currently might be RedoxOS's idea of using URLs as generally-applicable path indicators, since URLs too have a base-level resource indicator (the "host" part) and a subpath.)

Program options were dealt with by requiring paths to be entered as strings in quotes in the general case, and disambiguating them only as a last resort. There was no option prefix at all, so you would enter, e.g. `list files` as the equivalent to `ls -l`, and `list "files"` to list only something named "files".
Why are you spamming this thread by posting biased sources? Michael Greger is a vegan, and is not exactly unbiased.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/adfowt...
There also used to be deskography.org
I looked at the Wikipedia page and a couple PDFs from Google front page.

I stole a collection of games from someone else's project to use for testing.

My goal was to get in the door so I picked a language I knew well and set some constraints:

1. Doesn't have to be fast. Just has to run.

2. Write opcodes as pure functions, passing in an array of memory and returning a new array of memory. This made it easy to test and debug. But also made it super slow.

3. DO NOT look at someone else's code. This forced me down a way slower path where I learned a whole lot more than I would have if I just reimplemented others' work.
Thanks for that. It's a great idea to let people try the feature out.
> Consider something like the Kafkaesque nightmare that is applying for (and keeping) food stamps.

I have long thought that this particular process was intentionally difficult as a means of helping to weed out people who aren't really in need.
In September 2018, Logan Kane, a contributor to Seeking Alpha, stated that Robinhood's payment for order flow generated ten times the revenue as other brokers receive from market makers for the same volume. Bloomberg has analyzed Robinhood's reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and calculates that Robinhood generates almost half of its income from payment for order flow. Robinhood's lack of transparency on this issue is troubling. Beyond that, payment for order flow is slowly being regulated out of existence, so a brokerage that depends on generating income by selling order flow to market makers will find itself in trouble within 5 years.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/020515/...
At least once a day
F$???? Is that a typo?
According to the NDA, client4 doesn't even exist...