skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Getting a monopoly isn't necessarily an antitrust issue. The primary issue is if you have a monopoly on X, and you use that monopoly to try to gain market share in Y. So, Microsoft had a monopoly on PC operating systems, and they were using that to try to increase their dominance in web browsers. That's using your X to try to extend control of Y. (They weren't stopping Netscape on Windows, but they were trying very hard to reduce their market share as much as possible - to the point that they were paying websites to introduce Netscape-incompatible features. Internally, they said, "Try to make using Netscape a jarring experience".)

Google, arguably, has an effective monopoly on search. That's their X. They do not have a monopoly on PC operating systems, or portable operating systems. They are using their Y to try to maintain their X, which, so far as I know (but IANAL) is not an antitrust issue.
I agree. I still pay my taxes even though I dislike the tax system. Half the politicians in this country, as the article notes, want people to look at the objections I listed and say "whelp, guess that means we ought to cut all the spending and taxes!" when that is not what I want at all. I just want it to be more efficient
> I'm always amazed Google management tolerates things like internal message boards aimed at letting employees create Memes on company time.

They have to by law. If they don't take active measures to prevent their employees from talking about non-work things during work, which they don't, then by law they aren't allowed to prevent them from organizing for better working conditions during work.
Then it's time to apply anti-trust law to Uber.

(Assuming Lyft or other companies are no longer viable competitors.)
Your Wikipedia cite brought back memories of undergraduate poli-sci. But the notion that government rests on the consent of the governed is at best a pious aspiration — or, in the case of the American Declaration of Independence, a polemic — because as the American Revolution itself demonstrated, government rests on the acquiescence of the governed.

The brute fact is that there will always be government — and there will always be taxation, because human nature is such that some people won't pay voluntarily if they think they can get away with not doing so (hence my mention above of the free-rider problem).
Saildrone’s Journey Around Antarctica Uncovers New Climate Clues
> unfortunately no one has the answer.

The answer is structuring society, socialization, and culture in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people or leave them feeling helpless enough to turn to extremism, hate, and violence.

But that requires empathy and effort, things often in short supply.

People only go down the dark paths that lead to 8chan et al when the avenues to belonging they were presented with by their parents and by default failed them.
Well you're not exactly doing a fair comparison for AirBnB because the actual owner sets the price. AirBNB doesn't set the price. Uber, on the other hand, does.
take a taxi to the marriot next door. then uber from there.
interesting - what "essential" was covered by tariffs in the early days?
Treasury Designates China as a Currency Manipulator
Without payment non competes are flat out unenforceable in some legal systems.
That is only true to a point: they have to back it up with forex buy/sell orders , or their trading rate becomes meaningless and the black market comes back to set a more realistic rate (as was the case in the late 90s during my first trip to china).
I used to drive into west London for 10am, most days it would take 45 minutes to travel a mile from Hammersmith to Shepherd’s Bush.
Maybe, look for "Butterfly effects[1]" happening around you, i.e., small insignificant events that have huge, enormous after-effects.

Essentially, if there were a system that could send information from the future to the past, the future agent would want to be "as discreet as" possible, while still achieving "nearly perfect" outcome.
Note that the future agent has the advantage of reiterating over and over his/her choices, because, well, the "future-future" he/she can still send a signal to his/her past about want went wrong the previous time.

This happens to be a common plot for a lot of various time-travel movies and TV shows like Dark, Umbrella Academy, etc.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Bad news for you: prices on new products don't ever go down.

The good news is (bad for retailers/providers) prices on old products never go up.
Holy shit! In the past 5 years, the S&P 500 has returned 50% just counting stock price and not dividends reinvested. Talk about sunk costs, even the SP 500 only dropped 50% during the great recession.
Society must come to some decision, at any given point in time, about what to do if X does Y; are they punished? if so, how? Morality is a more complex subject, that, of course, heavily interacts with the decision I mentioned. My point was merely that while the two are intertwined, they are not necessarily the same, and regardless of where one stands on some moral question, there necessarily must be (and there is) some rule about what to do when X does Y. You can equivocate on some moral question, but you cannot equivocate on a law (although a judicial system can infuse it with some nuance). So when a particular society legislates a law, you don't necessarily have to take it as if that particular society has settled a universal moral question.
The question is how ? how can you have a just society that everyone will agree upon ? Unless we are invent some kind of eugenics or brain wash mechanism so that everyone has the same believe, same way of thinking then its impossible.

Or maybe we can develop really advance VR so that make possible for everyone to live in their own ideal socity.
I live in a suburb of Seattle, I haven’t owned a car for about two years. It used to be owning a car was liberating, but now I think the day I sold my car was one of the most liberating days of my life.
No – the issue is not bundling. Bundling in general is not a problem. Companies bundle things all the time, and it should be immediately obvious that this isn't a problem.

But bundling can become a problem when the company doing the bundling has an outsized effect on the market generally. This means that when a company (e.g. Microsoft) has total market dominance in a category, then bundling software for which there is already a third-party market, using privileged access to your own APIs—particularly when you talk about wanting to "extinguish" and "smother" rivals–it can become a problem where it otherwise wouldn't be.

Note that Google has had several antitrust investigations launched against it, including the ongoing US one.
Here’s the study, http://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000188 which builds on https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012

What part did you think was “bunk”?

It seems fairly predictable/uncontroversial that substantially changing the composition of the air plants are grown in would affect their growth. These studies are part of an effort to figure out precisely what changes result from expected current/near-future changes in the atmosphere and what potential impact those changes might have on the global food supply and health.

It is important to know about these effects so that we can try to mitigate the harms involved, e.g. by switching to new crops or crop strains, adopting alternative agricultural methods, supplementing at-risk diets with other foods, etc., instead of just letting millions of people suffer dangerous nutrient deficiencies.
Enterprise Infrastructure as a Service Startup Seeking Engg-Lead/Architect
Enterprises are investing $20B+ annually on expensive network and security appliances in their campuses and it takes them weeks or months to provision. The spending and complexity are expected to further increase with the enterprise digital footprint expansion.

We have been working on the technology and business value proposition for over 6 months. Our goal is to deliver the most secure and compliant solution so that our customers can spin up their infrastructure within minutes. Our customer-validated solution leverages patent-pending Zero-Trust technology for automated network and security policy controls. In short, what AWS did for the data center, we are doing for enterprise campus infrastructure.

To help make rapid progress, we are actively seeking a hands-on architect with experience in Public cloud, Kubernetes/Istio, & micro-services. Knowledge of networking and security is a plus. We are based out of the Bay Area, California and if this excites you, please ping us at info@numbr.com or 510-373-3217.
Go lucky 7? Is this like Vegas? Double or nothing?
How Hot Was July? Hotter Than Ever, Global Data Shows
Considering how much stuff they produce I don't think that would end with them rethinking anything but rather establishing a different financial order with anyone who was willing to trade with them. And I think a lot of Europe and Asia would be on board for steep discounts.
And I think you're trying to butt a point in that is not under debate.

The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here).

> So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.

Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
Could you be more specific?

And, did China meet the criteria before this latest move?

(And, minor nit: criterion is singular. Criteria are plural.)
It was not. They price lower for luxury cars than other companies.
> the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision.

I would argue this isn't necessarily true. "I know it when I see it" -- the famous quote in a SCOTUS decision on pornography/indecency is interpreted to give local communities the ability to determine what is decent/legal. In other words, there is no one court/legal standard; it varies based on regional local standards.
There's no such thing as a "neutral" place. What's happening is you tend to align with the predominate views at your company, and anyone who doesn't keeps their head down. From you point of view it looks neutral, but actually other views are being repressed.
The Black-Scholes Formula, Explained
Doesn't mean any such thing. Maybe s/he is into options? It hurts to watch that much money go away even when it's in the form of unrealized gains.
Can't come soon enough.

Cars within dense cities are a cancer.
A) You can. The US government generates an itemized budget every year. It's several thousands of pages long, and usually the result of several large pieces of legislation. All of these are freely available online.

To a lesser extent, the states also generate itemized budgets. Most but not all of the state-level budget information is available online.

B) You can, to a lesser degree of detail, since non-profit tax returns are made available for public viewing by law. You can use Charity Navigator (fee required) or visit your nearest IRS office to view them. Many states also require non-profits above a certain size to make their financials available upon request.
Wikipedia: " . . . long-term averages of weather are called "climate".[1][2]"

"The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents."
RIP Zuckbucks ️

This removes a huge part of the mainstream rationale for digital alternative currencies.
If the yield curve inversion didn't convince you to pull out, just leave everything parked and stop looking at it.
That would keep me calm!

I'm pleased to report though that I lost nothing, since that's about how much I have.
"Until recently, Walmart hasn't had a Marketplace"

No? When exactly did they start selling large numbers of items on their website that aren't in stores?
We're discussing anti-competitive behavior, and it seems this is a clear exhibition of that.

It's not about what intrinsic value any particular seller can bring - it's whether or not Amazon has become a defacto monopoly and/or practices anti-competitive behaviors.
Well, that's rich. Especially since dollars (which the US has "license to print", manipulate, change interest rates, subsidize whole industries, etc.) have been forced as the world's trade currency for close to a century...
Those are interesting. Unfortunately, the only definitive bit shows that CAD laws are likely to lower general suicide rates by about 8% among people age 14-17. That's important, and those laws should probably be enacted in order to make that happen.

Unfortunately, laws about the age at which it is legal to purchase or possess a gun show no effect. Basically, if you are allowed to own a gun or not as a child, there's no relationship. The decrease only happens when there is a gun in the home and it is stored properly, where children can't get at it easily.

The message I get from that is make guns more difficult to get in times of mental crisis and it will lower the firearm related suicide rate, but not necessarily the general suicide rate outside of that 14-17 age group.

Also, the relationship with suicide attempts is likewise sticky, because a lot of suicide attempts are not really a driven attempt to die. Many take a number of pills, for example, then purposefully leave out the pill bottle or tell people prior to the attempt. It's a difficult thing to track in terms of metrics.
I don't. I remember being a teenager. There was no shortage of 14 year olds making spurious death threats and generally being all-around pricks. And here we've got somebody that wants to get CPS involved of all things. Talk about making things worse.
>which makes n-arity functions necessarily first-class

Excuse me but tuples. You still have to observe them to evaluate them but that's all you need to simulate n-arity in the way you want.

>more dynamic

Well, Hindley—Milner is how you do type-safe stuff with inference that annotates for you. For any generic purposes you just put a typevar with constraints, so I don't see a problem here and can't really get what you gain. MLs are more about proper composition.
> no one is preventing you from standing in a public place

Social media is now the equivalent of standing in a public place. Times have changed. The town crier that used to tell people that latest headline? That's now the Facebook news feed. Public library/coffee shop where people can go discuss whatever new subversive political idea they've had? That's now online chat rooms.

Sticking our heads in the sand and thinking that the Internet is anything other than the new public square is disingenuous. People need to wake up and realise that at present, the "public space" once protected by our rights has become almost entirely controlled by private monopolies.
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. I seriously doubt there is cell service in the interior of the Greenlandic ice cap. Does this mean the Kingdom of Denmark has shitty infrastructure?

The only reason you find mobile coverage sparse in the US is because the US has large, nearly unpopulated areas, whereas Europe doesn’t.
duplicate https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20619715
How is Currency Manipulator different than quantitative easing which everyone does?
Hmm, I see I was wrong.
I have pretty strong views on free speech. I wouldn't ban any of these, and I wouldn't have banned this 14 year old either.

But while I can see reason in the argument for banning her, I think such a position also calls for banning depictions of people holding up severed heads of their opponents (as in two of the cases in the link) or "joking" about smothering them with a pillow or beating them with a Louisville slugger (as in two other cases).

You seem to have chosen the most "fictional" of the examples (video games, theatre) and ignored the very explicit depictions of violence and "jokes" that are nothing more than descriptions of violent acts.
Good for you Jerry! I hope I never forget my renewal myself! Luckily I use Gandi as a registrar and they're good about reminders to their clients!
The last couple months I’d been wondering whether I’d rebalanced way too early (in the spring) into defensive stocks and bonds, so this drop has been rather pleasant to me. I know one can’t time the market perfectly but I’d rather not miss out on a prolonged period of gains.
Ok but I'm talking of ones based on composition.
On vacation in Rome this summer, there is so much foot traffic on the major streets there is often no room for cars, and they need to inch forward until the people in front of them notice them and move out of the way.

Seemed like almost all the cars were taxis, too.

So navigating the city with a personal car seemed completely impractical.

Same with Florence and Cinque Terre.
That's the funny part to me. Currencies don't exist in a vacuum. There's no way NOT to manipulate your own currency. Even in countries that don't directly control monetary policy can still change the value of their currencies indirectly (via taxes for example).
Not the OP but I personally do think that, yes. I personally do not find that much of a difference between Draghi's 2012 "whatever it takes" message (and ECB's subsequent actions) and currency moves like the ones carried out lately by the Chinese.

Granted, the Fed has not yet hired any helicopter for its boss to throw money out of but some of its post-2009 actions (like the well-known QE) were pretty much the same thing. I personally find no big difference between QEs involving trillions of dollars or euros and controlling one's currency like China just did.
there are a number of splinter boards from 4chan.

looking at thier stickkies, i see that links to discord servers are problems for them.

there is a list of chan like boards to peek around in, to see where the breadcrumbs lead

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/List_of_*chan_boards
>Mnuchin had warned in June that China could be designated a currency manipulator if it stopped intervening to prop up its currency.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-08-05/u-s-t...
There's rumblings that FBI are hesitant to investigate Trump's base because it will affect their careers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-faces-s...
My conclusion was based on the fact that this is how it works in the common law world, and the letter of the law in the EU is pretty much the same. It might be incorrect. I was hoping someone from the EU would provide more information if so.
This is pretty much why no one should feel bad if you're rejected after some FANG interview. It all 100% comes down to the people in your loop. You're likely to hit an ass hole or two.

I made it into Amazon, but honestly, after sitting in on a bunch of interviews, I now appreciate the amount of pure dumb luck involved (i.e. I got a loop of people who liked me and had questions I understood) rather than any skill (which is, well, pretty limited in reality).
a splinter board but im very sure this is one of the places they retreated to.
> China can outlast the US on this one.

So let's get the story so far. The US put tariffs on China. People complain about this because it's "hurting US importers" and "costing more to American consumers" etc. But it also puts the hurt on China because now their goods are less competitive, and paying 5% more than China to buy manufactured goods from Latin America or some other part of Asia hurts the US a little but hurts China a lot.

So China responds by devaluing their currency. Now their prices are competitive again, even with the tariffs, but the result is that now the thing you used to buy from China for $100 that was momentarily $110 (so that you bought it from Mexico for $105) is now back to $100. That gets people buying from China again, and paying the original prices, only now of the $100 China used to get, they only get $90 and the US treasury gets $10.

Meanwhile this allows the US to raise the tariffs even more for the same cost to the American consumer. Or just leave them where they are forever and enjoy the 10% China has effectively volunteered to discount its goods by.

> Next up, let's crash the price of oil and flip off the Iran sanctions

Then OPEC cuts production because they're a cartel and all they need is to keep oil competitive with renewables, not have it cost significantly less than that. But it may come down some and then Trump gets voter support from lower gas prices. And the lower oil prices allow oil to better compete with the batteries and solar panels that are manufactured in China, causing China to lose business. And China is on the "climate change is especially bad for this country" list, so that's not great for them either. Meanwhile it gives more cover for Trump to escalate the trade war in retaliation for violating the Iran sanctions. Not really the biggest win for China.
IRS provides statistics about federal taxes:

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-stat...
> But rights are inherently social

No, the founding fathers specifically said that freedom of speech is a God given right and not something which the government gives to a person, instead the government simply recognizes that right. They specifically said freedom of speech is a "Natural" right.

Right to clean water is not a right, right to education is not a natural right in their terms. Right to speech, right to self defense are natural rights.
so much for being pro-NetNeutrality
You have it backwards. Lets assume that Chinese product does not have any US tariffs.

So it costs 100 yuan = 1$. After devaluation, it will cost 50 yuan = 50 cents. When tariffs hit, you pay 50 cents to the US treasury to import it, so it's back to $1.

In the next case, lets assume the tariffs hit first. Tariff of 50% makes the import cost $1.5, so China devaluation puts it back at $1 effective to you, after the tariffs you pay.
I wish the UK was a little more forward thinking when it comes to small electric mobility devices but they actively fine you here for using them on public roads and cycle lanes.

Imagine that people have been riding electric scooters for a hundred years and along comes some new technology, a diesel van. It can transport all the things we buy online to our doors and would be beneficial to society. The problem is that there have been a few fatal accidents between vans and scooters. One of the van drivers was a celebrity. The scooter drivers die, no one else gets hurt. The government decides to ban the new vans because they are too dangerous to OTHER people. There is a big uproar and people would rather scooters be banned instead because that solves the problem too (well, except for bicycles and... people).
In case anyone else was curious, it seems the penalties for being so labelled are enforced through the imposition of tariffs [0].

If the IMF / WTO agree with the Fed's characterization (which is doesn't currently look like will be the case, from what I read in the parent article), then it could have broader impacts, i.e. by the imposition of tariffs by companies which are not currently in a trade war with China.

However, since the US is already levying (heavier) tariffs against China, this is currently being viewed as more of a public / foreign relations move, as it seems unlikely that it will trigger even stronger tariffs.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/trump-currenc...