skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You take the stance that only competition can breed this but in this case reducing competition has breed these points too.

It's neither.

It wasn't active competition (or the lack of it, or it being reduced) that generated that outcome. It was Bezos (just as it was Sam Walton before him), he dictated that approach as the basis for Amazon's best likely ability to reach massive scale. There were no possible alternatives, if the goal was to get very large as a retailer. Amazon is Jeff Bezos, he has raised it like a child from day one, totally in control of what it is and what it became.

Bezos was facing a scenario of: approach it that way, or Walmart will take care of it for you eventually and make you redundant.

More precisely it was Bezos looking at the future and having to compete with a Walmart that fully awakened to online retailing. In that future forecast sense it was motivated by the threat / fear of competition that would inevitably crush a smaller Amazon. And if it wasn't Amazon or Walmart, someone would have done it most likely, Bezos surely understood that; that the Internet would make a mega platform like Amazon possible.

For another example of this premise in action: Microsoft wasn't so wildly aggressive and competitive due to the marketplace, or other competition or animal spirits in the water, it was solely due to the personality of Bill Gates. It mirrored his personality, aggressive nature and competitiveness. Gates ultimately made Microsoft in his image (that earlier version of Microsoft anyway). He dictated what it became, he controlled the growth and nature of its culture (and once you set that in order, it flows in that mold forward, a persistent mimic, until something breaks it).
> The funding source is not the United States Government. The funding source is US taxpayers.

The right wing likes to proclaim this in support of their dislike of taxes and of government generally (at least when government is telling them what they can and can't do; it seems quite different when they control government and get to tell others what they can't do).

But if we're going to work our way backwards through the chain of funding sources, why stop there? Seems to me that taxpayers' employers could make the same argument about being the funding source — and then the employers' customers — and so on, stretching all the way back to the Big Bang ....
If people have to request to be able to contact you, it is not a public inbox anymore. This is the way most walled gardens work, you have a separate step before you can interact, so it works, but it lacks some of the affordances of the public inbox model of email or blog posts, such as allowing anonymity.
The Mirage of Cloud Gaming (and How to Reach the Oasis)
41, most of my friends are early 30s. Never even met someone who uses WhatsApp in the USA. (But everyone I've ever met outside the USA uses nothing else.)
Once you take into account sales tax, property taxes and other taxes that are not income tax, it's probably in excess of 50% much much sooner than $500k.
This is the EU. What has the US done to limit or sanction Google? Why was Microsoft pursued and Google not? Both were using one market dominance to push another.
I recently opened an account with Ally, an online-only bank, mainly for it's 2.0%+ interest rate on savings, compared to the 0.01% from Wells Fargo.

Did I mess up?
jq (a lightweight and flexible command-line JSON processor)
I see you saying things like 'judge them by the merits of their arguments', and 'intellectual honesty'. But the problem is, I don't trust that you're intellectually honest. I don't think you actually do much logical evaluation when it comes to a case like this; you're already predisposed towards being on the side of the gay guys, and not liking the christians. Well, fine. But I don't believe that you're coming to your conclusions through reason and logic, as you claim to; my impression is that you're just declaring that the chain of evil obviously ends with the people you didn't like to begin with, and their arguments don't need to be refuted because they're not in good faith.

Meanwhile, it's alright for you to categorically refuse to give service to someone for another kind of social identity.

Fine... I just don't get the feeling I should rely on you as a source of 'good faith' arguments about this stuff. You seem to have a pretty big axe to grind.
I have been in Bucarest in April. It was hot as hell but more over was the humidity levels, totally killed me. I used AC all the way.
Did you even read what I wrote before that? It was comparing it to Walmart
Your definition of a public good does not fit at all with what the accepted definition is, so I am not sure how to argue with you.

They are in no way using a public good, so arguing that they need to follow the rules that we place on public good doesn't make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
I would search for people living a "perfect" life: no mistakes ever made, not a single cent lost to investment, not a single car key forgotten or an umbrella staying at home, absolutely nothing negative in their life. The more there are, the less the chance that pure luck is driving it, it must be a communication from the future.
expensive is a matter of taste. The envisiontec 3SP costs well over 5K euros and can go up to 100K. You can only get a a price if you ask for a quote. Carbon 3D does not sell their printers you have to lease them. Formlabs does sell you a printer at 3.5K but you can't use third party resins, so
you decide. I actually know some open-hardware printers which sell for 5K.
The taxation-as-theft argument has never satisfactorily addressed the free-rider problem (among many others).
This article may as well be about the United States. They primarily speak of internet issues outside of the big cities in Germany, which is exactly the case in America.

Furthermore, the Germans average internet speed is only 3mb slower than that of the U.S.

Sorry. Anti-German articles are so poorly done, it's kind of sad.
Let me restate the article's argument:

Amazon has enough monopoly power in certain categories to abuse that power to harm competition, and Amazon chooses to do so.

Would you still disagree?
Not immune, but pretty reistant, yes.

The results of these models are usually compared with actual data from the real world, very much like in astronomy or geology. If a model doesn't agree with reality, it gets discarded pretty quickly.

In fact, that is what the researchers did in this case: They applied several statistical models of weather extremes to both models and real data and compared them. Every model that failed to predict the actual measured heat wave went out.

That seems like a good way of establishing a baseline, and gives high confidence in the predictive power of the remaining models.

You could argue about how the weather data was selected, and how it was compared with the models. But that is already a discussion about details of the specific study.
This one is a collaboration between multiple reputable institutions, so it is pretty safe to assume sound practices.

Notably, the fact that you actually know about statistical abuse in science shows that the scientific process is working as intended:
Results are public and therefore can be and are scrutinized. More important stuff also receives more scrutiny, less important stuff can go unchecked until it is cited more often.

But eventually errors will be unearthed and accounted for.
As well it should be. You don’t want the spoils system appointing FBI agents.
US exports are also down 12%, the Chinese government embargoed all purchases of US Agricultural goods by State owned Enterprises (SOEs), which constitute about 1/3rd of China's GDP.

Thus, the US trade deficit has been made worse, the US will continue to import from China.

China's central bank owns a huge chunk of US debt, so in effect, this is being covered by the US government over the long term, i.e. see the _Twin Deficits Hypothesis_ that federal deficits and trade deficits are related.

Also, the central bank in China didn't do anything to devalue the yuan, it was propping it up. A tariff decreases demand, ergo, it decreases demand for RMB vs USD, ergo, exchange rates drop and the yuan becomes cheaper from lower demand.

There's a "symmetry theorem" in economics that predicts this outcome to restore equilibrium (trade deficits offset by currency adjustment). So let's stop trying to cook up more excuses for Trump's trade policy. His own economic advisers disagree with it, and the fiction that "mexico" or "china" will pay for these tariff actions he's taking is a straight up lie to the citizens of the country.
> Being on Amazon's Marketplace (the largest in the world), every sale gives Amazon all the statistics needed to pick only guaranteed profitable products.

No, it does not. They are missing the most important piece of information: Cost of Goods Sold. They also don't know where you sourced the product. Or which features are important to customers and which are not.

> Then Amazon requires the seller to produce invoices showing purchase of the items, usually with some sort of vague threat of suspending your account if they can't "verify the authenticity" of your products.

This is only for trademarked products where the trademark owner has registered with Amazon. And the purpose is to protect consumers: by requiring proof that a product has been sourced from an authorize reseller, rather than some factory making knock offs or somebody buying stolen goods.

> So they proceed to purchase the product, sell it at a loss until you can't hang anymore, and now Amazon is the sole source for the product.

The only sellers this alleged strategy would harm are sellers who are selling a trademarked brand for which they are not authorized. But why should those sellers even be on Amazon? And how would this be any different than Amazon buying these products directly from the manufacturer and being the only seller on their website? In other words, they don't need to do what you're alleging. They are free to just claim certain products as 1st party only.

Separately:

I sell speaker wire on Amazon. I compete against their Amazon Basics brand. I have a viable business that is growing. Because I know more about this market and its weird little crevices than Amazon ever will.
This is a glib answer from a position of security.

“Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights, those of your colleagues, and the actions your employer takes in support or opposition of these.
Facebook Page Fans
Get over 1000 page fans on Facebook page
http://www.simplysit.com/57694//vwIQW/?sc=7&sc=7&l=1&ppy=5764138&i=5764138
The highest speed offered that i've seen is 800 Mbps for around 15$, but that is some unique offer by only one provider.

The city average is 200-300 Mbps.
The Horde Project
> - How could a single baby born with health problems bankrupt a big aerospace company?

Lots of companies have self-funded groups, but join onto an insurance group for negotiating power. For instance, I have a plan like this and our partner-company is Cigna so I carry around a Cigna insurance card with the $FIRM plan.

Looking at the paperwork, the most expensive plan is $67 per week, with an $8,500 max out- of-pocket. $FIRM has (rounding up slightly) 500 employees. So let's say 500 employees x 67 dollars x 52 weeks = 1.742.000 dollars into the insurance pool per year, so two $1.000.00 pregnancies in a year would be devastating. If the pool was low, possibly bankrupting(?) - I'm not actually sure what the failure mode is here, if Cigna has some obligation at that point... guess I have an HR question tomorrow.
A simpler / more confusing one is -3^2 (negative 3 squared). A lot of people are taught that something squared is it times itself. So -3 x -3 = 9.

Except, that's not (necessarily) the right answer. Instead, some people are taught it should be thought of as 0 - 3^2. 0 - 3 * 3 = -9 using the Order of Operations.

What is more confusing is that even Wolfram sees -3^2 and -3 squared as different problems. So maybe there is no satisfactory answer.

Wolfram Alpha:

> -3^2 => -9

> -3 squared => (-3)^2 => 9

But:

> -3^3 => -27

> -3 cubed => -27

You can't tell if this is (0 - 3^3) or if it is (-3 x -3 x -3). How cruel.
When I was reading about the history of the Caribbean islands this was a shock to say the least, putting a debt onto former slaves for the value of their own lives sounds like something straight out of a dystopian future. Sometimes we just have to look back into our history and you'll never believe the horrors you can uncover.
U.S. Designates China as Currency Manipulator
I suppose you can always spend more time but the type of work I did didn't create downstream dependencies. There was no maintenance. (It was reports, competitive analysis, and the like.) Although I can't ever recall a situation where we were like:"It's not good. But it's good enough. Ship it."
This is my point exactly. Someone was going to do it. Amazon did it. So if today its Amazon and tomorrow someone else, why be up in arms about it?
If we are talking about the DMCA safe harbor stuff, which is what I was talking about, it was not modeled after the first amendment at all. What makes you think they were?
The Supreme Court already judged the anti-gay-marriage bigots on the merits of their arguments, and they were found lacking. They brought their best arguments, and they weren't good enough. That is evidence that supports my intuition. If you have some profound new anti-gay argument that nobody's already heard countless times already, they why don't you lay it on us and change our minds?

And yes, regardless of your distrust and disbelief in me, I have already logically thought about it a lot. I'm just not writing out every step of my logical thought process right now, and I won't or dang will ding me. So you'll have to take my word that I'm smart enough to figure it out logically for myself. Even most children can come to the same conclusions as I did, if they haven't been indoctrinated to hate.

I don't owe the anti-gay-marriage bigots the respect of rehashing and yet again arguing against their tired old disproven arguments and desperate Gish Gallops. It boils down to the bible told them to be bigots. They have no better arguments.

That's why the baker case is such a great example of how to properly resolve the Paradox of Tolerance.
U.S. Treasury Department Labels China a Currency Manipulator
I agree with most of your points here, but I am not sure I see how this really amounts to an objection to Popper's proposed prescription. Nearly everything is contested by someone, even things as mundane as who is at fault in a motor accident. And yet, we have largely workable, if imperfect, ways to resolve such disagreements, so that everyone can get on with life. So the real objection has to be along the lines of: there is no practical set of procedures that would allow us to resolve the problems of intolerant speech and behavior in a reasonably effective way.

More philosophically, however, one important way to take on the problem of subjectivism is to use something like Rawl's veil of ignorance, or Sherner's fairness principle:

“The Fairness Principle: When contemplating a moral action, imagine that you do not know if you will be the moral doer or receiver, and when in doubt err on the side of the other person.”
>It's profits that are taxed and they reduce profits by reinvesting those profits.
What percent of Apple's profits are reinvested in California?
You don’t need sound reasoning that could withstand scientific scrutiny. Management won’t be able to distinguish valid from bogus data. Just p-hack until it fits your conclusion - they’ll eat it up in no time.
People always talk about obvious media bias, but articles like these are the hard-facts often missing from those discussions
I think hangout meet live streaming is supposed to be the replacement for hangouts on air[1].

[1]: https://support.google.com/meet/answer/9055488
I've been asked in interviews about my familial status, even had one CTO flat-out tell me he wanted to know because of insurance costs.
Private Internet Access Announced Support for Handshake (HNS)
Moving site connected to Cloudflare to new hosting
Often times I get frustrated with the second type you describe because they seem to assume that I have deliberately (or otherwise) chosen to do something suboptimal out of laziness or neglect when often it is simply from not being a subject matter expert myself.

There is a lot to be said for not taking any shit when it comes to getting things right in a project. However, I think that the most brilliant engineer is the one who helps people who make mistakes or are not as smart/experienced as they. Implying the only reason someone would not do "The Right Thing" is because they're bad is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.
It's a reasonable standard but I'd like to see it applied more fairly.

Were any of these celebrities [1] deplatformed for threatening Republicans?

Does anyone on the left consider that their hateful rhetoric might be inspiring their own followers to violence when that happens?

1: https://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-stars-donald-trump-violent...
Just the "subscribe to blog" brought a small smile to my face because such a thing still exists. Thanks.
You don’t need a degree anymore. Experience comparable to a degree, documented with proper work contracts and references gets you there too. Source: myself, not German citizen, living and working in Germany as Freiberufler (alongside other things).
I'm in northern Europe, and some places in the country hit 40. When I was a kid, 30 was rare. Above 35 unheard of. This year was absolutely extreme, and yet I fear it may become the rule.
We raised money without investor to launch our SaaS
It's broken in the U.S. because government is not for the people - government is for the vested interests who have warped government policy by giving money to politicians and parties.

That's why companies sometimes are in fact given money by the government in the U.S. rather than paying money to the government.
Great. We agree. If you believe it is impossible, why do you appear to be arguing for subverting US foundations?
TheHill describes this video as "attacking LGBTQ people", but the claims made in the video are well sourced. Is stating uncomfortable facts now an "attack"? If someone made a similar video against white people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1SrN2mBWD8), would it also be framed as an "attack", or would that fall under "speaking truth to power"?
Google is a huge company, so why's that so hard to believe? In fact I'm curious how you'd so easily write off the whole company and everyone who works there from few pieces of bad press.
It's human psychology.

Of course more people die of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, car accidents (and probably any number of other things) than in mass shootings every day.

But the seemingly random and violent nature of it is what's scary.

I can eat healthier, exercise, buy a safer car, drive more carefully, etc etc. But mass shooters aren't really avoidable while leading a normal life. That makes it scary and noteworth.
I never knew loss of parking was even a thing in the US.
I can't imagine it being as bad as within European cities where most of the streets (and adjacent buildings) have been built before cars were a thing. Probably one of the main reasons why alternatives to cars are well-received is that cars have never been an option anyways, especially in historic districts.

Big cars are another dimension of this problem.
American cars are usually larger because they don't have these types of issues.
You won't see a majority of people driving pickup trucks in Europe.

Where I live, the two biggest fears about non-car transportation is that it's a) inconvenient or stressful and full of delays (for public transport) or b) too dangerous (for stuff like electric scooters).
They are not using their browser monopoly (which doesn't exist) to force people to use their search product. That would be the corollary to the Windows -> Internet Explorer case.
Trump is a fascist, which is a little different. The high school political spectrum thing breaks down out of the context of the 20th century.
If calculus was taught with the concepts of nonstandard analysis rather than the tiresome and archaic "limit as delta x approaches zero" stuff, the world would be an improved place.
Yes, these two things are equivalent. One is talking about murdering specific people or committing a mass shooting (in a world where stochastic terrorism is more and more common).

The other is a guy who got put on trial for saying the word "cocksucker".

Completely equivalent. I too am an enlightened centrist.
Never said it was a "new" observation. They could shut down all sellers in the Marketplace and take it on themselves. Would that suck? Yes. But is that legal for them to do? Also yes. This isn't a charity business people, we don't all own Amazon, this is some guys painstaking work remember.
> Amplification means getting content in front of new eyeballs that wouldn't have otherwise seen it.

Which a CDN does as well. If a user visits the site during peak demand and the site without a CDN can't handle it, the user doesn't get the site in front of their eyeballs. With a CDN, they might. Analogy also works during DDoS attacks. Both assume that the user doesn't have infinite memory and patience to keep trying (because that's a realistic assumption).

"Amplification" has be overloaded. You are talking about a viral marketing definition, whereas CDNs are a hardware+software force multiplier for performance.
SEO Fiyatları, Hizmet, Çalışma Detayları Ve Teklifler » SEO Uzmanı
Go away, bigots!
I've been toying with this idea under the general rubric of "manifestation", that is, the distinction in understanding of things which one has experienced manifestly -- directly -- and those one has not.

This covers any number of circumstances -- why travel is broadening, why rare / degenerative / mental health conditions are so frustrating to explain to healthcare providers / family / others, trying to communicate specialised knowledge, historical bias, what the old know that the young do not (and rarely, vice versa). Tacit vs. explicit knowledge. Theory vs. experience.

There's probably far better existing terminology than what I've come up with (Hume, Kant, and Berkeley address this, as does Plato, within philosophy). But it's also a major concern in a highly diverse yet tightly interconnected world.
> US does censor certain kinds of speeches.

Which ones? Please elaborate.
This seems little different to walmart or any other grocer or retailer with own brand products alongside other suppliers in their ‘marketplace’. Should bricks and mortar stores also be dumb pipes?

Is there evidence of Amazon driving a company out of business by abusing this position? If there is then that could be a problem.
The national debt refers only to the debt of the federal government. Separately, statistics are also kept on the private debt within a country - in the US, that's about $27 trillion. For comparison, the US national debt is $23 trillion. People care more about the national debt because it is, in a sense, owed by everyone.
It's going to be tough doing this in a lot of US cities, especially those which had most of their growth after WW2. So much was built with the assumption that all transportation would be via car (or bus as an afterthought, sometimes). You can probably do it in an old downtown area but good luck trying it in suburbia
I don't hate taxes, I hate rich and largely old people asking for taxes to be cut -- but wanting the same services -- such that the buck is passed on to us.
Well, let us know if you ever arrive at an opinion on that question.