skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Too many bad arguments to count here... for example, he argues:

"Rather than giving everyone $1,000 per month, a guaranteed-income program would offer transfers only to individuals whose monthly income is below $1,000, thereby coming in at a mere fraction of a UBI’s cost."

Can you not see the obvious problems with giving someone $1,000 so long as they aren't making above $1,000? Why would anyone making $1k continue working for zero benefit?

With UBI, a minimum wage worker is still incentivized to work, as they don't lose benefits. That's kind of the point. Social safety net without getting trapped in the "net".

UBI has plenty of issues, but he's not making a good case.
Of course, it's more about having parents with a stable relationship raising their kids together than it is having some certificate from the government. It's just one of those societal carrots/sticks that encourages those kinds of relationships
It's a good thing people are discussing UBI, but the author does not seem to understand the concept. He says:

> Besides, a more sensible policy is already on offer: a negative income tax, or what is sometimes called “guaranteed basic income.”

Negative income tax (NIT) and UBI are not alternatives; NIT is one possible model for implementing UBI; they become just alternate ways to describe the same math.

In both cases, someone with zero income receives, say $1000. Someone with $500 in income gets something between $500 and $1000, because taxes start to kick in. The benefit continues to be positive until some inflection point, say $5000, where higher taxes end up overwhelming the initial benefit.

By playing with the tax curves you can get any payout model you like and describe it as both NIT and UBI.
Yes, once again, when an issue is systemic (in this case, all coffees by McDonalds are super-hot), the user is not to blame but the vendor/system designer.

It reminds me of that recent case of 90%+ passengers "putting the oxygen masks wrong" because they are "idiots" - an opinion that seemed to be shared by a lot of people even here on HN, but even more so on Twitter.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/103226206/alm...

To me, someone whose never seen an airplane oxygen mask up-close, it's pretty clear that the design of the masks would make people think that this is how you use it, and not over your nose. When you're going down with your plane, fear for your life ending, and have like 30 seconds to act, it's like not you have time to think about the "proper usage of an oxygen mask" - you use it instinctually, based on the design of the thing.

Therefore, those people were not "idiots". Idiots were the people designing the masks in a way that doesn't make sense for humans in an extremely high-pressure situation with little time to react.

Also, as usual, when the vast majority of people do something "wrong", that's the first and only red flag you need to know that the issue is a system design flaw, not a user error one. Same with Apple's "you're holding it wrong" antenna issue, etc.
Not that I think their proposition is better but the Brave people particularly are trying to push a different model with their attention token scheme, so it's not that no one can think of something different, just that it's enormously hard to get people on board when the old advertisers are holding on to everyone using every single way at their disposal, legal or not.
Edit is not available now, so I have to reply to myself:

// Actually, I really got used to 802.11a/b/g/ac naming (when those standarts had very distinct features), it really has rooted into my brain, so it's very hear from me speaking WiFi-5.
How did the coffee spill? Did she hold a cup of a beverage that is traditionally served very hot between her legs?

That lawsuit was frivolous. Coffee is hot. If you spill it, it might burn you.

As far as just asking for medical bills — that might have been true until her lawyers smelled a multi-million payday.

Lawyers like that are the reason we have warnings on hair dryers to not use while showering and warnings on coffee cups that warn of the hot beverage inside. Coffee is traditionally made using boiling or near boiling water — unless McDonalds super-heated the water, the temperature at which it was served was consistent with how coffee is normally served.

That it was an elderly lady makes no difference. That’s just emotional distraction and has no relevance. The McDonalds lawsuit ushered in the “nanny” era where people have to be warned against such hazards as “boating carries a risk of serious injury or drowning.” And product costs (including medical care) is dramatically more expensive than it should be because the trial lawyers had to all get paid. Punishment under statute is one thing, but unlimited punitive damages is absurd. We talk about CEOs getting paid to much — not even close to the payday trial lawyers get.
Fuzzing OpenGL Shader Compilers
> This article suggests that the effect will be ultimately catastrophic, where I suspect that it'll just result in money slowly swinging back the other way as active funds start to make more money than before.

This makes sense to me - I would see returns to active investors increasing gradually, as there are fewer of them. At which point, more people take their passive investments and give them to the active investors. At some point you maybe reach some sort of equilibrium.

Why would it not be a well-functioning feedback loop like this?

> If your money is in an active fund, there's a manager exerting his intelligence in trying to make good choices with your money. This effort is beneficial, as it helps the market find the right prices for assets.

Also, worth noting that it's beneficial for the market, not necessarily (and probably not likely) for the individual investor, who will pay higher fees and may underperform the market.
If you've come to congratulate us, don't. Our struggle is far from over
> ... is a genius at

I'm reminded of the title of a book I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room_...
fwiw: Both cheese and sourdough require lactobacillus, not molds. (And lactobacillus has actually antifungal properties - mold being a fungus, that doesn't bode well for "natural mold")

So, no, mold isn't edible. And it isn't part of bread. If your starter shows mold, you have seriously messed up. (Some cheeses do use mold, though. Blue cheese, Brie, Camembert,...)
It has bothered me for decades that this seems to be a 'bug' in the design of the US government system. ~500 people whose job is to create new laws. 9 people who can effectively remove them (SCOTUS), and who have a very limited schedule. Plus if they are ever too busy and pass on hearing a case because others are more pressing, that immediately cements the law into place and establishes it as having 'survived Supreme Court challenge' since refusing to hear is equivalent to accepting the lower court ruling and establishes it as precedent. I do not see how you can run a system with ~500 'inputs' and 9 low-flow 'outputs' for a long time without resulting in an overflow of oppressive tyranny.
On Two Decades of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
UBI is not necessarily inflationary in the first place.
> Genetic/memetic algorithms are just a rough approximation of a certain selection mechanism we see in the nature

This is irrelevant to my argument. If the simplified version is capable of doing what you have said is unexplained, it is unreasonable to assume that the more complicated version will fail to be capable of the same.

> I never understood how anyone calling themselves a scientist could make such a leap, but obviously it's popular and people made a "scientific" career doing just that...

Occam’s Razor. Start with the simplest possible model, make a prediction, look carefully at reality to see if you were wrong (an act which is easier the simpler the model), and only update the model when reality disagrees with it.

Me coding a genetic algorithm can easily reproduce the entirety of any specific human’s genome if I pick the correct fitness function. Pretty pointless to do so beyond proof of concept, but proof of concept is enough to make the point in this case.
That's a bit overly cautious for identified edibles outside of a couple that can cause extreme reactions (raw shiitake, for example), but it's much better to be overly cautious with mushrooms than to be overly bold.
More info: Sounds like the backup generators operated fine, but only have about an hour of fuel in their individual storage tanks. There's an automated fuel delivery system to keep them topped up which is the piece that failed, meaning the individual generators didn't get their tanks refilled and eventually ran out of fuel. This was compounded by the operations staff being busy with trying to restore the main power feed and somehow (not explained) didn't get a timely notification that the fuel delivery system itself had failed.

AWS says they plan to install a backup fuel delivery system at this particular datacenter (it wasn't detailed whether this SPOF is common at other datacenters or if this was an outlier) and that they have already updated their notifications to be more aggressive.
I'd argue Yarn, React, Jest, PyTorch, Hack (and flow even if it's not used much) are examples that show not true. GraphQL may be one of the one of the only examples that needed a bit more to be usable outside of Facebook. All of the others are generally usable out of the box.
You were branded a privacy nut for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20868489 because you didn't note any actual privacy issues in Android.
The hedge to a portfolio full of heavily-indexed stocks would be fairly-valued, non-indexed stocks. Burry had to report his holdings in a 13F filing on August 14:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1649339/000156761919...

He holds heavily-indexed companies like Disney, Fedex, and Alphabet.

He holds a couple of small-cap value companies that aren't likely to be included in more than a couple of small ETFs: Tailored Brands (Mens Warehouse) and Sportsmans Warehouse.
We generally only hear about the failures, but it's also a tricky thing to test. Simple setups won't put load on the generator during the periodic tests, which can result in outages if the generator will start, but can't run the load for whatever reason (ex: mechanical problems, or load size grew beyond capacity). More complicated setups may be able to switch the load to the generator, but not switch back to utility fast enough in case the generator under test fails during the test. The transfer switches themselves are prone to failures and hard to make redundant.

It seems that it's pretty hard to get this right from the beginning too, every large datacenter ends up learning this again after they have a sequence of power incidents. That said, successful switch to generator for 1 hour and then generator failure is not a terrible outcome; if there was a notification, that's enough time to evacuate critical systems (assuming you have a plan).
> I bet

Care to maybe check real quick before making bets?
A bit of a clickbait title. Acemoglu does say that a 'UBI' is a bad idea, but then advocates for the NIT (Negative Income Tax), which actually works in much the same way. What he actually seems to be saying is that way too much UBI advocacy makes unrealistic claims about what a UBI-ish system might look like - and it's hard to disagree about that!
I see a straw man here. It seems like you can argue against the theory or argue against the actual implementation. The latter was chosen...but with made-up parameters that make it easy to defeat. Examples

"...a UBI of just $1,000 per month would cost around $4 trillion per year, which is close to the entire federal budget in 2018. Without major cost savings, US federal tax revenue would have to be doubled, which would impose massive distortionary costs on the economy..."

So we need major cost savings or taxes to go up.

"Sacrificing all other social programs for the sake of a UBI is a terrible idea. Such programs exist to address specific problems, such as the vulnerability of the elderly, children, and disabled people. Imagine living in a society where children still go hungry, and where those with severe health conditions are deprived of adequate care, because all the tax revenue has gone to sending monthly checks to every citizen, millionaires and billionaires included."

This came our of nowhere as social programs were not mentioned before this line. It's basically fearmongering at this point.

Maybe someone can help me understand what the argument here is. Perhaps I'm being harsh on the author but I just don't see how you can make this argument with genuine intentions.
This is indeed just business as usual on the web, but I'm not sure that should be an acceptable excuse. Clickbait or not, the article isn't wrong to describe in vivid terms how huge companies traffic in very private personal data so that they can more effectively put ads in your face. Given how willing people seem to be to trade their privacy for a few pennies in free services, maybe plain-language articles like this are what we need to communicate the consequences of where that kind of attitude can lead.
Really confused about b) as I see it, a nation must be its own steward and we must all be stewards of the world. My understanding is that China is environmentally devastated. If that’s true it is completely the fault of the Chinese, not the fault of those that asked of them to do it. Other countries have stricter rules, so companies choose not to do business there. Especially in developing countries that limits growth, but the local environment benefits. Also the factory orders were coming from multinational corporations, they have no real allegiance with the West, they disrupt Western political, taxation and legal systems just like anywhere else.

Moreover, consumers don’t realize the damage they are causing if you let a corporation completely externalized the associated costs,(this is not a uniquely Chinese problem) and markets won’t pick the correct winner in those conditions either, who cares if $CHEAPPLASTICGOOD will last a tenth as long if it’s essentially free? China has not only enabled western consumerism, it disrupted the natural economic forces that would prevent such a thing from arising in the first place. To the detriment of the both parties and the world, all because they didn’t respect their environment and thirsted for power. Please explain how this rational is wrong.
The documentary with the same title is also excellent, if you're more inclined to watch something than read it.
What program did Snowden leak that shows the US government spying on everyone?
Byzantine Faults
I think the typical implementation of a std::deque is actually something like a vector of pointers to vector of pointers to T. (except they can't be std::vector exactly, because then you'd only get amortized bounds on pushes).
> Except “their government”, in this case, is actively fighting against them.

It's not because the government is working against them over the Amazon that they don't profit at all from it. All you need is using the government resource once to say that they did profit from it.
The point of the article is that Uber is working with the Kochs to lobby against public transport. That is a lie. Uber are not lobbying. They see public transit consumers as a big market that they can take a piece of. They are currently using only supplementary strategy (ride back and forth to train station). Eventually, they may compete directly. If they offer a better service than mass transit and it drains riders, great. Job well done. Until they actually do something underhanded to achieve that, there's no story here.
I'm on windows thanks.
> index funds can't work after a certain amount of the money poured into the system is managed by index funds

That's not true. They'll still function just fine.

What will likely change is that they will begin to underperform other strategies, including different types of indexing and active investing.

At that point the market will self-correct and simple indexing will fall out of favor.
Sure and as a result, I cannot trust them to do their job.

Historically they suck.
Trump Admin proposes using Echo and Apple Watch to Support Red Flag Laws
My children tease me about "being a hacker", by which they mean unlawfully breaching security of internet systems, because they've seen me reading "hacker news".
The article is from Business Insider, a well known clickbait content farm, not a newspaper.
> Few, and with strict legal and political supervision

The strict supervision is the key here - there could not be true supervision of an extradition treaty with China when the executive is appointed BY mainland China.
It should be self-regulating, though. The higher the portion of the market that is passively investing, the easier it should be to beat their returns by actively investing so the more incentive there will be to actively invest.
I'm addressing a single HN poster who seems genuinely puzzled about how to target their support directly toward improvements to the FF codebase.

You've jumped to discussing an imagined general purpose digital payment pooling system that works at scale.
Where do robo-advisors like Betterment fall into this? It seems like they combine a variety of different funds; do they typically stick with only passive funds or a mixture?
I gotta say, that's something I'm not looking forward to
Someone that knows more than me: how is a correction going to happen on index funds?

Retail investors are told to shovel money in and keep it there. Who's going to be selling to pop the bubble? Do investment banks have a lot of index funds and their derivatives bought? Does there have to me some major re-allocation within the fund that causes investors to sell?

If a single stock is valued incorrectly, how is that going to bring down the entire index?
Go Time 97: Live from Gophercon UK
Show HN: A boat for servers to keep your tech company on international waters post-digital civil rights.
Timely article, I was just thinking about this last night...while browsing Vanguard's site looking for index funds to invest in.
Everyone blindly putting their money into similar instruments and getting double digit gains nearly every year just seems like it can end catastrophically. I want to do more research on how these passive funds affect the overall market and vice versa.
So, Portugal is not a functioning democracy now? That's news to me.
Douglas Hofstadter's book, "Gödel, Escher, Bach" is very highly recommended reading for anyone who finds this (and the theory of computability more generally) interesting.

I've lost entire days of my life to that book!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
I heard about this study on the podcast Curiosity Daily[0] and found it interesting as I was sure that keeping the small distance possible from the next car would be better to cross the stop light faster. Anyway, I always find this kind of "daily life science" amusing, as sometimes they can be applied in real situations (like this one), or just to satisfy our curiosity about things.

[0]https://curiositydaily.com/censoring-information-backfires-s...
thats a question for GP who made the original claim.

> Makes it a little harder for one partner to just leave.
As someone who been to USB-IF committee back around 2006

There are some smart people there, unfortunately some are old-timer in large orgs - they were pushed there "to do least harm".

Didn't care less about how bad some of the proposals were, as long as they were according to the required format.

We tried to fight a bit, but it was a lost cause :\
Go: Retrospective 1.0 to 1.13
Arguably, even if the 2014 "Umbrella Movement" didn't resolve anything immediately then, the repercussion are still continuing today so it's unfair to say it didn't do anything. It's too early to say.

So far, it seems like it helped to inspire the current protestors, and they're much better organized this time round.
I hear pig farmers will have lots of land available soon.
Stress was neither necessary nor sufficient to produce the ulcers; it may have been involved in some cases, but it was not the "cause."
Do this one thing to 10x your 1:1s
So, your complaint is that the article is presenting a viewpoint that you basically agree with, and making the CEO out to be a grifter, which he basically is, and therefore making him look like a grifter is uncomfortably biased? Hell, the article didn't even mention the insane narcissism of the IPO filing.
What if your code is browser specific and uses the javascript based API? You'll need to run it in the browser to debug it right?
What platform and tools are you building with, and how far in? I created a roleplaying iOS (swift) app and Vue website, both on a shared Elixir Phoenix / Postgres / Elastic Search backend which currently has 1.5k DAU / 50k daily messages exchanged that I haven't created such tools for yet. Possible collaboration? https://apple.co/2jV2ZOa
Well, Google is taking steps to neuter those, so...
You could get "targeted" in the sense of a prospective employer not employing you as well.
I can tell you war stories of USB-IF, but only from back in 2006. Prob nothing changed.
My argument is that if we use tech to mean what it means (the application of knowledge) that MANY MANY MANY different types of companies fall under one useless blanket. Dow, Dupont, Ford, Goldman Sachs, Chase etc. Instead we should call them what they are, chemical companies and banks. Every bank is now an "internet company."

Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon build databases, programming frameworks, hardware, operating systems. "Tech platform vendor?"
ORM's are yet another instance of "Big Dark Grey Boxes" (BDGB). They are powerful tools that do a lot for you IF they work as intended. When they don't, you have to experiment and fiddle, and perhaps end up fudging up an ugly work-around to meet deadlines.

Templating engines (like Razor), UI formatting engines (Bootstrap), and routing engines (URL path translation) are also BDGB's with a similar great-until-broken profile.

I most cases it seems we can could have simpler versions that are only a few hundred lines of code. If this few hundred can generate 90% of our SQL or whatnot, then we get most of the time savings without the complexity: we can study or fix a few hundreds lines of code. Chasing that last 10% has created these bloated BDGB monstrosities. Leave it at 90% and enjoy simplicity. It seems components have a handling-curve something like this:

80%: 100 LOC (LOC = lines of code)
90%: 250 LOC
95%: 1000 LOC
98%: 3000 LOC
99%: 6000 LOC

The percent value here is the percent of situations the component handles. In ORM's case, it would be the percent of SQL code generated by the component.

We should strive for components that assist us with grunt-work, not hide the process of doing it behind too much code to grok. If it's simple enough, we can also tune it to better fit shop conventions.

For big development shops, it may make sense to assign specialists to master BDGB. If they work with it all day, they'll eventually figure out most of its quirks and oddities. It's specialization at work. But smaller shops often waste too much time trying to troubleshoot irksome BDGB's because they don't have time to focus on any one.
I don't even see the word "hours" in the comment you're replying to... Got a bit of a chip on your shoulder?
But, seriously, assuming you cannot change global meat market demand, what other solutions are there?
Exactly, it's unconstrained algo generated content that just seeks out the weirdest stuff that will capture a childs attention. It has been discussed on here before and it is super creepy.

In 10 years people will be looking back at this in shock that it happened and there will be downstream affects on the kids exposed to it. It's literally programming weird stuff into the psyche of these young children.
Legitimately a meaningless description. I find it very odd the README and repository description are completely devoid of any meaingful information.
Library Music