skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It sounds like the country you are in has very strong protections for your equity, and very likely if you do nothing then you would continue to own 40%.

You have already offered a generous offer to the cofounder to reduce your equity stake over time and without knowing their side of the story, that seems like a great deal to take. You did put in two years of work, at a reduced, or $0 salary, and as a result there should be some equity that you retain.

You could simply just ignore everything and move on, and if the company sells get your 40%. You have already made an offer that he could have accepted, but chose not to for whatever reason.

So why stress more about it?

Agreements should be set in place beforehand as others have mentioned, specifically around vesting schedules and also control structures and so forth, but this is a good learning lesson for both of you.

So if you make a generous offer and instead of accepting it that person comes back and says you should have 0%, why are you continuing to put that person's needs first?
> Tell me again what I don’t understand?

As someone who has done both, it's far, far easier to stand up a lambda than it is to manage a cluster of servers.
> I think it's pretty clear that in many western democracies it's getting increasingly easy to form majorities "against" stuff while it's getting harder to form majorities "for stuff".

What.

"I'm not anti EU, I'm pro independence"?

From this perspective the people who are against Brexit are inherently against change, or fear of the unknown, and pro Brexiteers are fighting to own their own laws.

I'm not saying this is or isn't my opinion, but your opening presumption is flawed.
To anyone flagging the post. Would you please mind explaining what's bothering you in order to know what to avoid posting? Because I can't for the life of me understand what's so controversial about the topic.
Crowder is a poor example as his troubles come mainly from the fact that he keeps specifically targeting people with harassment campaigns. It probably doesn't help that his go to insults are all homophobic.
I don't get that people want notifications for basic stuff. I always turn off notifications and only leave the really important ones. Also no blinking lights or sounds or vibrations, I check my phone often enough and if it is really important those people can call me. Then social media is just a thing to scroll through while on the toilet .
Given the size of the informal economy in the country, both GST and Demonetization were necessarily draconian for the scale of the problem they were trying to address.

Admittedly both failed at improving the economy, but it has caused progress in strides towards the gargantuan problem that is the grey market.

Everyone uses banks now, and online transactions have become the norm. My observations are restricted to urban areas though, so YMMV.
Amazon Prime Sells
The Epstein story, and more specifically the official reaction to it, seems to me to have had quite a significant widespread impact on a lot of people's ability to fathom the possibility that organized crime actually is possible, despite widespread popularity of the obviously incorrect "it is literally impossible for that many people to keep quite, lol" meme.

I have a feeling though that to make any real difference, it would take several of these in fairly quick succession, but hopefully I'm wrong about that.
I cashed out of my private company a few years back. Advice that me & my partner got was that I should leave with no equity, as any ownership stake I retained would feel like there was still a business relationship where I had a say. The deal my partner worked out for a sale was a fixed price of X. 25% of the sale price of immediately, and the rest was worked out as a deal where I'd be paid out over 18 months. It worked great. Lawyers and tax people helped with the legalese and taxes.
Most scientists in academic institutions in the US belong to faculty unions that negotiate on their behalf. If you want to split hairs about whether this constitutes a “scientist union,” feel free, but the larger point that scientists are largely non-union does not seem to bear scrutiny. In addition, Australia has a scientist trade union: http://www.professionalsaustralia.org.au/scientists/
Not to mention that Jim could be in a precarious position. OP retains all of their shares that were initially agreed upon so offering to retroactively do vesting helps Jim a bit.

However, since OPs cofounder paid out of pocket for the app, I'm not sure what the StartupInc actually owns. But that also means the possibility of piercing the corporate veil - which is also bad.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did have a startup where my cofounder gutted the company after trying to stage a coup - then created a very similar company. He'd signed all the NDAs, non-competes (these ARE enforceable, even in CA, with co-founders/execs) etc.

I never went after him.

Instead, I waited to see: would he be able to steal my idea, connections, and clients to be successful on his own. If so, I planned on getting my share through legal proceedings.

Short version, a few years later one of his 3 co-founders quit, a year later the other did, and now the company is gone.

I'll avoid giving OP advice based on my one story, but another poster made a good point: there is very little to be gained.

Legally, though, I believe that - short of creating a new corporate entity or watering down the stock (both possible, though they come with risks RE getting sued by OP) - OP will retain all of their shares.

Of course, being not a lawyer, there are likely major gaps in my understanding and OP should at least have a chat with one.
...considerably less efficient. Doesn’t matter in a 100+ horsepower motorcycle. Matters a lot on a < 1 horsepower bicycle. Pain in the ass to change, too.
I agree with everything you're saying, but what you're describing isn't a social network. It's a private, invite-only community and those have serious limitations when compared to an open social network.

IMHO, HN and Reddit are at their best when random people whose opinions you wouldn't ordinarily hear from decide to comment. For example, It's pretty common here on HN for open source authors to chime in on threads where their product is being talked about and answer questions. On Reddit, you'll occasionally get highly detailed comments from people with hands on knowledge of the topic being discussed. One that stands out in my mind right now is when an LA city planner commented on a thread about building high rent condos vs building low rent units. He laid out all of the city building codes around new buildings and why the finances don't work out for the low rent units. It was one of the best comments I've ever seen on the topic on Reddit and it would never have happened had the subreddit been closed off or invite only.

Of course, then the problem becomes how much crap you have to sift through to find that nugget. But, If you deleted all the crap as "shallow responses", would the lack of posts still attract those nuggets of great content? I think a high comment count and a high karma count actually attracts higher quality commenters because there's a perceived greater chance a lot of people will read it.

The only solution I can think of is to have a lot of moderators constantly auditing threads, marking the high quality comments so they stand out at the top and outright blocking or banning anything too egregious. Crowdsourcing doesn't work for this because it gets weaponized and/or abused.

Ultimately, what makes or breaks a social network rests entirely on the decisions the mods make about what kind of content they want on their site.
Newspapers have always had an agenda. Op-eds particularly have always been a cesspool of political nonsense.

The difference now is the agenda is obvious because more viewpoints are available online, and in the past the agenda would - sometimes - be supported with hard journalism from real sources, including field reporters.

Now there's a lot more newswire and PR copy pasta and Google searching.
Getters and Setters Harm Encapsulation
Demonetization is just one of many issues. It mainly affected cash and credit based businesses. It's not directly responsible for the lack of demand in various sectors. The current slowdown is a result of many more things. Some issues are structural, while others are cyclical.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-demonetization-is-the-rea...

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/15-ways-to-define-india-...

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cDovL2NhcGl0YWxtaW5kLm...
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. From what others have suggested here, I guess it was your generosity that you've only retained 1% & got no cash. I understand that there have to be equity left for others, I just wanted to protect myself in case Jim sold the company a month after I left (without him doing any extra work that would "devalue" my contribution) when I suggested the initial 30% stake that would then go down sharply
Alternative: misogyny is so ingrained into our worldview that we view it as the default, natural state we revert to.
I really like what they are trying to do in the European Union

Just surprised this court hasn’t had its Marbury v Madison moment when it rules for itself to take over the government
Mosques are analogous to churches, not monasteries. Even as a Muslim, I'm not sure what the Islamic equivalent for a monastery is, since monasticism it is discouraged in Islam.
>2. What is the point of studying science, if politicians do not listen to science?

That's not really what's happening.
From day one, in the eighties, the ones who have been vocal about this have been politicians. Al Gore, the IPCC, etc. I mean, most people can't name a single scientist advocating this issue. In France, just like in the US, the number one advocate on this issue is a TV show host. And in fact, the most well-known French scientist (turned politician) who talked about global warming (Claude Allegre) is what people would call a skeptic or denier...

What's happening today is that:

1. in western democracies, people predominantly vote to ignore it
2. in developing countries, leaders also choose to ignore it

Greta is protesting against point 1. That's not going to achieve much more. At this point, people have made their mind about the issue and I don't think the balance is going to be tipped significantly. I don't even understand what she's trying to achieve. She can shout at politicians as much as she wants, ultimately the power is held by the people of those democracies.
Oh right, I forgot flagging is done by the community.

Addendum:
I can kinda understand it though. While research like this might be correct and is definitely important, it can make it sound like "all men" or "all women" think this way, to some extent, making those who are different feel invalid. (Maybe a bit of a personal topic but I'm currently thinking a lot about my gender and identity and stuff like this is kinda making me scared.)

Additionally, to some this might make it seem like it's not worth welcoming diversity in tech. (Which is also not true IMO.)
How to encrypt secrets in config files
Lack of water leads to breakdown in civil society, which can end up in civil war.

Also, India, Pakistan and China all depend on the Himalayan glaciers for water. With global warming, those glaciers are melting down, and there is likely to be a demand to secure water sources.

Three nuclear powers fighting over a scarce, essential resource is not going to be fun.
Or take 15 minutes to watch Lady Hale read the summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/prorogation/judgment.html

It's a model of calmness and clarity.
Comparing Database Types
Fair point. For me I seeing it as ceding control to some other company to decide what products and services I should buy. It's not complete control, but its a persistent influence that even if I know it is happening is hard to resist. Make no mistake that advertising does work even when you are completely aware that it is advertising.

I think in my core, freedom of choice is extremely valuable to me and so I tend to resist as much as possible attempts by others to control any amount of that choice for me.

Having said that, it means I also respect the choice of others to take the free product because the internal math on their side is different and they see it as the better decision for them. As long as we are all thinking through the decisions, then whatever we each choose is right for us.
I wouldn't say separating the GC at the type level is a major innovation, but as you say it's useful. I don't think Nim really sells itself on a groundbreaking GC implementation either. However it does give you a fast GC with enough flexibility should you need it. For example, the Boehm GC is not thread-local.

GC types are copied over channels with threads, or you can use the usual synchronisation primitives and pass pointers.

As you say, thread-locality avoids the hard problems and this is a good default - I would argue that most of the time you want your data being processed within a thread and the communication between them to be a special case.

Certainly, there's a lot of talk of adding some sugar to threading, and Nim does offer some interesting tastes, such as the parallel statement: https://nim-lang.org/docs/manual_experimental.html#parallel-...

The performance of the default GC is good to very good, the JVM is almost certainly better in most cases, however this is comparing apples to oranges; it's a different language.

Nim's GC pressure is much lower in most cases, not least because everything defaults to stack types which not only don't use GC but tend to be much better for cache coherence due to locality. Using ref types is not required unless you use inheritance, however the language does encourage composition over inheritance, despite providing full OO capabilities, so you find inheritance isn't as needed as in other languages.

Plus it's not really much different to using refs to drop down to pointer level and avoid the GC without disabling it:

type
DataObj = object
foo: int
Data = ptr DataObj

proc newData: Data = cast[Data](alloc0(DataObj.sizeOf))
proc free(data: Data) = data.deAlloc

var someData = newData()
someData.foo = 17
echo someData.repr
# the echo outputs eg: ptr 000000000018F048 --> [foo = 17]
someData.free

All this means that you can 'not use the GC' whilst not disabling it. I am a performance tuning freak and I still use GC seqs all the time because the performance hit is actually using the heap instead of the stack, and worse, the actual allocation of heap memory - regardless of the language. The GC overhead is miniscule even with millions of seqs and would only even come into play when allocating memory inside loops. At that point, it's not the GC that's an issue, but the allocation pattern.

Again though, it's nice to be able to drop down to pointers easily when you do need every clock cycle.
In my experience conservatives learn quick to not talk about it ever in public. Liberals feel safe to shout out their opinions.
Fact checking sounds great in theory but maybe in practice maybe it is an exercise in confirmation bias.

For example, in a case cited by the article an author did employ at least one fact checker[0] who was an ostensible expert and who describes a reasonable effort but who still got it wrong (maybe).

In another example, the article alludes to "mistakes" which was actually plagiarism.[1]

If the question really is a matter of trusting books or not, then maybe a reasonable heuristic is to identify the agenda of the author and weight more heavily the writings of authors with divergent priors, similar to Slate Star Codex' idea of adversarial collaboration.[2] An example is Kahneman and Klein's Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree.[3]

0. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/naomi-wolf-outrages-gay...

1. https://twitter.com/mcmoynihan/status/1093290016632115202

2. https://slatestarcodex.com/tag/adversarial-collaboration/

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19739881
> In the Swiss model, you'd have subsequent direct votes on specific plans once decided upon.

This is a flawed assumption. The EU referendum absolutely was an exercise in direct democracy. Nowhere does it say that direct democracy requires a specific set of questions to be asked.

Breakup from the EU is so complex that we could not have prepared for it enough to know the ramifications of any options. Politics does not work like that and neither does life.
Youtube itself had lots of young creators before they started the monetizing game and they were creating content for free and a lot of it was good, honest and creative. Along with the monetization and aggressive promotion everything went into a shocking craze to increase the number of followers, the number of views and the volume of content. A lot of it is just crap.
Dnsmasq can be the DHCP too. I basically run a "pi-hole" like thing on a Soekris - handles four subnets and routes and other neat network magic.

It serves dead pages for CSS, JS and IMG
ERROR MARKETING

Companies make billions in profits by using unfair and immoral business practices.

Inattentive customers often get lured in "awesome" deals that sometimes cost them fortune.

CUSTOMERS: Be attentive when making a purchase.
BUSINESSES: Be as transparent and honest as possible.
> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.

Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.
How do you know when people are seriously cursing at you?
So employing company either does, or does not do background checks. And if it does it works irrespective of RtBF law.
I'd like to give a shout out to one pod caster in particular that might be of interest to this audience: https://softwareengineeringdaily.com

There are ads, but they are spoken by the host in his normal tone. No loudness tricks, just one minute reading the copy. I suppose OP's tool won't detect this unless a human tags all the spots.

Second, the ads are focused to the audience and may actually be useful sometimes: hosting companies, SAS tools, etc.
Actually, the opposite is true. There's no single explanation for it, but women tend to survive in much higher numbers during times of severe famine or catastrophe. It's likely a combination of several factors: Women have slower metabolisms and higher bodyfat, and they tend to form more close knit groups. Men tend to take on more physical labor, they tend to waste more energy, and are more likely to end up as social outcasts.
Keep in mind selection bias. The only preppers you know are the ones who let you know they are preppers.

Many mormons are "preppers" in that their religion urges them to stockpile up to a year of food.
This article should not be flagged: it's a good-faith article written by journalist that cites its sources (which include a number of peer-reviewed studies). It is careful to use conditional language in the title ("Might explain"). Even if you don't like the conclusion, if you are an honest person who truly believes that science can help us understand the nature of humanity and use it to explain our current situation, you should not flag the article.
Long term real estate returns are roughly equivalent to bank fixed deposits. The higher returns are during periods of speculation in certain regions.

While it is true that a lot of real estate transactions used to happen in cash, one of the major increase in housing prices was easy availability of credit. Banks would extend credit to both the developers and buyers. However the developers weren't required to repay the loans as they were extended, allowing them to sit on the inventory and keep increasing prices.

While the cash crunch has contributed to decrease in RE prices, the banking/NBFC NPAs are also equally responsible.

I find this vilification of cash naive and disingenuous.
Naive for those who do not understand that many who deal in it earn too low to be taxed.
Disingenuous for those who understand and still propagate this myth.

Governments want to get rid of cash because it is a debt to them and they cannot easily confiscate it as they can money lying in a bank. Also cash provides a little safeguard against negative interest rates. Also transactions cannot be tracked or taxed. With digital transactions, the payment processors introduce a 1-2% tax on the economy.
It's pretty absurd to shift the blame to advertising.

This wasn't the age of clickbait and adtech, this was over 20 years ago. 24 hour news channels like Fox News and MSNBC were in their infancy. Isn't there some responsibility to be had to uphold journalistic integrity?

If anything, this article shows the danger of pop science and journalists writing authoritatively about things they don't understand well.
Oh please, I was gentle with you given your statement.
Let's be honest here: If parliament had voted for an early election, a no-deal Brexit would have been inevitable.

Boris would have simply delayed dissolving parliament so the Oct 31 deadline passed while parliament was dissolved. To do so would have been legal and rational.

The opposition would have had to be dumb to fall for that.
Pakistani-American here - land transfers in subcontinent are carried out by first going to the local patwari (clerk) in charge of land revenue records. Stamp duty and and registration is charged after that on declared transfer price of the property, so cash portion is under the table and not subject to it

https://joshandmakinternational.com/legal-procedure-pertaini...

Source: family selling a house in Karachi
The question makes sense rhetorically, to establish that the machine is still only as good as its operator, just faster.
When you buy a property, you have to register the property (on your name) with the local government body (generally the Municipal Corporation).

The fee paid here is calculated as a percentage of the price paid for the land/property. So everyone buys (on paper) at exactly the ready reckoner rates (the minimum prices) and then pay the minimum taxes (or registration fees). While in reality the prices are way higher than the ready reckoner prices (generally 5 to 10 times) and so the rest of the price is paid in cash (unaccounted black money).

If I may ask: Where in India so you like to spend your time in terms of urban/rural India? Have you found any life-threats just because you're a foreigner?
This guy says "I" too much.
> Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass.

If so, it will be because of the hysterical, elitist clinging to the EU, rather than the act of leaving itself.

It may come as a surprise to you, but the UK was once a country, rather than a province of Guy's European Empire; and it worked out fine.
All of these articles from very reputable sources say that many view marijuana as a miracle cure. Of course, they are balanced and also question this narrative, but why do they say this view is widespread?

> How one molecule from the cannabis plant came to be seen as a therapeutic cure-all:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/14/magazine/cbd-...

> More Australians are using medicinal cannabis to treat a host of health problems as reports of its supposed healing powers flood the media:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/11/medicinal-ca...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/05/cbd-a-mariju...

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/marijuan...
I found a user that seems to match but I'm not 100% sure it's you. Could you shoot me an email at: hello@stack.app?
I guess it's difficult to manage church finances when it doesn't control government(s) anymore.