skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The article takes things a bit too far with the political angle. Just because economists may or may not be particularly accurate at predicting recessions doesn’t mean that “economics” doesn’t deserve its place in the neo-liberal order.

NPR did a podcast a few years ago on six policies it’s ideologically diverse panel of economists all agreed on: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-...

They are:

1&2) get rid of tax deductions for mortgage interest and healthcare

3) eliminate corporate taxes

4) replace payroll and income taxes with consumption taxes

5) impose carbon taxes

6) Legalize marijuana

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Europe, Canada, and Australia have all been moving in the above direction (at least slowly) over the past 30 years, marking a period of return to growth after decades of economic doldrums where they were uncompetitive with the USA.

There is even less disagreement when it gets into microeconomics. Everyone agrees that markets produce efficient prices so long as you account for externalities. So for example, an EPI study polled economists about the $15 minimum wage (who identified as Democrats 3:1 as compared with Republicans): https://www.johnlocke.org/update/what-do-economists-think-ab.... 75% thought it would negatively affect employment, and 84% agreed it would hurt youth employment.

Similarly, few economists support rent controls: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/09/19/rent-control-wi...

Indeed, the consensus on government price controls is so deep that, with the exception of isolated things like rent control and the minimum wage, where people don't perceive it as price regulation, even liberals don't really call for price regulation. That is remarkable, because price regulation was a feature of life until the 1970s. Airline tickets, freight trucking, phone bills--all were priced not based on markets, but based on bureaucrats picking numbers.
The legal arguments in any case pertain only to that case, but it is a necessary condition for a work to be covered by copyright is that it "fixed in a tangible medium of expression"[1], i.e. that there is some fixed text (or a picture, or an audio or video recording) that is the work (although once it exists, derivatives are also protected). This is true for a code API, but not for a protocol.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o...
That's hard- maybe talk to the EFF (https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance)?

I'd prefer it if it didn't to come to that, and they lack the budget to do all that needs to be done, the system simply lacks enough good operators to act as a counterpoint to those operating in bad faith.

I think when you need that counterpoint at all, it's the system as a whole that needs to change.
But this is getting way off topic.
No one said they destroyed it. Google appropriated Oracle's intellectual property for Google's own use, specifically because Google didn't want to pay for the use of that intellectual property.

If I write a book and you read it, love it, and then retype the book, print it and sell it, you have violated my property rights.

You and many others here don't want it to be that way, but it is exactly that way.
I'd say that it's unethical to the extent that it involves dishonesty.
Clever name, simultaneously looking like NVIDIA but sounding like Via resurrected.
Patreon CEO says the company’s generous business model is not sustainable
Stop messing around with self-diagnosis, and go to a real opthalmologist (not just an optometrist). Your eyes are too important to play "I know what's going on" games. Being able to see is a really big deal. (I learned this when I got cataracts, and watched myself slowly going blind for several months.)
Not really, since the original software is released under an open source license, in this case the MIT license which allows for monetization as long as the terms are followed. If the poster hadn't followed the terms we wouldn't be ok with it.

This is common on mobile app stores too: for example there are many variations of the ZXing barcode app which all follow the terms of the open source license, some are even paid apps.

Another example would be cloud services offering commercial products based on mysql, redis, elastic...
> Oracle bought Sun, and with that purchase, the ownership of intellectual property in the form of the Java API. Google then proceeded to copy that property into their own property without abiding by the usage restrictions Oracle, the property owner, specified.

You have the order backward. Google made Android with the full consent from Sun. Their CEOs had a handshake deal, and neither of them believed there was any need for a legal contact.

Fourish years later Oracle bought Sun and promptly sued Google. The handshake deal wasn't legally binding, apparently.

I know this doesn't necessarily change the legal picture, but it certainly changes the ethical one. Your timeline makes Google out to be a predator, maliciously stealing Oracle's precious IP. The actual timeline makes Oracle out to be the predator, buying Sun for little other purpose than to sue people.

I suspect Google wouldn't have gone with Java if it were owned by Oracle at the time. Which would have made for an interesting alternate timeline. Maybe they'd have gone with D? Who knows. C++03 was kind of ass, but if they'd have gone with c++ we'd have new c++ as a first class citizen which would also be rad.
If you write a book and I only copy the title and chapter names, but fill in my own story, did I violate your property rights?
Who is to say the poster isn't you, after all you are submitting the link here too to draw traffic to it. I don't like the smell of this even if it may be following the letter of the law. You are essentially monetizing other people's work without even notifying the original authors so they can claim their own work.
Specious arguments that provoke well-informed corrections may be better than obvious trolling, but overall they're still not beneficial to the level of discourse here.
That is almost certainly the case. The talks I went to were run by Recurse and I am confident there is overlap :)
> However, unlike most 9-year-olds, he has already worked out what he wants to do with his life: develop artificial organs.

It always worries me to see news like this. I really don't see the benefit of this type of lifestyle for a kid. Even assuming the best case scenario for him it just seems like he's being forced into adulthood too early.
I find slack or similar sufficient, people blaberring into microphone dont really add anything
> iVerify periodically scans your device for anomalies that might indicate it’s been compromised, gives you a detailed report on what was detected, and provides actionable advice on how to proceed.

How can that possibly work in a meaningful way when the app is sandboxed on iOS?
~grellas's comment on sibling story that didn't win the upvote-to-front-page tournament:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21548334
How is a rest api document any less tangible than a source code document?
I just tried this. It's got some cool concepts (moderation transparency, commitment to privacy) but I'm not sure it will become as popular as HN/reddit because it isn't a website. You won't stumble across it in a google search. It's been around for 5 years and the forums don't have much activity.
> A friend of mine showed me her work slack for a company of ~100 people and no joke, they have over 20 channels for non-work purposes that are entirely random (#cupcakeparty) and are frequently contributed to with nothing valuable. Based on personal experience, I suspect that's not too unique.

Okay, what is wrong with that? My company has dozens of goofy slack channels that are full of people goofing around. I don't particularly care for them, so I don't join them. But I do get some amount of joy from the fact that others are having fun on those channels...

If you used IRC, you'd have the same kind of deal. If you just used email, you'd have goofy aliases that people created (unless you worked for some grumpy, stoogy company or the government)
WeWork is not “tech IPO” though.
This seems unconstitutional since bail isn’t punishment as no one has been found guilty. Your city councilman is not a moral person.
> Walker’s book has likely wasted thousands of hours of life and worsened the health of people who read it

How has it worsened the health of people?
Hacker News starts to severely rate-limit replies in deeply nested threads so if you want to continue discussing this you can email me (email in profile).

In regards to the question, the latter. The source corresponds roughly to the E vector of the pagerank whitepaper. It's a set of websites that's axiomatically good. The pagerank paper suggested the Netscape home page and John McCarthy's homepage as examples, or alternatively making every website a source, although the last option is more prone to abuse. The sink is harder to find a good analogy for. I think a reasonable choice would be to add a new node to the graph representing the sink, and then connect every website via a directed resistor. Then websites could be ranked by how much current flows through the resistor to the sink.

Edit: By the way, upon thinking about this more, I've just realized that I'm not sure about the exact mechanism by which link farms boost pagerank. As far as I can tell there are two possibilities:

A. The original "stuck in a loop" explanation, by which you can illegitimately magnify legitimately earned rank.

B. With the every-page-as-source strategy, you can boost the rank of a website by creating a new website and linking to it, even if nothing links to the new website. Then the other extra links in the link farm just exist to avoid detection of this sort of thing. So you are illegitimately creating rank from scratch, rather than magnifying existing rank.

Admittedly the electrical circuit thing only addresses mechanism A. Mechanism B can be addressed by being more discriminating about which websites are in the source. That applies whether you use pagerank or the electrical thing.
Original post at https://medium.com/acm-cscw/does-transparency-in-moderation-...
It used to be the only valid way to indent macros. It has the advantage that macro lines always get highlighted in column-1 and stand out more from regular structured code.
Sure, but I'm damned certain that's never happened with the destruction of interoperability being the goal in mind.
So they'll survive the Sun going red giant.

I wonder how long the gold-plated records will last.
This is exactly what I was alluding to in my first comment though. Of course a well rounded education is important, but we’re failing to deliver basically any kind of education to a very large number of people. I think it’s not inappropriate to consider drastic changes, but when drastic changes are suggested, the counter is something like saying that a well-rounded education is important, as if that’s what we’re currently achieving and we’d be forsaking that.
Aether confirmed.
I'll try to re-phrase because I think we're circling back to the same argument.

My contention is not against admitting there is a gradient of IQ or G or whatever metric of intelligence is used. That seems fairly apparent, even if uncomfortable for some to admit.

What I'm claiming is that engaging System 2 is not dependent on your level of intelligence. Take an example of three people being tasked with determining the fuel needed to reach escape velocity of earth. One may reflexively say "10,000 kg" because they are using System 1. Another may try to use algebra and the third calculus. The last two may both use System 2 even though person two doesn't have the capacity to understand calculus. Utilizing System 2 is not a result of intelligence, it's the result of being engaged enough to slow down and use analytical thinking. Whether they can do this is dependent on their System 2 mind, whether they arrive at the right answer is the result of their intelligence. This is where it feels like terms are being conflated.

Point taken on using terms interchangeably and cavalierly; it was poor selection on my part. In a similar vein, there was a reason I stayed away from the term "critical thinking". In psychology, critical thinking is distinct from intelligence and both are distinct from rationality (at least in the way Stanovich uses rationality). We should be careful not to conflate these terms as well.

In short, I don't think "System 2" engagement is dependent on the ability to understand concepts, it has more to do with the ability to focus one's attention with deliberate effort. Just like I don't think System 1 thinking is correlated to intelligence thresholds. I revisited some of the texts and studies over the course of this conversation and I think they back this up.
Re-read that bit of the Constitution that you quoted, and tell me why the Supreme Court should hand down an opinion that will require the entire software industry to grind to a halt for a few decades while we sort out who owns API copyright on everything that's already in use everywhere before we can continue building on top of any of it. How does that "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in any way?

More importantly, how is any part of the government obligated to extend IP rights to be as powerful as you want to treat them? Congress was granted the power to create copyright law, but they chose to do so with more limitations than just duration.
Is political activism such a widespread phenomenon in S.I. companies? I work in a more traditional company and never see this kind of thing, so I'm curious what it's like, how the management handles it etc. The most "activism" we see is an occasional announcement about volunteers pitching in for some charitable cause around Christmas time.

20-25 years ago, politics was basically off limits in corporate America. Technology people (who were mostly guys) were pro-capitalist libertarians. It was a different time, I guess.
You seem to be the revisionist. Implying that people of colour that were brought at the company changed the culture for the worse because this is what the media wanted. Implying that politics came in only because they tried to bring diversity in the workplace.

We are talking of the company that was advocating do not evil. This was political from day 1, remember their stand on China?
I'd pretend I don't have an opinion on this topic, but I appear to be wearing my "YOU WOULDN'T REIMPLEMENT AN API" t-shirt in the MPAA scare-commercial font.
On the contrary, I’m actually not 100% sure who’s side I should be in on...

Look at it this way, if oracle loses, then what’s the implications of the software licenses in general. The whole point is that they were protected by copyright. If that’s shot down, then what’s at stake?

Not saying I side one way or the other, simply that I don’t think it’s clear. Depending how the court rules one way or the other could have a huge impact (as you pointed out).
This is a bad analogy. You don't need to copy title and chapter names to allow other people to "interoperate" (read, scan, and index I guess?) with the book. Moreover substantial creativity goes into title and chapter names. Both of which imply they should be substantially more copyrightable than APIs.
>4) replace payroll and income taxes with consumption taxes

how can this be implemented in a fashion that's non-regressive? income taxes in most countries are progressive, and consumption taxes are regressive.
Yes, atleast 3G is everywhere, 4G is I think most of the places.
Chinese Teapot Skyrockets from £1000 to £1M at Auction
I disagree with this. This is like comedians raging against cancel culture.

It’s possible to both be funny and be conscious
:: It’s possible to be creative and not fixated on political activism.
Stripe is available is more countries.
There's obviously code implementing the REST protocol that's copywritten.
Me neither and I even used ctrl-f. It seems the impact could taint anything loosly called an API. I make an API that is loosly linked to three competing API around then same data. Some of this leads to each of us suing the others.
I object! Irrelevant, due to false analogy.
I'd still be using mine otherwise. I went back to my Lumia 920 backup phone. Seven years old and the only thing wrong with it is no app updates in forever. I really wish the whole Windows Phone and Nokia partnership had a different ending.
Temperature relates to how fast atoms are moving. If they're moving very fast, then we say it's very hot. Damage from high temperature however requires a substantial quantity of those atoms, not just that they be moving quickly.

But there are very very few atoms in the interstellar medium. They are moving very fast, but there are very few of them indeed.

To incinerate something, there would need to be a lot of atoms indeed moving at high temperature. An isolated atom hitting the probe, even at relatively high speed, won't be doing much incinerating.

It's like a sparrow hitting a building. Won't do much, even it's a fast-moving sparrow. But a billion sparrows hitting it in unison - that might be a problem.
Getting to know everyone. Probably one on one with every team member which is all you listening. Keep things the way they are initially, identify the problems, come up with a smooth strategy to transition from now to a future state.

Leave your ideas at the door and assess what is good for the team. For example you love Gaant charts and were super successful with them at your last company. Don’t introduce them here unless appropriate and probably not at the start. Unless perhaps everyone else is asking for them and it makes sense. What I am getting at as it shouldn’t seem like you are bringing your ideas and commanding, but you are listening and leading.

You also need to do the same exercise upwards too! What does the boss think the problems are and how will you address them.

Find out what the tension is between the works and the management. There is always something!
Could someone explain whether this has any practical applications and, if so, what they are?
> it forces you to choose a single scale for everything

That confused me as well, but I think what the author meant was that the scale applies to the I. If, for instance, you enter IV III II I Ionian, you get the Lydian-Phrygian-Dorian-Ionian you'd expect (at least as far as I hear it).
There is a trust chain. If there was 0 trust involved then you could pick random nodes instead of needing to find a specific path. Sure there's cryptographic trickery involved so it is harder to steal the money, but it can still happen.

Large centralized lightning nodes will form and they will act like banks and be able to stop payments to arbitrary entities like Paypal, and even make the payment get stuck for days or weeks depending on how long the timeout is.

From the paper itself.

"the network will look a lot like the correspondent banking network"
> Look at it this way, if oracle loses, then what’s the implications of the software licenses in general. The whole point is that they were protected by copyright. If that’s shot down, then what’s at stake?

An Oracle loss would not damage the legal framework that the software industry has been operating under. Oracle's loss would only confirm the non-existence of a new class of copyright that Oracle is trying to invent (one that appears to be patent protections with copyright duration, enforced in part by trademarks). An Oracle loss would not undermine the legal foundations of existing copyrights on code that implements an API.
He’s 9 years old so that’s what his parents told him to say.
They are the same thing. In time this should become apparent to you.
Just goes to show how worthless a degree really is. Are you smarter than a 9 year old? Apparently not.
KubeSail is the company, yes - and developer oriented only in the sense that it’s not “Enterprise” - the idea is to make cloud native accessible to everyone - to make hosting your own apps fun and easy and cheap again! We have a long way to go and haven’t launched anywhere yet, but you can join the mailing list or just signup now for a free cluster namespace :)
Since their own ads on the search results page are not targeted that is a clear yes then.
Rooting for fair use? Yes. Rooting for a big company spending big money to pay for the precedent? Sure.

Rooting for Google itself, who is simply pursuing the most effective solution for their own business (and brand)? That’s something entirely different.
But this case isn’t about consuming or interacting with an API, it’s about implementing an API. So less writing a compiler targeting a CPU instruction set and more building a CPU based on someone else’s instruction set.

I’ve always found it strange that other programmers are so dismissive of APIs as copyrightable work. They’re they hard part! Building APIs requires creativity and careful thought.

If you support the idea that APIs can’t be copyrighted, and ignoring the evilness of Oracle and Google, what’s your reasoning?
You make a couple of good points such as Google's about-face with regard to China, and you bemoan doxxing.

Yet, you bitterly criticize Trump supporters. Trump supporters are the ones getting doxxed and cancelled on social media.

The most famous leaked TGIF was when Pichai announced his opposition to the 2016 election results, and promised to somehow oppose the new President. I have to say, I was appalled to hear such blatant partisanship from the chief executive of such a huge company. Of course, business types have always had political leanings one way or the other, but they were rarely so blatant. That TGIF did irreparable harm to Google's reputation. I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands, of outraged comments on social media. Google lost a lot of good will that day.
If you know names of those better workplaces, I'm all ears.
That is not what the wikipedia article says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v._Oracle_America

> Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform.[7][8] Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android operating system.[8] During development of Android, Google wanted to incorporate the Java Standard Edition libraries. Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt had approached Sun's president Jonathan I. Schwartz about licensing the Java libraries for use in Android. Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for that license, but they were concerned that Sun had also requested some shared control of Android along with the fee.[9][10][11] Google states that they wanted more control in order to open source the language and allow third parties to take better advantage of its code;[9] Oracle states that Sun refused because Google's intention was essentially to fork Java to a Google version of the language, and to prevent it being inter-operable with other versions, an idea which was "anathema" to the "write once run anywhere" basis of the language.[12] Because of these differences of view, the negotiations failed to reach a deal and Sun refused Google a license for Java.[12]

> At this point in time, the OpenJDK implementation offered by Sun was not as mature or complete as the Java Standard Edition.[13] Instead of licensing Java, Google chose to develop a cleanroom version of the Java Standard Edition libraries
I take a small pleasure in knowing smart people read my sometimes banal comments