skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You talk to people. Friends or friends of friends. No formal research. Then you try to reach similar people and learn more on the go.
It takes time but if you succeed you both know your customers and a way to reach them
Short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. Long term are taxed lower, but for capital gains of any kind you have to risk capital, which was already taxed when you earned it the first time.

Capital gains are not only the result of "gambling". If you found a company and later sell it, that is a capital gain. The shares are virtually worthless when you start the company, and later become valuable when you sell it.

Do you consider founding a successful company that provides a useful product and employs many people doing nothing productive?
Because ISPs are cheapskates and don't want to upgrade their networks and hardware.

There are better exceptions, like Altice who are in the process of replacing their coaxial network footprint with fiber optics. Interestingly, according to them it will actually cause them to save money in the long run due to lower maintenance costs for fiber optics.

I guess other coaxial ISPs are too greedy for short term profits to look ahead.
You could run a lot of websites on that.
I recently tried out uLisp which was trending on HN the other day on an Uno. It left me with ~500 bytes of memory and ~1000 bytes of storage. Unfortunately that’s not enough to do many interesting things!
Most wealthy people today didn't amass their fortunes through playing the stock market.
> increasing stock prices disproportionately benefit the wealthy and widen the gap between rich and poor.

Everything including stock prices disproportionately benefit the wealthy and widen the gap between rich and poor. Not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. When you are much richer than anyone else, you are bound to keep growing your assets at a faster space than anyone else too. It's the nature of compounding.
I bet they have televisions too, the sheer audacity
How is a streaming service a threat to a company whose product is letting you use the service?
Thanks to the Fed and quantitative easing, many entrepreneurs and investors who became super rich thanks to this scheme are now spamming my youtube and twitter homepage about their wisdom in everything in life from artificial intelligence to history just because they think they are geniuses and entitled to teaching the poor souls with mental deficiencies (everyone who isn't worth at least tens of millions of dollars) about everything and anything.

It's amazing that once you become super rich, everything you say becomes a wisdom quote unless you're Trump of course.
It sounds like you’re asking for a multidisciplinary meeting, which is a thing and is regularly used in healthcare for complex cases. I used to help with the image side of a fortnightly breast MDM. It had physicians, an oncologist, pathologist, surgeons, nurse, radiologist and probably a few more disciplines too. There are numerous meetings for other body parts and systems around town. This many vary country to country, I’m in New Zealand.
I've been investing for 40 years. It's the same old story - there's no point in investing now, the market is as high as it will ever go.

Fast forward a few years, there's regret one didn't invest, but now the market is as high as it will ever go, so not investing again.

Rinse, repeat. A lifetime of missed opportunity.
What percentage of total capital gains are paid out to founders of new ventures?
Is it possible to come up with a worse take on economic inequality than this?
Directional couplers are a thing. Thomas Edison patented multiplexing techniques for telegraph wires that didn't even need them.
You can always find an excuse to not invest.
Surely a recession would be a good time.
I have a baseball style cap with a ring of IR LEDS attached to a circuit and battery everytime I go around LAX
https://www.instructables.com/id/The-Invisible-Face-Mask-/
https://odditymall.com/justice-caps-hide-your-face-from-surv...

By the time they get around to viewing the videos i am long gone. Just wear run of the mill clothes to blend in
seems to be the fairly common take among economists/tech folks about inequality being fine along as wealth grows, we're not living in a zero-sum world etc.

Problem with that attitude is that it's mostly circular and asserts its conclusion. Inequality does not matter because social well-being and so on is only a measure of absolute wealth, so the only thing left is to show that wealth is growing etc.

It's worthwhile to question the assumption which people like Robert Sapolsky have done.[1] One thing that he figured out is that even when one accounts for the worse material outcomes of inequality like worse healthcare access, there is an extremely large difference in outcome based on inequality itself. Gaps in social hierarchy matter and inform how people perceive their environment and their place in society. Compressing inequality itself may drastically increase social and individual well-being as inequality appears to induce significant stress in human populations.

The same is true for many studies about happiness. Happiness is indeed influenced by material wealth, but to a significantly smaller degree than one might imagine. Countries like Germany and Nigeria, for example, report similar levels of happiness even despite being magnitudes apart on some wealth and econ metrics.

the key point I want to make is that, even if one disagrees with some particular data points or conclusions, the effect of inequality must be studied at a biological/social / well-being level if one wants to make meaningful statements. Asserting that humans are Homines oeconomici and using it to justify inequality is a tautological exercise.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-ineq...
A scholar built a database of pre-Independence magazines from India
Percentage-wise, it grows at the same rate for each investor.
Don't forget the qualified small business stock exemption — 50% tax break on founder stock held for more than 5 years, or you can roll it over into another qualifying small business and defer the gains even further. I believe you can do this as an angel investor also — it doesn't have to go into your own next startup.
Considering the most successful founders have billions of capital gains each, I'd say it's probably significant. Not to mention that paid to all the employees via stock options.
My understanding is that the domain-specific language (which is embedded in Haskell) generates C code, which is then compiled to an arduino binary.

The key sentence:

> This whole example turns into just 63 lines of C code, which compiles to a 1248 byte binary, so there's plenty of room left for larger, more complex programs.

What the eDSL (embedded domain-specific language) offers is a higher level of abstraction: by using functional reactive programming, the programmer can reason about the code at a more intuitive level (instead of C, assembly, or machine code).

Usually people call this style of programming declarative instead of imperative: focusing on what to do instead of how to do it.

In a more interesting example in the article, we see right away that the LED is on when, and only when, the button is pressed or when it is “blinking”, with “a longer and longer” delay (with lower level details deferred to the counter function, or with the timing logic handled by the functional reactive programming framework—to appreciate the abstraction ability of FRP, try to imagine how to implement the same LED (which is on when pressed or with a longer and longer delay) in other procedural languages, likely different concerns will be interleaved).

When concerns are cleanly separated in Haskell, we understand what the code intends to do right away, making the code more maintainable. (And more fun to read and write!)

As a side bonus, Haskell has a strong and expressive type system, and a pervasive use of laziness to enable purity,
allowing local equational reasoning (e.g., no need to worry about hidden mutable global state, so functions could be understood on their own, etc.), making the code even easier to reason about and to maintain then some other procedural languages (what you write is what you intuitively mean).

So I think the trade off is between developer productivity and performance (of the generated C code vs a handcrafted C code; very much like the trade off between a compiled machine code vs a handcrafted machine code).
So the logistics of obtaining stock have been solved. That seems like a great and necessary step in the right direction.

"84% of US stocks are owned by the richest 10%" sounds like it could turn into a really big problem though. What can we do next? Why isn't everyone participating?
Inequality is bad because people with more money have power over people with less. Ideally, we would live in a democracy (understood by the Greeks to mean rule by the poor, given they massively outnumber the rich), but we don't. We should change this.

Stated another way, your boss has power over you. Why? It could be because they earned a lot of money through their own labor, or it could be because they had access to capital that you do not. Uber loses money hand over fist, but Uber management has more power than their drivers. Why? Management has access to capital, and drivers do not.
Only in hindsight. It takes extra large intestinal fortitude to invest in a recession. I've generally lacked such guts.
2019 Annual Dapp Market Report
Uh I mean clearly that wasn’t true for last 40 years continuously...

Dot com bubble, 9/11, 2008 recession
>NULL/nil is just one of many invalid memory addresses, and in practice most of invalid memory address are not NULL.

I want a language that can check at compile/check time that none of my pointers will have invalid addresses. Recognizing null as just another invalid value makes it more obvious to me that I want a language to handle it differently than how C does it.

In memory-safe languages, it's already unthinkable (/ very rare outside of situations where you're deliberately doing unsafe/native code integrations) to get non-null invalid pointers that point to a different type of thing than you want. When was the last time you had a Java program crash because a typed reference actually had a different type of reference at runtime somehow? Isn't that great how that basically never happens? -- But if you consider nulls a different type of reference, then it does actually happen sometimes. It would be great if we could try to close off that issue.

I'm a huge fan of languages with non-nullable references as the standard, like Kotlin, Typescript, and Rust. In my experience, it's much easier as a programmer to understand how a codebase uses nulls when the codebase is in a language with default non-nullable references, and therefore null-related issues where a future programmer passes a nullable value somewhere it shouldn't be happen much less often.
As far as I understand, reaching PMF is the exception.
But the PMF definition is so weak and inconsistant than people think they have when they dont or the other way around ( I tried to answer this question for my own company for weeks and I am still not sure )

Then scaling with PMF is okish. Scaling without is complicated as things doesnt stack up
This phrase just popped up into my head a while back:

“The minimum wage should be the median wage”

I’m not sure if it should be a rule or a goal or be anything at all, but thought it’s a thought worth putting out there.

Edit: thinking in context of country, or province but also in context of company or group.
>> The Federal Reserve says it’s going to raise interest rates. Same thing with the European Central Bank and the Bank of England.

I wouldn’t consider the text very accurate in hindsight.
Isn't it the premise of the Stargate universe as well?
Carbon Capture and Storage is necessary to keep global warming below 2°C
Understanding is not hard to understand. To understand is to reason from a model. Reasoning from a model is easy. Discovering the correct model is hard, analogous to the way that algebraic rules are easy, but finding the right equation for a particular problem is hard. Data trained NNs have neither a model, nor do they reason. QED
Do buybacks actually increase stock price? If a company buys back $1M in stock, that means it has $1M less in its bank account (meaning the company is now worth $1M less), but also $1M less stock is in circulation. Mathematically I would expect the price to stay the same.
You'd still be doing well even if you invested only at the high points. I'm quite good at buying right at the tippy-top just before it dives.
>> I'm thinking the bottom 90% doesn't own much stock due to lack of funds. Not because they don't know how or because transaction fees are too high.

> People making $180k a year lack funds to buy stocks? Yeah, that’s a no from me.

An individual person making $180K a year is in the 92nd percentile. Parent is talking about the other roughly 300 million people.
Good summary but why Julia is missing?
Thank you for the pointers.

A system of units is hobbled without including the necessary counts of objects/measurement events, which is open-ended. Mass per person is different than mass per chicken or per 787, for example.
When you pay your cable company $X/month to add a premium channel, they get to keep some of that money. When you pay the premium provider directly, your cable company gets nothing. (You were going to have an Internet connection either way, so they're not getting any additional money from you.)
It is natural to have winners. In time the winners come to dominate the system such that inequality becomes a bigger problem. A question to ask is how can we rebalance it? Shall we wait until there is social unrest or strife? Or shall we create methods to rebalance before this happens?
It achieved something: it serves as evidence that companies absolutely need to be beaten into submission with heavy-handed regulation of data collection, because they can't play nice on their own.
Why does this stand in conflict with acknowledging the fact that massive gains for stock prices (or property for that matter) caused by things like QE and alike, have massive social consequences since the ones that were already wealthy profit a lot more than the average Joes's 401k?

You can be a happy investor and still think about the dangers of rising inequality fueled by the market, no?
I empathize.. growing up, you never wanted to be that guy that had to call for help, and I still don't - it's a mark of failure to be rescued - but it's better than dying. The tech probably makes it too easy for people to use it as an easy out, but it's better to have and not need it, etc. If you have a family depending on you, you've got a moral obligation to not be a dumbass, and that includes keeping appropriate tools on hand in case you end up inviting the characterization.
> Almost all the stock purchases are being bought back by corporations in share buyback programs

Buyback volume is comparable to dividend volume [1]. Both return cash to investors. From a macro perspective, focussing on one over the other is misleading.

Buyback and dividend cash can be consumed or re-invested. Given corporate buybacks pale in comparison to broader funds flows, it looks like it's being reinvested.

Even if every investor selling into a buyback consumed the cash, those buybacks are largely being funded by debt. On the net, that translates to investors hopping up the capital structure. Not exiting the capital markets.

[1] https://www.yardeni.com/pub/buybackdiv.pdf
Well we could go full 19th century and say poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people are rich because they are just much better human beings.
Its not industrial, but I recommend At the Mountains of Madness by lovecraft for an example of this sort of question being asked in fiction
My point is that people have not been thinking “this is the top” for 40 years straight, not that people wouldn’t make money if they bought and hold through recessions.
I'm aware of those, but don't implement them in my compilers. It's not worth it.
So it’s sorta like npm for marketing people? They share meaningless phraseology packages arranged in a way-too-deep dependency graph?
Doesn't seem so bad. It's probably double that number including other distributions. Desktop users are also diluted by all those mobile users.
You are right. But a successful company that would put you in the 1% or 10% from bottom is very much like a lottery and is highly controlled by external factors (funding, environment, family background, early education, culture, luck etc which you don't have control over as much). In that case, should we encourage such behaviour at the cost of making lives of many people worse?

How many poor people have you seen working on a startup and reaching 10% bracket?
How many of those startups failed?
Should we really bend the rules to satisfy a cautious 2% outcome?

I don't think people here have much problem with "self made" millionaires. I think what they don't like is how not everyone gets the opportunity to try to become one or how billionaires are exceptions and compromising system based on exception for the rest of us is not a good idea.

Beside, tech is becoming like oil industry with cartels you need to satisfy before you even have a chance at competiting fairly. It happened to many industries before and they stopped progressing and stagnated. They have one or two big names now with nothing else.
It's almost certainly a coincidence. Bats don't have an inflammatory response to viral infections like other mammals [1] so viruses are basically harmless to them and they are perfect carriers, with many species having life expectancies reaching 2-3 decades. Studies of regional populations of bats have found that if a virus makes it into a bat population, it will usually spread to 50-90% of the total population (where virus = rabies and region = Western Europe) [2]. This Wuhan virus evolving from another SARS-like virus while maintaining surface markers is squarely in the realm of possibility.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410205/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539106/
Has he crossed the chasm?
Do you really need cofounders ? Can you start already and find someone later on ?
I am a single founder and I spent a lots of time, money and energy because I had to find a cofounder because It s what successful startups do.
I might not be successful yet :) but I have a profitable startup and I am still a single founder
Do you think there is a moral obligation to get vaccinations? They weren't the norm not too long ago as well.
> I’m afraid our generation will be known as “The Plastic Generation” from our layer in the sediment

Maybe that's where we're getting all that oil from, prehistoric Silurian landfills.
Browser fingerprints being so unique cuts both ways.

So if I hit this site from the VM that one of my evil twins uses, its Firefox fingerprint will also be ~unique.

And I can have lots of VMs. Maybe not all running at once, but still. And yeah, they use different exit VPNs.
You're right - it's strange, this article seems to contradict itself within one paragraph. 500 million afflicted, 50 - 100 million deaths, at least it says ">" 2.5% fatality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/
A minior plot point of "The Light of other days" by Baxter and Clarke was an earth civilization 3 billion years ago which was destroyed by an asteroid hitting earth that wiped the surface clean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days
What? The fact that your boss has power over you within a company has nothing to do with how much money they personally have relative to you. There is no correlation.
I would pay for what.cd. In fact, I did pay. I think I donated about €200 at some point.

The entire experience of what.cd was just amazing, and services like Spotify are lacking a lot. The situation is better than a few years ago, but still very far from perfect.
Nine loci associated with dietary habits
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/why-would-co...
With a million or so trips between major Canadian cities during the winter, a few of them doing something silly is almost expected.
> My point is that people have not been thinking “this is the top” for 40 years straight

My point is the people who don't invest do think that way, and so don't invest. Most investors also think that way, which is why they sell their winners, and hence have below-market returns.

Me, I never sell my winners. This seems to be a highly unusual strategy. I'm still holding stock I bought 40 years ago.
This is the greatest project submission on this entire website. Thank God for you.
Same for me, it says <0.1%

I’m using the current iPad mini, which is 10 months old, with the current os version. I highly doubt I’m that unique.
My boss also only has power over me in the context of my job. They have exactly zero power when it comes to all other aspects of my life.
Isn't the Greeks way random selection from the citizens (elite) of a city? I don't recall their way being understood as rule by the poor
A place to look at is Scandinavia. Although it's far from perfect, the gap between rich and poor is smaller, it feels doable to move social classes and taxes redistribute excessive wealth effectively.

That is my experience. In contrast, I've felt that places like UK treat you like an untermensch if you have less money. And addressing PG's point, in the UK rich classes have lobbied to set laws in their favor. Pure rent seeking or as PG puts it here stealing. For example, they have architected the real estate market in such a way that if you are poor it's hard to climb the property ladder and you will be poised to give them a big chunk of your income.
Those same people have trouble recognizing the bottom as well, and generally always have a reason to not invest.

For them, I recommend investing after 3 years of a sustained market direction from an inflection point.
This is a good insight from the essay:

"I'm sure most of those who want to decrease economic inequality want to do it mainly to help the poor, not to hurt the rich. Indeed, a good number are merely being sloppy by speaking of decreasing economic inequality when what they mean is decreasing poverty. But this is a situation where it would be good to be precise about what we want. Poverty and economic inequality are not identical."
I'm saying that when you are on the edge of being able to feed yourself, investing in anything other than being able to eat is the wrong call. I have actually been in that position.

It also seems kind of silly to play with $1 in the stock market; I'm going to make like 8 cents in a year on average with a high variance, while if I bought food I would be able to work using those calories and maybe earn $8 in the time it took to burn those calories.
As in, a majority of the people should be earning the minimum wage?
I just came here to say that

> Every person in the town of Springfield loves Susan. Peter lives in Springfield. Therefore he obviously has no love for that bitch.

is an awesome completion. I would read that short story.
That's very interesting. Could you elaborate?
> I recommend investing after 3 years of a sustained market direction from an inflection point

Defining an inflection point is subjective, particularly a few years after it. Late 2008 was a crash; 2011 featured lots of hand-wringing around QE, "green shoots" and the like.
People who are rich are equally rare, and so require a larger voice to represent themselves and not be eliminated by the masses/will of the majority.
Thanks trez,
I've did a lot of face to face in the early days but you're right, almost everything is digital now.

I feel as if I burnt through everyone available during development, testing and beta and there's no one left within my network reach and so content, social and SEO are really all I have left right now.