skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the 90s, I worked at a little place that was crammed full of PCs and other electronic equipment. It got uncomfortably hot in the summer. A couple of us went around to all the PCs and changed the settings - instead of a screensaver, turn off the monitor after 10 minutes of inactivity. Problem solved. The age of CRTs...
You're right, thanks! - edited
One piece of anecdotal evidence:

I live in NYC but currently reside in rural upstate NY. We have very few cases up here and it's impossible to NOT socially distance because that the way of life up here.

As of last week, Cuomo is applying the same rules in NYC to all of NY state, which is ridiculous. My family friend has a furniture factory up here that employs 220 people with a backlog of $2M+ pieces worth of furniture. All of his employees were socially distancing before and everyone had an N95 because of what they were building. Cuomo shut down the state and this guys business is about to go under (competition is legally opening up in Ohio and other states) because he's weekly payroll is 125 and at some point he doesn't want to risk $500-1MM of his own money out of pocket to weather the storm. That is 220 jobs that do not need to disappear.

The same rules that apply to NYC should apply to other areas. Some of these problems were are seeing are policy problems.
Kudos to author! Seems like lots of hard work and dedication went into your software. Respect.
I agree and there is one other thing. Interest rates are 0 you can try to sit on cash but with the increase in money into the system, that is a loser long term. The Fed is buying things to keep prices up. There are trillions that have to go somewhere. Asset prices continue to propped up and people and funds are chasing returns.
Won't this create more share dilution in the short term? Don't layoffs trigger options/RSUs to be executed some time window after the layoff?
If I was a billionaire I would not care about being a social outcast. For starters, I could just buy friends, or buy hitmen.
Since the angle this website introduces itself with is:

"These are the world's most powerful people. Let's track their impact & inspire them to do more good"

This doesn't seem like a good motivator, because doing something for the sake of reputation doesn't directly incentivize solving a problem in an effective way.

And w.r.t. the title of the post, it seems like there are a few steps critical steps being omitted in the relationship between money donated and "doing good". For instance, not all organizations are as effective as others; if the motivator is to increase the $ count of donation, then what's the point in thinking about "doing good"?

Can I be ranked as "doing the most good" by contributing more money than anyone else in the list, while still doing measurable damage to parts of society that aren't being included in the metric?

See, if this website were neutral -- if it just showed the damn numbers without injecting it with an arbitrary value judgement, this would have been great. Instead, this serves to create anxiety to those who view it to do something for the wrong reasons.

The more I think about this, the more banal this site seems to me. I'd appreciate being pointed out if I'm missing something, but otherwise this website tells me more about the mindset of the authors than anything else.
In that case, I would love to be handling 90% of the tax burden right now.
This made me chuckle
An article on something like this was linked on HN a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2944445
For anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend the book Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas and his various media appearances and upcoming TV show on Vice as food for thought.
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but disagree about Bernie. Many of his biggest policies are still just trying to cover the rot with a coat of paint. Healthcare too expensive? Just have the government cover the bill. College too expensive? Same thing. Workers not paid enough? Raise the minimum wage. All very blunt, simplistic reactions, that ignore the complexities of the real world. Getting rid of the rot requires looking at the roots of the problems. If something is 10x more expensive today than it was a few decades ago, just agreeing to pay the 10x price is not a good solution. You need to figure out and address the underlying causes.

I am still hopeful for our future, maybe foolishly, but I am. If there is a silver lining of Covid-19, maybe it will highlight some of the insane bureaucracy and regulatory capture that are strangling our institutions in the US and lead to improvements. Don't get me wrong, we also need some progressive policies targeted at helping those who are struggling most, but those policies will only be effective if we also recognize and address the underlying cost disease issues. Just look at progressive havens like San Francisco to see how much money can be burned on well-intentioned ideas without achieving any results, if you refuse to acknowledge the underlying causes.
I've wondered about this. Would it be possible to have an income/asset tax such that it introduces a wealth cap of some amount which can never be reached?

For example, the limit could be $30,000,000 so if you're making more than that in pretax income, your income would be $29,999,999.999 etc. with the fractional cent increasing so people could still compete on a scoreboard.

Also, it seems like one of the biggest arguments against capping wealth is that it would disincentive innovation. But just about every person who became billionaires through innovation never had that intention to begin with. I firmly believe Jeff Bezos would still be running Amazon if he had a wealth cap. Mark Zuckerberg would still be running Facebook. No?
> Are there jobs in this field?

There are in media, finance, and science. You just have to look.

> Are there freelance projects?

There are companies who are looking for freelancers.

> Is it possible to make a decent living (5k+ per month, USD) doing data
visualization?

Good luck.

> To be clear, I am not talking about dashboard creating tools like Tableau (which doesn't take much skill) but more of d3 style, unique ways of telling a data story.

Then it sounds like you might be interested in data journalism. The field is
rife with people working in data viz. Though, you need several skill set beyond
just putting lines on a screen: pulling a story out of data, reporting it out,
understanding journalism ethics and processes, interviewing, etc.
I send half of the password by email and the other half in a linkedin message for professional contacts outside my org.
> The glue immediately polymerizes, and you can pull/scratch it off.

Doesn't this also pull a chunk of your skin off?
1) there's no way parents will be OK with this, and

2) the count of districts ready to have a 7.7% student headcount increase in one year (you're doing this for 13 grades at once, plus have another coming in) on top of whatever growth they already expected approaches zero. I mean, hell, think of what that would do to the teacher labor market alone if even 10% of districts all did that, putting aside things like building space and bussing.
Not impressed in the least. Donating some money is easy if you own more that you can ever spend in a lifetime. Would be way more interested in which billionaires are doing the most harm.
Except for the fact that they are at least partially in control of the fund either through a DAF or their own charity. You're right they can't spend it on anything they want, but they have the ability to direct in many specific instances with few exceptions. Often if it's their own foundation, to further almost any goal they want. So yeah, they get to not pay taxes on their money and at least spend it partially how they want.
Here's the "one weird tip" life hack to do all of these things: revise and rewrite.

Important communications should go through multiple drafts. That includes important emails. Write it all out, then re-read it carefully, ideally after a bit of time has passed. Edit with an eye toward making it shorter. Rewrite it from scratch if you have to.

I once had the good fortune to take a writing class with Edward Hoagland. We spent most of the semester with each student working on a single essay--reviewing it, editing it, rewriting it, rewriting it.
Let’s say I have 1000 outstanding shares all worth $10. I need to pay someone a $5000 bonus. I’ll just issue 500 shares of stock to them instead because, well, that’s about $5000.

Hypothetically the per share price goes down by 1/3 here and is now worth $6.67 (but the company’s still worth $10,000 total it’s just 1500 * $6.67 instead of $1000 * $10).

Generally though bonuses like this come out of a pool that’s already been allocated years ago and there’s no change to stock price
That Louis XV, he's really doing a lot for us!
That doesn't sound legal.
Is Thomas Sowell a racist?
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Seems simple enough, but never is in reality. There's a reason why the POTUS and his family are banned from running charities in nyc.
This is tough if you have children. I have no problem living in a 1200sq ft modest house, but they simply don't exist in good school zones in my area.
Apple releases iOS 13.5 beta with coronavirus exposure notification
Other sources are reporting only $1B. What is this article based on?
This is true, but it's important to note that it applies to Republicans generally. Trump isn't special. He is the results of decades of Republican policy and is supported by Republicans even to this day.
This is so cringey
I think some of it is that he doesn't really live like a billionaire in a lot of respects, takes anti-wealth political positions (he's an opponent of California's Prop 13, for example pointing out that he pays less in property taxes for his Malibu estate than people with much more modest properties in California), is explicitly not forming a money-based dynasty in his family (he has given his kids "just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing") and intends to give away his fortune to charity. There's a pretty good summary of his views and actions in the Wikipedia article on him.
>I don't understand what kind of apps people are building with React that incur these significant rendering performance costs? I could understand it if you're building a realtime cryptocurrency exchange dashboard but I don't think most people are doing that?

I think it's just easy to make mistakes (bad loops, overly trigger-happy interpretations of "state change", etc), especially for all things "lists" (which make up half the web). Since people make mistakes, I'd always consider easy-to-make mistakes a design flaw, in this case affecting performance.

Also there's a psychological cost to making incremental "loading" operations visible. Although some mysterious "research" is frequently cited that people just fucking LOVE spinning loading icons and gray placeholder boxes that are never where the actual content will pop in, it's just instantly making my perception of a site slower. If a website just takes 5 seconds to load, okay. If, during that time, it just pops in and out 50 components, 3 different loading bars, spinning whirlies and blurry placeholder images (where the one I actually want to see always loads last), I'm suddenly having a "delay experience". It's like a whole firework of bullshit happening to remind you the site HAS NOT loaded yet.
Wow, big congrats to the folks behind Insomnia. I am amazed at the rate they keep improving it. The tool is ultra polished and the love that goes into it is so clear. If you have not tried it, I recommend it!
Someone downvoted this. If they disagree they should source it. Amazon spent $1.5m on the city council elections in 2019, I believe about $300k in 2018, and $300-400k in 2017 on the mayoral race. The rate at which they spend on such things is rapidly increasing as the Tax Amazon movement has gradually gained steam.

Meanwhile they are "estimated" to spend "up to" $2m on Mary's place annually, in the future. Let me know when that happens and when their political spending drops down, but I'm skeptical and so far they have spent more on political spending against anyone who suggests taxing them.
The author mentions it twice: under Contacts/Calendar "I’m thinking about using nextcloud." and under Docs "Nextcloud might fill this gap. But I don’t feel a void to fill right now."
Yeah, this is purely fear- people overshoot on the way down, you can profit. I made some easy money in 2008 on certain banks that were obviously not going to fail. The bet is that things return to some sort of normal. I would not normally buy these stocks, they have nowhere near the growth potential as the tech stocks.

I guess I don't believe in the statistical basis of the risk calculations (bell curve is an invalid model for sure for stocks), so only one stock is way riskier than you would think and tech only is already exposing you to some kinds of systemic risk.
I think there are a lot of variables in the decision on what point in the quality spectrum you chose when purchasing a tool.

Some cheap tools actually do well beyond a "good enough" job, and if you end up only ever needing to do that job once or twice, well "going cheap" can be a good move.

However, some cheap tools are complete garbage, won't even complete the job the first time you use them, and are thus a waste of money.

On the flip side, high quality (and generally more expensive) tools can pay for themselves many times over, but that depends very much on how much you use them. If you only use them once, and you know you'll likely not need it again, you might be able to sell the tool at a lower price after using it, but that may or may not be worth the time and hassle to you.

Also, there are many tools that are just so expensive they are out of a lot of people's price range in the first place.

I personally try to skew to the "higher quality" end of the range as much as possible. This is mostly because I tend to do a lot of things for myself, rather than paying for someone else to do them, and thus the chances that I will reuse a tool are quite high. And I've been burned enough times by cheaper tools, that I go that route far less often, and usually only because I have enough information on the cheap tool to decide it is worth it. Also, for me the cheap tool route is usually limited to those tasks that I am confident I am unlikely to ever do again (and those cases are rare).

In all of the above, I am thinking of physical tools. When it comes to tools in the form of software, I think there is even more variance. There are a fair number of "paying more == having better tools" scenarios, but there are also some very expensive tools that are complete garbage, and there are free and/or open source tools that do the job far better than commercial products do.

All this to say I mostly agree with the original tip, except I would not say "Start by buying the absolute cheapest tools you can find", but rather "Don't absolutely dismiss a tool because it is cheap, consider it if you think you will only rarely need it, and you have reason to believe it will adequately do the job."
This just looks like PR for the benevolent feudal lords.

Rather than "giving back", maybe these people should stop taking away in the first place.
The places that are slow to shut down are the places that are more dispersed and thus have a lower R0. Thus this is totally bogus.
This article is not very good. Any article on ennui this long that does not mention depression at all is clearly not thinking deeply or widely about the topic at hand.

I do think there is a good article about ennui that could have been written. And, in particular, how to distinguish it from depression. Both feature anhedonia (life is not pleasurable), monotony, dissatisfaction, and a vague sadness. To me, the key difference is drive.

With depression, it is as if your own motor is turned off. Everything you do brings you no pleasure, you can't imagine them bringing you pleasure, and you don't even have the energy to try. Both the world is empty and you are too.

With ennui, the inner component is different. The world feels boring and unsatisfying, but the internal drive to fix that problem is still present, just unguided. You know you aren't happy and want to do something about it, you just don't know what.

Ennui is restless where depression is inert.

This makes it a relatively easier problem to solve because it's essentially external. The feeling is caused by your actions and not a fundamental chemical imbalance. Addressing it requires understanding your own values and motivations. What gives your life a sense of meaning? Look back on days that you felt were particularly gratifying—the ones you want to reflect on on your deathbed. What made them that way? What did they have in common?

Often, ennui comes from trying to replicate the same actions that brought us joy in the past without realizing that the context has changed. So there is a generalization step. It's not that doing X was meaningful. It's that doing X because it meant Y was.

For example, I used to be a game developer. After about six years, I was pretty burned out. It wasn't as fun anymore. I kept doing it but felt more and more ennui. Why did the same activity that used to make me feel gratified no longer do so?

It's because the underlying context—my own internal state—changed. A big part of the gratification came from:

* Learning a new domain and seeing my skill in it improve.

* Proving to myself that I could accomplish shipping a real AAA game.

After several years, my knowledge had plateaued, and I had already proven to myself several times over that I could do it. Those aspects were gone. What I took away from it is that internal growth—learning new skills—is important for me to feel that something is meaningful. Once I "max out" in a domain, it is no longer gratifying for me.

This may not be true for others where their satisfaction comes more from providing value to others, or demonstrating mastery. I value those too, but in the absence of learning, they aren't enough.
I use Bing, it has never been an issue. If I can't find it on Bing, Google can't find it either.
They are trading at a really small fraction of their book value, currently 0.37[1]. In addition, their book value is being weighed down by debt.

I don't know why people fixate on market cap in cases like this.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LHA.DE/key-statistics?p=LHA....
MIT Tech Review Says It Proves Silicon Valley Innovation Is a Myth
That's just what I was wondering, are "magic" libraries like this still safe to use considering modern compiler's UB shenanigans?
"Which billiaires have donated the most money this month" is a more accurate headline. That any of their donations are good enough to offset the evil of having so much wealth concentrated in the hands of a single person is pretty doubtful, or at best controversial.
Often times when parents are taking international positions for their firm, the employer will pay for private international school.
It's a potentially unethical situation at the very least.

If the person running that software asks for the source code, it would be unethical to withhold it from them. However, from the arrangement you made, it would also be unethical for the person to exercise that entitlement which they previously agreed to give up.
Two unethical actions don't make a right, so you're just setting yourself up for an unethical situation all around. Better to just make it clear the source code's available on request from the beginning.
I wonder how the ranking would look like if we use the total amount donated in proportion to net worth. (not saying it's not. looks like multiple factors are involved)

A person donating $10 when his/her net worth $20 is different from a person donating the same amount but the net worth of, say, $1000.
An explicit wealth cap seems unnecessary so long as there are appropriately punishing taxes on wealth retention - If there was, say, a 5% wealth tax above 5 or 10 million then Gates & Bezos both would never be able to sustain their fortunes but they would remain fabulously wealthy.
Nope, not really.

According to various sources the number of software developers in the US is around 3.3 million (https://dqydj.com/number-of-developers-in-america-and-per-st...). Even by a pessimistic estimate, let's say that 25% of these have very high salaries compared to the average or median wage in the US. Either because their seniority or because they work for big companies.

So that would mean something like 0.8 million.

Now, on top of that, add associated engineers working for tech companies, add middle managers (which are generally paid more than individual contributors), etc., and it's easily 1 million highly paid individuals.

Just think about it: Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Cisco, Netflix, Oracle, IBM, Adobe, Uber, HP, Verizon, AT&T, Intuit, ServiceNow, VMWare, Salesforce, Workday, Dell, Intel, Qualcomm, Ebay, Paypal, Activision, and probably another 1000 companies with at least 1000 employees in the US, that I don't know. Plus non-tech companies that have huge tech departments, such as Walmart, and that pay salaries that are competitive with the ones paid by purely tech companies.

On top of that, American software devs have no idea how good they have it. In Europe getting 100k as a fresh grad is impossible even in Switzerland (Switzerland having much higher salaries than the rest of Europe), unless you work for... a US giant (FAANG). And those spots are a minuscule part of the tech world in Europe. And now imagine that Europe is better off than 95% of the rest of the world.

The idea of a regular Joe Developer having a decent shot of having made (made, not saved!) a million by the time they're 35 is frankly ludicrous for most of the rest of the world.
>> 2. Fed helped and did what they are supposed to, which is good for everyone.

Good for everyone. Much better for asset holders in a relative sense. Populism will continue to rise.
What angered me even more they don't care. Recent news shows that "post"-covid they cram people like sardines and mask are optional because... there is no law forcing them.

Its such a terrible thing that multi billion dollar behemoth needs laws and regulation for every single damn thing, and can never lead as an example.

https://www.businessinsider.com/american-airlines-full-fligh...
Facebook is surely in a similar ad dollars crunch as Google. I can't imagine they're full speed.
From the article: (It was my main doubt, but the answer was very difficult to find.)

> Will it drain my battery?

> Like any application, DreamLab will utilise battery power. DreamLab will only work when your device is charging, so your battery will not be drained.

By the way, it has a very nice dark pattern in the manage cookies popup. It has no "Disallow all" button, but as soon as you disable on type of cookies it shows a big red button that says "Allow all".
huh, I really like that statement, though engagement might be more precise