skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah...I mean I think money is genuinely this necessary evil we've built a society around and I am constantly questioning it.

How interesting that we can build a system that can fluctuate enough to upend lives both good and bad. You become so focused on it, it is seen as this brass ring. Once you have it, you question everything.

I realize this is a bit philosophical and idealistic. You appear to have a similar viewpoint as mine in terms of a society that supports the whole, I just wonder if you can do that effectively when you have a source of power so specific like money.

There are some very revolutionary thinkers/philosophers/minds that were somewhat detached from money (in that they came from such wealth they didn't have to care or they chose a life detached from it) Plato, Aristotle, Wittgenstein...many more. I'm curious if there is a connection or merely just a representation of the population.

This is something I've rolled in my head for a while but first time I've said it out loud so a lot of people are now coming to my mind now that were not wealthy.

I cannot necessarily see it going away but perhaps more of a direct representation of what it means...our time/energy.
While there was some persecution of the pagans, they mostly just gradually became Christian. The West lost it's Greek tradition, and with it much of the millennia of knowledge it contained.
This times a million.

"If you invent a weapon, eventually your enemies will have it."
I've tried to get into M4 in the past but was always put off by the syntax. Mustache has been my go-to since it's simple and has lots of implementations in different languages. Are there any good reasons to use M4 over Mustache?
Sorry, evangelist, I don't need my bank contacting me on your insecure "Slack" channels about my personal finances.

Email is just fine.
The advantage on Earth is that you have dozens of machinists, operators, labourers, and tens of thousands of tonns of supplies necessary for digging these holes.

You can't do that with one robot, and a weight budget of a few tonns.
It is really not clear to me why you are bringing Mozilla into this at all; they have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
That's incredibly reductive. If an online outrage mob harasses your employer until they fire you because they didn't like something you tweeted eight years ago, how is that anything but an injustice? How is that not the exact same kind of coercive, chilling effect that an actual government restriction on speech might have?

You might not be imprisoned, but you can be made homeless, unemployed, unsafe, and alone. I'm not convinced that kicking out the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy is any better than imprisonment at the end of the day.
Please. Crushing competition in the software field hardly compares to saving lives. Some estimates put the number of lives saved at over 100 million. Hell, saving one life would make up for all the business hurts Microsoft caused and more. One has to be exceptionally callous to consider businesses going out of business greater than human lives.
30% of in app purchases where the frictionless Apple IAP approach is deemed less valuable by the developer*

There's a very important distinction here. If Apple made their own in-app purchase API optional instead of mandatory, it isn't like every single developer would ditch it overnight. Apple's system is legitimately useful in a huge number of situations, and everyone knows that. It just isn't wanted _here_, and that should be okay.
This book single handedly saved my butt a few years ago when I was diving deep into deep learning without a math background. It’s very slim, which is a huge selling point in a world of 9000 page textbooks. I love it.
Odd, my main setup is an external 4k monitor and I only use it with the “large text” text scaling and I have no complaints, the text is clear and large and easy to read. Perhaps you’re also using your laptop screen as well?
It's possible that I misread things because I didn't see the entire thread. If so, I'm sorry. It's unfortunately a hazard because we can't come close to reading all the comments, and certainly not as closely as I (or at least my conscience) would like.
iOS doesn't allow sideloading, and the only available store takes 30% from developers, that is anti-competitive.
Google quietly launches an AI-powered Pinterest rival named Keen
The family of Philando Castille might disagree with you.
Why does it seem like there's only cnn, nyt and abc in the feed? Can we get articles from all sides of the spectrum? I'd like to see RT, fox, aljazeera and some edgy stuff I don't even know about
ΚΑΙ ΜΕΤΑ ΑΠΟ ΑΥΤΟ , ΤΙ ΘΕΛΕΤΕ ΝΑ ΠΙΣΤΕΨΟΥΜΕ ? ΕΙΝΑΙ ΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ
ΜΟΛΟΝΟΤΙ ΟΙ ΦΩΤΟΓΡΑΦΙΕΣ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΑ ΕΔΕΙΧΝΑΝ ΤΟ ΨΕΜΑ, ΤΟ ΨΕΜΑ ΦΑΝΤΑΖΕ ΤΟΣΟ ΜΕΓΑΛΟ ΠΟΥ ΟΙ ΠΙΟ ΠΟΛΛΟΙ ΤΟ ΘΕΩΡΟΥΣΑΝ ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟ , ΟΤΙ ΔΗΛΑΔΗ ΗΤΑΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ Η ΠΡΟΣΕΛΗΝΩΣΗ
You don't think analysis of exactly that sort of behavior is a valid discussion or a valid component in evaluation their character? And you don't think the character & culture of a company is a valid ingredient in deciding whether to use them and pay them?

I do.
The 30% cut is a 43% markup. Price your app accordingly. You can even price your subscriptions differently depending on where they subscribe.

Apple tried exactly that - to let booksellers set their own prices and they just mark them up. That’s what the publishers wanted instead of Amazon’s pricing ebooks as a loss leader - devaluing the paperbacks and hardbacks. It was shot down by the justice department.
Others have noticed this same behavior.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control [0].

[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unab...
Possibly, but it seems exceptionally expensive and slow for what you get.

Sods law will say if you don't invest in nuclear, you'll be using a lot more CCGT because storage or large-geography interconnects won't be there

But if you do invest, you'll end up being stuck with something costing far more than commodity renewables+storage

We have "workable fission" now, it's just very expensive. Workable fusion is always a generation away.
By not using Android you're missing a lot of good free apps that don't display ads.
In my case from Bloomberg when the stock takes a hit.
The ads I hear on podcasts and radio shows and read in newsletters might beg to differ.
Some of these are just silly. Why would they ban a wrench and a vise?

I always get some enjoyment from making Amazon donate to gun rights organizations with Smile.
Sure…

So, how many different word processors and spreadsheet providers does the EU bureaucracy itself use?
How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? And how many ads for hearing ads have you seen online?

The honest answer is a lot, and none.
RxJS debounce vs. throttle vs. audit vs. sample – Difference You Should Know
This analogy is weak for a few reasons, first off companies are not doctors and with diversification no one is at risk of death.

Secondly, expanding the pool of available investments with an eye towards attempting to correct systematic injustice doesn’t need to accompany a loss of quality, which is what is argued here. If the pool of quality candidates is large, then having a diversity goal in an investment fund doesn’t necessarily lead to lower quality.

After all, can you honestly say that all the worthy startups and teams are getting investment now?

As a side note, if the diversity argument lowering quality is “correct”, then why wouldn’t any investment hypothesis also lead to lower quality? There are tons of vc firms that only invest in certain types of companies. They still manage to keep quality high while being discerning about who they invest in. Think funds that only do bio or only do social media.

Instead of coming up with reasons why status quo is totally fine or why giving money to black entrepreneurs is going to cause losses, perhaps we could imagine a world where such investment thesis are successful, and expand the total success of everyone?
do you not find it ironic that on a 'hacker entrepreneur' site that has played at least some small part in inspiring the culture of 'untrepreneurship'

(if only in a 'copycat' fashion, lest I insult anyone here)

that someone from outside the field of economics would complain about the lack of accessability of a formal paper in the field of economics to the 'average', 'casual' entrepreneur?

fairly certain this is kind of what they are getting at..

also:

'Ideology of Entepreneurialsm' is about as plain-english as you can get

'Veblenian' / the concept of 'conspicuous consumption' is fairly well known in pop culture, at least among the bourgeois/intellegensia/dropping-the latest-malcom-gladwell-or-thinker-du-jour-theory-over-cocktails set; i personally have encountered it many times in casual reading (e.g. time, economist, new yorker sorts of publications) and it was presented 2-3 times to me in various 101-level academic courses
I remember several comments in the Iowa Caucus app debacle threads calling out the ex-googler who led the project as an affirmative action hire. Irregardless of morality or righteousness the more affirmative action permeates our culture the more resentment is going to build up in groups that feel cheated by such a system.
No, I would not hire anyone "just because of" it. However, if I had 2 candidates that were fairly equal, and one was out self-educating on topics relevant to the work, they'd get the hire before the other candidate.

So it is not a complete waste of time. But neither is it a huge benefit. It would be one of many factors that go into a hiring decision.
It's been a while since I caught up on the BBR work, are there any ways to tweak the algorithm for cases where you want 'increased fairness' – ie. deferring to other data streams because the current one is a lower priority? This would probably mean approximating LEDBAT, which is often used in large backgrounded file downloads like system updates.
I don't know where you are. But Python and AWS are all the rage and hype these days. You should be able to get a new job. don't give up.
Are the FCC interference guidelines exactly the same in the middle of the ocean?

And for what it's worth I looked up one of the licensing sheets earlier and it talked about the allowed signal strength below 25 degrees tapering off by 15dB. That's not enough to stop you from having a signal.

> too poor performance at the detriment of the entire satellite

> Serving users outside of the main contours, while it might be feasible given their antennas, is a massive hit to capacity on the entire constellation.

I think you're agreeing with me here.

It might cost a lot of the satellite's performance, which is why you wouldn't do it over land, and why it would be even less reasonable to include it in the simple simulation you linked.

But satellites over the ocean have nothing better to do with most of their capacity.

> By the way, I think this dialogue is good and neither of us are going to convince each other. I think we will have to wait and see a year from now and revisit these comments.

I'm fine stopping here, but revisiting in a year probably wouldn't help. There is a huge difference between what they can do, and what they care enough to do. Servicing ships that are more than 300 miles offshore, but not too much more, is definitely not a priority.
Are we really comparing these two?

Apple has nowhere near market dominance, in fact, they are currently in second place. IE had a much larger control of the market.
Microsoft are leveraging their monopoly in the office world to force teams onto the world, rather than things like Slack, Trello, etc.
Then don't buy the device. Bad taste in your mouth is not going to accomplish anything.
They are indeed a monopoly in a certain market segment - aka, those who are more than willing to pay for apps.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps...

Their existing monopolistic actions like “preventing interoperability at any cost” feeds this viscous cycle where high school kids are embarrassed to send text message to iPhone from an Android device.

I own Apple stock, would love then to crush competition, but let us not twist facts.
Seems to work quite alright on game consoles.
Does anyone remember the scifi short story where the whole economy is based on micromort credits? E.g. a nice dinner might be 2 micromorts. To pay for it you stick your finger in a device that does absolutely nothing 999,998 times out of a million, and kills you the other 2 times.

Since everyone starts with the same number of credits, I suppose that's a sort of equity.
> Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market

In the video "Competition is for Losers with Peter Thiel", Peter Thiel discusses this. The problem here is in how you define "monopoly". If you're a large company, you want to say that the market is a lot larger than what you are operating in. To take this to an extreme, you could say that you're a technology company and if people dont like cell phones, they can use tablets/laptops/desktops. Conversly, if you narrow the definition of monopoly, there are tons of them. E.g. how many supermarkets are there within a 4 block radius of my house?

Because of this, instead of simply looking at scope, a common method is to look at what sort of behavior is the company taking. Is the supermarket lowering its prices below profitable to not allow another supermarket to survive in my neighborhood? In the case of Apple, I think people see the behavior of controlling the App Market as a monopolistic behavior which prevents others from competing.
Sad that the internet is now considered a “monolithic information source”. But yay for unicorns I guess.
You make a good point. Freedom of the Press in the Bill of Rights can easily be the basis for the kind of thing I am criticizing. People should say all this is a “Freedom of the Press issue” not a “Freedom of Speech” issue.
That's what I have been doing for more than 20 years... Apple didn't really ever change, not even when Steve Jobs died. Too many anti-user rules...
GitHon: Build Beautiful Books Using Markdown or AsciiDoc
For those who don't read the article, here's a quote: "Unless you're only selling to white people, if I was at a firm I would want every point of view represented in the investment process"

Is this how people view the world these days? Where skin color is important?

I feel like I'm totally lost and saddened by this new race-focused world. Can someone please tell me when I can go back to caring about the quality of air traffic controller's[1], the quality of a manager's returns[2], and a restaurant's food[3] and NOT their skin color? I'm exhausted by it.

[1]https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-lands-in...

[2]The article from this discussion

[3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2020/06/09/uber-eats-d...
Those were dangerous in general sense to the establishment's position of power. The type of speech being argued against here is immediately dangerous to the physical person of specific groups. That distinction is important I believe.
speaking of interpretations, this is what I read in the local paper:
"Facebook removes Trump Ad due to Nazi symbol"
https://www.srf.ch/news/international/wegen-nazi-symbol-face...
Yeah, I actually was going a slightly different route.

I got into generating passive income. I am now in a position where I can maintain a lifestyle I enjoy and homeschool my small children.

I could pay for the best schools and keep track but I love education...I love passing that on. If I built a company it would be around that. I would not like the money struggles that you talk about so I would probably aim for something non/not for profit assuming it would lessen that burden.

I don't know that I care so much about money but before when I struggled, it was my singular focus.

It may seem like a silly question but if you had all the money in the world would you show up to work? If the answer is yes I hope you have that job for a lifetime, if the answer is no I hope you have all the money you need for a lifetime.

Edit: As a side note...perhaps because of the R&D nature of my previous role I had an advantage in the low barrier to entry of this. I saw a lot of acquisitions. Companies that were startups, bought, cannibalized, and then repurposed as a product. Sometimes these products internally thought up by us or other LoB's. They were all rough, prototypical in nature... Realizing that millions was "exploratory money" whether internally developed or purchased to have a product that looks and feels like something became a realization that you can profit on ideas...not full blown products bulletproof and cemented into history.

There are many that are not in it to make a legacy, just to get the thing airborne and sell.

The first time I saw a group spin up ten webpages of fake products to market test a brainstorming session was a lightbulb on what is happening under the surface in many areas.
Thought experiment: if a single corporation owned a website within which 100% of public speech was conducted, would you still be so eager to defend their "right" to control the thoughts and words of the entire world?
It is about the money for Apple. That is all it is about.

What's next? Are they going to want a 30% cut of any transactions I make through the Vanguard or E-Trade apps?
If nobody complains, then they'll know nobody really cares about it.
Apple a monopoly? Letting Google become the monopoly? Once again Linux is forgotten in the scene and Linux community means nothing.
Stop taking profits as a reference, there's a world beyond your iPhone.
I am a long-time Apple customer, but my first reaction to this title was, "well I've never used cigarettes, does that mean I can't 'whine' about them?"

There is, to an extent, 'second hand smoke' in any industry with a dominant player who doesn't agree with your sense of ethics. The App Store and its imitators have changed the landscape of software that is available to you and I.

I didn't run to OS X so much as I ran away from the chaos and aggravation of custom drivers and kernel compiles for Linux laptops (compiling on a subnotebook is quite painful), and doing tech support for friends & family, so the pickiness of the App Store solves a huge pain point that I am willing to compromise on other things to get. That it's a compromise means that the dissenters have a point, it's just not enough for me.

When you are trying to keep conceptual coherence in a thing, you have to reject a lot of ideas that would be really cool to do. It doesn't mean people aren't entitled to grieve, and it doesn't mean that you will always pick the correct winners ("why did my idea get rejected but your stupid ideas 1, 2, and 3 were included?"), and in some cases the bigger person would encourage someone to 'spin off' that idea. If the market of ideas gets too constrained then it's bad for everyone.

I suppose you could say that I want them to win, but only as long as that doesn't mean that everybody else has to lose. Like Chrome beating Microsoft without taking out Firefox (whups). We are not very good as consumers at ensuring that.
Well we can talk theory or we can hobby history. How well has the open ecosystem on computers worked for the average consumer? Viruses, malware, ransomware, adware dozens of toolbars on their browser, programs randomly uploading their contacts, etc.

I know plenty of people who won’t download random apps on their computer but will on their mobile devices. Because they have had bad experiences before.
Who is going to do all the work of fighting a Trust when they drag their feet using legal grey area or random excuses?

Government worked out the correct action a long time ago. When you see a trust, you destroy it, when you still get collusion between the separate companies that is manageable since collusion has prisoners dilemmas.
> I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all have one and you want to signal that you’re one of the crowd, but it’s not worth it.

This is when the author lost me. That’s not why I or many others own Apple devices.
Anyone know where to find the dataset?
This type of data isn't really used for business decisions, since an audience like "good credit score" (highly highly regulated and almost never used, fyi) contains like 150MM unique identifiers (cookies, device ids, etc).

Everyone using this data knows it contains inaccuracies, but it is much much better than not having any data at all.
Entirely possible. I was taught the concept admittedly in a humanities course about Middle Eastern archaeology, and it was boiled down by the professor to, "We made our pets look cuter, more like babies. This made us feel more paternal towards them."
This is simply not true. There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability.

The reality is people want all the benefits of the iOS world without paying anything for it.
So - putting my Dr. Evil hat on - what about if on your homepage the link to the rss feed has a unique identifier, the same way the alert emails people send out tend to have a unique identifier in every url so you can track what email was successful for which user.

It doesn't help with auto discovering rss tools, but it does handle the person who right clicks and copies the url of the feed to put in their feed reader.
From the post:

When someone signs up for your product in the App Store, they aren’t technically your customer anymore - they are essentially Apple’s customer. They pay Apple, and Apple then pays you. So that customer you’ve spent years of time, treasure, and reputation earning, is handed over to Apple. And you have to pay Apple 30% for the privilege of doing so!

Very true. I think people tend to associate in-app purchases with Apple unless they're very sharp or very motivated to do otherwise.

Does anyone think Apple will address this in any form at WWDC next week?
Exactly. We had a choice to go buy it from Frys -OR- other stores like Best Buy -OR- from the developer themselves. There is no choice with iOS.

A band that I like released a CD. I buy a CD from one of their live shows. I should have the right to play the CD on my CD player without having to pay 30% of all CD sales to the maker of the CD player.

I don't mind paying a 30% cut to a store that made it more convenient for me to buy the CD (even if the store is owned by the CD player manufacturer). The problem here is that I shouldn't HAVE to go to that ONE CD store to buy ALL of my CD's.