skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This wasn’t true:
https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?...

Recanted there. People need to think more critically.
I wasn't given a vote when we decided to hand out all of the land and resources to them in the first place, so I hardly see how the system as it stands is in any way voluntary.
Rate-limiting has nothing to do with the older, non-tech savvy users. You're thinking of maximum failed attempts. Rate-limiting is about preventing bots from spamming an API call.
> This means that it's the consumer that pays it. Rich people don't eat more food nor do they drive dozens of cars at once.

Rich people may not consume more in proportion to their wealth, but they do consume more in absolute terms. WRT carbon tax in particular the rich do consume substantiall more with plane rides, so the tax side would be more progressive than a plain VAT.

Also, they buy their kids cars.

> It'll be a slight redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor and that's it. It won't fulfill the role of a UBI.

Maybe it's not enough but that doesn't make it a bad thing. One could combine a bunch of externalizes taxes (carbon, land, etc.) which together could create a better UBI. Or yes, throw in VAT Yang style too.

> In an unideal world it will just be gamed to all hell instead.

"gaming" is finding ways to maximally consume / Cabon impact. Yes, please game this as much as possible!

> Also, good luck getting people to swallow a doubling of their tax bill even if you give it back.

By definition only the people that consume 2 / punative-rate the average double there taxes. I'm sure these few rich people will raise a fit and have outside political power, but this applies to any progressive tax.
Good point. Apple maps worked very well in China.
FB and Google should crush Fox News. Of course it won't happen but they should.
Who wants to live on the surface? Cut Charon up into small ringworlds (e.g. no structural difficulties at 100 km radius but you do have to put a roof on; if you could make a journal bearing that can handle 10 km/s then you can make these bigger and not put on a roof)

You can make very thin solar arrays out of plastic film + semiconductor layers. You only need D+D fusion once you get even further out.
>
nmfisher 1 day ago [–]

> The attention mechanism is quadratic cost in the number of input symbols. Restricting it to a tiny alphabet would radically blow up the model cost, so it's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison.

That's ultimately my point. If an alphabet-based model can't achieve nearly the same results as a BPE-based model (even if appropriately scaled up to accommodate the expanded cost), doesn't that suggest that Transformers really are just a neat memorization hack?

BPE's aren't even words for the most part. Are all native Chinese authors non-conscious memorization hacks? :)
Then get a job, a hobby, or volunteer. Contribute to open source projects. Create a startup. Spend more time with your kids. Take care of your aging parents. Sit around and play video games. UBI creates so many opportunities.
Who said anything about lounging around?

One could read as many books as they like. Learn to play an assortment of musical instruments. Learn woodworking. Sailing. Write novels. Compose songs. Complete their magnum opuses. Master languages. Study art. Create art. Improve their athleticism. And so on.

The list is near endless of things to do.
Why should the interest rate on a savings account match inflation at all? I don't see the correlation. With FED rates so low, it isn't even evident that they should produce positive return, and I wouldn't be surprised to one day see negative return savings accounts.
I still remember before test mode, when the teacher would just come around and do 2nd, +, 7,1,2 and that would reset the calc to factory settings. It became mandatory to have the USB adaptor to reload apps.

The Ti83 is how I learned to program.
A carbon tax is essentially a sales tax... for high carbon products.

i.e. polluting cars, red meat, airplane travel, etc... etc...

The problem with 'sales tax' is that are regressive. You are essentially taxing the millionaire and the homeless guy with the same rate.
Chorus.ai raises $45M for AI that analyzes sales calls
> You absolutely do not. Legal damages are measured in monetary terms, and your putative damages are the amount you paid for the good. If the company refunds that in full, you have no legal cause of action; moreover, you are likely to end up owing the company for the legal fees they incur in defending themselves.

Monetary damages are not measured in purchase cost, but replacement cost.

There are also punitive damages.

There is also jail time (if/when a prosecutor decides to charge the individuals involved).

> You can certainly do so. And the court will almost immediately toss out any case you may file against the company.

I think you're missing the important part where you are still the legal owner of the property. The judge will order them to return the property and the local prosecutor will charge them with possession of stolen goods.

> The primary remedy provided by the court system is monetary not equitable

Specific performance is a common form of remedy when damages would be hard to calculate (such as in this situation).

Moreover the monetary damages are not calculated based on the initial cost of the services (which may have been sold at a discount), but the damages at the current time (which may be substantially higher, or lower).

> Moreover, under centuries of US and British law, any contract that has an "indefinite" length is merely deemed to have a "reasonable" length. Courts have invalidated contracts that attempted to bind one or both parties for infinite terms.

You're not wrong, but "months or a few years" would not be past the "reasonable" limit in this case.
And that extends to far lower incomes than in the US.

The 40% bracket in the UK starts at ~$60k USD (50k GBP). In the US you’d be in a 22% bracket up to $84k.

Not picking on the UK, just an example.
Since any UBI schedule can be adjusted to be more or less progressive, you simply sum the impact of carbon tax + UBI as a package and tweak until you get the desired net result.

By the way, this is already a very standard analysis that economists do, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is well-funded, non-partisan, and is probably the best institution in the world for doing this sort of work.

Obamacare, the Trump tax cuts, tweaks to Social Security, all these proposals get evaluated over a long time frame by the CBO and the results are public (for example https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447).
We have a lot to show for our increased productivity, though the 'things' may not be what you care about. Fancy televisions, nice food, great cars, and a lot more travel are the current 'mindset'. If you think people should be happy with less, you shoud try to convince them; if that fails, you can also lead a less consumption-driven lifestyle on your own!

Why do you want to force me to follow your priorities?
I'm as skeptical as you are, but presumably if we could make robots that were capable of repairing themselves, they could also repair other robots?
That’s equating all governments and forms of governance with China’s government. To be able to say that, you have to also say why you think this has a non-negligible chance of happening in a democratic society for example.
There is some stuff that exists on either one or the other site, but it's mostly the same
I will admit I have little financial management knowledge myself. I am inclined to agree with you, but what is the bank doing with the money you keep there?

Isn't the bank meant to be using your money in a "managed fund" like manner? IE leverage it to make profits.

Here in Australia the banks make quite decent profits, and yet a savings account can't break even, before tax?!?

I haven't done the sums but I am curious if it is better to own shares in the bank than put money in the bank.

I am also inclined to ensure my son does get financial knowledge. It is hard to play a game you know only limited rules of.
> Instead of continually trying to optimize supply, with diminishing returns, we need to optimize demand by giving consumers more money to spend on things they desire.

> If we can give companies overwhelming demand so they have to scale up production instead of spending all their money on advertising, we can have both happy companies making profit hand over fist, and happy consumers who get everything they desire.

> everything they desire.

This seems very bad for the environment? The article seemed to make some interesting points, but I got concerned here. These paragraphs seem awfully gung-ho about runaway hyperconsumption
I hate doing this, but just want to point out the humor of people downvoting the comment without a SINGLE example to counter my point. Either you've never shopped at Costco or you're just pissed that Amazon is 100% NOT equivalent to Costco despite the really poor analogy.

And how could they be? Costco makes their money off membership fees - Amazon is attempting to make their money on driving their competitors out of business through what can only be described as monopolistic practices. Costco isn't an open bazaar that tracks goods sold and enters markets where they see "vendors" being successful. They sell a small number of items at a fair price - and don't intentionally screw their suppliers.
Using a regressive tax to fund a UBI makes it....not regressive. What's evil is the rich people distorting this plain mathematics.

Was the French gas tax redistributed such that below x (where x > 50%) percentile consumers would come out ahead? The Canadian carbon dividend is the ideal example.
You can work as much as you'd like. But which would you rather - being obligated to work 80 hour workweeks as an "integrations architect" for a shadowy .com company that will sell and gut its workforce (including you) in a couple of years so that each VC gets a nice payload from the sale? Or would you rather choose to work 80 hour workweeks on your very own homesteading project, building your house from scratch while not having to worry about the cost of food, receiving just enough for basic sustenance all the while?

I know which I would rather do.
I know these are anecdotes but I already heard several cases from my circle of friends and families where they just chose not to work because of unemployment checks. Instead of practicing music or learning programming or doing something productive during their period of unemployment, they decided to watch Netflix and play games all day.

Creating is hard work, studying is hard work. Just like having information and online videos/articles/courses at their fingertips do not make people more educated but instead chose to believe what they believe. Having money and time alone do not motivate people to study or create.

UBI will probably benefit most to those who already have inner desire to succeed. But for majority of people, I have my doubts.
People prefer the better quality of life than what was had even in the fifties. That’s why they work more. Houses are bigger, multiple cars are had, people travel, people have elective surgeries, dental cleanings, the Internet, college educations, etc.

You’re proposing that people should be happy with what we had back then by reducing output. I’d rather work full time and have the better quality of life, thanks.
I definitely don't want to feel like I'm in a rat race while on the job, but I enjoy lots of parts of work. After taking ~18 months off work, I realized I enjoyed the first 3-4 months of unstructured self-directed activities, but I think I'd prefer more daily structure (whether job or otherwise). If I get the place where I can retire, I'm probably volunteer for part of my time.

Most of the proposals I've heard of UBI / negative income tax are good supplements but don't completely replace work-based income. $1000/month per adult is among the largest benefit I've heard.
Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail and Deliveries
It's worth looking at Tidelift (https://tidelift.com): they're making the model work with pooled corporate subscriptions that create the right incentives.
But if you don’t support it being universal then you don’t support UBI. Those people you’re talking about just don’t support UBI.
Great idea. Please rebrand UBI in a way that makes it palatable to capitalists.
The ability to share a link and be presented with a menu that let you bookmark or send it to a different device -- gone.

Not particularly pleased with that.

I really sometimes grow very frustrated with Mozilla. In Cory Doctorow's _Eastern Standard Tribe_, some people work as saboteurs, planting really unpopular stupid ideas, and sabotaging clean functionality.

It feels like Mozilla is really rife with such characters.
That why you pay people right back! Then it's not regressive. How are people failing to understand this....
There are many projects to make network decentralized such as ipfs (InterPlanetary File System). When exposing these services to public, legality is a big issue.

Plenty of rights would involve in it (copyright, privacy, and so on). Also, all kind of crimes are another issue. It is hard for people to keep monitoring if contents are safe or not.

I think we need a network version of the War of Independence.
People who driver Uber for a living aren't duing it "anytime they want" though. They have to time their working hours to places and times of high demand to actually make money.
As a landlord, knowing everyone can afford higher rent means rent increases for everyone!
The architect may not agree with you. He was personally impacted. It’s a matter of upholding intellectual property. I suspect the rampant justification of music pirating from the early 2000s has caused people to have defective morality circuits.
If you received a refund in the same ballpark as you were taxed there would be no point to it right?
>Why does someone's purpose in life defined by their job? What if someone wants to make music or art? Or pursue some kind of other field that doesn't pay particularly well.

The question is why the people who do work at a potentially unsatisfying job to earn money should be forced to support the people who don't want to do anything in their life that anybody else values enough to willingly pay them for.
> That's because there's currently no way to make a donation to the abstract concept of "open source software"

This isn't absolutely true, there are the FSF and the Software Freedom Conservancy, who fund many medium-ish projects, including ones that include some small utilities.
I really hope you recall incorrectly, because that indeed makes 0 sense except as the result of a farcical political system.
One reason is simplicity in managing it, reducing government costs.

For a middle to upper income earner their overall tax rate would be the same, the income tax rates could be adjusted so someone on $100k still pays the same overall amount of tax.

Second it is gets rid of the high effective tax rates that low income earners deal with. While low income earners pay low or no income tax, they lose their benefits the more they earn, so a dollar earned could mean up to a dollar less in benefits, which is a disincentive to work. Something that is often missed by the people who say having a UBI would be a disincentive to work.
> trillions of people

Really? A frozen dwarf planet in the outer solar system supporting a thousand times more people than the Earth? Without a functioning biosphere or solar energy?
Means testing access to resources always, without exception:

- ends up being more expensive than just giving to everyone

- prevents some people who need it but are somehow obstructed by the bureaucracy from receiving it

- gets it's conditions increasingly narrowed to reduce the costs until it stops helping anyone
That’s not how inflation works.
I support UBI broadly speaking, but one thing I worry about with UBI are the unforeseen consequences on immigration. Say UBI is in place for citizens, but not for greencard holders. You've created a massive incentive for non-UBI workers to enter the labor force, and a massive incentive for companies to import as many workers as they can (who do not have access to UBI, and therefore cannot negotiate a higher wage). I'm not sure I want to live in a country where UBI "citizens" pay for cheaply produced goods and services made by non-UBI migrants desperate to earn citizenship, that seems like precisely the kind of two-tier economy UBI is designed to avoid.

Anyway, food for thought.
I can absolutely see how it would enable a certain type of very creative, very hard working person to peruse something they couldn't originally due to hard circumstances. But that seems like a minority case.

I'm curious what the other 95% are going to do.
Ouch, that's kind of like the lottery. Sorry you worked your ass off waiting for retirement, here's some cancer.
It could be a conspicuous consumption tax.

Yachts, for example. Or private jets. Or even huge houses. We could tax the snot out of all of these. It would probably make them only more desirable status symbols, and thus stimulate the tax.
Something 100x smarter than a human is going to figure out how to get a body, or something equally useful.
I didn't mean to imply MG didn't carry their own wares, bad wording on my part. Yes MG hosts their own content and is available on the Internet Archive.

Macintosh Repository hosts the same content but puts it behind a registration/paywall.
Do you know that JSON.stringify can take 2 other parameters?
UBI is transfer payments, plain and simple. It is socialism. It is a rich man’s trick to delete the middle class.

Why hasn’t any coalition of companies or rich people created a utopia with UBI? They could easily buy up tens of thousands of acres of property and do all of this fantastic stuff... but they don’t. Why? Because they are the ones who produce. Socialism is about taking from those who produce and giving it to those who don’t. The only way to keep that going long-term is by force.

Use some common sense.

Don’t say nobody warned you.
Envision the Future Version of WordPress
This ain't it chief. People are more productive than they were in the 50s and also have lower net worths.

You can work less and have a constantly increasing quality of life. They aren't diametrically opposed. Your labor is being stolen from you. Where do you think the increasing wealth gap comes from?
As long as the UBI payout is not tied to the total carbon tax income I don't see how it messes with the incentives.
I love this idea as a rework of github sponsors.
The Crystal macro system is pretty advanced though, I think it works very well to replace metaprogramming.
Show HN: Fault Tolerance in Hive on MR3 on Kubernetes
This is a duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23987346
I support the idea of UBI in principle, but I think it needs to be combined with a land value tax in order to work as intended. Rents are charged at the highest the market will bear, so the UBI could just flow into the hands of landlords, and the people who it is supposed to help being no better off.
> For example, the Pony language is written in C and guarantees no races or deadlocks without using locks or mutexes so it's faster than C with locking.

This claim is misleading. The reason why Pony is able to "guarantee" no races or deadlocks is because it doesn't support shared memory concurrency. If you are willing to give up shared memory concurrency in C you can achieve exactly the same performance.

In fact, you often have the opposite: shared memory concurrency (implemented in languages like C) can often offer performance advantages that actor models like Pony can't provide.
The Northern Ireland approach would work if China had any sense of shame. The UK rules of engagement were tied to the idea that some atrocities would be embarrassing if they were in the morning paper the next day.

It helps if the area to be governed is full of sympathetic, English-speaking westerners with a lot of family ties back to the oppressing nation. That’s why this would never work in Xinjiang. It’s slightly less unlikely in HK.
My god is "work" really the only way you can think of to spend your time?
> You don’t need to work like crazy if [list of privileges]

Nobody should have to work like crazy
> None of us are really experiencing the benefits of society's dramatically increased productivity.

You're just not seeing it. I remember the days of manual typewriters. Make a mistake, type it over again. Put in an envelope, mail, wait weeks for a reply. Write the letter by hand, even worse.

Today, shoot off a text or email with automatic spellchecking.

Cars need far less maintenance.

TVs are practically free.

My microwave greatly reduces meal prep time.

I could go on and on.
Paying a mortgage isn't much different than a rent to own scheme.
You should give openCore a try. Everyone seems to have a better experience with that now. I was surprised at how easy it was compared to clover. Don’t be the first to update to a new 10.x.y release, but even the latest 10.15.x releases became compatible pretty quickly.

My system is very stable (“solid”). My usecase is web development and occasional Xcode, so ymmv.
All levels of the Canadian govt have done a reasonable job during the pandemic when a bulk of the world has faltered. I'm not a fan of all the fiscal stimulus (top tax bracket) but I understand why it is being done. There is a concept called Helicopter money that some economists have proposed. You may want to look into that.

I'm in Ontario btw and don't see the need for a personal attack in your comment.
I'm unsure how you would go about doing that. You would somehow have to be able to assess the carbon emissions of every company. This gets quite difficult, because you have to start answering questions such as "do we count the carbon emissions of the individual employees?" It might seem like a silly question, but this could have an impact on which types of businesses people invest in.

It would probably just be easier to have a general carbon tax that gets paid back to people. Then separately you could have a UBI paid for by capital gains taxes or something along those lines.

But somebody else probably knows more about this.
The entire premise, where I suggested this was an easy mutually beneficial profit opportunity, for the rich person to lend to the poor person to make the bulk purchases? I'm not sure you're keeping up with the exchange here.
Electrical Fire Risks from Devices Plugged In?
As my wife and I continue to WFH, I had the sudden realization that we have about a total of 40 wires plugged into either the wall, a dock, or a monitor.

Besides unplugging every device from the outlet every night (sometimes this is feasible, sometimes, it is not), what can we do to bring our fire risk to 0? We both have thunderbolt docks that we like to leave on overnight so that our laptops and peripherals are charged for the next day, but I'm not sure if this is safe... from what I've heard the risk is still there, but the voltage isn't high enough to warrant a concern. Is that true?
I definitely need to research this topic more, but after reading everyone's arguments for and against UBI, I think maybe the right solution is somewhere right in the middle.

Instead of giving everyone $X,000 a month, what if there was some sort of secondary currency or credits that all Americans receive (call them Patriot bucks or whatever) that could be used for necessities like food, public transportation, etc.

I don't think the currency should be used for housing costs, but I could maybe be persuaded otherwise. Ideally though, by having the necessities covered, it would free up income earned through working to cover rent, and thus working would still be encouraged.

This seems like something that's easily doable and doesn't solve poverty completely (there are still other costs like health care), but this would help a lot of people and be a step toward UBI in the future maybe.