skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
HD600 are open monitors, so they are more suitable for non-open offices or home/studio use.

I'm unfortunate as ANC screws with my balance really hard and makes me extremely uncomfortable immediately and lasting quite a bit more upon removal. Thus on open office I'm stuck with closed w/o ANC. I use ath-msr7 there.
I've never liked "secure boot", neither its "security" nor its user-hostility.

All of the Linux distributions shipping with Microsoft-signed copies of shim have been asked to provide details of the binaries or keys involved to facilitate this process.

It's sad to see Linux distributions, even the more "principled" and presumably non-corporate ones like Debian, essentially bowing down to MS. As Linus Torvalds said when this whole secure boot thing started: "I will not change Linux to deep-throat Microsoft."

(Linux hates UEFI too, and I agree with him on that point as well.)
> No, the modern welfare state is not capitalism, it's a socialist reaction to capitalism.

You have this completely backwards. The welfare state is a bourgeois reaction to socialism. It is capitalism with a bulwark against revolt.
Made a throwaway because this comment and your other comments are just so wtf. It's like you are arguing that UBI will hurt poor people but thinly veiled with some boomer-nomics to make it sound legit.

> Higher taxes are a regressive solution to giving people more money.

There is a thing called progressive taxes. You can change the tax brackets. If you are in top x% you can have higher taxes that basically negate the UBI + more. Done. That is not regressive at all.

Garbage and other dirty jobs should pay more. That might be taxes or it might be that those services need more automation, or a better pricing model.

A UBI is a base. Will some people strive for nothing more in life and just live wherever they can afford to on this income? Yes. Thats okay. If there is more money, there will always be way more people who want to get ahead and get more.
Imagine if people stayed home, avoided unnecessary gatherings, and the virus didn't spread uncontrolled. People with medical emergencies could get the care they need and the medical system wouldn't be overwhelmed.

If everybody just said "fuck it" and went outside, hospitals would be far more clogged. It's unlikely you'd be telling us about your experience with appendicitis. That's why people are saying we should avoid unnecessarily going outside--so the next person with appendicitis can get immediate care. Ignoring the request is going to result in more deaths, which we can already see in the absolute, unparalleled disaster that is America where people are saying "who cares go outside." The deaths are still rising fast, while other developed countries are doing far better now than they have been in months.
Unlimited resources,
No, but technology can overcome any perceived resource shortage. Think of the discovery of fertilizer by the Germans around the same time that people were claiming there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone. People still claim that, but we can even foresee the technological changes coming to fix that - genetic engineering of crops, mass produced, lab grown nutrition, insects for protein, on and on.
> That's what gave YouTube an edge over DailyMotion, they were pretty 50/50 in popularity in Europe before Google stepped in to monetize the thing.

YouTube was flaming out until the boardroom backscratch between Sequoia and Google bailed them out.

YouTube was burning several million dollars a month on bandwidth and was facing down billions in legal fees--both of which were rapidly increasing. It was going to be bankrupt before the buyout. The buyout meant that Google could subsidize YouTube for a very long time.

It's also not at all clear that we wouldn't be better off if YouTube had actually gone bankrupt.
The rent prices are high (low supply), so whoever has the most money gets it. If you only have 1000 from UBI, but the guy next to you has 1000 plus the 1000 from UBI, guess what the new price is?
Well, you are labelling a prime example of what Marx calls “bourgeois socialism” as Communism 2.0, so you clearly don't understand Communism. Which you'd really understand better by reading a slim volume on the topic like the Communist Manifesto, and not thick volumes centered on critique of capitalism like Das Kapital, which is more about the problem (on which Communists generally agree with other crítics of capitalism) and not narrowly focussed on the solution (on which they differ.)
I think UBI would be disastrous for society even if it's perfectly implemented, which in a democracy is nigh impossible because there are too many stakeholders fighting for a piece of the pie. To think that you could replace entrenched welfare schemes with a flat sum sent to each citizen (?) and for it to be relatively successful is a pipe dream. For example, our disastrous healthcare system is a direct result of an afterthought FDR-era program. There are simply too many negative externalities to consider.

You don't need to reinvent the wheel in order to "fix" capitalism. Our current problem is that the 1% are taking too much of the pie for themselves. This has led to increased corporatization, reduction in competition as companies merge and there's less players in any particular field, this results in the white-collar service class being beholden to their corporations, making it unable for them to save enough money to spin off and start their own small and medium sized businesses which would create more jobs for people lower on the economic rungs of society. In effect capitalism is working a little too well/efficiently as the owners of capital are using their entrenched power to squeeze more production/efficiency out of employees, which forces employees to stay employees instead of business owners.

This problem can be fixed by tweaking the tax code and some other small changes at the federal level. You don't need to effectively reboot the system to make capitalism work again for the 99%.
yes because the suicide rate increasing and the abuse of alcohol and drugs and life style deaths is less suffering. what fantasy land are you in?
UBIs also have the capacity to expand the workforce. As I age, I find my social circle increasingly includes people who can't work a traditional 9-5 job -- whether that's temporary (caring for an ill family member, early parenthood, etc.) or permanent (illness, disability, harmed on the job).

At least in New Zealand, those who can claim a benefit from the Government end up in a welfare trap, because we reduce welfare payments as you regain an income. There's no immediate financial benefit to you, the welfare recipient, in working 10-20 hours vs. not working at all.

There's a whole philosophical discussion involved in whether those people should have to work, but rightly or wrongly, a lot of societal and personal value is derived from employment. A UBI deletes the welfare trap, and allows people who exist on the margins/are incapable of full-time work to find and immediately benefit from employment again. Maybe the garbagemen will need to be paid more, but we should also see more part-time workers put their hands up.

A UBI would certainly change job markets; I'm not sure whether "distort" is the right word.
I think one only needs to consider recent social/moral/political trends to see how fast and to what extent sentiment can change.
> Every product relies on an external ecosystem for it to be useful.

I found a 6” adjustable wrench that was patented in the 1910’s. It was designed to pull square bolts off buggy wheels or something.

I use it all the time, but I’ve never seen a square bolt anywhere near the size it’s designed for.

I have all sorts of other well-designed products that don’t rely on complex ecosystems. Most are older than me, sadly.
Also worth checking out: Bill Shen (plasmo) has his Tiny68K (in a number of variations including '020) system and one for the RC2014 eco system. The original:

https://www.retrobrewcomputers.org/doku.php?id=boards:sbc:ti...

More recently: https://www.retrobrewcomputers.org/doku.php?id=builderpages:...
UBI is extremely dangerous as long as governments exist. Take what China is doing with their citizen score and it's not hard to imagine what could go wrong.

"...imagine how easy it would be for such a government that was also providing a basic income to its citizens to manipulate their citizens based on that basic income that they depended on. If they can deny citizens access to things like public transportation based on their ‘citizen score’, they can also deny those citizens (part of) their basic income depending on how ‘good’ their behavior is. So if you were too critical and thinking too independently, you could very easily be denied your basic income, and this could be a serious problem especially if you were brought up to be dependent on the government and to (heavily) rely on the income they provided."

More: https://blog.kareldonk.com/an-example-of-the-dangers-of-a-go...
>> I really wish the government was doing these tests

What does that even mean?
I had quick look. It appears to hold cheatsheets.

Possibly among other things.
Honestly I use async await... mostly because I want sequential events...
That's actually one of the features of CCPA. If there's a data breach, the company can be sued by each affected individual for $100-$750.

This is entirely separate from strict liability, though. The main issue is damages. Even if a company is strictly liable, they are only liable for the dollar value of damages caused by the data breach. And your data privacy has a dollar value of zero dollars until a law like CCPA says otherwise.

Under current legal theory, if your data is stolen, you can sue a company for the cost of identity theft that is provably caused by that data breach. But if you are not the victim of identity theft (or if you are, but can't connect that to the data breach in a court of law), then you don't have damages. A company has nothing to fear from strict liability if they are liable for zero damages.

tl;dr CCPA addresses severe problem in the existing system.
That use case is not for most of us yet the way those companies with large code base goes into the core? I guess ruby itself already has a large code base, so it seems they got aligned but they forgot to align with the rest of the world.
The manifesto is one of the worst books I've ever read.
Taxation is not necessarily regressive. Where I live, income tax accounts for almost all of the tax I pay, and income tax is very much progressive.

But also where I live, the garbage man is not a public employee, but an employee of a private garbage company. So my taxes don't need to change, instead my garbage bill goes up. That would be regressive, since a garbage bill is a higher percentage of poor people's income. But some poor people just don't pay the garbage man, and instead take their garbage to the landfill themselves, which is way way cheaper.

Incidentally, you can make the same argument about minimum wage increases - the cost of getting low wage work done increases, so prices increase. I don't want to get into an argument about the effectiveness of that, but the evidence generally suggests minimum wage works better than conservative naysayers sometimes claim.
> HotSpot does not need to infer object shapes, so it doesn't need inline caches for field accesses.

Those are just modeled as invokedynamic getters and setters for dynamically laid out objects. It's handled great.

> HotSpot doesn't need to infer whether (and where) methods lie in the prototype chain of an object.

How is that different than vtable lookups?

> HotSpot does not need to speculate that arithmetic fits in integer range.

Here's where they added that to the JVM. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8042946

> HotSpot does not need to speculate that fields are (not) deleted from objects.

Once again, handled as invokedynamiced getters and setters.

> HotSpot does not need to do scope analysis and closure conversion. HotSpot does not need to speculate that the arguments object does not escape.

They absolutely do since lambdas have been supported.
That's awesome! One more step towards the semantic web.
To me, it seems like man's constant fight against the brutality of mother nature will never end. As long as we need food, need medicine, and entropy destroys what we create, we will need a lot of people working to solve problems.

Any conception of basic income where we can freely give out $2000 a month to everyone has a net present value roughly equal to giving each person a lump sum payment of $500,000. There's not enough wealth in the world to sustain it.
Why not?

A few centuries ago we didn't have lighting, refrigeration, microwaves, electric ovens, clothes washers and dryers, cheap food, even fruits were only seasonal whereas in many capitalist-favoring places in the world now you can buy them year round. You can eat meat for every meal.

The view from the kitchen alone makes us look like we live like kings from centuries past.

Not to disregard the downsides of capitalism - rent seeking being just one of many. But to say we aren't living in the luxuries of capitalism is disingenuous IMO.
Can you provide any facts to refute his claim? It’d be hard to argue against him on this one.
You’re unfortunately getting downvoted because you did not elaborate: Iran [1], Saudi Arabia [2], ...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_worl...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_...
Amen! Companies are spewing full-on BS (euphemistically called USP/Positioning etc.) in trying to market/sell their "stuff". In-spite of being a technical guy, often i can hardly understand (due to the obfuscations employed) what the product does, making it difficult to judge the value proposition for myself. There is no more reality and truth, everything is a facade and falsehood.

A good example, was the pitch for a product "Sidekick" here on HN a few days ago. This was basically just a always on tele-conferencing app on a tablet but was posted as "revolutionary" something (their website too was full of hyperbole) and quite rightly, got called out on it.
The OSSC[0] is my go-to. OSHW, it takes component input (RGB, VGA, YCrCb) and audio, and outputs HDMI. Its line by line processing means virtually no latency is added.

[0]: https://videogameperfection.com/products/open-source-scan-co...
Multiplayer Psychosis
Wait that whole billion dollar ethical possible crimminal situation that the government created on their own makes you made you angry at the opposition (left / right / french / green)?

You don't think it's of any consequence to citzens? You think they are causing an unnecessary ruckus?

What part of Canada are you from? Is that you Justin?
Wait... land tax is regressive because poor people have a greater proportion of their net worth in land?

Literal nonsense. What is this economic wonderland you live in where poor people have land and assets?

As for land tax, you can make it progressive with 0% for the first 1m to cover people in high cost areas with only a family home.
> if salaries for essential, dirty jobs must go up, i am all for it

so all goods and services that require said "dirty job" in the supply chain will go up in price. This eventually negates the UBI benefits, because the level of UBI no longer can sustain purchases of all the goods and services that it originally could due to the increases in prices.

So do you increase UBI to counter this? Or do you let it be, and UBI no longer pays enough to maintain the same level of living standard. In which case, people are now once again, forced economically, to work "dirty jobs" despite not wanting it.
Why should the developer pay the refund!? Isn't the user buying from the store (not the developer)!?
1. Inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon. So as long as you pay for UBI through increased taxes rather than by borrowing or printing the money, it won't cause overall inflation. Certainly it will cause local distortions -- some stuff will go up in price but that should be balanced by the stuff that goes down in price.

2. Another possible theory is that UBI will allow people to move away from expensive cities to areas that are cheap to live in. $1K a month won't go far in SF, but you might be able to live on that in the middle of nowhere without having to fin a job. So decreased demand for housing in expensive cities means that UBI might cause housing prices there to go down.

3. Housing problems are fairly orthogonal to UBI. In pretty much every other market supply can rise to match increased demand so that prices stay close to their marginal cost of production. We need to fix our housing pricing problems UBI or no UBI.
Learning to code just got even more affordable: instead of spending $129 on a toy robot (which you still need a device to use), I download Scratch or one of many other free learning oriented coding tools.
cough Kuwait cough
Given that they're third party companies, i think the question is if Walmart can data mine the sales data from other stores in the same mall?
Honest question - how does one prevent inflation with UBI?

If the market price of an apartment is $500, and suddenly everyone gets UBI, the landlord would raise the price as much as he can, say $1000.

People on UBI are in the same relative position as before. They still can’t get the apartment because there’s enough people who have the UBI plus something else and can pay $1000.
How do you get access to GPT-3? Is there a way besides signing up for the openai api?
Do you feel the same way about foodstamps? This isn't an argument against UBI, it's an argument against any kind of government provided assistance at all.
By making sure each person has their minimum needs met, one can then have a better chance at having support for solving big problems that require government which requires popular support.

There are schemes for UBI which don't actually cost much more than we are spending. It can just be reallocation with more clawback in taxes. If one wants to.
That's a very hand-wavy and ridiculously over-simplified way to just dismiss an idea out of hand. May I suggest learning even the first thing about a new idea before so confidently asserting it could never possibly work?
Of course it would. Over time UBI would destroy the value of our currency, and those who use the dollar as their reserve currency would get wrecked as well. IMO an Implementation of UBI would require the creation of a new currency.
The World That China Wants (III): Taking Chinese Communism Seriously
I strongly believe the root of modern economic malaise and inequality is the fact that our antiquated system is purely production driven.
Perhaps children aged 6 should be focused on reading and writing

...and given a Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum to play with, along with a few volumes of documentation. ;-)
I've read like three articles on the thing and I'm still not clear what exactly the alleged wrongdoing is.
How stable is the earth's magnetic field at that level of detail? There's enough movement of the magnetic poles right now that new compass correction charts have to be issued every year or so. Will you need to constantly update your magnetic maps?
I think this is probably inherent to donations, at least if you're targeting individuals. My priorities can be shifted with respect to what I might donate to, but I'm not likely to substantially increase the total amount I donate in a given year.
You could read it that way, although a more generous interpretation is that he was asking, rightfully, why is a side project the one getting interesting innovation rather than the core product and will the company properly support and nurture this side project? Lots of companies produce interesting innovations that never see the light of day cause the "core" of the company doesn't support them or purposefully kills them off.

From their history via Wikipedia:
"The first Twitter prototype, developed by Dorsey and contractor Florian Weber, was used as an internal service for Odeo employees[31] and the full version was introduced publicly on July 15, 2006.[13] In October 2006, Biz Stone, Evan Williams, Dorsey, and other members of Odeo formed Obvious Corporation and acquired Odeo, together with its assets — including Odeo.com and Twitter.com — from the investors and shareholders.[32] Williams fired Glass, who was silent about his part in Twitter's startup until 2011.[33] Twitter spun off into its own company in April 2007.[34]"
The German gas network can store 200TWh. I believe that power to gas has a bright future. Check out what Hydrogenics is doing.
Also, storage doesn’t have to be day scale to be useful.
Ask HN: If you had participated in today's hearing, what would you have asked?
Inflation is set by the government. You just produce less money. You don't create an extra $500 to hand out, you take it from taxes.

This isn't different to how it works now. UBI isn't about making everyone millionaires, its just welfare/unemployment with less steps.
I understand and agree with how a UBI will benefit those that are currently falling between the cracks and not receiving any assistance. I can also see the benefits of greatly simplifying the social security system. (If it was implemented in a way that was actually simple. i.e. no distinction between sick, unemployed, old, lazy)

But I don't understand why people don't believe the UBI will just become the new definition of poverty. People will still be miserable and feel like they have nothing when comparing themselves to those who get UBI and have a job.
LuaJIT 2.x only uses Dynasm to generate the bytecode VM and not for actual JIT compilation. Runtime JIT is done differently.

Dynasm is actually written in Lua. There's a good guide by Peter Crawley on how to run it here:
https://corsix.github.io/dynasm-doc/tutorial.html#compiling
The teacher says that a student came and demo him that it’s possible to retrieve custom programs even in exam mode. Then there is a demo of it.
It will definitely change job markets. I see driving for Uber as a "UBI" in the sense that it allows you to make money if you have a car and know how to drive (I know not everyone can front that money, point is just for illustration). Now what has happened to the broader labor market? Well, if you don't like your minimum wage job at present, you can always drive Uber (and at any time you want at that). That would make crappy jobs have higher wages (for the sacrifice in flexibility, intensity of labor, etc) and I think that's fine – it's just the market correcting for the alternatives people have to make money. I think actual UBI will help motivate us automate these mundane repetitive tasks in the long run that we currently employ humans for. Although there is still a lot to do, eventually people will have the choice to do repetitive, laborious work. Instead, they can focus higher level creative work everyday for something they enjoy.
More like ctrl-tab in the same editor.
I hardly think my comments are way out there at all, and would probably be agreed with by most Americans. I never made a comment that UBI would hurt poor people, merely distort the job market.

(And be a man, stand by your comments and don’t make a throw away)
Land tax is one of those things that you can value easily and collect on easily. It also hurts people who just sit on land, waiting for the value to go up. It also stops negative gearing which drives up housing prices (see Australia)

I think taxing wealth is harder and then defining it is hard (how do you value illiquid shares, options, etc).

You can also have an exemption for the first $1m so that family homes are excluded from the tax.

I think a straight wealth tax should be the next step, because you will need to figure out how to stop people dodging it. Taxing someone who has a ton of debt and wealth might lead to issues.
The assault weapons ban that was only first enacted in 1994?
Is there some way I can actually interact with GPT-3? I keep looking for these articles to link to it, but I end up mystified.