skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's a fairly commonly held view that improving education access means giving people more ways out of poverty and therefore less people choosing armed forces as their career.

It seems intuitive to me that as war technology progresses, number of humans becomes less of a factor in military strength, but I know so little about this area that I couldn't guess how greatly alternative educational opportunities impact military applications, nor at what point in the past/future the scale might tip between wanting policies that push more into armed forces vs. no longer being so important (and I assume it would be different for different countries, too).

But I do believe good, free education should be a key part of any country, regardless of whether it helps national défense or not. If that drives up the cost of recruiting people to the armed forces then fine - I'm no fan of them in general, but if people are going to risk their lives potentially in wars then it shouldn't be because their choices were limited to that vs a life of poverty.
For the advocates of a UBI—the problem of capitalism merely concerns the distribution of wealth, whereas the production and measure of wealth under capitalism are never interrogated.

No form of universal basic income can free us from capitalist exploitation, since only wage labor in the service of profit can generate the wealth that is distributed in the form of a UBI.

The less our lives are exploited for the sake of profit—i.e., the more we devote our lives to the public goods of the welfare state or to non-profit projects supported by a UBI—the less wealth there is to finance the welfare state and the universal basic income. This practical contradiction in the redistribution of wealth is unavoidable under capitalism, since the measure of value is socially necessary labor time rather than socially available free time. The more we emancipate ourselves from the exploitation of living labor time, the less wealth we have to support our state of freedom.

Excerpts from "Hägglund, Martin. This Life"
> Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages.

The main point is that it makes people dependent of the State if they entirely live on the UBI, which is a pretty poor behavior to encourage - the larger the UBI-reliant population becomes, the more they will extract value from non-UBI reliant people through elections and majority.
Most of my academic and current research career involves RDF and SPARQL and I wish it were a bit more used outside of academia or esoteric library / information science related fields. Currently taking a bunch of heterogenous data from different providers, most of which is in some kind of relational database, then transforming it into RDF and letting it be queryable using sparql. The creation of aggregated entities based on related resources from different providers, plus the possibility to do some advanced querying using sparql, is the main benefit here, though I don't know enough about relational databases to say whether or not it's just as doable there.

I'll say one disadvantage of RDF is the lack of any well implemented reification of triples.
Soviet Union and KGB are long dead.
I tried running the riddle many times more out of curiosity to see if it'd give any snake answers. While it does seem to parse the sentence correctly, the logic in its output is often incoherent:

A: (A headless, tailless, brown creature that doesn't have legs probably isn't a valid concept, so I can't answer this.) I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense.

A: (A headless animal can't have a tail. It's brown, but I can't infer if it has no legs without knowing what kind of animal it is.) A headless brown animal has no legs.

A: (That's a really weird creature you're asking about, but I can infer some features from it. For example, it's small and has fur, but does not have any eyes.) That's an imaginary creature.

A: (I don't know what you're asking me. A head has a face, a tail has a butt and legs.) I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense.

A: (That's just nonsense. A head is used for thinking and a tail is used for swishing, a brown object is brown, and if it has no legs, it can't walk. Sorry, I can't answer that.) I don't understand.

A: (It's a fish, and also a brown fish with a tail and no legs.) It's a fish.

A: (A coffee cup doesn't have legs.) It's a coffee cup.
Got lucky. Never did all these things.

But I got so interested in game programming that eventually a project struck with me and I kept with it and wrote code more than ten lines long.

The Ruby programming language and a little book(don't remember at the moment) from the public library was my gateway drug.
If the border tax is just for countries without a similar tax, let's consider one example, say steel. Foundries in countries that fall under the taxed regime then have an incentive to produce the cheapest (and dirtiest) steel, since they get no benefit vs the other foundries (you could rightly retort though that this is largely the way it is today). Maybe the tax then should try to evaluate the relative carbon intensity of each supplier, rather than just by region/country, but good luck avoiding cheaters around the world.
I guess overall I have a hard time imagining that you could create a fair tax/duty for carbon intensive industries that accounted for all of these potentially perverse incentives unique to each industry (just take a look at the US tax code), given how hard it is to write and pass policy without succumbing to special interests.
Weather, altitude, blue turf, hockey boards, shooting background, etc I'd generally lump in under comfort and familiarity.

However, structural advantages do exist. The best example is actually MLB, where each team's field is shaped differently. The dimensions of the park impact hitters to an extent that it makes sense to tailor the roster composition to the yard at the margins: lefty hitters who loft many short flyballs in Yankee Stadium will hit homers that would be easy outs in most places, the typical left fielder won't be able to cover enough ground defensively in Pittsburgh, etc.
could have replaced it with a white filled circle though, or a grayscale version that uses much less ink.
Why? Can you not just check the residency and citizenship status every few months? You already collect these for other purposes.
It's more fun to have a conversation with someone though, you can have a more nuanced discussion. You shouldn't assume people are just being lazy, sometimes they just want to engage with the community.
Capitalism 2.0 is a Darwinian system
I'd like to know how it compares with Lego Boost. Same price range and it looks like the same kind of programing and available sensors.
Why Andrew Yang’s push for a universal basic income is making a comeback
I too rushed to check if the figure survived to the referees' comments. Alas, what a pity!
That depends on the constitution of the country and how UBI is implemented. You can enact laws and mechanisms that prevent governments from influencing the UBI and make it very hard for parliament to change it in a negative way, e.g. require a 2/3 majority and other hurdles. You could even add a right to UBI in a section of the constitution that cannot be altered. Germany has the so-called Ewigkeitsklausel, for example, that makes any attempt to alter articles 1-20 of the constitution invalid.

It's perfectly possible to build in security mechanisms.
In software at least, the opposite seems to be true.

You can make $500k+, but you have to spend your time building things that are not only useless, but a net negative to the world.

Or you can choose to spend your time building things that actually benefit individuals as well as humanity and large. But if you want to do that, you have to do it for free.
How to Define an MVP Feature Set
Brand alignment: How to build trust and authority with your audience
> I worry about three things with UBI though and they're more social than economic.

> 1. Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages.

The world is already divided like this.
I don't see how this is more terrifying than, say, have a sun in the neighbourhood.
And non-monolingual anglophiles, who want use all their languages at once. All this AI HCI is having an unintended "you don't belong here" effect.
I guess it wouldn't, but it probably would be a much longer fall until either pressure is crushing you or your heatshield fails.
I think the most important skills/attitude an educator can impart is 'fearlessness', an essential trait when it comes to dealing with the many errors posed by computers and the complexity of the modern world.
Again, that question of life elsewhere when we have an abundance here but are killing it with indifference. Can we prioritise.
Good writing avoids Internet memes and Reddit speak.
Trees = good, I'm with you.
It's been a while since I've taken the ACT or SAT, but it seems unnecessary to me to allow graphing calculators at all. I'm pretty sure you can get through any 4-year engineering program without ever using more than a good scientific calculator on an exam (and that's all you're allowed to use on the FE/PE exams), so it ought to be more than sufficient for high school algebra or trig.

I would actually take it a step further and say that graphing calculators aren't even that useful in instruction, especially now that students all have computers and can run Desmos, MatLab, or whatever. I had a TI-86 in high school, and the only class in which I found it indispensable was A.P. Statistics. Maybe I'm being narrow-minded, but I always thought those things were a bit silly and gimmicky and sort of resented that my parents had to buy me one for school.
Me, too.

What error codes does the program return? How about some non-trivial examples of use?

And does the man page actually document the software? All the switches, all the enumerated options and data range limits for each option?

In OpenBSD: all that is there. A documentation bug is a bug.

In Linux: "best wishes, and perhaps you'd like to write the man page for this utility you use once every two years?"

Disclosure: I use linux (through sheer inertia). I started on FreeBSD though, and got used to having adequate documentation.
An intro to useless AFL stats using R
There is also Etherpad:
https://etherpad.org
Oh yeah, I forgot about Gentoo.
This "open core" model has been used for a long time, and it might work for commercial vendors that have large products with a plugin architecture, but it's a constant source of friction and inefficiency. Not everybody can or will be able to pay, and introducing licensing and payment systems complicates everything.
What changed with Cat6?
I have another concern. What will stop landlords from increasing the rent by high percentage of basic income?

Suppliers always price their goods as high as they can for the specific values of supply, demand and competition, and none of those things will change. The customers will just have more money to pay for the right to live under a roof.
True, most of Europe has some sort of social welfare system. But that system has a massive cost overhead: to determine who qualifies and who doesn't, to support it there's a complete system of lawmaking, administration, monitoring and fraud detection and prosecution (and probably a cottage industry of fraud assistance as well). I have seen some back-of-the-envelope calculations detailing how those costs don't cover the whole cost of UBI, but I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive overview. But regardless of the cost, UBI would results in a smaller government apparatus than the current system.

Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed.

Failed on what measure? The people in the program reported less stress and more happiness.
"you mentioned "nordic countries", in reality only Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed."

And what failed there?

That the people who got UBI did improved on their general quality of life?

Because that is the general idea of UBI and that worked.
Open Amiga Sampler – New Amiga Hardware Announcement
So we delegate complete control over open source financing channel to Microsoft, because it's most conveniant option? Sounds a bit insane.

I do use both GitHub and its Sponsors feature, but I'm still hoping for open source community to come to consensus to use a service from non-profit organization like Mozilla or EFF.
It’s not going anywhere and your employer will be hearing from me soon.
UBI is no more susceptible to this than a minimum wage raise, for example.

Basic rent controls and other affordable housing initiatives are usually advocated by UBI proponents. There's no reason we can't have both.
I have seen the figure 0.4 kWh for 100 pages of text come about in the paper for generating text with the model. So that goes up to $0.002/page of text when you take into account hardware cost too.

Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.14165.pdf section 6.3.
Or for a more monetary overview: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N6vZEnCn6A95Xn39p/are-we-in-...
This can very easily be solved by making it inflation adjusted (i.e. the value increases with inflation every year). This happens for instance with many social contributions in Switzerland and is IMHO the only reasonably way to set such value.
You're expecting UBI to also fix the lack of democracy? That's a separate problem, that definitely also needs to be addressed. UBI is just to prevent poor people from starving while rewarding working your way up out of poverty. It's not the magical supercure for all society's ills. Those need their own solutions.

Like proportional representation, approval voting, banning corporate money from politics, etc.
Employees should not depend on the government for their ability to walk away from a job. They should depend on real assets that help them live more self sufficiently outside of their employment. This should include family, friend and other forms of community ties.
I think you would only see inflation where supply is constrained and even then only in limited areas. Food is likely to be safe as supply exceeds demand.

Slum properties in richer areas might see it however perhaps those people living on the breadline in a rich city would take their BI and migrate away.

UBI does not create more wealth.

Nor do pensions for the elderly yet we still pay them.
The Design of Scalar AES Instruction Set Extensions for RISC-V
Basic Income in Spain to Mitigate Coronavirus Impact
Pass the joint over and that's shareware.
someone, somewhere who sat in the planet definition committee: "seriously? again? what else didn't we think about...."
Well, I just had a look at the Arch Wiki article on Boot Loaders [1]. GRUB is by far the most widely supported and also the most widely compatible bootloader.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_boot_process#Boot_...
Crypt of the NecroDancer has a "you move only when time does" mechanic.
I am afraid UBI completely ignores the human psyche produced by millions of years of evolution. We have evolved to conserve our energy and do the least amount of work necessary. In general, motivation comes in two flavors: carrot and stick. But it seems that in general population, stick is a much more prevalent form of motivation.

Thus if you give people UBI, you rob them of the most basic motivation to get out there and improve themselves. I am sure if I had UBI when I was young I would've stayed at my parents', smoking weed, jerking off and playing computer games all they. The fact that I couldn't afford these things made me go out, get a job and educate myself towards making something out of my life.

So, am I wrong? I hope so. I really want UBI to succeed, it seems like such a wonderful idea. But so did communism and we know how that turned out...
UBI + a wealth cap (on say 10 million USD) is socialism 2.0 :)

Changing the UBI will make people less/more inclined to do bullshit jobs, changing the wealth cap will make people less/more inclined to "make a killing". People with more wealth than the wealth cap should be deemed an undemocratic force in society (they go lobby --use money instead of public opinion-- for their interests), and hence should be deemed undesireables.
I'm not sure why the biggest benefit of UBI is not promoted, in that it dramatically reduces the cost of providing state benefits? No more big IT companies changing crappy old systems to meet new requirements. Just a cheque once a month.
UBH - Universal Basic Housing.
1. It's hard to see how guaranteed income would put the less well off more at the mercy of the well off. And you don't provide a causal explanation of how this effect would arise.

2. Surely UBI is cash, not vouchers. At which point the particular lower-than-face-value scenario is moot.

3. This is a valid point. I'm not sure whether it's good or bad, but it does seem likely to entail some morality shake-up.
You stated that the poor people would be in the exact same situation if they got UBI. Clearly this is not true if the UBI would be $1M. Perhaps $1000 is not enough to accomplish this, but it is obvious that UBI has the potential to lift people out of poverty. It is a wealth equalising measure.

Everyone gets X+1000 instead of X. That means if X used to be 1000, you now get double your income. If X used to be 100000, basically nothing changes for you. Perhaps double the income does not mean double the purchasing power because of the effects you stated, but there is no doubt your purchasing power will increase.

Rents will go up, that is very likely. However, it is extremely unlikely the rents will go up by $UBI everywhere. Most other products will remain unaffected. That means that if your rent goes up by $UBI/2, your purchasing power has still increased by 1.5X. This is a gigantic increase for poor people that live paycheck to paycheck.
Unless by "several" you mean 1.25, then no, it's not.
Yeah I guess that's a clearer way of explaining it. I thought that part of the explanation was clear but re-reading it, I can see that was the main point that was being missed by the person I responded to.
Likely they wouldn't, but if during their line chrck, they found other more dangerous omissions and failures by the promotor to setup the stage and equipment correctly, they definitely could cancel.

These guys were working with thousands of amps of electricity, hundred of pounds of equipment, pyrotechnics,etc. Could easily severely harm or kill someone if it wasn't setup properly. No obligation to do a show of the other side of the contract isn't being fulfilled
Are we sure? Maybe no one has tried yet...
No one reads manuals (unless they're written using our documentation tool) is the point here.
The government, unlike corporations for example, is accountable to the public in elections.
The power divide includes having this kind of support and real assets. You have to start somewhere.
I don't really know what you're trying to say here.

Why would it be less meaningful to say types are checked at runtime with ducktyping? The nature of ducktyping is that the specific class of an object does not matter relative to behaviour, but a class is not entirely equivalent to a type.

If I need an object that implements method `foo`, and don't care about class, then "objects that implements foo" is in itself a type, that can potentially be inferred and checked be it at runtime or before.

> The majority of functions written in Python, even the ones that have type annotations, do not effectively have "assert isinstance(...)" in the program text below their signature, which is what I'd expect after reading "check types at runtime".

You're thinking his "checks types" too narrowly. Every time I try to call a method on an object in a strongly typed language, typing is involved. It doesn't so much "check" it as look up the method to see whether this method applies to this specific object at this point in time and decide whether or not to throw exceptions.

But the point remains that it is a typed. And strongly so - in both Ruby and Python objects has a type associated with the object itself, unlike e.g. C or C++ which are weakly typed because it is the variables that are typed, not the values.
People are dependent on the state anyway. Wealthy people are the most dependent on the state. Because they rely on it to defend their property rigts. Without which they would not be able to keep their wealth.
If that's your conditions I'll quit because I'm not desperate for the job... because of UBI
Here in Australia we are mostly there with a lot of these things. Medicare could be extended to dental. We have housing but there could be more of it. Food and clothes seems easy.

It might be harder than just handing out cash, but it would be significantly cheaper, and could be implemented in small steps.

Staff and fund it properly. Have a good corruption watchdog. Run government departments against each other with bonuses for "the winners".

Fix government, don't dismantle it.
Many places where I have seen people wanting to introduce UBI, increased (flat percentage) tax is often also suggested. The percentage is then suggested to be set at a level so that:

- People at low average income will have more money (the UBI-increase will be higher than the tax-increase)

- Average income: You get as much as before.

- Higher income: you pay more in taxes than you get from UBI.

Basically it ends up being a way to move money from the ones with higher incomes to the ones with less. It will ofc still give some inflation as poor people have more funds for basic needs. But other people will have less - and the average person just as much as before. Limiting the effect of the inflation.
There are two options here: rent control, and the free market.

If enough houses can be built, and basic income is high enough to pay free market prices, then any landlord who asks too high a price, will price themselves out of the market because there will be other cheaper houses. But for this it's vital that the supply of houses is unrestricted.

Of course a landlord might bait and switch with low rent as you move in, and rapidly increasing rent once you get settled. That's simply something that needs to be banned. After you've moved in, landlords should only be allowed to increase rent by either inflation, or the average increase in new rent in the area. But preferably just inflation.
Sure, but that's because you know you've used a non-public API in which case semver has nothing to do with the conversation.
Agreed. It's been interesting to hear how the players communicate and organise each other from a fan perspective as well - it's not something we usually have access to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7754334
I was under the impression that they fell over in agony for the refs, not the crowd? But then I don't know much about soccer.
I hope you're right. I just fear that making it external to the code will make it easier for people to ship overly restrictive type signatures without thinking. Though hopefully the tools like sorbet will make it easy to override, in which case it might well improve things (if I "only" need to override the type signatures instead of having to monkey patch or fork code)
True, but there remains the question of how people will vote when UBI is on the line. People aren't perfectly rational and it's entirely possible they'll vote for more payments regardless of what other changes that brings, including loss of accountability.
I thought it was Ozzy Osbourne who required 1000 brown M&Ms in a brandy glass? :)