skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> As a consumer, would you really trust a merchant that opted out of Amazon’s return policy?

> On some purchases I would, I mean this is basically like an ebay purchase with no return policy.

Not at all. eBay’s money back guarantee overrides any seller policies. You can definitely return eBay items that are sold as “no returns”, if they are defective, counterfeit, etc.
Interesting...is that roughly uncapturable by an application, sort of like ctrl-alt-del in windows?
There's a reason basically every SDE is subject to the trading window: its impossible to give them the permissions necessary to do their jobs without also giving them access to highly sensitive information.
Ahh, yes, another patched-together hotfix to maintain this shoddy, bloated chunk of software.
In regard to religion or spirituality, the old desert fathers/mystics used to say that one should always have a remembrance of death instilled in front of their mind. You see this line of thinking in the ascetisicm of Orthodox Christians, particularly so in the book called The Philokalia. But otherwise, here's an excerpt that you might like on the above note: https://cassianus.tumblr.com/post/621365961792143360/we-shou...
So in response to a tightly controlled store where it’s hard but not impossible to publish malware you want the way forward to make it easier?
Retail.
Custom iPad Zoom Mute Button
I don't see how a carbon tax on its own solves any environmental issue. By itself it just means it costs more to buy things without changing how they are actually produced & that production's environmental impact. A carbon tax might be used for remediation after the fact, which isn't as effective, but such remediation funding would leave little room to fund UBI.

If you want the costs of products to "bake in" environmental costs, it needs to be done at the production stage. Producers need to either spend more money on reducing emissions or more money on remediating their environmental impact, or both, which raises product prices instead of very indirect tax. Trying to do it as a carbon tax doesn't offer producers any reason to change.
This isn't a fully formed idea, but it kind of feels like even the _option_ for UBI is based off the exploitation inherent to capitalism.
The statement in the article: "Because we all become wealthier when goods are produced by those most efficient at making them"
reads to me more as 'we become wealthier when we offload work to the nations that are more willing to take advantage of their people by treating them worse'
Of course these things are complex topics, but it feels like one of the reasons for recent explosive wealth is the offloading of negative externalities. I've never really thought this through, but maybe UBI is just an extension of that. I know this isn't strictly a US topic, but I wonder if it's even valid to think about UBI in a US-centric way or if it has to become a global concept, otherwise it feels like just another way that advanced economies siphon wealth out of developing nations/disenfranchised people.
Nice find! Based on this data, it does seem that contributions from Twitter employees are overwhelmingly to Democratic causes.
Yeah, the market value for most of these open source packages is $0. There's nothing about charging for software that goes against the spirit of libre software. (In the 2000s, Debian and Ubuntu made money by charging for CDs of the installers.) The reason these npm-type packages can't charge is that they're extremely fungible. Left-pad, react-router, etc. are trivial and nearly identical to the next one that is given away for free. It's like news articles. The NYT article throws up a hard paywall? Then I'll just search for another story on Business Insider, Bloomberg, Reuters, some blog, etc. until I find one that's not paywalled.

What kind of software are people actually willing to pay for? Microsoft Office, Qt, AAA games, Bloomberg Terminal. You need to step your game up significantly if you want to enforce payment.
Sure, NIT + control of income tax rates is isomorphic to UBI + control of income tax rates in terms of how much money people get in a year. The core downside of piggybacking on the existing tax refund system is that individuals would get their NIT refund once per year, and spiky distribution has problems. One of the core benefits of NIT/UBI is that many inefficient means-tested welfare programs could be ended without people starving, going homeless, using the ER as healthcare, etc. But if the distributions are a year apart plenty of people are going to exhaust their money and require those welfare programs to continue, now all the more inefficient because the relevant population in smaller. NIT has to be tabulated based on income, but UBI can be monthly/weekly/daily/whatever frequency.
But the billionaire probably buys a lot more stuff... And if he doesn't, that's a good thing.
UBI is just a more efficient way for politicians to buy votes from people.

Previously they would promise jobs to people for votes.

Today they want to promise direct money in return for votes.
> They simply lack the web traffic

How would they acquire it? Amazon is normally their answer to "I'm trying to sell, but don't have the web traffic". Seems like if they could get the traffic without Amazon, they'd leave the platform, like Nike did.
I find one of the more interesting benefits of UBI that stay-at-home-moms would be paid at least something compared to the status quo nothing-unless-your-company-has-really-great-benefits.

Alternatively, if the UBI pays for children, that subsidy could help more moms go to work by effectively subsidizing day-care.
Blockchain-based solutions are a legal minefield. They attract AML and tax scrutiny and, if you've become a trustee, make it incredibly difficult to unwind the mess. "Your Honour, blockchain transactions are immutable and ledgers are composed of mixed units of account that can't be controlled and smart contracts are irreversible" will attract about as much sympathy as spitting on the gavel. When a court decides to impose equitable remedies, it won't care that you can't return gitcoin. It will seize, lien or garnish any old thing you own, because actual law is smart and smart contracts aren't.

Old-school financial arrangements aren't as cool, are much more complicated and much more expensive. But they are also vastly more robust against many, many edge conditions. High-level expertise is plentifully available to pretty much any degree of specialisation required.
why can’t we do a flat tax? why is the answer always “let’s tax the rich more” off rip?
If you define malware so broad that every app meets your definition then the term kinda loses its punch.
> No way will I toil for someone else if I had a choice.

You might collaborate, however.
You can read about the results of UBI experiments in Finland and Canada:

Finland: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN...

Canada: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgot...

This sentence in the BBC article above is great:

> In particular, Forget was struck by the improvements in health outcomes over the four years. There was an 8.5% decline in hospitalisations – primarily because there were fewer alcohol-related accidents and hospitalisations due to mental health issues – and a reduction in visits to family physicians.
You are basing your opinion on your "visions" of what may have resulted from some state lottery? What does this even have to do with a UBI?
> At least with work I know somebody values what I'm doing.

...have you talked to your sales guys?
Favorable ad search terms for Apple considered in deal with Amazon
So what exactly is the genesis of this income that's to be doled out? Is it still wealth redistribution underneath where productive individuals make it possible for others to live off whatever largesse they create and without those individuals no one has anything to be circulated? Where does it all begin precisely?

Is UBI predicated on anything exactly? Can it be employed in Mexico or Cuba or Libya the same effect as it would in Japan or Australia?

Can everyone stop working or would there still be a requirement that some percentage of the population work or is there a premise that some fuzzy unquantified percentage of the population would always chose to work regardless of it being mandated or optional.
Suppose that automation has greatly advanced, and our material needs are fulfilled as a given, as if Earth were now our own Eden, tended to by robots. About the only work left for humans to do, that is to say producing goods and services that other humans deem valuable, is researching and developing heroin. The robots don't do this because they know that heroin use is quite harmful to human well-being, but of course we find great value in being high and are willing to pay for the experience, thus creating a market.

In such a scenario, to what extent does working involve the creation of value? Would you, and should you, find satisfaction in performing this labor? And in what ways is it different from working on the next big social media app to dethrone TikTok?
I have been a small business owner my entire adult life. I can appreciate the small corner stores. But Walmart wins in one way on predictability - as a consumer, I know generally what will be stocked and when it will be open. They have the scale to justify processes and systems that can be useful (ordering in from other stores, as an example).

But from the other side, a small business owner can be chained to their desk or counter. I'd bet that many small business owners are miserable too. If they aren't at a scale to have staff, when do they get a holiday or break? If they hire someone trustworthy enough to run a store for weeks on end, they often have to pay more than they typically pay themselves.

Need some sort of solution in the middle.
Good point, that characterization isn't exactly accurate. Though the first-order point is that you have to go through a separate "checkout process" each time you want to sponsor a new thing.

I actually think it's important that the pools themselves contain projects not users/organizations. There are definitely complications I hadn't considered if multiple entities/organizations are listed as maintainers of a particular project. Presumably the set of maintainers would have a way to "split" the incoming donations among themselves as they see fit.

[edit] I added a footnote to address this.
This article is absurd. Capitalism 2.0 != Capitalism. Nominal GDP growth != real GDP growth. UBI != ending winner takes all.

UBI to all is pure, unadulterated inflation. More money is chasing, the same goods and the same winners will suck that money out of the system. If the money is given to everyone, there will not even be a redistributive effect.

Hell, you might even have fewer goods being produced since there could potentially be less incentive to work. Couple this with a boomer population that's exiting the workforce, and a nightmare could potentially unfold.

So yes be prepared for GDP to skyrocket... because of inflation.

Now if you want to pitch employment guarantee programs and better social services, that's worth a discussion. Otherwise, injecting pieces of paper into the system does nothing for real growth in the economy.
Well, the main source I could find regarding the political affiliation of trending tweets was Trump. For example:

"Trump blasts 'trending' section on Twitter: 'Really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair!'" [1]

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/509286-trump-bla...
Just because some of the elected officials act like children, doesnt mean they all do.
Shipping by ocean is surprisingly low in carbon emissions.

Manufacturing abroad is tricky. It takes some creativity to appropriately tax carbon emissions embodied in imported goods.
But why would they support a policy (UBI) that causes them to earn less money because of more “freeloaders”?
Spend more time raising your kids. Volunteer in your community. Restore the environment. Take care of the elderly. Grow healthy food for your neighbours. These all sound much more valuable than my job, but no one is gonna pay me to do it.

And you're making the argument that the effort of aspiring novelists is wasted. It's not. Or else we would have no novels.
The whole island of Ireland plays in the Rugby World Cup as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_at_the_Rugby_World_Cup

I wouldn't know if the relevant World Lacross bodies are modeled on the Olympics or not, but other models certainly exist.
Amazon basic is never quality just cheap and not complete crap that will break immediately, especially not within the return window. It's only viable because there are currently so many counterfeit goods and downright awful products on Amazon in any category where the item is less than 100 bucks and especially under fifty. If I buy an Amazon basic usb cord I know it will transfer at the rate it says, unlike dozens of other cords on their site, but I still expect it to fray or break in some other way I wouldn't expect from paying a couple dollars more for anker.

Kirkland usually is not a top of a brand category, except when they are putting out marketing to let you know how good their vodka is, but they are never competing at the bottom either.
"Caring for the elderly is a weakness."
> The "wallet" you mentioned in the article could be a smart-contract that by the end of each month (or any desired period) would automatically make the donations

Ethereum smart contracts don't work like that. It is push, not pull. The Ethereum world computer cannot schedule or initiate tasks without you creating and signing a transaction. Cryptocurrency just can't do subscriptions. The workaround is to send the cryptocurrency to a third-party custodial which then disburses subscription payments, but now you have regulatory hurdles, because there's a trusted entity that is holding your money.
There's speculation and then there's fantasy. Hypothetically you could build a detector sensitive enough and a set of algorithms robust enough to observe the vibrations of a single crystal and decode from them every sound being made on the entire surface of the earth. Just because something is not physically impossible does not make it realistic or keep it from being foolish.
Sometimes I would like to see a small fraction of explainability required from human brain output than what is discussed and wanted from DL.
As long as people think that paying people will disincentivize them from working this is not going to happen. It's a great idea but I feel universal health care should be a first step. That will unlock majority of the gains argued about UBI. Healthcare is the biggest cost outside of housing for majority of the people and that is where the biggest ROI is IMO. Unfortunately in the US it will never happen. The healthcare insurance industry is the biggest one in the country and is worth trillions. They will never let it happen.
Couple of things: the wealthy absolutely emit more carbon then everyone else. Second, from a macroeconomics point of view, it doesn’t really matter if you tax the supplier or the consumer — in theory, it balances out the same.
No more terrifying than any gravity well.
Machines made child labor mostly redundant, is what I should have said.
Where it exists is because machines have not been introduced, or are too expensive (see minimum wage laws).
Strigil. that's what it was called.
Comparing these companies to tobacco, big banks, airlines? Are you kidding? I'll tell you a simple reason why this won't fly like the other "big company scandals" in the past that the author is alluding to.

The success of every one of these FAANG companies is because each one of us uses, buys, and likes using their products on average. Complain once in a while as we might that XYZ is hurting some group on some specialized issue, we still continue to visit their websites, buy their hardware, use their search engines, and yes -- enjoy doing it.

Why would these companies be worth billions of $ otherwise? Sorry, I mean Trillions of $.

It's not like they're forcing something down our throats and pillaging the earth as their primary reason for existence, or fraudulently filing loan applications in our name or selling shady mortgages. We created them, each one of us in our hour-by-hour behavior, every day. We don't hold our noses and patronize them reluctantly once per year. We do it every minute. Voluntarily.

So, no, I don't think the average person cares as much about the specialized negatives of these businesses as you think he/she does.

And btw, conduct a self-diagnostic once in a while: reading here on HN, you get an inflated sense of how Apple's 30% cut of developer app store fees is the worst thing in the world that everyone should take to the streets about, or how Google's map API key pricing has become an outrage.

For what they get in return, it's not that bad to the average person. Or even average senator or representative.
the monkey’s paw finger curls

Regulation granted! There are
now many stores on Apple devices. But the platform still requires code signing from Apple for code to run and must still abide by all existing Apple policy including entering into a contract with Apple that 30% of all revenue from your app on iOS is paid to them.
>This simply takes away the corruption and bureaucracy and gives it to everyone.

So to those who need it, and also those who don't. Why not just the first group? It'd be a lot cheaper.
Yup. This happened to me and after around three months I started working hard on some interesting things. A month and a half later I haven't made money from it yet but it's been better than the somewhat repetitive job I had before.
> This distinction is not hard and fast even in the physical world. Just go to original department stores in Paris.

Or you can go to department stores, gas stations, or grocery stores in the US, where the “store within a store” model is also very common.
People would likely be more open to moving to lower cost of living areas if they knew that they had as long as they needed to find a job there.
No, you could simply write a program that you ran ahead of time that would simulate the correct screens in response to their inputs and make it look like the calculator was reset when in fact it was not.
Luckysheet, an open-source spreadsheet
This is great. This is already better that FLANN (by facebook), Annoy (by spotify).
https://github.com/erikbern/ann-benchmarks#evaluated

Still, We are very far away from creating reverse video search engine. Also, Most of these techniques are in-memory not on disk.

I am really interested in making reverse video search engine.
Show HN: MtE Disassembly
There are two big reasons you can't fund a full UBI exclusively with a carbon tax.

The first is that the size of the carbon tax would be problematic. If you wanted to fund a UBI from e.g. VAT, or income tax, you might need a rate of something like 20%. If you wanted to fund the same sized UBI from a carbon tax, the rate would have to be thousands of percent, because burning carbon is not that huge a proportion of all economic activity. And then that would be very disruptive, because rather than some kind of gradual phase out of carbon, everyone would abandon it immediately to avoid the incredibly high tax.

Which is the second problem. Even if you used a less oppressive rate so that people would phase out carbon over some number of years rather than some number of weeks, that's eventually what would happen, and then your tax base dries up. It inherently can't be a long-term funding source because its purpose is to make carbon go away.

It is, however, a brilliant way to distribute the proceeds of a carbon tax. The "UBI" would then be a smaller amount (or require additional funding from general taxes), but it would effectively moot the entire economic impact of the tax (everyone is, on average, getting all the money back) while still creating a good incentive to be the first to stop burning carbon.
>Despite minimum wage, there is extensive child labor in agriculture in the US, because there is a gap in child labor law. Which suggest that minimum wage didn't make child labor obsolete, banning child labor did.

That is of course not true, because as you yourself point out, there is still child labor going on. Banning something has nothing to do with it existing, just look at drugs.

Minimum wage law made child labor mostly unprofitable, is what I should have said.
> The reason these npm-type packages can't charge is that they're extremely fungible.

I'd say it's less that they're highly substitutable (which I was I think you mean, instead of fungible) and more that they are non-excludable goods. A seller has no way to exclude a buyer from consuming opensource; that is in fact part of the definition. But without excludability, there's no incentive for a buyer to buy, other than charitable feeling. Put another way, it's a textbook example of the free-rider problem or collective action problem.

These are usually solved either with compulsion, such as taxes, subsidy or command-and-control; or they are solved by benefaction. Benefaction is what we have, as a rule. It's like how a rich patron of the arts donates to an opera company without capturing all of the subsequent value the opera creates (most is captured by the rest of the audience). Very large portions of OSS is developed by fulltime professionals whose time is essentially being given away without any meaningful way to exclude non-payers.

The other means is bundling. Mix the non-excludable part with an excludable part, such as a services contract. But OSS can always be unbundled from services or packaging . In my experience, most unbundlers radically discount the cost of doing so.
Kings back then had to shit in a chamber pot, were driven around by horse back, were treated with blood letting and leaches, had to wait weeks or months for news and goods from distant lands to make their way, with no guarantee of accuracy or delivery. Scientific understanding was poor. They had no electricity, no refrigeration, no vaccines or penicillin or X-Rays. The list in which middle class modern people are better off goes on and on.
> You might be in the minority

> What would happen if you had an existing alcohol/opiate/etc addiction?

IIRC studies have shown that about 9-11% of Americans have/had an addiction. I think you should consider trying to find out if your assumption that the majority of people have addictions is substantiated.

This article[1] claims 21 million Americans (out of 330+ million) have addictions, although it only includes drugs and alcohol.

[1] https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/addiction-statisti...
Like boomboomsubban, I have never had this happen. My current laptop shipped with Windows 8 and has had Windows 10 installed since the weekend after the public beta was released. It's also had an Ubuntu dual boot since exactly the same time. rEFInd was installed a few months later when I discovered it was still a thing (I had been a rEFIt user on Macs years ago).

Never once has the Linux boot manager/loader (either the original GRUB or rEFInd) been broken, by a Windows update or otherwise.

Windows of course has been well documented to happily overwrite any MBR bootloaders when you install it, but even that doesn't happen in a UEFI environment. Windows, rEFInd, GRUB, and whatever else you may have installed all have their own folders. It might change the default, but restoring your own choice is literally a matter of copying a single file.

EFI has plenty of problems of its own, but this is one it solved pretty well.
Security is an economic effort. They have to have two things now, which at least doubles the difficulty if not even more. We dont drive tanks and wear helmets and use a 5-point harness while driving at 15 mph to get around, because we have to actually get things done with our tools and systems without going bankrupt or starving to death.
I don't think #5 exists for private companies.
Stop taking from Peter to give to Paul. End of story.