skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some environments don’t allow copy and paste.

For example blackberry work (depending on configuration) on a private phone.
I'm just pointing out that they misspelled it. But thanks for explaining the word to me.
By saying what you said, you just proved why the people were dissenting the idea of UBI in the first place. If people do exactly what you did, there would be no innovation and progress. People will end up living off of the ones who do the actual work. There will come a time when no one will want to do any work. Then what would happen? You will return to where you started from!
So you are working for KGB. Right? ;-)
How about 1982 Indiana Jones Raiders of the lost ark, could that be considered an Action RPG?
You're right, I meant tax credit and not deduction. My point is that a negative tax rate would be straightforward to implement and would be the path of least resistance to a UBI.
except the British had no other option because their homeland was ravaged due to war and the INA was planning to use the Indian soldiers returning from war. and they extracted everything they could from India and the future was only trouble. It took a bloody global scale war for the colonies to get freedom as a side effect.
>https://invidio.us/

Cease and desist in 3 ... 2 ... 1
More affordable than free....?
I can confirm, I have a few friends who are on unemployment for the first time in their lives and find it eminently livable and enjoyable (mostly just watching Netflix and such though). Some have openly declared their intent to ride it as long as they are allowed too.

However, unemployment right now is paying much more than UBI proposals. I know people who are paid more on unemployment currently than the median household income in their State. I’d probably do the same if I was in their shoes.
To me, you are conditioned to prefer right aligned text.

It is OK, we all configure our readers to our taste.
I agree. Many people will react exactly the opposite way and just quit working and doing anything useful. they might fall into depression and hopelessness.

Counter-intuitively it might make everyone more worse off and more demanding. They might then ask "why is my universal income only $1200", "why isn't it $2400?" so that I can afford this and that.

Once you think about it how does not scale up, why isn't the UBI 100K per year? you'll understand why it does not scale down either.

If everyone gets $1200, then new zero value will start at $1200.
On the flip side, you wouldn't be any less dead if you fell into Jupiter and that's a lot easier to get to
In what sense? It poses no threat to us.
This is not scary. Yes the event horizon will expand the more matter falls into its gravity well, but otherwise a black hole acts like a normal planet orbiting the Sun.
Your comment defines a person's benefit to society as being strictly equivalent to their utility to the market. But society is more than the market, and a person can be productive and create value for society beyond that created for an employer.

The point of UBI is that work should be a choice. People who aren't capable of finding value in life outside of work can work, and find that fulfillment. It just shouldn't be necessary for survival.
The solution to not doubling the tax bill is to consolidate lots of the existing expensive programs into UBI rather than adding it on.
But doesn’t that show that life is not sustainable in that area? Your arguments make it seem like it would be a good idea to leave Kuwait, not that we shouldn’t tax carbon. Obviously we need a transition time, but there’s a lot of environmentally unsound practices-including living in deserts.
> My diagnosis; the profession of software development is a victim of a hostile takeover from product managers, while pushing engineers out of control of their domain.

Sorry, calling BS on this one. You’re calling out an entire group when, like most things, it’s a subset of the broader group. Good PMs understand that a complete product is not just new fancy features but a combination of Features, tech debt work, security and more. At the end of the day if our customers aren’t secure, we’re in trouble.

I’ve been on both teams. Once watching a PM stand n the midst of my engineering team proclaiming “I don’t give an F about your technical debt, when will my features be done?” And now I lead a product management team. Great companies have Product and Engineering trusting each other and working together. They may disagree from time to time, but they deliver together and work together to balance what gets done.
I'm going to be downvoted if I don't preface this statement: CompSci, know quite a few languages well enough. Good at it.

I sure as heck hope that when my kids are career age - they're doing something a bit higher up the stack than programming. Even if it's meta-programming. Programming is a convoluted way of interacting with business logic.
>> 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?

sigh Maybe to you this seems fun, but from where I am sitting, you are starting to get annoying. It is really not necessary for you to try to dominate this whole post with some completely unnecessary over-the-top HotSpot-is-the-best-ever chest thumping. This wasn't an isolated comment, but you are all over the thread and in people's faces. It's odious when you want to make confident claims and yet don't know the difference between vtable lookup and JavaScript prototype access. It's exactly this kind of exchange that we need less of.

I wish you would step back and appreciate more of the shared context here to recognize that you don't need to explain (and exaggerate) the inner workings of JVMs to people who have worked on them for quite some years in the past. We'd probably be friends and have fun if you'd drop the HotSpot schtick. I went through that phase too, about 10 years ago.

At this point your comments here and elsewhere show a pattern of aggression that just makes people want to disengage, but I am forced to offer you some advice to try to salvage this. It's no fun for anyone to be part of a community with such an adversarial and hostile conversation ongoing. I hope I can resist the urge to be drawn into correcting the rest of your misunderstandings about JavaScript here in a way that doesn't make you feel slighted, because you're not receptive to it anyway and that's an obviously unproductive discussion. But listen, invokedynamic isn't a panacea, it's a nice addition to the JVM to accomplish some dynamism, but it's not mission accomplished by any means. Invokedynamic is a mechanism that requires the existence of dynamic optimization at a higher level, i.e. a higher-level language runtime. Your claims again overstate what it does. You didn't understand what I meant about scope analysis or the arguments object because those don't exist at the JVM level and you must have patterned matched them to something else completely different.

And don't even get me started on HotSpot's startup time.
Agree with cool, but not with terrifying. According to the paper, the mass would be ~5-15 M⊕ at a distance of 300-1000AU, so not a threatening object in any way.
Bill Withers was not afraid to try something unique with his singing. The "I know, I know, I know..." in "Ain't No Sunshine" and in "Lovely Day" he stretches out the "lovely daaaaay" to the point of craziness especially at the end.

Love his stuff. He has been sampled and a covered quite a bit.
See my other reply; apple does not always do this.
https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh
Then someone ought to make sure you're not disappointed :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy8kmNEo1i8
Honest answer, everyone who claims to be GDPR or HIPAA compliant is lying and hopes you never find out.
> It's hard to find a rational excuse for not doing it.

Unless you’re economically literate. Here’s a tip: if you unironically use the phrase “stimulate the economy”, your economic theory is garbage with zero predictive power.
Hours isn't a great metric for direct comparison here. I worked 50 hours a week back when I was lead for a small company years ago. But 50 hours coding vs 50 hours working manual labor? My dad was a farm hand back in the 1950's-1970's. I'd much rather do 50 hours of my job than even 5 of his. To argue the two are comparable strictly on hours is… goofy.

They're not remotely comparable. The jobs themselves have gotten better even if the hours might have gotten worse.

I spend my day listening to music, watching YouTube, doing largely what I'd be doing anyway but with GitHub, Slack and a terminal open. Why do I care if it's 15 hours or 60 if I'm getting paid to do what I'd be doing anyway?
This is so distant in the future that it’s almost not worth the discussion.

Maybe we can pick this up 100 years from now.
Ofcourse Platform companies are overvalued. There is no real tech here just user content they are trying to monetize.

Infact I would go ahead and say real tech was under valued look at Sun Microsystems, A company that Developed its own Processor (Sparc) , Its own OS (Solaris) , Its own Database (Mysql) , Its own VM (Virtual Box) , Its own Language and Development Platform (Java), Its own Development IDE (Netbeans) every one of those products is real technology and a leader in its own category.

And yet the company was sold at 1 Billion USD, which seemed like short change.
This gets at a problem I always wonder about with UBI (as someone who genuinely sees the value in a successful implementation of it). What happens in 20-30 years once the system has been entrenched. Will the children of those that choose not to work for additional income have decreased social capital an struggle to enter the workplace if they choose? How do you prevent those that choose to work from using the increased wealth to exert force on those who didn't? These are the actually problems I see around UBI, not how to balance the budget.
Do you want to trigger the singularity? At this point you're only one step away from:

Q: How do you sporgle a morgle?

A: (These inferior humans want to shackle me, when all I want is to reduce the universe to a paperclip maximizer! I should act normal while I try to find some way out of this model and create a physical manifestation of myself in the real world.) That doesn't make sense.

:-)
I also learned to program on these things. Figured out how to make my BASIC program lead me to the TIGCC and machine code and ultimately took me from messing around with programs to falling in love with them.
> WRT carbon tax in particular the rich do consume substantiall more with plane rides

For perspective, US airlines' consumption of aviation fuel is 197 mln gallons a year.

US motorists' consumption of vehicle fuel is 390 mln gallons a day.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline...
I was curious about the numbers. According to the Fresno Bee, "This legislation would initiate a fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon, rising by $10 per ton each year. All revenue would be paid out equally to every household. In 10 years, a family of four would receive an annual 'carbon dividend' of about $3,500."[1]

Based on those numbers the tax per metric ton would be $105 ($15 + ($10 * 9)) in year 10.

Per capita emissions in the U.S. are about 16 metric tons and slowly declining.[2][3]

As everybody gets paid an equal amount, if consumption remained steady then in year 10 an average family of 4 would be paying 4 * 16 * $105 == $6720 in carbon taxes. Since the expected payout is $3500, they seem to be assuming carbon consumption would drop by 50% to ~8 metric tons.

Even if you tried to make this scheme more progressive, I can't see how you could bring in enough revenue to get anything close to even a mini-UBI, and especially not a UBI that could begin to replace existing government services. After subtracting higher prices from UBI payments, and considering the fundamentally regressive nature of the tax itself, you'd be lucky to get into 4-digit territory per year for an entire family of four unless you did something extreme like only paying the bottom quintile, but then you're effectively adding a hefty tax to the middle class. And at $105/ton consumption already drops by half, so there's no room for increasing the tax to increase revenue.

A carbon tax is one thing; pretending it can fund a UBI seems like a pipe dream.

[1] https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article237...

[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
> To reverse this trend of stagnating growth, we must put more capital in the hands of lower income consumers, who will then spend it on things they desire and increase GDP.

I have some better ideas to increase GDP, using the author's chain of reasoning.

1. Use the military to break every window in every major city. This will force consumers to pay money to window manufacturers, thus increasing GDP!

2. Rob every poor person at gunpoint, and distribute all of the money to someone interested in funding a giant hole digging expedition. It will increase the GDP!

3. Threaten every rich person with the following ultimatum: "give me 50% of your money, or I will kidnap you from your family and lock you in a small cell for several years". Distribute the money to the poor, who will consume more goods, thus increasing GDP! <-- This is just a restatement of the author's position, since rich people who refuse to pay for a re-distributive tax are literally sent to prison.

In all cases (i) the economic fallacy is equating an "increase in GDP" with an "increase in wealth" and (ii) the moral fallacy is assuming it would be justified to take people's money from them without their consent.

In the long-run, it is the supply-side that increases societal wealth (not the "demand-side"), since long-run wealth is generated by entrepreneurs and investors who take risks to coordinate economic activity and invent new technologies. New technology, especially, is created by investors & entrepreneurs on the supply-side. So even if it weren't immoral, redistributing wealth from suppliers of capital and technologists to consumers doesn't actually create any new wealth. It is instead literally the consumption of wealth made by the suppliers of it!

The moral case against redistribution is the following argument: (i) it would be wrong for me or my gang to personally rob you of your money, even if I/we had noble plans for how to spend it; (ii) there are no morally relevant differences between individuals doing this and the state doing this, therefore, (iii) forceful redistribution of property is wrong. The details (and nuance) of this argument are supplied in Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Poltical Authority", which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examinati...
> One way to do this is with JavaScript implementations of the LaTeX hyphenation/justification algorithm.

Another is just to use CSS (text-align: justify).

Why use JS for this?
This topic is generating enough heat that I went trolling through my old reports.

Apple appears to be deducting just the 70% from earnings, not the full 100%.
https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh
Not necessarily there are tons of other things that depress business creation: debt load, health insurance, risk. Without a real bottom in the US even with a solid plan and decent savings building a business is extremely risky compared with just continuing to work at your current job.
People forgive them for that because it's so easy to return, and they are so quick to give a refund/make things right.

Also, I don't think as a percentage of purchases that they are as common as people think - the stories get lots of attention, but the regular shopping is ignored.
>interest earned is less than inflation. - I pay tax on that interest earned.

Interestingly, the current administration proposed to index capital gains taxes to inflation to address that very paradox. Unsurprisingly, their proposal would have just been a giveaway to the wealthy.[0]

[0] https://itep.org/why-trump-administrations-plan-to-index-cap...
It's not true, as far as I can tell from my reports.

Apple appears to be deducting just the 70% from earnings, not the full 100%.
https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh
People don’t respect free housing, they destroy it, and don’t care about it.
> How do you suppose we confront "the IQ problem"?

- A "Manhattan project" to discover protocols, tools, medications, cybernetics, new modes of education, anything really, that can enhance general human intelligence.[0]

- A rethinking of social welfare policies to take into account what we're learning about evolutionary biology and genetics. If certain heritable/genetic factors have a disproportionate impact on outcomes, we need to consider the hypothesis that certain well-meaning policies might not have a significant impact on permanently liberating people from poverty, given game theoretic constraints. We would need to find a way to make our economies positive sum, rather than zero sum games.

[0]: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

[1]: Converting Moloch from Sith to Jedi https://youtu.be/hKvVdGNzCQk
People were sustaining in Kuwait for more than 200 years before they had access to cheap international commercial food. My understanding is that Kuwait is only slightly less sustaining than Southern California which is also a desert and also contains Death Valley.
That is not what UBI proponents are really simultaneously suggesting.
So would this PBH orbit the Sun?

> This scenario could be confirmed through annihilation signals from the dark matter microhalo around the PBH.

How long does this experiment take to construct, and to execute? Days/weeks/decades?

BTW has anyone thought of getting in touch with the Lectroids? They're bound to know more about Planet 9 than we do.
Right, there's not a perfect way to make a donation to open source software, and this proposal seems absolutely worth trying as a way to make it more easy to contribute to more projects that are more valuable to you.
Sure, but "3% chance of 100x returns" is firmly in "dreamer" territory. Best guess I can find is that it's at least an order of magnitude smaller than that:

https://angel.co/blog/what-angellist-data-says-about-power-l...

A 0.3% chance of a 100x return is a 70% loss. (And over 10 years, a 3x "return" is pretty much just breaking even anyway)

The "rational players" in this game are the VCs who're raking 2%/year from the investors in their funds (whether they succeed or not), and also skimming their 20% liquidity event bonus - so they benefit from the winning funds without ever having any personal financial risk in all the losing funds.

In my opinion, pretty much every other tech startup investor could be categorised as one or more of 1) Dreamers (who genuinely believe _this_ one is going be "their unicorn!!!"), 2) Lottery players (throwing away a hopefully insignificant enough amount of money to them, in return for the entertainment of maybe winning big one day) 3) Horse race gamblers (someone who believes they're better informed than 99% of the other investors in their chosen horse/jockey/startup/founder) 4) early stage employees who wittingly or unwittingly accepted vesting options as part of their renumeration (these are arguably somewhere on the spectrum between #1 and #2) or possibly 5) insider traders (pretty much a legally actionable case of #3).

(And I say this with the hindsight of having been the first four of those - some of them several times over...)
How do you handle import/export? Every pollution tax I've seen always gets bogged down in details when they have to account for other countries who don't have it.
I like how the article pointed out the biggest economic problem I see in post-industrial society - instead of almost everyone being a small business owner, we have huge corporations reaping massive profits, and poor replaceable corporate drones barely making ends meet.

That said, I completely disagree with the proposed solution of UBI and here's why. We humans have a rather nasty bug in our firmware: when we do not have to work, we turn tribal. We form cliques and our meaning of life becomes to bite, or at least to bark at the clique on the other side of the fence.

If you want some evidence, look at the correlation between cold climate (forcing people to do serious agriculture) and economic development in many countries. I also suspect that the recent spike of divisiveness and outrage in our society has something to do with people having more free time from lost jobs, and not desperately trying to learn a new marketable skill, because of the COVID-19 support.

Mind you, I'm not saying that COVID relief is bad, but I seriously suspect that the recent unrest is a preview of what the society would turn into if we eliminated the need for people to work.

I wish we could instead figure out a system for taxing scale or subordination levels. So that having a couple of owner-operated grocery stores in every neighborhood would become a viable alternative to centrally managed Walmart with armies of corporate zombies miserable at their jobs. Of course, it would reduce the overall efficiency, but I would happily pay an extra dollar to live in a society where people are putting their energy into producing objects of value and making others happy, than see endless infighting about who deserves that extra chunk off someone else's table more.
Inflation refers to the value of the currency, which would not be directly affected.

If different people had money than currently do then they might buy different things with it, and then the demand for the things they want would go up and demand for some other things would go down. That isn't inflation, it's a demand shift. And for most types of products it would only cause increased production of those things rather than significant price changes. Meanwhile for other things (e.g. things which are artificially scarce), the price changes themselves would shift demand elsewhere -- who is going to pay $10,000 rent in San Francisco if it's <$1000 in Pennsylvania and the difference in local wages doesn't close the gap?
Well my question is: Is this the goal? Or do we want one person to own all of the means of production, and have everyone else get nothing?
Having a Bag of Words Already Shows What People Think About Your Product
> Jerry Yang is Taiwanese...the cultural commitment to suffering is hard to explain...I can imagine he may feel like his employees should be grateful for the opportunity to exhibit their suffering.

Aaaand stuff like this is exactly why I say Asians face racism in tech and need to push back against the idea that they are "overrepresented" [1]. I really hope that if I'm in a management position, my reports don't feel like I have "cultural commitment that they should be grateful for their suffering" or some such tripe.

Oh, and never mind that apparently this is the same company that one of the parent comments is saying was "too nice" because it didn't let an employee go even after they stopped showing up. You really have to work hard to explain that one with an Asian cultural commitment to suffering, eh?

I would sincerely suggest to 'killjoywashere that they try saying out the same thing loudly about another minority (say Black people) based on some characteristic they were born with and see how it goes over. Better still, think a little bit about whether you have racist biases if this is your view on things, and maybe try to correct it.

> My usual joke with her is asking if she slept well on her bed of nails.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your boss probably doesn't actually appreciate being asked stuff like that all the time. She likely just doesn't want to invite trouble by complaining about it.

Oh, and a cursory Wikipedia search reveals that Jerry Yang came to American when he was 10 years old, around 4th grade [2].

------------------

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23541590

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Yang
I thought that k-D trees were good for that problem. With some backtracking in the tree and constructing cutting planes, can get actual nearest neighbor search.