skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another point of reference: Israel is 80% desert & is mostly (aside from grains imports) food independent. Food is expensive in Israel (2-3x German prices, anecdotally) but availability and diversity are good.

Modern agriculture makes local production possible almost everywhere, it's just not as cheap as importing.
If the work your going to be doing is useful, then why don't you do it? Or is it objectively not as useful as your current occupation? In general the market compensates based on how much it is wanted by others.

It's amazing what an individual will think is useful when doing the work, vs what a customer who pay for.
If anyone is interested, I have a simulator for pool-based funding as I'm working on a side project that uses the same approach: http://syd.jjcm.org/soci/

My project is essentially a reddit-esque site that hosts images/blogs/video/audio content. Each vote on a piece of content gives it one share of your funding pool for that month. The pool based approach is definitely the best for simple usability, but there's another aspect to it as well: it means you weigh your vote more. In the case of a social sharing/news site, low-effort content will get upvoted less, as you have to consider that every vote will dilute the pool.

I'm really bought in on this as an overall concept and I think it's something that will be extremely healthy for the web overall. Previously this was a model that was used by Flattr, but they had a major issue that not everyone was on their platform, so often times creators wouldn't get money out of a donation (because they didn't know the donation existed). I definitely agree with the author here that if this were to be done, Github themselves would have to implement it. As soon as a third party who isn't hosting the content implements it, an enormous percentage of creators wont know they have funding waiting for them and things fall apart.
You're responding to an aggregate statistic with an anecdote. I too did not graduate high school, but now have an advanced degree and a high paying job. Claiming that that invalidates the notion of privilege is silly.
That is a very weirdly specific scenario that won't ever happen, so why bother asking about it? Humans will always find new things to be valuable. There will never be a time when there is no work left except for producing heroin. People will always want what something no one else has, or something that someone else has that they do not. Humans will strive to create new things, thus creating value. I can see you are trying to pigeon-hole the conversation in a social media vs. heroin comparison, but that just isn't a good representation of the issue.
"s then that means it will necessarily disproportionately impact poor people."

It correlates with green house emissions, it has nothing to do with rich or poor.

FYI rich people emit more carbon and would in fact end up paying more.
Why the Tech Giants Will Walk Away from Today’s Hearing in Great Shape
That’s a product of this limited time format. Without interruptions, nothing prevents the executives from wasting even more time and avoiding answering the question.
UBI == Universal Basic Income. $100/year might be universal, but no kind of income, not even a mini basic income. The term is at best meaningless at such paltry figures, but I'd argue it's disingenuous and misleading to use it that way.

H.R. 763 seems like legislation I could get behind, but not because it's a UBI. It's not even a good wealth transfer of any kind. The payments are just a way to soften the blow of the tax, but the reality is that it would disproportionately impact those lower on the income scale, especially in climates that require significant A/C, or for those in rural areas spending a high proportion of income on automobile travel. And that's before considering issues like delayed remuneration, which also has a strongly regressive effect, even if payments were month-by-month.

A carbon tax is regressive, period. It's a well established fact. There's no way around that. See consumption graphs, here: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2... The phrase by definition means it's a horribly inefficient mechanism for wealth transfer. The lower you go down the income scale, the more carbon emissions are created by each dollar spent. That means you pay more tax as a fraction of income the lower your income. And don't forget, there are a ton more poor people than rich. Ultra-wealthy can't help you because marginal carbon consumption basically flatlines at the top. Furthermore, consumption elasticities means it's easier to switch away from high-end carbon intensive goods and services (e.g. sushi shipped from Japan) than low-end goods and services (gasoline, heating), so a carbon tax has the effect of becoming even worse at wealth transfer the better it works to reduce emissions.

If we do institute a carbon tax, and I think we should, we'll need another mechanism to offset the additional burden imposed on the working and middle classes. For example, increasing income taxes.
What makes a good search engine engineer. AI in search
Yeah, the event horizon the size of a Planck unit.

Again, unless you get super close, it acts identical to a regular planet of the same mass.
Show HN: HN Mail – Topic-based HN newsletter service
gods that was a beautiful piece of writing.
I’ve seen this on Twitter a couple times today. Is it even possible to involve GRUB in a secure boot setup in a way that’s actually secure? I’ve never encountered a Linux (other than gentoo, but that’s not exactly normal) where the initramfs wasn’t in plaintext, and unsigned. You can get whatever arbitrary code you want running as PID 1 from there. If you want secure boot, the way that makes sense is to use your own keys and combine the initramfs and command line with the kernel, and sign that with your secure boot keys. I don’t know why there isn’t a super slick way of doing that, but it is definitely smooth and more secure. Wasn’t EFI supposed to free us from things like GRUB anyway?
Because they never get taxed and they only get richer.

https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-got-565-billion...
H.R. 763, as I understand it, puts taxes on imports from countries that have not implemented similar carbon taxes, in an attempt to avoid disadvantaging domestic businesses. Goods exported to other countries will allow a tax refund as well.

So if I understand what you're saying, you're worried that domestic producers will focus more on exports, rather than selling their goods domestically? I think it would tend to shift things in that direction to some degree. Do you feel that that would negate a lot of the benefit of the bill? I feel like there's more to what you're saying that I haven't grokked.
Miracles Are a Girl’s Best Friend – A short story about incredible odds
It looks like it's being setup to fail by the administration
Re: Invent 2020 is going virtual and free
This is so nostalgic!

I personally learned to program on a TI 84+ Silver Edition in 10th grade. I got _so good_ at writing TI-Basic on the calculator, pressing 2nd->catalog & scrolling to a specific command... because you didn’t type function names or keywords, you selected them from a list.

I even put some games & programs on ticalc.org — I just checked, and they’re still around! One of my apps is “zz” at the bottom of this list... man, the good ole days:

https://www.ticalc.org/pub/83plus/basic/math/trigonometry/
What happens when an open source-project gets funding? How is the money distributed inside the project, among different contributors?
Home building, and land isn't cheap. Pretty much like any investment these things take years, lots of money, and effort to make it happen.

City expansion is hard because there isn't enough money to uniformly develop every growing areas in all directions.

This is very similar to any investment you will ever make. Including things like education.

If we walked down this route. Everything needs to be free.
I need to know more about this station.
Unfortunately, airlines avoid taxes on aviation fuel because of the Chicago Convention. It could be difficult to enforce a carbon tax on fuel for international flights.

Nitpicking: one transatlantic flight emits 2 tons of CO2 per passenger, a human emits 4 tons per year per capita on average.
I don't think so. With the various colliders there was talk of black holes but they would be small and super short lived. The question may be more interesting if we talk about stable black holes at least by human time scales.
"> It taxes fossil fuels at the point of production

How does it work with fossil fuels refined in Middle East and delivered to China?"

Because all goods and services are in a value chain.

A 'carbon tax' at the end point of consumption would be like a VAT. If carbon is used in the making of it, then it's X% tax.

That will definitely have an effect on wherever the carbon comes from.

A much, much easier and better form of carbon tax would not be a VAT, but just a tax on the fuel.

So basically just a fuel tax would effectively 'price the carbon in' to products.

If it's a huge tax, then shipping by air because way more expensive, you'll see goods shipped more by sea.

If shipping by sea is too expensive, you'll see goods made more locally.

So it's best to just capture the carbon right at the fuel, and then maybe have a tax for other industrial elements.

" buying the car was aspirational and signified the rite of passage"

It's also practical.
I was just about to say that. More to the point, though, you'd need an FPGA for the custom MMU, which might be a sticking point these days, although there is a Sun-2 emulator:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22350986

https://github.com/lisper/emulator-sun-2
Food that is shipped in 'from all over the world' is typically more fuel efficient than food that is delivered from 'local sources'. Cargo shipping is actually very efficient. Your suggestion is not grounded in reality.
> your assumption that the majority of people have addictions

that's not what I said
Your comment is an example of itself.
It also increases mobility. Now any 18-year-old kid can pick up trash and the guy getting paid more can be a supervisor or a technician. Repeat when the 18-year-old goes to college or decides to rise the ranks into waste management management.
I've watched previous testimonies of Zuckerberg, the Libra one was infuriating as someone who has worked in the financial industry. Suffice it to say if he spent half as much time giving candid answers instead of evading the question or burning the clock to get to the next Congressperson's question, I might have some more sympathy.

As I recall AOC had particular difficulty getting a straight answer out of him back then too, as did several other Congresspeople, including a few who were far more reasonable, accommodating, and less incentivized to go down the route of theatrics than AOC, and asked fairly standard, straightforward questions. Those questions were met with answers which were evasive and vacuous on average; downright equivocations and deceptions at worst.
That is amazing, thanks for the tip. Just signed up.
Beyond False Necessity – Roberto Unger
The same way it currently does, if they opt into GitHub sponsorship or another sponsorship system.
False. The C standard had no consideration for thread semantics prior to C11, and C11's memory model is literally and explicitly derived from C++11's memory model (which itself is adapted from Java 5's memory model). All of the discussions about how the memory model semantics for C11 and C++11 actually work take place entirely within the C++ standards committee, as is true for most new C language features these days (with the C committee largely designing merely the spellings of the new features).
Maybe it's easier to understand this from the other side.

Suppose we have some kind of assistance programs for food and housing. If you don't make enough money you can get a card and with this card you can buy specific kinds of food, but not alcohol and not restaurant food. You get housing assistance but you have to live in designated government housing.

Then somebody suggests that we extend these benefits to everybody. But that's stupid -- why would you want to pay taxes in cash in order to get a food allowance card which requires you to buy what the government says, or live where the government says, instead of just keeping your money and buying whatever you want with it?

So all of those programs have phase outs, because people who "don't need them" don't want them. They'd rather have the money instead.

A UBI is money to begin with. Lowering your tax rate so that you don't have to pay to give yourself a UBI is a no-op. It cancels out. The tax you would have to pay to fund it and the phase out you would need to not receive it are mathematically equivalent.

The difference is that by putting it into the tax rate, you can see what you're doing better. If you have a 25% tax rate and then implement a 50% phase out rate, you're effectively imposing a 75% marginal rate on lower and middle income people and then a lower marginal rate on higher income people. Requiring it to be set as part of the tax rate makes it more blatantly obvious how silly that is, and that's all. And then, seeing that more clearly, people might choose more sensible marginal rates than that, so that you're never taking more from people who make less.
Small black holes evaporate fairly quickly from Hawking radiation. The rate increases dramatically the smaller the mass. Since the only time primordial black holes would have formed was in the Big Bang there is a lower limit based on the black hole surviving 13.8 billion years. iirc the number is on the order of 10^12 kilograms.
I find it super hard to believe 35% of the population would be satisfied coasting out the rest of their life on UBI.

I'm pretty sure there have been various studies all but disproving the "common sense" notions people have about UBI and laziness. Or the fundamental idea that if you don't make it hard on poor people they won't do anything of value. Or that poor people are lazy, and that they are poor because they are lazy. Etc, etc, etc.
If you were steelmanning the argument you would understand they mean reduce required work.

Your always welcome to work harder for more.

The problem is, there is quite literally not enough valid, useful, and productive work to go around.

We've reached a point there isn't enough work for everyone to do. What does that mean if you want to work full time?

It means you're taking work away from someone else.

I don't think anyone minds that, what they mind is that you're also taking their livelihood away.

If there isn't enough work, but there is enough resources, what does that tell you about the system?

Either those who can't secure work will suffer, or we need to redistribute the outputs of those who can secure work.

Its a really basic question whether you agree with ubi or not:

Do you want people to suffer so you can work full time? Or would you rather everyone gets what they need, and we work for what we want.
Holiday.com
Only fools trust google at this point. It's just not worth it to ever at all invest in anything esp GCP. I look at my past investments of time and energy and tell literally EVERYONE I KNOW to look elsewhere.
(Questioning)the “Science” Behind Lockdowns [Part 1 of 2 Parts]
wait, 2020 is not over yet...
Most people that have free time to create videos are teenagers of college kids on unemployment living back with mom and dad.

While most people are still working/ busting there ass or stressed to the core.
Yes the cool thing about black holes is that the terrible things inside them can never get out. It's like a prison-planet with the most terrible criminals in there, but they can never escape. Laws of Physics prohibit that
If you have a DOI, sci-hub can generally find it for you. I consider paywalls mostly a solved problem at this point.
I agree with sub-committees and more focused time. It doesn't make sense for this sub-committee to tackle so many disparate businesses.

Imagine in 1982 Congress had hearings with AT&T, Exxon Mobile, Ford, Amoco, DuPont, Boeing, and Eastman Kodak. They probably wouldn't have had the focus to force the breakup of the Bell Systems.
"Public services should be public"

Money is not a public service.

Also, to the OP Milton Friedman's 'Negative Tax' is the same thing as UBI - in the end, 'rich people' would not get a cheque in the mail because on the whole, they'd make too much money.

Also - the top 10% taxes would have to go up radically in order to pay for UBI.
Sadly, I disagree about being ultimately vindicated. Or, more exactly, I would say "so what"?". As in, you say something that pushes someone's buttons and you get called out on it. Maybe you don't make the "news" but enough people hear about it. Your employer fires you because otherwise they are considered to be supporting you.

Eventually, you're vindicated but the damage has been done.

Personally, I think everyone needs to take a step back and have a conversation first. I mean people do learn from their past mistakes, people grow, people change. The idea that my life can be flipped upside down because of something I posted on a BBS when I was in high school (yes, I'm old) is insane.
I mean, can we get the politicians to say the government and it's employees aren't accessing data that they're not allowed to access/have?
Bank also makes money on transaction fees (both merchant and account holder side) which is something bank account owners don't make.
Cargo ships also burn fuel with depressingly low pollution standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel
> Even the most hardcore anti-capitalists have to give respect to how the combination of capitalism and technology has worked to lift most of the world out poverty and provided us with the security and comfort only kings enjoyed just a few century’s ago.

No, they wouldn't. Any more that they would have to "respect" that the combination of Stalinism and technology lifted Russia out of poverty and post-war destruction. That's because it's quite easy to imagine that Russia could have been electrified without Stalinist terror.

> Free-Market Capitalism has always outperformed top down economic control because those at the top can’t manage all the information about the economy, such as who is best at what, and where the most efficient areas to allocate resources are.

Citation needed. On the surface, this claim would seem completely absurd to anyone familiar with 20th century history. I'm writing this from South Korea, a country that developed "miraculously" under completely top down control of a military dictator working from centralised 5-year plans. One needn't search too hard to find other, similar, examples. It would be interesting to see a single large-scale counter-example that actually existed on planet earth in our timeline.

Edit: maybe I'm just being ornery, but I just couldn't get past the platitudes in the front-matter to the meat of the article which I no doubt would be heartily agreeing with. Hah.
> I fully expect AMD to release 128-core CPUs once they're on that process. A quad-socket server with those will have 512 cores or 1,024 threads. Completely lock-free algorithms will be the only way to scale up to just one server at that scale!

How often will we need that scale in a single address space?

It's certainly desirable for hypervisors/kernels, database servers, perhaps L4 load balancers and reverse HTTP proxies. Those aren't nothing but far more people work on web application servers than all of them put together.

Web application servers are often written to be stateless (with the possible exception of caches) so they can scale to multiple machines. That's important for high-reliability sites even if they aren't large enough to fully saturate a single huge machine like that. As long as you need to load-balance between machines, it's not a big problem to also run multiple instances per machine. If the application scales well to 32 cores, run 16 of them per 512-core machine. Seems a lot easier than going to extraordinary efforts to make one address space scale...
Or each package's maintainer can set a proportion for each of its dependencies, so that every time a donation is received, a certain amount of that donation is automatically transferred to those dependencies according to the proportion set by the maintainer. The donation sent to those dependencies is then propagated to their dependencies automatically according to ratios set by the maintainers of those dependencies.
Trollish usernames aren't allowed on HN because they effectively troll every thread they post to. I've banned this one.

Please don't create accounts to post in the flamewar style in any case. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So tax cuts for every successful property investor because grandma is a successful property investor?
Yes.

First, so that it can be privatized and turned over to the free market, for which I will offer no opinion. That can be argued effectively to no real end on both sides, similar to a discussion about Amtrak or farming subsidies.

Second, the fact that the Postmaster is a Trump acolyte in an election year where there will be a record number of vote-by-mail responses should tell you all you need to know about what the true motivations are.
Not quite the same thing, but videogrep https://github.com/antiboredom/videogrep works along, audio -> ASR -> timed transcript -> text search, lines.
>Isn't a government bond basically equivalent to inflation? That would mean you have a risk-free way to get "inflation" returns, with the caveat that you can't access the money for a period of time

It's not risk free, there is nothing that stops government from creating inflation so they can pay off the debt for in inflated dollars.

Today, central bank alone doesn't have power to make create money out of thin air. Government guaranteeing loans from banks to corporate players and projects is creating inflation. It's good for politicians as they can pay off their expensive mistakes in cheap money.
$2000 per month is with wealth right now. It will be more than affordable in the future since the country will have more wealth in the future. Pretty much everything in current economics relies on wealth growth (pension funds, 401ks, etc), so adding this into that mix is very reasonable.
On Using Twitter
There are jobs for all the things you mentioned. There are people who are paid to take care of the elderly, to grow healthy food, and there are even jobs for taking care of the environment.

Also, I think you missed the point about novelists. It is more about if you suck at writing novels, sitting around and writing one for yourself isn't very valuable for society. There are some people who have natural talent, but the average Joe sitting around not working and instead writing a novel for fun will likely not be producing much value--at least, not as much as if he were working.
>I wonder it they also silently truncate passwords > 10 chars?

Is it possible to limit passwords to 10 characters and silently truncate them too?
> Which serves as a reason to regularly increase the amount.

Which serves to further increase inflation.

So you increase the amount more, and shortly thereafter inflation increases more again.

And so you increase the amount again, and so on, and so on until suddenly you have hyperinflation and your economy collapses, see for example the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, or any of a dozen other examples throughout history.
"Worse" might not be the right adjective. The code he works with scales horizontally to billions of cooperating instances, apparently can produce consciousness, and has been rigorously tested over geological timescales.
a hoax? https://stevesammartino.com/2018/09/06/the-ubi-hoax/