skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But the money is. And money is the way how we decide who has the right to what share of wealth.
The Surprising Value or Catching Up and Getting Ahead
I think I have about one case, but very indirectly:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/when-crisis-hits/

https://jacquesmattheij.com/my-brush-with-a-patent-troll/

The most interesting one isn't mentioned in either of those, in a nutshell, one arm of Logitech sued us for Trademark infringement because our 'mascot' Chico looked too much like their camera. At the same time another arm of Logitech was making all kinds of ouvertures.

I played the one against the other and ended up with a super good relationship with Logitech upper management (board, two of the directors and founders). I guess they liked the fact that we didn't roll over just like that because they were a 500 pound gorilla. In the end the relationship worked out in our favor, Logitech did invest in a company called Spotlife and when that went belly up they sent us the traffic for nearly a decade.

Finally, I had a run-in with KPN, at the time the largest telco in nl (probably still are) and forced them to pay 300K, a lot of money at the time.

There were some other lawsuits but with smaller parties. We won all of them, mostly because if there was a chance of losing a suit we would simply find another way to solve them, preferably by standing next to much larger people who would take care of the problem long before we had to get worried.
If half of Jeff's shares were transferred to a non-profit organization that assists homeless people, would that make a physical difference in the world, or would it have no effect?
Isn't it really? Given that wealth is the amount of resources you can command, and resources are finite, doesn't increasing your wealth decrease everyone else's? It's why printing money reduces the value of everyone else's money and gives it to you.
Like an addict, Mozilla became dependent upon the revenue they earned from their Google and Yahoo search deals. Search compliance requirements then prevented them from innovating in the areas you mentioned (and others). Mozilla had an opportunity to reduce the search dependency and transition to a subscription business around 2014-2015 when the paid consumer VPN market started to scale, but based on the internal incentives present at the time, they found the search money too lucrative to resist.
I get it now! Indeed.
So hacker news, what’s the tech solution to this? P2P mesh networks? Encrypted DNS?

How do we build a network today in peaceful countries that is resilient to state actors?
So because a homeless person today has $1, can sleep under a bridge in a jacket they got from Goodwill rather than $0.05 like 50 years ago or sleeping under a tree possibly getting eaten by wolves, this means the world is positive sum?

Standard of living has improved generally over time, but day by day the world is a zero-sum game.
That's not a given. There are multiple historical periods where wealth was effectively zero-sum. These periods often aligned with strong income inequality and an inability for individuals to purchase productive assets e.g. Feudal Europe, and Tzarist Russia.

On an individual basis there are multiple portions of the economy for which wealth could be modeled or interpreted as a zero-sum game. Examples include landlord/renter relationships in high rent burden environments, or other segments where an individual is unlikely to ever be able to afford a "share of future economic growth" in order to fund retirement etc.
I'd accept a future in which weight efficiency is slightly reduced to enable in-orbit refueling with standardized tank delivery. As others have noted, it seems extremely challenging without it.
I started running a few years ago, and my knees feel better than they did before I started running.
occassionally I am reminded exactly how vapid the discourse are open source has gotten - 20 years ago, there used to be discussions, now it's just 'google is SELLING EVERYONES DATA' instead of 'telemetry makes me uncomfortable'

when someone suggests X, instead of 'honestly, I think what I'm looking for is something free as in beer - no charge, no revenue' 'ugh X is no alternative, they do also make money in a way I don't like!'

the thing is, 20 years ago I was 10 and just trolling around slashdot, there shouldn't be _weaker_ arguments at 30
Thanks for the response. One more question: when I look at those plans on Fido¹ they seem to suggest that I need to be an existing postpaid customer. The plan seems like an add-on to other plans. Is this accurate or did you sign up from scratch with no other commercial relationship with Fido?

Make sure that you are an eligible Fido customer. You must be an existing, postpaid, mobile customer.

1. https://www.fido.ca/consumer/tablets
I donct know if they jammed anything, they built radios and TV sets with Eastern band. But that was easily circumvented.
Case hinges on if “the seconds from 5:00:00 to 5:00:59 are inclusive to 5 p.m.”
The article did include a link to a study [1] about the low rates of handwashing among doctors and nurses. Although the article neglects to note the second line in the abstract's conclusion heading:

>In general, the study methods were not very robust and often ill reported.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/infection-control-an...
No it isn’t. It hurts the economy when too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands while too many people don’t have enough to spend.
As someone from a third world country where people live in poverty, my view is that new ideas are bad and dangerous. There is a blueprint for poor countries to become wealthy ones: free markets, rule of law, liberal democracy. It’s how the countries that are currently rich became rich. It worked in Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. Its working in myriad other countries. While academics fuck around with “new ideas” progress is deferred and people suffer in poverty.
That in no way follows.
netsurf is a great browser, i test with it regularly, and it,s a pleasure to both use and develop for.
“A Little Taste of Dependent Types” by David Christiansen (2018) [video]
Wealth doesn't depend solely on currency; the value of people's other assets is very important. Reliable cars, comfortable houses, and amazing electronics all contribute to our material wealth.
Alice and Bob Play a Game of Cards
probably not directly, no.. but the expense of employees and the pressures within management, I would expect, are a factor on why 250 responsible adults had jobs last week, but next week, they will not, in High-cost of Living SFBay Area
What are you talking about, there are, literally, hundreds of stories about why Trump is bad, evil, or an embarrassment in the media. Why would a few more stories make him choose a policy against TikTok? He is constantly saying the media lies, so why wouldn't he just slough off those stories as more lies?

I think people really want this narrative to be true, so people are reaching for any evidence to back the claim. The story sounds so much better when you can make Trump look like a crazy person who is so thin skinned he will ban an app that offends him. But a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle believe the CCP is a threat to the US, so this action is not as surprising as it may first seem. You've also got to remember that wechat was also targeted, so this is not hitting one app, but multiple Chinese apps.
It was a dead end because it was intentionally made to be an inferior product.
The scary question that comes after that ( similarly with world population ) is what we can do about it. The solutions tend to scare people, who have the most to lose ( and money to prevent any actual change ). Hell, I personally think that there has to be a hard limit on power ( money ). Where that limit is up to debate, but it has to exist somewhere. The power of one billionaire is way to excessive and comparable to that of old monarch. The only thing they are missing is an army ( and a cheap army may only be a generation away ).
> Honestly I wish we had more activists pursuing something else than money.

This is very hard to do without money. Money gives you freedom. If you lack money, other parties can use money, and whatever money can buy, as leverage against you – to stop whatever you are pursuing.
i gave up employment and, to an extent, currency.
We are able to use existing resources more and more efficiently. This is why the global wealth per person is higher than it was in say Roman times, despite the global population being orders of magnitudes higher
The IDEA of the TSA is to standardize all port security, not just the x-ray of your stuff and making you wait in line.
Also, I setup a discord channel for Rust GPU programming. https://discord.gg/YbawFYt
Practically none. I think it's safe to assume it's not even 1 in 1000 who have registered with a VLN, or even know what one is.
I've played around with NetSurf a little for fun recently. It performed surprisingly well on a few of the sites i use. old.reddit, hackernews both rendered ok with some issues, also miniflux which i use for rss reading worked well too.

I think its a very cool and admirable project
This isn't universally true. Industry has significant contributions to conferences. And industry can borrow much from academia, just on a 10-20 year delay and with significant down-selection. Academic / industry crossover and revolving doors are a very healthy thing ... see self driving cars. Not to compound the discussion, but industry-government-academic partnerships are all over the place doing real good, including again the self-driving car examples (DARPA->Academics->Industry->...?)
You can make stuff. Writing a book say, doesn't cause the other books to cease to exist.
why not just copy the code from the dependency into your own sources?
Soon! But not quite yet.

Like deelowe said, for now, this DragonFly is limited to simple conductors/insulators(dielectrics), which means fancy 3D PCBs (or embedded antennas---see their RFID paper). Transistors, using semiconductors, are significantly trickier.

But special inkjet printers can actually print transistors (e.g., [1])! This is very exciting for the obvious reasons---integrate this with a DragonFly/PolyJet 3D printer/etc. to print complete electronc devices. However, the printers have to use different materials available in ink forms instead of silicon, and even the best are limited to ~20um feature sizes due to ink dispensing difficulties (vs. 0.01um current transistor sizes), so they're still in the research stage.

[1] Grubb et al., "Inkjet Printing of High Performance Transistors with Micron Order Chemically Set Gaps", Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01391-2
> Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside.

So Tox is out. No contest.

> That, and the fact that Tox is not a mainstream messenger, illustrates the point I'm trying to make --- which is about messengers

This doesn't make sense to me. @ddevault stated that a messenger could store contacts client side. Jami clearly demonstrates this. What does it being mainstream or not have to do with this?

> thankfully doesn't make this bogus but popular argument.

What does this add, except a personal attack? We can see that you think this is a bad argument from the fact that you're contesting it.
D's market share is still much larger than Rust's, though clearly Rust is winning that battle in the longer term. Not that 'D' isn't without its flaws but those could have been fixed for a small fraction of the effort that went into making Rust.

And no, your strawman doesn't hold.
I happily don't work at a FAANG.

The original quote was about their ability to poach employees.

What does it mean to poach an employee? It means to convince the employee to make the major life decision to work for them instead.

Why do people choose to make such a major life decision? Usually it's because they think it will make their life better.

Why do they think it will make their life better? Because the FAANG offers >= 70,000usd to switch jobs, pays for them to relocate and sell their existing home, offers fully paid health insurance for their entire family, offers hundreds of thousands in stock options, and an unbeatable salary.

This is how they convince engineers to work on the world's most effective attention machines. By making their life better in all these ways and more.

If you fail to understand that, if you fail to engage in any kind deep or abstract thought that isn't summarized by a four letter meme, then you're doing exactly what this article warns you not to do - you're underestimating FAANGs.
I seriously doubt that a lot of the “such-and-such mean that the terrorists won” would score very highly on the actual terrorist’s criteria for success... they seriously desired to destroy the West and institute a theocratic Caliphate in the Middle East, and that hasn’t occurred. This is just infra-Western rumination.
Want more meaningful conversations in your life?
Sure. And again this comes back to the bus factor. If someone disappears off the face of the earth for whatever reason that will hopefully not precipitate a major crisis at any company with more than a handful of people.
Am I missing something? The Mythbusters clip they post clearly shows that the plane is not stationary as the article claims. Even though the surface it's traveling on is moving in the opposite direction it's still moving forward.
Bureaucratic policies do not specify what is ethically or legally permissible, they specify how an organization has decided to do things.

Contracting with an outside organization whose policies are more suited to the task at hand is usually easier than refactoring the bureaucracy you live in.
It is but I can switch to Google.US. With borders that won't be possible anymore. Here too Netflix is a good example. Content differs in US vs Canada based on IP. There is a walled garden. It is not open. And that's fine because it is paid for content. However web sites are not.
The fact that we can bake another pie doesn't make pie-eating positive-sum. The more you eat, the less is available for others, and you can't keep baking pies for ever.
Exorbitant executive pay is a sin incapable of restitution wherever it occurs, much more today than at any point in the past. The leaders of nonprofits especially should be ashamed to accept such pay. Developer compensation generally is not exorbitant to nearly the same degree, so this comparison feels unfair.
After playing around with this tool a bit in the past I can't seem to understand what it's trying to solve. It comes across as a side project that VCs happened to throw money at.
Not necessarily. Power over nature / viruses for example.
PHP developers always have had lower salaries, you can't argue with that.

Like in retail, it depends on location, location, location; a regular developer will never make that much in Europe - remote (for a EU company) or not.
Scribd acquires presentation-sharing service SlideShare from LinkedIn
The company that made it has a pretty confusing portfolio demonstration website although: https://www.madebysix.com/
The wealthy are not a system. Which system do you say works better for the 99%?
I strongly disagree. In the real world, wealth is very much not zero sum.

Look around where you live, at the things that you value. How many of them were created with human effort, versus just existed in nature? Look at everything from computer you're typing on to the chair that you're sitting in to the roof over your head. EVERYTHING that was created with human effort is an example of wealth creation.
Wealth isn't money. Wealth isn't something you spend. It is the value of the things you own.

Jeff Bezos owning 10% of amazon does not place prohibitions on the amount of dollars you can spend.
Yes, absolutely. Any economy is ultimately about efficient resource allocation.

The question is then, how do you measure efficiency. Proponents of a more equal world argue that the current extreme imbalance is only "efficient" for a very small subset of the population, and likely inefficient both for the vast majority, and for long-term success of societies.

The long-term question is basically a result of economies being feedback loops - if benefits accrue inequally, and capital results in opportunities, any system that doesn't have some negative feedback loops ultimately will amplify the inequality more and more.

In extremis, that means one person with all the resources. I'd argue that this is an outcome that probably nobody wants.

And in the context of OP: unless the total cake grows faster than the inequality, this holds true for non-zero-sum games, too.

The world has experienced tremendous growth in the past. It doesn't right now (and it can't sustainably continue growth in many areas), so the question is, what feedback loops do we want in place.
Beating Private Mode Blockers with an Ephemeral Profile
Or hiking
Well, we know screening luggage is useless too, as the TSA doesn’t catch 10% during tests.

So we should just let anyone into a plane with no screening at all?
The amount of resources aren’t constant, and how much that is created depends on the wealth distribution. Too little wealth concentration and there won’t be built any factories. Too much wealth concentration and too few can buy what the factories produce.
Bing's index and algos are not available to DDG, there's no comparison there. DDG uses Bing's results, they can't see how they're produced. Incidentally, Google offers a similar API.

> Actually it's probably a LOT easier

Can you support that claim?

Just the scale alone is mind boggling when it comes to search.

Then throw in natural language processing, contextual signals, hubs and authorities, content categorization (which grows ever closer to looking like actual understanding), machine learning, a host of other basic and ever evolving quality signals that exist both in and inter-dependently of one another, the more complex signals that arise from the above and on and on.

Search is hard. Even the most casual of Googling (or maybe Binging would be apt in this case) will provide you with endless info about how hard it is.
This quote stood out to me, too. I'm not sure that the night would end in violence if it was the organizers of the dinner who took half the food. I feel like the more complete analogy is that 4 people organize the dinner (the elite 4). They make enough food for 1,000, distribute the best cuts out of about 100 meals among themselves, give the other 396 people 400 meals to share among themselves, and sell the other 500 meals to another party, pocketing an overall profit for their endeavor.

Would the other 396 look at the elite 4 in envy? Awe? Hate? Appreciation? Would they enjoy the 400 meals in a fairly equal way, or would they fight over allocations? Would the elite 4 encourage fair distribution of the 400 meals, or would they encourage in-fighting among the other 396, causing sufficient turmoil to distract the other 396 from organizing their own elite-and-profitable meals? There are a lot of scenarios that don't end in violence, even if a lot of people leave with a bad taste in their mouths.

I think it's a really interesting analogy, and it might even bolster the author's points about the importance of how elites behave and what systems they promote. It's too bad that the analogy was cut short with a reductionist assertion.
What you say about Twitter sounds about right, but Sowell appears to have put a bumper-sticker quote on a bumper-sticker; he's written a bunch of long books if you want to find out more about his views.
Comparing eras doesn't seem very useful. 90 years ago my grandma got one orange as a present once a year. Today people buy bags of oranges every day.

Day-by-day the world is zero sum.
Well, the shorter answer is that ownership and control of capital is where their power derives from. Thus, they get to make the decisions of how wealth is distributed, and it mostly benefits themselves
Yes, continuously jamming a whole country (even not a big one such as Belarus) is not feasible, and AESA terminals make this task even more difficult. But I meant that during critical events (such as massive protests) government can jam population centers by simply relying on an overwhelming power of jamming signal, thus making proper coordination significantly harder.
Do you really, honestly thing that is why it came to dominance? There's billions of computer users out there, and the majority of them are not techie nerds. They don't know or care what browser they are using. They just want to click the internet icon. You think all those people were sitting around, opening up task manager, and comparing the results with all of their tabs open? They are all used to the internet being slow. They don't know what part is being slow.

If what you are saying was true, then Firefox should have dominated over IE. Did they take over a large share of the market? Yes, after fighting and fighting for years on end. Chrome just came out, and after putting it on their home page, suddenly their marketshare skyrocketed. I believe that if Google had to put it on a different URL, it would not have gotten the adoption it has now.
You mean the quackery of Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, Ricardo and so on?

Someone should tell the record companies who say when you pirate a song, you're stealing from the artist who will not be properly compensated for the time they labored to write and record that song. I see corporate spokesmen expounding the labor theory of value all the time.
I'm not sure you know what zero sum means. Or I'm just super confused by your statement.
no fiddle :/ ?
While I get the intent, as noted on the thread about their version 2 script blocker: what better way to hobble what tiny share you have by not allowing site owners to know FF users exist?
Any system which allows for communal control of the means of production and for people to make economic and political decisions for themselves.
> they age poorly in this world of quarterly updates.

Seriously? Does org mode - and particularly the fundamentals - really change that much and that regularly? And if it does, what's the point of learning it in the first place?
your words, "people were more than willing to protest for an "armed millitant" "

where do you say terrorism in that sentence? did hongkong stop internet when there were protests? or BLM which were protests organised on social media, telegram, whatsapp, facebook? or do rules apply differently when protests are against injustices in usa and kashmir?
Oh, I didn't know that one! To summarize, within Spotlight --

Command + D: Opens Dictionary using the word you typed in Spotlight

Command + L: Jumps to dictionary definition without leaving Spotlight
That only means that you can add wealth up to the new delta. Anything more is zero-sum.
Yes, the naming is a complete cluster fuck.
You can do anything if you relax the constraint that people are willing to use your tool. By that logic, PGP is a perfectly cromulent secure messenger! That's the point of narrowing it down to mainstream messengers.

You misread my last sentence. DeVault's post does not make the bogus argument we're discussing. I'm trying to be explicit that I'm not criticizing his post for doing so. If it's an attack, it's an attack on an argument that he didn't make. (If it reads like a personalized attack on an argument that you believe in, I apologize, and will dial it back).