skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> This is a wild exaggeration.

It isn't. I get that experience as a pentester can make you jaded to security practices, but the healthcare space is extremely regulated and much of what the grandparent said is a direct result of that.

> Secondly, this seems to be a straightforward database misconfiguration. The database was set to public with no restrictions. It likely wasn't accessible to anyone who wasn't explicitly looking for it, i.e. security researchers or black hats. Yes, this was horrible, but nothing bad happened here. The database was simply set to private.

This isn't just a minor misconfiguration. Again, this is a regulated space, with rules. There should be multiple layers in place to make sure that this is not opened to the public. There's risk assessments that needed to be carried out when the database was launched, and on a regular cadence afterwards. "It wasn't accessible to anyone who wasn't explicitly looking for it" isn't reassuring. Look at access logs on any device with a public IP address and it's clear that people are constantly looking.

> But no, you're not personally liable if a fuckup happens.

Under HIPAA, you can be held personally liable. This includes jail time for certain classes of violations.

> But you also take your job way too seriously. Bad.

People working in this space are required to have regular training and undergo audits of their activity, what information they access, risk assessments on how it is stored, and long, drawn out compliance activities just to get access.
> "...the government will take..."

I'm so tired of people painting the government as some "other". WE are the government. Your taxes provide services for your friends, family, neighbors, etc. Just come out and say you're greedy and don't want to help the people around you if that's how you feel.
In which PG doesn't look at jurisdictions which actually have wealth taxes and note they are per-mille, not percent, impositions.

There is a world beyond Mount Diablo.

goes out to imitate Johnson's Argumentum ad lapidem in my driveway
I would recommend going the consulting/contracting route.

Mostly because you get to see how different companies approach problems. When you move from company to company you take the best ideas forward.
i’ve used apple music for a couple of months and i don’t understand why people use it compared to spotify. the UI is awful and buggy. the UX is horrific.
I disable Email notifications on my phone.
>Oh, the horror of only keeping ~75% of your wealth, at the expense of supporting the society that made your wealth possible. The horror.

What about the millions of dollars of capital gains taxes they already paid to "support the society?" The actual cost to maintain a "society" is waaay less than the amount the US government takes in taxes; most US government spending goes to welfare and warfare. All they'd be supporting is greater welfare transfares to people who think they're entitled to other people's hard earned money.
I had the same experience. When I talk with the few people remaining in my life from that era we refer to the nickname as a third person. I'm not that person any more, I think most are not the same person they were 10 or 15 years ago.
This is true, but the implications are contextual... imo.

First, the goal of a wealth tax (for many) is to diminish large pools of wealth... or curb their growth. Wealth taxes started gaining attention again in relation to Picketty, The 99% & such. PG isn't being disingenuous. This is goal of a wealth tax.

Second, a wealth tax has a floor. Most american proposals have been for a very high floor, and/or tax rate progression. If you have $100m and the floor is $50m, the wealth tax can only take half.

Third... there is money going in and out besides the wealth tax. Interest is the big one.

The table is correct either way, but the implication of a 2% wealth tax over 60 years, assuming a 6% average rate of return is that your $100m will become $1bn instead of $3.3bn. That's the 70%.

Maybe 6% is unfair. For the currently very wealthy (Zuck, Bezos, Buffet) they earned more in recent decades. Maybe 4% would be fairer. Maybe 8%. IDK.

Also, consumption is relevant... at least below a certain level of wealth. Consumption rounds to zero for Gates/Buffet/Bezos levels of wealth.

A point to note (for proponents) is that a wealth tax will not produce very much tax. It is much smaller than a VAT, income tax or such. Whether you are for it or against it, think of it more like tariffs. It's an economic policy. The tax itself is a side effect.

I do think it's over-the-top to represent these only as 60-year effects. The conclusion that a 0.5% tax represents 25% of your stock is... that seems wrong. Over 10 years that is just 4.5% and the founder will be paying taxes out of interest/revenue.

If it affects founders' country/regime selection, it would make sense to move after you make the money. Most of the tax is in the future.
> I hate to break it to you, but literally all of humanity does that, most of the time

I'm not sure why you'd assume that you're breaking anything to me.
>Google photos should also not be in business since they also don't back up your original resolution unless you pay.

Not true, but you are resticted to the free 15Gb.
Also 3 people own more the those 50% of Americans[0]. I find it hard to believe 1 person is responsible for as much as 50 million people, and these 3 richest people leveraged other peoples labor to create this wealth. With Bezos as an example would he have anything at all with out the internet (created by DARPA) or the transportation infrastructure maintained by our tax dollars?
What you are calling stealing is simply paying for services that made wealth creation possible.

[0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric...
Constraints? It was generally developed on '3-M' machines: more or less around 1MIPS of processing power (68k, VAX), 1M of memory, and 1M pixels (e.g. 1024x1024).

While X11 is pretty grokky these days and definitely showing it's age, I'm not sure that the problems X11 solved don't exist any more. In particular, the idea of running an app on one machine and displaying it more or less transparently. It's just that with very performant desktops, this became the exception rather than the norm.
Pretty sure posthog does.
> Do any cloud providers create backups on top of replication though?

Yes - I work at one of the FAANGs for a team that's doing precisely this. We develops an internal disaster recovery tool that creates backups of data files that can't be touched by the creating application, and that can be read back in a disaster event to recover the data.
The robotics revolution is here, and it's changing how we live
I cannot look at this name and not want to pronounce it as "perv-hash"
All that works well TypeScript as well. The difference is that Kotlin only really works well in IntelliJ. TypeScript works well in both WebStorm/IntelliJ and VS Code.
Even when they do still control the company over the long run, assuming it becomes a public company, they will be selling stock on a regular basis to cover regular expenses.

IIRC Bezos sells over $1B in Amazon stock per year to fund other things, but there is no outcry about how un-american it is that he has to "sell off his stake in his own company" to pay for his hobbies/lifestyle.
Yeah, that sounds weird. I either need a source or some proof of knowledge/authority on the topic.
If you're already writing all callouts from your controllers in a blocking manner then nothing. Because async IO is a pain in the rear lots of libraries try to hide it from you in various ways. However if you're using e.g. pure Java JDBC / SQL drivers, then you should be able to get higher throughput from your web servers and can maybe shrink your server footprint.

However, lots of people don't write code that is just HTTP servers ("microservices"). Also, consider that when it gets easier to write server frameworks there'll be more competition and they'll move faster. So maybe Spring Boot won't seem so attractive in future as someone will have developed something better.
GCHQ Twitter followers spy swearword in puzzle solution
We try to keep meetings to a minimum (the entire company's remote, so async has always been more central to our communication). If I do have to have one that's late for me, I'll usually make a point of taking some hours earlier in the day off to compensate.
https://youtu.be/rN7pkFNEg5c?t=70

And David Simon says it's a true story: https://newrepublic.com/article/38982/wire-ripped-real-life
I don't think that's a fair comparison.

The article does not model asset growth in any way, and if you do model asset growth you would get significantly different numbers.
don’t forget

https://simpleanalytics.com/
In high school, it was wearing a three-piece suit (because if you're not wearing a vest, are you really wearing a suit?) for all of my speech and debate events; now, it's wearing one of my kilts. For those of us with anxiety, esp social anxiety this entire article isn't necessarily surprising, as many of us use some form of externalizing our confidence to get through big presentations, meetings, etc.

If I've got an important set of meetings that I'm going to be at it's always going to be a kilt (with appropriate vest as well, everything snazzy needs vests) or a full suit.

If I'm going to something where I know I'm going to need to be social, it's always the kilt. It's amazing how much a kilt is just a segue for other people to talk about their "scottish or irish" heritage; talking about myself is terrible, but listening to the 10,000th person today talk about their boring ass family tree is great (the convo will eventually turn to something interesting or the person will wander off). It also makes me extremely memorable and findable, so I don't have to initiate most conversations which is also a terrible, horrible thing.
I do not support a wealth tax.

Improvements in our standard of living come from the free market and innovation.

I live in San Francisco and my taxes are higher than anywhere I've ever lived in my life. Interestingly, the government is run much worse than the small suburban town in Ohio where I am from. Every year in San Francisco, my standard of living goes down and local poverty increases. If there is a model the rest of the country should emulate it is not the California Government model.

California could take every penny from the rich, PG, Benioff, Jack Dorsey etc and they would still be bankrupt. Why?

Wealth is not money. Wealth is production. It is the flow of money. Wealth is efficiency. Wealth is production not consumption.

"Looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter."
- Francisco D'Anconia
The rate of tax must have been very high if people chose to move to Belgium. Countries just need to find a level under the 'Belgium threshold'.
How do onion services work?
Gravel bike – fuji jari review
> Reasonable laws are perpetually overshadowed by the boogeyman on the horizon.

Because that’s exactly what’s happened in the past. We don’t just get ONE piece of gun legislation and that’s the end of it, every so many years we keep on getting pushes for more. For immigration reform, we didn’t just get ONE amnesty of illegal immigrants and then strict immigration control which was promised back during the Reagan administration, we got complete acceptance of continued illegal immigration and renewed calls for amnesty.

The smart money is always on not trusting the government.
Beats 1 has some incredible shows but the live stream was always a bit odd due to the eclectic mix. I hope this is a tweak - they had a really interesting take on radio compared to say SiriusXM.
jeremy howard in one of the fastai lectures comments on what helped him to be less scared of reading (the math parts) of papers:

learning the names of the greek and latin symbols (because then you can pronounce them in your head!)

I have to admit this was not obvious to me before I heard it a few days ago but it makes so much sense.

Code we can read (as in pronounce) seems less intimidating and if there are words we might be familiar with can help (and hurt) because we associate ideas with them.

Now I think this just underlines the beauty of APL, J, k and so on and why they both seem so un-approachable and loved by those who immersed themselves.

obligatory link to Notation as a Tool of Thought

https://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.p...
Only 3% of the nation had any income above $3K, and they only paid a 1% (!) tax on the income above that threshold. That's how it was sold to the public.

Compare that to the general income tax today, and who it applies to: the floor now includes ~60% of people with any income at all, and the lowest possible income tax rate is 10%, e.g. 10x higher.

And literally everyone pays income tax in the form of Social Security and Medicare. (For whatever reason, if an income tax is pre-allocated to particular government spending, it's no longer an "income tax" in some people's eyes. The tax effect is identical and you need the 16th Amendment to allow it, so IMO it should be lumped in with the other income taxes we pay.)
Apple today announced two new live global radio offerings

...and that's where you lost me.

Global radio doesn't work. Hundreds of companies and thousands of people have tried it, and it's never worked. People are different all over, they're not the same, so they don't all want the same thing.

I stopped listening to the BBC World Service when it stopped being about Britain and started being "The world's radio station™," because it just got boring and repetitive.

"Centralcasting" is what almost killed radio in America the 1990's. Jacor/Clear Channel ate hundreds of stations across the country and had a computer in Kentucky decide what music should be played for an entire nation. It didn't work. People flocked to iPods and streaming to get away from the homogeny. Those stations that kept true to their local content survived, and some thrived.

Even Sirius learned this with its satellite radio stations, and the DJs no longer pretend to be some monolithic continental presence in the sky, and instead talk about wherever they're broadcasting from, and some even bend the playlist to match their geography, so it changes through the day as they switch from a host in Detroit to one in Boston to one in DC to one in L.A. When I was in broadcasting it was called a POD — Point Of Difference. Why can DJ A give me that DJ B can't?

KCSN/Northidge and WXRT/Chicago are both AAA radio stations, but they don't play the same songs. They're tailored to what their LOCAL audiences like. That's a good thing. Apple Global Mega Huge Music One has no local audience, and zero feedback other than a subscriber count.

When I listen to a pop station in London, I hear different music than when I listen to a pop station in Los Angeles or Melbourne. That's good. I listen to music from stations all over the world, and in genres I don't ordinarily like, simply because I enjoy the discovery of new songs and artists that I never heard of.

Apple has enough money to keep this online for a very long time, even if no one listens. But why? Who is it good for? Aside from a branding exercise, or trying to give one more checkmark for its bundled services package, what's the point?
Well, I don't really know what to tell you. People are probably just thinking of it in the holiday context. If they aren't specifying the year, then that's probably why. Maybe try "what's the exact date including year of US independence". They'll most likely say "July 4th, 1776'.

> Non-US people don’t like it because it’s (a) different

K. Well, respect different cultures. In the US we like to do it this way because that's how we say it.

> and (b) illogical

Who cares besides Europeans with nothing better to do with their vacation time? Humans aren't computers.
It is a bit slow. It loads some stuff it thinks I want to see before letting me type into the one input box, which isn't even focused, so I have to tap in it to summon the keyboard), and only then can I type something.
"The reason wealth taxes have such dramatic effects is that they're applied over and over to the same money. Income tax happens every year, but only to that year's income. Whereas if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset, a wealth tax will tax that same asset 60 times. A wealth tax compounds."

This dramatically incentivizes short-term profit seeking and early exists (for founders and investors), over long-term tech/value development.
Because it's not true.

JVM is fine piece of engineering and Kotlin devs have no problem with it.
A few things I have noticed missing from discussion of why/why not to join a start up is prestige and lineage. Early engineers from start ups that get traction carry an aura of prestige (warranted or not is a separate question) that they were witness to 'something special' that happened.

Second is lineage. Like it or not, cohorts of engineers often stick together and create informal networks that help populate their careers with better opportunities in the future. Going through the crucible with a team is a great way to form bonds that can last decades.
It's important to note that leaving the United States to avoid future taxation is not an option for even upper middle class without serious penalty.

The US is the only country in the world that taxes their citizens who are residing in other countries. Even if you move to another county, you still pay US taxes every year.

If you'd like to renounce your citizenship to avoid that, the US has that covered. There is also an expatriation tax for people making above 120k a year or have a net worth over 2 million dollars. 30 percent of your wealth is much more than any of this being discussed.

The US is in a position to enforce this, too, because all banking in the world reports to the US on their citizens' holdings. This is unique to only US citizens. As such, it's hard to even get a foreign bank to accept you as an American holder knowing the amount paperwork that causes them.

Taken together, it's not a possibility for the rich to just leave if they don't like the way they are being taxed. Americans are financial prisoners of their country.
The table PG uses, but with growth added in at 6% (average) and 4% (conservative estimate):

Tax_____|_Gov_Take__|_You_Keep_(6%)___|_You_keep_(4%)

.1%_____|__6%_____|__3117%_________|__993%

.5%_____|_26%_____|__2484%_________|__788%

1%______|_45%_____|__1868%________|__589%

2%______|_70%_____|__1052%________|__328%

3%______|_84%_____|___589%________|__182%

4%______|_91%_____|___328%________|__100%

5%______|_95%_____|___182%________|___55%

(forgive the underscores, I can't make tables otherwise...)
I know it's cliche, but these arguments always seem to boil down to the - Americans don't view themselves as poor, merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Though, I would make that 'billionaires' in today's world.

It's just the strangest thing to me.
<nitpick>

Was this inspired by [1] USA.css? if so why not mention it in the Github readme?

</nitpick>

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23733926
OneSignal is hiring a Back end Engineer interested in writing in Go and Rust
I agree there will be huge variance. I'm only suggesting that if you model growth of assets as well as a wealth tax then your numbers will look different.
The 19th Amendment didn't give women the right to vote
>> those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book"

This is a valid position and one I can identify with personally, but as I've gotten more emotionally mature over time find it's a little more subtle. You need to include your risk propensity and methodology into the calculation. Even within established companies roles, teams and individual situations are going to be vastly different. Are you willing to take bet-your-career risks? Have you earned some shared vulnerability with the people you want to change? Do you truly care about them and your company? I've learned these are all necessary if not sufficient regardless of the corporate landscape.

I believe there is a third way where you work within the system to affect meaningful change (or bring it down from the inside, depending on how radical your viewpoint). I've come to the realization that small minorities want either dramatic change or none at all; the vast majority are just apathetic, which is your biggest enemy. Start-ups likely skew towards the big change camp. You can make a difference in the former environment but it is exhausting and risks turning you apathetic as well.
AFAIK the 90 day thing was more of a legal thing than something the companies themselves wanted to enforce?
> a highschooler offers to have sex with him and he just figured, what, she was caught up in the heat of passion?

No, I meant he might have been caught up in the moment and ignore his better judgement. Also, I dunno about you, but I iften find it very dificult to tell the difference between a somewhat mature looking highscooler and someone who is 19 — 21 ish. Of course, I also don’t have sex with people in that age group, but my point is that its often very hard to tell if someone is late teens ir early twenties, so, again, in the heat of the moment, especially with alcohol or other substances, its not hard to think that she’s young, but not underage.

I’ve been in plenty of situations where there were “groupies” willing to sleep with much older guys because of fame or oerceuved money or power, where nothing nefarious was going on. So, no, I don’t think its a stretch at all that he could have thought this. I obviously have no idea what the reality was in thus particular situation; neither of us know what Minsky was or wasn’t thinking. I’ve also heard reports that withesses said he turned her down, but I can’t find anything to back that up now, so could be BS.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, he could have been completely willful in the situation, but I do not believe its a 100% clear that he’s definitely guilty either.

And in the context of RMS, I think what he said, in context, wasn’t particularly unreasonable. I think people should have challenged his views and had a conversation like we’re doing, instead if twisting his words to tell a false narrative because they don’t like him and wanted an excuse to attack him.
What do you mean "consume the capital". What do you think happens to the money that consumers spend?
It still shows the point clearly enough, as 56% isn't the ultra rich. People who fear a wealth tax doing the same already have precedent.

Now, maybe if the wealth tax was combined with a significant reduction in income tax, say 0 tax for the first $100,000 a year people make, then people might be a bit more willing to support the notion. But just a new tax, with the promise it won't impact you? Can't blame people for lacking any trust.
>> we're talking maybe exabytes

I don't see the size as the big problem. If one cloud can handle the size, the backup storage system can too. For me, the real issue is timing. How do you backup a cloud full of constantly changing data? Do you draw a line in the sand, an image of the cloud state at a particular moment? Is that even possible? You have to do backups of smaller chunks, individual accounts, but eventually that just looks like another software-managed internal array structure rather than a true duplicate. Your backup system is just as susceptible to deletion error as the cloud it lives within.

Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1737/
> we should always be careful of taxing things that we want more of.

And yet we tax income of all things.
Any privacy oriented analytics tools not purely focused on website analytics?