skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>>What would you do if Netflix increased your subs, because your municipality told Netflix that they need to charge you 100% sales tax?

What would you do if Netflix didn't even give you the option, and just cancelled your account for you, and gave you your local officials name, telephone, address and email?<<

this would encourage me to find NETFLIX somewhere else
Thank you, I don’t take it personally, you have to expect some flak when you tell people things they don’t want to hear. I think I’ll go back and edit where I said there was no reason to be optimistic about anything, because that’s not exactly true, and people on HN are very sensitive to hyperbole. If you are going to say something unpopular you have to be very careful to be accurate.
I figure we are only ever going to get a real answer when either some very wealthy government (Norway?) or deeply troubled government (Greece?) decides to chance the country on it.
This is not the issue.

Best case in term of covid related death is to keep everyone at home, no freedom and get food delivery directly at the door

Worst case, is to do as nothing happened

There are a spectrum of possible responses. But we have to accept that some people are going to die if we want other to live.

Each group can put the cursor where it wants, but you can't have, no death and complete freedom. Some people prefer that a few people die if the rest of people is free, then some other prefer everyone to be alive and restrict the freedom of everyone else. You can't put the cursor for other people than you
There was an interactive graphic novel of these events for iPad/iPhone: http://www.cognitocomics.com/project-ajax.html

The free apps are still present in the App Store, but are now incompatible with recent iOS versions.
>what perverse incentives would be created that don't already exist

If the FDA is both in the business of facilitating R&D, and regulatory QA for the products resulting from said R&D, you're creating an internal feedback loop that results in a couple predictable courses of action for the organization to appear successful:

1. The R&D program 'picks winners' and puts low-hanging fruit in the product pipeline that's highly certain to pass QA. FDA looks good due to high % of approvals for products it pushes to develop, but doesn't really reward innovation or high-risk + high-payoff projects. While this yields benefits, it doesn't address the issue of trying to get 'moonshot' type projects that result in significant leaps ahead funded.

2.) The R&D program (predictably) suffers from the same sort of high failure rate and safety issues that plague pharma in general; it's not a fault of the FDA per se, but because our collective knowledge regarding mechanisms of action is still rather basic. FDA proceeds to be attacked by Congress, the public, the media, etc. for 'wasting taxpayer dollars' on a low-yield program. FDA officials are thus incentivized to let their standards of quality and efficacy slide in order to protect the agency's image on the R&D side of the house.
Edge Computing, APIs, hybrid architectures, data science applications, automated app/site testing, app/site internationalization, better search engines, startup marketing tools...
You mean basically a repeative videogame?

Well, I kind of do that from time to time. Play old videogames my mind can do it in autopilot mode. But I do not consider that too helpfull for myself. Sometimes it is. But on average I would say not.

You still have the flickering screen, which I think is not god for my head for too long. And I have the screen already for work, so I rather go outside, when I can.

One very simple technic to calm the mind while walking (or running or sitting) is use peripheric vision. Meaning the gaze is not focused, but wide. Seeing all at once. My theory is, that this uses more brain processing power, which leads to useless thoughts going silent. And breathing. And feeling. And smelling. And listening.

(so a nice area is recommended)
Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find new ways to create value all the time, and yet every time we invent anything new people keep saying "all the jobs are going away." It has yet to happen in spite of the agricultural, industrial, and now tech revolutions.
> A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations.

...dear god, from who? The Big Mask Cabal? Sorry, this makes no god damn sense.
I think we’d all agree that in the last 20 years, automation has increased in developed economies? So if “most jobs will get automated..”, shouldn’t we see the unemployment rate progressively increasing in those countries? Whereas the experience in the US pre-pandemic argues against this
People are free to do whatever they want and look however they want, I agree with that. I am not shaming anyone for striving to look like an ogre, it's their preference but I still think it is an unhealthy thing to do to your body and a fad. I have 2 friends who bulk up and are actually in a very bad shape mobility wise, their arms are so big that they can't reach arms behind their backs and stuff like that. Plus that they can lift big weights but don't have much endurance and tire easily.

Sure, adding a bit of shape to your body is not a bad thing but exaggerating it doesn't lead to good outcomes
It’s also obviously untrue given the fact that wages in the US have stagnated while productivity has continued to grow. That’s despite a floor on wages.
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Also, please omit flamebait tropes like "Karens". We don't need that here.
Wanted to add there are all kinds of interesting remote controls for computers in image search. With a non-desktop style gui it seems like a viable smart tv replacement.
This is a tremulously rose colored portrait of history. The most openly hostile, contentious election in American history didn't happen in 2016, or 2008, or 2000, it happened in 1828. Many American institutional families would say that Jackson being a jackbooted thug was the very least damning of his odious traits. Meanwhile Jackson's largely populist supporters would go on to accuse the current poltical body of being wholly corrupt, and hellbent on creating a new feudal aristocracy, where the people's wills and desires were controlled through the national bank. Honestly 2016 just reads like a rerun of 1828, except Clinton wasn't publishing articles about how Trump was likely to gun her down in cold blood if he lost.
"No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing."

This is a really good point. But it will apply to the government program as well. Just because we have such a program at full scale, doesn't guarantee anything.

* The UBI might not always be above the poverty line

* The UBI might be terminated at any time, or after an election (That can be partly covered with proper laws, but nobody would go that far without trying it out in the first place)

* The UBI might get strings attached, like "needs to work parttime", etc.

All in all, it's a chicken egg problem. The thing is: If I have saved maybe a million in cash, UBI would encourage me to just stop working. Period. UBI will cover a good chunk of the basic living expenses (especially if you don't have to live near hotspots due to work anymore) and then the investment winnings of my savings would cover me for life.

That of course is still possible without UBI, but UBI just makes it that much more approachable, since you don't depend on investment to stay afloat. I.e. "I need to win with my investments for this to work" becomes "If I want to buy me something besides food and rent, I need to make good investments". Those two are like day and night.

I am not convinced that UBI will result in overall improvements. I would love UBI and it would enable me to stop working more quickly. Will I still provide value to humanity? Very likely, I have lots of ideas for what to do. Will I still provide value to the economy? Not nearly as much as before. That alone tells me that UBI is probably not a good idea, because it empowers the middle-class to retire early, doesn't do much for the poor (instead of a shitty job, they can now do nothing, except paint and sing perhaps, i.e. being creative; but they will still be poor nontheless) . It also doesn't do anything for the rich.
> people respond to that price signal by learning the relevant skills and working in that field and getting greater salaries

Many people stay in jobs they don't like or that don't pay enough because they need the healthcare or don't have the resources (including time) to learn new skills and move to a higher paying job. So the fact that people can't freely respond to price signals means that it is not a free market.
Information does nothing to counter addiction. Sugar is just as addictive as nicotine, but doesn't have the negativity associated with it.
People just hate being told what to eat - it's as simple as that. I've given up trying to explain that dietary preferences are surprisingly elastic, and highly dependant on what you've recently eaten. It's something that's obvious to anyone who's dabbled with any sort of dietary modification (e.g. cutting down on carbs, or trying out vegetarianism for a bit, or just cutting out soda). Your tastes change surprisingly fast. Something that you previously loved, like a burger, or a big hunk of steak, can transform from a regular craving to something that sounds kind of gross in a matter of a couple months.

But just trying to explain this phenomenon to people is often met with extreme defensiveness. You'll hear: I could NEVER give up pasta/meat/whatever. But they absolutely could, and it wouldn't be nearly as hard as they're imagining.

I'll always encourage anyone curious about tweaking their diet to just go for it, but I've given up entirely on trying to nudge people toward a healthier lifestyle if it's not something they're already working toward.
> One thing that troubles me about rationalist-affiliated writing is that it tends to rest on what looks, at first glance, like a decent evidence base, but this evidence often breaks down under a little scrutiny.

This is very true, and the rationality community has plenty of its own sacred cows (prediction markets are a great example) which this type of “evidenceyness” is used to confirm all the time.

Every community is bound to have blind spots and biases. Perhaps there is nothing more important than critical thinking to avoid building a community around.
let's do like, china and directly deliver food to them. Every citizen of the us has been sent a 1200 check, US is able to fund a service like that also
Why anything containing psychoactive drug is actually legal to sell to kids? There's a lot of reports how bad is caffeine to underdeveloped brain. And look at any developing nation: everyone is hooked to Coca-Cola.
Turtle Toy
Any amount of cigarettes or alcohol [0] will harm you.

"Junk food" is a pseudo-scientific designation selectively targeting certain kinds of calorie dense foods. These foods may epidemiologically contribute to obesity, but on an individual level they're far from universally bad.

I think warning about food over-consumption would be great. But selectively targeting some foods only misinforms the public.

[0] And alcohol is still getting far less attention than cigarettes. Most places still don't have warning labels about the risk of cancer or even broad public awareness, despite 3.5% of cancer deaths being alcohol attributable.
Really, your text macro substitution is missing the broader point.

Hiding the word "unsafe" doesn't make it any less unsafe.

The Rust compiler can't guarantee that the C++ code being called doesn't have use-after-free bugs or buffer overflows.

The Rust compiler can't guarantee that pointers being returned from C++ code aren't just wild pointers that point in the middle of nowhere.

The Rust compiler can't guarantee that the C++ code isn't mutating into an immutable reference.

The Rust compiler can't guarantee that the C++ code isn't holding onto a reference to an object that it will later mutate when Rust thinks it is now the sole owner of that object.

The Rust compiler can't guarantee that the C++ code isn't sending un-Send objects across threads, or that it isn't deallocating objects that it isn't supposed to deallocate.

Rust makes a lot of guarantees about code written in Rust, which is why people are so passionate about it. The Rust compiler feels like having the world's best static code analyzer at your fingertips. It's really nice.

C and C++, on the other hand, are each full of an assortment of powerful footguns. Well-written C or C++ code interops very nicely with Rust, but the problem is that programmers are only human, and humans have been repeatedly shown to make mistakes.

So, calling C++ code is unsafe, and unsafe is a code smell because it is an opportunity for guarantees to be violated, which is undefined behavior.

Ideally, you build an abstraction around the unsafe interop layer that rigorously enforces every requirement that the C or C++ code expects (but that the C and C++ compilers cannot enforce), so that the external code will behave as well as it can.

The Chromium document is right to call their idea controversial. Hiding the unsafety of the C++ code without actually doing anything to protect against malformed calls to that C++ code is a loaded footgun. It might be the right call for this specific case, though.
I would think this study with suffer from a pretty obvious case of the hawthorne effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
And a sample size orders of magnitude higher would be necessary to negate that, or even be significant to a "universal" scale.
If your investments lose half their value in a recession you are horribly over-leveraged. In any case, we are back to Feb highs now, and whatever loss you might have sustained no longer exists, unless you sold at the bottom.
When the virus hit China, it had around a 4% death rate. Now, in the US, we have 5.6M confirmed cases, and 175k deaths. That is 3% death rate. (although, deaths lag behind diagnosis) You're right, its less than they first feared, but not much. And still 30 times the death rate of the flu. There have been some groups that keep looking at the number of deaths, and compare it to the population as a whole, to make the numbers look much smaller. But those are purposefully deceptive.
Ah, thank you. Sarcasm is hard to read in text. I've seen a lot of people use "/s" to signify sarcasm, but I don't know how universally recognized it is.
http://archive.is/zF4ei

tl;dr — when labor markets are artificially depressed by employers with monopsony power (e.g. workers only have one employer to work for), a minimum wage can improve efficiency of the marketplace.

Enjoyed the dispassionate take on the age old minimum wage question. It is difficult to figure out which people are in monopsony labor markets because it depends on so many things including geography and even within a zip code could vary based on a variety of factors such as internet access, public transportation access, etc. Makes sense that in some cases, when there is only one employer, they are artificially driving the price of labor down because people have no choice.

Have policymakers considered other solutions to this monopsony problem? For example guaranteed government jobs that pay a certain $ amount adjusted for the geography to incentivize private sector to match or beat that price?
people need money to eat. 60% of americans have 0 savings.

It's not just about you
Right, I included the Haunted House entry (a regular story) for contrast.

The job posting is certainly "sponsored content", a privileged post put there at the behest of a third party, which blends in fairly well with neighboring posts yet isn't subject to the normal rules. I don't know if money actually changes hands to put it there (maybe each YC company is granted a posting there, or maybe they have to pay for it), but in other respects it's straightforwardly an ad for a job.

All that said, I have no problem with it being there.
> But also, even in very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal.

The refusal of the GOP (Senate, mostly, though the White House seems to be on the same page and perhaps the main motivator) to provide state/local aid, given that there are legal, practical, and other restrictions limiting state borrowing for emergency costs, especially non-capital costs, and structurally they have since not long after the founding relies on the federal government to backstop them for that is a big part of this.
Assuming that the probability of being hit by lightning is higher than the probability of dying from COVID under 30, it does not follow that one should take the similar levels of precaution for both. Lightning does not present systemic risk. Me getting struck by lightning doesn't change your odds of being struck.
The purpose of the UBI is to replace welfare systems by ensuring every citizen receives roughly enough money for the average person to live off. Paying everybody nowhere near enough to live off [and keeping the welfare state in place] doesn't tell us very much about how they would respond to that. Though one advantage over the small scale studies would be finding out how much citizens push back against even a comparatively small tax rise to pay for it....
Not sure if this is the story you're thinking of, but I do recall hearing a while ago about Chinese irons and kettles that came with some, er, undocumented features:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacked-from-china-is-your-kettl...
that is false, living in the Middle East and know whats up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_(S...
https://basicincome.org/news/2011/05/kuwait-a-temporary-part...
This has little to do with "society". Its policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/16/tiktok-app-moderators-us...

https://www.businessinsider.com/internal-guidelines-show-tik...
> Doesn't this defeat the purpose of writing safe code in Rust?

While the Chrome authors will not be protected from memory unsafety in the wrapped C++ APIs, the usage of those APIs in the new code they write on top will be safe, which is better than nothing. Similarly, much of the Rust standard library and many popular crates are "safe" wrappers around unsafe code, like calls to libc, winapi, openssl, etc. If there is a memory unsafety issue in one of those libraries, Rust won't save you.
> I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected.

Why would they have to? It certainly wouldn't be in their electoral self-interest.
Anyone who wants to reopen sooner than later, really.
One important thing to keep in mind with any headline like this: twin studies have consistently shown that family environment contributes a negligible component to the cross-sectional variation of long-term adult outcomes.

Consider any sort of child-rearing decision. In this case letting your toddler use an iPad or not. Is it within the realm of normal variation you'd find between families? In this case, yes: some families let kids have a lot of screen time, and some families strictly limit screen time.

Well then, it almost certainly will have essentially zero impact on long-term adult outcomes. It may have a transitory short-term impact. Analogously, reading to kids may lead to learning to read at an earlier age. But twin studies tell us that by adulthood, the effect regresses to the mean. I.e. reading to kids a lot won't give them higher reading comprehension when they grow up.
Not just a Mexico problem. There are many towns in California where I wouldn't even consider asking for a cup of water at a restaurant.
UBI should be trialed in parallel with a legalization program, which would allow those metrics to be collected and solve other crime problems by creating unemployed criminals and giving them a stipend so that they don't necessarily need to continue crime for economic subsistence.
I'm really tired of people saying "But what about my health?" I really don't care. I care about my job and the businesses of my family members. If some work from home keyboard jockey gets sick because they left their house instead of locking themselves inside, so be it.
Bitcoin Will Remain a Unique Species for Two Main Reasons
Or do but get a Pihole and lock that TV down.

You may also need a firewall rule that redirects any port 53 traffic that wasn’t from the Pihole, back to the Pihole. There is some sneaky stuff that happen and while I’ve only seen a Google Chromecast do it, I assume they all do.
I question and reject the conclusion of any such study based on my own experience.
Now of course the public would be better served if the UL could focus on their business without being subjected to the whims of politicians. But the fact that private companies other than the UL can at least compete for the job ensures that costs are reasonable. If the UL charges too much consumers can choose one of their competitors. Even if they have no competition right now another company will arise to compete, if it isn't illegal for another private company to start providing this service.

I see no reason why an individual should not be allowed to build their house with whatever inspection regimen they desire (even none at all). A poorly built house, a house without the endorsement of a respected engineering body, will surely have this reflected in the sale price. I don't see a problem here that needs to be solved.
Again, a free market doesn't mean that everyone can easily buy or sell any good or service. Plenty of things prohibit this, including geographical challenges, language barriers, import tariffs, and other natural and contrived barriers to trade.

A free market means that the distribution and production of goods and services do not rely on centralized planning, but on price signals.
Note that those who argue that line also argue that the decision to drive while drunk makes it a planned attack if you do kill someone and so you are looking at first degree murder charges if you do happen to kill someone.
There can be long emergencies.

There is also the sense of an ongoing crises, in the sense of a threat in which there is a very real likelihood of either a very bad, or very positive outcome. The Covid situation strongly resembles this.

Too there is the situation that even after the immediate onset of some emergency has passed, dealing with consequential effects carries great significance. To call on one of my preferred nonmedical disaster scenarios, in the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure (China), 170,000 people ultimately lost their lives. "Only" 25,000 or so drowned in the initial deluge. Over 150,000 perished due to an inadequate, ineffective, or incompetent rescue, recovery, and relief operation, due to starvation and disease.

Historical epidemics, even within the past century and certainly prior to it, have lasted years to decades. Come to think of it, the HIV/AIDS, TB (including TDR variants), MRSA, and hepatitis outbreaks also match this description.

The notion that six months is an excessively long response window fails any experiential comparison. It does howevee reflect failures of education, communication, leadership, and comprehension.
Do you host it there because it's free, or because you are paying for it, and it provides the best value for your business?