skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The author's advice is country dependent. My assumption is that he is writing from the perspective of buying in India.

1) In India, rents are very low compared to mortgage payments.
2) Home value appreciation is low given the rate of inflation.
3) financial instruments like home equity line of credit are not available.

So yes, it probably is not a good decision to buy a house in a big city in India. Elsewhere? Do your own calculation.
The lancet error bars are 456 - 1499.
Who/What has been exploited here? As others mentioned, you could install debs just fine.
Tell that to like almost all the countries in the world.
Purchases are irrational. I bought the car I bought because I like the engine noise, and I bought a house because I don’t want to have to ask permission to the landlord to hang a frame in the wall.

It makes sense not to buy a house if you just know you are moving in the foreseeable future.
I have never believed in anarchism, as I don't believe that "human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to". But with COVID-19, I am seeing more proof than ever.

In my country (but I guess it's the same in most, except perhaps some Nordic countries) bars, pubs and discos only reduce seating or close indoor spaces when forced to by law, in spite of the evidence that they cause lots of outbreaks. A large chunk of people only started wearing masks when forced to by law, and take any chance the law allows to remove them. The government recommended remote work whenever possible but many companies just ignored it in spite of having many workers that could perfectly work remotely, and just implement it when forced by law. And so on.

Tell me again that "human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to"... it's not that "most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine", it's that many people are. I'd rather have a politician mandate masks or restrict bar/pub capacity (not because politicians are any better than the average person, but because they tend to have at least a bare minimum of education, access to advisors, some positive incentives -the next election- and no high stakes on the decision like, say, a bar owner) than have mask deniers and careless people spread the virus around by gathering in closed spaces without masks.
my personal solution : Use Kubuntu and ignore snap stuff and use Firefox instead of Chrome
> Proposals such as ForgeFed and [federated GitLab](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/6468) are a step in the right direction, but implementations are underdeveloped or lacking. In addition, federation is dependent on domain names which can and are regularly seized by governments.

— https://radicle.xyz/towards-decentralized-code-collaboration...
At one point Ubuntu had lots of their built-in apps on snap. I distinctly remember firefox starting seconds faster than the simple calculator or system monitor apps.
That doesn't follow from the principle. We don't need to dismantle agriculture or anything else, you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist.

What it means is that hierarchies are not necessary for human organization.
I've been using Macs for nearly 2 decades, and the mice and keyboards are always the worst parts of the experience. Even cheap $20 peripherals are better.

What amazes me is seeing people selling old Macs on ebay with mice and keyboards that still work. Mine break in a matter of months. Keyboards die when dust gets under them, sweat would accumulate in old mouse scrollballs and make them unusable, and so on. I guess they just keep them in the box until they're ready to sell.
I run ubuntu 20.04 and don't have one single snap installed.

If you can switch distro, surely you have the skill to just ignore snaps and use ubuntu like a regular debian system. It required zero effort on my part at least.
That's what I find so weird about most criticisms of Anarchism. Anarchists like nothing more than building systems and methods, then seeing how they work or could be improved. The only way to differentiate different forms of anarchism is through the systems they think would be most effective, and the methods they think would be most effective to bring them about.

It's just a lot harder to build peer-to-peer systems than centralized ones, although peer-to-peer systems are ultimately the most resilient.
Don Norman’s “The Design of Everyday Things” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Thing...). Yes, API design has its own gotchas and specific practices—but some of the best (and worst) APIs I’ve ever interacted with were good (or bad) for the same reasons any kind of design can be good ( or bad): affordances, feedback, coherent conceptual models, and so on.
Snaps aren't supported inside Linux containers. Chromium headless is now snap-only, therefore Ubuntu can't be used to run our frontend tests. Switched to Fedora 32 almost immediately. Didn't even bother to search for a workaround.
Why would you use the snap gui to install debs? Use the normal software center thing.
There is a growing number of ".NET shops" nowadays that are using non-MS open-source infrastructure. You don't hear much about it because the .NET community has always been culturally less exhibitionist than others. So much so that there are still tons of people out there who don't know that .NET runs on Linux, and has done for quite a number of years now.
I don't think these presuppositions make for a consistent anarchist. I think Rothbard's presuppositions in Ethics of Liberty hold up better: every person has full rights to their own body, the right to property, and the right to whatever they make with their body and their property.
I use Kensington's Slimblade Trackball which is excellently designed and works (for me) as a natural extension of my hand and fingers. I highly recommend it. (Be advised, the software was excellent but is now in a period of transition post-Catalina.)

I looked up Elecom's "trackball" offerings but only see trackball mice. Such designs reduce the trackball to something that can be manipulated only with a thumb rather than two fingers (index and middle). Such designs are unappealing and too restrictive to me.
Mostly agree, except:

> house IS AN ASSET.

Yes, if you own your house. No, if you have a mortgage, the bank owns it.

When the market was 'normal,' this would have been less of a risky issue. Take out that 15-30 year loan with the confidence that the home's value would all but be guaranteed to appreciate.

The market has been abnormal since early 2000's. Since, the housing market has become more of a speculative and volatile market, driving prices up to levels that the market cannot sustain without liquidity from the federal reserve, which has monetized an equivalent to 34% of US GDP. Not just housing - stocks and bonds as well.[0][1]

I think we should re-think what an "asset" is, starting with the question - is an asset an asset if can not maintain its market value without with out a central bank?

Economic policy makers were so exasperated with the housing crisis, they even suggested buying down and burning homes so the prices would stop dropping.[2] And that is key - to keep the prices from dropping. Does that sound like healthy market?

[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/central-bank-balance-sheet...

[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/06/creative-d...
This is market manipulation.

It is an example of pump and dump: a market participant creates a position for the purpose of inducing other participants to join them before selling once the price moves in the direction of their position. What makes it unusual is both the size and time scale of the manipulation.

Typical examples of this are seen in illiquid stocks for a few thousand USD at a time, with time ranges from hours to days.

It is frowned upon by regulators because it increases volatility in the markets that are disconnected from fundamentals.
Well, satanism has always been about the irony, so I wouldn't call it a bait and switch. It's meant to be an obvious satire, showing off the obvious flaws present in judeo-christianity.

People often take satanism literally so they don't have to confront their own problematic belief system.

I imagine many anarchist movements follow a similar pattern.
Tragedy of the commons, and the laziness of a false sense of security railings.

Basically; I agree with you, and I think it is because of the way people act in a society that seems structured.

People seem to think that if there is a crowd of people, then they are part of the crowd. If a crowd sees someone in trouble, then the people are generally found to be more reluctant to step up and offer help, compared to when they are alone (plenty of research seems to show this.)

I suspect this is a sort of commons tragedy, where we assume that a crowd must hold structure with “people who take care of that sort of thing”, or that someone who feels qualified will somehow step up.

From my own experience it also seems like people tend to relegate any issues to whosoever looks like they have any kind of uniform. (Even employees at shops, etc.)

Were it not the case, we can speculate that people who are forced to bear their own actions would be more inclined to act out their own moral and ethical leanings... rather than the implied relation that illegal = bad, and legal/not-illegal= good (or acceptable).

In a sense then, anarchy is when all that is legal encompasses everything that falls under a sort of Kantian categorical principle. While everything illegal is the universally opposite. (Basically where the extrinsic laws of society match the intrinsic moral values of all citizens.)
It is not unethical to do what you do. I would say, that perhaps it is only a little short sighted. I don't mean this in a negative insulting way and I will explain why I think so.

The problem is rather, what it means in the long run. The point is, that this kind of only caring about for example attribution makes the ecosystem exploitable. It does not uphold ideals or enforce principles. Without upholding ideals and enforcing principles, how do we expect our principles to be followed in the future? If there is no legal obligation to do anything, which capitalistic (We need to maximize our profit! Ethical principles? Nah, come on ...) big company is willing to go the extra mile to respect the principles of some open source community, perhaps even at the expense of making more profit from a closed source solution? And I mean going the extra mile, without seeing it as an opportunity to use the very action as another means of promoting oneself. Simply going the extra mile, because it is the fair thing to do.

As I see it, as long as there is a chance to deviate from following the principles (no copyleft), someone somewhere will do so. Heck, even with such obligation to adhere to principles some people will deviate from the path. The tendency is always towards the wrong direction, if we do not enforce our principles of openness and such. It is an uphill battle. The whole ecosystem goes towards a not so open direction, by these initially small "missteps".

Especially when a a big company with a lot of developers takes stuff and makes proprietary stuff out of it, as its product, which usually initially has more functionality than its open source counterpart, users will quickly switch to the non-open proprietary version. They do so because they want that new shiny functionality immediately. The slightest inconvenience is sufficient for many users to drive them towards proprietary software. They do not know nor often do they care initially about using a non-open, non-free thing. Until they are sufficient users to create a bubble, in which the open source ideas are no longer existent. Then however, the network effects are already strong. "But all my friends use X. No on uses Y. I cannot convince them all to switch from X to Y!"

Example: There are loaaads of at least open source (and some also free software) messengers out there. All people need to do is to use them. But the network effect and features like integration with (a)social media are so convenient for them, that they give up on their freedoms and use things like Whatsapp or Facebook.
Roughly the same for me here on the east coast even. My basic mortgage payment was less than I was paying for rent to hear a kid have night terrors most nights. Definitely miss maintenance being someone else’s problem but I think it’s very much worth it.
The expectation that everything should be "fair" in terms of salary and perks is nonsense, and how you end up with tiered salary and perks tied to job titles instead of being able to drive your own deal when you're accepting a job. Things probably should be in the same ballpark for two people doing the same job but if one person gets a bit more thats OK.

Paid time off for whatever reason is a benefit you and the company negotiate for. If the company decides to grant parents time off that non-parents don't get that's fine. That's just the company's opening position when they're negotiating with people who are parents, in much the same way that people who drive to the office might negotiate for a parking space or people who have a long commute might negotiate more hours working from home.

What you get in return for your hours is basically nothing to do with other people, and what they get is nothing to do with you.
> The real root cause of "user hostility" is that companies are run by humans and humans are self-serving and want to make more money.

Let's take this further and ask What is the driving factor for humans to want to accumulate more money?

I think the human founders are responding to external pressures that incentivize the accumulation of wealth.
So this is a reasonable argument, but before we get there, there should be real responsibility placed on the company. Currently, when use data is lost, the companies suffer absolutely no consequences. They have literally no incentive to make sure their system is secure.

The equasion should be, for management: "Y will cost us X more than x, but if X is hacked we will get taken to the cleaners"

For the actual engineer to be held responsible you would have to add a formalised approval process, so that its clear who signed what off.
Inagine you signed off on something, and then changes were made without your knowledge - that much easier to do with software than a bridge.
Ahh you are correct! My point is there are many markets where rent is cheaper and there are many markets where mortgage is cheaper. Anyone saying that is only one of those is going to cause me concern.
Same.

But I think what they did with partial should be in the stdlib.

In fact partial should also be rewritten in C et promoted to built in.

Right now it's 10 times slower than lambda, and you have to know about and wish to import functools, yet still loose the docstring.

Shame for such a great feature.
It.. generally is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withnail_and_I#Reception
It's definitely not launching slowly due to Electron, because it's not Electron :)

It's C++ with CEF
nothing nonsensical about this. would just mean that most landlords would have to rent out properties they own outright. in such a market a sufficiently large entity could potentially get better loan terms that allow them to build/buy a building and still achieve positive cashflow. or it might be okay with having negative cashflow while building equity over time (to break even in the long run, rent only has to exceed the interest + maintenance). this could even be a mechanism by which rent < typical mortgage payment in the first place.
> It is safe to assume, you are probably buying your first house for yourself — not for renting it out.
In this scenario — your first house will take money out of your pocket, you can’t convert it into cash for at least first few years otherwise where will you live?
Hence I believe it is a LIABILITY.

Yeah... Of course. But let's look at the alternative - most young adults don't have a roof over their head sorted out. Statistically few people have the opportunity to live with their parents - lack of space, job opportunities, social circles and so on. So it's either buying or renting. And here is where you need to look at both options:

1. Renting - you have a fixed rent + bills to pay. If something breaks down on it's own, your landlord has to fix it(ideally but far not always the case). Depending on your landlord there may or may not be furniture, so you may need to invest in furniture, appliances, etc.

2. Buying - same as rent, but you have to take care of maintenance on your own in all cases. However, the big difference is that in this scenario, your mortgage payment does add something to your name, that is, your money isn't fully gone at the end of the month, as opposed to renting. Renting will guarantee a roof over your head until the end of the month and that's it. Mortgage does mean you have an asset(even if it is partially). You still have the ability to sell it, should you need to.

I'm not talking about the people born with silver spoons in their mouths - for the vast majority of people(myself included), those are the two options we have in front of us. They are both liabilities, they both are a weight on your shoulder and while mortgages come with more strings attached, I still believe it's the lesser evil of the two.
If that means the pace of developing new things for the business slows down, that’s what that means.

This right here is what stops most companies from doing most things that benefit the employee more than it does the almighty “revenue”.
In Boston the majority of everyone I saw wore a mask before it was mandatory. The shame was (and still is) very strong for those who don’t wear one. I see junkies (drug addicts) who don’t give a fuck but I assume that’s because they have given up on life. All normal people are wearing masks that I can see.
Anything specific about it? The PM's wife being CEO is obviously a bit suspect but it would be far more notable if the family was siphoning off money which there are unsaid said things about but never anything explicit which is... frustrating. So many untalked about things with regards to sg.
Infrastructure would indeed be communally owned, and the tragedy of the commons need not apply on communally owned property. An economist actually won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating actually how that happens :

"Political scientist Elinor Ostrom, who was awarded 2009's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her work on the issue, and others revisited Hardin's work in 1999.[45] They found the tragedy of the commons not as prevalent or as difficult to solve as Hardin maintained, since locals have often come up with solutions to the commons problem themselves.[46] For example, it was found that a commons in the Swiss Alps has been run by a collective of farmers there to their mutual and individual benefit since 1517, in spite of the farmers also having access to their own farmland. In general, it is in the interest of the users of a commons to keep them functioning and so complex social schemes are often invented by the users for maintaining them at optimum efficiency.[47][48]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
It depends on the social surroundings.
"If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?"
Yes, of course, but mainly because it also works. When I went to a certain east asian country 10 years ago, I had to stop queuing like this otherwise everybody cut in in front of me.

I know a person who couldnt stop the normal queing and failed at getting a meal at mcD (never made it to the counter).

So there are cultural tipping points.
Consider that people are in charge no matter what. In the current system, you simply decide to trust others using coercion over the ability of negotiating voluntary agreements for acceptable behaviour.

If people can't be trusted, the current system is also flawed, and has far more severe failure points: get a bad leader, and bad behaviours gets enforced with the power of a nation state.

Anarchy is not absence of law, but presence of consent and negotiation at every level.
I didn't find a single thing that I liked here.

Rather, I thought these syntactic layers made things worse rather than better, in terms of clarity, understandability and ease of writing simple, straightforward code.
Gordon Gekkos under Anarchy wouldn't be rich (because significant material accumulation is impossible without private property), so that wouldn't be a problem.

As for a tiny minority of assholes, they have been dealt with for millions of years using social norms and communal existence.
Same here. We use Jitsi inside our app for online learning. It works good.
Yes, though it does become a fuzzy line.

I believe it would not be advertising to display the next episode of a series, or even auto play it. But it would be advertising to display a different series or film.

For a fuzzier one, how about a newspaper providing links to their other stories at the bottom of an article that you have read? Typically I gain nothing by ingesting more of a particular publication's writing, so that could be an ad rather than useful functionality. Perhaps not in a special circumstance such as if I am trying to catch up on news local to that publication.
I've been getting bug reports for a browser extension because of Snap. The file system isolation of Snap and Flatpak breaks Native Messaging, so extensions that need to communicate with a local app, such as password managers, are now broken.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+...
The third model - rolling release. No need to test against many releases, no outdated dependencies and why so many people want to run latest browser on outdated system?

The forth model - multiple versions of dependencies live on the same system, environment constructed for each application. Deduplication works.

Bundled model has its values (just like vm) but it really shines with inadequate package management. If you don't like the bundled model switch to Arch Linux or NixOS.
> You want to be able to pick up and move and chase an opportunity.

This is a very personal decision. I, for instance, hate moving. Doubly so moving long distance. I was never going to be the type who bounces from city to city. Thus, I bought my first property when I was 24.
Just checking around, tried a simple 'python' search and got a bunch of non-working urls [0] but I did check out that blog and found it interesting.

I'd also suggest to highlight sites [1] in your comment. I don't have a personal suggestion to contribute, but [2] [3] [4] might be worth checking out for you.

Another suggestion would be to add some random interesting search, something like the examples in explainshell [5]

[0] https://hyperlog.app/search?q=python&offset=0&count=10

[1] https://hyperlog.app/sites

[2] https://jvns.ca/blogroll/

[3] https://lobste.rs/s/eiditd/what_rss_feeds_do_you_subscribe

[4] https://github.com/learn-anything/blogs

[5] https://explainshell.com/
I see. That's a big IF though if you ask me.
A Nobel Prize winner used a numerical approximation that lead to a new field
The work of open source community has been exploited to create closed source, walled gardens with superficially more convenience to attract users and make profit of them.

This pulls users from the open source projects and since contributions do not flow back to the open source project, it can quickly become obsolete in the eyes of the most users. The principles of open source will live in that open source project, which in the end (exaggerating) "no one uses" and will become pointless. Most users are not protected by these great ideas or principles any longer, because they will be sucked into the closed source swamp, because all their friends are there already.
Your comment is wrong all around. Volatility doesn't prevent layer 2 from working, and it is growing. [0]

[0] https://defipulse.com/lightning-network