skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
0. Founders, non-executive employees, and even sometimes end-users can benefit, just as much or more than executives or shareholders.

1. Not really true in general, because the buyee often was not in direct competition with the buyer. In specifics, sure sometimes the buyee is bought and killed, and sure sometimes "build it (and compete)" was actually in consideration at buyer -- though as an aside if they did build it instead of buy it we'd still get complaints from other people on finding a way to discourage product expansion and vertical integration. One could also say here that by eliminating middlemen (if the buyer intends to integrate that is) efficiency is increased, but this is not necessarily general either.

2. Marginally less employer competition, and perhaps not even that, because under 0 we've got a group of beneficiaries who may now be able to form or fund new companies, in direct competition or not. Avoid static pie thinking. Related here is an opposing concern that preventing mergers can result in a lower cap on wages, though this is not general either. I do concede that if we expand the pool of employees beyond software engineers, some sort of layoff protection may be desirable, because technically and instantaneously yes the now-irrelevant laid off accountants for example at the buyee have a tighter market to compete in as buyer doesn't want them and their old job has vanished. (Though many layoff packages already implicitly do something like this, the net effect is to give the individual more time to find a role at a different firm or else retool because the market has reallocated the demand for their role.)

3. Being too big to fail isn't really related with the scope of a company's product catalog. Fragility is a big topic.

Rather than spouting my own ideological biases and principles I'd rather ask some numbers questions. Specifically what thresholds would you consider reasonable before introducing your discouragements/blockers. #2 seems most tractable to start with -- say the US has 5 million software engineers, Facebook has 50,000 of them, and wants to acquire another company with 15,000 software engineers. Is the shift above 1% of employees in the field to 1.3% objectionable? Or do we not worry until a single firm employs say 30% of the field? Is the relative increase of 0.3% too big a merger regardless of the starting point? Or is there even such a too-big relative size and we should just look at the final total? Should we count the total employees at each company, or rather subdivide even further taking into account sales, accountants, and perhaps even types of software engineers?
This looks compelling - I've been wanting a simple way to track traffic volume on my static site. I don't have ads or anything and don't want to be creepy.

Basically just want to know roughly how many people are reading my blog posts and if any old posts are getting big upticks in traffic.

Hopefully this fills that need!
Illegal immigration should not be seen a failing of the state but as the abject failure of the federal government's immigration policies. Texas has, proportional to total population, more illegal immigrants than California and indeed any other state (at least by estimates). And guess what? They are getting free healthcare there and everywhere else too! If California's sanctuary policies are what's preventing the feds from deporting them, why does Texas, who is staunchly anti-illegal, continue to boast such a high illegal population? I'm actually proud that California gives some small humanity to the illegal immigrants here since the federal government has decided not to do the job that they decry as such a huge problem.

Also, it's really...strange...to place the blame for the fires or the weather at the foot of the state.
Launchers for MIRVs are huge.
I think it's probably overstated, California isn't the only place that's seen urban areas with a lot of high-paying jobs + a lot of property value growth in the last few decades.

It probably means prices are a bit higher than they could be, and people have stayed in their current property longer than they might've, but as a dominant factor? It's a lazy explanation since expensive city property is a problem elsewhere in the US and internationally too.

That continued price growth also tells you that "exodus" is a misleading oversimplification, since it means people are still buying. It wouldn't be too expensive for the people leaving if there weren't richer people buying!

(Even in a prop-13-less CA, the additional people selling their current properties to buy new CA properties instead would be adding to both the buyer pool and seller pool, it's not like there'd be an increase in inventory without an increase in buyers. So price effects seem potentially weak?)
If you think authority and hierarchy is the way to go then there’s nothing wrong with proprietary software (both the product and how it is produced).
So I think you're right in the literal sense, but rainer is accurate in the sentiment.

The media used the word 'interference' in an exaggerated and nefarious context, and they didn't seem very interested in clearing it up. Election interference--without context--is usually taken to mean vote interference.

Like many things, it isn't an outright lie. But I do think it was misleading. And while you might not have been mislead, enough people were--as evidenced by that poll.
You're both right. Property taxes can increase by up to 2% per year, and new owners frequently pay far more than old owners because property has appreciated significantly in coastal metros with limited space for new construction.

This had been especially obvious because historically low interest rates have enabled a lot of asset appreciation, with real estate being one example. High real estate prices lead to high property taxes, which makes the difference in taxes paid much more obvious.

NIMBYism also plays a part, but I think people routinely overlook that developers often don't improve local facilities in line with local housing projects, which can lead to all kinds of awfulness. That new 1000 unit apartment complex also needs 1000+ parking spaces, along with other improvements in local infrastructure in proportion to the increase in population, but a developer won't care about that unless someone forces them to care.
Thank you for this. Very useful for someone considering moving out :)
> Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items.

The huge difference here is that when you go into Walmart you don't announce to the company what you want to buy.
Ask HN: Are you still using Keybase?
As you may know, Keybase was acquired by Zoom and it raised some privacy concerns. I think Keybase is an helpful app due to it's features like instant messaging and file storage.

Before I start to use it, I wonder if there are anyone who doesn't recommend to use Keybase not just because it was acquired by Zoom.
1. That depends on the legislation of every country and it is a hotly debated topic, it is not black and white.

2,3,4. You misunderstood the point. I said people publish copyrighted material all the time (if they have the rights to it). Not at all what you are saying here.

5. You have no right to privacy in any public space. That's why paparazzi exists. In most civilised countries a public bathroom gives you total privacy so that is not even an issue.

> But these examples prove we don't "grant them universally". We grant them conditionally as long as you don't use them to interfere with the rights of others.

You are mistaken. Those are orthogonal concepts, universally just means: to everybody. And yes we grant them conditionally, with the unstated assumption you lose them temporarily if your actions stop other people rights. It certainly not the case of these youtube channels, they are not restricting anybody's freedom.
"Don't be evil" - Google, 1999 - Present [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
> ...think that electronic voting is reliable...

Given that there is a paper trail in virtually all cases, and that the manual counting of that paper trail almost perfectly matched the electronic version, the answer can only be "Yes!". There's zero evidence of fraud, and abundant affirmative evidence that the machines accurately and completely counted the ballots that were entered.

By all means, continue to have a paper record so we can verify afterwards, but the dominion systems worked very well.

Edit: The fact that this question is continuing to be asked, in spite of all of this mountain of easily available affirmative proof, is a shocking indictment of the general public. I wish people took the responsibility which comes with the right to free speech a little more seriously.
That one is fun

>16. Maintainers MAY merge incorrect patches from other Contributors with the goals of (a) ending fruitless discussions, (b) capturing toxic patches in the historical record, (c) engaging with the Contributor on improving their patch quality.

https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec/42/
Sufficient for X. That's the point I made. That does not mean that the report said it did not happen. Read about the non-redacted version!
Literally tons within the data ecosystem. dbt, Great Expectations, Dagster, Seldon. The list goes on. My employer Tecton has an "open core" called Feast and we are doing great. Mattermost, PostHog also come to mind.

Databricks has shown that you don't need a crazy license to win. I disagree with this article from my personal experiences and my industry experience but I respect you writing it. The business model is clearly alive though. Those companies that I listed have raised 100-200M in the past year at high velocities.
You're absolutely right. The institution of policing has for several hundred years been a team of enforcers for use by the ruling classes. It has historically been used to maintain social, economic, and racial disenfranchisement.

And there are plenty of cops who should absolutely not have a modicum of the power they now have. But, in 2020, it's important to recognize that 'police' are not a monolithic state entity, and there are plenty of good, kind officers who truly make an effort to 'protect and serve.' Let's get the bad ones the hell out of there, take some of the pressure off of the good ones so they're not acting as community mental health counselors, and maybe work to disarm folks on both sides so they don't have to enter every situation wondering if someone is going to murk them through a tinted window on a traffic stop.

It's a complicated situation that demands empathy and nuance on all sides.
I'd have said Jadetex. I fondly remember the SGML toolchain; the XML stuff felt horrible in comparison.
Ask HN: How does one become a better Software Engineer?
Assume the individual wishes to build products and the underlying systems atop the web and would strive to be "Fullstack" and dangerous throughout the entire stack.

Feel free to share resources, tips, lessons learned, etc.
Imagine getting blown up by a guided missile launched from a largely automated aircraft.
Do you think such an action could ever be justified? What kind of evidence would you need in order to consider proceeding down such a path? Thousands of affidavits, tens of thousands of documented illegal votes, video evidence of illegal ballot counting?
Thank you for your advice. Communicating a new idea effectively is quite difficult. I have been thinking about doing some explainer videos.

I took a look at your site and had some thoughts I wanted to share with you.
Please don't cite that example. Ken White, an attorney who focuses on first amendment issues, wrote a compelling argument for why: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
And then when you run the xlsx file with the contaminated macro or zero-day, the result is exactly the same.
Case in point, should the HN mods ban this user for spreading deliberate disinformation?

Btw, 2 seconds of googling shows that PA sent out 3 million absentee ballots and received 2.5M.
> If The Witness weren't made by Braid's author, I seriously doubt it would've gotten any sizeable traction.

The Witness got a lot of initial attention because of the author, but it is also one of the games I enjoyed playing the most (far more than Braid, which was fine). But it's a certain kind of game that won't appeal to everyone's play style and probably depends on your mood.

But I guess what's so cool about modern video games is that there are so many good choices for different people.
Company claims solid-state lithium-metal battery breakthrough
While they do have some initiatives that are unique, the Cloud org's goal is absolutely "Beat Amazon and Microsoft at the market-share game." Which means they need all the meat-and-potatoes features (storage, compute, short-lived functions, monitoring and analysis, permissions on all of the above).
I'm not the biggest fan of CPP, but I have to admit they seems to have improved the life's of most Chinese.
People spend a small amount of money on the hardware of a car, then spend a lot of money on the luxurious comfort and prestige upgrades.

Boston Dynamics makes utility robots that are cool from an engineering standpoint but not super useful (or even welcome) in someone's home. Hyundai makes a lot of sense, since these expensive-but-handy robots will fit in well with their other industrial robots and military equipment.
Most Britons face bar from visiting EU under Covid safety rules after Jan 1
Show HN: Instantly search 2M recipes
I just checked a couple of definitions in case my memory was failing me, but I don't see any definition of censorship that limits it to governmental action. YouTube can and does censor content on their platform, I don't understand why so many people seem have trouble with that word. All it means is (quoting Webster) "to examine in order to suppress ... or delete anything considered objectionable"
Wouldn’t that mean the government took their freedoms away though?
https://thehackernews.com/2017/01/whatsapp-encryption-backdo...

In short, their implementation allows to change the encryption keys of users without their consent to arbitrary, known keys. The protocol won't re-encrypt sent messages, but there is nothing in the protocol forcing the app to show a notification that your encryption key has changed, which amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack. Any subsequent messages sent or received using that encryption key will be exposed to the attacker.

Encryption keys are managed on servers controlled by WhatsApp.
I recognize this is just my personal experience, but this doesn't hold true for me in the slightest. I grew up and lived in CA for over two decades, but now located in a state with no income tax and employed by a company in the bay area. I pay zero state income tax, as do all my coworkers in the area.
Some quick context: I was inspired to build this by this HN post earlier today [1]. So thank you glorf for making the recipe dataset available.

Thought this would take me 1-2 hours to build, ended up taking about 6 hours - engineering estimates and all!

> Details about the Tech Stack:

The dataset has 2,231,142 recipes and is indexed on Typesense [2], an open source alternative to Algolia/ElasticSearch that a friend and I are working on.

The UI was built using the Typesense adapter for InstantSearch.js [3] and is a static site bundled using ParcelJS.

The app is hosted on S3, with CloudFront for a CDN.

The search backend is powered by a geo-distributed 3-node Typesense cluster running on Typesense Cloud [4], with nodes in Oregon, Frankfurt and Mumbai.

Here's the source code: https://github.com/typesense/showcase-recipe-search

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25356156

[2] https://github.com/typesense/typesense

[3] https://github.com/typesense/typesense-instantsearch-adapter

[4] https://cloud.typesense.org
Ava the Oculus Connect 6 keynote video on YouTube.
Nothing is stopping you from using your own source available license. Mongo did it, and they're doing okay.

It seems like you're arguing something different: You (general you) want the distinction and, more importantly, goodwill that the "open source" label gives you, but without actually having to fit the parameters of "open source".
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
> Yes, "people do it all the time". That doesn't mean it's allowed.

People does it all the time. Disney does it, any editorial house does it. If you have the rights you can publish the material. Same as you have the right to enter your house. Not mine, yours.
This is SF small business regulation in a nutshell: a business person who wanted to start an ice cream shop in the Mission neighborhood has spent $100k+ and 16 months dealing with regulatory headaches.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bi...

Analogous examples can be found for remodeling/construction, etc.
I’m no longer using Keybase but i wasn’t making much use of it before it was acquired by Zoom
You can write such a license if you want (or hire a lawyer to write it), but it's not FOSS and it never will be. Why is it important to you that such a license is recognized as FOSS?
Millions of people believe the election was rigged in the US. This is a total failure of building trust in elections, regardless weather its true or not.

I personally believe in "Trust but Verify". There is no way to verify this election. The process is made impossible, because signature check was not done on mail in ballots in any meaningful way. And has not been done now either in any of the recounts. We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections.

To my common sense, this election could have been spammed with mail in ballots, and almost everything accepted. No meaningful signature match was performed, when only 0.02% of ballots were rejected.
> When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane.

Maybe that's a sign that the acquisitions deserved more scrutiny?
On what basis?

I'm not disagreeing, but BD doesn't really have a business. There isn't even really an industry/market for these kind of robots.

How do you value an R&D lab? A billion dollars is still a lot of money.
> As a counterpoint, this isn't always the case.

Sure, X are disproprotionately inclined to become Y does not mean all X become Y, and even moreso does not mean all Y originated as X.

(Though the exact statement you refer to is often used to justify arbitrary action by sheriffs, too.)
The way it's being used in public discourse is not necessarily the dictionary definition of the term. You have to meet people where they are when it comes to rhetoric, not try to force them to follow your version of what means what.
Anarcho-Libertarianism does not as far as I know have an answer to a basic real-world problem:

Humans are social and always form affinity groups.

Groups have more power (by any definition) than individuals.

Absent enforcement, groups will invariably infringe at will on the rights of individuals or minorities.

QED a defining purpose of any "state" is to defend individuals' liberties, on their behalf, against such actors.

There are many mechanisms and descriptions of this activity, but, the bottom line is always the same. This is as true for the "free market" as it is for the "free market of ideas" or the contemporary ordering of law and punishment.

The state has to be the ultimate authority, to prevent smaller aggregations from stripping minorities and individuals of their own liberty.

No proposed alternative system has so far demonstrated stable viability.

That the examples we live within are terrible does not mean they are not also the least bad viable alternatives.

Personally I may think this is a shame, but, oh well.

Heinlein loved to portray rationalist societies in which ad hoc aggregations formed just long enough to enforce a purported majority-recognized rational moral order, without need for formal constitutional law or persistent institutions with formal institutional memory.

When I was 15 I thought this was how things should be.

At 50 I am certain that it shall never be so, not with the limitations of our actual evolved embodiment.
Wow. That's a good exit.

Hyundai builds real things in quantity. This could work out.
>the fact that the culture and the courts are in favor of the worker

As much as I like being on the side of the little guy, in any civilized society, the courts should be impartial and not favor the employer nor the employee and pass verdicts based on the law and not based on the culture and if the law says you can fire someone who continuously underperforms over a period of time then that law will be applied.

>After 3 years [...] a worker has to be moved to a permanent contract.

That sounds pretty poor IMHO. In most of the EU you're permanent after passing the first year of employment. I've never worked more than 3 years in a place so far, so in the NL I would have never reached permanent status, continuously being at the risk of on the spot termination. I dunno man, sounds pretty bad for me IMHO.

>And nervous breakdown is quite common culturally.

That actually sounds legit bad IMHO if mental issues are the becoming the norm in employment relationships.

>The employer can protect himself by simply not hiring anyone for more than a couple of years, making "flex work" a real problem in NL

I used to work for a top NL based company and this situation was often discussed around the office that NL companies are abusing expat workers from poorer countries by promising them riches in exchange for hard work and sacrifice and instead using them for 2-3 years then rotating them with new workers until they get fed up with this and move back to their home countries. Rinse and repeat. Sounds really good for Dutch business though.
I used to live in China in the pre-Trump days when most westerners believed in free speech. Sometimes I would hear about "draconian" Chinese censorship. It seemed obviously bad by western standards. For example, they would prohibit industrial action in case it threatens some vital industry or prohibit protests in case it threatens the power of the government which could lead to unrest and violence. Or they prosecuted someone for spreading a rumor after Fukushima happened that iodized salt protects against cancer which led to supermarkets getting sold out of it. Or they would suppress anti-government talk like what Falun Gong and the Uyghurs were doing. In the case of the Uyghur, they did actually commit some terrorists acts because of the anti-government things they were telling each other. All that seemed like bad totalitarian censorship. But now American leftist believe similar censorship is OK for essentially the same reasons. "social harmony" was never seen as a valid reason for censorship by westerners before, but since Trump, they changed their mind.

You example of accusations of child abuse as a way to insult somebody is actually fine as long as the society can recognize unfounded accusations from actual reality. This is still acceptable for many other insults, like "you're stupid", but somehow, people seem to have elevated sexual abuse accusations to the status of truth. I'd say the antidote to that is to allow more open unfounded accusations so we're all immunized against their effects. We do have the justice system to address real allegations.
I have news for you. Radio, TV, movies, etc have been censored to hell and back since they were invented. The roof hasn't collapsed.

If anything, they're less censored than they used to be.
> This is about Safari, which is not about preventing you from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place". It's about security/privacy.

I might be misunderstanding you, but isn't this "security/privacy" argument basically "end users can't be trusted when it comes to installing extensions that respect their privacy, so let's get rid of potentially malicious extensions with arbitrary content blocking logic and enforce our single way of content blocking instead"?

Which certainly sounds like preventing the end user from "running any code Apple didnt sell to you in the first place".