skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why, though? What's the downside of allowing people not to be vigilant all the time? Presumably, all that businesses would lose out on is getting paid for not providing value to someone, which doesn't seem like it would stimulate a healthy market?
The graph for middle incomes is also pretty shocking, going from 32% to 17% share of aggregate wealth.

I really wonder why we haven't seen so many pitchforks yet.
Being poor is only a motivator for an incredibly tiny number of people who are probably prone to risk-taking anyway. The unfortunate reality is that some of them shade into outright narcissism.

https://www.psypost.org/2021/02/narcissists-make-their-way-t...

It's vastly easier to become rich if you don't care about employees, customers, tenants, and co-workers, or if you can persuade yourself that people who don't take risks and succeed are somehow inherently morally inferior and deficient.

In fact a good safety net is likely to increase entrepreneurial activity, because it makes it possible to fail into a safety net instead of failing into homelessness and catastrophe.

Tax increases are a separate issue. But generally wealth inequality is politically as well as financially toxic.

You want to reward smart, clever, inventive individuals. But you do also want to make sure they don't automatically get privileged legal or ethical treatment which encourages destructive narcissistic and authoritarian behaviours in the culture as a whole.
It's a good business for some.

Automotive is sold at n times the markup of commodity chips.
1, 2 and 3 are definitely my goto.
Nice...I have used Phaser for couple of games...API looks bit similar to Phaser...

Would like to understand the differences if anyone explored already?
The insult laws were already tried and the result was appearance of many insulted people which was enough to apply the law. Often they didn't know what was the insult.
No.

"Silicon Valley money wants to remake people in their images, they have a Protestant zealotry associated with their money that makes any oligarch look straight up sympathetic in comparison"

The comment literally suggests that Silicon Valley billionaires (which it juxtaposes with old money) have a Protestant fanaticism associated with their money.
ICANN has failed us, Nominet has failed us, Public Interest Registry has failed us. We definitely need some better system where a single entity going rogue can't affect millions of domain owners. I can see two approaches.

One is where we make it technically impossible for DNS operators higher in the tree to mess with us. That's what the GNU Name System proposes with the "hyper hyper local root", a petname system which supports delegation, to defeat censorship.

Another one is a domain name cooperative like CCOR.org attempted to build. So the organization serving our TLD is in fact operating transparently in the interests of its members paying administrative fees (think <1$/domain/year)... not a business selling trying to make profits.

In my view we need both! Replace the corrupt pro-business ICANN with a democratic non-profit foundation, and at the same time make it technically harder for bad actors to mess with everyone.

Having a (domain) name on the network should be a free and accessible public service for all. They're half a dozen lines of text (counting glue records and DNSSEC anchors) in a database, it's OUTRAGEOUS we have to pay for that at all. In the early nineties, it used to cost money to host just a few kilobytes of information, and that's why we introduced administrative fees for domain names. Why are we still paying >10$/year for less than a kilobyte of information hosting just so that shady businesses can make a profit?
Tether and their 45 billion of fully-backed assets (!) are based in the British Virgin Islands, and do their banking through a shady bank in the Bahamas.
Nor did I claim it can
Where is here the value for the HR people?

They don't want to look through your github repos.

They want to have a list of things you have done and skills you have.

If I would get a page like this I would not bother looking because for me its not relevant what github repos you have.

Most developer do work on private repos which are not public.
> a constant target of other people

When you're poor, you're also a constant target of other people. When you're rich, perhaps that single aspect is the same but everything else in your life is so much better that it's kind of disingenuous to ignore it.
So how do you fix this shit? We're basically fucked.

It's not like our government will get EU's permission to let the banks fail or something...
Fiducials. Yes good.
The more the better. But we humans cannot read them. So use UV or near infrared instead of visible spectrum. Same low-cost sensors, less territorial conflict.
From a quick search the 2018 Nissan e-NV200 has a range of 174 miles which I would hazard guess is more than enough range for most tradesmen daily runs (for European Geography, the range is probably not distance friendly for US/Canada sort of scenario).
This is kind of ironic, because the only reason the semiconductor industry exists as it does today is because massive amounts of defense contracts in the early days of semiconductor manufacturing. The US's massive defense spending sometimes functions in a more productive way than one would guess.
Instead of trying to keep them out, consider giving them an alternative. I put small piles of sugar outside of my house in the hopes that they won't need to go exploring for food. So far it has greatly reduced (but not eliminated) masses of ants invading my kitchen all summer.
Google is removing its Play Movies and TV app from every Roku and most smart TVs
Whenever this topic comes up, I like to link to these excellent and eye-opening articles:

• 5 Things Nobody Tells You About Being Poor, May 27, 2011: (https://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about...)

• The 5 Stupidest Habits You Develop Growing Up Poor, January 19, 2012: (https://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never...)

• 4 Things Politicians Will Never Understand About Poor People, February 21, 2013: (https://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never...)
Even if this is true in your POV this does not mean this is true for anyone. I saved thousands of dollars in banking fees by using crypto as means for transactions and speculation. The main food delivery as well as the main amazon competitor in my country both accept Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum, Tron ... i (and the seller) save transaction fees each time i pay with crypto.

Over eastern i run out of money because i forgot that the whole banking is literally shut down for 5 days. I mean what the fuck is this in 2021?

Whatever you argue the tech is worthless. It was about time to we have an international, kinda unregulated but transparent way to own and move money.
I've never had to agree to multiple contracts per day - I'm sure that's true for some people but I doubt it's common. And there is rarely, if ever, a ticking clock regarding accepting software terms of service. People could easily make time to read the terms if they wanted to, it isn't unworkable, they click without reading the terms because they just don't want to put in even the minimum amount of effort.

It's just like everyone suddenly being shocked and surprised that social media companies have the right to ban their accounts and moderate their content for any reason. That was in the contract you agreed to when you made an account.

This is not to excuse Adobe, their tactics here are vile, but pretending contracts don't really exist just because you don't read them even when you sign them is a childish way of thinking.

Companies get away with things like this because consumers have normalized never reading terms of service as acceptable behavior. If they did read the terms, they might see how bad they are, and not use the product. It would be easier for competitors to compete on their quality of service rather than the superficial things consumers do notice like name recognition and aesthetics. There would be some market pressure to prefer honest contracts over dishonest ones. As it is, there is no such pressure from consumers, only regulation.

And even with regulation against dark patterns like the ones Adobe is engaging in, the consumer is still responsible for their own actions. Signing a contract without reading the terms is never going to get you off the hook, at least not in the US. The answer is to educate and empower people to be proactive, not to excuse and normalize their apathy.
I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with trying to trick speed tests into reading higher speeds before it slows down.
Just cut to the chase, and say "Let them eat cake"!
Writing inline code (tasks) into build scripts is not recommended and, in the words of Cedric Champeau (former Grrovy committer and Gradle Inc. employee): "I repeat, nobody should every inline build logic in a build script. Nobody." [1]

[1] https://melix.github.io/blog/2021/01/the-problem-with-gradle...
The Dawn of a new Command Line Interface (2017)
Yes, but when literally none of the founders of the largest IT-companies - the very richest of the "Nouveau riche" that we are talking about - are Protestant, whereas much of the old money is, the comment is quite off.
Whataboutism. Even if the US and UK govt want Assange to die in prison does it give Putin’s government the license to torture Navalny?
For privacy advocates the simple act of linking people that way is worrying enough. Not much of a concern for me (my government's creepiness is vastly overshadowed by its incompetence) but it could certainly be dangerous to free thinkers in certain regimes.

I find it hard to believe that they can't associate more information with those profiles than just who has who else as a contact (or has in the past), some derived/guessed and some from purchasing access to other data-sets, and I find impossible to believe that they won't if they can. Not just FB but other purveyors of advert targetting stalkerdom too. This isn't "don't trust the man" foil-hat paranoia - knowing as much as possible about as many people as possible is their well documented business model.
Indexing your references from zero. Cool, haven't seen that before :D
An elegant solution to a quantum mystery
OK, do yourself a favour and watch the introductory video. Probably the most unique intro I've yet to see for a programming library.
It's a metaphor.

If you prefer the literal, think "Ayn Randian / Objectivist zealotry".
It reads like you think progressive taxation is not bracketed. Which is something often found with people from poor background.

Let's say you have some system where your taxed 0% for income < $20k, 10% between $20k and $40k and 30% for $40k+. You currently earn $39k. You have to pay 10% of $19k so $1900, you keep $37.1k after tax. You're offered a $2k raise. Lot of poor people think that you'll suddenly have to pay 30% * $41k so $12k and lose money. But the 30% is only applied to the portion of revenue you get over $40k. With your raise you know have to pay 10% of $20k + 30% of $1k so $2.3k so you keep $38.7k after taxes, so your raise end up being $1.6k. You have not lost anything.

Now the problem comes from social benefits which usually are not regressive and work on a all or nothing system.
I have three cats and they don't seem to affect the ants at all. They won't eat them because they're bitter.

It's possible you're on to something. When an ant is killed/crushed, the body releases a chemical that signals the rest of the ants to go on a rampage and find whatever the threat is.
Author should consider data for wealth and class mobility. Inequality might be rising but also there is more mobility (upwards and downwards) than there ever has been. Meaning it has also never been easier for someone in poverty to become wealthy than it is today (not saying it's easy). And not saying things are great now or not, but mobility needs to be factored in when discussing inequality.
> whenever you go, you'll pay pretty much the same

Perhaps in terms of tax you are right (though I know of at least 10+% differences even between the richer countries, so I doubt it), but the cost of living varies dramatically even within Europe. You don't need to move to a poor/bad part of Europe to profit either, as for example Lissabon is relatively cheap.
This is already the case with systemd-homed.
What about motorcycles...
I will add one more thing to your analysis of the possible negative outcomes: the market effects of the government selling the stocks of a company.

I suspect these two things will happen on the market:

1. You'd need to have a wealthy enough buyer for the assets - it's going to be kinda hard to convince the wealthy to buy back their own assets.
2. In the absence of sufficiently large market makers, the prices of these assets will certainly tank since these assets will have to be liquidated.

So where is the government going to find the buyers of the assets? What are the economic effects?

Well, we can look to Switzerland for that answer. It is one of the only countries that have wealth taxes, but it's on the canton level (the equivalent of the state level). It has no national wealth taxes. The difference in wealth tax rates makes a huge impact on the behavior of citizens and the wealth distribution:

"According to our baseline estimate, a 1 percentage point drop in the top wealth tax rate raises reported wealth by 43%."
https://voxeu.org/article/wealth-taxation-swiss-experience

"The evaluations with both datasets lead to similar estimates: an increase in the wealth tax rate by one tenth of a percent, whether this be at the cantonal or municipal level, reduces the amount of declared wealth by around 3%. This implies that the tax elasticity of wealth is at least twice as large as that of personal income.4 In other words, wealth reacts more sensitively to taxes. Our estimates also exceed the wealth tax elasticities of other studies, which is presumably due to the higher quality of the data available to us (panel data) (Seim 2017; Zoutman 2015)."
https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/dice-report-2018-2-bruelhart-schmid...

In essence, it second article highlights your point: the behavior isn't changed much in terms of productivity because wealthy people simply hire competent accountants to minimize their wealth tax burden with better accounting structures.

BTW, we do have a wealth tax in the US in terms of private property. Most states have private property taxes which are a form of wealth tax. The effect of that is that each person has to generate an income high enough to afford the tax or else they will get a lien on their assets.
> Altruism vs. sponsorship is a false dichotomy.

You've dismissed my comment without giving any backing to it. What Sourcehut are doing is the same as Redis. They provide the core product at [0], which is completely open source, and redis labs [1] provides a hosted offering with support.

It's also on a totally different scale. With all due respect to sr.ht, it's a much more niche offering than redis, with far less demands.

[0] https://redis.io/
[1] https://redislabs.com/
> Seriously quoting RT (or Sputnik) in a serious article is giving them legitimacy they don't deserve.

If these are some of the only outlets picking up this story, they deserve whatever legitimacy they get from that. I'm sure the authors of that website would prefer to quote the NYT and the WSJ, but these haven't picked up the story.

More fundamentally, outlets that are seen as reliable sources by wikipedia are probably biased towards it. If you look for example at articles about wikipedia from the NYT[1] and the WSJ[2], even if they are about problems with it, the framing is always that wikipedia is working on a problem.

So critical reporting about wikipedia is likely to come from outlets seen as "illegitimate". To demand to ignore those is to demand to ignore most critical reporting about it.

> If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual

That's the key part here.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+wikipedia&oq=...

[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+wikipedia...
I suggest you look at how much Youtube and Netflix burn electricity. Not saying these things are fine. Just that Bitcoin is quite unfairly singled out.
Beyond buzzwords: defining empathy in design
I'm not sure why people think Paul Graham's perspective on wealth inequality is in response to a recent shift in public opinion; he's taken this position since at least 2004: http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html (the basic premise of that essay was that in the tradeoff between freedom and wealth inequality, the latter didn't matter because everyone's living standards are converging). From that essay: Materially and socially, technology seems to be decreasing the gap between the rich and the poor, not increasing it

Paul is a smart guy; to paraphrase Richard Feynman, that makes it easier for him to fool himself. There is a genuine debate to be had about how to balance wealth equality with freedom, but the amount of motivated reasoning on display is enormous.
Being neurodivergent doesn't excuse being actively abusive.

I didn't say he had problems with "theory of mind". I said he didn't think of women, in particular, as human beings. He specifically treated women differently from men and he was being abusive towards them especially while also being abrasive in general. You don't have to be allistic to understand consent (and given that many autistics actually are hyperempathetic and just struggle with social cues, I wouldn't be surprised if allistics are more likely to ignore consent than autistics).

Pretending autism makes it impossible for someone in his position to not be abusive or not understand that what he did was morally wrong and that he was harming people is not a defense of neurodivergent people, it's belittling them.

You're not defending neurodivergence, you're just being patronizing towards autistics. If you're autistic and an abuser, you're an abuser in addition to being autistic.
If we're looking at inflation, you want to hold on to any real asset as a hedge.
> Extremists are always wrong.

Absolutely true, but the sad reality is that after a while with a comfortable living situation people tend to vote against their own self-interest. This then leads to dismantling of safety nets, which certainly doesn't help radicalisation.
Not sure if this helps, but it gives a little background. This piece [1] from The Telegraph was published before the chiefs were voted out in the EGM. It says that Google, a Nominet member, was expected by activists to abstain in the EGM vote.

The Nominet saga seems to be, roughly, split between small UK members (activists unhappy with Nominet's leadership/direction), and larger overseas members (GoDaddy etc) who seem to back the status quo.

I don't think that it is known whether Google voted or abstained, but their vote would have had some clout, given the way voting rights are weighted to size of members. Perhaps Nominet's continued deafness to the activists suggests that they are confident of big-hitter support in the event of a second EGM.

Re the ex-BBC dude, another Telegraph piece [3] gives info on his stance and his background.

The Telegraph link will hit a paywall unless you turn off JS. Alternatively, the first piece was archived four weeks ago [2], and the second is available at [4].

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/03/14/google-dra...

[2] https://archive.is/ZrNO2

[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/01/30/former-bbc-c...

[4] https://archive.is/ySSQG

EDIT TO ADD: As per child comment by ohashi, this link to the vote outcome on the campaign site is informative: https://publicbenefit.uk/#support Also, as ohashi helpfully points out, "You can see Google abstained. GoDaddy and 1&1 support the status quo. Tucows, NameCheap supported the removal of the board."

Thanks for that.
Yessir, it's surely because of that and not because of the complete state collapse a lot of these people witnessed first hand.
This is incorrect because in the 1950s, the average price of a house was much cheaper relative to average salaries. This information can be found all over the net.

For example this article https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house... states that:

> the average teacher’s salary in 1959 in the Pacific region was more than $5,200 annually (just shy of the national average of $5,306). At that time, the average home in California cost $12,788

A house back then only cost 2.5x a teacher's salary.

According to Google, the average teacher's salary in California today is $83K (and this seems extremely optimistic, some other sources claim it's $65K max), the average cost of a house in California is $440K.

That is 5.3x in the best possible case. Meaning that people today have to work more than twice as long to be able to earn the amount of money it takes to pay for a home... And that's not even counting the interest they need to pay on top which roughly doubles that amount yet again!

This asset inflation was caused by banks. By allowing people who could otherwise not afford to buy a house to buy one (thanks to loans), they artificially increased the demand for housing (which is somewhat limited in supply in urban centers where work is available); and in accordance with the law of supply and demand, this drove up the price of properties.

Loans allowed reckless people to participate as buyers in the marketplace and this punished savers and cautious individuals. Many of these reckless people, eyeballs-deep in debt which they couldn't afford, then turned to criminal or unethical activity to make money. Studies have shown that financial stress leads to increased levels of criminal activity. Debt causes financial stress.

Banks harm not only the people who are taking loans but also the people who are not taking loans because it turns assets which savers could have easily have been able to afford within a few years into assets which they can never afford by saving their salaries.
Just played around with the demo, seems cool but the tour can be more intuitive - after the first click, it wasn't clear what the next steps were. Took a while to figure out that I had to click on the highlighted portion.
>It's a Danish-run program. E.g., They eat more lingonberries since they grow all over the place

There is no lingonberries in Denmark.
> Almost no one is buying these systems outright

IIRC, several years ago purchase overtook leasing for new residential solar installations. It’s definitely not the case thst no one is getting owned instead of leased solar.
That doesn't mean you could grow good on it though if there was no sheep
The fact that so many developing countries are massive exporters of food and goods while their own citizens are lacking easily disproves this.
Now they'll scapegoat cryptocurrency even though its use for ML amounts to a tiny percentage of the massive global ML industry.

The vast majority of ML is via real estate, all manner of fake businesses and fake equity deals, the "aaaaaaht" market, creative use of things like penny stocks, etc.

This is sort of like how they go after street dealers and small time drug "kingpins" while the real leaders of the industry (and there's a heavy overlap there with the major players in ML) aren't prosecuted. The real drug kingpins generally don't touch the product.
And I would still be fine with it because, again, my money, my risk.

You have a chance to disrupt an ageing, slow legacy industry - banking - and most people here are rooting for the dinosaurs. Amazing!
Top answer is pretty good.

I normally don’t go in for the “decisions like this mean management is secretly trying to ______” theories, but this seems so asinine on its face that I suspect there’s a second level to this game, maybe forcing out some roles by making them into underperforming employees, maybe giving them a chance to evolve in the needed direction and forcing out the ones who don’t want to/can’t...

It doesn’t seem like a company could literally believe this new way was suddenly optimal without at least testing some part of it.