skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In 1892, the New York Herald Tribune compiled a list of all the millionaires in America. They found 4047 of them. How many had inherited their wealth then? Only about 20%... So it's not 2020 that's the anomaly here, but 1982.

This is an oversimplification. Go back 100 more years to 1782 and I bet you'd find the dominant paradigm is inherited wealth. Go back another 100 years and it's still inherited wealth. I'd assume that below a certain tribal size you stop seeing much inherited wealth, and so the starting point for groups of humans is more like a meritocracy, where the strongest tribe member gets to keep the most stuff, but "inherited wealth dominates" is probably the default mode for most of what we'd recognize as "civilization".

More generally it's extremely dubious to attempt to extrapolate a historical trend from the datapoints 1892,1992, 2020, especially given that your first two datapoints are different; if you saw a consistent trend going backwards in time you'd be more justified in extrapolating from that.

A more nuanced model would be to think in terms of cycles; this is a very well-established concept in both history and economics. Technological paradigm shifts allow innovators to overturn the status quo. Over time power accumulates, monopolies form, big companies figure out how to exploit the new technology, the winners of the cycle entrench, and opportunities for upwards mobility decreases again. The industrial age is one such paradigm shift. The "information age" is another. Inside the latter, you can make the case for smaller cycles of innovation that still have large economic consequences, like mainframe computing, desktop computing, and cloud computing. Each of these paradigm shifts minted new titans of industry.

When a new paradigm arises, the cycle repeats again. We see this with the railroad barons and other industrial innovators, the progenitors of a generation of inherited wealth. We'll probably see this again with the Zuckerberg lineage. It seems entirely possible to me that in 20 years' time, there are essentially no new tech multi-billionaires, and instead the big-5 tech companies just buy any startup that grows big enough to be a potential competitor. This would mint plenty of tech millionaires, but leave the "100 richest" unchanged. Of course, anti-trust laws exist, and so this outcome is far from a certainty. But it would at least be consistent with how previous paradigm shifts have played out.

A potential counter-argument to this line of reasoning would be to look at the cycle period and argue that the troughs of ossification/consolidation between cycles are shortening, and we should expect the existing dominant companies to get unseated by whoever comes up with the next paradigm shift. This is a very interesting subject for discussion; I'd just note that it is a much more nuanced argument than Graham's point, which is essentially claiming historical homogeneity prior to 1892 and using that to imply that things will stay the same as they are now going forwards.
Oddly today there's an obsession with certain bitter substances like caffeine, dark chocolate, and IPA beers.
NASA/Air Force was decommissioning the hangar at the base, and Google happens to be their next door neighbor. They rented to hangar to Google, and Google used it to park their corporate jet (and maybe a few private jets of some pre-IPO employees).

It was actually a good thing, it brought money in for NASA.
The two-language problem is not concerned with calling out to or wrapping pre-existing libraries in a second language. It means having to write parts of your code in a second language, due to, for example, performance reasons.
All of those points apply equally if not more to the US military, in which the ratio of the salary of the highest to lowed paid employee is ... 8.
Looking at the dependencies on crates.io it looks like it does use syntect: https://crates.io/crates/amp/0.6.2/dependencies
>The goal is not market share

Market share is absolutely a goal, even if it's only a part of the broader goal. GCC used to have significant leverage to advance free software, and now they have almost none.

>From the FSF's point of view loss of market share is an acceptable loss, if the alternative is "be evil". That is why, odd as it may seem, the FSF needs someone who does not compromise on that.

But it's not. Go look through some of the mailing list threads about LLVM, the whining is nearly unbearable. Despite LLVM having been offered to GNU in the mid 2000s (yes the whole thing, even extending to copyright assignment) and GNU having turned it down due largely to their opposition to modularity.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...
Did you actually look at the comic in question before writing this comment?
I'm not even that sure this is true in absolute numbers, but I'm pretty sure it is not in relative figures. There are waaaay more customer/businesses on the Internet today than there were 15 years ago and not that many providers more.
LineageOS breaks the AOSP security model.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone as a first choice.
That would be very cool, although I would make it an image link which jumps to a live demo, just to be kinder on the user's bandwidth and CPU.
I think mockery is better than blocking. Many of the people involved have convinced each other they have the moral high ground.
But part of why solar roadways also suck (and how they are similar to solar shingles) is they 1) use less efficient cells than standard mounted panels. One article I found calculated an astonishingly poor 4.9% efficiency based on Tesla's own specs, 2) are stuck with the angle of the road/roof surface to the sun which can reduce capacity further, and 3) they have many more connections which can degrade and eventually short to ground (particularly if water gets under the flashing).

Lots of complexity and money for quite sub-optimal solar generation. Also despite everyone saying they look "beautiful" I think they are too busy because of how reflective they are and take away from the architectural beauty. If solar shingles end up being a failure, people will be able to recognize your roof, and now your house is now an eyesore with crapware on top of it that needs to be replaced.

source: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/02/10/whats-the-efficiency-...
Evolution doesn’t need mutations that give perfection just an advantage on average. How much does lead paint occur in the environment humans traditionally evolved in?
I dunno, I just rarely ever find myself nesting more than two or three levels of conditionals even in extreme cases. If my logic really is that complicated, it's probably a sign it needs to be broken up anyway. And if I did need that much branching, I would want to be more explicit about it, not less.

Also - at the very least - you can mimick the "flat" early-return style and just stick some else's in there and call it a day. That's my main point; less so the actual deeper nesting
> Is Starbucks too big and a bully? Sure, they force Mom and Pop shops to close by out-competing them, and that sucks. But bullying? I believe that's just Capitalism.

I'd say it's more like a mom-and-pop coffee shop giving free coffee to patrons hoping to make money on cookies, and Starbucks coming in, taking the free coffee, opening a nice stand right next to the shop and selling the coffee they got for free.

I'm having trouble justifying this ethically.
WaPo is very critical of Amazon
Same here.

Returning and throwing quickly and strict.
It's been said that the best way to fortify your business is to use your clout to make the world inhospitable for adjacent businesses.

As someone who is not currently in the cloud, that idea strikes me as being very pertinent to what's happening here. Increasingly many technologies are becoming cloud-only, or have non-cloud offerings that are decidedly second-class. Elastic offers on-prem support. I doubt Amazon will be doing the same with OpenSearch.

It may be a subtle effect, but it's pushing the world in a direction that makes me uncomfortable. If it's harder for non-cloud-based companies to maintain non-cloud-based offerings, then that will push the industry even more toward being dominated by SaaS products. And these products often leave clients and users locked in, with limited control over their own data, and, by extension, reduced ability to control their own fates. What I worry about is that we may be witnessing a return of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, only in a new form that's even more dangerous because it's harder to see.

I appreciate the discomfort people have about the SSPL. It is a departure from the original ideas behind FOSS. But, at least as I see it, those open source principles were never an end in and of themselves. They're a means to a greater end: digital autonomy. To the extent that very large companies seem to be learning how to co-opt FOSS in order to re-assert control, FOSS's ability, in its current incarnation, to serve that end may be waning.
I agree, but also I think this is misrepresenting the 'early return' pattern. It's more likely to be succinct and look like this instead:

function check(x) {
if (!test1 (x)) return false;
if (!test2 (x)) return false;
if (!test3 (x)) return false;
if (!test4 (x)) return false;
return true;
}

In _this_ scenario, it is true that this is much more readable than:

function check(x) {
if (!test1 (x)) {
return false;
} else if (!test2 (x)) {
return false;
} else if (!test3 (x)) {
return false;
} else if (!test4 (x)) {
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
> oracles

Oh no, not another term the "crypto" people have taken from the "cryptography" people and re-interpreted in a completely different way. :(
No, but paying a CEO more might allow you to hire a better (more productive) one.
I’m referring to the speech to text product. What’s the Zoe thing?
In case the nushell link doesn't work for anyone else, consider prefixing it with www: https://www.nushell.sh/

Admittedly, i have no idea why we even need to do that nowadays, but that seemed to work.
you've got it backwards. probably because it sounds more dramatic.

of course paying someone more doesn't make them more valuable, in the same way paying extra for lunch doesn't make it a better lunch.

rather, they're valuable to you, so you pay them more. in the same way that lunch at the high end restaurant costs more.

perhaps the best CEOs, with their wealth of connections, aren't worth the additional cost. (like an overpriced restaurant.) interestingly, that's an investable thesis! you could go invest in companies with the cheapest CEOs. i look forward to hearing about your returns!
Agreed. Very expensive if you're throwing in a bit of cash.

Do you have more info about the regulated prediction market? I'd love to learn more.
> People realize that without the Amazon there, Brazil becomes a desert, right

Probably not. People have a really hard time when cause and effect have a big time gap, and separately are really bad with big numbers — people, areas, money, everything.

Also, while I have heard that rainforests causes rain, it is a surprising thing to hear.
I kind of agree but I think I can be more specific.

We need to find more/better ways of integrating people with tech.

Tech on its own is 10% of the solution. Integrating humans with technology is underrated.

(I say this as the owner of various enterprise SaaS businesses but I'm sure it applies in all aspects of software)
I don't currently have time to hotlink the absolute latest from security researchers' IRC chats etc direct to your door.

All I can do is point.
>There's this silly idea that if you pay the same CEO 10x more, they suddenly become 10x as valuable to the company.

No one actually believes that. The problem is that if you don't pay a capable CEO 10x more, they are gonna leave elsewhere where they can get paid 10x more. And the only people to replace them who wouldn't be asking for the same amount of compensation are not the kind of people you would want to be your CEO.

As others have said, CEOs aren't a commodity, just like top tier athletes and actors aren't. LeBron gets paid multiples of what his teammates make [0]. Most of his teammates on LA Lakers earn single digit low millions (with the average being even lower), while he made $39mil from his contract last year. Is he providing 10 times the value to the game that his teammates making under $3mil/yr do? I doubt it. But if you want LeBron, you gotta pay it up, because there isn't a lack of other teams out there who would be more than happy to pay him as much.

0. https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/LAL.html
I think that has less to do with technology and more to do with how much simpler it is to ship things out of about 100 distribution centers than it is to sell products from a few thousand brick-and-mortar stores.
What about a house size and falling TV prices thing? Half of the US couldn't sit 16 feet from their TV if they tried.

1/3 of the US lives in apartments and 80% live in urban area where housing is comparatively more expensive. Even for slightly larger houses its common to have a living room and a family room and give up a lot of space to the individual bedrooms. It's supper likely that the TV is in a room that is between 12-18 and 15-20. With the TV on the long wall.

Also for some reason sticking your TV on a stand is still pretty popular vs putting it on the wall. This means that in a 14' room your tv is between 0' and 1' off the wall and your rear end is 3' off the wall. This puts as little as 8' between viewer and tv in 12-18 and as much as 12' in the larger room if they hang it on the wall.

How the US population is distributed is kind of interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/03/how-s...

Regarding the question of average living space in the US people in the US almost universally prefer single units detached housing but as the song goes you can't always get what you want. Many for example would prefer to be close to urban settings with more jobs. Others can only afford to rent.

Among renters, around 1/3 of the population, half live in 111 sq meters or less

1/3 of owners live in domiciles of 167 sq meters or less and and 60% of owners live in domiciles 222 sq meters or less.

Combining renters and owners 77% of Americans live in 222 sq meters, 54% live in 167 sq meters or less, 25% live in 111 sq meters or less. Some rounding and conversion between sq ft and meters.

This means about a 1/4 each live in

<= 111 sq meters

112-167 sq meters

168-222 sq meters

> 222 sq meters

https://www.frugalfringe.com/calculators/compare-your-homes-...

The people paying lots for tiny apartments in the city think your 16' of open space in your living room is as unusual as you think they are with their relatively giant TVs in smaller spaces.
I theorized back in 2009 that this is exactly what would happen, but instead of having NSA use it's server farms, it would be the central banks using third party cutouts to buy up chunks get to a collective 51 percent. Why I didn't predict that the obvious result would be a runaway market I still kick myself for, because at the time I rejected bitcoin for it's lack of privacy and just moved on...

My current guess is that they are going to pressure all the other coins, and come to some collective agreement after some farcicle fact finding mission ala 1907 to agree there should be some sort of central bank controlled digital coin... which of course they will control, but will lack anonymity. BTC will crash then. (but again, maybe I'm not the best person to listen to on this topic!)
While I support RMS and find the lies peddled about him abhorrent, this article convinced me he is not fit to serve as the public face of free software: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

In short: He harmed the cause of free software by making public statements on unrelated, controversial issues.
Well, yes. Had Korolev lived, he would have probably kept control over it, same way he led USSR to being first with Sputnik and Voskhod.
Indeed. It seems like we're finally seeing a smidgeon of movement in this direction lately as well. Lattice have been at least semi-friendly to people building OSS support for some of their FPGA's and now QuickLogic have come out with some explicit support[1] for OSS as well. And I have to admit, given that AMD have been at least a nugget more friendly to the OSS world over the years, I'm harboring a faint kernel of hope that Xilinx may move in this direction a bit as well, under their stewardship[2].

[1]: https://www.quicklogic.com/qorc/

[2]: https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/xilinx-acquisition
Can you back up your claims?
Yes dextroamphetamine like all reuptake inhibitors have a neurotoxic risk.
First of all I believe that long term studies does not shows neurotoxic harm.
(but yeah are there studies that span more than 3 years?)
Secondly stimulants are neurotrophic (promote neuron growth) and has been shown to fix abnormalities on ADHD brains.

To my knowledge neurotoxity is not an issue however stimulants loose their effectiveness after 2 years in the only more than 2 years study (are there been newer ones since then?) however this study contradict the perceived effectiveness that doctors and patients reports after two years. This paradox is a very poor state of knowledge and more research is really needed.
No, I'm not ignoring that. I'm pointing it out does not say what you claim it says.

It could imply it, but it does not say it.

It makes the claim she was trafficked. That is supported by the deposition. That is supported by the witness you mention. There is no reason to doubt that.

But trafficking does not contain an automatic implication sex happened in every instance. What matters to establish trafficking is Maxwell's purpose in sending her, not whether or not the purpose was fulfilled.

What you choose to believe is one thing, but your claim there is an accusation sex occurred in this specific case is not supported by that statement no matter how much you choose to read into it.

You're deliberately ignoring the plain wording of the questions and Guiffres own answers, and instead read into them what you want them to say.

Maybe Guiffre meant to make a direct accusation [against nst Minsky, anyway], but she did not in that deposition.

EDIT: You'll note I'm not at all claiming Minsky didn't have sex with her. I don't know if he did. It's possible he did. Still associating with Epstein at that point in time already stinks and it is reasonable to wonder why. It's possible Guiffres intent was to accuse him. A whole lot of things are possible. But what is possible and what accusations there are evidence for are different things.
When I look at that list, Jeff Bezos is #1. The first woman on the list is at #10 and inherited her wealth. Are you looking at a different list?

Also, people born in foreign countries had completely different experiences, and more importantly, what is relevant is if they were in the bottom quintile in their own country.

If you're super rich in your own country then you have a lot of opportunity. For example Sergey Brin may have been born in Russia, but his family managed to come to the US when he was a kid and he was clearly middle class as a teen.
Code Gardening – Why Code Garden?
Startup selling d2o bottled water in 3 ... 2 ... 1.
https://github.com/MiSTer-devel/Main_MiSTer/wiki/How-to-star...
It's cost for me. Electricity isn't cheap where I live and when your house is poorly insulated you require even more energy for a heat pump.
It somewhat pushes the answer into "private" definition but it does sound good.

But then, if a company implements DRM using its private key and somebody steals that private key?
Worth noting that elses don't require curly braces, which are where most of the visual noise is coming from in your example:

function check(x) {
if (!test1 (x)) return false;
else if (!test2 (x)) return false;
else if (!test3 (x)) return false;
else if (!test4 (x)) return false;
else return true;
}

I think this is more clear than either of the above
I'd say they can.

Enforcement divisions have sole heads who can make unilateral decisions that the commissioners never review.

Commissioners and Chairs can make make rulings favorable or ignore making unfavorable rulings, they can do anything they want regardless of what happens during the comment periods.

The CFTC, OCC, CFPB all have single head directors. The SEC has up to 5, and the FRB is the most decentralized but its Board of Governor's head is the primary sole signal to the international market on this entire planet regardless of how much they actually do behind the scenes. The Treasury doesn't have to be adversarial either, no matter how much it wants us to tie our national identity and ego to its currency, not all Treasuries or Central Banks have this concern.

Right now, crypto related topics are either ignored or adversarial. Crypto related topics can be collaborative or simply favorable.

Capture in this context (and all contexts of regulatory capture) just mean that someone joins for a certain purpose, does all of the other tasks correctly and with high competence, but also makes sure their single issue is protected.
What we do have, however, is a lifelong Masters patron and Augusta food blogger who wasn’t above reverse-engineering the ingredients list from the back of the wrapper in 2016. It’s an imitation of an imitation of an approximation...

That's such a delightful description.

When a new building is constructed, he says, it simply appears the day of the tournament’s opening, already inexplicably covered in vines.

(Insert joke about how fast kudzu grows -- This is Georgia, after all.)

The pimento cheese he sold from his store, Woodruff Drug in Aiken, South Carolina, won so many fans across the region that in the 1960s, Masters organizers dropped the husband-and-wife catering team they’d hired since the 1940s to make way for Rangos.

For those not familiar with the area, Augusta is in Georgia and smooshed up against the Georgia-South Carolina state border. Aiken, South Carolina is about 20 miles away, about a thirty minute drive to some parts of Augusta. Augusta is a sprawling city. You can probably drive thirty minutes from point A to point B within Augusta, so reaching out to a unique business in a small town a few miles away is completely reasonable and not some big huge deal, logistically.

Not to take anything away from the small business, just saying that "going to a whole other state!!!" is like tossing a rock across the river in this case, because some river no doubt serves as the demarcation for the state border.
It's a good show, but it needs to have a bit more sci fi and a lot less pointless relationship drama.
A bibliography isn't going to find the Librem an IOMMU.
As AI and machines enables the same output with less work, if the men at the top fires the people that are subsequently "not needed" and put that money in their own pockets, we're on the way to a very bad place. Ideally, the extra income that AI and machines enable, would end up in everyone's pockets, and the extra free time as well.

I don't think the latter is what is happening though, hence the 312-to-1 ratio.
No, he is just making a hypothesis that could explain the observation, and he is suggesting a way to test them.

As in... science.

What we should do about it (if there is something we should do) is politics, an entirely different topic.
Functions in Dlang
I submitted the article in question and didn't make any alterations to either the title or the link. It's possible (just a guess) that the link I submitted was slightly different from the link that the OP submitted as I tend to strip out extraneous parts of the URL. After that the submission was likely then just fortuitously upvoted.
Chappelle was brought up in the article ;)
Segcache: A memory-efficient and scalable key-value cache for small objects [pdf]
People from the US and other countries are sending money abroad via cash to fund terrorism out the US