skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you look at nominal interest rates, yeah. Real interest rates haven't been particularly lower post-1980 than pre-1980. Sure, high interest rates pre-1980 built wealth passively, but periods of high inflation also destroyed wealth passively.
Thanks! just downloaded
My laptop come with Windows 7. I never pay for Windows 10. And I still get free update in last 5 years.
> Then why do you care at all about the FSF in the first place? It sounds like you're here just to spread rumors and opinions in this case.

I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position within the software world in the 1980s and 1990s. That position has slipped precipitously despite the increasing importance of the GNU software they developed in every aspect of modern computing. RMS, both in his behavior while representing the FSF at conferences and his (lack of) understanding of the modern computing environment[1], was/is very clearly part of the reason for that decline. I think the principles the FSF stands for are good and important, however without an organization to promote them they will continue to wither in the modern age and bringing back RMS will not help to reverse that trend.

[1] How can a man who spent years refusing to use normal web browsers and insisting on having web pages e-mailed to him possibly be positioned to develop policies to promote the principles of Free Software within the framework of the modern web?
That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video. It makes it clearer that we are supporting the creator's livelihood, not buying a token that they produced. Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? Higher subscription tiers could include merchandising and concert tickets.
He won that MacArthur award that came with money. He also owns a home in Cambridge that he rents out. Maybe social security as well.
I also do hope that. It doesn't have to mean that without him at the helm or at the board the organization can not survive. But it can not survive without his philosophy. And for that it's important to create a path that defends him against the baseless reputational assaults, or it will be damaged as well. This statement does it, that way they can continue also after him - hopefully.
It's both. Just in different sections of the article.
"Returning money to shareholders" is largely a consequence macroeconomic policy or state of affairs. It is, evidently, not actually a choice that CEOs currently have in practice. Dividends and/or buybacks are one of the powers shareholders do tend to wield, in practice. They want to invest more, not less.

Also, IDK if it is a common solution. Nothing is really common at MSFT-scale. A free cash flow like Google, Alphabet, etc. is almost unprecedented.

Meanwhile, I do actually think that this is better for shareholders. IMO "Synergies" is a term somewhere between euphemism and a boomerism but for the purpose of "shareholder value" it doesn't matter. At Monopoly/Unicorn/FAANG scale, there are big opportunities for synergy. Think Google-Android.

Why is Nuance being owned by Alphabet less efficient than being traded independently or owned by private investors? Why is Alphabet owning vanguard more efficient than owning Nuance?

The answer to those question can have no actual impact on reality. If the acquired business is cash generative, they can left to their devices. If the parent company doesn't borrow, then "efficiency" never becomes explicit. Explicit efficiency is relative to cost of borrowing. Implicit efficiency is implied by share prices... and at this point things get foggy.
That was sort of the opposite of competent:

- Because it was a new license, it necessarily resulted in license fragmentation, which is an ongoing headache for the free software community. It's worth doing if there's a serious need that outweighs the costs and you can guide the community towards dropping the old license, but....

- The Linux kernel had always been GPLv2 only and remained GPLv2-only, which meant that the most interesting GPL-licensed code on TiVos and similar devices was not subject to GPLv3.

- Embedded devices like TiVos generally want a small userspace. The most popular choice was Busybox, which announced that it was GPLv2-only.

- Also, Busybox turned out to be a reasonably straightforward product to replace, which hurt the ongoing aims of GPL enforcement - including regular old GPLv2 enforcement about simply getting source code at all: https://lwn.net/Articles/478249/

- The FSF moved its own projects to GPLv3 only, but that scared the largest surviving commercial UNIX vendor (Apple) enough that they remained on GPLv2-only versions, and eventually started sponsoring the development of permissively-licensed competitors to even reasonably difficult products to replace, such as LLVM and its ecosystem (lldb etc.) instead of GCC and its ecosystem, which are now technically on par with GCC, if not much more advanced. (Historically, one of the FSF's biggest successes at making inroads in the proprietary software world was getting Steve Jobs to use GCC and release the Objective-C frontend for it!)

- Because the FSF couldn't guide enough other major projects towards GPLv3-only, many brand-new GPL'd software projects continue to use "GPLv2 or later" to this day to work around license fragmentation (i.e. so they can share code with other GPLv2+ projects), meaning any additional strictness of GPLv3 is irrelevant in enforcement.

- Of the major issues around software freedom and digital autonomy today, approximately zero of them are TiVoization - and, as described above, that's not because GPLv3 was wildly successful in combating the threat, it's because it turned out not to be that pressing of a problem.

There is basically no leverage in GPLv3. Just about everything you'd want to do with free software today, you can do with GPLv2 or permissively-licensed works.
I speak to them maybe every day and I have absolutely no reason to doubt him.

I would just say what the project was but he's basically the sole maintainer of the GNU side of it.
Vous voulez acheter des actions Coinbase maintenant?
L'achat d'actions Coinbase lorsqu'elles sont cotées, les particuliers peuvent négocier l'action Coinbase sur FTX, mais pas s'ils se trouvent aux USA
It's hard for me to know whether to feel bad for ES in this case. Did they bring it on themselves? Is Amazon too big and a bully?

From my perspective, Amazon has made most of its profit price gouging consumers on bandwidth after vendor locking them into their ecosystem, where they bootstrap new services by wrapping open source software with some provisioning scripts, management dashboards and cookie-cutter API / console templates. Indeed, most of this is templated -- AFAIU, for example, each AWS service autogenerates its Boto bindings and parts of its console frontend via code generators. Amazon has really mastered the factory process of churning out new services, and when they find a popular one, they can invest more resources into developing it than the original team ever could.

And therein lies the rub. If Amazon is improving the software in a way that the original team couldn't, it's hard to say that the community isn't benefiting. I think what strikes me the wrong way is that Amazon is not doing it for any altruistic reason. In fact, Amazon contributes very little to open source in general, considering how much they take from it. Compare them to Facebook (React, etc) or Google (tons of dev tools) or Microsoft (VSC, TypeScript). What does Amazon have? Firecracker, kind of? And now a fork of ES because that's the only way they could continue making money off it without violating the license a small startup put in place to stop them?

Well, good for Amazon, I suppose, but I find myself instinctively disliking them for this. I'm not sure what the solution is. Hopefully technologies like Kubernetes and Terraform will encourage big customers to become at least cloud-agnostic, if not cloud-independent. At the very least it would be great if Amazon / Google / Microsoft stopped gouging bandwidth at such absurd margins. Or not. Maybe it will be their downfall as startups differentiate along those lines. That would be ironic, coming from the originators of "your margin is my opportunity."

Personally I'm doing my part by not building anything with vendor lock-in. It's great to be able to deploy to any cloud, if you value either robustness or flexibility.
It's an interesting read, and not entirely new information, but I find this leap pretty unconvincing:

> So it's not 2020 that's the anomaly here, but 1982. The real question is why so few people had gotten rich from starting companies in 1982.

It seems more likely to me that industrialization and mass-production in the late 19th century, and information technology in the late 20th century were inflection points at which the gradual progress of new technologies enabled revolutionary businesses across a wide spectrum of the economy. There is no reason to assume that this is always possible, or to extrapolate into the future.

> we should expect both the number and wealth of founders to grow, because every decade it gets easier to start a startup.

Non-sequitur. If the technology that there is is sufficiently well exploited by Google, Amazon, Facebook, then where is your supposed opening? We are not at the end of the IT tech revolution now, but we are also nowhere near the beginning. The best VR experience right now is engineered by Facebook, not by some plucky start up acquiring new customers.

It's easy to imagine that tech will enter a consolidation and comodization phase in the next decades, if it hasn't already.

In fact, if the forces that are claimed to be behind the resurgence of founders getting rich were really correct, we should see lots of new manufacturing start ups. Yet those are extremely rare, and not terribly disruptive in the grand scheme of things.

Edit:

The Gini coefficient bits are also pure ideology dressed up as data. Sweden has more billionares per capita than the US, has a better per capita start up rate than the US, and yet because it never followed the disastrous right turn on economic policy, it has far far far lower inequality (though rising somewhat recently it's still lower than France for example).

[1] https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/no-coun...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=S...
IRS seeks summons enforcement on Crypto Exchange
He didn’t apologize authentically. He might not be capable of it. And... if he did it doesn’t at all follow that his apology would be accepted. It is neither timely, nor adequately sincere and it doesn’t indicate that he is taking appropriate actions to atone. This statement is as self countered and RMS centering as his actions were. I suspect he isn’t capable of change without intervention and a lot of therapy, neither of which have been indicated here. Note: I’ve directly witnessed and dealt with RMS’s awful behavior towards women twice in my career.
I was in consulting and yes everyone WANTS to become a partner but 90% quit before the first promotion due to the abusive lifestyle and workload.
Taylor Swift has made very successful arguments in favor of making money throughout her career. She made Apple Music pay artists during a user's trial period. She has the clear moral and financial win in the whole album rights affair. She has always advocated for bigger payouts for streaming.

Two things she does right:

- she is always fighting on behalf of every artist, not just herself

- her beef is always with much larger companies (Apple, Spotify, record labels) so it's easy for people to take her side
That seems to be the favorite word of people who believe their subjective reality should be objective reality, yeah.
I don't know whether he dislikes people with children, but the sin here is reproducing and thus hurting the planet or something like that.

Apparently this argument only subsided because it was noted that rms is not vegetarian
> Today at GTC 2021 NVIDIA announces its first CPU

Wait, Nvidia's been making ARM CPUs for years now; most memorably Project Denver.
> He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong.

Great, it's an interesting philosophical question. If the issue is so important to him, he should transition to a career in philosophy, or sociology, or anthropology.

However, as a board member of the FSF, a public-facing leadership role, his job is to promote free software and nothing but free software. He shouldn't muddle that message by talking about ideas that are generally taboo in normal conversation. And I don't think it's just the [blue-team elite coastal] public for whom sex-with-minors talk is not regular dinner conversation, or at least I hope it's not.
Not sure what to tell you to break your bubble. I have literary thousands of pwsh scripts running in critical gov projects in production, most of them as part of CI, CD, build and automatic test but some of them serving millions of users. I had dozen of such projects in previous decade on Windows and several on Linux and never had any significant problem with slow startup really. Sometimes it happened that some machines had slow startup but team usually fixed that one way or another.

Pattern of usage of bash scripts where hundreds of shell script run every minute is IMO not something you should brag about in systems architecture. And pwsh is different - it has modules which are encapsulated and you don't have to start another instance of shell to prevent mingle. Parallelism ofc still benefits from faster startup.
I used to work in investment research in NYC. So I know those types, but the vibe was the same. Maybe I’ve been lucky, but a lot of people I know actually have had startup success. I know a few people that ended up making over 25 million by 30. None of them made it in law or finance, and none of them ever wanted to continue their finance career.

10x the median income just isn’t that much. If you have three kids, money is still tight. I’m arguing that we are all making less and that startups are making people rich because they’re actually getting paid what they produced.
This new crypto project just launched its mainnet a few weeks ago: https://chia.net

It's a novel "Proof of" algorithm (Proof of Space and Time) that front loads the resource needs into a Plotting phase, with a very efficient Farming phase after that to process blocks with transactions. Seems like a much more fair, sustainable model for having a secure digital currency.

It also has an interesting, Lisp based programming language on it.

But what excites me is that it's lead by Bram Cohen, the dude who invented BitTorrent, one of the best pieces of tech I've used nearly my whole tech life.
Sure, rice, jeans and dollar store trinkets have only become 20% more expensive. The real estate, healthcare and education tell a completely different story though.
He even continues to defend Minsky in this letter. It's not even an apology, it's just more of the same.
Accurate. Though if that's a euphemism, what's the harsher term you're masking? lol
Nuance itself was actually spun out of an organization called SRI (note the resemblance to the name Siri)
Like you, I never form an opinion on something like this until I've personally read all of the court filings, evidence, testimony, depositions, professional analysis, etc.

I just don't know how you're already up to a case in the 21st century, though... I'm still immersed in early 18th century admiralty law cases!
> he not only sees now that he's been ofensive, but is more willing to listen to criticism in the future.

Spoiler alert: He won't. He's been problematic for decades, and it's extremely difficult for someone like him to change at the drop of a hat.
Death as a consequence from a self-inflicted drug overdose isn't a question of morals. The fentanyl surely doesn't care if the user is black and underprivileged or not.

Besides that, Floyd almost killed himself with an overdose of opioids a month earlier. This was cofirmed by his partner with the telling nickname "Momma".[1]

Also there is the bodycam footage from 2019 during which Floyd cadmitted he swallowed his stash of drugs to hide them from the cops. Suffering from an overdose once more.[2]

There appears to be a pattern.

[1]https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-day-4-live-up...

[2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-georgefloyd-idUS...
Am I the only one who simply doesn't care? The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children. It's the promotion of free software. Some tone-deaf words by RMS are only even relevant because of the prevalence of cancel culture and the cult of wokeism. Software will still need to be free after the fad cult of wokeism has been left behind.

What the media claimed was Stallman defended Epstein. That isn't true. The whole thing should be a non-story.

Ideological movements like free software require uncompromising people like RMS in it because it's an ideology. If the ideology of free software bows to people who aren't even involved in software then it will bow to anyone and thus serves no one. People's feelings don't make software and they certainly don't make it free.

RMS is an icon in a field that is still brand new, letting this fad of woke cultism cancel him would be a tragedy would rightfully look back on I think as foolish as the chemical castration of Alan Turing for being gay.

So what if RMS hurts the feelings of fragile people? He's done more good for software than most people ever will. This whole thing is a storm in a teacup and people getting upset about it are clearly seeking to be offended. And people who seek to be offended always succeed. So taking their offense seriously is literally a waste of time.

The purpose of the FSF is free software. Not people's feelings. That they even acknowledged this storm in a teacup is disappointing. It's not their job.
Ah, thanks for that, I finally understand what you were getting at. I see now what you mean about intervals growing larger than they actually need to in formulas that use the same variable more than once, that is an unfortunate drawback.

Now you've got me learning about how affine arithmetic can help with the dependency problem but has its own drawbacks. Thanks for pointing me in that direction!
It's interesting. Lots of people pay and put up with ads for the convenience of cable TV. But I'll happily pay and memorize where my shows are to enjoy Netflix, Hulu and one or two other streaming apps so I can avoid ads but still enjoy my shows (though for network shows, there's often a waiting period before I get to watch them). There, the price difference per month was one of the driving factors.

With my PC, I could dual boot, as it's just reassuring that I can fire up my favorite games and they "just work" on whatever the latest Windows OS is I'm running, and the convenience factor is so much higher now that I'm running WSL2 and can do various Linux things, too. But cost-wise, well I've only ever paid for Windows when buying a pre-made system. When building, I've gotten various free versions of Windows over the years, like when I did a "Windows party" for the launch of 7, and they sent me a free copy of Ultimate (which was free to upgrade to 8->8.1->10. But obviously not available in general if you want a Windows license.)

And the cost of time... to fiddle with Linux and try to get all my Blizzard games working, maybe it's not as bad as it is in my head, but it seems like a hassle, and quite often, my spouse and my family members and my friends and I spontaneously want to jump into a game of StarCraft 2 or Valheim or Diablo 3, and I don't want anything causing me to stop what I'm doing and try to troubleshoot it for 2 hours while everyone else plays.

So, I run only Windows, and I put up with the once or twice a year that a new update comes out and potentially introduces some kind of notification or extra Start Menu tile, and I turn that thing off, and then I go on with my life without it. If I could have Linux with a "Windows gaming" channel like Netflix that always just worked for every game I play or will play in the future, I think I'd certainly consider switching to that. But for now, I'm not confident enough that everything I use my PC for would "just work" if I switched, with the same performance and lack of troubleshooting, so I do not do so.
I personally ended up moving mostly everything to AWS. AWS Amplify now simplifies hosting static websites on S3. Automatic builds from GitHub, previews of PR. Route53 is there too. So I can keep all the DNS records, static website, builds in one place. And if I will need to add some server logic - lambdas and more is there too.

I even build an mac/ios app to track analytics from my AWS Amplify websites https://www.outcoldman.com/en/archive/2021/03/14/cloudanalyt...

I have found about the AWS Amplify after switching to Hugo - https://gohugo.io/hosting-and-deployment/hosting-on-aws-ampl...
I'm not sure what was on the Shuttle tank, but other vehicles carry hydraulic fluid (for engine gimballing) & hydrazine (for small thrusters). They're usually vented at the end of a mission to safe the vehicle.

If you're wondering about practicality, Skylab was a Saturn V tank. Unlike the external tank suggestions, Skylab was built on the ground and never had fuel in it. But it was basically the same structure as the Saturn's third stage. Like ISS, Skylab had some micrometeorite shielding outside of the main tank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

More recently, Nanoracks has looked at refurbishing ULA's Centaur upper stage into a habitat. Like the Shuttle, Centaur runs on a H2 + O2 cycle. Their plan is to lift an equipment kit onboard the Centaur. They'd cut a hole after the end of the mission and use on-orbit welding (not mature yet) to install all the floors/decks/airlocks.

https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/
> My reading of this in the context of the post is that he self-aware enough to strive to be better, and admits he has failed to do so in the past.

Just now? He hasn't changed for decades and has been informed his behaviour is something people have "to cope with" for his benefit and never seemed to make even a small effort to change.

> As much as we would like people to grovel and apologize the perfect way... they rarely do.

Then he's unfit for a leadership role, plain and simple. If he won't be fair, if he won't cease to make people uncomfortable and won't stop making inappropriate jokes, why would the board reinstate him?
You think and you act by taking part in the cancellation game where you got nothing to lose and only to win by pushing others down. How about we judge a person by the totality of his work and actions, not just those which play well in the "game"?
This is a bit of a misterpretation. Yes they make that calculation but to know how to adjust the age of retirement and because there are shunt laws that limit the expenditure to a given percentage of gdp.

Portugal(p in pigs) is such a country and this shunt law is a 2/3 law meaning if debt ceilings are overridden by government or parliament it will be struck down by the constitutional court.
just recently there was such a law and it was promptly sent there. E
Technologies never truly die due to outdatedness they just become rare. Horse buggies are still used, though rarely, steam engines are more hobbies now but still around.

What truly causes a technology to die is when it's kept a secret and all those who know the secret pass away without passing it on (Greek fire, ancient Babylonian batteries, Roman stainless steel). It's the one good argument for having a patent system, to keep that knowledge from being lost.
As a longtime ElasticSearch cluster admin/developer and Elastic Cloud customer, I don't feel bad for Elastic in the slightest and I'm psyched about this fork.

The way they operate their cloud service leaves a lot to be desired and encourages maximum spend if you end up wanting to use it for anything demanding in production.
US Civil Forfeiture – Truck seized at the US border, held for 2 years