skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Some (many? Most?) economists think that this “modern monetary theory” stuff is suicidal. It looks to me like they’re being proven right.

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think that the Fed's actions are based off of a fringe heterodox theory like MMT.

> economics isn’t a hard science where there is some rigid consensus.

Oh, guess that gives you license to make up whatever theory you want then, my bad.

Not going to continue replying.
The rich all competed for assets and it was reflected in asset prices.
> The US has the biggest army by far.

No, it doesn't. Active military China and India are bigger. Active + Reserve military, China, India, Russia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are bigger. Active + Reserve military + Paramilitary, North Korea and Vietnam are bigger.
Except all of those things exist in the wild today - using the enterprise management tools that Apple already provides.

Apple is happy as can be to let enterprise (and schools/gov/etc) force users to install apps.

They just fight tooth and fucking nail to hang onto their rent-seeking in the app store.

As a customer, you're getting fucked twice.
I remember that came up in my income tax class in law school. I don't remember if the professor suggested it as an interesting thing to consider, or if it was in some of the optional supplementary reading he recommended (if so, most likely Chirelstein's book on federal income taxation [1]).

Suppose under a conventional tax system there is some total W available and the government takes 10% of that in taxes. Then you end up with the government has 0.1 W and everyone else has 0.9 W.

The government ends up with 1/10th of the money, and people's purchasing power is reduced by 10%.

If instead of taking 10% of W, the government prints new money equal to 11.11...% of W, increasing the total money to 1.111... W, you end with the government has 0.111... W and everyone else has W.

As with the conventional taxation case, the government ends up with 1/10th of the money, and people's purchasing power is reduced by 10%.

It is just that the 10% reduction in purchasing power comes from prices rising instead of money being directly taken, but at the end of the day it means pretty much the same thing as far as how much you can now buy goes.

The big plus for this approach is that it is ridiculously simple. No need for filings or dealing with collections and handling tax evaders.

A big minus is that constant significant inflation is pretty damned annoying. Merchants have to keep updating prices, employers have to keep raising wages, and you have to keep dealing with larger and larger amounts.

It also probably wouldn't reduce bureaucracy as much as you might hope. Many of the things governments currently encourage or discourage through tax deductions, tax credits, and tax penalties they would still want to do. They'd just have to change to grants and fees/fines.

Still, it is an interesting idea to think about.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Federal-Income-Taxation-Concepts-Insi...
Can we at least expect a mostly or even somewhat right answer after 18 months?
One year working as a Wine hacker
sure my comment was mainly in the context of people like steve jobs and OP who are chasing multi-million dollar deals

but yeah maybe "worship" is the wrong word when i extend it to every job. the fact is whatever our motivations, we still show up to work every single day, and we do it for money.
Coping mechanism for a delta between expectations and reality.
Amazon owns a larger % of the online ecommerce market than Walmart owns of either the brick-and-mortar or ecommerce, which I think is a notable distinction... Amazon is approaching half of all ecommerce sales.

If Walmart is 10% of brick-and-mortar sales it's hard to argue that store brands are too competitive. 90% of that market is not walmart.

When Amazon approaches the majority of all ecommerce sales, it starts to become a bigger problem when they control the marketplace and start to undercut your products.

In general I think the fair thing to do is to make the marketplace distinction (even for store brands, which are often white-labeled third-party generics sold under multiple names anyway). You run the marketplace that allows others to sell their products, or you sell your products directly... you shouldn't be able to coordinate both as one business.
I always figured they stuck with 10 because they wanted to change upgrade cycle/business model, and MacOS is stuck at 10 too so they won’t be “behind.”

Then we got MacOS 11 and, well, here we are.
Yeah, pay attention to the small theft instead of the big theft, like a good worker bee.
> It's fine and valuable to ask about the reasons why inflation is occurring, but the answer does not add or diminish it in the slightest.

Of course it does. Prices going up by 5% rather than the usual 2% over a particular time period is a fluctuation in variables, not a catastrophe. The "why" and "what next" is where the catastrophe might exist. If the central bank doesn't have a clue why it's happening that might be a cause for concern. If the reason why it's happening is because the government's only revenue stream is the printing press, that's a massive problem: the present inflation rate is the tip of the iceberg. If the reason why it's happening is because the central bank which normally keeps inflation at a consistent level has decided to hold off on interest rate rises to prioritise the economy recovering from a pandemic (perhaps also believing the factors driving the inflation are short term), above-usual inflation is a detail, and not even a surprising one.
Or the -phobe suffix. This isn't isolated.
If you're adding IPC mechanisms to a shell script, seriously consider if you should be writing it in a lower level language, like python or go or rust...
I'm french ;)
To me, it seems like there's a failure to differentiate bad-faith skepticism.

There's malicious "I know what I'm saying is a lie / broken argument, but I'm willing to make it because my righteousness / beliefs justify winning." (Fixable with... nothing?)

But there's also ignorant "I don't understand the foundations of this information, and so arrive at an erroneous conclusion." (Fixable with education)

One of the failures of scientific proponents (especially pop scientific proponents) has been to treat the second group as synonymous with the first.
Sounds less like "the community [...] looking out for you" and more you using violence to protect your property.
> There is no benefit to worshiping people from the past.

I'm sure that the Evangelic church that founded this college would disagree with you
Science produces models which can be used to view and predict the world in different ways. The idea that models can represent 'truth' in an absolute way is anti-science, and anti-reality.
You're still being dishonest. If someone pays you to work 9-5 and you don't work those hours you're being dishonest and in breach of contract. It's especially true since he goes out of his way to pretend he's working by playing a black screen video to keep his computer on.

He can try to negotiate something based on output, but what he's doing is a dick move
What is rational? Living till 80 and abstain from many pleasures or living till 70 with heavy indulgence? I don't think we can say that there is a pure rational case to either choice. The axiom is to maximize health here, but it doesn't have to be.

It might also not be a lack of long term planning as abstinence might lead to more regret later.

There are addictions of course which certainly lead to irrational behavior under most definitions.
Here's the problem:

1. Science is a process. If you've ever seen the typical graph explaining the scientific method it's important to note that it's a loop. Science is iterative;

2. I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of falsifiability here as making predictions that can be proven wrong. The essence of scientific theory is to make testable predictions, that is the theory can be used to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. Scientific theories are never proven right per se, at least not without making assumptions. They simply become accepted given enough of a track record of testable predictions and continued failure to find a counterexample;

3. By (2), creationism clearly isn't science. It makes no testable predictions. Efforts to conflate creationism as science continue the long losing trend of religion pitting itself against science (eg Capernicus, Galileo) and it's not science;

4. There are an awful lot of people who don't understand or have no interest in understanding that science is a process and are merely looking for confirmation of what they already believe. These people tend to reject anything that contradicts their world view;

5. In the US in particular, there is a long history of anti-intellectualism that's deeply tied to religion; and

6. Ironically, the people who reject accepted science are typically the most easily manipulated by religious dogma, jingoism or the like; and

7. There are people who are quite willing to manipulate others for financial gain and/or power. It's why every living president, all but ~3 Senators, all but a handful of Congresspeople, all governors and the likes of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are all vaccinated but continue to fan the flames of anti-vaxxers for their own gain.
Nuclear is by far the greenest of energies... Per unit of power produced, it uses less carbon and is far safer than solar or wind power.
How exactly does this practice hurt innovation in products?
> Can I reproduce this comment

Sure.
I'm open to considering alternatives. But if the proposal is some form of central planning, I think the burden is on the proponents to actually have a plan. Pointing out problems isn't the same as having a solution.
The mission statement gives me some psychohistory vibes

>The Venus Project is a non-profit organization that presents a new socio-economic model utilizing science and technology toward social betterment to achieve a sustainable civilization of abundance for all, without exception.

But sadly, nothing of substance to be found upon digging deeper. I came expecting science, but what I found was a t-shirt and book sale.
I properly should buy some amazon stock then..
That wouldn’t be a compromise at all. Once a store was established Apple wouldn’t be able to close it because of anti-trust issues.

Facebook would start a store, data gathering would be built into every app that store sold. Apple would not be able to reject the store itself because Facebook would sue them for anti-competitive behavior.
> But they clearly don't want to antagonise the populace too much.

It's more likely because the government realises that if they started fining people for correctly checking in, but going to the shops twice in a day, is likely to result in them just not checking in at all.

Also, the app doesn't require users to actually verify your name or phone number, so you could just put anyone's details in and they'd start copping fines for your misbehaviour.
OsmAnd has been real hit or miss for me. It definitely has a lot more friction than Google Maps, and sometimes I'm not able to find a destination even with the full address. I want to use it, and I want to support the ecosystem, but damn if it doesn't make it difficult.
Lying to people in some kind of psychological game to manipulate their feelings in the way you're describing is despicable and anyone participating willfully in such bullshit deserves zero respect.

Many scientists and doctors out there are obviously either completely uninterested in the truth or just toadies for the elite, if what you're describing is correct.

If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention.
Which of the big tech companies currently have strong WFH policies?
At least this link says even for first dose it's only 91% and 87%, again, which could be off, yet seems as if it would be accurate.

Again, I don't know. What I've learned this year is that statistics can be very unintuitive and I know so little about how they work, that in uncertain times like these, I almost feel reliant on choosing someone to trust who I think understands this stuff better than I.
They reason they are thriving is this doctrinal view of science where anything that gets published is holy gospel.

It opens up for these fringe movements is to present themselves as scientific, since they too have papers they can point to, and arguments that mirror the form of the scientific establishment.

The way to beat them is to be very clear about the limitations of science, and stop trying to misrepresent it as having a larger degree of certainty than it has. Science is demonstrably wrong sometimes, especially early research like the stuff that was circulating in the beginning of the C19-pandemic, and to make matters worse, a large part of science is dedicated to identifying instances where science is wrong.

That clashes with the official message is "trust the science" and makes devastating ammunition for undermining its credibility, especially nowadays when it is very easy to go back and check what claims were made in the past against which claims are made today.
This is insightful. Thanks
Browser based hardware design tool Flux raises $12M
Speaking of trusting science, I have a bone to pick with the "soft" sciences like psychology, and sociology.

These sciences are much more open to interpretation than, say, physics. Yet people will link research papers in these fields and push them as 100% fact without thinking critically about these papers.

Let's say that your paper claims "X reduces negative behaviors in children such as aggression". In my experience on Reddit and Hacker News, people will link papers like this and claim you are anti-science for questioning anything.

Yet there are some important questions that should be answered like:

"How do you even measure aggression?"

"Did X also reduce assertiveness (which is linked to aggression)?"

"Is aggression always a negative behavior? Who decided this was an appropriate classification?"

"Holistically, is this a better outcome overall or were there drawbacks to doing X?"

It's to the point where I have serious doubts about the validity of papers in soft science fields. Unless of course your paper measures something directly like serotonin levels.
Swapping the file is as easy as running "mv ./evil_binary ./savefile".

This is all happening in the home directory. evil_binary can written using "echo -n -e"

You can take as much time as you want to do the swap. tcpdump will only run the log-rotate program you specified after the time limit you specified has passed.

I find it baffling that you think this is a complicated exploit. It's literally the first thing I thought of, and I'm just a random programmer. A real attacker would have a lot more tricks up their sleeve and all the time in the world to google solutions to problems like this. Does your threat model assume that the attacker doesn't know how to use a terminal?
I would say we shouldn't trust institutions on just the fact that they are an institution (elite, other credentialized thing/person). That people will/should build trust based on demonstratable answers to the questions they have. If it's based on credentialing, then we'll end up with people choosing which credentialed person to believe... and taking veterinarian ivermectin because some figure they trust told them too.

In general, I think questioning (within reason) government and other institutions helps weed out bad policy and hold them accountable.
Inflation currently is only relevant for those that cannot borrow cheaply. If you can borrow cheaply ( i.e. below inflation rate ), borrow and buy assets.
I think it's pretty a humorous method of stating what many progressives have been saying for some time: Being a billionaire is inherently immoral. That you simply cannot accumulate that much wealth without underpaying or overcharging others.

I think the creator is aware that stock holdings are not legally bound to the income tax rate. That's not the point of the simulation. The point is that the rich have vehicles for their wealth that normal people don't have access to. The point is also that there are pressing, permanent problems in our society that cost less to fix than a quarter of the wealth of one person in our country.
Taking a book and randomly swapping words means you are introducing noise. This is high-entropy and really it's outside the scope of what I'm comfortable speculating on.

Image data is much simpler to think about in this paradigm, but the obvious AI applications of natural language are of course fascinating.
I do not see why people should reduce trust in CDC/FDA/FTC/USDA/other civil agencies because a writer for a blog or publication makes an error.
Cleanup Matching Cloudformation Stacks
The issue is, and the reason I submitted this article is dopamine is being grossly misrepresented as the tangible enjoyable feeling from an activity ex: "dopamine squirt" in so many articles these days.
All Things Dynamodb
I agree with you in the abstract level you're operating on, but in the two cases I know of where the slogan "trust the science" is applied (vaccine safety/efficacy and global warming), the claims about the opinions of scientists are mostly true and the question is whether the studies are right. The big studies do say that the vaccine is effective, and they do say that global warming is real, and you don't have to trust the Institutions(tm) because, well, you can read the studies yourself.

Disclaimer: I have not read anywhere near every news article published on either topic, and if you want to make the case that the media is presenting a consensus different from scientist's, that would be worth looking in to.
Only Apollo 8, 10, and 11 were flown on free return trajectories. Subsequent missions (quoting Wikipedia)

> used a hybrid trajectory that launched to a highly elliptical Earth orbit that fell short of the Moon with effectively a free return to the atmospheric entry corridor. They then performed a mid-course maneuver to change to a trans-Lunar trajectory that was not a free return.[5] This retained the safety characteristics of being on a free return upon launch and only departed from free return once the systems were checked out and the lunar module was docked with the command module, providing back-up maneuver capabilities. In fact, within hours after the accident, Apollo 13 used the lunar module to maneuver from its planned trajectory to a circumlunar free-return trajectory. Apollo 13 was the only Apollo mission to actually turn around the Moon in a free-return trajectory (however, two hours after perilune, propulsion was applied to speed the return to Earth by 10 hours and move the landing spot from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-return_trajectory
You are still putting trust into the fact that the groups/experimenters are actually independent. Unless you have personally verified every experiment, you are still putting trust into the fact that others have done the work as they claim. What you are doing is being _pragmatic_ about your trust. You have a level of trust that is acceptable.

The reality is that we all are trusting "science" to one degree or another. I absolutely agree that all experiments should be repeatable and independently verifiable, but in the real world science (in my opinion) very much depends on trust. We don't all have time to verify every experiment.
You are correct. Much of his personal wealth is equity in his companies, primarily Amazon. That’s tied up in Amazon’s business, not a piggy bank, and leaving that money in Amazon does leave it subject to rises and falls in the market valuation of Amazon. Realizing those gains from his initial investment and any subsequent personal investments in Amazon, or cashing out means selling on the market; and the act of selling on the market has an effect on the selling price on the market, particularly the bigger the sale.

Jeff Bezos has never earned $156B in income in his life, but on paper he could by selling everything he owns. On paper at least.
So is backprop a property or not?

> Back propagation etc isn’t a property of a NN it’s a means to generate a NN.

You are the one claiming it isnt
If the history books haven't been completely falsified, it would seem that it has raised hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty.
I would encourage everyone to check out Thomas Sowell's 'Basic Economics', in which he lays out why centrally-planned economies are terrible at allocating scarce resources which have alternative uses.
This is a swing and a miss.

While I agree insulin prices are way too high and the government allows Big Pharma to profit off death and the taxpayer, this is really nothing to do with science and all to do with the legislation around intellectual property that, for example, prevents the import of cheaper and equivalent substitutes from Canada and elsewhere.
Nvidia’s StyleGAN3 Is Fully Equivariant to Translation and Rotation
A very timely submission!

I've been looking into performance optimizations on heterogeneous multicore systems and much of what I've seen published recently on Arxiv seems to point to tasks, their granularity and their scheduling as increasingly important.

This book mentions but doesn't spend a lot of space on these subjects. It will be very interesting to see how it all evolves.
>"End homelessness in the United States (-$20 billion)"

Wow! Someone tell congress. $20 billion is nothing to those folks. The solution was here all along!

Were it so easy...
Is progress really made in the social sciences? Any evidence for that? Lets say within the past 20 years.
> Does it mean that we should tax wealth? Absolutely not.

I'm not so sure. Maybe we should. Wealth hording is a real issue. I'm at least open to the idea.

I agree with the rest of your comment.
Simple: remind them that one group of people are scientists, and the other aren’t.

Economics isn’t a hard science. The system is too complex to create theories and test them, so every theory is tested in the production environment of the (usually poor) peoples lives that these things effect.

And hey wouldn’t you know: the rich elites who make up the economists who propose these absurd ideas like “velocity of money” also end up being in the same class as the ones who make billions or trillions of dollars off of their economic theories.
Because the engineering design doesn’t just prioritize cars it fundamentally presumes cars. If the result is something unsafe:

1) they will use individual responsibility arguments on drivers to blame them

2) blame pedestrians or cyclists or whoever for failing to defer to cars

It’s not a legality problem it’s a philosophy one.
Paid versions of GPL software being sold on Microsoft Store
> Over the past four years, Android
devices were found to have
15 to 47 times more malware
infections than iPhone.

This reminds me of the NSO and Apple's history of failing to cooperate with security researchers.
If sideloading "were possible" and "forced upon users by schools and jobs" then I'd find it interesting that Android users by far haven't complained about this. I used to use an Android device and never had anyone force or tell me to sideload an app that I didn't want to use myself.

I've actually had to install more apps through the Play and App Store for my education and work.

All this said - my current iPhone 6s will be derelict soon and replaced by a de-googled Android device in the future.
To me, the evidence is that much of the inflation remains due to supply chain issues.

If you look at things like shelter, which shouldn't be impacted by supply chain, the prices are up - but still substantially below what they would be based on the pre-pandemic trend.