skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The amount of waste and craziness, inequity, and straight out maliciousness that I've personally witnessed at the upper and upper-middle layers of large companies is reminiscent of most resource-extraction-oriented small countries (banana republics). They are not efficient or pleasant.

There's a reason small companies outperform them and are a threat to them and why they focus so hard on regulatory capture to prevent competition.
As opposed to the people trespassing into "my" store and physically removing "my" property?

(I'm not a shop owner)
All this will accomplish is people that wear "I believe in science" shirts will instead wear "I believe in the scientific method" shirts but unless there's an actual behavioral change, all you've done is add a bit more ink to a piece of cotton. The message is good but if it isn't accompanied by an actual behavioral change, it's worthless.
I'm an Austrian myself, and that's an interesting take on MMT I hadn't considered. I'll have to noodle on that one for a bit.
I can't quite tell if you are being sarcastic. I also can't quite settle on what is more concerning, if you are serious it implies that you think economists are just ranchers that herd their cattle at a whim, or that you think they will be able to exert those powers flawlessly and in self-less ways without screwing it up like all other instances of command/planned economies in human history.
Has the field actually acknowledged the replication crisis and made efforts to fix it for the future? If not the field didn't progress at all, it was just sceptic outsiders who learned something about the field not the people who "trust the science".
>"Do you think there is no moral limit to the amount of wealth one person can have in society, while millions around him suffer?"

This is an intriguing premise. My personal answer is 'no'. This is because I see this as a personal value judgement and not something that can be applied as a moral standard. It is analogous to the question of taxation and what counts as "someone's fair share", because you will never get an agreement as to what constitutes a "fair share" of someone's income. We can certainly agree that people should contribute something via taxes, but we will never arrive at a satisfactory rate of fairness.

Compounding the problem is the second part of the question, "while millions around him suffer". Maybe I'm just too influenced by Buddhist philosophy, but I see suffering as an inescapable aspect of life itself. It could be said that my personal wealth, as modest as it may be for a middle class American, is of a similar magnitude of inequality to the average Burundian citizen. In practical terms, I'm basically a billionaire compared to the world's most impoverished individuals.
Finally, C64 GEOS running at acceptable speeds? That might be an interesting thing to try...
Not to mention that this pop science article does plenty of essentializing on its own...

Particularly when it laughs off the entire concept of individuals feeling their own dopamine levels before describing a series of commonly prescribed drugs to inhibit or encourage it... The author can't imagine people noticing the effects of their own psychs?
Tried to draw sheep, but it sees cat...
I would provide another source besides this channel but unfortunately it seems that the more mainstream media has not yet been sharing footage on Australia's descent into tyranny over the last year and a half. If you have any doubts on the true extent of the tyranny that is unfolding in Australia, you can look through my comment history. But for convenience I will copy and paste some links. Read these and consider if this is the future you want to leave for your children.

They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...

They're arresting people for making Facebook posts against lockdowns. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824

Australia presumes to say how many people can visit your home. Source:

https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-are-coming-to-...

“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”

They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53316097
They were never going to do that. The September keynote is always about iPhones.
I'd defer to the OP to state what they really meant, but your response comes across more as a trivial semantic "gotcha" than an actual reasoned response.* If you actually think they meant raising rates by a trivial amount, even though history doesn't indicate that is a tack likely taken, then, yes, you are technically correct.

*Since you are a self-described consequentialist, it may be just that you feel what was stated is all that matters and not what was intended
> 2) open new tab is not handled maybe, i am not sure what the problem is

If you middle click (or right click > Open in new tab) a link on HN then it'll open that link in a new tab. Loads of SPAs break this and it's really annoying if you're used to using it. I'm not sure if Phoenix live navigation helpers break it or not, do you know?
Interesting, thank you for highlighting that. Is there an easy way to get context like this (e.g. a browser extension?) or do you check the talk/history tab?
Can you list countries in which this type of person doesn't exist?
I make no comment about the wisdom of this particular idea. I'm only objecting to what you said about "incentives".
This only applies in the very limited scenario where you personally own the shares. What's to stop someone from setting up a trust, shell company or similar and then giving them all of the "wealth" while maintaining a controlling interest? From there, the individual simply extracts what they need when they need to. We're basically back to the original scenario only with more steps added in between.

I assume there isn't going to be an argument against companies "hording wealth."
I think that there is great software that is available on separate app stores as third parties but to be honest your perspective is truly the issue .

The primary purpose of sideloading apps is to get the app downloaded and play it for free. This in turn creates a security problem when you allow for anyone to side load apps.

We can see this in Windows and macOS where people who have full access to a computer generally get malware onto their computers.

What macOS and even Windows is moving torward is a containerized system for programs to run. This is going to be the best solution eventually. This is at the cost of performance (especially Windows which sees a 30 percent drop in gaming performance ).

I think to allow external app stores would be a vetting service and also Apple would have to create a sandbox for the apps and also possibly some analysis to make sure that the side loaded apps aren’t just someone’s else’s stolen video game. Unfortunately until some kind of law is done Apple has no incentive to actually allow this to occur.
such great news for engineers!
As a recovered depressed person who went on SSRIs and through therapy to recover, this is nonsense.

A depressed person’s view is completely warped from reality. One of the key parts of cognitive behavioral therapy is slowly training yourself out of horribly inaccurate views about yourself and the world.
Money supply, velocity, and GDP growth*

Just wanted to add, if all else is held equal amount those factors, growth in gdp, without and subsequent changes in the money supply or velocity, would lead to deflation.
> deficits are the primary driver of inflation rather than changes in the money supply

MMT "theorists" will say different things every time you ask them.

I doubt many of them would say this though, because it's pretty obviously on-face wrong.
I'm generally in agreement with you about those two cases as well, but it's hard to ask the public to "trust the science" in those cases when "the science" (i.e., epistemological institutions) don't seem trustworthy more broadly.

Moreover, my understanding of the actual science (and it's hard to say for certain because again, science is complicated and institutions distort) is that natural immunity performs at least as well as vaccine immunity (and maybe even quite a lot better), but a lot of people are (perhaps understandably) upset at "vaccine passport" policies which don't make exemptions for the naturally immune. Moreover, "the science" i.e., the media, governments, etc seem (or at least seemed--I haven't kept up with the issue recently and perhaps the media has finally picked it up?) very reluctant to talk about the merits of natural immunity. So even in what seemed like a slam-dunk, happy path where "the science" and the actual science seemed to align, the picture seems plausibly distorted. :(
It's really at a Twitter mob level of financial understanding. Which is to say it only understands to the degree that it generates outrage.
And carpet bombing traffic lights everywhere isn't really an answer even aside from cost. When some new retail went in near me, a bunch of traffic lights were added. To be clear, the adjacent interstate exchange was a really lousy intersection at busy times of the day. But the mass of street lights now make a straight shot through the intersections about a 5-10 minute process to go maybe a quarter mile.
> As I understand your claim, for teachers uniquely

No, that is not my claim.

My claim is that the summary numbers at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28823492 , which purport to demonstrate that teachers are being paid at roughly market rates, is invalid. [1]

I don't claim anything unique or radically different about teachers.

[1] To wit: the analysis shows equal earnings, but 1) doesn't show equal time, 2) doesn't show that the earnings are only from teaching over 10 months, and 3) doesn't factor in the teachers with a MS degree or higher.

> Do you have quantification for this claim of involuntary uncompensated labor?

I do not know what "involuntary uncompensated" means. I do not know how to categorize when off-school-grounds work is "catchup work due to unproductive workers" or due to some other factor. I do not see how those terms are meaningful.

At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28825539 I linked to https://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_ful... which says "teachers work an average of 10 hours and 40 minutes a day, three hours and 20 minutes beyond the average required work day in public schools nationwide".

Different sources give different times, and I am not able to tell how to interpret all of the sources. Eg, if a teacher works in an office job over summer, is that income counted in the total annual income to the median teacher? And are the time estimates similarly adjusted?
> End homelessness in the United States (-$20 billion)

The problem with this way of thinking is: we've already spent this amount of money on ending homelessness. California plans on spending $4.8 billion next year [1]. HUD has a budget of around $2.7 billion [2]. In 2019, the City of New York spent $3.2 billion [3]. I haven't bothered to do a full accounting of how much we've spent on homelessness over the past 5 years, but from those three data points it seems safe to extrapolate we've spent over $20 billion. This is also in the context of the larger War on Poverty, which has spent an estimated $15 trillion since the program started in the 1960's [4]. It seems that simply throwing money at problems is insufficient.

> "The options are stark reminders of public good we forsake in refusing to redistribute wealth." - Newsweek

One could just as easily make a game that did something similar with the US government's budget. The overall budget is something like $4 Trillion. Just the annual interest payments are on the order of $250 Billion. If we had a more fiscally responsible approach to budgeting and therefore didn't have to make interest payments, according to that game we could "repair Puerto Rico," "hire 100,000 new teachers," and "end homeless in the United States." We already redistribute wealth on a grand scale.

It's also not like the wealth of billionaires is just in a Scrooge McDuck-style money vault that they swim in all day, nor are they like Smaug, holed up in a cave sitting on vast amounts of gold and precious stones. The wealth is invested in various things, which in turn serve the public good.

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-16/californ...
2. https://endhomelessness.org/ending-homelessness/policy/feder...
3. https://datalab.usaspending.gov/homelessness-analysis/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty
What science should we not be trusting?

All of it? Some things and not others? Which things? Which others? Do I take your word for it? Do I not take your word for it? Do you see how I've watched 'Reading Rainbow' in questioning you like this?
> Owner-operated pharmacies have been out of business for decades.

Check out anywhere in the US more than 100 miles from an Ocean
"Trust the Science" is the product of well funded social scientists who leveraged focus groups to determine the phrase effectively targeted people who already align themselves with the myriad of establishment pitch men - Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Trevor Noah, et al. Same as (ironically) "My body, my choice."

"Trust the Science" is merely a proxy for "Believe in and defend the Neoliberal agenda against scientific criticism".

If you're still uncritical of it, you might want to start reading the science.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

"At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases..."
I wrote a few websites with it, notably:

https://github.com/swlkr/janetdocs

I also scraped together a large web framework and a small one:

https://github.com/joy-framework/joy
https://github.com/swlkr/osprey
It's more complicated than that. Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. They do honest work within the constraints of their profession.

As an example, take covid antibody studies. It is interesting and useful to learn how covid vaccines elicit antibody production. OTOH, the immune system is not limited to antibodies. Extrapolating long-term immunity conclusions from an antibody study is unwarranted. Alas, the scientists performing antibody studies don't have the resources to perform long term studies. This creates an over-abundence of antibody studies, which are cheap and likely to produce measurable results. These studies are then used as incontrovertible evidence that 'science says' there is no such thing as natural immunity, and even if it were, vaccines are much better.
Maybe I'm wrong - and this is merely my personal opinion - but I think this article is pointing towards the common "pitfalls" of life. And how a person can coerce themselves to be happy despite there being so much injustice in the world.

It's quite easy to be depressed about things like financial inequality, conscious pollution of the planet, relationships. Not because those things are lacking or in excess, but because they often govern our surroundings.

I've had my fair share of depressive slumps myself. I made mistakes in my late teens, and then in mid 20s also (although they didn't seem like mistakes at the time), but it doesn't necessarily give me a very strong sense of realism.

And perhaps this is anecdotal, but it's quite rare to meet a genuinely happy person.
> The ratio decreased due to GDP growth and inflation.

Inflation, the magic silver bullet that makes a countrys' debt disappear.

At whose expense is of course the question.
Yeah, the transition period is sure to be awkward. Lots of places these take orders at the till, and if you need anything more, you walk back up to the till. I prefer not to be waited on hand & foot, personally. But many restaurants haven't fully adopted this model, so they and their customers are going to experience some friction until a new normal settles in.
whats it say i cna't read it
The wealth tax is a bad tax, but it's trying to fix a bad monetary system.

When the Fed only cares about inflation and doesn't care at all about wealth inequality effect of lowered velocity, you get exactly what you incentivize.

The Fed lowers interest rates. The wealthy take out loans. The wealthy buy assets with the money from those loans. The values of assets goes up. As the wealthy assets are now up, they are free to take out another loan... as all new money was just piled into markets and isn't consumed the velocity goes down, and therefore the inflation rate goes down. As the inflation rate went down... the Fed lowers interest rates.

The true way to solve this issue is by having a constant velocity of the money supply. If you don't give Congress the tools to fix the monetary system, their only option is a hack.
Yeah.... that was a surprising amount of joy to play around with for quite a while!
Neither "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" nor "TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" stores a time zone. The difference is in the meaning of the value: a "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" value represents an absolute time in history; "TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" represents a time relative to some unspecified time zone.

The types are so named because values of type "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" are always displayed with a time zone (corresponding to the system's time zone) -- and the numeric value adjusted accordingly -- so the time they represent is unambiguous. Values of type "TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" are displayed as-is without a time zone.

The types behave differently when used with the "AT TIME ZONE" operator as well, which converts between the two. When presented with a "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" value, "AT TIME ZONE" returns a "TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" value which numerically is equal to the time in the specified time zone. When presented with a "TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" value, "AT TIME ZONE" interprets the given time as relative to the indicated time zone, and returns a "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" value representing that absolute point in time.

Consequently, in cases where you would use UTC in other systems, you should use "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE" in PostgreSQL. In cases where you would use a local time in other systems, you should use "TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE" along with a "text" value naming the local time zone when appropriate.
I’m loading this on my iPhone. It’s completely unreadable unless I manually switch to reader mode. Why can’t Apple fix Safari to make sites like this render at humane font sizes? They literally control how it renders.
> Researchers and scientists are absolutely not elites. However, they almost exclusively rely on the ruling class for their funding, for their platforms, for their careers, and thus they become de facto toadies of the elite.

You’re confusing economic class and social class. PhDs might not be rich, but they have a much elevated social status compared to the vast majority of the populace.
I think the most salient part of this is the remarking that being a billionaire is immoral.

I don't think being a billionaire is necessarily immoral, but I definitely think it's incredibly difficult to do so without being immoral. I think the closest examples I can think of are people who weren't even trying to become wealthy - I doubt anyone whose goal was to make fat stacks of cash would, for instance, start writing young adult fiction on napkins in a pub in Britain, or start writing a voxel-based crafting game in Java. And unfortunately even these two individuals aren't remotely close to paragons of virtue.

That said, I think the biggest sin of Jeff Bezos' is just being complicit in the whole system that keeps our tax code a disaster. I would feel a lot better about the wealthy, and mega corporations, if I felt like they were appropriately paying for the community resources they use, for example:

* public universities and education that educate (and train, to some degree) their workforce
* public services that cultivate the kind of safe and secure society that allows people to focus on things that aren't subsistence or physical security
* infrastructure that makes their existence possible - roads their employees drive on, DMVs that their employees register their vehicles at, water systems their employees drink at both work and home, power systems that provide stable electricity, etc etc etc
* And it's not just your employees, it's your customers too. If we didn't have all of the above, people would have a lot less psychological, financial, and physical safety to need anything Amazon sells.
* And something that I think really goes under-noticed: the world's best-regulated, safest, most reliable, most well-understood, and most liquid securities market. Both private and public. So much goes into making all of that crap (I say this semi-affectionately as someone who used to work in the sector) work, and it's where an enormous percentage of both these companies weath both lives and came from.

I think you see where I'm going with this. All of the wealth that's generated here is entirely predicated on, and a product of, this incredible foundation we've built collectively as a society. And the bigger you are, the more wealth you generate, the more of this system you've taken advantage of in one way or another (with some of the secret sauce of these companies being that their employees and company take a relatively small amount of it, while their reach scales to so many more customers, that they disproportionately (compared to other companies) take advantage of huge swathes of the customer side of "benefiting from the social foundation".

This is the main thing that irks me. They would be nothing without all of this, and yet they can use their wealth to skirt out of paying their fair share, even though it really seems to me that paying their fair share - paying back into the system they benefitted from - is probably better for them in the long run (50+ years) as they'll have more educated employees, more stable customers, and so on. It's a giant feedback loop that they're short-sightedly intentionally not paying back into.
It depends on where on the spectrum you arbitrarily decide is the cutoff point for depression. The causality in the title may be reversed though. I think rational people tend to be less happy because they are less able to participate in the mass delusions that give the average person happiness, such as certain religions (God, king of kings, loves you; the afterlife is going to be nirvana, etc) to give one example.
Linux’s Rocky Road to Rolling Releases
(Not a lisp guy).

What is an image and why would I want to run one? My best guess is that an image would be platform independent bytecode vs compiled executable?
Well, if the "free market" wants to create unique, hand-crafted nuclear power plants, with generally inexperienced workers... While the government's alternative is something between a production line and cookie-cutter tract houses, with experienced workers... Then duh. Not hard to figure out which one has an overwhelming advantage.
It doesn't seem to work for me - you draw a shape and then it returns some completely unrelated images. You then pick one of those images and try to draw it as closely as possible and then it returns a completely unrelated image again.
Xenia, the Other Linux Mascot
Maybe, but couldn't they let me set my own server and not hit a predefined time server without asking me?
Optimal Control for Switched Systems
Completely ignoring that we spend 2+ trillion on welfare in USA yearly ( if you include Medicaid ), albeit only hundreds of billions on housing.