skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> ... if you try to cut the money printer (without taking some.huge debt), you have to squash the deficit ...

Right. Governments would have to do sound budgeting.

But people who advocate for a balanced budget typically get laughed out of the room.

The way I see it, the real reason why governments most often need ever increasing debt-based budgets is: a growing proportion of the circulating money gets continuously redirected into (and by) the financial sector which puts most of the money in the hands of say the richest 10 %. Because these rich people know best how to avoid/minimize taxation this leads to a lack of tax revenue for the government.

Which in turn compels governments to seek other ways to remain capable of acting (deciding how much money for what is one of the key ways of acting out political decisions for every government).
So in order to still be able to act, there's only two possibilities left: A) taking on more debt. B) raising taxes. The latter is spectacularly unpopular with most voters (even though additional taxation ought to hit the most wealthy anyway) so it's hardly surprising that most governments prefer taking on more debt.
Usually it works "well" because with today's mainstream opinion it's seen as almost natural to take on more debt, whenever big expenses need to be taken care of. Hardly anyone questions the principle, except for Austrian economics proponents, who aren't really taken seriously.
It is unfeasible. The reason money works is because it is an abstraction for someone's production of value that is way easier than bartering for everything. physical labor, skilled labor, educated thinking, management, knowledge transfer... anything that is valuable to someone else.

If you just pay people to sit on their asses, many of them are just going to sit on their asses, creating nothing, simply consuming resources. The host (civilized society) cannot survive when everyone is a leech.
There are a lot fewer bespoke parts than you might think. Creating new molds is expensive and if you look closer you'll see that odd shapes are reused for different purposes in different sets.
Perhaps I'm just old (31), but when I started web developed this was frontend development.
Teacher training and Masters Degrees both involve a roughly-similar amount of coursework. I think someone once used it as an analogy and it stuck too well.
How would hardware attest to the game server that the player cannot see through walls, and that their aim is not nudged (subtly or overtly) in the direction of enemy faces? Keeping in mind that the cheater has full control over the software running on their computer, so they can decide what to send to the server. Also the cheater doesn't need to alter the game itself, they could access the game memory and implement their aimbot by having a clever mouse-driver.
When more work is automated the same amount of work is completed with less humans doing it. Currently that means that normal people make less money, but it doesn't have to be that way. Wealth distribution could remain the same as more things are automated. A lot of people believe we passed the point where the country makes enough money from a small enough number of people that they could re-distribute it as it used to be.

A lot of people also believe that a huge percentage of society is engaging in "bullshit" jobs because there isn't enough real work that needs to be done.
I got bored. This is an article style I really don’t like, the interesting information is buried towards the end after thousands of mostly irrelevant bits of narrative which aren’t worth remembering.

I can guess the ending though, technical guy sees psychologists appropriating a well defined mathematical structure, doing some hand waving, and claiming that it applies to your everyday life in a shallow way. Guy is hero.

Yes, psychology is absolutely full of bad science and bad scientists. Lots of fields are, but particularly psychology.
This is a good quote:

> “One could describe a team’s interactions as ‘sparky’ and conﬁdently predict that their emotions would be subject to the same laws that govern the dielectric breakdown of air under the inﬂuence of an electric ﬁeld. Alternatively, the interactions of a team of researchers whose journal articles are characterized by ‘smoke and mirrors’ could be modeled using the physics of airborne particulate combustion residues, combined in some way with classical optics"
and Evans is system focused
The fewer people who understand these complexities, the more money those who do make :)
Kagi Search
> with one specific issue.

It's not any old issue though. It's an existential one.
I've recently become interested in radio, despite having no background in any form of engineering or any other STEM discipline. I crammed for my Technical, but am slowing down to try to actually learn the field well before taking my General. It's fascinating, but the learning curve for me is sharp. It reminds me of when I dove face-first into GNU/Linux and Emacs in my twenties. That was a thrill, but I had a lot more time to dedicate to it. I suppose in my life I keep being drawn to these vertiginous technical challenges that don't become fun until you absorb a fair amount of knowledge: audio production, Unix, Emacs, roguelikes, SuperCollider, Chess, Go. Guess I like a challenge :)
Show HN: Koda, a typesafe functional toolkit for Python
Wow, management theorists have more to answer for than I thought!
> Blocks hide in the carpet until you are walking around barefoot in the dark. The pain of stepping on a a sharp Lego piece is not easily forgotten.

My first parenting superpower was the ability to step softly on Lego bricks. If I'm in a serious hurry, I'll even grip the thing with my foot and keep walking.
As I understand it, adding fpm doesn't change the "shared nothing architecture" as each request is isolated from the other. There is no application server that can potentially store state between requests.
> The serious cheats in competitive games these days don't rely on hacking the game anymore.

This may be true for a class of cheats, but it isn't broadly true. That means these category of cheats can only enhance what is already visible.

In FPS games, being able to see players position through walls is a super valuable cheat _and_ requires access to the underlying game engine (to extract player location).
You cut most of our bureaucratic social safety net (food stamps, disability, social security, etc) and replace it with a system where everyone gets enough for the bare basics. If you were smart, you'd fund it with a carbon tax.

In all honesty I don't see UBI becoming a thing until we start automating ourselves into unemployment. People say this would increase inflation. Maybe. Let's trial it with 1% of the population and find out.
What a strange piece.

Putting the reader in the master's perspective certainly is a choice.

It fails to investigate that almost anyone in its ostensible audience of corporate managers is both a "master" and "slave" (mangers have managers).

An incredibly grim takeaway as well. It acknowledges the exploitation in both systems, but doesn't ask you to do anything about it or interrogate it deeper. There's no way that you're being exploited, just the poor saps that work for you. It's not wrong to exploit, just honest.
> …people start calling those who say they don’t want to work at all are infiltrators meant to discredit the sub.

This is one of the most frustrating things I see on HN and reddit. People dismiss large parts of the community as infiltrators and bots and paid shills and astroturfers. I’d bet that for every bot/infiltrator/whatever there’s a thousand times more actual humans dismissed as bot/infiltrator/whatever.

There’s literally no way to further dehumanize someone else’s thoughts than to say that they aren’t real people presenting real thoughts.
They do, and its caused them a lot of headache, probably was a mistake. If they would have at least used something like C#/Java/Go (go didn't exist at the time) they might not have had to do time-slowdowns to make large battles possible.

Then again maybe it would have slowed down development and never gotten off the ground at all!
Equifax finalizes data breach settlement with US regulators
I don't think the majority of steam deck users will bother installing windows on it. But it'll very much depend on the state of SteamOS 3.0 and proton.

In any way, it's a good think that you can install Windows on it. Finally being able to buy fancy bespoke hardware that isn't dependent on some cloudshit makes me happy.
Another vote for this. I purchased a framework to replace a surface product and have been really happy with it running windows 10 ltsc. My only beef is that it lost a lot of battery life while in suspend. For a regular consumer this would be unacceptable, I tinkered and eventually just gave up and have it hibernate with the lid closed. Also the surface dock with it's magnetic connector spoiled me.
Why can I vote for more than one choice?
From my own experience, and the discussions I had with my peers, the specific term "defund" does not imply advocating redistribution. I sense that in the vernacular "defund" means to stop paying for something and the implication is you are getting rid of whatever is no longer being funded. Defund also tends to be used for line-items and programs rather than organizations and departments, which adds to the confusion.
I'm sure you could find some folks in the world who would support that for any protest, but most just want the Ottawan ones to stop honking, stop blocking, stop whining, achieve their political ends via democratic means, vs. by force, and suck it up when they're unable to convince enough people to subscribe to their newsletter.
Seeing 403 forbidden - not sure if too much HN traffic or they blocked access from outside the US

Edit: requesting Desktop site from mobile works. I guess they redirect mobile devices to a 403 screen? That is an interesting design decision...
There's a similar idiom in a couple different languages. The French supposedly say 'avoir le beurre et l’argent du beurre' (have the butter and the money from [selling] the butter), and I once recalled hearing that there was a Spanish idiom along the lines of having a chicken in both the pot and in the yard, but alas I'm not able to find that phrase.
It is internet lingo and I would not recommend using it contexts other than describing internet events/drama. Even in that context, I personally would only use it carefully while quoting someone else. It does not create productive conversations as it automatically casts the opposite party as "insane".

See also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2021/02/20/its-ti...
Uber's story is actually very rational.

When Uber started, we all thought it was a winner-takes-all market. The theory went something like this:

1. The more drivers are on a given platform, the more value users will derive from the platform in the form of cheaper rides, shorter waits, etc. This will result in more riders.

2. The more riders are on a platform, the more value drivers will derive in the form of higher utilization and more overall income.

3. Therefore, all drivers and riders will naturally gravitate to the winning platform. It's a winner takes all market. QED.

Honestly, at the time (and I'm old enough to remember that time), the theory made sense. But it was wrong.

The reason the theory was wrong is that there is actually zero cost for drivers in having multiple apps open at the same time. The switching cost is zero (actually, it's negative--we'll get to that in a second). And so point (3) doesn't happen.

The reason switching cost is negative is that it actually costs money to start driving (and to convince people to become drivers). People quit jobs, and get/fix cars, and invest in a bluetooth headset, whatever. So Uber was actually subsidizing every other platform's drivers.

So instead of an extremely defensible market you end up with a race to the bottom, with no barriers to competition.

While in retrospect the mistake and dynamics are obvious, at the time it seemed like a reasonable, risky, ambitious bet.

At some point these dynamics became obvious to Uber, which is when they started investing in self driving cars (never gonna work), uber eats, etc.
And those same people would happily call for legislation to defund sanctuary cities, defund education, defund planned parenthood, defund medicaid, with the full understanding that the proposals aren't intended to wipe those things from the face of the earth.
Sure, but I would argue that if the goal is to reduce car dependence (not just for some cycling enthusiasts, but among the general population), separate cycle lanes are a must. After all, to lure drivers out of their cars, cycling must not only be minimally feasible, but actually attractive (i.e. safe and convenient).

Consider also the fact that Dutch cycling infrastructure hasn't always existed: it's a result of decades of focused policy. For example, consider this road (in front of busy Den Haag HS railway station) in the '80s vs. now: https://www.denhaagfietst.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/head...

On the other hand, London compensates for its lack of cycling infrastructure with its excellent transit, which is commendable.
Precisely. I used to live in NYC, and didn't have a car there because it was expensive, inconvenient, and generally not worth the effort.

Moved cities, and now I try to walk/bike everywhere locally, only using the car on weekends when I want to go 50+ miles from home. There's issues sometimes (my city's bike and pedestrian infrastructure is... not ideal), but I do prefer this situation to feeling completely trapped in NYC.

Curious if you have any recommendations for "old suburbs" like where you live -- that's precisely the kind of environment my partner and I are looking for. I know there are some in the suburbs of Boston, but it's really tricky to try to find those places because in my experience walkability scores don't really mean anything.
Our society does not learn from the past. And the nature of man doesn't change.
> I received bittersweet news in late August that I did get an offer but I'd be downleveled from senior to mid. The reasoning for this wasn't my performance in the technical interviews, it wasn't based on my answers to soft questions, and it wasn't that I had a bunch of non-CS experience, it was because I didn't have enough years of experience in tech-specific jobs.

Looking at the Shopify Jobs page[0], I see they pretty much only list openings for Senior level positions.

I think people are missing the tactic here (which a lot of companies seem to do) of only listing experienced positions to keep people with no experience from applying, but not necessarily only hiring for Senior positions.

[0]https://www.shopify.com/careers/search
> This seems like really deep technology.

That it is!

> What is the one sentence describing who would use this and why though?

Today's market structure costs institutional investors (and by extension households) at least a trillion dollars annually (and Smart Markets hold the potential to eliminate that loss).
I like the keyboard, but my hope is they will just have an alternative keyboard one can swap in.
Unfortunately, this is a dark pattern used by almost every website that has a banner. The “default” button is a “ignore my selection and accept all” as opposed to just being “save my current selection”.
The ideal way would be to pass a national Land Value Tax, and use the proceeds to fund UBI. The country has plenty of money, but it's all accumulating to landlords. An LVT is the most effective way to both moderate the excesses of the wealthy and continuously fund a social safety net. It would also let you eliminate most other forms of social safety and taxation, since Land/Natural Resources are the greatest stores of value.
Hah, let me just chime in with a recent TS error that almost drove me nuts[1]:

Type 'Record<string, any>' is not assignable to type 'T'.
'Record<string, any>' is assignable to the constraint of type 'T', but 'T' could be instantiated with a different subtype of constraint 'Record<string, any>'. (2322)

Would you have figured out that the solution to the problem was to omit the - factually correct - return type of the method?
Rust is not just better at error messages, it's playing an entirely different game.

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/q/67397978/2532203
Deliberately misleading article. The community was mad at Doreen because they held a vote on whether to send someone to the Fox interview, and the consensus was NO. She violated an explicit choice of the community, and this complaint has been clearly articulated from day 1 of the aftermath.

No mention of it in the article, though.

And even the small things are misleading:

> the classic thread “whats your job on the leftist commune??”[1], in which everyone plans to lead discussion on theory and make lattes and there’s nary a Coal Mining Enjoyer to be found

That's blatantly false. Second column, next to last tweet:

> Hard labor. Something rewarding I can do with my hands. Maybe something intellectual later in life. I'm just tired and don't want to think too hard right now in my life.

You can argue about how many hard laborer will be necessary, and how quickly this user would change their mind, but this is not what the article is arguing.

I didn't find the post an honest description of the event. Flagged.

[1] https://i.redd.it/xi839vo8uml71.png
> the replay value is in taking down the set and doing it again next year

There is no end to the “replay value” in taking whatever miscellaneous collection of legos you have and making whatever you want out of them. This is what most kids do. Each new set gets added to the mixed-up pile. (This works because all of the pieces consistently follow a common geometric design, and connect together using a small handful of common interfaces. Note: sorting the collection can be helpful for finding pieces.)

Making the set following the instructions and then displaying the finished model on a shelf, packing the pieces back in its box, or reselling the kit is something more common among adults.

The “follow 3d-puzzle instructions” way of playing is pretty shallow. Even the hardest lego sets aren’t really that hard, and with a couple years experience even very young children can do them. (A 5 or 6 year-old can easily make the sets that claim on the box to be for age 11+ or whatever, with a couple years’ occasional experience.)

But if you like 3d puzzles, legos are pretty good for inventing new ones, and there are a wide variety of ways to make puzzles that are harder than the instructions shipped with the pieces.
In the mid to far future we will look back upon the concept of "human resources" the way we look back on slavery today.

I'm not a Marxist BTW. I just think we are slowly evolving toward a society in which equals interact economically on equal terms.
I find that I am qualified to offer the following data point.

My daughter is 8. She enjoys both Legos and Minecraft.

She mostly plays Minecraft in creative, but recently I've been playing through survival with her (first time survival for both of us).

She still enjoys building in survival. If anything, I would say her survival builds are more satisfying because she has to do the work of obtaining the resources, and crafting them into the parts she needs. There is also the added challenge of not being able to fly and to easily undo a misplaced block.

If I'm doing a complex build like an automated farm, she enjoys crafting the parts for me.

Back to Lego:

She mostly goes for the Lego Friends kits, but also has a few Lego Minecraft kits. After she'd built something, she does imaginative role play with her 6-yo sister. Sometimes, they'll take the kits apart and rebuild into something different.

Regarding temperament:
My 8yo is pretty easy going. She is generally patient and doesn't get easily frustrated when things go wrong.

I could easily see how a different child could hate imperfect Lego builds, or survival Minecraft.
Is that not table stakes for any software engineering job?
Yeah, this word "sanewashing" as popularized by the article -- while I have mixed feelings about portmanteaus -- is going to be really useful. It's a word I didn't know I needed until I saw it.
This would be far more impactful IMO for a market where price discovery is weak and market access is challenging. For example, equities in Mercosur countries.

Very cool regardless.
That's a good point. The situation definitely has it's pros and cons.

For example, in the voice chats, its great when users follow up with one another on their trades, or know each other's specialties so they can call them to provide insight.

On the other hand, deemphasizing the user makes it more about the content and less about the person creating that content, which at best avoids bandwagoning and the whole "I called $foo, so listen to me when I say buy $bar".
I've always felt this for my entire working career which is about 20 years now (16 dev and 4 retail).

Sick workers productivity was close to 0 in almost all instances. For Retail that meant they were not on the checkouts but out on the shop floor goofing around and ignoring customers. They could also be in the toilets for hours at a time which meant that the other employees would be picking up slack for them rather than them being off and having to get someone to cover for them.

In terms of dev they would be in the office but only there in person. If you had a meeting they would make seemingly random decisions. If they are programming at their desk their code would be buggy and could take up to 10 times as long for them to write. I'd rather be able to explain that a feature was late as one of the devs was ill rather than they came in and tried to work whilst being ill and failed.

Being ill and taking time to recover is part of doing business. Companies should factor this into their plans. Not doing so is a company issue not an issue with an employee being sick.

I mean no-one wants to be ill it's not really your choice. I'm not enjoying myself being ill, it sucks. Going to work draws this process out and makes your fellow co-workers sick.

I've always taken time off when I'm ill and I will continue to do so and so should everyone else.

P.S. I include Mental illness in this as well.

If you're having a bad day / week / month mentally TAKE SOME TIME OFF!
Universal basic income is not "anti-work", it's pro-work. The GP seems a bit confused. The simplest way of putting it is that everyone gets a "baseline" subsidy that's at best just enough to live a minimally dignified life. But working to earn a supplemental income can never leave you worse off. And even when this can be described as "anti-forced" work, that's because having such a safe baseline gives you the flexibility of trying for a better fit. It's something everyone would want for themselves.
Or maybe we just use the same words to convey different things over time.

I often find myself saying "I feel like <some argument> might be the case" when it would have been just as accurate to say "I think <some argument> might be true"

I don't think it makes me any less rational to use the word "feel" over "think", what makes me more or less rational will be the content of <some argument>