skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the wealth question is phrased wrongly: how much wealth is somebody allowed to have? Rather the question should be: how is such excessive wealth generated in the first place?

Billionaire level wealth comes into existence by means of a concept that is alien and bizarre when you think more deeply about it:

"Percentage-based future-facing ownership".

Also known as "shares". Emphasis on the word "percentage". You're the 30% majority shareholder and founder of a startup worth some 1 million USD in total.

10 years later, it's turned into an empire. You're still the 30% shareholder but now of something worth 1 trillion.

Superficially this looks reasonable to people but it is in fact bizarre. You scale up wealth from 300K to 300B just by the societal agreement that there is such a thing as percentage-based ownership of a variable thing. Which is a concept that is entirely made up and does not exist in physical reality. In a way it is future-capitalism. You lay claim on value that doesn't even exist yet nor will it actually be produced by you typically.

This jump from 300K to 300B can't be justified or explained by "hard work", risk or any other personal attribute.

Imagine you go fishing with friends. It's your boat. You paid for it and need to maintain it. So the friends agree to give 50% of fish caught that day to you, to cover costs and as a reward.

The next day you meet your friends again and declare: by the way, actually 50% of all fish in the pacific ocean are mine.

How so?

I got "fish shares".

But you wouldn't do any of the fishing???

Fish shares don't care.
Why would they not even just have them available for PPV. I should be able to pay to see whichever football game! It doesn't need to be this crazy game of blackouts and satellite subscriptions!
I 99.753% agree with this but they didn't deal with spurious precision adequately
I am always happy for people who can work without meds, but extracting out from that to assume that every physical/chemical balance can just be cured by addressing some reversible root cause isn't really sound logic. There are lots of situations where our bodies don't produce enough of a chemical and there isn't really a solution for that other than to introduce more of that chemical.

I also feel like:

> We know that ADHD is primarily caused by low dopamine

is a bit of an oversimplification. ADHD is not always caused by low dopamine/norepinephrine/etc production, it's often in part caused by faster than normal reuptake of those chemicals. But when arguing that ADHD is entirely caused by environmental deficiencies, "you're not producing enough dopamine" sounds better than "your brain is absorbing dopamine too quickly so it's not signaling as effectively as it should even when it's released in the same amounts as other people."

And again, this is complicated and different people's brains work differently, medication isn't right for everyone. That's why doctors should be involved. But what's going on is a lot more complicated than "something in the environment is making you depressed so you don't release dopamine" or "you don't have enough of X vitamin so your body can't produce the chemicals it needs"; it's more accurate to say that ADHD is often caused by differences in how actual neurons and synapses interact.

If reabsorption is happening prematurely, it's not necessarily that less dopamine/norepinephrine is being produced, it's that the chemicals being produced aren't as able to be used to do the things they're supposed to do.

And that more complicated explanation ends up being a lot more useful to describe some of the less well-known symptoms of ADHD that sometimes pop up for some people; symptoms like hyperfocusing, poor interoception. It paints a more complicated, multi-faceted picture of how the body can find itself unable to stop focusing on things when neurotransmitters do manage to finally bond, or why certain bodily signals just don't seem to reach the brain reliably. I am not a doctor, but I think it's a lot easier to understand what ADHD does when you look at through the lens of a physical difference in the brain that has knock-on effects on how the brain continues to develop as it learns to rely on other signals and coping mechanisms and strengthen those pathways.

TLDR I kind of disagree with the explanation of people with ADHD as if they're dopamine-deficient, I think where modern research is leaning is that they (often, everyone is unique) have brains that aren't able to make use of the dopamine (and other chemicals, not everything in the world is dopamine) that is produced.
You are correct. And the only money in El Salvador is Bitcoin.
Closer to hiring an electrician certified in Australia to work in the US as a carpenter.

Give them six+ months to train up and I’m sure they’ll do fine.
Taking out a loan against an asset to buy more of that asset sounds like a horrible financial move.
Isn't that the same?

If my house is worth $1M in 2022, I pay tax on that $1M of value. If it goes down in value to $500K in 2023 (and is reassessed), I'd pay tax on $500K value in 2023.

If I own $1B of AMZN in 2022, I'd pay wealth tax on my $1B holdings in 2022, if the market tanks and AMZN is worth $50M in 2023, then I'd pay the wealth tax on $50M in 2023.

Just as with property taxes, a wealth tax is generally annual based on current assets.
Using Elm in production for years. Still waiting for the bus :-)
Amazon has some flexibility here. They've been pushing some of their vendors to handle their own shipments, resulting in a whole Amazon reseller industry. Amazon can pull as much of that in-house as they want.
Some feedback:

I logged in using my Twitter profile, however when I go to the "profile" section, the fields appear to be read only? Not sure, but I couldn't seem to update my name.

Otherwise seemed to work great :)

https://mysideproject.rocks/p/62a90cdf2ad7a70017ed0d55
Well

1. even back of head hair thins eventually in balding people, but generally many decades later than the front or crown. By the time you're losing that hair, you're probably a lot older and care much less

2. taking finasteride indefinitely is supposed to drastically slow or stop further thinning or loss. Of course as in point 1, you're probably going to lose that battle eventually, but again you'll be much much older when the damage gets serious than you would have been otherwise
Well yes having kids is a daily trigger for all kinds of childhood trauma. Even with good parents and a caring environment, growing up comes with so many painful, traumatic events, we learn to cope, to live with them, but kids make all of it surface, it can be overwhelming...

I'd advise any parent who has a first kid and is feeling all kinds of overwhelming or surprising things, to go and first get desensitised a bit, and then do the work...
The capital gains tax may never get paid. You can 1031 exchange the property over and over again and then the gains are zeroed out when passed down generationally.
>Russia has historically been invaded by such people as Genghis Khan(actually his grandson, Tamerlane, Napoleon, Charles )I forget which one) of Sweden, and Hitler.

here is a fun one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_occu...
Russia really doesnt like the fact Poland not only occupied Moscow, but also got Kings son elected Tzar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs#Tsars...
What is the thing you're doing with it that you value? If you have a logically consistent, non-scam answer, cool, then explain that and ask why other people think it's a scam. Saying "how is it a scam" with no other assertions is meaningless. You could equally say "how is it not a scam"

(spoiler alert: it's a scam)
> Will a CEO work less hard if he (and his peers) can only ever gain $100M in net worth before a wealth tax on assets kicks in?

I empathize with the quick back-of-the-napkin math ("if we could just take Bezos' money and give it to the poor..."). But I think there's an important nuance here.

You're making it sound like the only group of people that would be affected by this are the folks with $0 in net worth, so that the upside is $100m. In reality, anyone who's ever earned the first $100m (not inherited or won in a lottery), only ended up accelerating their ambition and likelihood of doing a lot more. Case in point - all of the Paypal mafia - they are all working their asses off every single day, and none of them would have had the upside that you're talking about.

In short, your proposal would basically mean that you're going to force into retirement anyone who demonstrates to be a 1000x doer. In the worst case scenario, the opportunities those people would have created would be lost for a long amount of time (eg: creating a domestic automaker that turns the ICE industry upside down). At best, you would be expecting from unproven people who have not yet validated their abilities to execute on those opportunities with the same level of success as the 1000x doers.

So it seems to me that the question is not so much "what could we do with Bezos' money," but more "how much of Bezos' money are we comfortable with not being generated at all to ensure that he never has more than $100m."
It is fixed now. Funny enough the redesign is just taking YouTube livestream UI and using it for regular YouTube comments.
I live in a "hot" real estate market, my house has appreciated nearly 50% in 2 years. It's entirely possible that it will depreciate 20% or more over the next year.
No, requiring evidence for believing things is neither mean spirited or a disqualification method. It's simply a rational worldview.
Unlikely. Steam engines are not as efficient as internal combustion engines, and are also heavier. Being less efficient, they will use more fuel and produce more CO2 for the same output.

Electric cars are 'better' due to economies of scale: It's cheaper and more efficient to produce bulk electricity from central power stations. But electric cars are not as wonderful as they seem, just that their CO2 production and their pollution are hidden away from view.
etulips
Mission sponsor: Ajinomoto
>I remember that on TV Trump was telling German chancellor that they should seek energy sources outside of Russia, and the media was mocking him for being populist or for being anti globalization (or for being paranoid as Russian would need buyers? I can't remember exactly). Is the orange man so bad that whatever he touches is a taboo? Is there any truth in what he does, and the executive branch can be less political but focus more on execution?

Trump and Jens Stoltenberg of NATO argue on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong?
States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Jobs would be created without the rich. See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries).

This is indeed a very controversial statement because the rich are living a lifestyle which is at best unsustainable for the planet. They emit more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for their own lavish lifestyles. They exploit poor labor conditions and lobby against every minor improvement. They don’t contribute to our shared funds like regular people, decreasing the state’s funds for more infrastructure which would have created more jobs. And they cause stress with their increased wealth disparity. Many research has shown perceived inequality is a significant stress producer. We may very well be bettor off without them.
Sadly our government doesn't protect us, I think there should have been an antitrust case a long time ago.
I'm afraid it's the case that most all surgeries on infants (circumcision) are elective and performed for aesthetic reasons. For males it's likely they only time they will go into shock from pain during their lives.
I would absolutely be willing to bet that a small dose of Benadryl won't make someone hallucinate "a small amount".

Put it another way if makes you feel better -- a little bit of D3 via direct sunlight and D3 rich foods will improve your mood and health outcomes in a variety of ways. An excessive amount of D3 will give you kidney stones and harm your bones.
Weird, my BP and HR lowered on lisdexamfetamine, and I sleep like a baby. It's true meds affect people in different ways.
Your claim was that "Hate speech laws are dangerous because hate groups are far more dangerous when their true motives are hidden from view"

If it's true that hate groups are more dangerous when their motives are hidden from view, it must also be true that hate groups are less dangerous when their motives are in plain view.

And since the context of this discussion is hate speech, the implication of your argument is that hate groups are less dangerous the more freely they are allowed to express their hate speech (for example, through cross-burning or a weekly television broadcast) as a result of your original claim that hate speech laws make such groups more dangerous.

>(...)And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day.

You didn't read my comment well enough to understand the context, because it's obvious that i never made a literal claim that the KKK was given a free hour of television every day, rather it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform. You can substitute television for Facebook and Youtube if you like, it doesn't matter.

>How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected.

Because such people try to spread their beliefs regardless of what the laws say, but at least limits on speech can limit the scope of the damage they can do.
Building a new decentralized social network reminds me of building yet another Linux desktop distribution. While you might find a niche, you'll never get enough traction to compete with the big players, being Android and Windows for desktops and Facebook, Twitter and others for social networks.
Yeah, that’s what I tried, even named the volume Ventura. It has worked in the past with previous releases e.g. Monterey. It sounds like the original poster (and some commenters) was trying to do this too, had done in the past, and was surprised.

The process didn’t give me an installer, it just jumped to the volume building process. TBH I kinda knew it was messed up, but after cancelling and trying again, I just let it go.

I didn’t see any options in the dev site to pull down a full installer.

My M1 is fairly new, so I have recent practice reinstalling Big Sur from scratch if necessary.
I keep reading all this "we" stuff...
pretty dumb article in my opinion. Part of being a good entrepreneur is struggling through hard times and figuring out a way to survive and make shit work when things aren't going well. If you follow this articles advice and quit at the first sign of trouble you won't get very far.
It's spooks all the way down, you can tell by their annoying insistence of referring to run-of-the-mill thinktanks with blogs with the codename-styled "OSINT." They piggyback off of the media obsession of "crowdsourcing" from a decade back, and abuse the software term "open source" to refer to these weird private groups.

The question is the same as it always was: who benefits from maintaining 12 educated full-time professionals and an office in order to claim (and publicize) that they have the most accurate view of the degree and character of protests against the Sri Lankan government? Somebody is spending a million dollars a year minimum on it; it is the opposite of the crowd/public.

Groups like this have two functions:

1) To launder false information. "Legitimate" outlets can spread information pushed by these thinktanks, but disguise it as reporting on the thinktanks themselves. If the funder of the thinktank is the state, they can then use that secondary reporting to justify the action it wants to take.

2) To launder illegitimately obtained information i.e. parallel construction. Come up with another theoretical way that some information that was actually discovered in an illegal or immoral way could have been discovered. Create fake artifacts of that discovery, and have one of these thinktanks release it. Now you can act on the information that you shouldn't have had.

I agree (as far as I understand) that the Sri Lankan government is awful, and maybe I agree with spook goals in this case, but their funders aren't doing this for moral reasons. They surely just want to get rid of these despots to put a friendlier set of decisionmakers in.
You do realize these licenses take years to materialize?

Oil companies use any crisis to get more rights in the future. Biden can use wartime production laws to force oil companies to produce more.

Oil companies right now just don’t want to produce more. It’s not that they can’t. They have no reason to do more work to make less money.
> I don't think they would have done so as a public service after they capped out lifetime income.

That is definitely the big question. Given that Gates is busy donating most of his cash to charity, there are counterexamples.

But even biting the bullet and accepting the premise, it’s not immediately obvious that losing all of the work from current billionaires would be a bad trade in exchange for substantially reduced inequality.

My counterpoint is that most billionaires don’t seem to be continuing to work hard primarily to get another billion. It’s more for the fun/fulfillment and status. If they can still have fun and status even without controlling as much wealth they will probably still go for it.
You can use your existing 1M shares as collateral
essentially yeah, an endocrinologist.
He’s of the wrong tribe now it seems
Maybe it is just someone's old pile of gold. Like the San José galleon. Sure, it will be cool when it is raised, but I'm not exactly sure that it is going to change the world by bringing it up rather than just leaving it there.

By this same standard, maybe Amazon is doing an immense service to humanity, and that is why so many people use the site daily, and actually enjoy doing so. So maybe Bezos should get to keep his billions as well.
Why is this scarier than Target or Walmart, each of which have a higher market share than Amazon?
FIrefox used to ask, then it would ask if you set the right preference, and then it stopped asking entirely. I was very disappointed in them.
Must have been a long time ago. It's been almost a decade since that code pattern started getting compiled into calls to StringBuilder by javac.
Aren't those classes of stock with voting power worth a lot more? I'm not sure how you'd possibly avoid being rich on paper if you have a majority voting power for Google.
I still feel as creative as my normal self, but I definitely feel less "in the clouds" in general, and that's a marked improvement. There's some feeling of being serious when I have to (i.e. home alone writing code), while previously my emotional state was always in foreground distracting me.
It also depends on your head shape, I see a lot of men who are very good looking still with a fair amount visible recession, and they do quite well with their dating life.

Personally I just felt like the relatively small amount of recession I had looked terrible on me because I already had a tall forehead to begin with, and I'm still in my 20s.
I made a JavaScript engine for microcontrollers in just 8.5kB of ROM
We will never know the number of small businesses that had to shut down because unlike Amazon, they couldn't nor wouldn't indebt themselves to grow indefinitely (aka survive)

The amount of talent and efficiency in the economy that Amazon has crushed..
That doesn't matter to an open source project without any revenue stream and no budget for a help desk.

And it sounds like you're doing something niche that shouldn't be prioritized, and eliminating abusive scrapers is probably worth it to them even if it means that they're losing your business. If they're not fixing it, that is a message to you that your use case doesn't matter to their business model. What you want is a way to demand you get attention. You are precisely the kind of squeeky wheel that wastes everyone's time.
If someone is making it up, that's terrible, but if they're basing it on some evidence it's not crazy. Not everything, not even all humans, have the same types of pain.
I like the idea of getting public achievements based on your personal tax contributions.

Give them a public museum name for each $B for all I care!

Or more generally, just let them pick which program they want to have their face/logo on. “The Musk EV car subsidy” etc.
Maybe I never weighed in on the question of whether there should be billionaires or not, but you have simply projected a strawman upon me, which is fitting because this whole thread was started because I said the aforementioned parable was a strawman.

Currently, gold retails at $1808 an ounce. So it would take over 15.6 metric tons of gold to be even worth a billion dollars. That is substantially more than an "old pile", and probably of historical worth, like contained in a ruined temple or wartime vault or something
It's more like discerning the washing machine based on the power meter, but you know exactly when and how many washing machines turn various bits on and off.

Could be doable, with some expensive equipment.

For the ghost side channel attacks we did see in situ proofs of concept. It's an open question how many people have the skill to do either those side channel exploits or the power meter washing machine guess above and are also engaged in crime.
How durable are the gaming controllers and keys on the Steam Deck? Are they repairable/swappable?
I'm usually fairly heavy on gamepads and broke a few of them already, so I'm not that comfortable buying something that I could easily damage.
This implies competitors couldn't just go work for Amazon. I'd say "crushed" is more than a bit of an exaggeration.
I started programming in "high-level languages" like Pascal, Lisp, Smalltalk and Prolog. I then had to do a project in C. It felt clumsy at first. But then I got it, the pointer arithmetic, and I felt empowered by it. I felt "closer to the machine". The machine felt more like friend. I felt "C doesn't lie" because its computational model corresponds so closely to the hardware. Just saying most any language can be fun.
Ah sorry, I think I misread what you meant in your original post. Yeah, I have the same problem. A lot of these issues would go away if journalist orgs worked together to a larger degree (sharing FOIA docs, etc), but the competition and risk of sharing info leads to naturally strange ethics systems.
> It seems the aim is now to make all computing feel fun and friendly

The weird part is most current attempts of this are actually really bad at it past initial surface appearances.

Minimalist and “content-first’ UIs look great in screenshots and I guess they prevent new users from getting overwhelmed, but they also hide all the features in a way I find quite hostile. We have an absolute wealth of pixels in our displays today, but tons of software makes you decipher abstract line icons to work out what it can actually do.

The Mac thankfully still has the escape hatch of the menu bar, which almost universally allows you to browse and search all performable actions (and see their keyboard shortcuts inline!), but mobile operating systems don’t even have a touch-centric equivalent of tooltips.