skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Let's say I earn 100K a year, steady.

When I move into the 25% band after I hit $1.3m in lifetime earnings, do I have to pay back taxes on the rest of my income that I've been paying 10% on the whole time? If so, then I'm going to owe about 200,000 that year, which is more than my income. "smoothing" not the word I would use here.

Or, do I just start to pay 25% going forward? If so, your plan amounts to a massive tax cut for young people and a massive tax increase for retirees. As a young person, I can live with that, but it's absolutely terrible public policy.
Their real mistake was dealing with a lawyer in the first place. My dad told me years ago that you want to avoid dealing with lawyers at all costs, because most of them are vicious selfish sharks. Sure there are exceptions, but there are few, if any, occupations with as high a percentage of people like that in it.
This post strikes me as pretty arrogant, and maybe even a little deluded. 3-4 high-level Microsoft engineers are asking to join your startup every week, and you're sending them emails like that? If you can't afford to pay them what Microsoft does, you shouldn't even be entertaining the idea of bringing them onto your company unless you're going to offset the decrease in salary with a generous equity stake.

Just "working at a startup" isn't worth much. In fact, it's a major sacrifice for an engineer like that to make. I checked out EveryMove and it seems to me that engineers like that would be pretty dramatically underutilized anyway. It seems like you should just tell people like this that they are overqualified and to stay at Microsoft.
You could presumably pay the loan off with shares. Since it was a loan, it's not income, so no income tax.

IANATL, TINLA.
From our point of view (Hacker News readers), it's easy to forget that these blackouts and the mainstream press that they created are the beginning and end of most people's SOPA education. I heard an intelligent and otherwise well-informed person say, "Yeah, what was this SOPA thing? It came up all of a sudden and then went away."

In that context, the focus on "censorship" is a bit misleading. It's a good way to get people's attention when you don't have the time to explain the DNS and why it's not an appropriate tool for combating piracy. Indeed, "censorship" is probably too weak a concept for the damage that SOPA would have caused to the internet, since it implies a selective redaction instead of the complete and indiscriminate excommunication of every blacklisted domain. I wouldn't call it "misinformation," but did people who knew better (so to speak) choose a "loaded and inflammatory term"? Absolutely.

It is marvelous how the victim of this "digital tsunami" can spin the case in his favor. Still, it's probably accurate to say that most people didn't understand what they were opposing.
I think your idea that people will pay for something they believe in really only works out in fantasy land, not the real world.

In fact, your sentiment is the exact case study that shows how horribly this would fail. You are saying that a vote in favor of any tax is immoral - therefore promoting a "more for me" attitude. Just imagine if everyone thought like that. Your utopia will quickly crumble.

I think fantastic cases in point are Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.
These are massive corporations making billions in profit, and paying less tax than you and I do. Sure, they could pay more if they wanted to, but are they?
Why not? Because they (or the shareholders) have a "more for me" attitude.

(On a side note, I can't believe Google are doing that and still get away with their "Don't be Evil" line. Everyday Google use simple public services (Police, Fire, road, courts, judges) and don't pay for it. That looks evil to me.)
If taxes weren't mandatory, I wouldn't pay them. Most people I know wouldn't either.

Then suddenly things like road systems, hospitals, schools, police, water systems, sewer systems, and courts would no longer be able to run.

Do you honestly believe that you could run a major developed country on donations? The Vatican doesn't count because it has a population of 800 and is run by the church.
Well, he has to prove his worth. If everything sails smoothly, people won't notice his value. If he caught something however small, he can justify his bill.
I doubt people would donate enough to support a modern military, but maybe we could get by with a smaller one (personally, I wouldn't count on it). Overall, it would at least take a pretty radical change in our culture, which has gotten used to receiving from the government.

I would definitely like to see people having more direct control over which projects their money goes to, though, like earmarking some of your (already mandatory in my scenario) money for street repairs near your house. Projects people care about get funded. Bridges to nowhere... less so.

What in your view is the threshold for government action? Is it only to prevent violence, or similar violations of person and property?
Actually think it has more to do with the fact that extroverted people are more persuasive and generally voice their opinions more. Some of it is just in the numbers...if you know more people you have a strategic advantage of more opportunities.

Oh yeah....It's not an American concept????
> If I cast a vote for a tax, I am voting in favor
> of taking money from someone else, with the force
> of gunpoint and the threat of prison. How can that
> be moral?

How can you run a government without revenue of some sort?

You suggest donations, but I seriously do not believe that it would be possible to get enough money to run a government based entirely on that. Even with a 'trimming of the fat' in government, there would be too many people willing to try and 'game' the system.

(I guess it would possible to cut the required money even further by making government offices on a volunteer basis, but that would setup a bad set of incentives. It would only attract rich people that could afford to do something like that on a volunteer basis and/or people that are power-hunger/power-seeking.)

> 2) Numerous organizations ranging from charities, to
> huge churches that have survived several millenniums,
> to a complete country (Vatican City) are funded
> voluntarily, and do that quite successfully.

You're ignoring:

1) For several hundred years some of those religions were the official religions of several counties, and 'donations' were compulsory[1].

2) The Vatican is not completely funded voluntarily[2]:

The Holy See, which depends largely on investments for
its annual income, had income of about $326 million
and expenses of about $313 million.

There's also tourism, in addition to "Peter's Pence" (donations to the Holy See, Vatican's governing body). I tried looking for actual numbers, but didn't find anything in the little bit of looking that I did.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes

[2] http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-budget-surplus-201...
I think there will be performance gains to be had, especially in applications where concurrency has been 'bolted on' (akin to the Big Kernel Lock).

However, I think what makes this interesting is not the raw performance it provides, but the functionality that it exposes. As far as I can tell, TSX will allow sets of operations to be executed, then "rolled back" in case of conflicts. This could greatly improve performance of Java code within synchronized blocks, for instance, or provide much faster hardware implementation of the software transaction memory model in Clojure.

I believe the biggest benefit of this will be making multi-threaded programming easier to get right, and get decent performance to boot. And if these constructs are supported natively in languages and frameworks, everyone will benefit from having 4- 8- or 16- cores.
I don't mean to distract with the examples of corn subsidies and malaria. I don't think it's terribly difficult to find a plethora of examples in which a state's concern for rather trivial internal affairs dwarfs its concern with globally momentous affairs that happen not to affect its citizens. The fact that the spread of malaria could be, but has not been, mitigated by relatively cheap counter-measures just goes to show.

I am not claiming that immigration is an unalloyed good, nor that there are no caveats to consider. I am claiming that freedom of travel is a human right, and that this freedom is largely compossible with the flourishing of the new states into which immigrants move. I just cannot locate any moral claim I have against people who want to move to the part of the world circumscribed by US borders, nor any moral obligation they would have to recognize one. Where is the argument? I can certainly understand that citizens in certain industries would prefer that immigrants with similar skill-sets not immigrate, but protection from competition is not a human right.
I guess that would depend on an individual's moral code. I, personally, would argue that it's immoral to vote against a tax.
Exactly! How is reinventing the wheel going to help? The title doesn't make any sense.
Realizations of Rounded Rectangles
"and pinterest can't argue that they're doing anything special to generate the sale."

You can't be serious. The sales would never have been generated in the first place if pinterest never existed. Your logic would seem to preclude any affiliate program in existence. If I have a blog reviewing my favorite books, and being a book lover I want to make it easy for people to enjoy books I recommend so I go ahead and place links to Amazon. Should Amazon say "well you we're going to link to us regardless, so you aren't eligible."
Tax-on-profit/refund-on-losses are, in terms of economics equations, "elegant". It appears to minimise distortion.

But there's two problems in practice.

1. Hollywood Accounting. "I get a refund for losses? Look how much I lost this year!" It would just lead to a new round of shuffling deck chairs.

2. Sovereign Risk. Sure they promise to pay you back. But does anyone honestly expect that politicians would be prepared to allow a $1 billion cheque to be cut for a billionaire?

Both of these are why such taxes are neat in theory, economic kryptonite in practice.
I sincerely hope this is helpful to others.
If there are any suggestions, or improvements, I'd be happy to include them.
The Order of AARRR
Well, and even at that, $5k isn't really exorbitant. It basically sounds like, "Now that you actually have some money, how's about paying me for the work that I did?" Whether it was good work or not is another matter, but he basically let these guys off the hook for 1-2 weeks' pay (at a time when the company was valued at a few million). This isn't a story of them getting screwed.
I cited several examples where this works in the "real world" and not fantasy land. You cited zero.

I NEVER advocated not paying taxes - I pay my taxes as I am forced to do, and I do it "honestly". So your second paragraph is simply inaccurate. I would also give to an organization, if there was one (maybe there is), IN ADDITION to paying my taxes, that promoted the establishment of such a system of FREE choice in government. I also give to charities. Each of these points disproves your second paragraph where you claim that this is just a "more for me" attitude.

Your point that corporations not paying tax somehow disproves my point is a red herring. Corporations are structured with charters which dictate objectives, which are often to maximize shareholder value. I am talking about people, humans, not corporations. People give to causes that they believe in, and people believe in freedom.

So I appreciate the reply, but you really didn't say anything to persuade me. You just went back to the "it wouldn't work" argument, without shooting down the MANY examples where it DOES work.
ICS on Nexus S.

Browser - 4432.6 ms
Chrome - 3258.4 ms

EDIT: Didn't reboot or anything like that.
Yes, quite like the difference between nonviolent protest for integration and armed militant separatism as independent attempts at dissolving the white man's oppression of african-americans.

You missed his analogy completely.
i realize that copyleft proponents and permissive license proponents tend to have different views, but painting everyone that disagrees with you as "zealots" and taking cheap pot shots like the ones you see increasingly on hn is pretty intellectually dishonest.

everyone knows that open source has successfully overshadowed free software. no need to continue to marginalize them more than has already been done, you win. they'll try forever to be taken seriously, and everyone will try very hard to miss the point.

also, while a lot of people on hn seem to think that permissive licensing is the only way to do it, most copyleft proponents do think there is a place for permissive licensing. so pretending it's the people calling for more than one solution "zealots" is especially silly.

tl;dr but as long as you outnumber them, you can tell everyone they're the zealots, and as long as you outnumber them you can win the argument (the accusation) by popular support. 100 million open source advocates can't be wrong, (and even if they were, who cares?)
I think we just disagree on what "basic" ML means. I think a lot of real problems have solutions which involve very simple applications of poorly tuned ML algorithms.

Engineering even a basic ML solution is challenging---feature engineering especially.
I hope that readers or anyone wanting to pursue this idea disregard the last sentence, or at least the "confirmed site logo" bit. How on earth could these things be confirmed by a third party and what information would a "confirmed site" badget convey? Sounds even flimsier than the "secured by <random antivirus>" or "secure SSL guaranteed" nonsense.

Given the legal concerns and the skew that attempting profitability would have, I'd rather just see this adopted by projects voluntarily. But even then, if it becomes mainstream to expect a "privacy ticker", there's still nothing to keep companies from selectively disclosing or straight up lying.
Sure there is, if you are talking about the links on the pinterest items users hover over and not the eventual destination url of the merchant. Just use an in house link shortner that does a lookup to the original destination url, identify if an affiliate program exists, modify if needed and complete the redirect.
Great. This is a fun app, I'm enjoying it.
Does this get around the shitty reverse-proxies mobile providers set up that kill websocket connections?
Isn't the destroying factor automation (automated meter readers and the like). I always wondered why the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers has not taken a stance on automation.

As the article says, Electrical Engineering is a dying field. It's funny how many people employed in electrical engineering over the past couple of decades were employed to get rid of other people's jobs.

Mail Sorting Job Outlook sites automation for decline in jobs:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos346.htm

The author did not mention anything about the medical profession. More people are getting sick and hurt due to obesity and over exercise.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/24/hip-replacements-landis-cz_...

I wonder why there is not a clear statement what people want their countries to become. In other words, do we want a country that is super fast and efficient which includes eliminating "slow work", or a country where peoples jobs are preserved despite the potential technological advances.
>Then suddenly things like road systems, hospitals, schools, police, water systems, sewer systems, and courts would no longer be able to run.

Exactly. And people would no longer be using Facebook. Citizens who personally benefit the most from this great society are, similarly, the most indebted to it.

While certainly morally just, this is beside the point: It is imperative that such a society continues to exist so that the _next_ Zuckerberg/Jobs/Gates has the opportunity to advance our species further.
Question regarding salary... I'm not sure if I'm wrong but when was looking for a new job back in 2004-2005, I cannot recall a single startup which was recruiting engineers and offering salary below market rate and they end up being successful.

As far as I remember, when Facebook was a startup (~2006) they were offering market rate salary. Were they?
Writing Smell Detector (WSD) - a tool for finding problematic writing
Feature Request: I'd like to see some sort of toggle to minimize the content in the left-column and allow the command area in the right-column to cover the entire width of my window/frame. (I'm using kaanzi in multiple iframes, so repeating the left column is redundant for me...)
It's almost impossible to make major decisions without being unfair to some people. Ask any manager.

Voting requires the voter to make decisions, hard decisions. Even decisions about other people's money. Sometimes the status quo is unbearable and something has to be done. Where exactly is the unfairness in taxing wealthier people at the same percentage as middle class and others? I'm pro capitalism, but the argument that capital gains taxes need to be lower than income is a separate argument. There are probably great reasons for capital gains taxes to be much lower than income, but fairness isn't one of those reasons.

1. Volunteerism doesn't scale.

2. Charity doesn't support everything. I've done non-profit fundraising and rich people like to give money to put their names on buildings a lot more than they like to fund operating expenses in local charities.

3. People like roads and bridges and such, but a lot of services require people and salaries and it's much harder to raise money for things like that.

It's not immoral to vote for taxes. People vote for taxes that they pay and they vote for taxes that they'll never pay, but when individuals in the government don't act, the responsibility to do the difficult lies with the voters.
Update: I tried to find some more info but unfortunately it looks like the original paper is behind a pay-wall.
Here are some related links :
http://www.psi.ch/media/using-heat-for-storing-data

http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2012/research/mag...
> How can you run a government without revenue of some sort?

How does the Mormon Church work? They have no tax.
Don't tell me tithe. There's no threat of jail time and income confiscation for not tithing.
Nice work! However, you seemed to have forgotten to add theos as a submodule. Without it, people cannot build this on their own if they chose to do so..
Agen gamat luxor tangerang
Agen gamat luxor tangerang hadir untuk memberikan pelayanan terbaik kepada orang yang berkeinginan membeli produk gamat luxor di kota tangerang dan sekitarnya,
well you can do O ctrl-r " <esc> and it will paste it and leave you back in normal mode but that is kinda an anti-pattern. maybe it's time for a remapped keybinding?

try:

nnoremap <leader>p o<esc>p

is it really a requirement to not have a macro/keybinding?
If apps spelled everything they were doing out for you all as you seem to want, you'd have something equivalent to a TOS to read. Only instead of legal jargon it would be technical jargon. You'd never read it. And then when it came out that the app was doing something that was described in it, you'd bitch and moan and complain just like you are doing now.

I would venture to guess that a large majority of apps in the app store (iOS and Android) do the same thing Hipster, Path and other mentioned in this thread do and you don't even know. I don't even what to know what Google and Apple themselves are doing without telling anyone.

TL;DR: Get over it. Move on.
I can see a good argument in favour of it - of _course_ I want non-apple apps to be able to autocomplete friends names/emails as I start typing them. And of _course_ apps need to be able to send a bunch of data "back home". Making sure that apps don't send the addressbook data from sentence 1 in a data block from sentence 2 is the problem...
That depends on how often code goes through the 'get the lock' code path and it doesn't need to. It will be interesting to see how this extension is extended across the interchip buses in multi-CPU mother boards. Transactional region coherence was a feature of the DEC VAX architecture early on, it was implemented such that you simply didn't get to run until the previous thread left the region. Sort of like a 'one vehicle lane' where the imposition of the one thread of execution was done externally to the CPU. In the hash table example programmers could read the memory in the region without being impeded but as soon as one started writing it would block future readers and shoot down the pages in the lookaside cache of the MMU. SGI did something similar with a network card which could provide shared memory with transactional semantics across the network. Some of that work got folded into the InfiniBand spec as I recall. I suppose its just possible that all this stuff has finally fallen out of patent protection and so Intel feels they can put it into their chips.
say I have a line here ( | being my cursor)

callFunction(); |// HEY THIS IS A REALLY LONG COMMENT

From there, I hit D, which is the same as d$. I want to then paste it so I have something like

// HEY THIS IS A REALLY LONG COMMENT
callFunction();

But I want to do that without entering insert mode.
Hackers release Symantec source code after extortion attempt fails
Interesting. Is there any logic behind that?
There are only a handful of cross browser incompatibilities and the JQuery source is painful to read. Why _should_ one use JQuery?
Maybe we're trying to identify, or dare I say create problems that don't really exist. If its simple enough to describe in three minutes then I'd say it's very close to being common sense. What I see when I watch that video is someone trying to make a simple thing complicated. Do you really need five Why's? I think there are 4 superfluous Why's in that process. Eric Ries has the experience and education to talk about this stuff but at a certain point, after anyone has been out of the trenches long enough, they start to lose touch. This to me seems like an example of someone who once knew what was up now having nothing better to do than over think something as simple as "Ask Why something went wrong" and turn it into "Ask why something went wrong in 5 different ways" even though asking Why just once will suffice. Now, you asked why so many companies fail at identifying and addressing root causes. Well, why don't we apply the 5 Why's and see if we can find out?