skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What ideas pop up in your head about someone who deems their enemies "trust and safety" or "risk management"?

Especially risk takers should manage their risks. Someone who complains about risk management when taking risks is usually not an innovator, but an opportunistic liability to progress and shared benefits.

You are free to take risks where negative downsides of unchecked technology are taken by you, but AI will impact everyone ("playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences.").

It is precisely because the potential and power of AI are so impactful and transformative that AI developers have more responsibility to not squander this and mess this up. Being optimistic about the benefits, should make one pessimistic about the risks.

So, yes. Promote benefits. Build, create, fail, refine. Focus you attention fully on it. Ignore risks and risks management and trust and safety. But don't label these an enemy when these speak up.

Doomerism has hurt AI safety discourse tremendously. Unrealistic and restrictive risk management hurts progress and reasoned debates. Roko and Yudkowski get way too much attention and dominate and control the public debate, pushing out moderate and careful arguments. The e/acc crowd similarly hurt AI safety: almost like these don't believe that either technology can be dangerous, or that such danger is to be accepted, or even required, to make progress.

Maximize benefits, while minimizing risks. Both can work. One without the other won't. Don't try to launder your Waifu-generators as decentralization or progress. Don't damage AI safety by making everyone disgusted at the thought, because you just had to talk about existential threats of nano-bots, not the current and very real risks associated with (generative) AI.

The problem with the current debate on AI safety, is that AI ethicists are too enthusiastic to come up with many rules to bind AI and stifle progress. While the AI acceleration have trouble to come up with just one rule we could put to a democratic vote. If you really can not come up with severe and avoidable negative consequences from computing, then maybe you should not have strong opinions on computer safety.

Accelerate benefits, reduce risks. We owe it to the future we are building right now.
That does seem difficult to do.
> This isn't going to change much about landlords. If anything, it will increase the amount of housing rented through landlords, because the land value tax will make it uneconomical for more people to own their own homes. In a high value area, the only people who would be able to do so are the very rich.

No. A land value tax doesn't make any difference at all to the ongoing cost of owning a given piece of land.

That's because land value taxes decrease the price of a piece of land (via market mechanisms), so that the sum of tax plus ongoing capital cost is the as before.

A simplified example: without LVT you might be able to buy a piece of land with a mortgage that costs $1000 per month. Afterwards, you can buy the same piece of land with a smaller mortgage of $200 dollar a month, but you are paying $800 in LVT.

If you own the land outright, you still have opportunity costs of capital. But it's easier to explain with a mortgage. Also, if you already own land then the introduction of an LVT will definitely put a one-off hit on your finances. (Unless the government compensates you.) But there's no long running impact.
> The U.S. may have had bread lines at the time, but people weren't dying of mass starvation.

Only if you consider the millions that suffered mass extermination, incarceration and forced labor in the US not to be humans.
I reported to a CEO who did this selectively. What was quite frustrating was that even when we figured it out it was hard to unite.
>I shouldn't have to pay rent for owning land

That land is provided ongoing services, security, and utilities which cost money each year to maintain. Ownership is not some fundamental law of physics. It's a made up concept which is defined however the society you live in wants to define it.
i don’t think you’re an idiot, nor a chump. just was wondering how you summoned the strength to persevere even though you didn’t like managing. maybe it’s a generational thing, my parents stayed at the same place for their whole career, but these days we’re expected to jump ship every few years if we want a raise that matches inflation.
my suspicion would be that more equitable wealth distribution would make housing even more expensive

in some scenarious even taxing third homes could ultimately reduce the supply of housing

a land value tax on the other hand...
Ownership is indeed the other reason I don't do streaming. I pay for a track or album, download it, and it's mine.

I do see this capability disappearing in coming years, however; especially with growing use of "AI" tools to, say, craft ever more complicated barriers to avoiding rent-seeking.
You can pull on those heartstrings in either direction, as it were.

In economic terms what you're arguing is that investment efficiency should always outweigh allocative efficiency.

> pay [...] much more than your neighbor, who objectively speaking may have a lot of equal value.

All land is unique, so I don't think adjacent land of equal value exists. The difference may be trivial, or it may be substantial.

But yes, it's all a tradeoff. Some might prefer a centralized government authority decreeing a given value, others might prefer market-based price discovery.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else either way, just pointing out that fair price discovery for a self-assessment LVT isn't an unsolved problem.
At one point - in the not too distant past - a common way of valuing tech startups was $1M per engineer...

You can see why companies might have been incentivized back then to hire anything with a pulse that claimed to be an engineer.
Agree - for most people its an increase, but for a homeowner on a fixed income it can feel the equivalent to a spiral.
I'm not a scam, I like to believe, because I've always gotten good feedback from my teams. But definitely the job description is quite light and a bit handwavy, so all companies could use fewer engineering managers, not more. I myself would volunteer to go back to IC right now.
The CEO of Dropbox has a 90/10 rule for remote work
I'm not a truck guy, but the Ford Lightning looks pretty cool. I wish it wasn't so expensive.
If I understand your question, it's a lot simpler than that. (Simpler as in not that functional.) It represents the directory structure as cascading menus.

I edit using VS Code and it provides help with linking from one document to another, including navigating to the file and even linking second level ('##') headings. MkDocs can report broken links when it builds the site.

Collaboration could be through sharing a Git repo. Perhaps other other ways I can't think of at this moment. Any way you could collaborate editing text files should work.
This does not pass basic scrutiny unless the plan is to ruin average homeowners that valued their assets at fair market value.

Essentially, you want to force asset owners to write an at-the-money call option against their assets, and then adding insult to injury by not paying them an offsetting risk premium. I don't know how any moral person could be a proponent of the kinds of abuse and profitable exploitation of average people this proposal would trivially enable.
The responses here are all assuming your grandmothers taxes would go up. But bear in mind LVTs are intend to replace the existing property tax regime (at least in the US). If your grandmother lives in a quiet suburb or rural area, it's likely that her taxes would decrease under an LVT if the LVT was trying to extract roughly the same amount of overall money as a property taxes regime.

If she lives in the middle of a city, then yes her taxes may increase.
Which parts do you reject?
I come from Western Massachusetts, which is characterized by smaller populations and lower budgetary allocations. The most significant budget item in most municipalities here is education, followed by road maintenance, which is often extremely costly. In Massachusetts, the basic cost estimate for repaving a standard road is approximately $1 million per mile, and this investment typically only lasts about a decade before it requires another round of expensive repairs.

Bridges are even more financially burdensome. Recently, we replaced a culvert that was so small I could easily jump over it, and yet it set us back $700,000. Keep in mind; we're talking about a town with a population of around 1,000 people, and we have over 30 of these culverts and bridges scattered across our approximately 80 miles of road within a 55-square-mile area. If you're familiar with the region, you might even be able to pinpoint which town I'm referring to.

To add to the challenge, not only do we have to repave our roads every 7-10 years to prevent them from falling into disrepair, but we also have to maintain them for safety, plow them, and salt them for safe travel. Over the past three decades, the expectations for maintaining these infrastructures have significantly increased.

The problem lies in the way taxes are structured, which is based on the combined value of land and improvements (buildings). Particularly in smaller towns and cities, most people are trying to get the most affordable option. This approach encourages sprawl, resulting in substantial infrastructure construction and maintenance costs. In larger cities (unlike mine), the upkeep of water and sewer lines are another considerable addition.

In more suburban communities, we're witnessing the aging of infrastructure that was originally constructed during the early days of the automobile era. The cost of replacing this aging infrastructure is substantial, but growth expectations, which used to help fund these projects, are dwindling. Many people who moved a few miles outside the city center still expect the same level of services without understanding the financial implications. This situation places a significant strain on tax funds, leaving us with limited resources to invest in valuable critical community needs and values.

We now live in a small city in multi-unit building that has ~60 ft of road frontage, and is right in downtown. The building has 6 apartments so has considerable value. But our _infrastructure_ costs are tiny compared to those that live in suburbia. Why are we paying more taxes for helping the city be efficient?

MA GL says you have to tax everyone on their property value - so someone in a 250K house out in suburbia that costs the town huge amounts to maintain their roads, sewers and water, actually costs the town money -- while a downtown 6-unit $1.5M building next to others that use the same services, is a boon.

And what made that possible? The proliferation of the automobile.

We need our tax system to promote density - which means you can spend more tax money on things that matter.

(this has been edited in places by ChatGPT)
If you are driving somewhere it doesn't make you a passenger though. Same with the airplane.

Passenger is defined as someone on board without operating the vehicle.
Being old and seeing the new generations amazed by the reapplication of what was discovered and used decades ago in a novel way amazes me.
Speaking of "bimbo" recruiters, some of them are low key phone-sex operators.

I had an experience where one of them reached out to me about a job over the phone. She had a hot-sounding voice and the job seemed intriguing, so I figured I would give it a shot. Her LinkedIn photo was stunning. Yes, I sheepishly admit that I was taken in by her and this influenced my decision to even consider a random job from a recruiter.

She was friendly but kinda ditzy, seemed to barely know what she was talking about, and once the easy stuff was over, I was abruptly handed over to some dude. It's like... I thought you were my recruiter, so who's this other guy? He pretty much handled my recruitment process from that point on, but she was allowed to be the first one to talk to me on each call and get the credit for "recruiting" me, although she turned out to be more like live-bait than anything else.

IMO, the tactic of many of these recruitment firms is to hire attractive women to fool male programmers into considering otherwise unappealing jobs and direct most of the profit to the male recruiters.

Part of me is glad the industry is in such a state that no recruiters are contacting me anymore. 99% of third party recruiters are blood sucking parasites.
Could you provide some examples of where this has happened?
Aggregate for Google is $181k, $272k, $44k, $77k. So between 3.5 and 4.1 times.
Even without the lawsuits they would probably be over. The whole retail drug store industry is in dire straights these days.
That’s a perfectly fine view for a person to have, but is definitely not what the economic concept of rent seeking is. What you’re talking about is essentially what Marx called “seizing the means of production”, and is the fundamental basis of Marxist economics. So if you wanted to be more clear with what you’re trying to say, I’d suggest you adjust your vocabulary a bit.
> All value stems from improvements made by people, either on the land, or nearby.

Sure. Most of the value comes from the efforts of people who have nothing in particular to do with the "owner" of the land though.
Like this? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002604130322.html
Exploitation Business
This paper delves into the concept of "Exploitation Business," a profit-driven model that capitalizes on information asymmetry and induces FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) to sell digital content like paid courses to vulnerable individuals. Unlike traditional educational models, the key issue with Exploitation Business is the pretense of expertise by non-experts and the generalization of rare scenarios to exploit desperate individuals. The paper aims to define this business model, explore its activation mechanisms, examine its detrimental effects on people, and discuss potential solutions to mitigate its impact.
Most leftists see landlords as people who unjustly make money without doing any work by taking money from their renters who do work. It's fairly common for leftists to describe them as parasites.

What they think should be done about that depends on exactly what type of leftist they are. However, most do not think that the land should be seized by the government. Many are fine with private ownership but feel that systems (such as the land value tax in this discussion) should be put into place to help ensure that the land's value is shared by society. On the other hand, anarchists might feel that land should be owned collectively by those living on it and managed by them democratically.

I think that most leftists would agree with you; realizing that landlords didn't actually do any labor to earn the money that they receive opens ones eyes to a lot of the problems in our current system of housing.
A good engineering manager should be like a warrior in a garden; mentoring and fostering the engineers, and ready to go to "battle" for them at a moment's notice.
> because some corporation had NIH

It was the opposite of NIH. Red Hat had a bunch of features that their customers wanted Docker to have, like custom image registries and daemonless, but docker wouldn't accept the pull requests adding them.
Who knew that $70k+ pickup trucks were also a 0% interest rate phenomenon.
[iA Writer](https://ia.net/writer) is a great one.
They were sued for selling opioids to people with prescriptions the chain knew (not 'should have known' - knew) were fraudulent, and the damages that caused. To individuals and communities, for example.

The DoJ said they violated two acts in doing so: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/united-states-files-com...

Why did they do it? Because like everyone else involved: there were big profits to be made.

Rite-Aid is the first pharmacy to file for bankrupcy but several drugmakers have already done so.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/16/1206256476/rite-aid-files-for...

> The latest data from the centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 112,000 drug deaths in the latest 12-month period here in the U.S. It's the highest toll of fatal overdoses ever. The big culprit now is street fentanyl, the synthetic opioid produced by the Mexican drug cartels. But it's important to say the U.S. medical industry is still prescribing vastly more pain pills than other countries. Those medications are still killing a lot of Americans - nearly 17,000 fatal overdoses from prescription pills every year. In suing Rite Aid earlier this year, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement saying the Justice Department plans to hold companies accountable for the opioid epidemic that's killing Americans.
> I'd say you shouldn't be calling setenv() at all once you've spawned threads.

That's why I hate ZeroMQ. They spawn threads and do magics behind your back.
> India

Ok, so, I have a friend who works big tech and he has no chill for Indians (SWEs, PMs, etc). Is there a grain of truth to the “lazy Indian” trope? I always assumed, especially first generation immigrants, would be working balls-to-the-wall. Am I wrong? Is there some sort of incentive misalignment in the H1B program? Is it cultural (e.g. like “island time”, which I’ve learned is at least partially attributable to the futility of working harder under the tyranny of distance)?

I’m not saying Indians are Lazy. I’m asking is there a perceptual issue due to some factor that’s obvious to the typical Nth-generation American?
My state levies taxes on businesses for the address they are leasing/renting, based on some estimation of the value of the "stuff" in it.
You realize all those parking lots are owned by big developers who want to develop the land, but are waiting for the right conditions…
Thanks for your post. While it might not be the optimal approach for maximizing profit, I think your Stocketa blog post is absolutely stunning and shows an incredible commitment to quality as well as a very impressive work ethic to spend so much time on it.

If I may ask a question - how did you do it?
GAI just needs to go. It needs to be moved to its own daemon with a simple RPC.

libc is kinda schizophrenic in this regard. It has mostly obviously low-level functions like string manipulation and memory management, and then unexpectedly a DNS client implementation and a support for arbitrary runtime plugins (for PAM).
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-progress-a...
EVs are a cost center. So when the squeeze shows up, EVs are first on the chopping block.
Underfunded pensions are a problem only because tax revenue must be spent on maintaining unsustainable infrastructure that was originally built on an expectation of never-ending growth.

If that infrastructure costs were not so high, there would be sufficient money to pay people what they deserved.
There are physical limits in play here in terms of latency that video does not need to deal with.

Playing many video games requires very low latency, which will be impossible to guarantee everywhere.
Where can I port my data to using bluesky?
Perhaps we're dealing with a situation where the hindsight is clearer than activity in the moment. Not defending Rite Aid but when a drug prescribed by a doctor flows into the system, that's fulfillment of an order to me and I'm not going to go through every medical record to find out whether or not the drug prescribed is valid or not.
So, 5 accounts and 3 teens. So a 40% miss rate? In what way did the 2 accounts that weren't guilty get harassed by the police?
I appreciate the sentiment, but that's not really true.

If you can afford the rent for your home, you can afford to own it via a mortgage. (Assuming functioning capital markets and assuming low enough transaction costs.)

Something like this has to be true, because that's how landlords pay for their cost of capital and maintenance etc. If rent couldn't cover that, but for some reason home prices still stayed high, and sane land lord would sell the property and put the proceeds in some investment that does cover its cost of capital.
They should implement a blight tax or a vacant land tax instead.

I don't see how this helps Detroit's problems - unless they arbitrarily set high values on land where land is possibly already worthless. The areas with the most blight have the lowest land values already.

The city already owns 75k out of 380k lots (~20% of the city - most of it vacant) - and instead of trying to sell the lots - the Detroit Land Bank holds onto them to arbitrarily inflate land values.

This seems like another recipe for a negative feedback loop that makes bad areas even worse.

Just tax blight outright.

Give away the damn land to anyone that will build something on it and live there - or get someone else to live there, pay taxes, and be a valuable part of the community - rather than a vacant lot that's a breeding ground for crime.
Just-JS: small, secure, robust and performant JavaScript runtime for Linux
> the exceptions essentially nullify the point of the land value tax though

Or they just time shift it until the person receiving the exception moves away and the property goes to someone without the exception.
00000011 of us?
For what it's worth, I see it somewhat differently:

People now live by, for and at the discretion of the corporations. The government is just a tool that the rich use to exert their will upon the people.
They did a post on mktime()

But, yes, in general for libc, if the manpage didn't say it's thread-safe, it is unsafe.
So the Economist reported today that Tuvalu is planning for its disappearance as sea levels rise [1].

What a great opportunity for Msrs Andreeson, Thiel, Musk and all the other neo-Rand true believers to step in and create their seasteading utopia. They could cast this manifesto in gold at the entrance. Years from now, when we visit their brave new world below the waves I'm sure it will have worked out great!

[1] https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/10/12/tuvalu-plans-for-i...
Sounds more like a furlough than a layoff.

Probably something negotiated by the union.
Even IC trucks are pretty close to 70k these days
Everything is a cost center. Producing anything takes money. If they don't want to pay anything, the company might as well pack up.
They have been in the process of a slow collapse for about ~20 years.

"How did you go bankrupt? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - E. Hemingway
For those who don’t know what Ruff is (like me, 5 minutes ago), here’s what the GitHub project describes it as:

> An extremely fast Python linter, written in Rust.

Pro-tip to announcement authors: it’s helpful when there’s a one-sentence description of the project at the top of a post/article for newcomers who aren’t familiar with the project.
That's not what it means. Even the BBC is state funded media. That you think your media shouldn't be labelled by what it objectively is, is just peak American exceptionalism.

And yeah sure, they weren't directly funded but that's semantics. The stations, which constitute NPR are state funded. It's such a weird position to deny something like this, it just exposes your biases (aka, the label was never meant to be factual but mostly to be a smear)
> Rite Aid files for bankruptcy amid opioid-related lawsuits and falling sales

They just paid $30M. I’d hardly call it worthy of being mentioned. The big issue is their profitability. They over extended and now are pulling back like Wallgreens and the others. And using bankruptcy to restructure any liabilities from the opioid epidemic lawsuits.