skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>"Why wouldn't the equilibrium be Marxist communism?"

Why would it? I think that it might neatly solve the problem of the current system whereby low skilled people are actually dissuaded from working. I know for a fact there are people on welfare who would rather have gainful employment. It might even wind up being cheaper than the current system (from a tax perspective). Another thing that I am certain of is that technology will displace low-skill labor, and that we will have to have a society-wide solution for how we treat the displaced laborers.

>...can we just admit that we're advocating for communism?

It may well be the result. But I'd consider myself to be very far from a communist. My predictions about the future may be wrong, just as you may be in yours; but, no, I am not advocating for communism..

>Can you elaborate on why this is necessary?

If I understand your argument correctly, "...the point at which the system reaches stability is the point at which there is nobody left to extract extra money from to distribute." aren't you implying that there isn't enough productivity/resources to support the entire population currently?

>Wealth is a means to an end to...

I sacrificed precision for brevity when I used the word wealth. Maybe I should have said: I reject the hypothesis that providing BI for a person will squelch or kill his/her ambition. On the contrary, I expect some people to perform 'better' in that respect once the stress of survival is removed.

As for your assertion that the already productive will lose the incentive to produce, I don't believe that either.
Well then, let's petition for a 3 day weekend. That'll give us the 150 of our medieval brethren.

I propose we couch it in terms of equality legislation: Fridays for the Muslims, Saturdays for the Jews and Sundays for the Christians. This serves all Western monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions equally. In order to balance things out though we will need to raise hourly wages across the board by 20% because we'll be only working 4 out of every 5 hours that we do now if I've got my math right.

Thursday will be the new Friday. TGIF will become TGIT.
So we pay $400+ for these devices every couple of years. But we don't trust the manufacturers nor the carriers. Some are paranoid that they're tracking every detail and transmitting at every opportunity.

Yet we continue to buy them?

Seeing the picture of the phone in the case, I can't help but think that this is a rather ridiculous state of affairs. If we don't like being tracked, if we don't trust them and if they breach our privacy, why don't we stop using/buying them?
Well the account workflow makes sense. Why would you create a Microsoft account and then not login using it?

Driver problem is Cisco's fault. Proprietary VPN software has been a shitfest since day one. This is not new. Try using another VPN system end to end i.e. standard IPSec or SSTP or something and it'll just work.

Are you sure Comodo firewall is actually designed to work with it? If you're playing around with PCA, you are trying to break windows to make it work. Windows has a good firewall built in. Go read up on it.

nothing inherently wrong with windows 8.1 in your statement - you need to go introspect. This is typical it's shit because I know better (but you don't).
I think the mentality can be extended to most code-reading. Don't get it by skimming? Must be crap code. I only got away from that when I changed my litmus test towards whether I could write on top of the codebase successfully, not how it looked. Today my only real point of judgment about the look of code is whether it's written in a style that increases average error rate.

w/r to Python in particular, it has a history of ending up with idioms that are "tricky" and not particularly more or less terse than other techniques, but are able to exploit the standard library functions to get a faster-running result.

This is, of course, at odds with the motto of "there should be only one (obvious) way to do it," so every experienced Python programmer has to internalize a small dictionary of idiomatic one-liners for these exceptional cases. (Fortunately, it's not that big. I can only think of three or four off the top of my head.)
More maintainable Gruntfiles
An interesting question, though from this piece anyway, it sounds like the focus is on the publishers not the readers.
> I myself am making a distinction between game developers and game designers.

How? There are rather few engine guys outside of Big Developers these days. I haven't read about 3/4 of that list but I've been perfectly capable of slamming together a cross-platform engine that completely meets my needs, using OpenGL/GL ES and OpenAL. Most of the people likely to read this sort of thing are going to be looking at the indie side of things where you wear all the hats.

And specialization is still kind of shitty even in the large. You don't want your programmers knowing how the things players really care about work?
This is an incoherent argument.

The people who successfully make money have a larger portion of it taken away by the government and given to people who don't make money. They recoup their losses by raising prices and re-extracting it from the people it has been given to

That doesn't happen in the real world -- raising taxes doesn't cause runaway inflation. (How could you possibly think that it does?)

BI has to be increased to keep pace with rising prices caused by funding BI [...] The endgame of the second option is Marxist communism

Even if raising taxes did cause runaway inflation, this would still be wrong. Say that each year you set aside 20% of the GDP for basic income. Then your basic income plan already automatically increases with inflation.

So the percentage of GDP used for basic income would be stable. We would never get communism.

The endgame isn't the Soviet Union, it's Denmark.
I'll have to take your word for it - I missed that, and HN search doesn't turn up anything (looking for the phrase "innate aversion", sorted by date: https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=innate+aversio... )
Just write a simple assembler or compiler yourself?
Ironically, there's a company called Yapp (https://www.yapp.us/) that's one of the biggest users of Ember.js that I know of. Was super confused when I saw the title...
> can we just admit that we're advocating for communism?

Communism has gotten such a bad rap that even when people advocate for something like it, they cannot admit that it's like communism.

See the quote from Keynes in the article, even. Obviously Keynes wasn't exactly a communism advocate, but "society will be so productive that it won't be organized around work but around leisure" is almost taken straight from Marx in many ways.

I guess what I'm saying is a variant of Graeber's "Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!" Remove the ideology behind some words and the positions that people advocate can be fascinating.
For the uninitiated, could someone please explain what we use Ember (and related frameworks like Angular.js) for?

For example, I build a Rails app to handle models, views, and controllers on the backend. Then I can use HTML/CSS/JS to write a frontend to interface with the Rails app. Why do we need another MVC framework on top of Rails?
C gibberish to English gibberish.
This is a horrible conclusion. Google+ will check to see if the URL has metadata that it can add to the link. I believe Facebook might do this as well.

A URL shortener might grab metadata from the page, hence the access.

I don't think this title is appropriate, nor is the article or its premature conclusions.
Even if you're not interested in creating an engine from scratch for a production game, I recommend you spend a few weeks learning OpenGL (modern OpenGL--not the fixed-function pipeline). Unity3D is great for some stuff, but understanding the core of what you're doing is valuable.
You mean they were actually enforcing the stereotype of weak women by emphasizing the exceptionality of strong women?
This has some odd corner cases.

"void f(void)" -> "declare f as function (void) returning void"

"void fun(void)" -> "declare fun as function (void) returning void"

"void funct(void)" -> "declare funct as function (void) returning void"

"void func(void)" -> "syntax error"

"func" is not a special name in C.

Also:

"void fn(void f(void))" -> "syntax error"

But this syntax works just fine:

/tmp$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>

void fn(void f(void))
{
f();
f();
}

void g(void)
{
puts("g");
}

int main()
{
fn(g);
return 0;
}
/tmp$ gcc test.c
/tmp$ ./a.out
g
g
Matthew Olearczyk, a program manager with the Electric Power Research Institute, explains that typically a squirrel will cause a blackout by scampering across electrical equipment and touching simultaneously both an energized component, like one of the cylindrical transformers at the top of a utility pole, and a grounded piece of equipment. The squirrel completes the circuit, generating an arc. There is an instantaneous flash of blue light. At its center is the squirrel, combusting.

It's written in a very Dave Barry sensibility throughout.
To be inclusive should add a day for atheists and misc religions too. Monday works for me
Because the real world isn't Econ 101.

Not all goods are perfectly elastic. Take a look at the research surrounding the minimum wage.

If we were to increase the minimum wage by $0.50 (~6.7%) we'd only have about a 1% increase in food prices (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/306735/aib74703_1_.pdf). Also take a look at the study regarding fast food prices by Card and Krueger.

Increasing the minimum wage in general does not cause a net rise in unemployment (http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/200...).

The people who would receive the BI are the in the lowest income brackets. The bottom three income quintiles on average spend more in a year than they earn. This mean redistributing money to the lower income quintiles effectively results in more money being put back into the economy.

You can see this by studying the economic effect of various subsidies. Food stamps have the highest return on the dollar, with $1.73 in economic activity generated for every dollar spent on food stamps. And subsidies to the higher tax brackets like the Bush tax cuts have a negative return. http://frac.org/initiatives/american-recovery-and-reinvestme...
Years ago, at my first internship, we were assigned to copy fields of information out of hundreds of PDF files and compile them into a single spreadsheet. While my coworker began dutifully trudging away, I started googling and found out about the COM API and the Python library. I spent the rest of my time writing a script to automate the task.

The silly and wonderful thing about the Office API is that it doesn't work silently, but instead performs the operations on screen as if they were being done by a human being. The article explains this. There's something very satisfying about seeing the reaction of your boss as he watches the computer do the work on its own, as if its being operated by a ghost. Now I know what it must have been like to see a player piano a hundred years ago.
Koprowski's explanation from the last page is probably the most correct part of the article. Having done some time in the "greater telecom biz" I assure you that squirrels do not solely eat copper power wires, they are ravenous for aerial optical fiber and most any coaxial cable (CATV, communications/RF stuff, etc)

I have not studied this at length but I'm told the carcass from turning a squirrel into a power line fuse is substantially different than the carcass from shorting out a couple KW of broadcast transmitter RF and a tech can tell at a glance which cabling needs replacing when they see a smoking carcass on the ground. But I never worked outside plant so this might just be a tall tale they tell cubie dwellers.

Unlike what the article claims, I'm told there's off the shelf nearly perfect repellants based on hot sauce and at least some cables like coax are often flooded with a dielectric gel which is designed to taste awful, or so they claim.
> Why would it?

Consider how much the rest of your paragraph sounds like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Indeed; a Refusenik friend of mine said the TV propaganda contrasting "the rich" and "the poor" in the US generally failed because the target audience could see the poor in the US in the '70s or so really weren't that bad off, something members of the nomenklatura making this stuff probably didn't really appreciate.
What actual strong female characters have in common is the fact that they're not showing a huge amount of feminine traits.
Take Zoey in FF for instance, if you disregard the female body she is not really female, in a good way.
She is a loyal soldier, she is a loving spouse, and she is a good fighter, yet she's not really feminine. You know she's a woman and the writers chose to leave it at that, focus on what's actually important and not the "omg I can't believe she's a woman with a gun".

This is true for beloved male leads in movies as well, in the case of Sherlock Holmes we're not constantly reminded he's a man. The same goes for say, Iron Man.
These are people who are introduced to a series of problems they have to solve, and in one way or another they get shit done with all the flare, despair and glory needed to make a good film.

Anti-racism is the new racism, anti-sexism is the new sexism, etc. When people stop focussing on trivialities, deeper thoughts can come to life.
Reread your Kaczynski.
There is not enough data to support your assertions. "Count the incidents" is not a satisfactory answer to the question. We did boarder screenings before 9/11 and 9/11 happened.

You need stronger data to back this up.
Again, I'd argue that if you have a programmer willing to throw in a double cast expression (!) to work around a warning without once thinking about what they are trying to do (in this case to check if a pointer is NULL) then you have problems that aren't going to be well addressed by a C99 bool anyway.

I mean, this example is a little contrived as it is. The "normal" way to treat a pointer as a boolean and branch off of it is just "if(ptr)", and that's worked without trouble on all compilers for 40 years now.

Is C sort of a mess? Yeah. But this isn't a particularly illustrative example IMHO. All languages have this nonsense (c.f. the Ruby/JS "Wat" video).
Yea I understand what you mean now. I would still say that's a little aggressively paranoid given the nature of this pouch, but you're right -- the makers of the pouch seem to imply that you're "safe" when your phone's inside which apparently isn't 100% true.
Children seized in German raid on homeschooling family
seems really similar to the early days of animoto, which were pretty popular on youtube
Most BI advocates also advocate cutting entitlements entirely, that's where they money would come from.
There are two schools of thought at work, and you need to decide which one is for you:

1) You're paid to do a job, in a hierarchical management structure each tier must delegate and trust the tier below it. It's not your job to criticise your manager, it's the job of your managers manager, at the end of the day none of the developers are at fault for simply being told what to do.

2) You're personally and emotionally committed, you know you shouldn't do it but you want to take on the problems of the team, and by proxy, the problems of the company. If that's the case then voice your concerns because it'll stress the fuck out of you otherwise. Don't voice them to your manager, voice them to your managers manager. Don't get all emotional when voicing your concerns just lay out the facts calmly and impartially and go with whatever they say.

My opinion on this is that if you've taken the time to submit to HN, then you're Option 2 and it's going to eat at you. Even if you leave like many people have suggested you're going to feel bad for your team. Voice your concerns and then try to emotionally distance yourself from the company (unless they get the hint and fire the idiot manager). Then start looking for another job and advise the same to your colleagues.

Lot's of people here are saying to look for a job first, if you voice your concerns now, in the UK, it's unlikely they'll just fire you without any notice or any severance pay. If you're in London and half decent, you'll find employment pretty quickly.

Best of luck ;)
Xavier and Magneto were a direct allegory to MLK Jr. vs Malcolm X, and general 1960's American racial issues (early comic books involved mutants getting lynched). This was the direct intention of the original writers way back in 60's when it was first written.

Interestingly, the recent X-Men movies don't generally fall into the SFC archetype, at least no more than is required by the nature of the X-Men. Most of the on-screen characters are just "shoots X out of their Y" - Storm, Cyclops, Pyro, Iceman, etc. Of the 3 characters of any gender with any depth at all (Wolverine, Magneto, Rogue), the female is definitely not an SFC.
This being an post complaining about weather in London, English law can be assumed to apply. First of all consult a local solicitor in employment law. Collect all your reviews and e-mails about your job performance in the last years. The solicitor can tell you what your risks are as losing a job can be a big financial problem. This will cost you a 100 to 300 GBP which is worth it. (have a look around see if a trade union can help you for much less)

Then document what is going on with the secret project and if possible show where your boss has lied on paper/e-mail. Then either schedule a meeting with your bosses boss and ask internal legal council to be present if it is in your company do this personally and make sure the meeting is on short notice and preferably early in the day.

If possible have a basic recovery plan available but do not give it unless asked for it. You should show concern for the business not look like you want your bosses job.

During this period of course look for new opportunities elsewere as, if your current boss stays your boss work is not going to be any fun. Even if they can't fire you now.
zshell automatically links `cd` to `pushd`, which means you can go back with `popd`.
this

>>>
* The people who successfully make money have a larger portion of it taken away by the government and given to people who don't make money. They recoup their losses by raising prices and re-extracting it from the people it has been given to, except now the government gets a cut of it twice. BI has to be increased to keep pace with rising prices caused by funding BI.
>>>

is rather muddled.

1) FWIW Basic income would be distributed to everyone.

2) What you are describing is the current system, people who make more money are taxed more, and that money is distributed to various things, including giving money to poor people.

3) The phrase "they recoup their losses" has nothing to do with how the market functions right now. Companies set their prices based on a variety of factors, and generally try to be as profitable as they can. The taxation rate of individuals does not directly modulate that. For example, if the CEO of Walmart or Mattel had a marginal tax rate of 99% this would not directly change the price of a Barbie doll.
Indeed. It is quite old. I remember using the CLI version of this that I had to compile on my own in the early 90's on Solaris 2.x on a Sparc.
Ah... you're talking about the "Suckerpunch" characters. Yup, you're right about that.

As you've stated, there are plenty of good female characters if you look around though. Its just that there's far more poorly written characters in general.
Tax-and-distribute BI doesn't cause direct inflation, because it's not changing the amount of money in the economy. If it's taking money from wealthy people that is just sitting and doing literally nothing, then yes, it causes effective inflation since it increases the amount of currency in active circulation, but rich people tend to use their money as capital - I don't have hard stats on this, but I don't think that very much of it at all is genuinely out of circulation which could otherwise be brought into circulation through BI taxes (this is the reason that some inflation is considered a good thing; it incentivizes keeping money in circulation to avoid the inflation tax).

If people magically had more money to spend without anyone having to lose money to fund it, that would cause direct inflation (since the total amount of currency in circulation would be higher). The only way that happens is if the government starts printing a few hundred billion each month and handing it out to people.
Yea you're right, I thought the microphone itself wouldn't work but it still does.
All the time I wasn't talking about USA specifically.

And, as far as I understand, birth rates of the "people who you want to have kids" - people with education living near a large city - have already plummeted. Which is compensated by people who don't quite fit the society but instead reproduce to get something from the society.

Why will there be a cultural and societal rejection? A lot of people don't have babies already (or defer it until it's too late) and it's okay for everyone. Anyway, when you've got a nuclear family or a single person, it's not easy to reject or influence them - they'll give you a finger and start a new WoW gaming session.

And when you've got a society where childless family is the norm, it won't be easy to reverse until it's too late.

If you're ready to breeding humans in labs like cattle, why would you object to wiping out human populations we don't like?
Surely, humans have rights, but only the wild ones. Humans grown in labs are property.
Random pair bonding is what gives you a society. Anything else gives you androids that usually malfunct.

And the only reason we're talking about BI is because we think that people have rights and we have to cope with those.

What we're not in Africa is a fact. Female empowerment and education is also a fact. Let's think what are our next steps? Hint: it doesn't involve trying to make a few steps back.
>but the most convincing evidence that it was very hard was that early mines and factories were easily able to recruit all the workers they needed, despite working conditions we know to have been harsh

That's extremely innacurate. Workers had to be MADE to work into factories by force, often by laws and regulations destroying their agricultural and traditional occupations to make them fodder for the industry. In a lot of cases, the industrilization was made at gun point (USSR is an example, but it also holds for a lot of the limited industriliazation in the third world).

That is known (and has been documented) to have happened almost everywhere there was industrialization.
"Ski bum" is not an option for people that want to have economic security and maybe buy a mortgage and raise a family.
That was my first thought (after looking for existing solutions). REPL and https://github.com/ajaxorg/cloud9 for bonus points.

Also: http://www.oocities.org/connorbd/tarpit/bancstar.html
Toopher: easy two-factor authentication
Jodie Foster, Sigourney Weaver, Merryl Streep come to mind - are they the wrong kind of strong?

Miss Maple was a famous literary detective.
I didn't downvote you, but "sorry, no remote work" is a comical restriction for this field, especially for a large organization like Google.
> Considering that in human history poverty has always been the norm it makes sense to look at what causes poverty to not be the norm first before moving onto just "fixing" it.

"When I give the poor bread, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."