skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How about allowing unapproved comments, even older ones, to be deleted by the submitter? That seems a simple and fair solution. Users can unclog their own queues if need be.
For those using Node.js who are interesting in trying out BLAKE2, I found this module:

https://github.com/sekitaka/node-blake2

I hasn't been touched in a year, but it looks fairly good. I may try it out soon to see how it performs myself.
You expect 1000ers to endorse most decent comments they come across that aren’t greyed out yet. Based on how many votes most comments currently have, I doubt that would be the case. Unvalidated comments would appear greyed-out, therefore suspicious, and most 1000ers would assume there is something wrong about them that they haven’t figure out. Especially if they expect to be punished for validated anything that isn’t exceptional… I’m not sure what ratio of comments you expect to weed out, but I expect most will be gone.
I like the intent.

Given that karma is a function of votes from articles posted as well as net votes from comments made, is there a way to use the second but not the first for karma limits related to comments?
Asch's Conformity Experiment
Line break is mixed up.
Thanks, this is good info. For NodeJS and Rails, I use nvm and rvm, so didn't have any problem with multiple environments. But yeah, I see your point that Docker can help in such scenario or when there's no equivalent of nvm/rvm.
Unlikely. I don't think a reasonable court would conclude that one has to have a specific beneficiary in mind to satisfy the prong of intent to benefit a third party.
The power of the cloud.
I do this. The main problem I've found is that the individuals are overly grateful and ashamed of having needed the assistance. It frays the friendship more than a little bit; it's not so much that it becomes the breaking point, but it weakens our ability to treat each other as equals, because, and this is the important point:

Because I know they needed the help, and they know I know. This makes a significant difference to how people interact. One of the nice things about basic income is that, if I were depending on it for my livelihood, I would not have to tell anyone.

I would be allowed to keep my dignity.
> We can also go to a progressive BI, which may better be describe as a negative income tax, where the poor get more than the rich.

That's called a "means-tested social benefit program", and is one of the thing BI advocates see it as replacing (we have plenty of those now) -- one of the main problems they see is that such programs create perverse incentives, since they reduce the marginal value of additional income to the poor, since the additional income reduces the benefit from the social benefit program. That perverse incentive is one of the things BI is proposed to cure.
> Saying that taxes are theft is as absurd to me as saying that private property is imoral.

I'm not arguing that "taxes are theft". I'm arguing that giving money to poor people so they don't attack me is theft. buzaga was saying that if I/we don't "take care of the unfortunate", they'll decide to take our money/stuff by force. Sounds like a veiled threat to "give them money, or else..." That is theft, in my opinion.

I'm perfectly fine with taxes as long as they go to things that benefit everyone equally, including me (like roads, schools, police and courthouses).

EDIT: Also, please point out where I said (or implied) that "taxes are theft". You completely misread what I wrote, therefore I have to agree that we can't have a productive argument.
For note, HN isn't necessarily increasing in popularity.

Number of HN submissions over 3 years: http://i.imgur.com/r9Ayvb1.png

Number of HN comments over 3 years: http://i.imgur.com/4FwglA8.png
You have to be clever, topical, and insightful. Or just damned lucky.

Like comedy anywhere else, really.
I browser HN daily, been around for coming up on a year, and I'm not even half way there.

Since commenting is such a huge aspect of these sites for me, I'll probably frequent HN much less often since I won't be able to participate in conversation. PARTICULARLY, I won't be able to get in the early comments that are necessary for making high-karma. You can't have your comment show up an hour or so later after "approval," you'll only net a handful of upvotes, because you'll be buried under the high-scoring top comments by senior HN users.

Perhaps make a mid tier, say 500 karma, where you can't endorse users, but don't need endorsement?
Some adjustments:

People under 18, 25%

Felons/criminals, probably 3%

Removing social security, medicare, and most other government social welfare programs should remove a giant chunk of the federal budget. I think if you re-do these numbers that will appear a lot more affordable.

Proponents of BI say it can't exclude anyone. That is silly. Things we consider the most basic fundamental rights: voting, free speech, are restricted for large groups such as convicted felons. It would be reasonable that anyone who fails to conform with government rules of accepted social behavior should also be excluded from BI.

The more serious problem with BI is how the dollars flow toward prices. If you make a blanket distribution of money to a large group of money the end result may just be price inflation in the goods that exist in a limited quantity, most specifically real estate.

I think BI is a fairly poor idea. But, being realistic I am trying to imagine what it would look like in use. All I see is a tool for governments to control large segments of lower middle class citizens. That may well be the goal.
All I meant is to by default collapse all comments with depth > n.
"I mean, just ask yourself .. If you were Google and someone broke a major story about you, and he uses Gmail .. Wouldn't you want to sneak a little peek ?"

No, I wouldn't but I guess I was taught differently. On a business note, it is a clear signal to everyone that gmail is not a service you can use if you have ANY business dealings with Google. If you are tempted by this then you would be tempted to look behind the scenes of anything involving Google.
I've been around for 250 days or so and am not even halfway there.

Then again, I only say something whenever I feel I have something to add, rather than just blasting comments and hoping to get upvotes (and now, endorsements)
Fair 'nuff. FWIW, HN has always been like that on some subjects, for as long as I've been a user here. But, the echo-chamber problem might have gotten worse lately, since some key people have fled the site.

It's tough to draw many conclusions from reactions to just a few comments. There are too many variables: tone, time of day, subject matter, who happens to be browsing the site at that time. And people can suffer from argument fatigue, even if it's a totally civil debate.

So I'm not yet convinced that this will be a huge problem for contrary opinions, and if such a problem already exists, this change might even fix it a little by removing some of the noise that's distracting people from better comments.
Go impl: https://github.com/dchest/blake2b
As soon as a policeman gets fired, he becomes worthless to you?
Interesting, but not necessarily surprising. Especially if any of the research that suggests that attractive people are also smarter, i.e this one (links to PDF): http://www.researchgate.net/publication/41752961_Why_beautif...
It's not enough to 'destroy' money, you'd have to prevent it from reappearing. Since it's easy for communities to create 'money', destroying it won't bring any freedom or radical change; just disruption.

It's just as with anarchy - you can destroy government, but you can't prevent "government"(s) from springing up to replace them, and usually worse than the ones before.
Google, Play Some Music
No. Just took a random look at a couple of them, and one of the poster registered 5 days ago. I am guessing maybe 7 days?
wow, that's ignorant
I suspect that if the US implemented basic income, people would still expect government-funding mandatory primary and high schools.

For the particular example of disabled or very ill people, universal government-sponsored health care might help, although that has its own side-effects that are perhaps undesirable. (I believe that people are more incentivized to do medical research in the US than in Canada, in part because Canada's nationalized health care encourages people to stick with existing, inexpensive treatments in most cases.)
Actually down to just 1 at the time of 10 PM EST on Friday
Wow, sounds a bit like what I did when I left eBay after only about 2 months.

The primary difference? I did so to go back to my previous employer in a new position.

In your case, you're still young so your responsibilities are less right now, but making that sort of decision and going to start your own company (without a reliable income) can be a pretty tough thing for someone else to do once they have a family that relies upon them.

Good luck with everything!

Also, "Business" there on your homepage seems to be spelled wrong at the moment (it's currently spelled as "Buisness")
No. Just no. Reasons:

a) it WILL kill off those who want to remain (pseudo/ano)nymous and create throwaway accounts for discussing sensitive stuff (like the multiple "my startup is failing" posts in the last months)

b) Sorry, but I (and many others) have actually lives to live and jobs to do. 1000+ karma users are not moderators, and many simply will be too lazy / too occupied to click "endorse" all the time.

c) Discussions live on the "live" part - and <1000 karma users will have to endure MASSIVE waiting times, effectively killing discussions.
Give it a whirl. I will certainly read it and can commit to do so daily until the end of April, by which time we'll know if it is working or not. I spend about 50% of my time on the New page already because lots of good stuff passes through there without ever hitting the front page.
What indication did I give you that leads you to believe I'm making that assumption?

I didn't make any claim to suggest why poor nations are poor, did I? I simply suggested that as poor nations evolve, their people will consume more.
What a stupid idea. Try again commie.
As a user with only ~200 karma who is still interested in contributing to the discussion, what's the best way to tell when this feature takes effect?

Make a dummy comment? I won't be able to see the pending comments of others, since I'm not one of the HN elite.
It's worth noting that Ontario spent a lot of money to introduce photo health ID, because of the fraud under the old system (including people who would border-hop to take advantage of OHIP while living primarily in the US).
Thank you. Do you normally setup your dev environment inside a container? Or you do development as usual and then when coming to deployment, you deploy your app into the container?
Or.... you could still run, but not as a Republican or a Democrat?
Toxic replies in threads are even worse than toxic top-level comments. A toxic top-level comment probably will drop to the bottom of the page, and, more importantly, the toxic reply is personalized.
First off children don't get the full amount only 1/2 which reduces costs by ~13%. $8500 / (1-.13) = 9770 / year which is rather close to 10k/year. A single person living on 10k after taxes is about the same as a single mother living on 15k hard but hardly impossible. If you add 10k per kid it creates a rather strong incentive to have a few kids.

Also, the assumption is you cut a lot of government spending not just social security. So unemployment insurance, HUD, food stamps, etc. While writing a SS check has vary low overhead handling disability is a huge part of the SS administration that goes away. And those programs are not all paid for by personal income so assuming all the other taxes stay the same you free up a fair amount of spending for the basic income.

Even just eliminating social security reduces taxes by 12.5%. And, presumably that $3,900 exemption for each qualifying child goes away along with the home mortgage tax deduction as do a lot of other deductions which can lower taxes for the rich who would otherwise be getting most of the additional tax burden. I would also suggest removing the deduction for charitable giving. (The only difference between deductions and spending is accounting the math is identical.)

PS: Actually finding the correct tax rate takes quite a bit of economic modeling 20% is reasonable ballpark, but you need to figure out what's cut to get a good idea of how that actually impacts people.
People who don't sing along with the
right echo chamber will have a tougher time
getting karma enough to be in "the system".
That sounds like a system designed to produce another forum hive-mind, and the internet really doesn't need any more of those.
To me a problem with karma systems that are based on a specific relatively well-defined ruleset is that you still end up with a score that doesn't really convey much. For instance, the karma I have is made up of meaningful discussions, which involve telling others about relevant facts, as well as one liner jokes and a few quotes from random dead folks that are smarter than I am.

I always wonder how useful it is to really try to get down to defining what it is you want out of the conversations, and then giving the ability to narrow based on that. Obviously, the narrowing would have to be quick, because it's hard enough to get people to click an up/down arrow once, but if it were to include even two or three more specific categories, or flags, could you put enough information into the system to automate some of the problem folks.

For instance, having a way for users to flag a post as vitriolic, or not containing real information, and then collating the data and either stopping that user from posting, or putting them into a state where their posts are pending.

I also wanted to mention that it seems as though he does address not having illusions in the last sentence: "I hope this will improve the quality of HN comments significantly, but we'll need your help to make it work, and your forbearance if, as usually happens, some things go wrong initially."

I think all of that spitballing is predicated on having a well-defined course you'd like conversations to follow with well-defined rules that don't block the flow of useful discourse, or stifles the community.

This isn't a topic I've done any research on. Just throwing some thoughts out there. I appreciate the parent post, though, because it raised a lot of notions I hadn't thought of immediately when I read the pending idea. I think I tend to lean toward giving people with higher karma the ability to flag people into a status that makes there posts go into pending, according to a set of defined criteria (like were posted) rather than starting folks in that state. I think it would be less impactful to the rate of conversation, but obviously then you have people who make accounts to get around it, which would be solved by the solution to be implemented.

Also everything I'm suggesting is complicated and possibly overkill/overengineered. I wonder if there's an elegant way to get more useful classification information into the voting system to give it more focussed goals.

Well. Enough rambling on my part.
so..redistribution of income? This isn't anything new. I find it interesting that so many people on a forum about technology and business would suggest punishing businesses for using technology to make their business so efficient.

When the music and movie industry wanted more protection for their IP, many people here made comments about the horse and buggy/automobile and they just needed to "change with the times".

Why should employment be any different? If your job is being taken by a robot..maybe you should think about learning another skill.
It can't be that either, one person's account is 12 days old. Googling around, one source [0] suggested it counts only active days.

[0]: http://www.quora.com/Hacker-News/What-does-the-green-usernam...
An additional suggestion- don't show username on pending comments. Let the comments get approved solely on their own merit.

That should cut out a lot of concern about a ol' boys club, and honestly should do a lot to improve comment quality as well.
All the comments are by green-colored-username users. I've never understood what the green usernames meant, but I guess it's a sign of noobs.
Green accounts are new and have low karma.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. I had always sort of seen Linux as easier to update, since it's a single command, but you're right... that command doesn't necessarily get you all the way. Things are going to vary from distro to distro, and none of them will necessarily roll in the bleeding edge version of whatever thing you want the day it launches. And then, custom code is vital on a lot of machines for a lot of applications, and it will introduce its own dependencies.

That said, these factors really complicate security advice on patch management. If customers could be trusted to lock things down and keep an eye on them, that would be a much better world. And I'm sure a lot of admins out there are more than capable, but I worry about the Dunning Krueger effect catching some admins off guard.

But ultimately, this is just a battle of emphasis more than disagreement. The answer isn't "everyone should always patch everything," it just depends on a lot of factors.
Facebook is there. Youtube wouldn't remove share to Facebook.
May be not, other countries may move in that direction. Furthermore, they may even move faster. For example, Mexico already passed a universal income law for people over 65.
Reddit CEO explains what a CEO does
My immediate thoughts were very similar to cperciva's. In the status quo, there's already a disincentive (for those who care about average karma) to comment on any posts that require scrolling down, especially if posts above them are heavily nested or if they themselves are. I can think of a particular discussion I had with a well-known HN user who has professional/financial incentive to care about his karma statistics, and as our two person back-and-forth got slightly too nested but very much unresolved, he merely liked my final comment and never replied.

If pending comments are applied to anything except the top-level, I could see this having disastrous effects on the quality of response in discussions since responses in low-traffic branches will likely not even show up.
But isn't the point of BI that everyone has enough for their basic needs? It would seem unfair at that point to tell some people try and get charity funding (which might dry up at any point).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7446499

But, I mean, it's your button, use it how you want.
It may be the case that the two pieces of plastic are "yellow back and border" and "grey front cover, " but having any other color on the back invalidates the infringement claim. If they had done a yellow border with grey sides and back, they would not have infringed. If they had done yellow back and grey front (with no border) they wouldn't have infringed. If the had done yellow front and grey back without border or yellow front and back with grey border they wouldn't have infringed.

There are all sorts of ways to make a yellow and grey multimeter that don't infringe on Fluke's trade dress. Fluke isn't monopolizing a general two-tone color scheme: They are monopolizing a specific arrangement of two colors, and that is an eminently reasonable thing to do.

This is a little like arguing "Well, copyright shouldn't exist because you shouldn't get a monopoly on just some general words." But that's a strawman--you can only obtain a copyright on a specific arrangement of general words.
Okay. But what is a bad comment then? Maybe your standard is very different from my standard.
I share your concerns. I think that this system would be best applied in combination with some sort of flamewar detection. In other words, only enable it in threads that have high comment:upvote ratios, or in threads where there is high velocity back-and-forth or downvoting.
In which case, a "time out" is redundant if the goal is to simply avoid locking users out.

This system seems to skew discussion toward already popular / active topics, though, since there is less risk of being stuck pending there. Perhaps allowing for multiple pending comments per user (with a limit based on karma, or length of time on the site) would make it less "risky" to post comments in unpopular discussions.
Because income taxes would go up as well. The poor would benefit but the rich might actually end up with a net loss. A basic income is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth, and in theory, might not cost anything more.
> Scale it down? Seems pretty obvious to me. If you can make it happen in one city, you have a foothold.

It doesn't work scaled down, though. (I'd argue that it's a bug in existing policy voting and adoption frameworks that it can be enacted when scaled up, but that's a different argument.)

You can't sensibly enact a policy like this if it draws its funds from the taxes of people who aren't within the city in question (and it would be horribly unjust if you could). So you're talking about paying for a basic income within a city by adding a substantial tax to the residents of that city. That would result in a substantial motivation for any mobile business or person to relocate (and higher-income people are often more mobile), and for any new business to set up shop elsewhere.

Cities are small enough that it's entirely possible to relocate if your local government becomes too obtrusive. A policy like this only "works" if you have a scale large enough that the majority of people opposed to the policy are nonetheless forced into it by virtue of finding it less awful than moving.

The burden of moving to a new country is high enough to deter it for all but the most egregious issues; the degree of bad policy required to motivate leaving a country is far higher than the degree of bad policy required to motivate leaving a city or even a state. As a result, the average person will likely find themselves far less aligned with the policies of their country than their city or state.
As a side note, businesses, in general, could significantly reduce their labor costs if a BI was in place.
Every time a post like this comes up it gets hundreds of people supporting the idea. The problem is that most of the readers of HN have been in the Upper Middle Class or higher their entire lives. Friends, family, co-workers, all UMC, and so you don't know, you've never experienced, the pathologies typical of poorer people. Or, you pretend those pathologies can be solved with a new variation on welfare.

Giving out checks is going to create millions of people who do nothing but 1) Watch television and eat potato chips or 2) Spend the checks on drugs/alcohol, and steal whatever they need until the first of the next month. Worse, many of those people are the same who used to clean your toilets and take out your garbage. Not mine--yours.

That's just reality. I'm guessing that the main reason why conservatives like Charles Murray support basic income is because it focuses the menagerie of handouts into one policy, which will allow for easier metrics into how increases are harmful.
But this is just one metric, how about the number of users? It certainly counts toward "popularity", doesn't it?
Anyone here tried xamarin? It's a 1:1 map of the iOS /Mac API. I love c# and wish I could use it to write native code. C++ is just too clunky to me to use daily. The one thing about iOS and Mac dev that I hate is the interface builder. Worst. ui. designer. ever.
I used http://hn-karma-tracker.herokuapp.com/ to find the number of users with a karma over 927, and there are 5k. There are probably about 4-4.5k that have a karma over 1000, and that includes users that are no longer a part of the community for whatever reason (like aaronsw.)