skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, that does not solve the problem. It still means that if a user ever posts a single comment that doesn't deserve or doesn't get endorsement for some reason, then they can never comment again.

I don't think this idea has been thought through enough to deploy.
The Sea Steading Institute aims to lower the barrier of entry to creating your own sovereign nation. One of the core ideas is that if we have lots of small nations people can do these experiments and find out.
So, one post every three years and you're worried it might not show up?

Personally I'm on the fence. Occasionally I get a chuckle out of some of the flippant one liners and rarely see anything that really bothers me. I only read maybe 10% of the threads though.
If you're abusing the flag system you're going to lose the right to it really quickly or flat out be banned same as it is currently.
I like the idea, but I think there should be simple logic like:

if post.created > 10 hours {
comments.pending(false);
}

Threads that are older should be allowed to be commented on by anybody.
When you say "the comments were actually pretty good" is that subjective or was the average karma per post higher?
Are spam and irrelevant comments really a huge issue here? I have been on here for over two years, and if it is a problem, it is one that I am blind to.

I don't see myself or many of the others with 1000+ karma as the kind of people that would enjoy acting as HN police, and it seems like it will introduce internet politics to a community that has managed to avoid it. The net effect of this, IMO, will be that very few comments get endorsed and the quality and breadth of discussion will diminish.

Finally, while we are talking about new ideas, I would love it if HN would track and display not only the net points a comment receives, but also the actual number of upvotes/downvotes. A controversial comment may have 1 net point, but may also have had 50 upvotes and 50 downvotes. Being able to see if a comment I posted was really interesting to people but opinion was divided, or that no one voted and thus the comment simply wasn't that interesting to others, would be be great.
Exactly what I was thinking. I wonder if Pley will track how many pieces each customer claims to "lose" and will eventually start penalizing them somehow?

If there was a 6-day round trip for receiving sets and sending them back, you could get around 3-4 sets a month. That's 45-60 free pieces.

You could perhaps realistically steal a 32x32 baseplate ($4.99), 4 2x8 bricks ($0.50/ea), and 10 2x4 bricks ($0.30/ea). That's up to $39.96/month worth of legos.

If you just stole 2x8s and 2x4s, that would be anywhere from $18 to $30/month. Their lowest tier starts at just $15/month.

Prices from http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Pick-A-Brick-ByTheme
"There are no governments. Only corporations." ;)
I think I'm missing some context, but this probably isn't the right place to figure it out. Ping me on email (smarx@dropbox.com) if you want, though!
Way to go! much needed.
>Communism didn't work because they tried to micromanage every aspect of the economy.

No, sorry, you're completely wrong. Communism didn't work because it destroyed every incentive for industrious, honest labour, supplanting healthy competitive free-market economics with a landscape of scheming and parasitism as people scrambled to exploit one another.

Communism failed (and will fail every single time another stupid generation which hasn't even bothered to pay attention to the past implements its ideas again) because, under Communism, there is no economy.

Communism is a terrible, terrible idea. Just like all coercive redistribution, which, proportional to the degree of redistribution, destroys economic growth. It's no accident that, other than a handful of tight-knit low-population nation cum communities with large oil stakes, the number of socialist policies enacted by a legislature correlates directly with poor economic performance.

The tragedy is that populations suffering from the negative effects of these policies delude themselves into thinking that an expansion of the policies will fix their woes, rather than hard work and smart investment. It's a vicious circle.
I've always been shocked about the danger of general aviation. I always see needless deaths, and it makes me nervous. I would love to pursue this as a hobby, but stories like this:

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2014/02/03/fire-chief-no-surv...

make me think we need a ballistic recovery system.
Threads on.. particular.. topics tend to generate back-and-forth flamewars that I think this endorsement system may be effective at battling (if the endorsement thresholds are set high enough).
Greatest flop in tournament history!
Twitter #Music Is Dead
I won't repeat my comment, but I maintain what I said here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7447882

This is about good judgment, which cannot be enforced by rules.
Gmail now encrypts every email you send
I have 4663 karma after 958 comments and 21 submissions in a bit under 4 years. Out of that:

- 2908 is comment karma; 1804 is post karma. (The total adds up to a bit too much; I'm probably miscalculating.)

Out of the post karma, 1634 was gained by 5 submissions which made it onto the front page and acquired hundreds of karma. None of the posts I submitted, including those, were written by me. (I'd like to start a blog, but I'm too lazy and shy for now.) And in my opinion, the value I contributed to the community simply by submitting them is rather low; considering that I've frequently tried to submit a story I found especially likely to generate interesting HN discussion only to find it already submitted, it's more likely that I won a race. On the other end, it's well accepted that whether a post manages to get a few points to bring it out of /new before it gets buried is somewhat random - IMHO some of my other submissions were just as good, but they didn't bite for whatever reason - making the correlation between value and post karma even more skewed.

- The comment karma histogram is a bit less lopsided: my top 100 comments (i.e. the top 3%) are responsible for about half of it (1469). But on the other end, 48% of my comments ended up with 1 or 2 points; while many of my comments are bad, I suspect that the difference is more about being seen than the top rated comments being that much better than the 1 pointers.

Also, if you sort by comment length, which is to some extent a reasonable proxy for quality, only 537 karma was earned by the top 100. Many of my top rated comments are relatively simple rebuttals to (in my opinion) bad comments; in my opinion, these can be valuable (since articulating why a comment is wrong is much more useful than simply downvoting it, and most comments never get responded to), but aren't as valuable as the long ones.

It probably doesn't help that (I think) I'm much more likely to respond to other comments (and try to have a discussion, the very thing that this change makes difficult :() than to comment on the post itself.

In my not-so-humble opinion, if you have the time and volubility to constantly make long, good comments on popular posts, you'll be rewarded. But if you don't, because the vast majority of comments will net you nothing, you'll get more by optimizing for quantity and being first to the scene, hoping for a small number of posts and comments to semi-randomly get a large fraction of the karma, than pre-selecting for quality.

Which, come to think of it, sounds a lot like how Y Combinator makes its money.

Oh, and submit a lot of posts.
Because the value of a dollar will shrink for one with more money in the system, unless it is a direct take from wealthy which just won't happen since they are closer to legislation. It would have to be equal to work and that would only last for a while, hence my comment that it would have to re-adjust frequently.

Just like salaries have gone up over time yet the value of a dollar has shrunk, there would only be a momentary boom from the extra money and then the market, as markets purpose is, will find the value and adjust. It would keep things in more of a wave though like when minimum wage goes up, there is a temporary boom to low end markets but it always makes it back to the current distribution (I think minimum wage is a good thing). The money given would always find the way back up through pricing with a basic income though. Apartments suddenly would be x% higher and price increases because there is more money out there and if more actual printed then pricing has to come up. It is a forever balance and the only way to break it I can see is to ramp up the ladder individually.

Markets run everything and they are good, we would still all be farming and dumb if there weren't markets to trade goods for services. Markets and exchanges created conditions for the need for mathematics and allowed people have more free time as they could make products and sell them. This led to more time to think and create/innovate and the reason we have mathematics and technology today. But markets do find fair product to market/user value. Markets are as key to innovation and the evolution of human intelligence as anything. But they will always normalize after infusion, just recently we infused it from the top to banks, which may have kept us from the brink of destruction but only to get it back to 'balanced'. Why didn't they instead just give everyone 6k? Monetary distribution, unless we go away from markets/currency as value, will be pretty close to what we have now always (doesn't mean individuals can't climb it).

It could be proven that we all think like the wealthy on this, once a human gets ahead, they don't want to lose that ground or progress. Case in point the US, if you live in the US like I do, we might have a higher quality of life and currency status than many parts of the world. Would you give that up to allow all countries in the world to be equal in monetary value? If you aren't in the US how about where you live? The people above the fold want to keep it that way, the people below will want it another way, the people above the fold create the game rules, repeat until entropy.
Nothing significant has changed on the Tarsnap website recently, no. I'm guessing the submitter only just became aware of Tarsnap and didn't realize how much it has been discussed around here already.

On the other hand, his account is almost 3 years old, so it would be surprising if he had missed all the previous discussions. Either way though, I'm not going to complain about getting some more traffic...
Xkcd 1345: Answers
I'm in the same situation. Have an upvote. Maybe you'll hit it with this comment...
But if the upvote/downvote buttons have ended up being used as "I agree/disagree" buttons instead of "productive/unproductive discourse" buttons, what mechanism will stop the "endorse" button from also ultimately becoming an "I agree" button too?

I understand the desire to promote higher-quality discourse, but why not go with a less drastic method, like making the value of a user's upvote equal to their average karma, so people with better reputations on the site have a greater influence in sorting comments to the top of the page, but their endorsements aren't required in order for the comments to be seen in the first place?

I'm afraid that with the solution you're planning, it'll become extremely difficult for new users to establish themselves on HN, and HN will become an essentially closed community.
Hope "may" changes to "will" in coming future . Not just state departments but infrastructure services here use windows , e.g.: metro stations , ATM machines . Switch can help to save money which can be used in other developments much needed for the society without comprising efficiency of governance.
It seems like a very primitive solution to a nontrivial problem. Why treat comment quality as binary?

Reddit's approach is slightly more sophisticated and works well in practice. You generally see only quality comments, but you can read all of them if you want to. And you can contribute content without worrying that it may be delayed or outright rejected.
Yes, that is correct. I guess I was in too much of a hurry to share such an awesome invention, maybe I should've done a quick search first.

Thank you very much for the product!

EDIT: Somehow, I'd completely missed all discussion on tarsnap.
If people can improve their economic performance so much with just a small cash grant then, why haven't businesses jumped in on this apparently incredible opportunity? Seems like a great chance for businesses to make some money in tandem with people reaching their potential.

Naturally it would be much better for businesses to do this than the government. Businesses have much higher motivations to use their money wisely (i.e. give the right amount to the right people and create the right incentives to ensure people are motivated to use the funds wisely, go bankrupt or get sued by investors if they spend poorly) than a government (which just gets to shrug or inflate the currency or embark on a fresh round of vilifying productive citizens).

Oh wait, don't we already have that? Bank loans or something, I don't know, lol.
Dunno what I can tell you. I got the plan through eHealthInsurance.com a few years ago. It said there's no annual limit, and on the "Coverage & Benefits" page at member.aetna.com, there's no mention of any dollar limits other than the deductible and an "Annual Durable Medical Equipment Maximum". I'm not getting any subsidies; I make too much for that.

http://i.imgur.com/yD9OgHQ.png

It wasn't the only sub-$100 plan I could choose from on that site either IIRC. I went with Aetna because I was living in Blue Bell at the time, and Aetna HQ was practically in my back yard, half a mile down the street.

Edit: Found the paperwork for the thing. Everything as I said, but a $5M lifetime coverage limit.
Whatever you do, do not give any information to that site unless you want unsolicited calls and emails for months.
I think this is a great idea if you want to end peoples ability to comment that disagrees with a large number of individuals. I think this is a horrible "feature" and endorsing this feature is endorsing censorship.

What made HN great was that anyone could post both stories and comments. Now I can just think, will this comment ever be visible or will it disappear into the abyss and my time writing it was totally meaningless?

To really test this feature, I want to say what I really feel:

Fuck this feature and go shove pending comments in somebody else's ass.
If Islam <-> Muslim is completely false, curious as to how you would define the term?
Remote Employees: How to Stay Personally Connected
Their people will consume more, but their GDP will go up as well.
>there's no "power user" bullshit going on
Sometimes it's possible to notice that moderation is pretty heavy. For example, during recent "Satoshi identity discovered" debacle after brief period it was conspicuously absent from HN. I.e. I estimated that on any given day I would see one or two posts on the topic on the front page, but it wasn't the case. So my theory is that this topic was heavily moderated.
The problem will be the low signal-to-noise ratio, making that section unbearable.
Again, thanks very much. Hope can get the chance to work for Stripe one day.

(inc kudos)
You could limit the damage a person could do to themselves by paying more frequently. In my experience, even very irresponsible people are able to manage weekly paychecks so that they don't starve before the next check arrives.

It would be very tough to prevent people from borrowing against their future BI money, though. An irresponsible person could dig themselves quite a hole that way, and lenders would be eager to make that loan.
Is there any way to get to an MVP without having a sovereign state to experiment with?

My proposal is an e-currency with a time based demurrage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)) fee. The demurrage fees would be paid out equally to all consumers. The demurrage fee pay outs would be equivalent to a basic income. Since it is an e-currency, it would be independent of governments.

Why would businesses accept such a currency? In the future wealth inequality will probably cause economic demand to shrink. By accepting these types of currencies, businesses could grow while remaining profitable.
Einstein Couldn't Have Imagined Technology to Directly Detect Gravity Waves
It's not actually a 1 in a million chance though. It's more like 1 in 9.2 quintillion. I'd argue for many the time it takes to enter is worth more than those odds, not to mention giving up all the personal info to Quicken loans and Yahoo.
I think it's blank now because PG switched off pending status.

I saw it before and could see comments in the queue, although my score was/is too low to do anything about them.
Do you actually believe high-value comments will commonly go unendorsed? That seems pretty unlikely to me. I'd only worry about comments that aren't all that compelling — and for obvious reasons, I'm not too worried about losing those.

If anything, I expect it to be too easy to get your comments endorsed, just like it's too easy to get dumb comments upvoted right now.
Blisterpeanutes: "People who support blind charity should put their money where their mouth if they think it's such a great idea."

Yourapostasy: "Hey great idea, even better why don't we give them all the money they give back so they don't actually have to make a sacrifice at all for their beliefs!"
I understand the viewpoint that greater moderation power should go those who contribute more.

But as a fellow long-time lurker, I think accounts like ours make up for the long tail of HN contributions particularly in the form of comments.

I also think that long-time lurkers account for most of HN's readership.

The goal of HN isn't to please the majority, and pg seems to think that giving more moderation power to those with more karma will foster better discourse.

I urge pg to reconsider this. While it doesn't take any real effort to have an old account. And while it often feels that power, even moderation power, ought to be earned. I think giving long-time users the ability to endorse comments, even if they have little karma, won't degrade HN's discourse but instead improve it.

Lurkers post less, and therefore have less karma. Lurkers understand that when they don't have anything worthwhile to contribute, they aren't obligated to add to the noise in order to score internet points. I don't think that lurkers who have enjoyed HN for years without much individual activity are going to go out of their way to endorse pending comments that are low quality.

I hope that most would respect the higher standard HN holds comments to compared to some other sites. I suspect that those higher standards might be what has kept them coming back.

Oh. And since I'm posting this past 11 PM PDT on a Friday night, I doubt this comment will earn me much in the way of karma even though this is the type of constructive commenting that pg wants on HN, or so I hope. I think this goes to show that karma isn't a perfect stat for determining who can endorse comments. And while account age might not be perfect for this either, I think some combination of both would be better.
At- least where we're at in time , being the next google in the world (when you're accused of spying on your users, is highly unfavorable)

that being said , i think generation of energy from waste from homes would be a pretty slick thing , esp in developing countries (Also where google makes most of it's money from )
I look forward to the day when this ideology goes the way of Communism.
Workshop on array programming (NumPy, Julia, Repa, &c)
Why is Iran building giant mock-up of U.S. aircraft carrier?
North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS
I more or less stopped participating a while ago due to decline in comment quality. I'm at 950 karma but if the system works I might make the effort reach 1000 lift the opinions I think are relevant to get this forum back to what I used to enjoy.

The only issue I have is that it might make the groupthink that exists here even worse. Sometimes the descending opinions are very important not just the status quo.

But will see how it goes, I just hope there isn't a rise in parroting comments like you see on stack overflow where people just start copying other people opinions to raise there own karma value, which would entrench the status quo.

If that happens I'll probably be out for good.
How in the world would you know this?
Commodities, stocks, options, derivatives, and real estate are the most common. But I think they aren't limited to the wealthy per say. The wealthy just know much more about them and have higher percentages of their net worth in these types of things.

You can make money if the market goes up, you can make money if the market goes down, and you can make money if the market doesn't go anywhere.
Proposed Media Shield Law; US. Sen. Schumer: "no 1st Amend right to gather info"
Obama hanging on to his BlackBerry for now
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7412992 based on this
OSS, the order said, “is almost free of virus. Hence loss of information, hacking, phishing can be prevented… there is no need to spend on expensive anti virus software.”

I disagree with that statement.
Yeah, and early vertebrate species in the Cambrian just swam around singing happy songs and smooching anemones all day while they enjoyed a universe free of those horrible constraints of energy and matter that nasty humans invented to oppress each other.

Get a fucking grip. Hunter gatherers lived in shitty conditions with unbelievably poor material wealth, and had no protections against disease, injury, starvation, attack by animals, attack by other humans, old age, death in childbirth, etc etc. Average lifespan was 20.
If the original argument proposes wealth distribution it would cause inflation and deflation at the same time. Inflation of lower end goods and services because the poor will have more money, and deflation in the higher end goods and services because the wealthy will have less. i.e., things get more expensive for the poor, and cheaper for the rich. ;)

If we are talking about printing money, it would be similar. The lower end goods and services would get more expensive and the higher end goods and services would stay about the same.
It's interesting that this "improvement" to comments was specifically mentioned in Sam Altman's recent blog post about potential female founders. For what it's worth, this change makes me (a female with <1000 karma) feel less welcome and considerably less likely to comment. I'm not saying that this feeling is tied to being female -- it (probably) isn't. But if you want to attract new people and new types of people to HN, then this change seems very much counter to that goal. The feeling that the insiders have to approve what you're saying before you can have a voice is not a good one.
I agree with the stupidity on evidence, but Microsoft's taking advantage of that stupidity of course underlines that they will read your email if they think it is to their advantage to do so and can make a legally satisfactory argument.
What?!? Suggesting people use their own money to support their own beliefs, rather than expecting the rest of society to pay up while they make no sacrifice?? Heretic!!
Opening up Linux: Is the OS becoming ripe for game development?
RIP in peace Hacker News
I disagree. I don't have the time to get karma, but I would still like to comment sometimes (I'm a noob, but I've been using HN for a year already in read mode). Now with this system there's no chance for me to actually (on paper there is, but there are so many more quality comments than mine that mine will never ever be published). Back to read mode I guess...