skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As long as gains in total wealth (and thus absolute wealth gains for all parts of society) occur as they always have (ie a 10% wealth increase at all levels of wealth), income inequality will always have a strong tendency to rise. The important question is whether it is better to focus on absolute rise in wealth (Is the bottom 20% of the world today in better shape than 100 years ago, if only because that bottom 20% would likely not have survived then?) or on income inequality (is the absolute wealth gain of the bottom 20% irrelevant if there is now a greater distance between them and the top 20%?). I lean towards the former, but have never been absolutely convinced to the point of becoming dogmatic. I really haven't seen anything substantially convincing about the latter, though.
I believe the Moon has no censorship that is readily observable. Then again the Moon is not a country. The real question is is there a country with a provable lack of web censorship? Assuming of course you can define that well enough.
Roslyn happily addresses this :)
Longer answer on StackOverflow (including V8 source): http://stackoverflow.com/a/21893602/1216976
Not that I agree with his point, but corporations are run and owned by people who often derive immense incomes from the endeavor. These people are disproportionately represented in the 1%.
I drive cars on the track in excess of 120 MPH, and I would never hop on a motorcycle to drive around the block. The fatality statistics are horrifying. Worse, you have to trust not only yourself but everyone else on the road not to send your unprotected body through a car radiator.

Good luck to you if that's your thing, but the price of failure is just too high for my tastes.
It doesn't immediately follow from the fact that 0.01% people have made fantastic contributions that they should have disproportionately so much more money than the average person.

It seems intuitive (but not logically certain) that the person who has made the greatest contribution to the world should be the richest. But by how much isn't really clear.

What would happen if Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and had $50m, instead of billions. All the incentives scale. I don't think he'd have said 'screw this, I'm not making Word for less than $2 bn'. Sure, inequality is a fair way to reward hard work and brilliance, but what level?

Looking at it another way, sure Bill Gates is a fantastically insightful and driven guy with great business acumen. Is he 100,000 times better than the average person though? Because he's earned 100,000 more than the average American.

Warren Buffett makes the point that if he was born in Bangladesh he would probably be as poor as he was when he was born. Circumstances matter.

I realize you don't say it explicitly, but the implication of what your comment is that they is some kind of cosmic justice that made Larry Page or Steve Jobs billionaires. There isn't. The right level of remuneration is a moral question, not a feature of the natural order. If you really think these people deserve these huge concentrations of wealth, why not more? How amazing could Windows have been if we'd just paid Bill Gates another $50 billion?
It is about like selling pickaxes to miners during the gold rush. There are hits that bring in a lot of money. That money turns around and goes out the doors for fancy tools. Those tools are then setup somewhere where there isn't any gold and you end up a poor fool. As an example Ion Storm probably paid ID a few million for their id tech licenses, produced a couple of hits and a couple of failures. The failures were big enough to kill the company.
I see that I'm getting down-voted. Sorry. I thought there was a link between those corporations and some people in the 0.01%.
The article starts out saying that this group (the top .01%) has income that is flying away from everyone else. As with most of these articles decrying the income distribution, there is the implication that there is something nefarious about this. At the end of the article, however, we learn that there is a lot of churn in the .01% from year to year, which indicates that some people are making a lot of money, but they aren't always the same people. I doubt that most years they are hurting terribly, but it is still a very different picture than the same people earning that much money year after year.
The last time I looked at upb, it only supported parsing, which was a deal-breaker. Have you implemented serializing since then? It's hard to tell from the git log, which is mostly "dump from google internal sources XX-YY-ZZZZ".

I'm very excited about upb! Thanks for your work on it over the years. Do you have any tasks that an outside contributor could help with?

Thanks!
SecondSync joins Twitter
There are no conflicts, because the application debs put everything in e.g. /opt/discourse
> Unless you are [...] breaking the law [...] [y]ou are providing a good or service to the economy and are rewarded appropriately.

Not necessarily. You are providing a good or service to someone but it isn't necessarily doing any good to "the economy".

An example: You are a successful hedge fund manager. You and your team of quants have a bunch of ingenious strategies for predicting the stock market, spotting arbitrage opportunities in derivative prices, etc. You successfully help your investors to get rich, for which they pay you very handsomely. But, for the most part, what you're enabling them to do is get rich at the expense of other market participants. If you weren't doing your job, the net value of the equities and derivatives markets would be pretty much exactly the same; it's just that it would be parcelled up a little differently.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think there's anything wrong with any of that. Our hypothetical hedge fund manager isn't doing any net harm to speak of either. (There might be a bit of net good, through increasing liquidity and helping the market do its information-aggregating thing, and a bit of net good-or-harm depending on exactly who the fund's investors are.) The point is just that what a hedge fund manager is being rewarded for is making a particular set of people rich in what's largely a zero-sum game, not doing any net good overall.

Another example: You study baseball or American football and get very good at identifying undervalued players. You offer your service to a major team. They get some bargains, win a lot of games, and pay you a big pile of money. All very well, and again for the avoidance of doubt I don't think there's anything wrong with this -- but you've benefited one set of people at others' expense. The overall quality of play hasn't changed (the pool of players is the same and you haven't done anything to make them play better), you've just enabled one team to get a bigger slice of the same pie.

Note that none of this requires artificial barriers to entry, or crime, or even anything unethical. It's just that what you get paid for is benefiting the people who pay you and often the easiest way to do that is by moving value to them from elsewhere, rather than creating it anew.
You shouldn't even get a reply considering that you're comment is pedantic and prickly. But you're flat out wrong. The worst combination for a bafoon.

nouninformal
noun: spend; plural noun: spends
1.
an amount of money paid for a particular purpose or over a particular period of time.
"the average spend at the cafe is about $10 a head"
One main argument for doing so has been that right now IAD has a conflict of interest.
Lesadx
Debate: Office for iPad: Big deal or big yawn?
Battle of Brothers: A Video Game Programming Duel
I am afraid this will bite us in the butt worse than iframes.
It is especially bad when the market value is depressed to almost nothing by the development to begin with, leaving people doubly shafted
Prestige. Power. Influence. Just a few things that money will get you more readily and consistently than any other method.
> All property requires a coercive third party. You couldn't actually defend your yard, for example, you almost certainly would lose possession to someone bigger and stronger with more weapons. That's true of almost everyone.

You're taking things too literally. Defending my property doesn't necessarily require me to do it. I can pay others to do it. This does not require a coercive third party.

> Re: scarcity, nothing about property requires it to be scarce.

Of course it does. Property itself is a construct invented by us in an attempt to resolve conflict. If something isn't scarce, then there can be no conflict, since my use of something does not conflict with your use of the same thing.

> Are you suggesting, for example, that if land weren't scarce, it shouldn't be the subject of property rights?

It's beyond my capacity of thought to even imagine what "land isn't scarce" would even look like. I guess it would require some sort of reality where N people could occupy the same space without impeding on the use of said space by the other N-1 people. In that case, certainly, it wouldn't be property.

> There are finite movies in existence

Finiteness has nothing to do with this. There are also a finite number of copies of movies, and yet, I claim such things are not scarce.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130730/17572624008/rotol...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-federal-judge-dont...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130814/09424724172/more-...

etc.
Some Idiot is trying to build an OS on top of GitHub Pages
This is the old rent vs. buy debate, but for hardware instead of real estate.

Renting an apartment places a rough upper bound on your monthly expenses, since in most places, the landlord is required to do maintenance and cannot raise your rent until the lease is up for renewal.

Buying a house a rough lower bound, since your mortgage can increase unexpectedly, and you are responsible for all repairs and maintenance yourself.

So, you can never know all costs with certainty ahead of time, but if you care about predictability, it's probably better to rent (ie, go with the cloud) than to buy, because it's easier to bound your costs over a given duration.
You are taking that second quote out of context. My next statement is agreeing that there are industries (like banking) that have a very obvious lack of competition. My next point was that lack of competition is enabled by government and not the free market.
Google Maps: Pokémon Challenge
I expected more, and perhaps many others did. I answered "yes" simply because I wanted to see what type of questions were asked given that response. I didn't realize it was a 1 question survey. Your results are likely skewed.
i'm not a us citizen but i can't see how this stupid comic about another issue relates to global warming other than for populist propaganda.

another 2 cents: let's distinguish global warming and climate change. the two relate like temperature and co2 do.
Whenever I read an article about income inequality, I can't help but ponder the phrase "the rich get richer." Consider the process by which people acquire extreme wealth: invest your money in various vehicles, hopefully collect gains (money, prestige, experience), reinvest the gains. This process doesn't by any means guarantee wealth, but it can be very kind to those blessed with good judgement, good fortune, and initial excess capital.

In a discussion of income inequality, the most relevant factor is excess capital. For those on the bottom of the ladder, whose money goes toward basic expenses, this potentially virtuous cycle is completely out of reach. Their money is best spent on purchasing stability rather than attempting to secure wealth. For those in the middle nurturing already-comfortable lives, the upside of shooting the moon in an attempt to gain wealth is often outweighed by the risk of sustaining financially disruptive losses, as well as the discomfort inherent in turning away from a lifestyle that pleases them. [1]

Then there are the wealthy. I'm not talking about the faux-wealthy whose lifestyle preferences drive them to buy Maseratis and condos on credit and spending the rest of their lives wearing golden handcuffs. I'm talking about those who have money left over after they've secured themselves a comfortable lifestyle. They have excess capital. Ten thousand dollars can go into the stock market, a hundred thousand dollars can go into a small business, a million dollars can go into a more sizable business, ten million can go into multiple sizable businesses, etc.

The opportunities for growth scale with the size of your disposable income. If you take this view, it suddenly becomes stupidly obvious why the one percent of the one percent makes so much more than the ninety-nine percent of the one percent: they had more to begin with. I'm all but certain if you zoom in on the the one percent of the one percent of the one percent, you'll see a similar disparity.

Unrelated corollary:
This also helps to explain both why traditional entrepreneurs are older, and why tech entrepreneurs tend to be younger: non-tech leaders spend their lives amassing wealth, techies are so in demand they get a good dose of it when they're young. Although the acquisition appetites of behemoths like Google and Facebook certainly don't hurt.

[1] I'm so certain someone will respond to this comment by quoting that one study where happiness flattens around like $75,000 that I won't even bother finding it myself.
Still, degrading the desktop experience for 99% of the users for the sake of 1% is not a smart move (#1). Yet, we see it more and more often. (Even more so with websites.)

Sure, they can make a touch-friendly interface, but they should just put in behind a flip switch in the options. Using the mouse for half a minute to enable it will not break anyone's hands. Best way to feed the goat and keep the cabbage.

#1: guessed the numbers, but I will eat my non-existing hat if the touch screen monitors are over 5%
To some extent that disparity is fine- it's the basis of capitalism. But as wealth disparity becomes higher, you have to work extra hard to ensure that poor people have the opportunity to be successful and not become trapped in the underclass. This means health - both mental (maternity/paternity leave) and physical (free healthcare) - and free good (i.e. not underfunded inner-city) education up through undergrad. This also includes welfare to help people with poor financial security to get back on their feet after a crisis.

Unfortunately, we're doing the opposite: the more power the upper class accumulates, the more it tries to cut such programs, because they personally wouldn't benefit. This is where the problem lies as I see it. The rich very rationally use their massive influence in government (cf Citizens United) to stay rich by passing tax cuts and reducing entitlement spending, while the majority of Americans get the shaft. And because of the two-party system and tactical voting, there's nothing we can do about it at the voting booth.
Depends on a lot of factors: how big (reputable) the company doing the testing is, how big your device is, what voltages your devices runs on, what frequencies are on the board, number of I/O, number of configurations to test (to explain the last part, say your device can either run off USB or ethernet, you'll probably need to test both).

For something simple (clocks less than 200mhz), usually half a day of testing will cost between 1k and 2k I think. However, take these numbers with a grain of salt.

EDIT: they can also help you track down leaks and pass through testing the first time as well (i.e. say you're leaking tons of RF through a badly shielded ethernet port. They can track it down, and will have copper tape so you can test to see if a simple patch will fix it, which if the testing is much more expensive might be an acceptable step to add to your assembly procedure vs. doing a respin of the board).
Server-side and development. In a nutshell, npm is used to install development tools for building and packaging your source files, running a local server and even deployment.
Most parts of the European Union? Obviously there are some exceptions like the UK but overall there are few countries that have either the technical infrastructure or the legal framework required to perform large-scale Internet censorship (please correct me if I'm wrong). Of course it's difficult to draw the line between politically motivated censorship (which most people are concerned about) and legitimate, small-scale censorship of websites that contain illegal content. I don't consider content removal due to copyright issues (e.g. on Youtube) censorship, for example, but I'm of course aware that governments often justify the censoring of content through its alleged illegality. Before talking about the extent of censorship on the Internet it would be necessary to have a good definition of the term first, I think.
You haven't really given me a reason as to why false advertising is a bad analogy. I think this is quite similar to a case of false advertising or a product defect. Here the product is the service of Oculus developing VR technology for gaming applications. Contributors feel they were mislead and I am sure many of them would want a refund if it was offered.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics!

The differing quantities on the y axes of the graphs make them quite misleading. In particular between the first and tend second where the first is a relative increase and the second is in absolute income. This gives the immediate impression that the 0.01% is pulling ahead of the 0.1% at a high rate. Looking instead at the last graph we see that the 0.1% is keeping up kinda OK.

This change in quantities also makes it impossible to compare the first and second graph at all.

Using graphs is supposed to aid understanding, not impede it.
Driving behavior via time is easy once you have your object plumbing. You may also requisition events for this purpose and allow for them to be plumbed separately, if that's useful. I just wrote a paper on such a system, coincidentally:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=2112...

Entity component systems are not true behavior systems: they do not implement subsumption of behaviors as reflexes. Check out Rodney Brooks' subsumption architectures which is 20+ years old now and used heavily in robotics. The Kodu team used this heavily and I adopted it to one of my own languages once:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=1793...

Elephants don't play chess indeed!
Because, of course, NaN != NaN
This is missing the point I think of the original distinction between 1% and 99%. The people below the cutoff live in a state of economic vulnerability that is ever-accelerating. The people above the line do not. If the goal was to critique power itself then yes the further divisions are necessary. I have not gotten a sense though that this is about ending inequality itself, but rather in limiting how far one should be allowed to fall in a civilized society, and how responsive a democratically elected government should be to the majority of the population's needs.
What a moronic idea, that a thousandth of a population can actually have a statistically significant effect on the entire population.

Equally moronic is the assumption that wealth is finite at any given moment, and that it can be evenly distributed, this seems very close to entirely false.

Junk journalism is driving unnecessary divisions in the U.S. culture, where it seems people used to have respect for achievers rather than resentment, and they would actually aspire to do better so they could spend that wealth the way they saw fit.

Not a day goes by without another story of resentful abuse toward people by mere association with "the 1%"(which we've already discussed to be an absurd idea).
For example, there was a story on HN not too long ago about police brutality in the bay area toward people who seemed to local cops like the same kid billionaires they see on TV, as though living where some tech giants came from makes you somebody so terrible they deserve to be locked in solitary for a day after asking basic questions to their captors.

How is the U.S. ever going to move forward if they carry nothing but hatred for people who happen to be capable of investing? Whether by personal growth, or by accident of birth, these are the kinds of people they should be seeking sincere help from, rather than trampling on their rights over petty coin.

We can all go on the internet and well up all the irrational hatred we want, pick your poison. You can go be a radical feminist on the internet and you'll spend hours building irrational hatred for men. You can go join radical transgender group and spend hours building irrational hatred for the majority of the human population. You can go on the internet and be a radical religious person(not going to bother being specific here) and justify all sorts of horrible atrocities in your mind.
But if you personally hate the fairly normal people that occupy these lots in life, regardless of their personal merits, be they "the 1%", or men, or people with heterosexual relationships, or people who don't agree with your religious views, then you're a monster. You're not even self-serving, you're destructive to everyone including yourself.
Everyone has their own idea of happiness. Just because you have money doesn't mean you need to live outlandishly. Why not just relax and enjoy life?
I doubt all 105k Intel employees are hardware engineers. Half of them are probably sales.
Meet the man building an AI that mimics our neocortex
The defects you point to are real, but it sounds like you're speaking to us from 2008.

Not at all, I just don't accept the premise that newer means better. There is more hype in the (front end) Web development industry right now than I have ever seen in any part of the software development world in several decades of working in the industry, and this is rarely a good sign.

To be specific, I think one of the things that has made the Web successful as a medium for both sites and more recently apps is its relative simplicity. This has allowed for a good degree of ubiquity and portability even when standardisation wasn't perfect. It also, importantly, made the field accessible to many new people. Even relatively non-technical folk could put together a simple web site by reading a few tutorials, and a beginner to "serious" web design/development could get up to speed within a reasonable period.

As we try to do more demanding things with the Web, some increase in complexity is probably inevitable, but that complexity has a cost. The limitations of the underlying foundations become more and more of a drag on progress for the whole industry the further we move in that direction. It will become harder and harder to change course the more people and organisations have committed to the current path. The signs are already there that even the big names can't get this right today -- try using almost any of Google's web apps on an iDevice at the moment, for example -- and it's great that there is so much enthusiasm for fixing the things that don't work well as they are. I just wish there was more interest in whether we've got the right answers to the most basic questions before we get too bogged down in relatively minor details.