skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>However, you're forgetting that Netflix also has deficits to the other three.

This is a pretty good point. I subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix, and I feel like they provide very different services. Netflix provides a large back-catalogue of movies and TV shows, while Hulu is more for watching things which are currently airing. If netflix was able to get episodes of shows on a real-time basis, instead seasons at a time the season after the season is over, it might be competing on a more direct basis with Hulu. As it stands, I feel like they are for different markets, and somebody who wants a Hulu subscription isn't going to be satisfied with Netflix.
Patenting any genes, or just natural ones? What about novel applications of existing genes?

I probably don't have a big problem with someone creating an artificial gene and then patenting its use, and I'm not sure I have a problem with someone patenting a random jellyfish gene for fluorescence for use in making glow-in-the-dark corn, or for patenting the use of an apparently useless gene for some discovered utility in another species.

I would have a problem with someone patenting a gene with an existing "use" for that specific use. That is, I don't think someone should be able to patent the use of a "blue eyes gene" for the purpose of giving someone blue eyes. There's no invention there.

On the other hand, playing devil's advocate, why not incentivise the discovery of genes that confer some benefit? The long-run benefit of those discoveries would no doubt outweigh any short-term monopoly costs, and research (both statistically and into applications) would definitely result.
An estate of 5 million pays $0 in estate tax. The tax is on the amount (net of deductions) OVER 5.34 million.

A net $6m estate would pay about 4% (264k), not 40%.
Everything bottoms out at force; most of us consider taxation as just or more so than the way the rich acquire their money. The state is a bit more legitimate than rich individuals because it's more accountable to the people.
This is interesting because the DMCA process is, as I understood it (as a paralegal working on DMCA issues in a past life), a fairly rigid prescription that provides a safe harbor for providers like GitHub, ISPs, YouTube, etc.

The simplified version of the process:

1. The party claiming to own the rights to copied content submits a well-formed DMCA takedown notice to the listed DMCA agent contact information of the provider.

2. The provider blocks access to the content as soon as possible, and informs their customer/user about the takedown notice.

3. The user may then submit a counter-notice to the provider claiming that they do indeed have the rights.

4. The provider then re-enables access to the content and notifies the claiming party of the counter-notice.

5. If the claiming party disagrees, they file suit in court, notify the provider, and the provider generally again disables access.

As long as the provider takes these steps without delay, it is safe from any claims that it is itself in violation of the DMCA.

So here, GitHub is actually stating that they're delaying proceeding from step 1 to step 2. It's certainly customer-friendly, but I wonder if it causes any issues with the safe harbor.
WPF data binding is vastly superior to Winforms.
Silicon Valley Stirs Up Hollywood
Get all tweets tweeted at any intersection of your choosing
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The entire reason I explicitly pointed out the potential for abuse was to head off the "Charity of Bob's Kids" comment.

Obviously such a system would need significant safeguards- this is something we're both fully aware of as intelligent human beings. Mentioning them now is just a strawman unless stated as the overall opinion "it's 100% impossible to stop abuse".

On your last point, I find it silly to assert that a belief in humanities ability to overrule animal instincts is somehow "Pollyanna thinking". Everything we've achieved thus far as a species has been based on that belief.
No, it isn't. That is from months ago that someone reposted recently.
"I argue that if you find someone who possesses the passion, curiosity, and ability to learn quickly and train them for a couple months, you'll have a decent developer."

I totally agree. This is exactly what we look for in all of our prospective students, as well as being passionate about it ourselves.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.
(I said this in response to a comment, but there seems to be a lot of confusion on the estate tax all over this sub-thread -- sorry for the repeat)

An estate of 5 million pays $0 in estate tax. The tax is on the amount (net of deductions) OVER 5.34 million.

A net $6m estate would pay about 4% (264k), not 40%.
Note: Whisper app != Open Whisper Systems

(Completely unrelated)
Deviare Windows Hooking Engine 2.7.3: W10 support, updated docs, and bugfixes
LTTng: An open-source tracing framework for Linux
Could a Treatment for Autism Be Found in Broccoli?
15-Minute Karaoke App in Sinatra
“Google doesn't have a lot of weaknesses” but it has a few…
I buy into that thesis for Europe, but the continental US was largely shielded from the destruction of WW2.
DJ2Q democratizes real-time collaborative playlists via YouTube
(Having a hard time following your argument...)

>Certainly, to the extent that a given distribution of taxation itself promotes inequality, reducing the level of taxation in with that distribution will mitigate that effect, but your proposition is equivalent to the proposition that every distribution of taxation promotes inequality compared to the absence of taxation, which I don't see any reason to believe.

I think you are saying taxes cause inequality, and the way we tax everyone can make inequality better or worse, but my argument is that the complete absence of taxation will always improve inequality. In another thread here I pointed out that inequality only became an issue in the 20th century around the same time the US government began taxing everyone directly through personal income taxes. This does not imply causation, but it is certainly a correlation. Yes, there are correlations as well that certain tax structures do reduce inequality, but a host of other macro-economic problems tend to correlate with timing of those same tax structures too.

Let's not forget the common risk that the government decides to do something else with that money it takes from the rich through taxes besides distribute it to the poor....such as start a war somewhere :-/
Apple Event October 2014 Live Stream
Online Visual Studio
I try to explain this to people all the time. Most of my childhood friends/family worked much harder than any I know now and are just barely making it, some not at all.

I watch friends in the Bay Area spend everything-save nothing and then call the homeless kids in the Haight lazy bums. I have a savings but if the tech bubble did burst there's a very real chance I could end up home. My family doesn't have wealth and some of my siblings are already homeless.
Just in case you've never heard of the axion particles (like me) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion
I think we should start something called "time philanthropy".

Here is how it works:

Since many people have more time than money, they should be required to donate a certain amount of time towards volunteering at working on public projects for the government. This could include: construction, cleaning up trash on the highway, fix roads, etc.

An elected government would get to figure out where the volunteers get to allocate their time. I think this would be a great benefit to our society.
Does he make it clear why would the tax be needed? After all, you can impose the same information transparency requirements needed to levy the tax without actually levying it, no?
r = return on capital. g = overall economic growth. If capital returns 6% this year and the economy grows b 4%, it means that capital + this year's return grew by more than the economy did overall. This leaves a smaller share for labour.

But I'd like to have a better understanding of the year over year mechanics. Anyone have a good explanation. I'm willing to put in some effort.
Why is a minute divided into 60 seconds? (2007)
Here's the actual relevant text from the bill [1]:

> upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity

Immediately contacting the repository owner, and asking them to remove the content themselves within a short window of time, sounds like an expeditious response to my non-lawyer ears.

One nitpick as well:

> it is safe from any claims that it is itself in violation of the DMCA

§ 512 of the DMCA provides for immunity from liability for breaking another law, the copyright act. It's not "violating the DMCA", and service providers do not have to take advantage of § 512 safe harbor provisions if they don't want the benefits of doing so. Without this safe harbor, the service provider could be guilty of infringing the copyright of whomevers' property they're distributing copies of on behalf of their user. If they _voluntarily_ opt to meet the § 512 requirements by expeditiously taking down content, then they can't be held liable for that illegal act, even though it did happen.

1: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
> It's an unpopular opinion, but I don't think that everyone should have a roughly equal say in how things go. The average person isn't as well equipped to deal with large problems as the elite are

The usual trouble with this sort of idea is who gets to decide the "elite" that makes the decisions. How do you prevent this group from becoming an insular clique and debar other people from similar opportunities etc.

Power, imho, has a tendency to be self-propogating; people who achieve it hold on to it far after it is useful and tend to bestow it on their proteges, irrespective of their suitability to the task etc. (Anyway it is an opinion; you may disagree)
A Hairbrained Approach to Security Testing
Show HN: NJ Tranist iOS App – Showing ETA in Notification Center
I don't know, define "democracy". I live in a Western European country, but I don't see how is that relevant.
Hehe it's weird and sad that this was too much too early. Computers, OS and browsers couldn't do much with VRML at the time, even though it's almost a fully reactive, js scriptable, 3D DOM. Also the web wasn't as mainstream, so VRML was in the fog (I only got to use it in college and because I was a CGI fan)
Alternative streaming links?
I've been using escrotum [1], which is a drop-in replacement for scrot. I wrote a script that uploads screenshots to MediaCrush, too [2].

[1] https://github.com/Roger/escrotum

[2] https://github.com/SirCmpwn/dotfiles/blob/master/scripts/scr...
"I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those."

Are you suggesting dog breeders don't care about dogs? From what I've seen they tend to be quite fond of them. The issue is we breed dogs for different traits, with the issues I mentioned before the dogs might've been bred for their looks, but other dogs that were at some point bred for work still have issues... Golden Retrievers are high risk for developing cancer, German Shepherds are high risk for hip dysplasia, Dachshunds are high risk for back problems, etc... It's not that dog breeders want to give dogs issues, it's a byproduct of selective breeding, as defects that do creep in are harder to remove.

"That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for."

The tests we are talking about do not measure creativity in any meaningful sense.

"Eugenics could do exactly that."

How could eugenics do exactly that? I'm talking about bringing out the talents of people around you, i.e. they already exist.
The question of additivity of genetic effects is discussed in more detail in reference [1] above (sections 3.1 and also 4): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421v2.pdf

In plant and animal genetics it is well established that the majority of phenotype variance in complex traits which is under genetic control is additive. (Linear models work well in species ranging from corn to cows; cattle breeding is now done using SNP genotypes and linear models to estimate phenotypes.) There are also direct estimates of the additive / non-additive components of variance for human height and IQ, from twin and sibling studies. Again, the conclusion is the majority of variance is due to additive effects.

There is a deep evolutionary reason behind additivity: nonlinear mechanisms are fragile and often "break" due to DNA recombination in sexual reproduction. Effects which are only controlled by a single locus are more robustly passed on to offspring. Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection says that the rate of change of fitness is controlled by additive variance in sexually reproducing species under relatively weak selection.

Many people confuse the following statements:

"The brain is complex and nonlinear and many genes interact in its construction and operation."

"Differences in brain performance between two individuals of the same species must be due to nonlinear effects of genes."

The first statement is true, but the second does not appear to be true across a range of species and quantitative traits.

Final technical comment: even the nonlinear part of the genetic architecture can be deduced using advanced methods in high dimensional statistics (see section 4.2 in [1] and also http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6583).
While that is true, it does not mean that this is right.

Do note that domestic laws are actually brought up for discussion, and (at least in democratic countries), often have non trivial changes applied, some items dropped altogether, etc.

Similarly, a merger is brought to a vote/discussion, and the terms often change during this discussion - e.g., shareholders want more cash / more equity, and stuff like that.

Agreements like the TPP are take-it-or-leave-it, meaning there's basically no discussion except by the unelected negotiators - which, especially in WIPO related issues, seem to have their past and future employers' interest in mind more than they represent their public.
It's not my grandmother.

I just thought the downvotes were uncalled for. And I think your threshold for what's a reasonable estate is both arbitrary and too low.

$5 million sounds like a lot, but give it a decade. Many family businesses are already valued over $5 million. Should functioning businesses be liquidated because the founder died? Soon, family homes in places like NYC, SF, and DC will be within spitting distance of $5 million. Should the family have to get a new mortgage or move because grandma died?

Besides, I don't have confidence that the general fund of the federal government would better spend that money than someone seeking health and indirectly pouring money into better medical science and technology.
The assertions by the director of the FBI don't take in to account those of us who are non-criminal, privacy driven experts, who know that if there is a back door in a product or service for CALEA, that any script kiddie will be able to use it to gain access to our private data as well.

This short sighted thinking is going to destroy privacy as technology advances.

The FBI is supposed to keep the nation safe, including from the FBI.
Ahh, so you think that decision makers are either not smart or not creative.

Why do you think that decision makers won't see themselves as being "smart creatives"?
> I don't think that everyone should have a roughly equal say in how things go.

What is the proper alternative? I mostly agree that designing government by committee is unlikely to succeed, but the problem of choosing competent people for government roles is something we largely haven't solved in all our history.
1. Not everyone takes Econ 101.

2. Econ 101 is usually taught from a Keynesian point of view (if you study Keynes' life you'll find out how much he really knew about economics)

3. I'm talking about the stuff that starts at 5:50 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsS683F76M . If you understand that you can understand that from the selfish desires of two people to profit, they end up helping each other. This is something I believe Objectivism phrases another way and people have trouble understanding - Obama himself said "I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness", which shows even the president doesn't understand this point.

So you probably haven't had your aha moment yet, as most people.

There are several of those epiphanies, though. Another one that you're due is realizing money is just an indirection for labor. It's proof that labor was performed usefully by someone else at some point in time. It's a concretization of capital so we can work a bunch and decide to utilize the capital earned at a later point in time. Which means any vilification of money is baseless as money is just a product that everyone collectively decided is acceptable in any direction of a given exchange. Money is a shortcut, it does not cause evil, and if we banned all currencies and precious things we'd still come up with tying knots on grass blades or something - anything to prove that some labor was done at some point, and to decouple the two sides of any exchange (1. selling something I have, 2. getting something I want). Again, I'd recommend the Praxeology videos linked above.

I wonder what other means of exchanging with other people you can think of that is not money and the desire to profit (praxeologically, feeling good about donating is a profit).

To your question as to how buying seats is an improvement... it's because it makes the process transparent. Today's seats are also for "sale" but it's a complicated path full of influence games to get to the point you can even "bid" (watch House of Cards to see what not implementing this Icelandic idea begets).
For the record, if you can skip some rungs on the ladder, you should definitely do it as long as you're not overselling yourself into a disaster later on.

My point wasn't that you should be a good little boy and play be the rules, just consider what you offer potential employers and how you convay that to them.

You know how this is typically done, if you can figure out a better way, do it. Just don't spend next 5 years ignoring the beaten path because you could easily be earning that $1000 a day by then.

All the best man.
Other Conspire founder here.

We will not spam your contacts, sell your or your contacts' email addresses or personal data, or otherwise sell data about you to third parties.

Down the road, we will offer premium plans with professional search tools. An example use case is if you want to reach CIOs in northern California at companies greater than 100 people, we will identify those people and tell you the best person in your network to ask for an intro. At the moment, we're focused on growing the size of the network and making it valuable for users.

One other subtle point I wanted to mention: We don't expose email addresses via the product. The only people you can email are those for which you already have an email address. The same is true for people trying to contact you. So you won't get a bunch of spam recruiter emails.
Well, I want to see it, and hold it, but I fear the size is probably too big for my small hands, and I know the price is too big. The battery being big is nice, but with a screen that size I don't believe the battery life claims until I see independent reviews.

Given that the battery isn't removable too, this makes for a very shitty development phone. (What do we do if it freezes? How do we hard-remove power?) I think this won't do.

I'm also rather disappointed this isn't the Snapdragon 810 or 808. For a phone this expensive, it doesn't measure up.

Overall this is not what I hoped for from a new Nexus. Perhaps Android Silver will deliver something better, but I doubt the Nexus 6 will be my next phone.
IFTTT Rolls Out Powerful New Twitter Triggers
Closing the Financial Loop: Bitwage Partners with Gocheto Financials for Payroll
Because you can't do pull requests?!
Please provide specific evidence or reasoning instead of arguing about motives which you can't possibly prove as fact.
I don't see how Reddit's interface is any more complicated than Hacker News, except maybe for the "expando" buttons to display images in-page.
@moggflunkies - You've been hellbanned, your comments are only visible to people who have turned dead comments on. I find this system despicable.
Very pretty app! Good work.

- how do you like a place? I couldn't figure it out.

- what UI element is the sort drop down?
> re-invests it in ways to achieve political gain at the expense of society.

A cynical person would say that's pretty much what the Gates Foundation accomplishes.
Managing security for the cloud
"Accordingly, from now on we will require copyright owners to investigate and report each fork explicitly in a DMCA takedown notice."

I don't see how there are no legal fears or at least administrative ones here. If one submits a legitimate DMCA takedown and your site allows copies, it might be unreasonable (to a judge) that they must name all copies considering forks can happen between when the DMCA was submitted and the takedown occurs. Of course I don't know of a better way without GitHub annoying forked repository owners and favoring DMCA submitters.
> Would the vast majority of them invest years of their life in it if it only paid the same as getting a normal job?

Empirically, given that academia pays much less than working in the industry, yes.

> the vast majority of productive people do the important everyday work

I beg to differ. Most productive people do completely irrelevant everyday work: optimize or sell ads, or play wall-street poker with other people's money. Very few people do the actually important work (e.g. garbage collectors, farmers, scientists, teachers).
The Data Behind Uber's Job Listings
Compass Monitor helps investors track the health of their portfolio startups
Was that what they said? Typically you have 24 hours to disable from a DMCA notice. All they said is they would give the user a chance to fix it before the takedown they didn't say how long that chance may be. Could be 23 hours.
This is great! I passed it along to our managers, I work in community heath center.
I'm speculating, but there seems to be a trend among service providers to provide a native experience for the big 2 (android, iOS) and let the rest use their service over the web. So perhaps they will continue to support i.reddit.com for users outside of the big 2 ecosystem
>"the state is a more efficient investor of capital."

Do you have evidence for this claim?

If this is the case, shouldn't the countries with the biggest governments (as a percentage of total economy) also be the ones which grow the fastest, and if not, why? How can states be so efficient when they never admit to making mistakes, (almost never) give up on failed projects, or go out of business like private investors do?
The exact same legal precedent could be used to seize hotmail.com for all the spam, scams, and viruses floating through it. I am willing to bet the judge was handed a 2 foot tall stack of papers with technical gibberish which she of course, didn't read, but had complete assurance from these slimy Microsoft lawyers that they knew what they were doing. If any other company tried the same move, the judge would dismiss it instantly. But of course, the law can't operate the same way for a 16 person company vs. a 100,000+ person company.

I think this clip fairly accurately summarizes the ordeal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxEimC3HME
You've shown the unfortunate side effect of Microsoft's libel. Now, many people think no-ip is a shady organization. It isn't the least bit true, and there was no link between no-ip and the people abusing their service.