skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For what it's worth, the gtopo 24k product is pretty fantastic. Recently used the heck out of it on a 10 day hunting trip, it had a pretty ridiculous amount of roads not shown on any other detailed map.

One downside though is they are obviously using some elevation and image analysis to auto detect drainages and mark them as water. A significant number of draws in our area were marked as creeks, when it was actually an ATV trail along the bottom.

Other than that, a very very worthwhile product if you plan on doing any serious hiking/motorcycling/etc and plan on extensive use of GPS.
I suppose you think your grandmother ought to have been able to keep the millions while having society pay for her care. Does that seem fair to you?

The estate tax issue is not in any way related to the issue of health care for the elderly.
the organized parts of Boston are largely landfill that did not even exist until the 1800's[1]. If you look at the old parts, it looks like Berlin.

[1] http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/boston/growth.g...
I can't help but feel that with a judiciary that seems to be largely "out of touch" with technology, that when Microsoft walks into the courtroom and says something is bad...that the enamored judge thinks to herself, "well then it must be bad".
This requires javascript on the client no? That's a no go for me. The little demo site fails for me.
You might actually have power though. Check out http://www.seatguru.com/findseatmap/findseatmap.php, you can punch in your flight number and departure date, and it'll tell you which plane you're supposed to be on and what amenities it has, like power outlets and where they are.
Showing that you tinker and explore outside of your day job is attractive to potential employers. The fact that the code isn't amazingly architected is not a negative.

> I have yet to see a job I'd be otherwise qualified for or interested in list "have a github profile with projects for us to look at" as a requirement, or even a nice-to-have.

Every job on this job board has such a requirement.
Great article from SocialBelong Co-Founder
I'm sure your kids will be thrilled.
Very nice app! Have you thought of allowing users to comment on destinations?
Or most people have their phones charging all day in their office and all night at home so it really doesn't matter that much.
Does churn from super-wealthy to "merely" wealthy address Piketty's thesis?

For that matter, does it matter if the names change? Distribution of wealth skewing towards a small number of people is still inequality in the sense that Piketty is talking about, even if the names of the people change every 10 years, let alone every few generations.

In other words I think what Piketty is getting at is if there is a decay term, it has to act fast enough that the wealth is distributed broadly before it is all collected up by some other small group of people, otherwise there is little functional difference to dynastic wealth.
I have thought about it, but allowing for that would require some type of user authentication system which would increase friction when it came to onboarding. If I decide to go with user authentications, then I think adding comments is a no-brainer.
> People will say, "wow five million dollars, that's a lot!" Not really.

Yes really. I have many issues with the estate tax (and I also have many issues with not having an estate tax), but when you find yourself complaining about how little a million dollars is, you really need to stop before you lose your entire audience.
I'll side with the American: pretty much anyone can go 100km, and pretty much no one can go 100 years.
[Edit: Doh! Sorry @king_magic, I did totally reply to Rosie and not you! I'll leave the comment in-tact since other than the first paragraph I'm making (or maybe belaboring) still-relevant points]

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that we're well aligned on this yet. Precisely because your marketing pitch is "Are you looking to increase your job prospects, or earn a higher salary?" (verbatim).

Presumably your funnel is filling up with people who want to make more money (as a relatively primary motivation). That maybe sounds right if you're training sales people. For this industry (and frankly trade education as a whole), I think it's going to lead to quite a bit of disappointment. An average student of yours could almost certainly have more predictable and successful access to a similar (maybe higher, lifetime) level of income by training as a nurse.

The promise of trade education should be that you go through, do well, and have a great chance to get hired at the end. The issue I have is that it seems like the code-camps are playing both sides here.. implying that's going to happen, while having to admit under inspection that it's basically not, ever happening.
Most companies don't have you work on open-source as your primary job, but plenty allow you to do so as it affects your primary job. And plenty allow you to work on open-source in your down time.

If you have a job that's exclusively closed-source and with no down time there's a good chance that's a bad job. You have to think about your own career. Unless it's a prestigious position that will make you attractive to other employers, you have to consider that being isolated from the larger software community puts you at a disadvantage in the market.
Professional design advice for a simple flat fee
This is great! I think it would be useful to provide more details about this. Perhaps include a 360 degree view (rotate); a view of the administrator's interface; sample report/audit report; details about connectivity.
I can't understand how someone so intelligent can misread Piketty so badly. For example, Gates focuses on individuals in some of his critiques but Piketty is talking about classes of wealth, the constituents of which may change but, Piketty argues, whose characteristics do not.
I actually burn more than that (I average somewhere above 3000kcal), but the 2600 that I mentioned is from mostly passive activities. Did you know that Nelson Mandela walked 7 miles in his cell every day? I don't think working at home should stop us from being more active.
Why is investment "hoarding"? Money in the bank is moving around, even without the multiplier of partial reserve banking.
Using elastic mapreduce to crack WPA
Anonabox Tor browser might be a huge hoax despite topping $500000 on Kickstarter
Hi, what version of FF are you using? And thanks for the feedback. Yep, search is on the todo list.
That's what one political party wants you to believe, and quite possibly yes, what the other political party is doing these days.

However, if you cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy, the concentration of wealth does tend to even out. The statement 'Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth' in itself does not mean slashing taxes only for the wealthy. It means the government has limited power to decide who gets what, because what ultimately ends up happening, is the government ends up taking more for itself than providing for anyone else (look at the massive unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare).
You can see this in action with Soros and the Koch brothers, both of whom have invested a lot of wealth to directly influence politics and social movements that further their political ideas. Even if you agree with one or the other's political goals, the fact that anyone can have that much sway over the governance of an ostensibly democratic society is a huge mess with serious risks to society and the common good.
Super Resume World(Win my resume by playing a video game)
I strongly disagree with this conclusion and I believe it not-so-subtly implies we should use the tax code as a form of moralization.

What about all the people who make the super-yatchs for the wealthy. Or the all the contractors employed to make the luxury towers in downtowns across the world. Tens of thousands if not millions of people directly gain (and likely from the middle and lower classes) from the spending of the lavish-lifestyler.

Who is to judge if this big-spenders behavior is somehow something we should curtail. Instead, we should fear the money hoarder, who keeps large amounts of capitol out of the market, hides it in tax shelters in Ireland, or re-invests it in ways to achieve political gain at the expense of society.

I'm not so sure philanthropy should should have a morally superior reward status in the tax code, when we can't really calculate the effects of spending enough to truly show what is most beneficial to society.
The most controversial part of this for me is this:

[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA4/MX5 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:

Who are these parties and why are they negotiating this in secret, away from the public eye. If it is just mundane boilerplate (not finished reading yet) then I have to say that the most surprising thing of all is that we are being governed by copy/paste. I don't think that is the case here.
I would just like to rewrite "The poor benefit from a more balanced system." into "Everybody benefits from a more balanced system."
> For instance, you could employ people to dig holes that serve no purpose. Or, you could employ people to build public infrastructure that continues to pay dividends over its lifetime.

I heartily agree with this. However, you could be understimating positive secondary effects. Private space travel, for example, is subsidized in part by rich people spending on luxury goods (trips to space, hobby projects, etc.).

And besides, most of the people concerned about inequality in this thread want to see a more progressive tax that seems to be an end to itself. To be charitable, I'm sure they would like to see those taxes applied to re-distributive programs, but it's not clear to me that those programs won't also lack the "desirable second-order effects" you are looking for. In reality, taxes go to the general fund and then get spent on whatever the federal government wants to spend it on.
Just a general question from someone who never worked with the app store: What's the reasoning for not making an app available in all countries?
node-forward stated in their issues [1] that it's just politics. They've taken it private for the time being.

[1] https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/7
This looks really cool, will give it a go when I get home
If it's just an expression than maybe "forking" is also just an expression with a random meaning? Either that or he never was a BDFL.
There was an article about a study which suggested that people with IQ above 140 tended to be lonely.

Raises ethical issues (among other reasons that obviously do).
Something similar project name to folding@home would be awesome. Like rays@phone.
@famousactress, I think you and I are definitely aligned. I think you thought RosieA replied instead of me?
Yeah, sorry about the lack of search and the hotlinking. I wanted to build this quickly and validate it before going any further. As for the job types, yeah I know - I have to admit that when I build this job board I initially had remote web developers such as myself in mind.
You've submitted this 5 times in the last 2 months. https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pseudometa

That might be a bit excessive.
It would probably make more of a difference if they tried for a century or two expanding into a sparsely populated, resource-dense area many times their current size.
This is a pretty great idea. I have a lot of friends in Japan and it could be pretty handy in case of a tsunami or taifun.
or http://remoyo.com
Seems reasonable. It's the equivalent of being liable for any damages caused during a wrongful citizen's arrest.
We are at the high of the HTML5/JS hype cycle.
Nobody said that. It's a fair point that five million dollars isn't as much money as it seems, especially when accounting for healthcare costs.

If the government took most of that money, this grandmother would have burnt through the remaining money quickly and ended up on government-assisted healthcare with much less choice about the kinds and quality of care. It's very pertinent.
I am curious about the motivations for this kind of research. It seems to me that the assumption is that a super intelligent human being would be a saviour to humanity of some sort. I really just see that humans are all in competition with each other, which may be a good thing. So engineering a super human would actually be a form of outsourcing. So first there is the assumption that the superhuman would be better and second there is the problem of why people would want to bring about their own outsourcing.
Name.com is giving away the premium domain code.ninja
People seem to be having a hard time with the consumption tax argument. I may be completely wrong but here's how I interpret it:

1. Like income tax you have various 'bands'
2. The more you spend/consume they higher the band you are in
3. Lower bands pay less
4. Someone with little money buying just the essentials consumes e.g. $10,000 per year. Band 1 (a tax of say 10%) starts above $10,000 and thus this person is exempt.
5. If you buy Ferrari's, mansions etc. and consume $5m per year you would be in one of the higher bands and would pay a higher tax rate (say 40%).

In other words the little people keep all their money as it's only spent on essentials. People who have disposable income pay back a percentage of what they spend.

Your argument that it would discourage spending and be bad for the economy is fine but I don't think it would hit as bad as you think. Say I can afford to spend $1m on a car but because of the 40% consumption tax it will actually work out as $1.4m at the end of the year will I still buy that car? Chances are that $0.4m isn't a big deal to me. Sure I might not like it but I probably have enough disposable income that I'll pay it.

The key is getting the tax bands correct so that your disposable income is still high enough that after the tax you will still buy the item. You will have less purchasing power but the money going into the tax system could be used to offset the decline in economic growth.
Twenty Questions: An Interview with Emiland De Cubber
> Maybe these "older countries" should try --for a century
> or two-- laissez-faire capitalism and a government
> limited to the protection of individual rights

I used to work at an 800 year old pub. American tourists would helpfully come along and tell us we'd gotten the location all wrong.
Does anyone know how to get around the paywall?
Yes, a pile of five million dollars is a lot.

An estate worth $5M, which is then taxed at 40%, the remainder of which is distributed amongst any number of heirs, each of whom may then be obligated to pay an additional income tax on that - ends up being far less.

Especially in a country where you're expected to pay for your own education, health care, and retirement.
This is a prime example of why critical internet systems (namely domain name resolution) need to be completely and absolutely out of reach of government officials (some of whom are guaranteed to be corrupt) and private corporations (some of which are guaranteed to have interests contrary to the public).
If your issue is the social problems associated with extreme inequality, it's ultimately just a question of whether the tradeoff is worth it, rather than whether it grows the GDP faster or slower. There are a million ways we could restructure society, with a million consequences for the economy and the social good. It's all a matter of picking the tradeoffs we can all live with.

That being said, wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily need to mean less private sector capital investment. If you take a billion dollars away from someone who would have invested it and give a thousand each to a million people (whether through highway robbery or through raising taxes here and lowering them there), there's no reason they can't invest it all. Hell, they could invest it in a fund managed by the former billionaire, and you'd have the same amount of investment managed by the same people.

That situation is unlikely, but it also discounts the value of investments besides the sort that billionaires tend to make. While some redistributed wealth might be reinvested or 'wasted' on consumption, there are also be a lot of small investments that happen when you share the wealth. Children eat better, which improves their futures in pretty much every way. People start more small businesses, bodegas and farm stands and hair salons and startups. People spend money on education, for themselves and their children.

That sort of investment is also vital to our economic future, no less than the capital liquidity provided by the billionaires.
Spot on. I'll keep working with this attitude, that any outcome will be positive, and work toward MVP while most other concerns can wait. This brought me back to thinking clearly.
You can also map various keyboard shortcut to xfce4-screenshooter -r and stuff. See xfce4-screenshooter --help for details on all the options.
It's just a different mentality towards life and entitlement- there's nothing sad about it.

Hitting all your points in order:

1) 1 million dollars is a lot of money to come out of nowhere. It's simply dishonest to pretend that isn't a life changing amount for a middle class family. At the very least it's going to be like you said- modest home paid off(100-500k), car loans all paid off(50k), and student loans paid off(300k if your kids went to expensive schools and you have 3 of them). I'm really not seeing why anyone should be entitled to never work again simply because their parents made a lot of money. (With that said, my parents didn't choose to bury themselves in debt and could have retired instantly if they received this inheritance when combined with the investments they already had)

2) It's absolutely a lottery. Trying to cloud this issue with "oh well the parents potentially weren't there as much and that emotional cost is easily worth a few million" is disingenuous. It makes the assumption that money has no influence on the quality of the child's upbringing and "time spent with kids/day" is the only metric worth mentioning.

3) Being taxed when you're dead isn't a tax to me. At all. I understand this is a personal opinion but you should have the same understanding regarding your own opinion here. When I'm dead I no longer feel entitled to anything I gained in my lifetime- it's not like I'm ever going to use it again. I also don't feel my kids are entitled to it just because they happened to be born (effectively via lottery) to me.

To suffice:

Let the fruit of my efforts benefit society/humanity as a whole. It was my goal in life and ought to be in death.
FWIW the only way you can really avoid it by the structure of your operations is either:

1) Never handle any US protected health information in any way at all, or
2) Push this off entirely to a partner.

If you are operating in the US in healthcare, at the very least you will need to audit yourself to ensure (1).
I was under the impression that the work load at Google is so heavy that it is almost impossible to get "20% time" anymore.

You don't get in trouble for not working enough hours. A six-hour day is more than enough effort to keep you employed. As in most corporate jobs, you could probably get away with 2-4 (spending the other hours at your desk, but learning skills for the next job) if it's not obvious.

You get in trouble for 20%T (being "distracted") if it pisses your manager off, if it looks like you're trying to engineer a transfer off an undesirable project, or if you appear to be putting 50% of your time into the project.

The reason 20%T usually fails (on employee-initiated side projects) is that it's really hard to launch at Google without a full-time launch. The standards are really high. You have to cover a lot of bases that you wouldn't be expected to worry about in a startup, and you'll need to get enough SRE (reliability engineer) support to cover 24 hours. It's not unreasonable that Google is that way, because they have an understandable brand concern when it comes to reliability in new services.

Most successful uses of 20%T are to engineer a transfer, but managers are wise to that and not supportive. That game is actually a bad thing, because it means that to get a transfer requires auditioning, dividing your efforts, and putting your standing on your main project at risk. It's actually a lot harder to transfer to a good project within Google than to get a job at Google. This also means that you can 20%T for the purpose of transferring, only to get screwed on "headcount" and have put your standing on your main team at risk for nothing.

I don't think that your typical, run-of-the-mill manager is going to punish you for 20%T alone, but if the Perf gods decide that he has to stick someone with a "2.9" (bad Perf) this cycle, then having one foot out the door puts you at risk of being the one thrown under the bus. And once you get a 2.9 it's impossible to transfer.
Yale-New Haven Hospital admits patient with Ebola-like symptoms
Piketty addresses this specifically in pointing out that wealth had to be reconstructed almost from scratch following WW2. If you buy his thesis, then this wealth will be inherited by third- and fourth- generation billionaires next, unless another shock at the scale of WW2 happens.
Mikeal's response:

"
@ddtrejo @izs @piscisaureus it’s a fork as in the GitHub fork button sense." https://mobile.twitter.com/mikeal/status/520285400279965698

This article acts as if they are going their own separate ways when this is clearly not the case.

Why did someone make a fork? Maybe to submit a patch? Maybe to have their own copy in case the origin decides to delete?

Please be accurate in your posts. Misreporting or misrepresenting puts you and your subject's professional reputations at risk.
Wikipedia has the incubation period listed as 2-21 days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease

That's backed up by two citations, from the CDC and WHO. I think I'd also read something, before this epidemic started, that said the longest known incubation period was 21 days.

I've since found a bunch of articles, and one WHO press release, that say the 95th percentile was 21 days and 98th was 42 days. I'm a little skeptical of them, though: they all trace back to that one WHO press release, which is based on the West Africa epidemic, where (because transmission is endemic) it's quite possible that a patient was re-infected at a later date and that's why the incubation period seems longer. Unless I see evidence from a country where the cases are all contact-traced, I'd be inclined to believe the earlier studies about the virus and not the latest articles.
I didn't mean to imply that Duncan was a known or managed case (it ended up in a managed state, it didn't start there), I was describing the situation today, where the patients are admitted for appropriate care and high quality contract tracing has been done.

Anyway, as I said to you a few days ago, unless you are at least willing to revisit this in a few months or a year and consider whether the system in place was "good enough", rather than us getting lucky, there isn't much more to discuss (yes, I'm implying that my read is that you would maybe dismiss a positive outcome as luck; I don't mean to do so sneakily, nor do I intend it as an attack).

I'm at least ambivalent about whether the U.S. is prepared for the situation, the repeated mishandling of things in Dallas was not encouraging.
What about the Kochs and Murdochs of this world? Since you mention Russia, what of the high level of corruption and organised crime that seems to be required to be rich there?