skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Surface Pro 3 is really sweet. Main reason: the stylus and high-quality screen.

This is the closest thing to a digital sketchpad yet. I've been waiting for the Sony A4 e-ink tablet forever (and several other e-ink products that never materialized), and finally gave in to the Surface.

Unfortunately, despite being much better than what I expected, it's not great to use outdoors or in bright light.

However it does blow away the Galaxy Note and basically every "capacitive pen" you can try. The Note in particular has a ridicolous pen: too small to handle, horrid lag, missed strokes, very poor pen sensitivity and high screen glare even with office lights. I re-sold mine just after a few weeks.

The Surface stylus feels just like a regular pen, which is great. There's no space in the device for it, but if you see the depth of the tablet you realize that you cannot possibly fit it in there without sacrificying the pen itself. I'm glad they didn't shrink the pen.

Unfortunately the Pro 3 uses an n-trig 256-pressure levels sensor, which has a much lower resolution than the previous versions which were Wacom based. For writing/jotting down is ok, but for drawing the difference is noticeable. The lower sensitivity takes a toll when you try to customize the response curve...

I'm appalled why so many tablet vendors don't ship with a digitizer built-in. Strip that useless rear-facing camera and put a digitizer in there! You could go as far as selling without the pen by default, as long as there's an option to buy one!
The article also doesn't seem to take into account that we already spend of hundreds of billions of dollars every year of welfare programs that could be saved. The article just piles BI on as an additional expense.

I also think most BI supporters tend to shoot too high. The equivalent income of just a 16hr per week job at min wag would do wonders for the economy without putting a great deal of pressure on people not to work.
This is forum for hackers, right? someone should be able to answer his/her question
sure actually giving everyone 10k a year is going to cost too much. But I don't think anyone who is sane is actually proposing that.

At the moment, the poor get a mismash of benifits that all require administration.

replacing that with a single means tested universal income is far simpler.

for example:

every house hold is entitled to 10K, if you only earn 5k, you get a top up to 10k. This is no more costly that what already exisits in the UK (housing benefit, out of work, DLA, working tax credits) but is a magnitude more easy to administrate.

You get the added bonus of abolishing pensions that cost uber cash to maintain.

I think the economist is deliberately grasping at the wrong straws. Either that or the Swiss are batshit insane.
For me and many other .NET developers I know, speaking about XAML means the whole stack, e.g. XAML, .NET APIs, Blend integration and third party components.

I just tend to abbreviate to XAML when speaking about it.

There changes on the APIs between WPF, WinRT and Silverlight if you will, and not all features are exposed across all stacks.

Yet, any developer knowing XAML, the usual programming idioms and the respective .NET APIs can easily transition among all of them.

This has been mentioned at multiple PDC and BUILD conferences in the last years, but I guess many at HN and Reddit don't follow them.
As a counterexample, what about people who need more than a basic income? In Spain, chronic patients with expensive treatments are still subsidized. The Social Security system is based in solidarity: a few need a lot of money, while many don't need much at all, and it balances out (well, it doesn't, but that's another matter).

I'm fine with this. Maybe I'm in the paying end of the deal, but since I believe health is a matter of luck, I'd like to be able to be in the receiving end (and not be left to die) in case I have bad luck.

Of course this could be an exception, but I'm sure there are a lot more exceptions not taken into consideration in the basic income discussion. IMHO, basic income doesn't solve the problem and introduces new ones.
yes, everything with AWS is negotiable. No, it's not worth your time to negotiate that clause.
That is still time from your life that you are dedicating to your job, thus you should be paid.

Also I'm not sure how a meeting for work could be considered non-work, it is again time out of your life that you are doing a task to meet the needs of the company, thus you should be paid for it.

If your company does client work, but doesn't bill meetings to the client, that's their prerogative, but I as an employee should by contract be paid for the work I am doing for my employer. If it's in my contract that I should do meetings without being paid, then I'm probably an idiot for signing that contract.
That's a 100% tax rate on your first 10K in income?
NSFW Jennifer Lawrence finally speaks on ‘The Fappening’ nude picture leaks
The Amazing Ways Uber Is Using Big Data Analytics
I think the ethical arguments and the practical arguments about how other policies could be changed once basic income is implemented are more than enough reason to vote yes. But all of that is ultimately moot: the most important reason why basic income will soon be necessary is that "jobs" as they exist now are already on their way out.

The idea that it is "too expensive" just begs the question "too expensive to whom?" Eventually, our practice of giving the richest people more and more money will hit a breaking point, and we will have to figure out a way to take care of all the people whose livelihoods have been automated. Basic income is the best and easiest way to obviate that problem, and the richest can easily afford to pay for it.
Which non-government agency is stealing money from you as "tax"?

Genuinely interested, as where I live the only tax taken from our wages is federal tax.
Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.
What about using a scheme where the only copy of the key is easily destroyed when needed? Something like private key stored on a USB flash drive with hidden "auto-destruct" button. If the owner sees the situation coming, he just says to the criminal: "The only copy of the private key was stored on this disk. I've just destroyed it. There's no point in torturing me." Seems to prevent both violation of privacy and torture. The criminal must believe there is no other copy, though.
2700 per month is 32.4k per year - that's awfully high for a basic income. I'm not surprised it's "too expensive".
It seems more like Scala syntax, which is much cleaner than C++ IMHO. But with Java becoming dynamic (and C++ techniques for same), is the future a smear of shared language features, like Bladerunner's cityspeak, or are these just intermediate forms as a new protolanguage capable of unifying these features comes into existence?
I don't see how this is affordable. With the Swiss amount of $2700 per month ($32,400 p.a) it's $32bn for 1m people per annum (8m people in Switzerland). This is 45% of the annual federal budget last year ($70b) & doesn't even cover 13% of the population. What about everything else that needs government expenditure: roads, defense, education & research, regulatory oversight, police?
I haven't really made up my mind about Basic Income, but one thing I never heard advocates of Basic Income talk about is that incentives matter to human behavior. BI will tax people who work more and give handouts to those who don't. This disincentivizes working and incentivizes not working. For example, the increasing numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance seems like a similar phenomenon and is not a good omen. [1]

[1] - http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/...
Yes, but I think rent control and such could be better implemented without as strong an opposition from landlords that in the current system have to try and provide for their basic needs.
1. The £12,500 promise is for this parliament, i.e. before 2020. It's probable that they will exceed the promise, but not in July.

2. Increasing the personal allowance no longer makes much difference to the poor and underemployed: the disadvantaged in society. Thanks to the last parliament, they are out of this category.

Increasing the benefit is now primarily a small tax benefit for the working middle classes that has the significant advantage of appearing to be progressive.
Best solution I've come across is a small <1% fee on all financial transactions. Which would work well if all those transactions in the world occurred on a blockchain.

This guy is giving the method a shot: http://www.basicincome.co/
Absolutely -- we'd still need a social safety net for people who "win" the Bad Luck Lottery, and that includes stellar health care programs.
Yes. But the presence of a large group with a consistent fixed income would incentivize the building of large-scale low cost apartments - those don't exist currently outside of major cities (where 'low cost' is substantially higher), because the demand isn't there.
I just see XAML itself as totally optional, and it is weird to hear it used to represent the entire architecture. One of the reasons I haven't even tried WinRT yet is because it seems much more XAML heavy than classic WPF (it is also missing font metric APIs my programs depend on...). I'm also a bit of a code traditionalist, and find transitioning between the two (markup and code behind) a bit jarring.

Plenty of Microsoft haters on HN, this post has already been flagged or flamed off the front page. Oh well.
That is neither what the poster meant, nor what they said.

The poster did not state that taxes are theft, nor that they are stolen from you.
Stealing is taking without the right to take, or the permission of the individual.

Whilst you may not like paying taxes or agree with them, I am fairly sure the government has the right to take them.
A solid BI system could be done for around $2-3 trillion, not $5-10+. BI supporter tend to over shoot, $2000 a month is too high and will disincentivize work too much. (Although, the market would correct itself via inflation given enough time.)

I worked out the figures, and roughly the equivalent of a 16hr/week job at min wage would be close to optimal and affordable.

Taxes should be lower too, btw, but that has to do with wasteful spending in many areas, and nothing to do with BI which can actually help get rid of some that waste.
That sort of thing is usually taken as an admission of guilt as to the contents of the encrypted material, as far as being charged with an actual crime (rather than just held indefinitely without charge) is concerned. Instead of holding you illegally, they're now holding you legally.

On the other hand, if you can remove the active mens rea component, this is a good solution. I imagine law enforcement is actively trying to prevent any software with a dead man's switch key-destruction component from ever becoming popular/ubiquitous, because it would enable people to claim they truly had no idea the software had a feature where their key would be destroyed in such a scenario; they were just using it because everyone else was. Imagine if BitLocker/FileVault had a mechanism like that, which could be forced on users by corporate policy!
I'd worry about the same thing. Government subsidy sure hasn't made education any less expensive.

(Education and public housing aren't quite the same thing, I know, but I'd still want to see some active work to prevent the same outcome.)
We don't know for sure how Basic Income will incentivise people, but I believe that it takes away a lot of negative incentives.

People at the moment are influenced by the need for enough income to support themselves securely. Poor people spend all of their mental energy on this problem, and middle class people spend some of their mental energy ensuring they don't drop into the poor category.

This has all sorts of negative implications - people rationalising work they do that is bad for society; people making sure they meet the criteria to receive SSDI.

If you give everyone Basic Income, there will presumably still be people who seek to play the system, but you remove a lot of those automatic negative incentives.

If people can see work as a way of earning luxuries, rather than as something they are dependent on for personal security, there may be some people who choose not to work. It may be that non-prestige jobs (such as cleaning) have to be paid higher.

But, I feel 100% comfortable with that. I think non-prestige jobs are woefully unfairly paid, as it is.

On the other side, people who want to work on something transformative will have more opportunity to do so, if they don't have to take the risk of not being able to provide for their basic needs.
I'm not sure how you can have this opinion unless you've only ever used google search as a basic calculator or spell-checker.
> Speaking for people who make as much as, or more than, me: We could afford to pay a lot more in taxes.

Here you go friend...
http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

If what you just said is true, I'm sure you've already done this many times before. Lead by example, practiced what you preached, paid your real tax due.

And if not, no need to wait any more.

Here is also the public debt gift page (and stats) if you don't like the above one...

https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
But the television program is broadcast from one transmitter and is chosen by the TV company. Defining the 'content' to be legally protected is easy then - it is what the broadcast transmitter sent. In the UK we have a system for monitoring the actual broadcast output of TV stations to ensure that they comply with certain rules, so there is an evidence base. TV broadcasting is (usually) organised on national territories so there is no doubt as to the laws that the broadcaster and viewer are operating under.

My understanding is that the content of a typical Web news site is assembled from a number of different servers and the advertising content depends on the browsing history from one particular client as detected by scripts that are served from an advert server - the 'tracking' mentioned in the OA.

My point is that deciding what the 'content' was that was protected might be difficult under those circumstances. Also which legal entity is going to do the 'protecting'? Suppose I'm reading The Verge: I'm sitting in the UK, and a lot of our internet traffic goes through a large interchange in Amsterdam. The Verge is based in US. See my point?
You are right, but only because most BI supporters advocate too high an income. Keep the equivalent down around a part-time min wage job, and it would do wonders for the economy with little disincentive.
A generous basic income funded by very high taxes would be self-defeating, as it would reintroduce the sort of distortions that many of its advocates hope to banish from the welfare system. Loafers could live comfortably without lifting a finger.

Basically, if there is not enough jobs for everyone - the raison d'etre of the basic income - then at some point, some aren't going to do anything: that's the point.

In other terms, the basic income is all about how do deal with the people which does nothing since we have reasons to think they couldn't do anything anyway according to the situation.
I am going to tell a story about the state I live in: Maine.

We have many programs: HUD (to help pay rent), Food Stamps, HEAP (fuel/electricity assistance), and others.

All of these have complex forms to fill out, and offices filled with staff that don't actually understand the complex rules, and the rules seem to change all the time.

Hiring these people costs money. Due to the complexity of the rules and forms, many families that qualify for these programs do not apply for them due to the frustration they cause, and when you're poor you only have a limited amount of frustration before you curl up and cry yourself to sleep every night.

Many consider just getting any aid from the state a full time job in of itself.

Not only that, programs like food stamps issue a card, the maintenance of these cards is probably not cheap as they outsource it to some company out of state. The minimum you can get on food stamps here is $15/mo (which helps absolutely no one, I'm sorry, but $15/mo could be a day's worth of food for a couple with a kid); what is the actual cost of doing that $15/mo? I read somewhere that a quarter of a million households qualify for food stamps in Maine, how much are money are we losing administering a program like this that has such little benefit? Could we be feeding another few thousand households with that waste?

I've been advocating a basic income program for years purely because of the efficiency of it. Once people no longer have to worry about where their next meal is, or their wife's next meal, or their kids's next meal, or if they will have a roof over their head tomorrow, or will their car be stolen, I mean, repoed by the bank tomorrow, they can actually focus on being gainfully employed, or go back to school, or just not be a fucking wreck.

I live in Maine. I suspect we are the poorest and most forgotten about state in the great experiment that is our nation. A program like this would create all the jobs we don't have, would end the constant bullshit people here have to deal with, and probably save lives as well.

Life here is so bleak that, as a non-alcoholic, people have assumed that I mean that I'm just in AA, and quit drinking. "No," I tell them, "I really don't drink. Never have." They look at me like I have two heads.
This is something I don't fully understand.

How can bailiffs live with themselves? 99.9% of the time their job involves taking from the poor to give to the rich. The justification is some shaky concept of 'legal ownership' which is often just codified exploitation.

I would rather end myself and my family than do that sort of job. You are a direct agent of evil. Your actions cause massive anguish towards the poor and barely even move the needle for the owners.

What led to you taking the job in the first place? Had to feed the family? (Another reason we need to institute a basic income - a system that can force people into doing bad things just to eat is broken...)
I agree, but we are talking about the Swiss here. Those people are pretty rich.
Is this NOT a Support Forum, just a News Aggregator.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: People who use multiple accounts are also not welcome here.
All is done by the server. Unfortunately, we don't yet have a browser-only torrent client. WebTorrent isn't there yet.
What is really going to happen:

1) let me fire a bunch of low income workers, this causes the media and average to go up + stock options go up. Oh actually let me take the entire thing in stock options. Also now I work for 1 company that exclusively owns the other companies and only have one other employee who makes millions.

2) I rent everything or move to a different country

3) Same

4) Mother of 3 starved to death because government lost her address notification - read all about it in the news.

5) Only idiots want to run for the Senate.. Oh never mind

6) This will probably work, but I wonder if it will do enough to offset the cost?

7) You want to further incentivize companies to move out of the country?
John Nash Has Died
The fact you consider hotel room time 'questionable' shows how far the table is stacked in favour of the employers.

You exist in a place you have no control over, far away from family, with dramatically curtailed freedom over activities you can perform. It doesn't matter whether you are 'labouring'. You wouldn't be there otherwise. Doing that for free is selling yourself short.
There is no shortage of incentive for that in most of western Europe - such property is significantly profitable. The reason why not much gets built is because (a) cheap housing blocks results in ghettoisation, which most governments try to prevent with mixed-dwelling planning requirements, and (b) local residents invariably object to any planning request for housing more low-income people near them.
If you believe that deeply in that idea, then turn it into a startup. Put your own money into it and I'm sure you'll see truly interesting results!
Unvoiced assumption #1: working is good.
Corollary: Not working is bad.
Unvoiced assumption #2: anyone who wants a job can get one.

We know that #2 is false. Coupling the assumptions together produces a group of people who are considered to be bad for reasons that are entirely beyond their control.
Summoning: http://r.weavesilk.com/?v=4&id=ryv106dnrlk
Been trying to make Darth Vader for the last twenty minutes to no avail.

Nice!
In the relatively near-term future it will be literally impossible to employ more than half of the population in nearly full-time positions that produce a net gain for their being filled. At that point there are essentially two choices - let some people not work, or let everybody work less. (There's actually a third choice that will probably be the default - make-work for all, so that we can be kept too busy to effect change).

The latter sounds more fair, but is inherently less efficient - specialization means that for every doctor to work half as much, we have to train twice as many doctors for the same amount of 'product' (the practicing of medicine).

The math in this article seems to also have inexplicably paired 'basic income' with 'flat tax' - while I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like both, those two systems are completely separate, and there's no good reason not to consider the effects in isolation rather than together.
Well obviously you can do that, under the assumption that the company you work for is locked down and isn't going to even remotly consider any type of BYOD, you could get away with pushing any tech you want, considering you control the clients.

However, that doesn't mean that you should and if you're going to lock yourself in to a single priopritory vendor, you're doing yourself and the people you work for a disservice if you haven't weighed it against the alternatives.

I highly doubt the GP really meant that, which is what I was really referring to. What is it about "enteprise" which makes them think they're different? Honest question.
فيلم كرتون الاميرة المفقودة كامل مدبلج
Cranking, by Merlin Mann (2011)
Surely it takes slightly more concentration to walk through a doorway than across a room. You need to avoid bumping into the walls, make sense of an (initially) reduced field of vision, and take-in new surroundings... The idea that people mentally discard information because they've moved into a different room seems far less likely.
I really needed to re-read this tonight and it hit me as hard as it usually does.
So much so, that I'm posting it, despite the fact that it will almost certainly fall, without notice, off of "new" in the next few minutes.

But maybe it won't. And if it doesn't, maybe it will help someone else gain some perspective the way it has helped me (repeatedly over the years)

So let's hope.

--

Please, do not post links to any previous discussion.

Anyone interested in that is fully capable of using the search and I strongly feel that those comments damage the conversation more than they help.

Specifically, that they:

1) chill the current conversation by implying that everything interesting has already been said, and

2) drive people away from the current thread to go look at reams of old comments elsewhere.

They don't always kill the discussion, but IMHO they serve as additional weight making it harder to get the conversation off the ground.
Can your clients just ask the server for a public key? Failing that, can you just hardcode a public key into the client? Surely nacl provides PKE?
I'm certain this is on their to-do list.
I have never heard someone talk about Maine as bleak. Seems like most people who live there or are from there love it. Are you really saying poverty in Maine eclipses the Deep South?