skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Incubators don't want companies they invest in to implode, if you are doing all the coding id would be very confident that the incubator would be lothe for you to leave the team. I'm saying this because i think you should have a quiet word directly with someone you trust at the incubator and tell them the situation. If your lucky the incubator might help stand up on your behalf on this one, as its in their interest. They understand that the tech cofounder is usually very valuable.

Even still get your own legal advice and draw around you a group of people who haven't been involved who you can turn to for advice and support.
That only works if it becomes part of the BTC protocol that you can only mine if the electricity comes from renewable, non-polluting sources. Otherwise, due to solar not being the cheapest, most accessible source of energy everywhere that people want to mine BTC, you'd have lots of people choosing to increase greenhouse gas emissions in order to fill their own pockets.

It would be interesting to see estimates of the cost of those greenhouse gasses, in terms of extinct species, effort to clean up the atmosphere, or other expensive/bad things that can happen when you claim that increasingly using energy in non-efficient ways is just fine. Are these costs higher or lower than the value of the money created?

Perhaps BTC is sustainable, but your argument certainly does not refute the article's claim - at least, until we've already solved our energy & pollution problems.
This is only about stopping police misconduct before they maliciously charge someone with a crime. Provided this review process was suitably unbiased and not just getting a buddy to rubber stamp arrests that could be a good improvement over the lack of accountability and justice in the process currently.
People who downvote, why? Is it because you think I'm factually incorrect or a simple distaste for a military hardware program or what?
The central problem that banks solve is the shared-truth problem, and banks solve it by being the score-keepers. Alice's bank owes her $100; Bob's bank owes him $100. If Alice pays Bob $50, Alice's bank owes her $50, and Bob's owes him $150.

That's all there is to it. The key is that the banks have to agree on the truth. A check from Alice to Bob is a statement from her saying "I pay Bob $50", he endorses it, saying, "I accept $50 from Alice" and then the two banks at some point say "1-2-3 go!" and make the change simultaneously.

Until I understand how Bitcoin does that, I will not believe in it. And don't give me hand-wavy bullshit. Speak plainly.

EDIT: Yes, downvote me for wanting to understand, you bitcoin bastards.
Local solar works well. It is the transport to central electricity generating stations that killed initiatives such as the one to power Europe from North African deserts. Bitcoin mining can use local solar (on small scale) or large scale. Mining will move to hot climates.
I don't think they're doing any 'bogus' things nor do I think the illegality matters. The laws were used to prop up the taxi cartel, I'm glad they are being broken.
What have they done that's unethical?
The original statement was that we don't develop treatments for diseases unless they affect rich people, the existence of orphan drug markets and regulations is evidence that we do develop these treatments.
Marketing. So they can write that the F35 can outperform a fully loaded F16 without mentioning that the F35 didn't have a load.
It's probably okay. They can always induct more F-22s if need be.

That said, I think they're letting their allies (like Japan, Australia) down. These countries aren't allowed to import F-22, and they're stuck with the F-35 (or some European plane), which will probably be easily beaten by the newer Sukhois.
There are nice schoolboys and there are hardened dropouts too, what's your point? And I dint bring up schoolboys. You're injecting that where I didn't mention that.

All I'm saying is that public servants of all kinds face daily indignities. They may deserve some of it, other times it's people being jerks --but pubic servants don't face one or two antagonistic people a week, they can face many, depending on their post. And the point is no one should have face a daily dose of expletives directed at them. They face that, but they should not. Now granted, we have a right to express ourselves. My point is in any other job, this behavior would become unwelcome and would have consequences on the offender in the form of up to civil or criminal charges (sexual harassment, for example).

This work hazard is a bit unique to public servants and it's constant and that will take a toll on the affected's psyche, like if or not. Just because they get paid with public funds does not make them magically immune to human weaknesses.
The important part of wpietri's critique is "during the instants we are directly useful".

The CEO doesn't stop being paid when she walks to the bathroom, and a cashier doesn't stop being paid when he's waiting for a customer to show up. wpietri is talking about a shift in the granularity of trading your labor for money, so that you aren't paid for a day or an hour of work, but for the exact number of minutes you performed useful work.

The shift is away from paying an employee for 8 hours of work--knowing that he will only be performing useful work for some fraction of that time--towards paying the same employee only for the time spent being productive.

Since most people aren't able to work productively for an entire 8 hour shift, this change probably means a net decrease in wages.

We've already started to see this with computer scheduling in retail. Assigning split shifts, irregular shifts, and scheduling the bare minimum number of employees required to minimize employee downtime.
If flaunting the law results in an all round better service perhaps the laws don't do what they're supposed to.
> " I absolutely trusted my co-founders and didn't check the incorporation papers but it seems that the incubator (+ the mentors in that incubators) and my co-founders didn't want me as a founder"

There is already broken trust at this stage. Normally I would want you to ask yourself if you are sure you are reading the situation correctly and recommend you consult an attorney...but I've seen these stories play out time and time again.

Even if you work past this issue, the trust is gone, and it's just a matter of time before there is another falling out.

Even if you did get your 30% equity, very few startups survive messy founder breakups and I don't really think the equity will ever be worth anything.

Your best option (if you can legally) is to leave them and start a new company where you own 100%.

Your next best option is to demand a hefty payout in exchange for the code base and/or agree to finish building it out for a premium fee on your time.

Bottom line, get out of there ASAP...
It always irritates me when these sorts of sites decide to implement their own often quirky document-viewing web app and hide everything behind it instead of just providing a direct link to a PDF or similar. I mean, if you're going to have this material freely available anyway why not make it easy to access?

IMHO archive.org is a good example to follow; I know their recent redesign is somewhat controversial, but they have not changed the fact that it is easy to get to the content directly, and their URLs are also mostly descriptive.
I think it's unlikely that you'll fix the situation and remain a member of your company with your 30%; cofounder disputes, especially at such an early stage, almost never end amicably, and they ruin many, many companies. It sucks; I'm sorry that things ended this way.

So it seems like you have two options:
1) Walk away
2) Walk away and hire a lawyer

Whether or not you hire a lawyer depends on whether or not the company is worth anything. The answer is probably no, if you're relatively new and have just been accepted into an incubator, but if the company has significant revenue, a real valuation, or other overwhelming signs that it really is valuable, then you could consider hiring an employment lawyer, with the knowledge that it will be a large out-of-pocket expense.

If you're passionate about the idea, go do it on your own, or with new cofounders. Don't take any code - it's not yours and it's a good way to cause yourself more problems in the future - but run with the idea and out-execute your old team. And good luck.
This is all well and fine assuming you have enough F-22s. We don't.

There's an infamous RAND study involving a conflict over the Strait of Taiwan:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/...

The tl;dr of it is that even assuming F-22s could score a perfect 1:1 missiles fired to kill ratio while perfectly evading all enemy missiles, the simple fact of the matter is that they'd get overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemy aircraft and run out of munitions.

And then the airfields get destroyed and it doesn't matter how good your air superiority fighters are if they don't have anywhere to operate out of.
It's the same in the UK, banks won't even look at you if your projected yield isn't at least 6%. The fact buy-to-let mortgages have this requirement for mum and pop landlords means that even if you have the liquid assets (large hedge funds, investors, mega-rich) you might as well extract the 6% minimum yield. Result: astronomical rental costs growth in London, gotta feed the system somehow!
Yes, but it really shines as a pork barrel generator.

I'd rather see a swarm of drones one tenth the size and one twentieth the price fight our dog fights.
There seems to be a factual error in this: other than what the article claims the number of transactions should not change the amount of energy required.

The Mining network mines a block roughly every 10 minutes, no matter how many transactions there are.

If the amount of transactions rises, the cost in Bitcoin per transaction rises, not the energy required. The cost in Bitcoin rises because you have to give the miners an incentive to actually process the transaction (that is, include it in a mined block). Since the number of transactions per block is limited, there is a bidding competition.

What increases the energy required is only the mining, which depends on the value of Bitcoin. The more valuable Bitcoin is, the more miners will be thrown at it, consuming more energy.

Correct me if I am wrong...
Trying to build this fighter has taken so long that our current aircraft inventory is aging out. That's a huge problem.
If bitcoin does become even more mainstream, given its energy requirements and the potential strain it may put on existing traditional infrastructures; will solar and other alternative power sources always be more expensive?
I used to live in one of the most multicultural areas of London before the rents started going through the roof. I loved it.

Now it's slowly turned into a string of soulless Gucci/Prada/Maserati shops, and all the people/immigrants who made it a genuinely nice place to live have been priced out by foreign investors.

But sure, racism or whatever.
I agree with the sentiment in the other comments, except that

as with most complicated situations, there is often the urge to "do what's Right", such as "walk immediately" in this case, out of frustration. While that's understandable, it is also often the case that you should Think Through the situation before acting.

You are not under pressure to respond right away--there is no explicit hard deadline, so you should take your time to think clearly, consult lawyers, and weight all your options before making a judgement. It could very well be that you might decide, after contemplating more, that you should walk, but do take the time to think about the pros/cons first and try not to make rash decisions. Your goal is to choose the option that benefit you personally the most given the situation
2. quit the company and work on the project alone.
It means it has non-zero mass. There are some theories of dark matter which would involve particles having thousands of times less mass than even a neutrino.
Microsoft transfers map business to Uber and display advertising to AOL
When Booth Saved Lincoln's Life
Policy updates advises phishing email
No, as the appeal court stated, the only thing waiting for a rule is the fair use one.

Alsup asked the jury to rule as if API's were copyrighteable so that ruling stands
Clever (YC S12) is hiring a lead designer
What is the current state of traction? As many will tell you, ideas are worthless...and in many cases, product is near worthless too. What is of value is customers. Do you/they have any? If not, you're not really walking away from much as it is, better to just leave this mess and start fresh with someone else or on your own.
No, there is C89, C99 and C11.

What reduces the set of compilers is the reliance on compiler specific behaviours or recently approved standards, when compilers are still catching up.
Reality frustrum culling?
Boo bloody hoo. Are we in 'the provinces' meant to feel sorry for Londoners? Are you shitting me?
Seriously, just go talk to a lawyer to get some legal advice. Take all the correspondence and contracts with you as other people have suggested. Don't do anything rash or out of emotion.
He can save 14 more if instead of creating a function he copies the function content inside of 'onclick'. And he can save one by using +new Date instead of Date.now().
Half of the money over what time frame? If that's per year, you're facing 50% devaluation of your property per year.

That may be your best choice, but it surely isn't enticing for people to enter the game, or keep playing it. So, that would kill Bitcoin.
There is a difference between trying to behave reasonably outside the law starting up while trying fix regulations fairly and in good faith when you get enough attention ... and ostentatious defiance, which is how many would describe Uber's behavior in many circumstances.

'flaunting' was a carefully chosen word.
In many cities uber is paying drivers a guaranteed $40 per hour to drive regardless of fares during peak times.

In many places uber is currently an unsustainable, heavily subsidised operation which would fail in free market conditions, but because of their big stash of VC $$ they are able to survive while eating away at taxi driver market share.
Could you provide a similar list of news article from the bigs news papers (BBC, NY Times, ectra), and list the number of articles and associated page views regarding corrupt Russia officials and the Russian Mafia?

Movies and TV shows like to use corruption in Russia as a stereotypical movie plot, but that makes it less news worthy for news papers. If there isn't a large interest from readers then there is no ad revenues to be gained, and no interest for journalist to write about it.

Of course one could be conspiratorial and accuse all the large media companies to be pro-Russia or having a curios set of priorities, but I find the simple answer to be more likely. tptacek conspiracy theory need to eliminate those simple answers before I will consider it anything more than a political view.
You're being downvoted because you didn't put in the effort to explain why you misunderstand Bitcoin transactions. Further, your tone is aggressive and instigative.
Bitcoin is a distributed ledger of all transactions.

Alice mines 100 BTC. That "mining" transaction is recorded on the ledger and distributed to all the other miners and they accept it because it has the correct math behind it. Bob wants to buy 100 BTC because he wants to deposit to an online poker site and the regulations don't allow him to deposit using a credit card. He goes to Alice in person and gives Alice USD and Alice transfers Bob 100 BTC.

Carol mines the block that contains the transaction. Carol gets some BTC for mining and also verifies that the transaction from Alice to Bob is legitimate because it was signed by Alice. Therefore, since Carol mined a legitimate block it's accepted by all the miners. Now all miners agree that Bob has 100 BTC.

The answer for all of this is math. Cryptography proves that these things happened.
agreed. at this point it won't help you to give them any more access to the code you wrote
ShareTheMeal
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html says: at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

COMPUTER SIMULATION vs HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html
http://thelaymansanswerstoeverything.com/2013/01/scientific-...
Lol. Funny to read you are in my situation 3 years back. Had joined a team where I did not at all trust that one guy but the others were ok. They asked me to join on an equal share basis and asked me to lead the dev team in Chile and relocate from Germany for that. That one guy came over for just the first month. I was not a beneficiary of the incubator and after a month in Chile, we had to found a company and that company was to be owned by only two of the four founders, with "that guy" putting himself at 50%. I brought up the topic in a skype meeting with 15 supporters and at the time I had figured that mentioning that I signed up for 25% of the cake might get people angry and "that guy" yelled at me he would fly down to Chile and kick my butt … anyway, long story short, I took my hat and our Chilean founding partner made sure I got my 90% reembursement of the reembursable money I had put in, and 100% of what I paid to our developers to make them good for what "that guy" and the other German partner didn't pay.

At the time, I was super stressed and worried and tried to document everything in case it will be of relevance later on.

Yeah, that was three years ago and I'm forever thankful for our Chilean partner that took a great financial hit later on when the startup finally went down but that I only heard second hand …

Anyway, I'm still in Chile and like it here.

Not all startups will be the next Facebook. Being in an incubator is not only a job. Make up your mind. Don't sign stuff against your interest.
As long as markets exist to transfer bitcoin to other currencies, I believe that effect is probably negligible. If a miner holds a significant portion of their rewards in bitcoin and there exists a credible threat to the network, it will almost certainly be more advantageous to convert that value to another currency rather than continue mining in hopes of saving the network.
Configure Travis CI for Go
I know HN doesn't like "me too" comments but, really, this can't be stated strongly enough.

Do not listen to anyone on these comments other than the people that tell you to go and see a lawyer, immediately.

And yes, be calm, be methodical. Generally, when it comes to the law, sensible wins. Screaming and shouting rarely does.
Allegro Common Lisp, Franz Lisp provide IDE tooling reminiscent of the Lisp Machines. With visual debuggers, graphical REPL, hypertext documentation triggered from the REPL, libraries to integrate with the OS....

Additionally their optimising compilers are quite good.
The author of this article has a misconception that the marginal cost for processing a bitcoin transaction is "1.57 American household's yearly consumption". That's not correct -- the marginal cost is closer to the electricity spent by your processor in rendering this web page.

It is the upfront cost of getting a partial SHA256 collision and being able to add transactions to the blockchain that is massive, at least for this level of transactional volume. Bitcoin becomes more sustainable the more people use it, as the average TX costs goes down.

Whether other consensus systems like Proof of Stake should replace Proof of Work is a more interesting question.
I think this is basically the idea behind this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Profiting from building a better home on the same plot of land shouldn't be eliminated, but profiting from building a house on a piece of land that suddenly becomes more valuable certainly should be.
Another variant is four words: "we had an agreement." This emphasises that you had already agreed to something.

I agree with everything else, it's very unlikely to work out.
If you owned stock in Pepsi, and their business looked like it was going to go under, would you drive down to the plant and help them bottle the stuff?

The rational response in your scenario would be to sell your BTC and diversify into other assets.

Trying to secure the network yourself suffers from the tragedy of the commons. There is no real incentive besides altruism to not let others bear the cost of doing the work and ride on their coattails.
> Until I understand how Bitcoin does that, I will not believe in it. And don't give me hand-wavy bullshit. Speak plainly.

You're probably being down-voted because that information is available to you. You just need to look for it.
Minimum salary required in London: £500k?
One of my favorite authors, Jorge Luis Borges, wrote a short story, "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius," based on Berkeleyan philosophy. I thought again of this passage when I read the headline:

"Things duplicate themselves on Tlön; they also tend to grow vague or 'sketchy,' and to lose detail when they begin to be forgotten. The classic example is the doorway that continued to exist so long as a certain beggar frequented it, but which was lost to sight when he died. Sometimes a few birds, or a horse, have saved the ruins of an amphitheater."
> I dare you to find me real estate with a 10% gross yield in Belgium for example...

Does Belgium have no property tax? That's the only way such low rents could work.
Where does one find the rules for these events/classes?
Crazy stuff. I'm bemused that this project goes on year after year and no one in the US govt has the onions to stand up to Lockheed Martin's lobbying machine.

A trillion f ing dollars!! For that amount, you could fund 1000 startup companies a million dollars each to develop their best fighter, and stage a knockout tournament until you have whittled it down to the 15 best designs and you'd still have $993 billion to spread among the surviving designs.

Oh, your war drones have humans strapped to them...how quaint. --Some future general
I Don’t Really Care About Awards – Wizkid Speaks on BET Awards
London is not creating the prices of property, the people are. They will be prepared to pay as much as they think living in London is worth. If eventually all the cool stuff is driven out by the high prices, prices will fall accordingly. Or rather, presumably there will be an equilibrium of prices vs coolness.

It kind of sucks, but what would actually be a better system? That people get assigned places to live by lottery, so if you happen to live in a cool place on the cheap, you were simply lucky? It sounds good on the surface because you only have the people living there in your mind. You forget about all the other people who never get a chance of living there. Why is it fair if some randomly selected people get to live in nice places and others don't?

I am not convinced that the market approach is not preferable. After all, those people PAY for the privilege to live in a cool place. If they have the money, presumably they should have delivered something good to the world in exchange.

And, hello, welcome to overpopulation. The number of nice places to live is finite. Even if we can cram ever more and more people into the world (by building skyscrapers or whatever), it doesn't seem obvious to me that we can provide nice places for everyone. For example, the length of shorelines is finite (glossing over fractal issues), so if your idea of living in a nice place is to live by the sea, there are only so many people who can have that privilege.