colemannugent

>Notably, we haven’t cut any features with this new layout

Perfect. Simple defaults for new users, more dense interfaces for power users. Other projects take note, you don't need to sacrifice the cool stuff to drive adoption.

I really wish tools like this or Jupyter Notebooks were around when I first started studying CS in school. Mixing notes and code is such an interesting use-case.

Seconding this, the buttons are way too tiny. On mobile they are almost impossible to hit on smaller text settings.

The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place.

Here are some pretty standard arguments:

https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli...

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon.

>Whether its American Conservatives or UK Remainers, much of the political spectrum has an inability to consider the other side's opinion

I would caution the author against merely dismissing this behavior as a defect in their thinking. I suspect that some or most of the lack of empathy is intentional.

Aside: In my view, most people who espouse political views merely parrot bits and pieces of arguments that they have seen elsewhere, so I ignore these "non-thinkers" as I don't believe that they contribute much to the empathy or lack thereof in today's politics.

Back to my point: I think that apathy is often a strategic advantage, especially in politics. The ideological leaders of the groups know this and choose to employ narratives that paint their opponents as evil monsters rather than misled humans, as it makes their jobs significantly easier.

For example, being the political party who sets aside the traditions of the government to, for example, fast-track the nomination of a high-value judge by changing the rules, confers a great advantage to whoever is willing to cross the line first.

In today's democracies the winner of an election is mainly determined by who can stir up the most support from their large preexisting base of supporters. In this system the most attention grabbing rhetoric wins, and empathy just doesn't seem to get the kind of attention that vitriol does.

As for dealing with apathy in politics, I am skeptical of the idea that there is much to do other than remove the advantage that apathy provides, which itself seems very difficult. Promoting empathetic arts seems noble, but I doubt that it would even slow the current trend we see playing out on social media.

While I have no doubt that you of all people could do DNS right, it seems a bit like scope creep IMO. I'm very excited about sr.ht, but also worried that it might be too much to execute all at once.

That being said, DNS records in Git sounds kinda neat. You avoid all the special authentication nonsense of "DynamicDNS" or proprietary APIs by using SSH keys, and you have versioning for rolling back configurations. Also you don't need a special UI that essentially builds zone files as you'd just have your users make their own. You might need some validation of the files before you actually put them into BIND though.

>It is democracy itself they [The Republican Party] are opposed to, and will continue to amass power until bloodshed forces change.

So in your opinion, the solution to Republicans subverting democracy isn't well considered democratic action, but rather bloodshed? That seems rather anti-democratic.

>Proposing technical solutions assumes all players wish for fair elections. This is not the case.

So you can't think of any technical solutions that assume bad intentions on behalf of most of the involved actors? What about the protocol your browser used to send your comment to the servers that run this forum?

>Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes.

Can anyone give an example of DRM that isn't anti-competitive?

I don't think so, FTA: "“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,” Nathan Proctor, head of consumer rights group US PIRG’s right to repair efforts, told me in an email.

Although you could make an argument that the device never performed according to its specifications and your unlocking the device is merely an attempt to repair a fundamentally broken product, but that seems like it'd be a hard sell.

They want to increase the "feature" surface area as that increases sales.

Eventually this will become a big enough problem that cars will come with a security rating just like the safety ratings they come with today. Most people will be happy with their 4/5 security stars, but as everyone in the infosec industry knows you can never be truly secure, only secure enough relative to your threat model.

>This is point of governments. To change the incentives for individuals so markets optimize for global good. This is not a hard concept.

Huh, this whole time I thought the point of governments was to protect individual rights. TIL /s

>You have it exactly backwards.

Whoops! You're exactly correct. Issuing more bonds increases the risk of the issuer not being able to repay the debt and thus the debtors will demand higher rates to offset this increased risk.

Although, unlike other bond issuers, the Fed has other tools in it's arsenal that would allow it to manipulate the yield curve.

>interest rates are set by the market

Aye, mostly. It's important to remember that the Federal Govt. has the ability to manipulate the money supply by printing money and the ability to nearly indefinitely borrow whenever they get into trouble. Note that borrowing implies issuing bonds, which will lower interest rates.

So the Fed cannot simply dictate interest rates, but if it wants to manipulate the rates there is not a whole lot stopping them. In a recession scenario I imagine they would not have much trouble justifying more borrowing to the American public.

With regard to the effect a Chinese selloff would have on the market (both the US bond market and the wider global economy) I don't know enough to comment. However, I am fairly confident that if such a selloff resulted in a major economic downturn the Fed would try to lower rates to stimulate the economy.

The Fed manipulates interest rates in an attempt to stabilize the economy. The strategy goes something like this: slowly raise interest rates while the economy is humming along, and when a downturn comes along they quickly lower them in an attempt to boost the economy [0].

One of the dangers inherent in this strategy comes in the timing of the rate manipulations. Be too aggressive with raising rates and you may lose large amounts of economic momentum. Be too slow to raise rates and you may have nothing to lower in the event of a recession.

So if China sold off a ton of US debt and it negatively affected the world economy, the Fed would likely cut interest rates in an attempt to counter the downturn.

[0]: https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-c...

I love these kinds of puzzles. Can't wait for the write-up of the solution.

Education doesn't have as much effect as you might think. It seems that nutrition has a very significant effect on IQ: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886990...

Here's one such list for anyone interested:

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

I subscribed about two months ago after seeing this on /r/sysadmin. I got my first issue, but I still haven't got my Yubikey :(

I have a feeling that they might be waiting on a huge order of the branded Yubikeys to arrive.

I also agree that current budget allocations are insane. Maybe if we stopped fighting so many wars we could make more progress here at home.

Another assumption that you make is that the problem with the US education system is a lack of funding. I don't think this is the case.

>Literally everyone.

and

>Imagine the tax income down the line...

are contradictory.

A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending leads to more productivity and the added cost is offset by the increase in taxes due to the productivity gain". Or more simply: "Education and welfare are good investments".

Now we can have a serious conversation about the economic impacts of this kind of investment. But to market it as free is irresponsible. It it not free. At best we get more out than we put in, but by definition we must put in something.

That was the point of my original comment. Everything has a cost. Even an investment with a nearly guaranteed return comes at a cost and has a certain amount of risk associated with it.

>...make healthcare and education free-or-nearly-so...

Free for who?

See FDR's "court packing plan":

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

I can't remember another particular instance, but there have been several times where something interesting linked on HN will have another piece of interesting content related to it which will then also be posted here.

It is kind of uncanny that we all have seen this particular video in our recommendations recently. It makes me want to try and create a graph of the connections between all the links.

I don't want to put words in openbasic's mouth, but here I go anyway:

>what definition of "free" you're using here

Free as in relatively unencumbered by government regulation. I think it's fair to say based off his "GDPR was just the first step" comment that he views increased government control of the internet as the axis along which the freedom he is referring to is measured.

>Are you saying that anything moving away from uncontrolled anarchy is cutting away freedom..

I take that as a given. Anarchy is the state in which people are unconstrained, and are thus maximally free. Anything short of anarchy implies that there is something limiting people's choices.

>...and we therefore shouldn't do that?

Isn't this basically the entire issue with governments? We give up freedoms in exchange for other benefits. Entire political philosophies devote their energy to the question of how much freedom we should exchange.

>The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and sell the pictures, would you say that's interference in your free life as well?

Do you really think that openbasic is taking this EU move as a chance to advocate for total anarchy? Or is it more likely that they disagree with this freedom/benefits trade-off and you are strawmanning?

On a related note, does anyone have a good recommendation for a lightweight analytics solution?

I've looked at Piwik/Matomo and it looks pretty good. I've also been looking at NGINX Amplify, but that is more web server metrics rather than "analytics" and it's SaaS of course.

You'd think that there would be tons of NGINX plugins for stuff like this, but I haven't found any good self-hosted ones. I really would like to avoid running heavy JS on pages that are <10KB.

Surprised nobody's mentioned this yet: The most common form of ID in the US is a driver's license. To get one you need to meet a bunch of requirements and then take a driving test at a local branch of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). If you are ever looking for a great example of government inefficiency it's the DMV offices [1]. All of them run horribly, most have massive wait times for simple procedures, and the employees have a reputation for not giving a shit. Not to say all of them run like this, but in California it's so bad that the government officials have their own secret DMV office to avoid waits [2].

If you were a poor person who really only has the value of their physical labor to feed your family you might not want to waste spend hours and hours of your incredibly (relatively) valuable time for something you can make do without. Since these poor people are often minorities voter ID laws disproportionately affect them.

The question of racism being a factor for supporters of voter ID is kinda muddied. Voter ID laws seem to make a ton of sense on the surface, but a little bit of knowledge about the American election system makes it clear that voter fraud is really not a big problem. There's no doubt that racists would support voter ID laws as they do suppress the election turnout of the poor, but I haven't seen any evidence that racial factors contribute to the majority of people's support for voter ID laws. Like every topic in US politics, it has become hyper-polarized to the point where both sides talk past each other to try to demonize their opponents.

[1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-DMV-so-slow

[2]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...

At some point won't you run into IP issues with the ARM SoC? Plus how would you deal with things like power analysis attacks that require modifying hardware to fully mitigate?

How about a video of Obama saying there was no tampering?

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/obama-no-technical-tampering-w...

I see this argument made quite frequently online and I don't get it. Isn't it obvious that more people think the state should prioritize preventing murders over helping people raise their children? Isn't the debate over the beginning of life more contentious than the debate over whether we should help raise other people's children?

I should clarify: I have seen the planets before, but I can't remember being able to see this much detail without a telescope or binoculars.

Jupiter and Venus look like regular, although very bright, stars. Mars is currently a very visible red circle that is unmistakably a planet.