eggpy

That's correct, Maps crowd-sources data if no owner enters stuff. You can even see "Is this your business?" sometimes if the owners haven't bothered to do it. Which, I mean, fair enough.

Hard to comment without being anecdotal, but I exclusively look for business hours on Google maps or Yelp. If I'm searching for a type of business ("hm, is there a bakery near me that's alf-decent?") then I use Yelp. "How busy is <restaurant x> right now?" then I'd use Google Maps. Yelp and Google both link to a businesses' website meaning I don't ever expect to log onto Facebook to check for basic business info. Facebook definitely does have some benefits for businesses such as notifying of promotions and such, but I honestly don't think I've ever thought of FB as the first stop to get business info. It's like a last resort to check for a FB page for me.

I don't think "very developed" and "unsustainable infrastructure" are mutually exclusive. I would argue the manner in which a city developed is far more important than the "degree" of development. Phoenix is a young, developed city but the efficacy of public transportation here is very different than London.

I'm really not trying to argue with you. I'm not making any broad sweeping statements like "I WILL NOT HIRE A FELON". Someone could have a criminal record and be a decent person, just as someone without a criminal record could be a terrible person. Hiring good employees is hard enough. It's not just about raw skill or ability or determination, when hiring you have to make a judgement call about that person. Can you work with this person? Is this a good investment on behalf of the business? Like I take someone's employment history into consideration, I don't think criminal history is irrelevant.

I'm 100% sure this negatively impacts the ability for those with records to get jobs. That really, really sucks for them. And like you mentioned, of course that would contribute to recidivism. Who's going to hire a thief to work unsupervised where they could just steal stuff again? That might be an unfair characterization, but I'd like to talk to the candidate about that and see if _I_ believed they were not going to steal my shit. If someone has a litany of drug convictions, I'd probably be hesitant to assume they were totally trustworthy to show up to work every day. But I'd like to talk to them about it. I guess your position is "it's none of your business", and you could be right about that.

No, I don't think someone should be punished forever. I think most people agree that our criminal justice system needs a major overhaul. Unfortunately "justice" seems to focus more on punishment rather than rehabilitation. As a cause of this, recidivism is rather high. I don't care about personal narcotics use, but a felony regarding minor possession is very different then a violent felony. Also I know a people can change and one mistake doesn't define a person.

Reading back I suppose my previous statement came off as callous. That wasn't my intention. But let's take a quick peek at felony recidivism rates [0] Spoiler alert: it's quite high and depends on what they were convicted for.

  > Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

The system is really terrible and not particularly effective as evidenced by those statistics. I'm sure as hell glad I don't have a felony. But I'd also like to know if I were electing to employ someone that might significantly negatively impact my business. I won't write someone off because they have an asterisk, but the circumstances of a conviction would absolutely matter to me.

[0]https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welc...

I feel like "violent murderer and/or rapist" is something Id like to know about when considering hiring someone.

Under General > About, then check out this page: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204507

Well, according to Forbes, Holmes is worth _nothing_[0], so $500,000 is probably fairly painful. Plus, relinquishing ~19 million shares regardless of their value has to hurt. Also she no longer has the majority of votes in her own company. And as a CEO who can't be an officer of a public company for 10 years, yeah that probably really hurts too. Not to mention her name is effectively toxic pretty much forever now. So she's not going to jail, but those penalties certainly look painful to me.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4...

True, but the research involved could be applicable to a lot more situations that aren't specifically this. Peering deeper into the brain than currently possible sounds pretty useful.

I get your hesitation, but for me the real value is in this sentence:

> It has also won a $960,000 federal grant from the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health for “whole-brain nanoscale preservation and imaging,” the text of which foresees a “commercial opportunity in offering brain preservation” for purposes including drug research.

The rich can do what they want, invest in the businesses they want, and no I don't necessarily want my tax money used for those purposes. But this research sounds like it has potential to be really valuable to humanity as a whole, commercial applications notwithstanding. And that's how science in this country works. Either it's funded by a company like Pfizer where it's locked behind gilded doors or it's funded by taxes and carried out at a university where it's open for all to look at, and given those options I know my preference.

Let's start here: > In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes. [0]

Assuming the taxes collected this year are even remotely similar, and assuming this grant came 100% from income tax, and assuming you pay an equal amount in taxes as everyone else, this grant cost you (960000/1.23 trillion)=1/1281250 of the taxes you paid. I know that's a lot of assumptions, but even if that calculation is off by several orders of magnitude, the tax burden is pretty darn small. If you earned $100,000 last year you paid roughly 8 cents for this. It could open up doors to a lot of interesting research. Maybe nothing will come of it. I'd pay 8 cents to find out though.

Also, who says this is "the elite" wanting to live forever and us schlubs footing the bill?

[0] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...

Here's a fun experiment idea. When you are around friends and the Wii U, only talk about games that came out at Wii U launch, ideally one you don't have. Like, FIFA Soccer 13 or something. Don't ever search for that game or talk about it away from the Wii U. After a week or so of that, see if you get an ad for it.

"We were talking about new games and I got and ad for a new game!" sounds like pretty standard, non-targeted advertising. Easily chalked up to coincidence. Steam advertises new games to me, some I'm interested in and some I'm not, but I don't think Steam is reading my brainwaves.

I've come to _expect_ that Netflix probably doesn't have a classic I particularly want to watch. Anecdotal, sure, but I find that I treat Netflix and <music streaming service of choice> differently. With Netflix I'll turn it on when I want to watch something but I'm not sure which. If I have a show/ movie in mind I'll check if it's there but generally I expect to pay a small fee to rent it on Amazon. The catalog changes monthly, so you never quite know what is going to be there on any given month. With music I know that the music I'm looking for is (probably) there and I won't have to pay more for it.

They are both media-consumption services but I think most people treat them like

I could make the argument that the article uses it well, whether or not that was the authors intention. It is a fitting allegory if you stretch it.

Swift's proposal is satire in order to capture the attention of readers and point it to abuses of power. One could make an allusion to poor children serving the public good and how that relates to morals and values with the spread of (negative) viral content and how tweet-babies could be better served better for consumption by the public.

I haven't thought it through much more than that, but I could see it.

If you're going one at a time. You can improve this by increasing your number of datapoints (people's scores)

> For this purpose we call for data donations:

> Everybody can request their free SCHUFA-Score from Schufa under selbstauskunft.net/schufa and donate the data to our project.

Can't this already be accomplished via XMPP? The protocol already exists, you just need to register devices to services. I know people don't love xmpp, but it seems like this is already an open source gateway that can manage IOT. Why do we need to create a "new open standard"?

[0] https://xmpp.org/uses/internet-of-things.html

Well it's going into mars' orbit of the sun, and then immediately continuing on through...

That discussion appears to be in regards to a different paper. Or do you mean to relate it to a previous relevant discussion?

In another blog post they inform us that they have been ranked a Top Company for Women in Technology[0]. I'm not familiar with the Anita Borg Institute that did the ranking, but I think it's great to see anyways.

[0] - https://open.nytimes.com/the-new-york-times-ranks-as-a-top-c...

That is correct on order of magnitude, at least (25 pounds ~ $33 today). That's one of the reasons Steam is no longer accepting bitcoins[0]:

  > transaction fees that are charged to the customer by the Bitcoin network have skyrocketed this year, 
    topping out at close to $20 a transaction last week (compared to roughly $0.20 when we initially enabled Bitcoin).

[0] http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/...

I'm not sure hysteria is the word you're looking for. Hyperbole, sure. But the notebooks feel great and the paper quality is excellent. It's worth noting that some pens perform really poorly on their paper, but gel pens + moleskine is just an extremely pleasant writing combination. Plus I'm pretty partial to the notebook size. It's not that they are the only company to do this, but it is just a consistently very nice experience without breaking the bank.

That's known as the Gambler's fallacy. Basically, "Assuming that whatever happened before will happen again (e.g. I got away with murder last time so it'll be fine for me to murder someone again now)". Just because there have been failures doesn't mean there will continue to be failures. Consider the industry evaluates each of these issues and knows how to prevent against them in the interim. Not to mention ongoing science to improve the efficiency and stability of these systems.

What if we frame it as a financial problem, not a well-being problem. Argument: it is in everyone's best interest if fewer people smoke. Smoking overwhelmingly affects poorer citizens who are already more reliant on social services. And since effects are tied to age, older smokers will more heavily put a burden on both the healthcare system as well as the entire insurance market (including Medicare/ Medicaid). Ergo it is in everyones best interest to disincentivize as many people from smoking as possible. Raising a tax on cigarettes is a cheap, quick, and effective means to do so, while raising funds for the very same health services they are likely to be using in the future.

Ah yeah, of course. Thanks.

> Multiple times throughout the hearing, Brazil’s Infraestrutura de Chaves Públicas system of citizen IDs through digital certificates came up as a potential model for the U.S. as it moves forward. In this model, a certificate lasts for three years at maximum and can be used to issue a digital signature much like written signatures are used now. Unlike its counterpart in the U.S., these identity accounts can be revoked and reissued easily through an established national protocol.

I believe most Americans are opposed to a national ID, so SSNs have been used as a (utterly terrible) workaround. Some reasoning for this, to quote an ACLU article on the subject[0], 'Former Senator Alan Cranston has described the national I.D. card as "a primary tool of totalitarian governments to restrict the freedom of their citizens." '

The Brazil solution mentioned seems pretty reasonable though. I like the built in expiration and ease of reissue. Anyone have experience with or thoughts about this sort of system?

[0] https://www.aclu.org/other/national-identification-cards-why...

"We're all independent together!"

Also, what's A-B?

HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15488618

While I understand your point, that is a massive overstatement. Apple doesn't go into the parking lot business because it isn't in their corporate charter[0], which outlines the companies' objectives, structure, and operations. If Apple decided they could benefit by building parking lots then they very well might as long as they could justify the expense.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporatecharter.asp

That's not true. Here's just one example: fine-grained taxes are used to help influence behavior, improving public health. Mexico increased taxes on sugar [0], with the result being a fall in consumption. Raising this tax has caused a verifiable reduction in consumption, which has a direct impact on public health[1]. That's just one example, many more exist for all sorts of reasons. It's why cigarettes and alcohol are taxed differently than broccoli. Obviously not all taxes are in the public interest, but neither are they just to give some government official a feeling of empowerment.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar...

[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

A company is not just a group of people. At least, any publicly-traded company has a legal obligation to it's shareholders. The job of the Board of Directors is to ensure that the company is performing as optimally as possible to earn as much as possible for the shareholders. Morals aren't a part of the equation, it's all exploiting the confines of the law.