riboflava

This is just another reason why the US has a healthier startup culture. There are a lot of things that take effort to do that US companies can get away with not doing until forced to by law or the market, or when the opportunity costs diminish that they do it out of the goodness of the individuals' involved hearts.

Yes to your second question.

Maybe the government can offer a tax return bonus to cover it. And pump more money into fully general cures for all disabilities. I'm not against making disabled peoples' lives better, but focusing entirely on the supplier side is a mistake.

Maybe the Python automation book covers automated downloads, or maybe the CLI book will cover it.... =P Or there's always https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/downthemall/

The best is probably a mix, like Singapore. The citizens win in the case the government provider is efficient or inefficient, because in either scenario the government sets a floor of efficiency that private companies can't go under and survive. In a purely private market there's the potential for collusion, or in a heavily regulated market there's the potential for forced inefficiencies. When you just have the single government provider, you cut off the possibility of doing much better, and you create a big incentive for everyone in the industry to inflate their costs because the government always pays.

I hope you're complaining about "ESR" instead of "esr", because his initials, much like "rms" et al. are common acronyms, especially on online forums like Hacker News.

It is a democracy. A Constitutional Republic is just one way of implementing a democracy, similar to how a constitutional monarchy is just one way of implementing a monarchy. Mob rule everyone votes on everything and even a majority by one decides everything is another (poor) way of implementing democracy.

For reference, Clojure's core.logic: https://gist.github.com/rm-hull/6952960 Or, from Norvig, presumably as an update to the solution he made with Lisp and Prolog, here's a Python version that doesn't use any fancy logic engine: https://gist.github.com/joyrexus/5301901

I have a 42 inch 4k@60hz Seiki I got for a couple hundred bucks last year, I'm happy with it as my sole monitor (replacing two others). It's not as good as others for gaming but good enough. At that size the pixel density is roughly the same as my smaller 1080 and 1200 monitors it replaced so it really does end up feeling like 4 screens, while having more vertical pixels than my 1900x1200 that I had on its side. I could probably live with a 720 plasma as a TV but not as a monitor I do work on...

Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagree with. I think this is necessary for most historical figures (even many living ones) given popular modern ethics. (Edit: with separation you can also work with your coworkers professionally even if they have different politics.)

4k 60hz gaming, or the Rift. I'm not sure how intense Remember Me is, but a friend told me he noticed occasional tearing on that game with his new rig that was using an older R9 2xx-X until he got his GTX 1080s in the mail.

Many laughable things become fine with technology. Look at various encryption or network protocols. If someone had seriously proposed to Caesar that to keep their messages truly safe they needed to work out the math of a one time pad for every communication (or maybe more practically by modern standards, AES), they'd be executed. Rather than dismiss things on analogy, look at things as they actually are. The total amount of friction for the bitcoin equivalent is very little which makes it not a problem at all.

$1k for other 'expenses' is huge. You can drive that down at least by half with wiser spending.

You don't even need much startup capital if you're starting up not in an expensive location like SV. The reason so many of us 100kers don't up and leave when we realize we're generating millions in value is because we're only generating that value as part of a larger organism telling us what to focus on. Given individual autonomy most of us couldn't produce the same value, maybe not even our salary value. Ability to autonomously produce value seems independent from coding ability, business acumen, and connections and I would argue is far more important in building a lasting business.

Retirees aren't the richest bunch, true. Collective poverty isn't an unlikely outcome for the vast majority of humans. Still, "poverty" need not be uncomfortable when "token conveniences" like a private home, food, entertainment, and opportunities for (even if economically useless) creativity and learning are in abundance.

An interesting analysis on a world with increased automation via emulated brains of the best of humanity: http://ageofem.com/

The solution to everyone being automated away isn't to halt the advances of automation and inflict inefficient make-work on the economy, it's to get used to the idea that we will all become effectively retirees.

Solution: lock + ziptie/other mechanism that lets you know the suitcase was opened.

You cut off the rest of my sentence. It's not that never having your beliefs challenged is good, it's that it's not a strong signal that your beliefs are actually wrong, and so your confidence can't actually diminish much from pointing out this fact, because everyone should already account for this in their confidence factors for beliefs they haven't actively tried challenging. Whereas if you're frequently changing your mind, well, that is a strong signal that your beliefs are frequently wrong, or that you're interpreting evidence poorly, either way that is a signal you should be even less confident in your beliefs than general. If you're frequently testing your beliefs, then it's the results of the tests, not the fact that you're testing, plus your ability to have your beliefs appropriately shifted by the results of the tests, which determine how good your beliefs are. The latter half of that equation is probably the bigger factor for what causes wrong beliefs anyway. Ideally your confidence in the belief should match its actual probability distribution, and shifts should be in correspondence with Bayes' rule. In reality many people will see a known-to-be-uniformly-independently-random binary process output a 'run' of Trues and feel more than 50% sure the next hit has to be False because it's 'due'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy)

Funding should be left to wherever it can come from. If you try to get a single X to fund everything, X will quickly become bankrupt.

If that's not your point, that funding should only come from a certain X, then is your point the even more absurd remark analogous to saying after the discovery of Penicillin by Fleming "should such critical advances be left to serendipity and solo poor communicators who may never discover anything"?

If your beliefs change all the time, they can't have been held very strongly or justifiably in the first place. Maybe you should stop having beliefs like that. That's direct evidence that you shouldn't be confident in many of your beliefs, given they change so often. A person with stable beliefs, even if they aren't ever challenged, has no such direct evidence to suggest they should be less confident, they can only have the same general blow to confidence as everyone else with arbitrary unchallenged beliefs.

He seems to be under several misconceptions... This one may just be a mutation of the widely accepted idea that we can in principle emulate a brain using our standard computer models, even if it'll take n more decades of hardware advances, the idea that the brain is discretely computable.

They could be in the marshmallow manufacturing business for all I care, if it's not their core competency they'll suck at it. (There are a lot of third party ad-tracking/online surveillance companies to be more worried about since that's their entire bread and butter.)

Making remote employees come in to actually work was the single best thing she did for the company. Unfortunately it wasn't enough as Yahoo fundamentally doesn't have anything competitive for employees to work on, hence the attempts to find that something with startup acquisition and killing off venerable old portals like Yahoo Games.