supremesaboteur

Because, historically capitalism has been the single most efficient machine to lift people out of poverty ?

That was not what the parent was saying. US Government spends large amount of money every year. They are bound to make some things work. Private sector makes some things work also. So, the question is : 'which should be preferred' ? If you agree that government spending is less efficient in making things work, you should prefer private spending. Unless you believe there are things private spending cannot do which is a reasonable case to demand public funding for research. For example, some argue that the quarter-to-quarter nature of how private companies operate precludes them from making investment in long running research. But companies like Google do run multi-year research projects.

But liberals cannot be brainwashed at all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH5JinMJnHM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LFwU5dI7I4

> No. Jobs are created from demand. There will be no cars sold in a neighborhood, and therefore no car dealerships, unless the people there have money to buy a car.

True. But when people want a car, they do not automatically fall from the sky.

> If there are people there to buy a car, or a gallon of milk, then "job creators" will compete against each other to hire enough people to satisfy that demand, and take a cut of the revenue.

And that is how they become rich. People get a car, or a gallon of milk. A few people get jobs selling cars or gallons of milk. Someone gets rich by opening a store or a car delership.

> Demand comes first, then jobs to satisfy the demand. And if a "job creator" could satisfy that demand without creating jobs, he'd do it. "Job creators" are not in the business of creating jobs, they're in the business of making money, however the current economic environment allows and demands.

And when we have all our needs met without people having to work, with machines taking care of all our necessaities, we can think about Universal Basic Income. Until then, enterpreneurs will have to hire people to satisfy demand.

Poor people are lifted out of poverty when they get jobs. Jobs are created by incentivizing job creators.

It was talking about a political party, not the government. Political parties are set up to serve the interest of groups. For example, Republicans could be for defending the right of individuals to practice their religion in peace. For the unemployed to want to create more jobs so that they can live their lives with dignity. For people to keep their families safe through having a strong military etc.

> anti-egalitarian

anti-egalitarian when it comes to outcomes, pro-egalitarian when it comes to opportunity

> avowedly Christian

This ... is a bad thing ? It is not a bad thing to be unashamed of being a Christian.

> pro-Big Business

Pro-business. Small and Big. Pro-jobs.

> pro-military

Pro-self-defense.

> neo-liberal

Classical liberal

It is saddening to see the HN moderator being downvoted for requesting substantitive discussion. Why not just rename this site 'Left-wing Propoganda Hacker News' and get it over with ?

You have to provide sources on what exactly you think conservatives claimed. Side note, the quote "reality has a well known liberal bias" is a bastardization of the quote "The facts of life are conservative" first made by Margaret Thatcher.

"Utah is a deep red state, but its conservatism is notably compassionate"

Or maybe conservatives are not ruthless towards the poor ?

> That was my point – they are the first to break a rule

Which rule did they break ? It is my understanding that they were within the rules to block the vote.

> Please list the same about Democrats, in the same amount – I actually want to see it.

Sure, the democrats nuking the filibuster for the entire executive counter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

> Fair enough, but it's not market based when telcos can sue cities to prevent them from using their own infrastructure to provide broadband for their citizens. The telcos are corporations, which are basically getting free handouts from the government. Is that purely market based? But anyway, as you know most people on this board are against having net neutrality gutted in favor of purely market-based solutions.

So your are for more de-regulation then ?

> And we can't say anything? This is their idea of small government and taxes? When is enough enough?

You can and you should. All good questions.

> I realize that's probably because college-educated people are more likely to be on the left, having been exposed to more viewpoints and having their ideas critically examined. And when you are on the right, you want your ideas to be Simple and Feel True, whereas nuance and data is the province of liberal nerds.

Such nonsense. Do you fell 'Simple and True' now ?

> That is also why all fact-checkers are called "liberal biased" but there don't seem to be any "conservative biased" fact checkers. That's what I usually ask, where are the fact-checkers on the right?

I notice you made plenty of claims and provided no sources.

> But again, it's one thing to be on the right and have your views. It's another for statesmen to be hypocritical and unfair in your dealings. That's what bugs me the most about the Republican party. They break the rules first, and they act hypocritically.

It is funny that you must mention hypocrisy in your post many times, but the Democrats are whining about Republicans signalling to nuke the filibuster to confirm Gorsuch. This move was first taken by Democrats.

> Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her

Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1]

> Want to make coal and fossil fuels win over clean energy, are angry about investment in green energy

Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy

> Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality

They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality

> Are angry about universal healthcare even though rest of the developed world has it and has cheaper better outcomes

Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right.

> I realize they say they want personal freedom and smaller government. But then they want to expand the army

Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government.

Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically correct groupthink present on the left.

But the anti-science crictism of Republicans is valid. They need to do better.

But it is surprising to me how much Republican bashing goes on in this site. I am not American, but still I find it annoying.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/07...

Doesn't federally funded healthcare system have problems like lower quality of healthcare, increased government spending, increased chances of corruption and creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed ?

robots.txt

You should mention that in the README. 'Why TAGui over currently available tooling ?' is the first question many people will ask

Proof of work systems were originally designed to combat these types of 'spammy' behavior.

Give a challenge string and ask the user submitting an upvote to compute a nonce that when added to the string would produce an hash with 10 leading zeros. User submits the calculated nonce, the server computes the hash for challenge string + nonce and the upvote is registered. This makes it computationaly expensive for an upvote provider to submit hundreds of upvotes

Other options :

Dejaclick

Selenium IDE

> "Apple said we would be the only state that would pass this, and that we would become the mecca for bad actors," Brasch, who is sponsoring the bill, told me in a phone call. "They said that doing this would make it very easy for hackers to relocate to Nebraska."

Oh, they meant the other type of hackers

From the uBeam discussions, I thought this was impossible

This does not require exceptions. A very simple implementation could involve appending the additional error to the messsage from the lower error level. As far as I understand, exceptions were invented so that error handling code will not clutter up the "happy path". They allow "exceptional condition handling" to be seggregated. But in real world applications you may need to, say, recover from an error. For example, if connection using https fails, fallback to http. This makes code using exceptions look wonky. So might as well use error codes always

> First and foremost, security is our priority

In response to https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/09/mongodb/ ?

"MongoDB databases are being decimated in soaring ransomware attacks that have seen the number of compromised systems more than double to 27,000 in a day."

He is worth $150 million and has an annual salary of $10 million : http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/t...

I say he marketed himself well

Will it be lightweight ? Will it have a shell ? Will it be customizable ? Will it have loads of third party applications ? Will it support non-Google hardware ? Will it finally bring serious OS innovation to the consumer desktop market ? Here is to hoping yes!

Operating System is about applications. Even if Google comes up with a universal OS there will be many applications that only run on Windows forcing people to continue to use it

> The maintenance of operational systems is done by software engineering teams, rather than traditional sysadmin types, but the hiring requirements for software engineering skills for the SRE are slightly lower than the requirements for the Software Engineering position.

but from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4vMcD7zKM0&feature=youtu.be...

"All of SREs have to pass a full software interview to get hired"