crc32

Extensions that access stuff that "lives" in the content process can be rewritten or shimmed; but this hasn't been finished yet for all extensions. There's a list of extension status here: https://www.arewee10syet.com/

I think because Postgres is commonly being considered as an alternative to MySQL rather than MSSQL or Oracle.

Is anyone else just waiting for GitHub to capitalise on its brand with a move into source control for the rest of the enterprise?

Stuff like the swipable image diff: https://github.com/blog/817-behold-image-view-modes

or map diffing: https://github.com/blog/1772-diffable-more-customizable-maps

are truly fantastic features; I imagine they already have some sophisticated diffing algorithms and visualisations in the pipeline for word docs, spreadsheets etc.

I guess there are some ease of use issues; (minor, imho) and there is a - possibly better - paradigm in collaborative editing a la Google Docs? But otherwise i'm sure a "github appliance" would work pretty well in a lot of non-software environments.

The primary reason in a neoclassical model would be a lack of perfect information, wouldn't it.

An employee may work for less than the value they are creating when - not being omniscient - they are unable to correctly value their work.

Yes. To use ghshephard's terminology we would prefer to move people from "low-order" jobs to "high-order" jobs. This has happened somewhat in the past; as he points out with his linked picture.

My fear is that instead they are being moved to lower order jobs or are left with no job at all; while the benefits deriving from technological progress are accruing to the relatively few who own the means of production.

This is a positive interpretation of the scenario that may well be valid. Perhaps the question of whether job satisfaction at Amazon has improved or not is a little subjective.

I love your linked picture. I think that with it you imply that in the past, technological progress has been linked with higher standards of living for most. I'd agree with that, but I am wary of extrapolating that trend into the future; or maybe just concious that significant social turmoil came along with that progress.

Perhaps the situation is not so different, but we are merely doomed to repeat the mistakes of the industrial revolution; during the robotics/knowledge revolution!

For me, "The amount of jobs" is not the only factor, the quality of the job matters as well.

That paragraph suggests that the productivity gain benefits workers (labour) as well as the owners, (of capital) because it creates jobs. But each of those jobs could be a low paid, low quality job; as is suggested by the following:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f...

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazo...

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_...

Yes there may be more (or the same) number of jobs; as suggested by the paragraph. But each of those jobs could be lower paid and lower quality in terms of job satisfaction. So it may still be the case that a greater share of the productivity gain accrues to capital; instead of labour.

Rather than freeing us; our existing societal structures may mean that technology instead helps to create a story of inequality - a hollowing out of today's society with "barristers and baristas and no-one in the middle". Whether that society is a moral one; or even a functional one, is a separate question I suppose!

Somewhat off topic, but I am very disappointed in your "ugly retarded kid" comment; both that you made it in the first place; and that nobody else called you out on it.

Discussion of sexism has been very prominent on HN lately; I strongly suspect if that comment read "it's like the ugly wife that you want to divorce but can't afford to" then you would have got some kind of reaction. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that people with disabilities are worthy of the same kind of consideration and respect as everyone else.

the morphology of the fish as it is understood by the human is not dependent on the orientation of the fish to its external environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_%28anatomy%29#Anterio...

that is, "back" would usually mean the location of the spine. Regarding how the fish perceives or thinks about its orientation I think this is impossible to say!

Have you considered price in your analysis?

I also think I would find this "inlining" quite confusing in an OOP language, where the "predict" method was a member of an object instance, containing code that referenced this/self.

can you expand on "'cellular piping' so your body can efficiently wick away waste"?

As I understand it, a cadaver is a dead human body; rather than a dead organism of any kind.

IANAL but "misrepresentating" has a specific meaning in law so that to do so would render a contract void.

I do not "expect the other party to try to get as much from them as possible", I just expect that should one party fulfill the obligations of the contract, that the other party fulfills theirs.

The point of having a contract is that I can do business without invoking any kind of ethics or morality based on a background I presume to share with another party, or my own personal definition of "misrepresentation".

Or at least, I can advise the other party of my definitions and expectations in advance of them entering into the contract of their own free will.

By "a bunch of paper manipulation" you must mean a legally binding contract?

If something is specified in the contract, I find it difficult to see how this can be called "trickery", it is a magician telling you in advance that he may hide the coin up his sleeve.

The contractor has an incentive to identify caveats, the purchaser has an incentive to pin down those caveats before agreeing to the purchase. Where is the dishonesty in that? It is the purpose of the contract.

Surely your "friend" can choose to run a node that conforms to the Diaspora protocol, but also forwards your information on. How does the trust/privacy aspect work?

You know, the same kind of friend that uploads photos of you drunk.

Compilation is translation.

It could be good under the assumption that other technology - compilers, virtual machines, virtualisation, web apps - has moved on to the extent that a wider variety of instruction sets could bring benefits rather than problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_chord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_cord

I would assume that CO2 per unit energy in his equation is "net of sequestration".

My understanding of your comment is that open markets means competition. Competitors will compete on price, forcing prices down, with constant production costs margins will "tend to zero"

However this is incorrect. Where demand is greater than supply, prices (and therefore profits) may be stable or rise regardless of the number of competitors. A drought is a scenario of restricted supply where all competitors in the water supply market may increase profits due to demand.

Additionally, competition in markets where there is imperfect knowledge is not always based on price. It may be based on many other factors for example branding etc.

So your statement "In open markets margins should tend to zero" is not true, they will tend towards an equilibrium based on supply and demand, and even then individual suppliers may be differentiated by factors other than price allowing them to make a higher margin than their competitors.

The fact that competition may in some cases reduce margins, does not therefore have any "wider implications on the ability to profit over the long run in a capitalist society."

Note that where the marginal cost of production is zero, we can say that supply is infinite, and so prices cannot be maintained by restricted supply. This is a different case. But I cannot think of any market where the marginal cost of production is zero. Even copying and pasting a news article requires a small investment of time. So this qualifier may be unneccessary since it refers to an absurd situation.

You are wrong and I think it is important that you understand your error. Your mistake is that pulling the water out of a well that I own is not "the same as buying a bottle of water from a supplier".

I have pulled the water out of a well that I own, at a cost of $1 per bottle. The cost of production is constant, over the time period that the ferry is both available and unavailable. Therefore should the price that I am able to sell my water at rise due to constrained supply, I will make more profit. My profit margin will increase.

This is called "supply and demand", you will find it explained on Wikipedia, and it is a basic concept underlying markets of all kinds.

What I meant by "there is only one type of profit" is that profit in all your definitions can also be stated as selling price minus cost price. In the context of this discussion the distinction is meaningless, because regardless of how you obtained that margin, whether by speculation or not, it does not neccessarily tend to zero in open markets!

No, I contend that it is you who is confused. There is only one type of profit, and I am correct that profit may be derived from demand exceeding supply irrespective of the number of suppliers. This has nothing to do with speculation, it is a basic concept of market economics that holds true in an "open market" as defined by the original commenter.

So... I pull water out of my well at a cost of $1 per bottle, later sell for $5 per bottle, have $400 in my hand, and yet my profit margin is zero.

I am not sure how to respond to this. You are self-evidently wrong, unless we are to accept your redefining of profit to be "the selling price of goods minus the selling price". Very strange.

"Scarcity of resources doesn't do anything to the profit margin,"

This is patently false. For example during a drought, most people would pay well above the cost of production for a glass of water.

"unless you bring some value to the game that the new guy can't." yes, like the supply of a scarce resource. This little get out clause renders your argument meaningless.

If there are only 100 tons of gold available per week, (the marginal cost of producing the 101st item is infinite, i.e. non-zero) it does not matter how many competitors there are in the market. If demand is for more than 100 tons, profit margins will not "tend to zero". This scenario illustrates that even in a commodities market a situation may arise where a large number of competitors will not cause margins to tend to zero.

Let alone situations where branding is involved etc. - all factors that we can assume are permissable under the stated condition of an "open market", and all in the category of "some value to the game that the new guy can't". So in other words your comment amounts to "yes it does, except where it doesn't"

I am not sure that "margins tending to zero" applies at all to any market where the marginal cost of producing is non-zero.

A more obvious side effect is that you may need to have centralised price controls. As is discussed in many places, to effect the banning of inheritance you would have to ban gift giving as well, or else a gift could be given just prior to the moment of death.

To prevent gift giving, you would need to cap prices, since otherwise the parent could purchase a low cost item for a high price. For example, paying the child $1m for the 1976 Camino as described below by noonespecial.

In such a system we could presumably rely on the government to make a judgement as to what did or did not constitute inheritence, gift giving etc; but the extent to which the free exchange of goods and setting of prices was possible would be greatly restricted.

This is a rather strange analogy. Suppose that once this new individual arrives, the rules that I agree with him are "you pay me x percent of your income, and you may use my agriculture and infrastructure".

In this context you can call it rent. However extend that to an entire country with a ruling class, and you may rename it taxation. When democracy emerges and the ruling class becomes the people, then we are back where we started.

While I disagree any implication that the sole basis of taxation should be an assessment of "how much have you used"; I agree that this should be a part of it. If Google benefits from publicly funded UK/Irish IT infrastructure, then it is fair to tax them for the benefit recieved.