Yes, well, insofar as the US Government promises not to substantially manipulate the dollar, the dollar is stable. Insofar as they don't, the value of the dollar falls relative to other, more trustworthy currencies (and commodities) and people demand higher interest for government bonds, loans, and similar instruments, to compensate for the decaying value of the dollar.

(Of course, some "manipulation" is necessary to match fluctuations in the overall state of the economy and achieve a stable dollar. But even in ancient economies with commodity money, persistent deflation and monetary shocks were reasonably common.)

It's the distance.

The US parties may collude on a variety of things (like counterterrorism, or if you prefer, "counterterrorism") but they have significantly differing views on the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry and the economy. For instance, on the national level, the US Democratic party has been pushing for things like the recent health-care reform laws (for good or ill), additional environmental regulation, increases in the minimum wage, and other increases in taxes and spending which see the government taking a larger role in the economy, including transfer payments (welfare, etc). They also resent military spending as a rule. The Republican party pushes for less government involvement in the economy, lower/flatter tax regimes, market solutions to issues like healthcare and wages, and a regulatory regime which is not simply less stringent, but also more streamlined where it is in fact present (and they do not resent military spending, at least not as a rule).

Things are different outside the economic arena, true, but 2008-2016's top issues were, in order: the economy, the economy, and the economy. So.

Clearly you don't do a lot of networking between home computers like a NAS or something.

And this is why we're still decades away from having mortgages denominated in bitcoin. :P

Did our ancestors imagine they were giving the Federal government the right to ban speech?

OF COURSE THEY DID. That's why several of the prominent political ones went to extra lengths in an attempt protect us from it, with their early amendments to the Constitution.

Yeah, I don't think it's ridiculously unreasonable that a site meant to host software projects has a requirement that hosted projects actually be software projects.

But it doesn't. "Meet the projects that prove GitHub is a collaboration tool for all stripes". Well, all stripes except for collaborative satire against the wrong group of people.

Well. Github's Terms of Service clearly identifies that "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable". I assume they used that discretion to find it either "offensive" or "otherwise objectionable". And clearly Github is well within their legal rights to take down this content.

But it does illustrate the limits of Github's commitment to freedom and openness: if it offends Github's staff, or if Github thinks it offends people who could get them in some level of trouble, they'll take down your content. So, you can still use Github as a platform to effect change in the world, but only insofar as Github&co agree with you.

It seems it was also too hot for Hacker News to discuss.

That's funny, I thought the remedy to unwanted speech is complaining a bunch and getting its hosting provider to shut it down.

Geez. You could buy an Aruba AP-93 Instant for that price, and it comes with a cone-antenna built in.

If you really wanted to build a high-speed rail system in a hurry and not deal with land issues, you'd piggyback on the right-of-way of (and possibly even steal some lanes from) a convenient interstate highway. (Not that this is zero-side-effect, of course.)

Except cost (and profitability, if you're a Republican and think it should be less subsidized than the roads).

A 29-hour coast-to-coast bullet train isn't competing with roads. It's competing with 5-hour coast-to-coast air travel. The unpleasantness and other limitations and subsidies of air travel notwithstanding, a bullet train which takes ~6x as long will also need to have a price-per-trip that's at least somewhat competitive with coast-to-coast air travel for most people to bother considering it.

Notably, the extant US passenger rail system is not very competitive with air travel on most routes outside of the Boston-Washington corridor.

Legally it's Menlo Park, but that's just because of the gerrymandering. If you'd asked me, I'd say Facebook HQ is in East Palo Alto, a high-crime/low-income area that most people in the area know only by its IKEA. Between the safety and the paucity of relevant local stores/services/etc, it's not exactly the number one place you'd choose to live. (That said, if you're over there, try some Jamaican food at Back-a-yard.)

They've also got Fremont nearbyish (across the bridge) - it's reasonably affordable for the area, but it's all sprawling-suburbs and is very quiet. Palo Alto is the next town over the freeway; if you don't mind fighting rush-hour traffic for half an hour to go a few miles, it's probably the most interesting place to live. Menlo Park proper has limited housing stocks. Atherton is even worse (it's a series of sprawling mansions, though a pleasant drive).

If living near work keeps some employees sane, these apartments will be a godsend. Of course, the real question is "why did facebook put its headquarters in the armpit of the Bay?"

I'm in Brooklyn now. Subway to work. :D

Here you go.