What are the most upvoted users of Hacker News commenting on? Powered by the /leaders top 50 and updated every thirty minutes. Made by @jamespotterdev.
First para says "every lithium battery", second says "This regulation applies to all batteries with a capacity above 2kWh or those used in electric vehicles.". Which is it?
(For reference, phone batteries are more like 20 watt hours)
> What does your ISP support?
My ISP is Spectrum. They get a 0/10 on IPv6 support on this test page [1].
> can't believe they didn't put "Penn and Teller" in the headline
To be fair, I think of them as comedians first and magicians second. The germaneness of a comedian's opinions on forensics isn't as obvious as a magician's.
> Is it possible to trace this stuff back to individuals?
Yes, depending where the trades were based and their market participants' KYC rigor.
As the article mentions, the CFTC "is examining a series of trades in oil futures placed shortly before major shifts in President Donald Trump's Iran war policy" [1]. If the "lots of Brent crude futures" the article mentioned traded on the Intercontinental Exchange [2], when we can almost certainly trace it back to at least some individuals.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-probes-suspicious...
[2] https://www.ice.com/products/219/Brent-Crude-Futures/data
From an old Mack Reynolds short story. The recipient is receiving a message from an alien space station, but doesn't have the alien's message machine, just a decoder.
Seal Ready
Stamp-Emblem Ready
Number One Paper
Strike: Embossing Master Emblem Number Two
**** Border
Begin Message
From: Commander Space Fortress Ironclaw�
To: Commander Unidentified Damaged Warship
Sir:
Your ****-signal received and acknowledged herewith. This is the correct
signal for the ****. However, we require the following information:
1) Who are you?
2) What is the name of your ship?
3) What are the circumstances surrounding the **** of your ship?
This information must be forwarded at once, or we must refuse entry.
Stand off while replying.
Cordial claw-claspings,
Gratz Ialwo,
Commander Space Fortress Ironclaw
Fold Message and Glue Shut
Stick Seal
Stamp Great Claw on Front
Eject> While she might not have direct memory of the event, it would not be unheard of for older relatives to explain the picture to her when she was older. Just because she doesn't remember it directly does not automatically make the story of the picture untrue.
I have a memory of having a tantrum at the Taj Mahal which can't be a real memory because I would have been 3 at the time. But it definitely h appened. It's a reconstructed memory from having seen a photo my dad took from the trip and my dad telling me about it.
> at what point does something go from “side project” to “business”?
When you get serious about making a substantial profit.
> And how do you tell if it’s worth trying to scale vs just leaving as is?
If you can make more money flipping burgers at McDonald's than the business, I'd try something else.
I'd be more impressed if there were videos of it cleaning a dirty floor.
This seems to be a generic problem with cleaning robots. Not finding videos of them doing hard cleaning jobs. Not even the commercial ones have such videos. Compare, say, the Barber Surf Rake videos.[1] Seaweed, rocks, storm debris, spring break - it goes down the beach and leaves clean sand behind. If these cleaning robots start showing up in restaurant kitchens, they really work. They're used in stores and airports, but it's not clear if they get the hard messes.
There are commercial floor cleaners which work by brute force. They have powerful brushes working at high pressure, and can scrub off just about anything from hard floors. But they're using way too much power most of the time, and they're big and heavy. Something with enough smarts to know when to apply brute force is a win.
The thing has a cyclone, not a bag. Cyclones are useful devices which violate the rule "you can only make something clean by making something else dirty". They're centrifugal separators - solids get centrifuged out of air. Most serious wood shops have a cyclone. Dyson vacuums have used cyclones for years, so this isn't novel.
> compliance model is very simple. Do not collect data. Problem solved
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, there is an entire industry of lawyers who will smother your competitors with bogus requests because GDPR requires you spend time and resources to investigate and respond to each and every complaint regardless of merit.
The notoriety of Coq's name is, by a long, long way, the most embarrassing message board trope on HN. For years, you couldn't run a story about Coq --- a genuinely interesting and important piece of software --- on the front page without attracting sophomoric comments about a (bad) English transliteration? is that the word? of the name.
So like 4 years ago they renamed it, literally for this reason, which is embarrassing all on its own, and that's still not enough to get HN to stop talking about it.
I rarely do this, because the moderators really don't want anybody doing it, but I'll say out loud this time: I flagged this post. Just leave them alone.
I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
A static website that says "<h1>Ja</h1>" would have been enough.
Where are you seeing 2020? Also, this list is widows, not veterans.
Makes me wonder if Claude Code has similar vulnerabilities, as it has a pretty rich terminal interface as well.
I think the real solution is that you shouldn't try to bolt colors, animations, and other rich interactivity features onto a text-based terminal protocol. You should design it specifically as a GUI protocol to begin with, with everything carefully typed and with well-defined semantics, and avoid using hacks to layer new functionality on top of previously undefined behavior. That prevents whatever remote interface you have from misinterpreting or mixing user-provided data with core UI code.
But that flies in the face of how we actually develop software, as well as basic economics. It will almost always be cheaper to adapt something that has widespread adoption into something that looks a little nicer, rather than trying to get widespread adoption for something that looks a little nicer.
> using generative AI has a detrimental effect on the user because one deprives themselves of the learning experience
Or it lets folks focus. My coding skills have gotten damn rough over the years. But I still like the math. Using AI to build visualizations while I work on the model math with paper and pen is the best of both worlds. I can rapidly model something I’m working on out algebraically and analytically.
Does that mean my R skills are deteriorating? Absolutely. But I think that’s fine. My total skillset’s power is increasing.
You'd be the best person in this thread to answer this question.
Much of the sadness of the current tech industry comes about because the user's problems were solved in the 90s but now we need to make up new ones to justify the fat salaries, headcount increases, and stock price.
Whether there are meaningful genetic variations in intelligence (the subtext of these discussions is always intelligence) that break down in any scientifically valid way along "racial" lines is very much in doubt. What we have is evidence of (socioculturally-sense) racial disparities in psychometric tests in a limited number of (largely western) countries. We don't have causality, we don't have wide surveys globally, we don't even have that much certainty about the test validity. It's equally plausible that the variations we see are SES and cultural transmission effects.
Contra claims elsewhere on this thread, science on this topic isn't suppressed at all. There are multiple branches (in quantitative psychology and genetics) that study this issue actively, and if you follow it, new papers aren't rare. But directionally those papers aren't confirming the priors of the people claiming the science is suppressed, so they don't get acknowledged.
Not going with C/C++/Rust style brace syntax probably cost them more devs than anything else...
Well, that and the proprietary compilers
As the meme goes, "they are the same picture".
Bartenders will also kick you out if you bring your own booze to a bar.
> In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy
NASA has proposed using "synthetic biology to take advantage of and improve upon natural perchlorate reducing bacteria. These terrestrial microbes are not directly suitable for off-world use, but their key genes pcrAB and cld...catalyze the reduction of perchlorates to chloride and oxygen" [1].
If you're not familiar with Folding Ideas, he tends to be deconstructive-but-informative, in this case about the business of MrBeast/YouTube.
Airbus is not an American company, and any legal framework on which to base a sanction is shaky at best - there is no law forbidding selling images of military assets of a foreign country to a client during peacetime.
- design time earned about $25/hour
- $3666 total revenue
- $3352 in expenses
- ~50 orders fulfilled
- ~3000 hours of logged print time.
This tells the whole story... these numbers are so far off from what they should be that this is not a business, but a charity cosplaying as a business. It's a pity you are going to drop this, I think if you adjust your pricing and become a bit more efficient you can easily make it work. But great you're sharing your numbers, you really just need better customers.
Rules of thumb: 10x on materials, base fee of $3 / hour of print time, $100 / hour design time if < 1000 parts, above that you can start pricing it into the job total.
I have a few vague memories of being 3. I expect if something dramatic had happened, I'd remember that.
This is an interesting article on how open licensing can help ensure viability long after the original designer has left the game.
If it's in scope to "way worse" someone to get their fingerprint, I'm sure I can be very persuasive in getting their passwords.
Because the people making purchasing decisions for SAP and Salesforce are not people who spend any substantial share of their time using it directly or care about the UX.
> You used to have to either care enough to do the design yourself or find someone who cared and specialized in that to do it for you.
You think most UI/UX designers, or the artists creating slop for content marketing spam factories for the past decades, cared? Some, maybe. Most probably had higher ambitions, but are doing what actually pays their bills.
It's similar to software developers. Most of those being paid to code couldn't care less, they're in there for the fat paycheck; everyone else mostly complains the work is boring or dumb (or worse), but once you have those skills, it makes no economic sense to switch careers (unless, of course, you're into management, or into playing the entrepreneurship roulette).
"Our current (April 2026) object usage is: 14 million objects, 119GB"
I mean, I appreciate the openness about the scale, but for context, my home's personal backup managed via restic to S3 is 370GB. Fewer objects, but still, we're not talking a big install here.
This is pretty much like that story of, if it fits on your laptop, it's not big data.
This image shows a close-up of the second story window (Courtesy the New York Times)
A 'close up' that is smaller and lower resolution than the main photo on the article, which is courtesy of the NY public library. NY Times isn't mentioned in the text at all. Is this entire article an LLM hallucination?
I scored 8 so I’m all full of myself.
> The right wing wants to help people in the long term and the left wing wants to help people in the short term.
The right-wing wants to narrow the concentration of power and increase inequality and rigidity of social heirarchy, the left-wing wants to increase the distribution of power and decrease inequality and rigidity of social heirarchy.
Each side views their orientation as being what helps people (or, at least, the people who should be helped) in the long term, and usually the short term as well.
Many people were hoping that Sonnet 4.6 was "Opus 4.5 quality but with Sonnet speed/cost" but unfortunately that didn't pan out.
> When will "when will the dems learn that the dnc is just republican lite" enjoyers learn
On the bright side, these folks tend to be civically and electoral uninvolved. So they aren’t having any net effect on policy, other than slightly endorsing the status quo.
One of the top comments on the Youtube version:
> This video was surprisingly interesting.
People say "Practice makes perfect" ... they're wrong.
Practice make permanent.
You need to practise the right thing, and that's where you will benefit from good quality feedback.
Learning on your own is hard.
> once built, railroads provided economic value right off the bat
If they were laid on a sensible route, completed on budget and time, and savvily operated. Many railroads went bust.
> but from a superficial glance it kind of seems like trying to cut down on standards or efficiency.
That's kind of the norm in the current US administration, so it shouldn't be surprising.
"Answer" (1954) [1] Much faster results.
[1] https://calumchace.com/favourite-relevant-sf-short-story/
It literally says 'Inflation-adjusted costs' on the right side of the graph, right under the main title, FFS.
Gotta say, there were 2 earlier posts, last night and this morning, reporting this news, but neither got any any votes or comments here. PEople on HN love complaining about FISA but are oddly mute when its up for renewal or supporting a rare win like this where it's not automatically rubber-stamped for another X years.
I remember when people would vigorously complain that Toolkit X was simply unsuitable for any task because it did not conform to the operating system's standard visual appearance.
Now I struggle to even define what an "operating system's standard visual appearance" is. Apple's still the best but not what they used to be on that front even so.
Ah:
Content Not Available
Content not available in your region.
Learn more about Imgur access in the United KingdomIt is a definition; the transition between the logotype and normal text has an implicit [:}, NASAFORCE: technologists inside the systems that power American spaceflight, aeronautics, and scientific discovery.
Though its an odd choice that they run it in with the paragraph of normal text rather than making that a heading. Of course, with a four day hiring window its a website that exists as pro forma evidence that there was a public website about the hiring effort, the people actually intended to be hired were almost certainly notified in advance out of band, so there probably wasn't a whole lot of effort put into this.
The NVD was an absolutely wretched source of severity data for vulnerabilities and there is no meaningful impact to vendors/submitters supplying their own CVSS scores, other than that it continues the farce of CVSS in a reduced form, which is a missed opportunity.
As long as Trump is still President every sane human being should stay away from any federal agency.
Dogs have the same failure mode, except also influenced by non-domesticated canines such as coyotes and wolves, so a worse attack vector.
> You'll get a competent UI with little effort but nothing truly unique or mind-blowing.
Which is exactly what I want. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a competent UI?
Why do people celebrate consistency and uniformity in desktop apps, wanting to crucify developers for not following platform idioms and guidelines... and then suddenly want things that are "truly unique" or "mind-blowing" or "artisanal weirdness" when it comes to a web app?
A competent UI with little effort is a godsend.
Acknowledging that we still only have marketing material, it is their claims on Mythos' ability to auto-generate working exploits that is what actually changes the cost/benefit tradeoffs. Their own Mythos docs showed that it is only a marginal improvement over current models in generation hypotheses about exploits, the difference was finding the exploits automatically (and correctly).
I kind of confirmed this against some of my own code bases. I pointed Opus 4.6 against some internal code bases. It came up with a list of possibilities. The quality of the possibilities was quite mixed and the exploit code generally worthless. So I did at least do a spot check on that aspect of their marketing and it checked out.
The problem is that this changes the attacker versus defender calculus. Right now, the world is basically a big pile of swiss cheese, but we are not all being continuously popped all the time for full access to everything because the exploitation is fundamentally blocked on human attackers analyzing the output of tools, validating the exploits, and then deciding whether or not to use them.
That "whether or not to use them" calculus is also profoundly affected by the fact that they can generally model the exploits they've taken to completion as being fairly likely to uniquely belong to them and not be fixed by the target software, so they have the capability to sit on them because they are not rotting terribly quickly. It is well known that intelligence agencies, when deciding whether or not to attack something, also consider the impact of the possibility of leaking the mechanism they used to attack the user and possibly losing it for future attacks as a result. A particularly well-documented discussion of this in a historical context can be found around how the Allies used the fact they had broken Enigma, but had to be careful exactly how they used the information they obtained that way, lest the Axis work out what the problem was and fix it. All that calculus is still in play today.
The fundamental problem with the claims Mythos made isn't that it can find things that may be vulnerabilities; the fundamental sea change they are claiming is a hugely increased effectiveness in generating the exploits. There's a world of difference in the cost/benefits calculus for attackers and defenders between getting a cheap list of things humans can consider, which was only a quantitative change over the world we've lived in up to this point, and the humans being handed a list of verified (and likely pre-weaponized with just a bit more prompting) vulnerabilities, where the humans at most have to just test it a bit in the lab before putting it in the toolbelt. That is a qualitative change in the attacker's capabilities.
There is also the second-order effect that if everybody can do this, the attackers will stop assuming that they can sit on exploits until a particularly juicy target worth the risk of burning the exploit comes up. That get shifted on two fronts: Exploits are cheaper, so there's less need to worry about burning a particular one, and in a world where everyone has Mythos, everyone is scanning everything all the time with this more sophisticated exploiting firepower and just as likely to find the exploit as the nation-state attackers are, so the attackers need to calculate that they need to use the exploits now, even if it's a lower value attack, because there may not be a later.
If, if, if, if, if the marketing is even half true, this really is a big deal, but it's because of the automated exploit generation that is the sea change, not just finding the vulnerabilities. And especially not finding the same vulnerabilities as Mythos but also including it in a list of many other vulnerabilities that are either not real or not practically exploitable that then bottlenecks on human attention to filter through them. Matching Mythos, or at least Mythos' marketing, means you pushed a button (i.e., simple prompt, not knowing in advance what the vuln is, just feeding it a mass of data) and got exploit. Push button, get big unfiltered list of possible vulnerabilities is not the same. Push button, get correct vulnerability is closer, but still not the same. The problem here is specifically "push button, get exploit".
As someone who has to implement it, it's really not bad at all: Ask the user for consent to use their data, and don't be misleading about it. That's it.
The rest of the "It'S So LaRgE AnD UndErSpEciFieD" is just FUD. The regulators don't just slap fines, they work with you to get you to comply, and they just want to see that you're putting in the effort instead of messing them about.
I have literally never been surprised by the GDPR. Whenever I thought "surely this is allowed" it was, whenever I thought "this can't be allowed", it wasn't. For everything in the middle, nobody will punish you for an honest mistake.
Sometimes API compatibility is an important detail.
I've worked at a few places where single-node K8s "clusters" were frequently used just because they wanted the same API everywhere.
I'm going to try to figure out how to make my websites as easy as possible to peruse for humans while making it as hard as possible to do the same for agents. There should be some way make the bots pay a price of admission while keeping it free for people.
A dollar is still a useful unit as "the fraction of the economy that can be controlled by currency". It's true that printing a huge pile of it and throwing it at GPUs wouldn't instantly convert into more GPUs, but it would meaningfully represent that other things are being squeezed out to allocate more resources to GPU production even so. That such reallocation is inefficient, arguably immoral, and highly questionable in the long term versus other options wouldn't stop that from being ture.
This is exactly the problem - early on there was a lot of "low hanging fruit" in science - entire new areas where our tools and capabilities for discovery and analysis got way better very quickly. Think of everything that better telescopes, scanning electron microscopy, and computerization allowed.
Complaining that "Why doesn't progress go fast like before?!" when the newest tool-side improvement is a slightly faster CPU or a new clanker model.
I think there's this group of folks who are like "Why don't we have flying cars?" and eventually realize the problem is physics, but have to somehow blame people instead.
You better watch out. When my evil twin feels y'all aren't upvoting my posts enough he thinks "let's do a search for articles that have gotten 200+ votes at least 5 times in different years" [1] It's a highly effective strategy that I know dang doesn't like!
So I'll post another article about robot grippers which you should upvote instead of the breathless "AI will give us more Nobel Prize winning research" posts because: (1) robots that can change bedpans and pick strawberries really will change the world, and (2) they give out a certain number of Nobel Prizes a year and AI won't change that.
[1] old issues of Byte magazine are a good bet: try https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1986-05
Reducing the amount of time I spend on the average code has meant I'm spending more time adding my above-average contributions to the code base. Amdahl's law, basically. Reducing the amount of time spent on one task means the percentage of time spent on the others increases.
How stable that is on the long term, I don't know any more than the next guy, but it is where I'm contributing now.
The thing I am worried about is not "slow" or "complex" in the sense of it being a lot of code. What I am worried about is it being "correct".
I work on a subscription service where there are numerous ways to "log in" like maybe your IP address tells us you work for one of our members, or we integrate with the SSO for your organization, it might even be both -- on campus you use your IP but you need your SSO from home or on campus you might use the SSO not for access but to tell us who you are so you can access features like bookmarks. For other members you log in with a username and password. And there are even more ways to log in.
You'd better believe we have to think about this complexity whenever we work on the auth system but it is worth because of these things serves a certain tranche of customers.
Also if they're solving problems to help LLM training in their domain, that's actually pretty useful contribution to science - and definitely more directly useful than the work that dominates actual research, i.e. chasing grants instead of researching.
Companies are spending far more than $200/month/developer. The $200 Max plan is a great value but you hit limits far too soon, and it also doesn't cover any of the other styles of integrations and tools that you can build and use to help your developers, like code review suggestions, which at the very least would come from additional Max plans, and not from the individual developers' plans.
You're supposed to go blind with rage after "the EU".
>I host meetups for indie founders
Speaking of sampling bias, isn't this like asking a shovel vendor about the success rate of gold prospectors? :)
Note on why this person is taking an unusual route: from https://blog.kevinzwu.com/cyborg-learning/ , they are a "second generation Chinese immigrant" and "heritage speaker"; that is, they live outside China, can speak the language because they learned it from their parents, but cannot read it.
Edit addendum: https://blog.kevinzwu.com/chinese-cursed-logographic-dags/ is a fun read. I've been using the imaginatively titled "kanji study" app, which uses the same Outlier database mentioned which has the graph based etymology.
There's an additional level of chaos when learning the "same" characters as kanji rather than hanzi.
Y'all get firmware updates?!
What?!?
NVidia designs CUDA hardware specifically for the C++ memory model, they went through the trouble to refactor their original hardware across several years, so that all new cards would follow this model, even if PTX was designed as polyglot target.
Additionally, ISO C++ papers like senders/receivers are driven by NVidia employees working on CUDA.
All German sounds like dog commands
I remember reading this in the late-60s, and it's very much an old friend. It does, however, annoy me when the section breaks are lost.
Here's a PDF:
https://dn710709.ca.archive.org/0/items/TheFeelingOfPower/Th...
Also, it's no surprise that it's been submitted many times before. Here's one of the earlier discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=931273
Even so, perhaps there are new things to say in this time of emerging "AI-assisted programming".
Of all the Internet hype around it, including many threads here, not once I saw anyone actually spelling this out.
Or even ESPOL and its evolution, NEWP, never went away, only available to Unisys customers that care about security as top deployment priority.
More like UNIX and MS-DOS concepts.
Parent's point was about deployment, not agentic coding.
That will never happen. The overhead is massive.
> So the new baseline is actually "let's keep 1 employee and fire the other 9", unless the business can find a way to suddenly expand 10x so that it needs 10x as much work done.
If they have any surplus of money (or loans) they'll try, so those 9 employees may end up becoming team leads or middle management, trying to start new initiatives to get the 10x expansion (and 100x improvement).
The market isn't anywhere near efficient enough to directly translate productivity improvements into labor reductions. Thankfully, because everything that's nice and hopeful and human lives within the market inefficiency; a fully efficient market would be a hell worse than any writer or preacher ever imagined.
I would say dense code tends to help code reviews. It just is a bit unintuitive to spend minutes looking at a page of code when you are used to take a few seconds in more verbose languages.
I find it also easier to just grab the code and interactively play with it compared to do that with 40 pages of code.
Perhaps underestimating how much the bsky audience absolutely hate AI.
It's funny how closely bsky has replicated the dynamic of old Twitter where the people who run it and the people who use it have completely different priorities and loathe each other.
Car is clearly a mobile device; it has a touchscreen and an IMEI.
Going to be fun when my washing machine asks me to upload a scan of my passport to the CIA before it will open the door.
> The Wilshire 5000 stock index, for example, actually only includes about 3400-3700 companies now.
That amazed me when I heard it recently. The number of tradeable things continues to increase, but most of them are two or three steps removed from real-world production.
And no information on how to actually do a compiler, end to end, only a self hosted interpreter.
The authors don't have the same audience in mind.
I would recommend both, one is about actual Lisp compilers, the other alternative computation models.
Clojure is my favourite alternative language on the JVM, besides offering what Lisps have provided for decades, their philosophy of embracing the host platform, instead of all the talk that the next JVM will be rewriten in it like some others do, makes being around Clojure folks much more appealing.
What are the chances some company offers to "save" them with a security service which coincidentally will also require users to use the latest officially-sanctioned browsers, OSes, and "trusted" hardware to pass the "security check"...
The prevalent discourse/attempt-at-a-meme-but-people-are-taking-it-seriously saying "Bluesky is down because of AI vibecoding!" is starting to get annoying and unoriginal.
Even when Bluesky confirmed it's a DDoS, the line is now "maybe they wouldn't have gotten DDoSed if they didn't vibecode and their code was better."
The Design of Everyday Things.
Neither, but what I'm describing is the resident concern.
Yeah but the "good faith" math had a big margin of error, and if I estimate 5k-20k shops and pick the lower number that just happens to make my company look great, that kind of changes things.
Which would be entirely reasonable cost as part of a healthcare visit.
When people complain about healthcare costs, they're not complaining about things that cost the same as a cup of coffee locally.
The subcaption is wrong: “The case will determine whether an unnamed plaintiff can take the hospital and its doctors to federal court.”
The cert petition doesn’t have anything to do with doctors, this woman, or her freedom. This is the question presented: “Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.”
Rooker-Feldman is a general legal principle governing the allocation of power between state courts and federal courts. It says that, where a state court has rendered a judgment on a case within the state court’s jurisdiction, federal courts can’t second guess that determination—effectively exercising appellate jurisdiction—expect pursuant to a specific statutory power (such as the habeas statute).
This legal principle doesn’t even have particular application to medical or individual freedom cases. It arises all over the place, because state courts and federal courts have overlapping jurisdiction in most areas of law. State courts can hear federal-law claims, except in areas like patents or federal tax that Congress designates as exclusively federal. And federal courts can hear state-law claims either under diversity jurisdiction or as ancillary to a federal claim. So you often have a party that loses in state court then seeks to try and litigate the same action in federal court. It arises a lot in cases involving things like water rights, where there’s state-law property rights with interstate federal regimes often overlaid on top.
Yes, just use random results. You’ve just saved yourself weeks or months of work of gathering actual results.
I recently fell down the rabbithole of AI-generated videos, and realised that many of the "flaws" that make them distinctive, such as objects morphing and doing unusual things, would've been nearly impossible or require very advanced CGI to create.
> When we showed Buzdar our undercover footage, he insisted it had been filmed before his tenure or that it had been staged. When asked what he would say to local parents watching this footage, he said: "I can say to them with certainty, with confidence, that you should get your treatment done at THQ Taunsa."
Not gonna fix this with education if they won't admit to having a problem in the first place.
Interesting. Not clear what it really does. The hardware is an oscilloscope probe on a 3-axis CNC mechanism. That's called a "flying probe", and you can buy one.[1]
Fine. But what does the AI do? It "ingests the project", but what does that mean? Finding all the pins? That's a start. Using a SPICE model to figure out what should be on each pin, and checking? Now that would be impressive. Probably something in between.
The usual use for this sort of thing is that you probe a known-good board to find out what voltages and signals appear where, and then compare with newly manufactured boards. That's a common production check.
There's potential here. If the AI has some concept of what the board under test is doing, and can diagnose problems, that's quite useful.
> most of human communication is walking on eggshells
That's not human communication, that's Anglosphere communication. Other cultures are much more direct and are finding it very hard to work with Anglos (we come across as rude, they come across as not saying things they should be saying).
You'll never see a neural interface ad. You'll just have always been a Pepsi drinker. It's right there in all your favorite childhood memories, after all.
For "this forum" read "the small but persistent crowd of pro Trump tech bros".
China proofing the Philippines? Undead General MacArthur would like a word. If there's a war over Taiwan they're the next nearest set of islands.
This article really felt like a misdiagnosis to me.
Sure, a lot of these people were just buying hype from these "get rich from drop shipping!" influencers, just like a million other suckers who got dollar signs in their eyes with real estate schemes, pyramid sale schemes, yada yada, a tale as old as time. I don't think this "passive income" trap is really anything new, and I don't think it was some unique thing that "ate a generation of entrepreneurs", as if that trap didn't exist then instead we'd see all these successful people.
Instead, what I think has drastically changed over the past 40 years or so is the ability of a solopreneur to make real money. Just look at all the posts on HN asking about how much people make on their side gigs. You rarely see anything more than a couple hundred bucks a month. There are notable exceptions, but unfortunately a lot of those notable exceptions are scammy, spammy business models. It's just simply much harder as a small/smaller business to make money and compete with the big boys. Wealth inequality doesn't just apply to people, but also companies. For example, in the past many entrepreneurial types may have started retail stores, while now it's incredibly difficult to compete with the likes of Amazon et al. I read an article recently that the number of public companies has halved compared to a few decades ago. The Wilshire 5000 stock index, for example, actually only includes about 3400-3700 companies now.
what has _that_ got to do with ipv6 adoption/usage ?
afaics, it probably has more to do with large indian-isp’s f.e. jio adopting ipv6.