Unlurker|Replay|About
Whitehorse residents baffled by 'annoying hum' that no one seems able to explain (cbc.ca)
•
I wonder if some investigating using an acoustic imager might help: https://www.fluke.com/en-us/product/industrial-imaging/fluke-ii905
•
is there a new datacentre nearby?
Nursing excluded as 'professional' degree by Department of Education (nurse.org)
I haven’t seen a MD in years. I’ve only seen nurse practitioners, at least 5 years now. Health care in the US is deadly, expensive joke. But Fox and friends tell us how great it is compared to socialist countries! Yay!
•
My current working theory is that US systems are in general great, if you're smart and educated enough to not get scammed. There's a high level of knowledge you need to just exist in society without being preyed upon by some entity. Unfortunately, healthcare is probably the most glaring example of this. It's already K-shaped based on the insurance you have (or don't have). In addition, most americans just aren't educated enough about their own bodies and medicine to accurately convey their problems to their care team, and that's before how likely they are to believe you. I have a great PPO plan and spend a large amount of time each year researching care for longevity and curating a care team, or cash-only practices for things. If i lost that, then i'd be hosed. I can't imagine how people on HMO or medicare plans work. NPs fulfil a very useful niche, even if that niche is "you tested positive for strep, here's your antibiotics" keeping physcians and PAs able to care on more severe persons.
Too many people in this community earnestly think this way, which makes this statement alone ineffective as parody. Try adding more of a flourish.
•
> Too many people in this community earnestly think this way The guidelines ask us not to comment like this: Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. It's a low-quality comment because it's an easy claim to make, and it will seem "truthy" to many, so you'll get upvotes and approving replies. But it's also worthless, as, without the inclusion of example comments, there's no evidence for it, and unless someone did an analysis of all comments, it can't really be disproven (i.e., it's unfalsifiable). As someone who reads the comments for hours each day, I don't see that “many people in this community earnestly think this way”. I see that many people see real/potential benefits of A.I., whilst also acknowledging its limitations. A.I. zealots (or anythign zealots) have never really been at home on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That’s funny. But when Ramanujan says 1 + 2 + 3 + … = -1/12 because god told him we accept that as a reasonable explanation.
•
>But when Ramanujan says 1 + 2 + 3 + … = -1/12 because god told him we accept that as a reasonable explanation. What community accepts that as reasonable explanation?
Why top firms fire good workers (rochester.edu)
•
TL;DR When workers start out, the firms know a lot more about their abilities than the clients do (they have an "information advantage") as the worker has very few ways through which to prove their abilites. Over time, though, as the employee's public performance increases (through successful cases, good investments, etc.) the information advantage the firm has becomes lower. Eventually, the firm lets the employee go in order because the worker now has proof of their competencies that they can show to clients to demand higher wages directly.
•
It looks (to me) like they're saying that the margin (amount that firms can charge clients less the cost of the employee's compensation package) is what's at stake. As employees rise up the corporate ladder, their compensation packages increase, but the amount that the company can charge for that employee's work is limited (clients will be wanting to keep a certain margin for themselves too)
•
How to tell that some "researchers" spent too much time in economics classes and not enough time in ethics classes: they publish stuff like this (source [0]). [0]: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20200169
•
Interesting though one would think this is also an obvious finding. Quantifying this would be interesting though.
•
No. The reason top firms part ways with good workers is usually political. Either the manager doesn't like the person regardless of their work abilities, or the manager is not politely savvy enough to ensure their team is being recognized for work that grows or is valuable to the business. Or they get caught up in the endlessly popular reorgs (again management failure). It's a failure of management. Nothing more. Nothing less. A healthy market would encourage good workers to move around freely (through compensation, opportunity, benefits, location, etc..), not force their hand. And healthy organizations would recognize talent and retain/retrain as needed. I think the other thing that's perhaps missing is that some companies have so much momentum (with thousands of people) that it probably doesn't matter when they lose people. The company will continue to thrive because there is demand for the product.
•
Evil
Homeschooling hits record numbers (reason.com)
•
homeschooled kids are literally competing against kids from other countries that are being schooled on calculus, geometry, statistics, algebra with practical chemistry, physics and biology lessons. This is not going to end well 15 yrs down the line
•
Lots of colleges offer laboratory science classes for homeschooled children. AOPS wipes the floor with any math education you’d get at a public school. Most US national laboratories have on-site programs for school-aged kids and homeschoolers have equal standing for attending. Anyone who takes it seriously gives up nothing.
•
Lemme just question how home schooling is at all possible without one parent (statically more likely to be a woman) staying home to supervise the learning. I don’t think we’re talking about remote ranch situations where you either do online school or have to send them to boarding school. So I’m genuinely wondering if there’s a corresponding exit from the workplace or other demographic trends allowing/pushing this boom in home schooling to happen?
•
It only requires that one parent has enough free hours to assign coursework. They don't have to exit the workforce, and don't necessarily need to directly supervise learning (but of course some of this is necessary for K-5). I think a lot of how homeschooling can work, along with much of median/lower household income life in general, is misunderstood. Source: Was homeschooled by a mom who worked.
•
We’ve homeschooled all our kids up to 8th grade. Our oldest is now a sophomore at the public high school but will start attending community college next year, paid for by the school district. Most of the adults you see at the various group things are stay-at-home moms. Most. Some stay-at-home dads. Some of the moms have part-time jobs. I don’t recall any dads with part-time jobs. But many dads are present while also working full-time. You get into a rhythm, have a schedule, etc. and you can work it out. My wife is fairly unusual in that she runs her own full-time business. Many moms don’t like her, presumably because they gave up their careers to do this and are jealous that she does both.
I get where you're coming from but I think your statement is a bit naive. Education systems as we know them today are absolutely about indoctrination in so many ways. Capitalism, love of country, views on family units, beauty and aaesthetics, what has cultural value and what does not etc etc. Not to mention many school systems just straight up having classes on religion, allowing armed forces into schools to recruit and the like. Whether you're worried about left wing or right wing indoctrination, it still holds true. All kids are being indoctrinated every time they go to school same as every time they watch TV.
•
I pay a lot of money for my 12-year to not be in the system you are describing and am grateful I can provide this for her more than I am grateful for just about anything else
> pushing borderline indoctrination of controversial, left-ish values I wonder what sort of values they’re indoctrinating their kids with instead.
•
I expected this comment coming into the thread. I would just like to point out that there is a huge range of options between those two extremes! If is entirely possible to teach up a child to be curious AND well rounded in the basics (see also concepts of Trivarium and Quadrivium, sorry can't link the references atm).
•
> there is a huge range of options between those two extremes! Which two extremes would those be?
I do think Covid forced people to ask questions they hadn’t before. We have sent our kids to private, poor quality and top rated schools. We saw a stark difference between the poor quality and higher cost options. No surprise. But the reason we are considering home schooling our younger kids was surprising. It says something about a system dedicated to teaching children when parents think they can do as well or better. That’s just education. The social situation in schools is ludicrous. Phones, social media, etc. what a terrible environment we adults have created for kids to learn both educationally and socially. Home schooling has answers for ALL of that.
•
I was homeschooled and it affected me terribly. Please don’t do it.
I've had to re-learn math skills long forgotten to help my kids with their school work. It's been an interesting experience. The expectations for home schooling are different and are, in some ways, aimed more towards reality. My son finishes the bulk of his work in an hour most days and then has time for 2 instruments, learning C++, Rust, and Python, community/church participation and more.
•
is "time for 2 instruments, learning C++, Rust, and Python" not schooling ?
•
He's still learning. Driven by what he loves. And this is on top of the "standard" stuff.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Exploring the Fragmentation of Wayland, an xdotool adventure (semicomplete.com)
•
The general movement of UI paradigm has been from one tech to the next with a focus on backwards compat. Almost amusingly so at times, but this is how all the earlier users and use cases can most easily progress. E.g. * hollerith cards and sundry + printer * printing teletype * dumb (video) terminal * smart (cursor addressable) terminal * images of smart terminals * images of smart terminals with color (businesses resisted color for years) * ... ? And in the meantime we have an evolution of support for modelling things visually and working with more descriptive protocols - or even function-defining protocols to raise the abstraction chatting with the display server in realtime. In this, "abstracted" means something that can be sent over the network instead of using a local buffer. These are in a less strict order than foregoing... * text, color plotters, VDST, and all that other old slow stuff * [skipping a bit up through bitmapped greyscale graphics] * bitmapped color graphics * abstracted 2D graphics (-> W and X) * abstracted 3D graphics (OpenGL + GLX) * dynamically client-extendable remote graphics servers (NeWS, mostly 2D) * ... ? So here I am, waiting for the next stage in these. Hypothesizing that finally we'll get something with 3D abstracted, network graphics (display lists in GLX but accelerated with something like XCB?), where the primary display coördinate space is (x, y, x) instead of (x, y), where the client can push some code to the remote server and raise the abstraction on the fly, finally . Where maybe we'd be able to permission the objects in that space and share it among users live. Where the 2D apps would be inside the 3D space instead of the other way around. Something for the 2000s instead of familiar abilities provided in 1990. But instead, Wayland. Wayland, which is not backwards compatible with X. Wayland, which is 2D at its heart. Wayland, another 1990 era graphics system with a super thin offering of features for actual end users (not devs) which come at substantial cost in lost X features. Wayland, which resists the one user doing things we've long thought of as normal - in the name of "security". Wayland is not what I've been waiting for.
•
I don't understand a lot of the complains. It asks for a remote connection? That's because of xwayland (which is x11 inside) not wayland AFAIK. Also all the comments about how that is weird on a single system, mmh the whole X server/client architecture always sounded like one was running like on a remote system. I actually like the approach that compositors are much more different from each other than WMs used to be, that allows people to experiment much more. Also let's not forget that X was a plethora of different plugins and incompatabilities. The reason many didn't encounter that was that the almost everyone was running xorg with all plugins, that said I still remember the hoops one had to jump through to get transparency etc. You needed a compositor and not all compositors were compatible with all WMs (and all had different capabilities). That said I do also wish that the protocol would evolve faster. It is my impression that if it wasn't for the wlroots people not much would have happened, especially because the gnome guys seem to rather just implement something for themselves and don't try to use or push the standard.
There wasn't a need to have 10s of different wayland compositors. There is not a need to endlessly bikeshed over extentions instead of delivering user value. These are failures of leadership in driving the replacement of X. Just compare this to Windows and how they made this rearchitecture of making their compositor more modern without splitting into 10s of compositors and breaking a ton of apps.
•
Windows gets to completely rearchitecture their compositor because they only provide one stable ABI to get pixels on the screen: link to USER32.DLL, create the necessary objects to represent a window of your application's class, then create and pump a message queue for it. It's ancient, but it works, and more specifically will never change. Even the higher level toolkits Windows ships ultimately are creating USER windows, and USER has been the only UI ABI since version 1. macOS is the same way, except Carbon (a light modification to the procedural Toolbox API) and Cocoa (the Mac's first OOP toolkit) were "toll-free bridged" to each other rather than, say, writing Cocoa in terms of Carbon. In contrast, X11 is a protocol anyone can implement and speak. There is no blessed library that you must use. No, Xlib doesn't count. Servers have to take their clients as they come. And Wayland, while very much deliberately stripped down from X, still retains this property of "the demarc point is a protocol" while every proprietary OS (and Android) went with "the demarc point is a library".
Here you're just comparing proprietary closed source development to open source development. In the proprietary version the goal is to improve a product. The OSS goals are much harder to pin down and can be different person to person, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a goal of "make it so that other devs can make their own compositors easily" and therefore you're describing an obvious success. Short term this might be a far slower and worse approach. It's not clear that's the case long term though, making things easier to try out different ideas and then finding a winning compositor project could be better than being stuck with one.
•
> it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a goal of "make it so that other devs can make their own compositors easily" I can't say i've ever wanted a second compositor to choose from. Ideally it would just be part of the window server.
Perhaps proprietary closed source development is better for making operating systems. Is it a coincidence that Google was able to scale Linux to billions of devices while open source development ones weren't? Open source development should take some lessons if they want to be successful and not aggrevate developers writing apps for your platform like what happened in the article, forcing them to do extra work. If development for X is ceasing now, there isn't time to experiment on finding the true successor.
•
Access to virtually infinite cash had more to do with Android's success than the source being proprietary.
Prozac 'no better than placebo' for treating children with depression, experts (theguardian.com)
•
They must have been pretty damn confident of the results to give depressed children a placebo.
Our 11 year old daughter was seriously depressed recently. N=1, but fluoxetine was life changing (and potentially life saving) for her, at least.
•
Do you have a plan to get her off, or is she on the maintenance drug for life? Sometimes girls get depressed when their periods start. Girls often don't ovulate regularly, which can cause problems until their cycle stabilizes. Sometimes pediatricians don't allow girls' cycles to stabilize. The doctor says to the girl, "you're a woman now, so we're going to regulate your irregular period with birth control." Women often get depressed due to the progestins used in all the birth control prescriptions. SSRIs never help because of boosting serotonin. When someone benefits, it's from the drug's other physiological effects.
See: The dot com boom and its recovery into Web 2.0 It was so pervasive at the time that the references to it spilled over into SF Bay Area hip hop culture...
•
Massive amounts of cocaine did the same for the housing bubble in the 2000s.
It’s fascinating that otherwise intelligent people have no hesitation pumping their children’s developing brains full of SSRIs and amphetamines at the behest of a professional class who is paid to distribute these medications.
•
I used to share your opinion, and in a way I still do, but after having 3 children and seeing how horrible some of these behaviors and habits can get, I completely understand why people cave in to get some relief. The stress of dealing with severe behavioral issues day after day can easily destroy a marriage and family.
It's even more fascinating when you have first hand experience with how much unmitigated guesswork goes into selecting psychiatric meds and their dosage.
•
it's somehow even more fascinating when you talk to dozens of people who were medicated as kids and get an idea of the real implications
First of all, I want to write that I am glad you found something that worked so that you are able to remain here with us. Though, I am curious about the, "otherwise have very good lives" part. Whose definition are you using? It seems the criteria you laid out fits a "very good life" in a sociological sense -- very important, sure. You could very well have the same definition, and perhaps that is what I am trying to ask. Would you say you were satisfied in life? Despite having a good upbringing, were you (prior to medication) content or happy? I am by no means trying to change your opinion nor invalidate your experiences. I just struggle to understand how that can be true. As someone that has suffered with deep depressive bouts many times over, I just cannot subscribe to the idea that depression is inherently some sort of disorder of the brain. In fact, I am in the midst of another bout now. One that's lasted about 3 or so years. To me, I have always considered emotions/states like depression and anxiety to be signals. A warning that something in one's current environment is wrong -- even if consciously not known or difficult to observe. And if anyone is curious, I have analyzed this for myself, and I believe the etiology of my issues are directly linked to my circumstances/environment. > I don’t think there’s a metaphorical “cow” that could have helped me. The smart-ass in me can't help but suggest that maybe medication was your cow?
•
> Whose definition are you using? To be honest, I've never really thought about it... I suppose I mean in both a sociological and self fulfillment way. > Would you say you were satisfied in life? Despite having a good upbringing, were you (prior to medication) content or happy? I would say "yes" overall. Aside from the depression (typically manifesting as a week or two of me emotionally spiraling down to deep dark places every month or so), I was very happy and satisfied. That's what makes the depression so annoying for me. It makes no sense compared to my other aspects of life. > In fact, I am in the midst of another bout now. One that's lasted about 3 or so years. *fist bump* > To me, I have always considered emotions/states like depression and anxiety to be signals. A warning that something in one's current environment is wrong -- even if consciously not known or difficult to observe. And if anyone is curious, I have analyzed this for myself, and I believe the etiology of my issues are directly linked to my circumstances/environment. I think that's a great hypothesis so long as it's not a blanket applied to everyone (which I don't think you're doing, to be clear; I mention this only because it is what motivated my original response to the other commenter). I don't want to go into private details of family members without their permission, but I will say that given the pervasive depression in my family and mental health issues like schizophrenia and bipolar disorders (neither of which I have, thank goodness), I feel like there's something biologically... wrong (for lack of a better word?)... with us, particularly since you can easily trace this through my mother's side. > The smart-ass in me can't help but suggest that maybe medication was your cow? Ha fair. I interpreted the story to be about depression being a symptom of your situation (job, health, etc.) and if you just fixed that then there's no need for medication.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
FEX-emu – Run x86 applications on ARM64 Linux devices (fex-emu.com)
•
Curious how this will impact the major games that are incompatible due to denuvo type stuff
•
IIUC that DRM involves kernel level tricks and attestation, which means it'll basically never happen. Online gaming looks similarly doomed.
•
Plenty of online games work fine. Rocket League, Squad, Arc Raiders etc. are just the ones that I play.
Box64 already runs on RISC-V. Just, the available processors are so slow it's hard to even play 5-10 year old games.
•
This means that, when the much faster chips implementing RVA23 arrive next year, they'll be immediately able to run Box64.
> FEX allows you to run x86 applications on ARM64 Linux devices, similar to qemu-user and box64. It offers broad compatibility with both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries, and it can be used alongside Wine/Proton to play Windows games. > It supports forwarding API calls to host system libraries like OpenGL or Vulkan to reduce emulation overhead. An experimental code cache helps minimize in-game stuttering as much as possible. Furthermore, a per-app configuration system allows tweaking performance per game, e.g. by skipping costly memory model emulation. We also provide a user-friendly FEXConfig GUI to explore and change these settings. > On the technical side, FEX features an advanced binary recompiler that supports all modern extensions of the x86(-64) instruction set, including AVX/AVX2. The heart of this recompiler is a custom IR that allows us to generate more optimized code than a traditional splatter JIT. A comprehensive system call translation layer takes care of differences between the emulated and host operating systems and implements even niche features like seccomp. A modular core enables FEX to be used as a WoW64/ARM64EC backend in Wine. Used by the new Steam Frame ( https://store.steampowered.com/sale/steamframe ) which is an ARM64 Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 that will run PC and PCVR gaming titles.
•
Does that mean I can run windows games on my rpi? (In theory at least)
Over-regulation is doubling the cost (rein.pk)
•
Your "over-regulation" is my "safety first".
•
It takes a brave businessman to speak out about how government regulations are killing their business. Thank you for your service.
•
"Incredibly brave post from Peter about the insane regulatory friction our society must endure and which is directly responsible for the premature deaths of the startups attempting to build wealth for our future, as well as millions of people whose emancipation from (inter alia) air pollution is delayed for decades by the same regulations that were intended to drive improvement of the environment. Peter is brave because, descriptively, the regulatory state functions collectively as a cartel with a monopoly on the veto and can apply it essentially at will with no real accountability. If one of the thousands of officials Peter's companies work with takes a dim view of this post, they could quietly and anonymously kill the company by shadow banning progression of any of hundreds of strands of regulatory approvals needed to obtain permission to operate. What are Peter's companies trying to do? Crush babies into gold? No, they're finding economic ways to fix air pollution. He's going to spend the better part of a decade of his life fighting some avatar of "the department of improving the environment" for the right to spend his own money improving the environment. I too have heard, and experienced, insane horror stories. The US is currently rapidly losing an energy production war with China. We have all the money and natural resources anyone could ever want, and China - a communist dictatorship - is deploying more electricity generation capacity in months than the US has deployed, ever, since the invention of electricity. Why? Solar photovoltaic power, which is approximately free and works best in uninhabitable deserts that are otherwise so economically useless that they remain federal land and are used for such things as atomic bomb testing, must go through the same environmental impact assessments, which take many years, as an oil refinery or explosives plant. Solar energy, which has a lower impact than practically any other land use and is by far the best per dollar spend for improving the environment. We should be granting 99 year solar leases on BLM land and inviting the top 10 deployers to an annual dinner at the White House! This is not a market failure. This is a regulatory failure, and it is actively killing us. More Americans die every month than on 9/11 from the impacts of air pollution that would have been addressed a decade ago if builders were allowed to build. This is not some academic niche issue. Thousands of people are actively killed by our neglect of this problem. Two years ago I wrote this: https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/11/10/permitting-reform-or-death/ The situation, expressed in real world time-to-deployment, has not materially improved. The regulatory state is a bizarre hydra where, somehow, painstaking reforms to speed up review often end up taking longer. Such is the case for California's fire hazard reduction burn process, which takes so long that the forests often burn up in the mean time. ( https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2025/01/17/the-los-angeles-wildfires-are-self-inflicted/ ) Earlier this year, the fires took 10,000 houses and nearly 100 people with them, and now, nearly a year later, almost none have been rebuilt, while the city council's response to housing scarcity is ... rent control. Elon, I'm ready to go to Mars! My radical view is that if McMaster-Carr can fit 500,000 SKUs into its 4000 page catalog, the federal government should be able to fit all its laws and regulations into the same space. The constitution can be on page 1. In 1875, the federal code was less than 2000 pages. Today it is over 12 million. At the current rate we are generating new law faster than anyone could ever read it. The law of the land should be portable." https://x.com/CJHandmer/status/1991589814865654084?s=20
While I am firmly in the “de-regulation is bad, because every single one of those is written in blood” camp, I also sympathize with startups and businesses desperately trying to innovate in a regulated market and being stymied by said bureaucracy. What I’ve come around to is the exact opposite of most de-regulation stans: bigger government . The tradeoff for regulations from the government is having said government shoulder the burden of helping new businesses successfully navigate said regulations quickly and efficiently. It shouldn’t be on the small business owner or startup founder to trawl through thousands of pages of texts and attempt to figure out where their business sits within them, the government should instead have an ombudsman or agent - paid with by tax dollars from successful businesses - work full-time with that business to figure things out. Want to start a bar? Here’s the application for a liquor license, here’s the plain-language requirements for accessibility and hygiene, here’s a taxpayer-supported payroll system to ensure labor law compliance, and here’s the map of areas where you can setup shop without requiring a separate permit process. Of course, the problem with said approach is that it requires funding, which requires more tax revenue, which means higher taxes. Under the current neoliberal, laissez-faire Capitalism system in the USA, that simply isn’t happening at present, if for no other reason than established players have captured regulatory agencies and government officials to deliberately hamstring new businesses. Selling deregulation in business, especially “hardtech”, is exactly what those ghouls want. Don’t take the bait. Be better, even if it’s harder.
•
Liquor licenses shouldn't exist, and private payroll systems are perfectly functional, so I have no interest in paying for it.
•
If the accessibility and hygiene laws can be explained in plain language, why not just write them in plain language? If labor laws can be automated by software why not just make them simpler? If you can make a map to explain the permitting process why not just simplify the process? If you made the regulations less complex and excessive you wouldn’t need to add another layer of bureaucracy to explain them.
The reality is that many, many regulations are not in fact written in blood.
•
And many, many of them are written in Lawful Good/Neutral/Evil people trying to enact their will in the system; however, in all cases, Chesterton's Fence is a good reminder.
This company's business is regulatory arbitrage. Of course they have to deal with regulators. Capturing CO2 and pumping it into the ground is not a commercial enterprise. It's something done to get some sort of regulatory credit.
•
> company's business is regulatory arbitrage This isn't arbitrage any more than selling warships is military arbitrage.
There's a reason for most regulations - most of them are written in blood. Now sure, you may be the one "good corporation" out there, who will do things the right way and (edit: not) sell a cheap product or mislead anyone. But if the regulations aren't super stringent, others will undercut you by skimping on safety/emissions and selling a similar product for way less. It becomes too tempting to cheat otherwise - see Dieselgate / VW, for example. Make it possible to easily profit by cheating (via relaxed regulations) and people will. Again, not you specifically (maybe), but people in general. Since we can't tell what kind of person you are, REALLY - SBF also told people to trust him, for example - onerous regulations are required. Plus, I love how on the main page advertising to companies, Revoy advertises 3x-to-5x better fuel efficiency - I'm guessing this one is the one they'll need to back up and officially achieve or companies will dump them / sue. In the blog post, he claims 94% less fuel and 7 mpg to 120 mpg. I don't see how 7 mpg to 120 mpg is "only" 3x-5x better fuel efficiency - it seems like it's more 17x. Sounds to me like he's exaggerating the effect in the blog to try to get sympathy.
•
> see Dieselgate / VW Oh man this is the one that sets me off every time. Not that I condone VW's cheating, but have you ever looked at how many diesel passenger cars are sold in the USA? It's effectively zero, and has been for a long, long time. Americans don't like diesel cars. They could be totally uncontrolled from an emissions standpoint and it would not make any difference at all. It makes no sense to regulate emissions on diesel passenger cars in the USA.
•
> There's a reason for most regulations - most of them are written in blood. Sure, but it's a balancing act, right? My favorite example is that hairdryers sold in the US are required to have ground fault interrupters in the plug. This is touted as an important safety feature and it appears to prevent something like 2-4 deaths a year. Or at least, it used to when it first rolled out, because now you have GFCI outlets in the bathroom in any new or remodeled homes, so maybe it's redundant. The hairdryers sold in the EU don't have that. So yeah, it's a regulation written in blood, but it's a pretty good example of a gray area. Once you get into the business of preventing single-digit deaths, things get really weird. You probably should also ban pointy scissors (people trip), frankfurters (choking risk), only allow the sale of pre-peeled bananas, etc.
•
Most European electrical codes don't allow electrical outlets in the bathroom at all.
“All outsourced, vendor, and subcontractor companies down the entire production/waste chain to the raw material must meet US environmental regulations.” Done, fixed the loophole.
•
Congratulations! Now just wait until next election when you get the boot in a landslide because of how much you raised prices for consumers.
> As one example, one state agency has asked Revoy to do certified engine testing to prove that the Revoy doesn’t increase emissions of semi trucks. And that Revoy must do this certification across every single truck engine family. It costs $100,000 per certification and there are more than 270 engine families for the 9 engines that our initial partners use. That’s $27,000,000 for this one regulatory item. And keep in mind that this is to certify that a device—whose sole reason for existence is to cut pollution by >90%, and which has demonstrably done so across nearly 100,000 miles of testing and operations—is not increasing the emissions of the truck. It’s a complete waste of money for everyone. Wild - whoever did this should lose their job.
•
> one state agency has asked Revoy to do certified engine testing to prove that the Revoy doesn’t increase emissions of semi trucks. Depending where that is one could read it as "fuck you, you haven't bribed us enough". And then "if we come to an understanding, we might be able to look the other way". Wonder what state that is? Anyone want to guess?
And you cannot separate the idea of lack of regulation from the harm inherent to the concept. This kind of lazy ideological posturing is thought-terminating and incredibly tiring . Your position is simply unable to demonstrate to us how a blanket policy of letting whatever corner-cutting garbage slip into your food, medicine, construction materials, safety systems actually leads to globally better outcomes. It would be truly baffling if of all conceivable points on the axis it was a global optimum.
•
I sympathise with your fatigue, I get tired of repeated arguments too, but I suppose the tiredness itself isn't a sign of being right. I wonder whether oh no not this again contains useful information. Perhaps not. Misconceptions are popular, but good ideas are also popular. The earliest regulations were about the purity of bread and beer, and I tend to think of them as a good thing. But concepts like gypsum doesn't go in bread are simple enough for a king to understand, so perhaps those early regulations were more suitable for central administration. This was before there were brand names or consumer organizations. I suppose a non- central form of regulation would have to be along those lines, adversarial but symbiotic with the specific industry. Restaurant rating stars. IDK. Some stuff isn't consumer-facing though. When unmonitored, people aren't motivated to behave, and they make a mess. When monitored, the people comply, but the monitors aren't motivated to be wise or understanding, only to enforce. Sometimes you get situations where an entire culture of people are spontaneously careful and good, or where they are regulated by regulators who are wise and perceptive and flexible. This state of affairs comes about, so far as I can tell, at random, or by voodoo.
If central planning didn't work, why does every corporation under the sun use it internally? Why don't they just let everyone do what they want, and then sue eachother when it doesn't result in great outcomes?
•
What is the average age of a corporation? I say that as someone who actually thinks a little central planning is good.
•
Clarify that, please? Maybe you mean "most corporations are short-lived due to excess central planning", or then again "most corporations are full of crusty old dudes who love the tradition of central planning", or ..?
•
I may believe both of those things, but no that's not actually what I meant. I simply meant look at the stats for how long corporations actually live. Are we sure that's how we want to structure our government?
>Rent control is a fantastic if trivial example of such. No it isn't. Rent control is made to provide short term relief. Regulations tend to be long term requriements. Of course making a short term temporary solution long term does not work. >we're likely to do more harm than good by imposing interventions because we cannot accurately predict their outcomes For policy, I think it is important to be risk averse. Regulations are extremely risk averse. Slowing down reckless actions so that people don't die should be considered a good thing. Of course, that can be anathema to businesses who rush to be first to market. I don't see regulations being a problem here, but the cost of the regulations. Instead of focusing on de-regulations we look into what that 100k certification is going to? Hopefully not yet another for-profit middleman with incentives to bog the process down.
•
> Rent control is made to provide short term relief. Quite the opposite. The benefits of rent control grow the longer you are in the same apartment without moving as the difference between what the tenant pays and the market value diverge further with each lease renewal. There are people in NY who have been in their apartments 50 years and pay 10% of the market rate.
•
And that person can never ever move. They're right. Rent control is useful as a short term measure to keep rents from spiking, but it does long term damage to supplies and you need completely different methods to fix the supplies.
•
I'm talking about the policy, not the tenants. Enacting 50 years of rent control is no different from Japan's economy the last 30 years. Of course after multiple generations you scare off housing investment. But not after 5. And that should be the goal of rent control. Short term relief while doing the long term plan of building more housing. Politicians not doing it this way is like blaming your duct tape for falling apart after a few weeks of adhesive duty.That doesn't mean duct tape is bad. It means no one bothered to fix the underlying issue.
>Wild - whoever did this should lose their job. Why's that? Because a guy who's apparently friends with the owner of the company that produces these things told you that it saves emissions? Doesn't it seem reasonable to verify these claims?
•
Verifying is great! How many types of truck engine do you reasonably need to test with? The number should fit on one hand. And really you should only need to do the full test with one model and limited verifications with others. That'll get it down from $27M to $200k, which would be a far more reasonable requirement.
Seems somewhat reasonable. I don’t know why the company is supporting all 270 engine families. This company wants to put a bunch of stuff on the road going 70mph that could crash into you and kill you and is complaining about a measly $27 million of regulatory cost. They are making up a bunch of scary numbers about the cost of the status quo and the tone of the article is basically holding us all hostage. Speed out special snowflake startup company through the regulatory process (written in blood) or else you’ll lose bajillions of dollars in suffering and pain from the “status quo.” $27 million is basically a rounding error for automotive companies. Maybe do better at raising funds next time, bro.
•
If you want to argue that adding an electric engine to existing trucks is going to make them go out of control and kill people in some completely common sense defying manner, then the burden of proof is on you and not on the company to prove a negative.
The testing that is clearly theater and a waste of money for all involved?
•
I don't know enough about it to know whether it's a waste or not. It's certainly not surprising that the company that has to pay for it thinks it's a waste.
Virgin and Qantas to ban use of portable power banks after string of fires (abc.net.au)
•
It's nice when rules can be written in sense instead of blood. I don't know if that's the case here. But any fire on an aircraft is close to the latter.
•
Title should be updated to Virgin Australia. The article doesn't reference Virgin Atlantic or any other Virgin brands.
I would use a battery pack less if the outlets on the planes actually worked! On my last 4 flights I've had outlets completely disabled.
•
You have to look up the maximum wattage for the given cabin configuration. I’ve found 30W to be about as high as I can go without it cutting out. Use a phone charger for your laptop. This is where it’s helpful to have a multi-port charger where they’re not all high-draw. IMO more important to go with something flat or light that won’t fall out under its own weight.
•
Or make the seatback USB solution a bit more modular and update it every 5 years. Nobody is bringing a toaster on board, they just need something more than a 5 Watt USB A port for their devices.
And when they do work, my North American two prong plug falls right out half of the time.
•
That just sounds like another way of not working. Even if there is power, if the socket doesn’t hold the prongs, it’s not going to power your device.
The title is misleading unless you read it carefully. They are not banning bringing power banks, they are banning using power banks. On the plane you have to keep the power bank on your person, but not use it. This would be a lot more defensible if they had high-power USB-C ports by every seat.
•
I’m sure you don’t mean this, but it sounds like you’re saying that if airlines don’t provide high-power USB, passengers would prefer the risk of dying in a fire rather than going without their devices. Of course, now that I type that out, I worry that perhaps many people would make exactly that choice. Regardless, I would argue that aviation safety is much more important than device preference - if that means, we all have to go back to paper books, then so be it.
Doesn't every cell phone have a highly volatile, made in China battery in it as well? What if they started banning smartphones on flights! Oh the humanity!
•
> Doesn't every cell phone have a highly volatile, made in China battery in it as well? They're smaller, and thus contain less energy, and are typically also less powerful.
What are the odds that a lithium battery would cause uncontrolled fire? We are around them daily, ever since the 80s-90s , to this day I have never seen one in person. Look at this guy, he puts a screwdriver through phones for show off on youtube, intentionally damaging the battry...nothing dangerous or uncontrolled happens, the little smoke is the equivalent of a couple of cigarettes. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gcjfJfbOVkY And all the psychological tests on pilots, no train or bus pilot has to go through the same stuff even though they have a similar number of souls on board I'll go to my grave claiming that aviation has to fight for its existence on a daily basis by clearing impossible standards because people are scared , intuitively scared of flight as humans aren't supposed to be able to do that and all our ancestors who tried failed miserably by falling off a tree or something. The percentage of people who get the physics of why a plane flies are less than 1% of those who ever flew, and that is not even the majority of the 9 billion humans yet, hell not even a quarter. "If your phone falls through the seats DON'T TRY TO RECOVER IT as the seat (which is fixed) might damage it and cause a fire" lmao Next thing they'd be making announcements on how to seat as a particularly fat individual missing their seat could land on their ass and fall through the fusolage causing a decompression...give me a break
•
Non-zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6 > The report indicated that the fire was caused by the autoignition of the contents of a cargo pallet that contained more than 81,000 lithium batteries and other combustible materials
•
So we just need to limit to 80,999 power banks on a plane at once
A train can go from "cruising speed" to letting passengers off to escape a fire in about a minute. A plane might take anywhere from five minutes to several hours to be able to safely let passengers out. Personally I feel that's a good enough reason to impose more robust restrictions on Things Which May Cause Fire on planes compared to trains. Especially in the case of lithium batteries where they're more or less impossible to extinguish one they're going.
•
I agree with the concept of comparing risk being the meaningful approach, but I disagree this is how you go about measuring risk. How many people are being injured/killed per million km or something is the type of metric. Air travel far exceeds those types of metrics vs other common modes of travel, yet is always the first one to be further focused on how bad it could potentially be.
•
I would argue at the performance of aviation safety, and the constant focus on how bad it could be, is exactly why aviation is safe. The day that we decide to stop focussing on what could go wrong, is the day that aviation stops being safe. For example, if aircraft come within five nautical miles or I think it’s 1000 vertical feet, it’s considered a very serious incident. Not because anyone is in danger at five nautical miles or 1000 vertical feet, but because if you don’t draw the line there, and treat that barrier as seriously as if two aircraft had collided, then there isn’t really a barrier at all.
New OS aims to provide (some) compatibility with macOS (github.com/ravynsoft)
•
If you don't provide CoreFoo (for Foo in *), there's not really much point in talking about compatibility with macOS. I see no sign that they provide any of the possible CoreFoo libraries/frameworks.
•
This is all nice and well, while https://www.puredarwin.org/wiki/#/news/Support-Cliff-Sekel Wouldn't it be more natural if this project made use of XNU/Darwin... But with the way things are going, with XNU going more and more proprietary, I suppose FreeBSD is "close enough". In any case, there's nothing we can do about it but these "macOS" alternatives are too fragmented. I would love to see "The" macOS clone.
The RavynOS project would have a good chance at being binary compatible with Mac OSX if it copied all the Darwin libraries from the Darling project and used LLVM to generate all the appropriate dylibs. That's something I would support and contribute to. It could get to the point where it could run macOS console based applications. But if macOS binary compatibility is not the goal, then there's no need for a Mach-O loader - it brings nothing to the table. Just use ELF binaries. Although at that point there's nothing macOS about it - it's just a Mac-like UI facade for FreeBSD distro with a different API. If Ravyn doesn't want to be to macOS like WINE is to Windows, I don't see the point.
•
Frankly I was a bit surprised that was not what they were doing. As a user I’d prefer a “mere” macOS UI on top of FreeBSD, so long as its quality is of the same. Use Darling as a compatibility loader, like WINE/Proton in SteamOS.
> copied all the Darwin libraries from the Darling project and used LLVM to generate all the appropriate dylibs I'm just starting for the day and misread that as "...used LLM to generate...", and I wondered what kind of crack you were smoking.
•
In future, your OS will be an agentic LLM which runs software by YOLOing the binaries, and then continuously fixing and refining the environment until it runs without crashing.
Why is every new OS project just a rehash of 60/70's tech. What about something new that actually attempts to move the field forward.
•
Because writing even a remotely modern OS is really really hard. I speak from experience. Even getting old hardware from the 90s and early 00s to work is a pain. Then of course you have the more modern standards (although even SATA is still modern for some definition of modern, but AHCI is a nightmare), and then you have things like modern NICs and GPUs which has documentation that is very hard to find, or in the case of even modern Intel GPUs, documentation that is 13 plus volumes and is absolutely massive... And the list just goes on and on and on. Before you know it your codebase is 100k LoC and like 80-90 percent of it is device drivers alone. And if you thought all that was bad, wait until you get into ACPI... Yeah. OS dev is, I think it's safe to say, the hardest and most difficult project a software engineer could do, right alongside a modern compiler if you ditched LLVM and decided to make your own backend.
Who cares about sleekness? Linux has looked sleek for decades but still behaves like ass
•
“Looks sleek” was only ever a surface level reason why macOS was a good UI. Far more important was that it was highly opinionated, and those opinions were very consistently applied, resulting in a highly predictable interface. This has been degrading over the past decade, unfortunately.
Sometimes it strikes me that something like this might be one of the better litmus tests for AI — if it’s really good enough to start 10x-ing engineers (let alone replacing them) it should be more common for more projects like this should begin to accelerate to practical usability. If not, maybe the productivity dividends are mostly shallow.
•
The problem is that many of these clean room reimplementations require contributors to not have seen any of the proprietary source. You can't guarantee that with ai because who knows which training data was used
CBP is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with suspicious travel patterns (apnews.com)
I'm curious what you think the solution is? Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not. Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public. Obviously it's now scary that you're being tracked. But what is the solution? We certainly don't want to outlaw taking photos in public. Is it the mass aggregation of already-public data that should be made illegal? What adverse consequences might that have, e.g. journalists compiling public data to prove governmental corruption?
•
[delayed]
Generally, you do want the general principle of something like this to be explainable in a few sentences, yes. Even if that results in a bunch of more detailed regulations, we can then understand the principles behind those regulations, even if they decide a bunch of edge cases with precise lines that seem arbitrary. Things like the limits of free speech can be explained in a few sentences at a high level. So yes, I'm asking for what the equivalent might be here. The idea that "it's so impossibly complicated that the general approach can't even be summarized" is not helpful. Even when regulations are complicated, they start from a few basic principles that can be clearly enumerated.
•
[delayed]
> Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing Uh, sure. If we make up a right, there is a problem. Currently, this right doesn't exist. We make plenty of laws without presuming it exists. Plenty of people are trying and failing to pursue voters that it should exist, and I generaly commend them. But it's weird to the point of bordring on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else.
•
If you can look at the world and conclude that a right to make something and use it as you see fit, in private and without harming others, does not exist, then I guess we just have a dramatically different perspective of the world in which we've arrived. > But it's weird to the point of bordring (sic) on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else. You've assumed bad intentions and... I don't know what else to say. If I can see something with my eyes, save it in my brain, recall it later in a drawing, but can't do those same things with a computer, then the implications for the right of general-purpose computing (and for that matter, free thought) are just absolutely obvious.
•
> You've assumed bad intentions Sorry if it came across that way. I don't. Messaging can be co-opted. I think you're genuinely arguing for general-purpose computing. But that functionally serves to preserve Flock and the CBP's ability to illegally, in my opinion, monitor and harm Americans.
•
We are commenting on an article where the process you describe leads to harming others, are we not? You can make it sound as robotic as you'd like; at the end of the day we're still talking about corporations surveilling people on a massive scale and selling the data to be used against them. It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" eliding the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun. The details matter!
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html reply
•
Cheeky. But not relevant. And not an answer.
 Top