ahepp

I'm guessing you mean fuel injector? The pump that pushes or pulls fuel up from your tank is not very sophisticated, afaik.

Fuel injector timing and quantity, along with ignition timing, is generally computer controlled, certainly on any modern vehicle.

I would love to hear more about this

> rarely we get things wrong (e.g. classical physics)

Curious, do you think quantum physics is the end of the line? I wouldn't claim to have a good understanding of anything beyond classical physics, but I've just assumed it's turtles all the way down and at some point we'll find serious issues with the quantum model

I would be interested to see benchmarks for that patch

I wasn't aware there was a substantial latency difference between fiber and copper. Some googling suggests copper might be .4-.8c and fiber might be a more reliable .6c? But even if there was a huge difference in speed of light through the medium, inside a home aren't the distances so short that it wouldn't matter?

That's pretty nifty. Another affordable option I found was this "SFP Buddy" [0] for $50, which at least at the time seemed like it was about 10x less expensive than other market options. No affiliation, just bricked an ONT-on-a-stick once and had to figure out a way to reset it without breaking the bank.

[0]: https://oopselectronics.com/product/SFPB

I got stopped after 5

buildroot does a nice job of tying a lot of this stuff together

> If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages

So if you’re a business offering poor quality services, and I come along and start offering higher quality services, I owe you damages for the impact I have on your business?

This sounds like a great approach to me. I've thought some kind of pi zero 2w based smart speaker system would be an awesome project for a while. I am having a difficult time imagining a cheaper option, especially if you want something like the hat ecosystem.

I think you have this pretty backwards. Private equity does not exist because of pensions. Private equity is investment that has not taken additional steps to be a part of regulated public markets.

It's true that private equity is dominated by institutional investors. One reason for this is that the investments are generally deemed too complicated, illiquid, and risky for retail investors (although the Trump administration is trying to change this).

Additionally, if we added the kinds of regulations, reporting requirements, standardization, etc, that would be necessary to scale this model to hundreds of thousands or millions of investors participating in an informed manner, we would simply recreate public markets.

Freakonomics recently did an episode on this that I thought was pretty good: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-public-ready-for-pri...

They've done some pieces on private equity in the past too: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/are-private-equity-firms-pl...

> Switch to a previous commit, make edits, changes propagate into the future commits

In what way is that different from using `git rebase -i` to edit a commit?

what share of the DRAM market does China control today?

Couldn’t we say that any market rewards prediction? And that this is generally seen as a beneficial quality that results in more accurate valuations with better liquidity?

Do stacked PRs do something to avoid rebase conflicts if two people touched the same file?

I don't mean to suggest you're doing something wrong, but it's not clear to me why you need three separate branches for this? Why not have these related changes as individual commits on a single branch?

I've also seen teams struggling to review massive PRs as a single diff, but when I've seen that it's always because they aren't structuring commits to be individually reviewable.

who do you think stands out?

I'm not sure how you could deny it when you just wrote quite a bit of detail about how you think anyone doing that work is an evil sociopath.

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying here, but it seems pretty straightforward that you can't run an insurance system without reviewing claims. That's true whether it's a for-profit, not-for-profit, or government run insurance provider.

There's broad consensus that there is a ton of unnecessary and unwarranted care being done in the US. Doctors are not all experts in population health. Even the most well-meaning doctors are still subject to incentives that can lead to excessive testing and expensive treatments that have a low likelihood of improving patient outcomes.

Obviously it is also true that having a profit motive to deny claims incentivizes improper denials. But to simply say "no claim should ever be subject to review or denial, and anyone working to make the system efficient is evil" is deeply ignorant and fundamentally incompatible with the concept of insurance.

The really interesting thing to do would be to ask the agents to submit the diff as a coherent patchset...

What are you saying here? Do you just think it's unnecessary to audit the way 18% of US GDP is being spent? You think there is no waste, or it's so small to be negligible? Despite the fact that it's well established the US spends more and gets less benefit?

I understand that nobody likes to talk about setting this threshold, but it's not some kind of unique feature of the American healthcare system. I think the article raised some reasonable concerns about EviCore, but it would be a lot stronger if it did more to contextualize denials in terms of the other quadrants (correct approval, correct denial, incorrect approval, incorrect denial). It would also be interesting to compare those statistics across types of insurers (for-profit, not-for-profit, and government).

You might find it worth upgrading to 10gbps if you continue to go down this road. The Mikrotik CRS-309 has served me well, and a couple Intel X520-DA2s. I believe those NICs can do iSCSI natively, and pass the session to the operating system with iBFT.

SFP28 might be cheap enough now too, I'm not sure...

When I tried root-on-nfs I had a lot of issues. The Redhat and Arch package managers don't seem to like it (presumably a sqlite thing?).

If you don’t trust farmers to make the decision, who do you think should be making it?

One thing I don’t understand about this viewpoint (which I understand isn’t your own): why does one benefit so tremendously from getting there a month before competitors? I’m sure having a month of superintelligence with no competition would be lucrative, but do they think achieving superintelligence first will impede competitors from also achieving it a month later?

Are there any situations you would compare this to historically?

To me, the obvious comparison seems to be Docker. Their tooling revolutionized software development and made cgroups and containerization accessible to the masses. Yet they generally seem to have failed to extract payment from users, even with managed service opportunities.

It seems to me that there are substantial obstacles to monetizing a project licensed with even a weaker OSS license like MIT. I think this is especially true for projects that don’t have managed service / “open core” potential.

Any gratis project you rely on runs the risk that it will no longer be provided gratis. That alone is not a strong basis for making decisions.

What other options are there?

I’m not sure the GP did mean that, but I agree it’s a much better solution than maintaining an out-of-tree kernel module, which is generally a really bad idea