bruce511

It's interesting how we seem to go through a cycle.

a) There's a gate-keeper who picks winners, and charges money. Maybe book publising, maybe academic papers, maybe music - whatever.

b) producers complain - these parasites are sucking all the money out the ecosystem, and adding no value. We need to bypass the gate-keepers. Go to market directly.

c) The "indie" scene becomes legit. Barriers to entry drop. Consumers can find creators directly. There's no middle man.

d) The indie scene bcomes popular. Everyone can publish an academc paper, or record a song, or write a book. (Of course 99% of it is rubbish, because, well, most of everything we create is rubbish)

e) along come the "guides" - folks who'll teach, or promote, or review or whatever. Most of that is of (let's be generous) "marginal quality" - assuming it's not just an outright scam (which it probably is.)

Turns out those gatekeepers were indeed providing something of value. But because they rejected almost everyone, and because they charged real money, they were disliked by creator and consumer alike. ah well...

Ultimately of course, for the 99% of us, the fun is in the creation not the result. There's no money in creating (and for the 99% never has been). Enjoy the process - if someone likes it, great. Will you make our living doing this? Almost certainly not.

There are two common ways to spot hallucinations. Talk to it about a topic you know well, or implement what it suggests and get an error or failure.

For the first, we're mostly past the point of just "testing". So I don't see that too much anymore. Mostly I still see that though in bug reports generated by AI by someone else. There is usually some underlying bug being reported, but the AI explanation and "helpful suggestion" is typically inaccurate. Generally, suggested fixes are terrible. (They likely work, but fix a symptom not the cause.)

The second still happens, but with much less regularity for me though. It does make mistakes though.

In areas where I'm not as skilled it's very hard to spot errors. When researching general information I'm mostly accepting it on face value.

I find the bug-report thing really interesting. For lots of simple bugs it's great. For more complex things it seems to be very superficial- if a 0 causes an issue here, add a simple guard for 0. There's no depth of understanding why the value is 0 in the first place, when it should be set. If it can (incorrectly) be 0 here, where else might 0 be impacting the code?

This informs my opinion of vibe coded stuff - where there is no skilled human inspection. I expect that code to be of a poor underlying quality. Especially if it's AI changes to an existing human-coded app.

You don't get angry with the scorpion for stinging the frog. He is just behaving according to his nature.

The US is in a late-capitalist phase right now. It's gotten here because the voting public think it's a good thing. Every two years they go to the polls and vote for "business friendly" parties and policies. And indeed most Americans today would say Capitailism is great, Govt intervention is bad, fewer regulations gets stuff done. Anything other than rabid capitalism is defacto Communism.

And while very popular right now getting angry at all serves no purpose. When everyone is angry about everything all the time it ceases to be notable.

What is purposeful is taking an interest in local govt. It's alerting your council as to your concerns. And by encouraging neighbors to do the same. It's in thinking beyond the simplistic "pro business at all costs" rhetoric. It's understanding that current US policies, foreign and domestic, are specifically designed to make companies richer and citizens poorer.

And understand that you're not in a fight to stop development. You're in a fight to make the development work in harmony with the community, and not against it. The opposite of ugly corporate behavior is not communism.

The developer (likely) won't do it in isolation.

But the point of building permits, and building regs and so on is to create requirements that let the development live in harmony with the community.

If local govt is not stipulating the requirements then that's on them.

People don't need to be "against data centers" they need to be "for no noise" and so on.

Fair enough, but again that noise is easily dealt with by proper planning and permitting.

Given that chillers exists in lots of places it seems like this is a solved problem.

I'll be honest by saying I for one have never heard hurr durr before. It might be a bit more localized than you think.

Frankly though it's unnecessary to be so personal regarding the people involved, or even the name.

Yes, at this point Hurd is no more than a curiosity. That has nothing to do with the name and everything to do with that we're not really looking for another OS. There are already a bunch of OS's to choose from.

For production machines you can already choose between Windows, Mac, Linux (plus ChromeBook et al), and even BSD. Within each of those there are several mainstream flavors, and other minor ones. No one is realistically punting for Hurd in any kind of "real" environment.

That said very minor OS's do provide interest to academics and hobbiests. New ideas and concepts can be tried before they get folded into main-stream OS's.

Whats in a name?

Personally I use Google/Windows at work, and Steam/Windows at home. I also have a Meta/Android OS for my phone and a Garmin/Auto OS for my car.

My websites are hosted on AWS/Linux, and I browse on Comcast/Internet. My entertainment comes from Warner/Netflix. Or Disney/Disney)

I call it Linux, when I call it at all.

Yes, I think bad behaviors do play a part. With any development there has to be some level of trust between the developer and community (where the community are typically represented by local govt.)

Once that trust is eroded it can be difficult to get things built. If you lose trust in the govt the developer won't build. If trust in the developer is lost then permits just stop.

And yes, I think community trust in AI data centers is very low. Perhaps some more creative approaches will be necessary in the future to build up this trust again.

Data centers could be very good neighbors. They could be built in astheticly pleasing ways. They could balance elec consumption with production. They could operate cooling and simply return "warmer water" to source.

Unfortunately under the current cultural circumstances none of this can be taken for granted. Corporations have (very much) lost our trust in the effort to squeeze every last dime of profit out of everything. This is the American way.

I'm sure there are data centers that make a noise. And if you're firing up a generator that's a separate issue.

But the noise from computer fans and power supplies is easy to ameliorate and can be a trivial permit requirement.

The noise is all high-frequency which means most anything will stop it. Frankly building an earth berm around the site would kill all the noise and make it better to look at. Throw in some trees and you're done.

I get the water and power concerns. But (in the right locations) both are solvable. Power can be balanced with power generation (off site) especially solar and wind. Water isn't really "used" it's just necessary as a heat-sink so as long as it's available it can stay available.

Yes, govt should write permits carefully. And there are locations it is not suitable. But opposition to data centers in general is just hype.

>> The entire point of cryptocurrency is to be money that is independent of any government's ability to enforce its laws.

Thats exactly correct. The killer app for crypto is criminal enterprise. Yes there are other niches, but nothing that would sustain the industry.

Passing a regulation regarding mining would be difficult to enforce. It's impossible to know what a GPU inside the data center is doing.

At this point the industry is legit, even promoted by individuals in govt (who overtly sell access (cough bribe) using it. So no, you don't need to worry, there's no risk of regulations like this anywhere soon.

I'll add Music. And its never too late to learn. I'm in my 50s and learning piano for the first time.

Progress in fighting cancers has been enormous over the past couple decades. But there are challenges when developing new therapies.

It should be noted that "cancer" is not one thing. The term covers a range of different "diseases". Treatments, like "chemo" are also very varied.

For starters the current treatments (chemo, radiation, surgery) (and soon immunotherapy when the patents expire) are very effective against a range of different cancers. The most common ones (prostate and breast) have survival rates exceeding 90% if caught early.

For all cancers treating early is a good thing. So any novel approach has to be "compatible" with existing treatments. Bacterial experiments (on sick humans) for example are not compatible with chemo. To suggest a patient not take chemo is ethically hard.

So yes, there us a cohort like your father who are effectively post-treatment. The cancer is advanced and may have morphed into multiple different cancers. There is naturally an inclination to "try anything".

Unfortunately these patients make terrible case studies. They are typically very weakened, with multiple organs under attack, and the immune system generally low. So, layman's example, introducing a bacteria into such a person may kill the cancer, but would likely also kill the patient.

Remember that every "fail" is recorded against that drug or method. Having all your patients die tends to reflect poorly on a drug, even if those patients were already terminal. And, to be honest, if they're already terminal the chance of a new therapy working is pretty low.

I sympathize with you, I really do. I know this is not an easy time. There is of course a desire to try anything.

For others reading, early detection is key. Visiting a Dr at the first stage of trouble is something we all can get better at.

I can speak to this somewhat. My panels are on adjustable frames. Typically I switch from flat (summer) to tilted (winter).

As always ymmv and depends somewhat on your location. I'm around 30 degrees from the equator.

During summer, lying flat gets a lot more power. And more importantly the start and end of the generating period is longer. Ie the panels get more sun in the morning and evening thankfully they were tilted.

In winter the sun is more "from one direction" and obviously is lower on the horizon.

While not in motion, or while in flight, it's not really an issue.

Takeoffs and landings are the biggest risk times (and also the best proximity to Fire and Rescue). In hot environments reducing heat load in the plane can definitely improve comfort. Bummer about missing the action though...

Yes, that's a factor as well. If you're opening a door (or emergency exit) you should look first to see if that side of the plane is on fire.

But obviously you can open it to look, and there's only a small number that would apply to.

So it's a factor, but the primary reason is being able to look in.

There will of course always be different potential uses for land. And there are up and down sides to every argument.

It's easy though to dismiss options which don't benefit me personally. If I don't cycle then money spent on cycle tracks is wasted. If I don't golf then I'll lean towards non-golf options.

Incidentally it's very seldom local users who are lobbying for more local low-cost housing. That typically reduces neighborhood property values.

Equally having green spaces is something that drives up property values etc.

And yes, creative use of effluent would be nice. We should be able to recycle grey water into toilets etc. But that is an infrastructure change, so not easy to implement.

Yes we need public green spaces. And yes we need sports fields and golf courses and so on. It's not necessarily an either/or situation.

Regulations require that window shades be up (open) during take off and landing.

I was sitting next to a passenger once who was asked by the steward to raise the window shade.

While doing it, they asked "why". Answering for the steward I said "it's so Fire and Rescue can see into the plane if we crash". (Which is true, I used to work at airport fire and rescue.)

The steward looked at me with a "that's not helpful" look. My bad :( .

Although I think it's still useful for people to understand things are done for their safety. Not that we expect to crash, and most don't, but every little thing that might improve survival is done. That encourages rather than discourages me.

The amount of water used is somewhat less important than what the source of the water is.

And it's important to understand that "using water" isn't like "using coal". In other words, while coal can be burned once, water is in a cycle that means water can be "used" infinitly.

But back to the source. A golf course near me takes effluent water (ie treated sewerage) destined for pumping out to sea. They spread it over a large piece of land. What is not consumed by plants, or evaporation, ends up in an underground aquifer.

So it "uses" a lot of water. But it's not using tap water.

Obviously this is not true for all courses. Hence the issue of "source", not "quantity" is material.

Only a small fraction of current flyers get window seats. And the view from the isle seat or middle row is non-existent.

And that's before we talk about night flights when there's nothing to see, flights over water when there's nothing to see and so on.

So yes, I'm sure some people like windows. But the majority have demonstrated that they're just fine flying without them.

Imagine you are on a beach. It's dinner time, so you need somewhere to eat. Fortunately there are 1000 restaurants available, all serving the same menu. 50 new restaurants open every day. And 50 close.

Sure, if you look really closely , there are differences. One chef uses more salt. Another is faster, but makes more mistakes.

You could of course evaluate each one, carefully deciding which one is best for you. Then after weeks of evaluation you could finally get a meal. 3 days later all the restaurants change their menu.

Into this mix comes a new entrepreneur. Look at all this activity, so he opens yet another restaurant. Then wonders how to get more customers.

Back to your problem. How do uou stand out from the crowd? A better question might be why did you join the crowd in the first place? I mean, you gave it a fair shot. Haven't gone viral in 9 days? That must be disappointing.

On the other hand most businesses take years to earn trust, build confidence, aren't in an over-hyped space, and of course even then, most fail.

Good luck.

We live in a world with cognitive dissonance. We have to because if you don't you'd go insane.

This article is perhaps a good example of that. On the one hand live in public (post blogs, use the same avatar on multiple sites) but at the same time try and control how that publicness is consumed (humans only, no AI).

Right now, whatever you make public is in AI. Whether that is on HN, or your blog, or wherever. You may not like that, but public is ultimately public.

Ironically a blog post about leaving some service because they used the marketing phrase "AI", is immediately added to the AI training corpus.

AI is just the latest tech in a long history of ranting against change. I'm old enough to remember "old people" ranting against computers (paper and pencil is real!), then phones, then internet, then smart phones.

People like to rent. People don't like change. We want privacy but post all the time. We don't want to be tracked, but carry a tracker. We live in a dissonance world.

>> Maybe publishers should JUST pay authors WELL, and get a book every 2-3 years

There are a couple problems with this approach.

Firstly, while the median income is 20k, the book business is like films or music; ie not evenly distributed. At the top end are a small number of successful authors. They effectively subsidize the publishing house while the house throws advances at authors hoping for the next big whale.

Many books never earn back their advance. Meaning if the author was paid out of royalties they'd make less, not more.

Making advances bigger would result in fewer advances. The pot of money is finite.

This is all happening in a market where supply is unconstrained (everyone thinks they can write), and demand is very limited.

And before we discuss the value, or lack thereof of having an intermediary at all, it should be noted from your link that the median for published authors is higher than self-published authors. So clearly they seem to be making authors more valuable.

In truth of course, most (published) books aren't terribly valuable. Like music and movies most float to the bottom.

So no, the answer is not "pay authors more".

I always find this line of thought interesting. Because it implies the manufacturer has all the power. But they don't. The consumer does.

Ultimately the manufacturer wins the horse-shoe battle because they are cheaper. And the consumers in the village prefer cheap shoes to locally made (expensive) ones.

Fundamentally consumers like cheap stuff. Manufacturing shifts happen because as soon as there's a cheaper output, you've won. Consumers will reliably switch to cheap. At the start there may be some brand loyalty, there may even be a quality difference, but both those erode quickly.

Lots of people promote the idea of buying locally, even if it's more expensive. But it's a hard message to sell, and a tough one to buy. I'm sorry for the blacksmith, but times are hard and I need my horses shod.

It's easy to blame capitalism or factory owners or foreign cheap labor or any other convenient political scapegoat. But the root of the problem is consumer preference for cheap (even if inferior) to the exclusion of everything else.

This is perhaps culturally most evident where the premise above is false. In the US for example food is low quality, but plentiful. In Europe food generally costs more, but is of a much higher standard. Portions are smaller. Quality is more important than quantity.

This is not by accident. Europe has deliberately fostered local food markets, local food production, and promoted a narrative around history and good production. Cheap food is available, but quality food has a strong foothold.

I think this is the key metric. Get people in the door.

Sure you can jack up prices on food and drink. Sure you can fleece the people who do come, but everyone who stops coming "because it's too expensive" is lost forever.

The alternative is to create a space people want to come to. Yes sell food & drink. Being "good value" helps that. Being expensive fights it.

While yes, the flashy electronics is cool, do people come for that? Does it make it more fun? I just saw the ball with my own two eyes. Does an animation make it better?

What brings in a family? Work colleagues? Teenagers on a date? What brings in more competitive folks? Is there progression? What makes my friend group go once a week? Why do housewives want to hang out there at 11am? How to catch the bored teenagers at 3pm in the afternoon?

It's not even just about bowling. Can you create a space people want to come to?

Oh I agree. The US is not doing the same thing as China at all.

China is spending its money developing manufacturing of goods the world wants. It has targeted markets and the govt is spending money in those markets. The markets they have chosen have huge economic and political value.

By contrast the US has chosen to spend its (govt) money on the military. Because, you know, national security.

The US is spending just as much money as China, but focused on different areas. Your complaint (if there is one) is that China chose different markets and didn't "play the game" (as the USSR did) and base their economy on flashy weapons.

Since the collapse of the USSR in 1990 its not clear to me why US spending on military continues to grow. It's not fear of attack; there is no threat to the US itself. It has to be a desire to project power and influence.

And yet the very limitations of that goal have been exposed in 18 months. The dismantling of USAid (or more accurately the manner of the dismantling) has destroyed 75 years of goodwill. Coupled with punitive tarifs (which are paid for by US consumers) they make the US an unreliable trade partner.

Then the war in Iran showed the very real limitations of the military. To be fair they're currently being lead by incompetence, with no clear goals or strategies. But it reinforces the point that all that military money is wasted when even simple conflicts are lost. And it further drives home the limits of that power projection in unpopular conflicts. A lesson, it would seem, the US wishes to re-learn all the time.

China it seems has different ambitions, and a very different strategy. And I get why you might not like that, because maybe (just maybe) their strategy is the smarter one in the long run.

I don't know what it's like in Scandinavia, but here, as an employer, I would see it as a positive. Something you can use as a differentiator when interviewing.

Recent graduates often underestimate what really matters to employers, Stability.

Obviously I'm not expecting people to necessarily stay 40 years in the company, but it costs a lot of time effort and money to add a new person to the team. I'd like you to hang around a bit to make that worth it.

Having children makes fathers less "flighty". You're less obsessed with "building a resume" and more interested in the stability of the paycheck, stress-free working environment and so on.

Yes, you'll still leave for a better job, more pay and so on. But it'll be more calculated and less impulsive. Which gives us more opportunity to match your needs with my needs.

In other words the maturity you learn at home translates into more maturity in the office as well.

When interviewing for jobs, lean into words like maturity, responsibility, stability and so on. These things matter.

I'm not sure I agree. In the aircraft industry especially the US has strongly pushed for exports. Overseas programs (TRS2, Avro Arrow) were terminated for political reasons (and replaced with F111 etc). More recently see F35 impact.

That's before we discuss the advantage Boeing has in the commercial market thanks to DoD contracts.

Your link shows that the US exports the same as the next 20 countries added together. That suggests some market dominance.

I also suspect these numbers do not include "military aid" - where weapons and munitions are "given" by the US to Ukraine wherever[1]. (But they may, I don't know.)

I agree though that the primary benefit of this is not "sales". And even if it was these aren't consumer goods. So it's not easily compared to China's approach. I'm not suggesting it's a terribly good subsidy. But it's still a subsidy.

[1] there are a lot of political benefits to be gained by having bases in foreign countries, or by port visits by US ships. Unfortunately most of those benefits have been eroded in the last 2 years. The gutting of USAid (which saved basically nothing), leaving the WHO, the tarrif nonsense, bombing Iran - all have destroyed a benevolent reputation 75 years in the making.

Arms, weapons, fighter jets and so on. The US sounds a trillion $ a year subsidizing the military industrial complex.

The US chose their market (arms). The Chinese chose consumer goods. Go figure.

I think "why" is a good question. And frankly for 99.9% of people the answer is "no reason".

One has to differentiate between "computers as a tool" and "creating computers".

I drive a car. It's good transport. If it breaks I take it to a mechanic. If I bash it I take it to a panel beater. I don't care about engine specs. It's a tool to do a job.

100 years ago if you owned a car you also had to be a mechanic. My father built his own car. Enthusiasts will wax lyrical for hours on engine upgrades.

In the same way, when I was young, the market for computers was basically the "creatives". There wasn't much software to buy. Most (PC) computers got built from parts. You could swap out each part at a time. You set IRQs manually. Good times.

But those products didn't suit the everyman. That only happens in the late 90s. Since then most users are "consumers" not creative.

The creatives still have lots of tools to learn (more than I did). But they will never be more than a tiny tiny fraction of the population.

There definitely were machines in (larger) businesses before the personal computers of the 80s, but the scales are different.

There were around 650 000 PDP machines produced. By contrast Commodore 64 made over 12.5 million. VIC 20 another 1.5. Zx Spectrum about 5 mil. Similar for the Apple 2. IBM pc made 7.5 million by 1987. BBC Micro another couple million.

And of course yes, these were the first "home" pcs. So as I said, before this time the machines were locked away and only used for "real work". PCs were "everywhere". We had a computer club (with 2, count them 2 machines).

Of course, compared to now they were rare. But my generation entered the work-force and spent the 90s "computerising" businesses. Not the giant corporates but the millions of regular businesses. I wrote software but it was common to have to supply hardware to go with the software.

It certainly was fun being around as an entire industry was birthed. It was very dynamic, things moved quickly, and there was a lot of "keeping up".

We saw it again with web, and then mobile, but they were less exciting in many respects.