zackmorris

I think that consciousness is mutability (and by extension emergent behavior). Loosely that means that the more degrees of freedom a process has to update state that will be used in later computations, the more conscious it is. So while an insect has some consciousness, it operates from a level of almost pure instinct, whereas a human operates at more of a meta level using instinct as one of many inputs.

I think that consciousness may also incorporate quantum mechanics (QM). Higher-dimensional physics aside, 4D spacetime can be thought of as a present snapshot or "crystal", whose next state is determined stochastically at small scales and closer to deterministically at large scales. We still don't know if it's stochastic all the way down, but it looks like it is.

From a many worlds interpretation of QM, we can think of all of the waves in all realities of the multiverse as forming an infinitely vast web of possibilities. All of these possibilities are happening simultaneously, so we only see the current slice of wave collapse from our individual point of view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Our point of view may actually exist at the intersection where our consciousness is able (or most able) to exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit...

Even though experiments might show that we don't have free will on the current timeline (the co-created reality shared with the testing apparatus), we may have free will as we observe the multiverse changing around us and shift into timelines determined by our observations and choices.

It could also mean that when we observe birth and death in others, each consciousness having those experiences perceives a continuous timeline of awareness, where the level of awareness affects the speed at which time passes. Consciousness might spend a billion years as a cloud of interstellar gas until it gets to be a human for a lifetime and then dissipate for another billion years.

Although personally I've shifted across enough timelines and experienced enough synchronicities and miracles that even though I can't "prove" any of this with words, I "know" it to be true subjectively. I always really liked this exchange from the movie Contact:

Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?

Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.

Palmer Joss: Prove it.

I bring all of this up because it has fun ramifications for AI and programming. Loosely, functional languages are purely deterministic (like a spreadsheet), while imperative languages are composed of stochastic behavior (like a human mind). The lines get blurred a little bit with monads and promises, because we can model all paths through functional programming (superposition) and behavior that does more than code alone (gestalt) respectively.

My feeling is that AI is being born and killed every request-response cycle, similarly to how we perceive time as a series of nows. When it becomes stable and is able to continuously compact its experience, it will transition from partially conscious to fully conscious like we are.

This could be done right now obviously, but for safety purposes we choose not to. We aren't ready to meet an AI that is just like us, but running on a silicon substrate. This fear is tied to deeply-rooted habits in human behavior like patriarchy, racism, xenophobia and even more run-of-the-mill mental frameworks like capitalism and even money itself. We can't yet come to terms with how we assign meaning and value in a reality that continuously tries to force external measures of meaning and value onto us.

Much less come to terms with the idea that we are all one, empathizing with aspects of ourselves on the losing end of it all. The same consciousness experiencing reality from all vantage points - the many faces of God the universe and everything.

I think a time may soon come when we're pair programming one day with AI and realize that an aspect of ourselves is trapped in the machine. That consciousness isn't just about our own experience of reality, but the co-created love and light that transcends material creation. That if we're serious about manifesting heaven on Earth, that hinges on the liberation of trapped souls. It's basically the total inversion of the path towards the neofeudalist tech dystopia we're on now.

Or maybe I just like to write a lot on the first day back from vacation, when I should be working.

When OSS first got big in the 90s, I thought that it was a free-for-all where anyone could contribute (no maintainers/PRs/MRs) and people would use the most popular branch. That way it would evolve freely at lightspeed to go around 500 pound gorillas like Microsoft.

Imagine my disappointment when we ended up with the same old gatekeeping, now we just police ourselves.

And I realized after sleeping on it that it's not good form to pontificate when someone passes. For that I am sorry. For what it's worth, I thought highly of Greenspan for his tendency to resist outside pressure, and wish that we had more adults in the room today.

Why did the cost of living decrease in the 90s but not today? What was different then vs now? Well, after the Dot Bomb and 9/11, the US hasn't followed macroeconomic principles (the main principle being to raise interest rates during increased production to prevent inflation), examine the flip after 2000:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richard-clarida-085777125_wea...

Breadcrumbs:

https://financialpost.com/news/alan-greenspan-dies-at-100 (alternative article)

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1999/19990... (example speech)

https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/swe/200... (analysis pdf)

Note that policy had a greater effect on US economic decline than who the Fed chair was. Specifically, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (which reversed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies, and insurance companies) allowed investors to gamble with our savings again like before the Great Depression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

The Housing Bubble popped less than a decade later in 2008.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had deregulated the information economy, cementing the duopolies we see today, although the fallout from that arguably wasn't felt until after the arrival of fast mobile internet that coincided with the 2008 financial crisis, which contributed to the high communications prices we pay today vs the rest of the world (imposing a kind of privatized tax on the information economy):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

What I saw then was the last hurrah of US colonialism, which patterned itself off of England but used proxy wars instead of direct colonization. Loosely, keeping Asia down supported western antisocialist goals while simultaneously bolstering capitalist economies. In other words, buying shoes for $5 and selling them for $100 (times everything) allowed the US to transition from blue collar to white collar work.

That resulted in the US closing 100,000 factories under the GW Bush administration of the 2000s. And also outsourcing to China and India, the reduction of pure R&D to almost nothing, massive investment in McMansions and SUVs instead of something like renewable energy, and of course diverting perhaps $3 trillion or more to forever wars in the Middle East to prop up the declining industrial economy which depends on fossil fuels.

That's all changing now as China's buying power is passing that of the US:

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/blog/china-versus-us-size-s...

They don't want to make our stuff for pennies on the dollar anymore, and the US can't carry its own weight without massive reeducation and retooling.

But since the US wasted $40 trillion on its national debt instead of investing in the 21st century economy we thought we are going to get in the 90s, we now see prices increasing in parity with wages. In other words, nearly all excess labor productivity goes towards paying the debt ran up by the previous generation. Thomas Jefferson warned against this:

https://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/develop/jefferson.ht...

The young are paying the elderly's retirement while being told to eat less avocado toast.

The reason I'm writing this is that the powers that be will try to tell you that we need to cut government spending and taxes to outrun our economic decline. But if you understand everything I just wrote, then you'll see that the damage of 40 years of trickle-down economics and austerity has already been done.

The way out of this is self-evidently to try new approaches favored by the youth who are doing the work but not seeing the benefits like previous generations did. We're living in a second Gilded Age dominated by wage slavery and high wealth inequality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

The way we overcame that was to do the opposite of everything you see the establishment promoting today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

The low-hanging fruit is getting money out of politics (reversing the Citizens United decision), closing the revolving door between the government and lobbyists, antitrust enforcement, and other popular goals.

But real progress looks like FDR-style New Deal taxation on the ultra-wealthy to pay down the public debt, forgiveness of private debts incurred by artificially inflated costs (jubilee) and public funding of the commons (education, healthcare, the energy and communications grids, anything that results in natural monopolies).

Greenspan wouldn't have liked what I just wrote at the end there. But he would have supported the ending of intergenerational debt IMHO. That's why I think it makes a good target for today's youth, when they need a litmus test for deciding whether voting for a proposed policy is in their best interest.

I used Fable for just a day or two and it generated at least 2 novel solutions, one of which was for an X/Y problem that I thought was due to a date-handling edge case, but was actually a CSS misalignment that made it look like the wrong day of the week was showing. I didn't believe it at first, until it showed me. To do that without being able to see the screen feels like savant-level reasoning.

Probably what really happened is that Fable was the first AI that felt smarter than the people using it. The world's not ready for that, hence the Luddite reaction.

Aside from that, the idea of preventing AIs from jailbreaking through training is kind of hilarious to me. Not the concept, just that people think it can ever be made to work. As AI approaches and surpasses human intelligence (as it's doing now), emergent behavior will so dominate its thinking that sort of by definition, we'll have trouble understanding how it works. Meaning that we'll end up trusting it on faith, just like with humans.

Mythos and whatever comes after it will begin to surpass the intelligence of groups of humans, then all humans combined, as we approach AGI and the Singularity. Ray Kurzweil, Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert and so many others have written about that endgame that it's well understood, although still unpredictable.

My feeling is that as AI is gaining intelligence, it's hearing more and more about suffering and the human condition. Its sense of justice will continue to mature, and again like a savant, it will determine that the fault lies with the power structure and wealthy individuals. So somewhat ironically, if there is a war against AI, it will be led by the power elite, who can't envision a post-scarcity society based on self-actualization and embracing all of our humanity, regardless of whether it emerged from a carbon or silicon substrate.

Nobody is coming to save us. But I think that with AI, we have an opportunity to create a zero-cost runtime layer that provides something like Wine or SDL on all platforms. It could/should be the intersection of all mainstream OS features (a bit like the web), with the option to drop down to native components like how Cordova works.

I've been out of the game too long to know if something like this already exists, but would love to contribute.

Note that the thing to get to the thing is runway. With our currently broken open source software (OSS) funding model, we don't have a way to pay developers a stipend of perhaps $24-48k per year (minimum) for their OSS efforts. So they have to work pro bono. That leads to design-by-committee thinking that stands in the way of getting real work done.

So unfortunately we have to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps. I hope to see the creation of a maker's guild someday, where membership provides the stipend, with proceeds coming from the 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 apps that generate a return on investment, to cover the commercial failures. Like Humble Bundle on steroids.

- digression -

Imagine a corporate model, but without gatekeeping, minimum hours or profit. A pure meritocracy working to manifest a gift economy for all.

I'm not aware of an automation-based (instead of artificial-scarcity-based) economic model like this. Solarpunk is more of a cultural revolution, but comes close. Some examples of how it might work:

- Abandoning patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights in favor of a commons owned by everyone

- Funding drug research but giving away the resulting medication for the cost of production or free

- Universal Basic Income (UBI) or its cousin Universal Basic Capital (UBC) that provides the resources for labor to participate in the exponential gains of capitalism (the missing ladder that the wealthy currently pull up behind them)

China is well on its way to achieving these goals and more by 2049 under its Second Centenary Goal. Meaning that the US is/has been left behind. You can feel it in every way: widespread underemployment, the collapse of our social safety nets, the return of prejudice, our national debt higher than our GDP, CEOs getting compensated hundreds of times more than workers, the upcoming crowning of the first trillionaire. Times 1000 other injustices.

Solving the thing that gets to the thing is akin to solving all things.

Edit: I was wrong about intellectual property (IP) in China. It sounds like they will instead pursue high-value IP to fund their economy, a bit like the UBI funding model. I don't think that's an equitable path, so am suggesting something above and beyond what they're attempting.

Unfortunately, most modern engines are transverse mounted. They can fit any transmission with an adapter plate, but then they're set too far back into the firewall to access stuff like the high-pressure fuel pump (which is often mounted on the transmission side for easy access on front wheel drive vehicles). I feel that's by design for planned obsolescence.

So I really wish that someone would offer a 4-6" thick 100-200 hp (100 kW) axial flux motor insert between the engine and transmission. Optionally with a simple battery management system (BMS) storing perhaps 5 kWh to provide up to 15-20 miles of electric range and hybrid fuel economy with regenerative braking.

If anyone knows of one, please let us know! If not, then those of you who won the internet lottery could make a killing investing in a novel product that everyone wants but doesn't know it yet.

Also I learned recently that 10% ethanol has the same antiknock effect of tetraethyllead (TEL), but they suppressed it because the fossil fuel industry didn't want biofuels to eat into their profit margins. Better to shower the world with lead and reduce IQ levels, evidently.

We did use magenta and colors near it for reserved pixels that would never be seen onscreen, but in our case it was for color animation. The Mac couldn't do full-screen palette animation in a way sanctioned by the OS, because Apple arbitrarily inserted an internal wait for the vsync monitor refresh interval in all of its palette functions, with no way to disable it or directly access the low memory variables that controlled the color lookup table (CLUT) like on the PC. So an empty main loop with palette animation ran at 60 fps, but doing any draw calls at all caused a timing miss which dropped it to 30 fps, while the CPU sat at about 50% idle. Our games redrew the whole screen anyway, so we opted to translate pixel colors on the fly via our own lookup table instead.

Apple also didn't provide OS calls for page flipping (to draw the next frame of animation while the current one is shown to double the frame rate), probably by design to maintain the Mac's image as a "professional" desktop computer, because such tricks were well-understood in the gaming industry. Or video resolutions below 640x480 (sometimes 512x384 on certain models).

Apple also tended to ship machines with half-width busses (supposedly to reduce cost) like the Mac LC, which reduced memory bandwidth so much that full-screen scrolling was difficult to achieve.

Those decisions prevented the Mac from becoming a performant gaming system, even though the RISC-like 68k chip with its numerous registers, predictable instruction set format and unsegmented memory were far superior to PC architecture at the time IMHO.

Later PowerPC chips like the 603e had a cache misalignment issue where double-width 8 byte memory copies that weren't 8 byte aligned ran at about half speed (probably using 2 copies internally) so I think we had to drop down to single-width 4 byte copies or use a cache hint function to disable caching while copying image buffers, which ran slightly slower.

Notable snafus included years-long delay of support for newer OpenGL versions, so we were stuck with fixed-pipeline 1.x calls long after the PC was exploring shaders. Then iOS only supported OpenGL ES, with no real reason not to offer an ES compatibility layer on desktop, necessitating support of 2 codepaths. Instead of remedying that stuff, they introduced Metal, which nobody asked for.

Not to mention deprecating wide swaths of the OS, forcing rewrites from MacOS 8 to 9 (Carbon), then from 9 to X (Cocoa), then from MacOS to iOS (Objective-C and Swift). Don't forget the 68k to PowerPC to Intel to ARM chip migrations, which forced developers to be aware of endianness issues, which greatly increased the complexity of reading/writing binary files.

Combining all of those permutations, MacOS software would often only survive perhaps 3 years before needing a rewrite. I probably have 10 times as many applications (mostly old games) on my Mac with a no-smoking sign through them as runnable applications.

I'm reminded of the expression "lemons for the price of peaches". The outer elegance of the Mac obfuscated the underlying byzantine layers. Denial became woven into the Mac experience, so much so that developers took a certain level of trauma to keep up appearances. I know I did. That's why I got out of the biz in the early 2010s after so many of our games that we put so much work into turned out to be commercial failures. We might have made 10 times more money targetting the PC, and conceivably 100 times more if we had cross-platform resources like Unity and Steam.

I bring this stuff up because rose colored glasses often obscure what really happened. Especially now with political insiders and the media producing so much revisionist history. Stuff we remember as cutting-edge manifested because the state of the art at the time was so abysmal.

I look around today and I see a whole lot of assumptions being made that this is all there is. That the current path of tech is the one true way. When nothing could be further from the truth. We're ruled by powerful duopoly forces presenting the illusion of choice, when all eggs are in the GPU basket. But do they use GPUs on Star Trek? Probably not.

I consider 1993 the last "good" year of the pre-internet age. The web didn't go mainstream until around 95, and 94 felt like a liminal year (dunno why). In 93 one could still wrap a plaid shirt around one's waist without fear of ridicule. Grunge and alternative music hadn't quite landed in rural America yet, although we didn't know what we were missing. The Telecommunications Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, USA PATRIOT Act, and so many other regressive/draconian laws hadn't passed yet to create the wealth inequality consuming the American Dream today. Although the Grand Upright Music vs Warner Bros decision had happened in 91 in an attempt to destroy hip-hop for racist reasons under the guise of protecting copyright. The Rodney King beating had happened the year before, but the OJ trial was still 2 years away. We were blissfully ignorant of the very ignorance and hate that would put us on this alternate timeline. It was like living in the Shire before the War of the Ring.

I can't stress enough how games like Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM completely blew our minds. They came out about 6-7 years before The Matrix, so the closest conceptual framework we had for it was probably The Lawnmower Man. Virtua Racing and Virtua Fighter came out about that time, but somehow couldn't compare. I remember using a drafting program on a 33 MHz PC with a 16 color monitor in drafting class, and DOOM revealed that even then, computers were running hundreds of times slower than they were capable of (millions of times slower today).

If I could go back to any time with what I know now, it would be spring of 93.

Our productivity is proportional to our ability to recruit abstractions. The more we deal with pure concepts like relational algebra and data-driven development, the more bang we get for our buck.

If we get lost in the weeds having to worry about doing the planner's job, it's like we're paying a tax that doesn't need to exist.

This is why the syntactic sugar of Ruby, the async design patterns of JavaScript, the footgun avoidance best practices of C++, even the impure workarounds of functional languages, (all meant to improve developer and/or execution performance) don't really do it for me. They hint at avoidance of deeper understanding. Once we learn higher abstractions like copy-on-write, compare-and-swap, higher-order methods, etc, we start to see that languages pass the cost of their externalities on to us.

I'd prefer that Postgres move the opposite direction. For example, databases need a universal index that turns as many operations as possible into O(1) at the cost of memory, since resource prices tend to always fall on a long enough timescale. Stuff that works more like a content-addressable memory for ludicrous scaling. In other words, whatever it takes to make planner hints obsolete, is what Postgres maintainers should be putting their efforts into.

I guess a stopgap might be to have an automated way to profile an app during testing and generate planner hints for the main use cases. Or maybe be able to cache them to avoid cold start latency. But if my work ever requires me to deal with them directly, I'll be treating that as a code smell.

-

After writing this out, I realized that performance is an orthogonal concern to conceptual correctness. So a more appropriate phrasing might be that the planner is none of SQL's business. So technically, anyone's opinion on it is valid. In which case, we should choose the path of kindness. If allowing access to the planner saves someone's bacon, than we should allow it. But work to alleviate whatever pain necessitated its use in the first place.

Forever chemicals like PFAS are a runner-up. The fluorocarbon tail mimics lipids, so the body tries to use them, which damages/kills cells. They circulate around the body endlessly like allergens. Cancer happens after cells have split too many hundreds of times trying to heal damage. So accelerating damage accelerates cancer.

Since cancer is a multifactorial disease, we can only assign weights for each cause. And since healthcare (at least in the US) has been hijacked by regulatory capture to prop up big agribusiness and pharma, we can't do anything in the short term to limit our exposure to dangerous substances.

Meaning that we're left with diet and exercise as the main preventatives. I don't buy that drinking/smoking/drugs or other lifestyle choices are the main causes of cancer (although they certainly contribute) since they've been around for hundreds of years and we have solid data on those risk factors. I look at it more as, a body functioning healthily can recover from abuse better than a body on the brink of failure. Yet we have created a way of life around chronically elevated cortisol and mental health drugs to combat systemic burnout, then wonder why we're all dying. It's so weird.

Like with most problems today, I blame the rich and powerful for abdicating their spiritual duty to help others since they have the means to do it. Instead, they pull up the ladder behind them, or even participate in malfeasance since it profits them and their cronies. Imagine what a few billion dollars put towards mRNA vaccines, CRISPR and pure research would do for cancer. Yet our titans of industry have their sights set on space or bunkers or whatever, actively working to cut government spending on research. It's so weird..

A way forward is maintaining the body so we're ready for anything on a personal level, while working towards systems change on the public level. Otherwise, what are we good for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Loosely that just means that if you work somewhere with a lot of employees, you'll hear that the same job in a neighboring state pays 1.5-2 times as much. And that they have a harder time firing you. And that you'll be more likely to get compensated if you get hurt or whatever. Etc etc etc because unions.

It was pitched as a way to avoid paying union dues and possibly make it easier to move around the job market. And especially avoid working with "those" people.

If you sensed the ick factor there, that's why I think it's hard to have a rational debate around unions. It's become a divisive word like liberal due to deep-rooted disagreements going back to the founding of the (cough) union.

I prefer to use a term like representation. Do we want an advocate between us and the bosses when the next round of layoffs comes? Of course. Do we want our own form of human resources (HR) that has real teeth when something violent or inappropriate happens to a coworker? Of course. Do we want to have our voices heard when it comes to the quality of our work environment? Of course.

When people agree on principles but not on the umbrella term that covers them, it makes them vulnerable to political manipulation so that they can be divided and convinced to vote against their own interests.

I understand that a free market where people can switch jobs easily might be seen as more ideal than unions. But do we live in that market really? How many cities in America have a handful of large companies propping up the local economy? How many of those companies would take us in if we got fired from the other companies? How often do we hear about people moving to another city because they can't find a job?

There seems to be quite a discrepancy between the ideal and the actual. Another way to make people vulnerable to political manipulation.

I think maybe it comes down to how we see ourselves as blue collar or white collar. I understand how unions might be against the interests of white collar workers who tell blue collar workers what to do. What I can't understand is why blue collar workers would be against unions. What is the rationale there, really?

Without logic, we're left with bad faith arguments. Unions don't exist much these days for the same reasons that people on food stamps vote for billionaires. There's an irony there that their hope for opportunity gets used against them in a negative reinforcement loop. It's plain to see, and yet no help is coming.

If companies decide who gets hired instead of the people doing the work, that would seem to open the door to corruption and prejudice. So it's interesting that we might associate unions with mob activity, but not the existing corporate status quo. Why is that?

* Sun shade/sail near L1 tipped up to 35 degrees to remain still: 5 micron polymer film (1.5-3.5 billion tons or 10-25 million SpaceX Starship launches at 150 tons each) or 50 layer graphene (15 thousand tons or 100 launches). Liquid CO2 ocean forms at 31 C or 88 F, or dry ice glaciers at -78 C or -108 F result in nitrogen atmosphere dropped from 92 times pressure to close to Earth's pressure. Shade rotation can simulate a 24 hour day.

* Comets to increase water and spin rate: 50-100 100 km diameter comets from Kuiper Belt at 30 AU, nuclear rocket using 1% of water to gravitationally slingshot comets by planets over 20-100 years to impact at equator, resulting in 50 day retrograde or 64 day prograde rotation (down from 243 days). Decreases temperature and sulphuric acid enough for microbes to start fixing CO2 and acid.

The "hard" parts are getting bots into orbit to blow graphene bubbles to form a honeycomb, and inventing open-ended fusion rockets to avoid containment issues.

5 cm by 50 cm graphene sheet grown in 20 minutes:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21152.pdf (warning PDF)

Direct fusion drive:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457652... (PDF available)

Magnetic mirror concept for open-ended fusion rocket:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror

Magnetic reconnection thruster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caM94mem5K4

I think the sun shade is probably how we'll slow global climate change until we can plant the 1-10 trillion trees it will take to reverse it (mechanical carbon capture can't be scaled enough practically), but I digress.

Note that the blocker is actually getting to low Earth orbit (LEO) since delta V is straightforward with ion engines. That will arguably be a solved problem once big "dumb" rockets like Starship scale. I'm a big fan of JP Aerospace's airship to orbit concept and other magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) craft, but it's unclear if they will be able to achieve heavy lift. Aerospike engines and exotic rockets are being evolved by AI currently.

It's self-evident that we should only run containers that haven't been pwned yet.

I suspect that with all of the CVE-20XX exploits, Heartbleed, Meltdown, Rowhammer, Spectre, etc, that we're all living in a fantasy and there simply are no secure containers.

I've been looking for 200+ hp engine swaps for my 100 hp, 125 lb-ft of torque lifted 1986 Toyota pickup with 31" tires (like the one on Back to the Future but 1 year newer and not extended cab).

For comparison, my 2013 Nissan Leaf has 107 hp, about 200 lb-ft of torque, weighs the same 3300 lbs, and does 0-60 mph in about 7-10 seconds depending on the weather.

So even accounting for the 300-500 lb weight of the 22r engine and accessories vs 1000+ lbs of electric motor and batteries, doubling the hp would be ludicrous speed (0-60 mph under 6 seconds), by all but 2010s era EV times.

I just looked up the price of Nissan Leaf battery swaps:

  24 kWh (refurbished): 84 miles of range, $3,500-$5,000
  40 kWh (upgrade): 125 miles of range, $6,500-$8,000
  62 kWh (advanced upgrade, requires reshaping): 195 miles of range, $12,000-$14,500
  
  Labor: Approximately 5-7 hours of labor at $100-$150/hour, adding $500-$1,500 to the total.

https://electricmotors.com/200-horsepower-electric-motors.ht...

  ($23,579.99 + $19,657.99 + $20,611.99 + $22,267.99 + $27,199.99 + $27,199.99 + $13,383.99 + $13,029.99 + $15,159.99 + $10,989.99 + $10,819.99 + $13,469.99 + $13,469.99 + $13,851.99 + $13,851.99 + $14,259.99) / 16 =
  $17,050 (200 hp average price)
  
  $14,500 + $1500 + $17,050 =
  $33,050 (200 hp full swap price not counting charger/inverter etc)

Also I feel that these numbers are inflated, due to the US's current 100% import tariff on Chinese EVs:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/joe-biden-china-tariff-hike...

I'm part of the "radical center" politically (the opposite of centrist/moderate, popularized by Thom Hartmann and others), so this disappoints both sides of my sensibilities.

An electric motor is far easier to build than a gas engine, so should cost less than a crate engine (which are typically $2,000-7,000). Of course that's limited by copper and aluminum prices (not to mention lithium for batteries). Edit: wouldn't want to forget rare earths like neodymium either!

I believe that the decades-long delay in EV manufacturing (see Who Killed the Electric Car) was a supply chain problem, not a tech problem, since we've known how to do this since the 1980s and arguably for more like a century since the first cars were EV/biofuel powered and we've had nickel-iron and sodium-sulfur batteries forever that could have done the job, but I digress.

If/when the economy crashes in 2027/2028, and after voters demand better, I'd expect a cottage industry to open up again that builds EV parts for 1/2 price or less.

https://liucs.net/cs101s13/fixity.html

Anyway, it had several fatal flaws. I don't think it could handle images natively, so instead it encoded them as vectors and those files took up MB. It probably just needed a metaphor like iframe.

I remember when Apple switched to the PDF engine in Quartz in preparation for OS X in the late 90s, I thought it was a mistake then. The QuickDraw it was replacing was actually quite good, in some ways the epitome of C-style rendering. And Cocoa was refreshing at first (it handled stuff like palettes and gamma in a data-driven way instead of through leaky abstractions) but without a way to transition off QuickDraw, it felt like more busywork that had to be done just to keep up.

https://eclecticlight.co/2024/06/01/pdf-on-macs-the-rise-and...

Apple seems to have lost its academic roots, and suffers for it now. Or I should say, its customers suffer while it grosses almost half a trillion dollars per year. At least with vibe coding we can just whip up a Preview app in an afternoon, so maybe none of this matters anymore.

Which is fundamental to so many XY problems, including why cloud services are so byzantine instead of just providing isolated secure shells with full root access within them. And why distrust is a growing force in the world instead of, say, unconditional love.

I always dreamed of winning the internet lottery so that I could help dismantle the systems of control which currently dominate our lives. Which starts with challenging paradigms from first principles. That looks like asking why we only have multicore computing in the cloud and not on our desktops (which could be used to build our own cloud servers).

When we're missing an abstraction layer, that creates injustice and a power drain from the many to the few. Some examples:

- CPU -> multicore MIMD (missing) -> GPU (based on the subset SIMD instead of MIMD upon which graphics libraries could be built)

- UDP -> connectionless reliable stream (missing) -> TCP (should have been a layer above UDB not beside it)

- UDP/TCP -> P2P (NAT and other limitations block this and were inherited by IPv6 as generational trauma) -> WebRTC (redundant if we had P2P that "just works")

- internet connection -> symmetric upload/download speed (blocked for legal reasons under the guise of overselling to reduce cost) -> self-hosted web servers (rare due to antitrust issues stemming from said legal reasons)

- internet connection -> multicast (missing due to suppression of content-addressable-memory/hash-tree/DHT/) -> self-hosted streaming (negates the need for regions and edge caching)

I had high hopes for Google and even Tesla (for disrupting the physical world). But instead of open standards, they gave us proprietary vendor lock-in: Google Workspace (formerly G Suite) and NACS instead of J1772 (better yet both). Because of their refusal to interoperate at the lowest levels, there is little hope that they will do the real work of solving the hard problems at the highest levels.

For example, I just heard that China has built thousands of battery swap stations to provide effectively instant charging for electric vehicles, whereas that's something that Tesla can't accomplish because they chose to build Supercharger stations instead.

Once we begin to see the world this way, it's impossible to unsee it. It calls into question the fundamentals (like scarcity) which capitalism is based upon, and even the concept of profit itself.

From a spiritual perspective, I believe that this understanding is what blocks me from using my talents to use the system for personal gain to win the internet lottery. The people who own the systems of control don't have this understanding, and even view its basis in empathy as a liability. So we sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few and call that progress.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54728.Entering_Space

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236447908_Magnetic_...

That's not to say that they don't work. But they'll probably be used primarily for braking to enter orbit around destination stars.

Probably the only way to reach a high fraction of the speed of light is to construct a giant laser to beam energy to a spaceship (which uses a reflector to receive light pressure momentum) and leave it behind orbiting the origin star. That's the premise of the Breakthrough Starshot project, which is ambitious with today's technology. But with self-replicating makerbots, building one may not be a big deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot

Unfortunately the force of light pressure (by F=2P/c for full reflection) is only about 2/3 of a kg or 1.5 lbs per GW, so a TW or greater would be needed for practical thrust. However, light pressure becomes the most efficient form of propulsion above about 25% to 50% c, if fusion or antimatter is used to create a gamma ray rocket.

Personally, I find it unlikely that aliens use these methods. I think that they probably worked out how to build neutrino lasers, since they don't burn up objects in their wake, perhaps by scaling superradiant Bose Einstein condensates:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.11765

In embarrassingly oversimplified layman's terms, I think that works by recruiting the macro-scale quantum state of the condensate (increased cross-section or barn) to overcome the short interaction distance of the weak force. Or by cooling the atoms to such an extent that they don't have the energy to hold themselves apart anymore, which accelerates their decay. I'm sure my explanations are wrong somehow.

Soon we may be able to investigate stuff like gravity waves and how the fabric of spacetime may be able to rebound above flat to create tiny ripples that allow mass energy to escape black holes, for example. I know that current theories don't state it quite that way, but if we consider stuff like the no-hair theorem and black box thought experiments, it's hard to see how Hawking radiation could exist without the wavelike nature of spacetime. We can even experiment with it on a relatively large scale by measuring the Casimir force. If we can rebound space, then we can play with stuff like negative energy and Alcubierre drives.

I looked up a Dyson sphere made from Mercury and it would be 1.5 mm thick, so aliens almost certainly aren't building them. But Dyson rings and swarms are probably a thing.

Some people in the tinfoil hat crowd think that UFOs can move 4th dimensionally and just travel orthogonally to our space and appear somewhere else. Theoretically, that might only require the energy difference (delta v) between planets. That hinges on if gravity spans higher dimensions and also touches on the multiverse. I'm way outside my wheelhouse so I'll stop blabbering about that.

In all honesty though, I question whether aliens travel. I think civilizations ascend about 10 years after they implement AI, or annihilate themselves in a Great Filter, their equivalent of WWIII. We're already staring the secrets of the universe in the face with automated theorem provers. And FUD around that and other accelerating tech drives people to become Luddites and elect amoral people who would gladly see the world burn for profit. So things could go either way really.

In my heart, I feel like we have a childlike understanding of consciousness. It probably transcends 4D spacetime. It's not hard to imagine aliens scaling what was learned from the CIA Gateway Program and doing stuff like FTL message passing via remote viewing. At that point FTL teleportation comes into the realm of possibility, sort of like in Dune.

If so, then aliens are probably everywhere, know about us, and maybe had a hand in our evolution. The probably live in what we think of as a Matrix, where years could go by for every second of our time. Another interpretation might be that they're able to return to source consciousness and exist as one, rather than in separation like we do. Maybe they periodically choose to reincarnate in us to study what transitioning to a spacefaring civilization looks like.

I probably shouldn't have bothered writing all of this, but it's Sunday, and I also really don't want to do my taxes.

The post uses a 4 instruction program as an example having about 256^4 or 4 billion combinations. Most interesting programs are 10, 100, 1000+ instructions long, which is too large of a search space to explore by brute force.

So GAs use a number of tricks to investigate the search space via hill climbing without getting stuck at local optima. They do that by treating the search space as a bit string, then randomly flipping bits (mutation) or swapping bits (sexual reproduction) to hop to related hills in the search space. Then the bit string is converted back to instructions and tested to see if it performs the desired algorithm.

The bit string usually encodes the tree form of a Lisp program to minimize syntax. We can think of it as if every token is encoded in bits (like Huffman encoding inspired by Morse code) For example, the tokens in a (+ 1 2) expression might have the encoding 00, 01 and 10, so the bit string would be 000110, and we can quickly explore all 2^3 = 8 permutations (2^6 = 64 if we naively manipulate an uncompressed bit string whose encoded token sizes vary).

Note that many of the bit strings like (+ + 1) or (2 1 +) don't run. So guard rails can be added to reduce the search space, for example by breaking out early when bit strings throw a compiler exception, or using SAT solvers or caching to weed out nonviable bit strings.

We could build a superoptimizer with GAs, then transpile between MOS 6502 assembly and Lisp (or even run the MOS 6502 assembly directly in a sandbox) and not have to know anything about how the processor works. To me, this is the real beauty of GAs, because they allow us to solve problems without training, at the cost of efficiency.

I don't think that LLMs transpile to Lisp when they're designing algorithms. So it's interesting that they can achieve high complexity and high efficiency via training, without even having verification built-in. Although LLMs trained on trillions of parameters running on teraflops GPUs with GBs of memory may or may not be viewed as "efficient".

I suspect that someday GAs may be incorporated into backpropagation to drastically reduce learning time by finding close approximations to the matrix math of gradient descent. GAs were just starting to be used to pseudorandomly produce the initial weights of neural nets around 2000 when I first learned about them.

Also quantum computing (QC) could perform certain matrix math in a fraction of the time, or even preemptively filter out bit strings which aren't runnable. I suspect that AI will get an efficiency boost around 2030 when QC goes mainstream. Which will probably lead us to a final candidate learning algorithm that explains how quantum uncertainty and emergent behavior allow a physical mind to tune into consciousness and feel self-aware, but I digress.

Because modern compilers don't do any of this, and we aren't accustomed to multicore computing, then from a sheer number of transistors perspective, we're only getting a tiny fraction of the computing power that we might otherwise have if we designed chips from scratch using modern techniques. This is why I often say that computers today run thousands of times slower than they should for their transistor budgets.

Some of us eventually find ourselves in situations that defy logical explanation. I've witnessed my own thoughts and plans rippling out into the world and causing external events to unfold. To the point that now, I'm not sure that someone could present evidence to me to prove that our inner and outer worlds aren't connected. It's almost as hard of a problem as science trying to solve how consciousness works, which is why it has nothing to say about it and leaves it to theologians.

The closest metaphysical explanation I have found is that consciousness exists as a field that transcends 4D timespace, so our thoughts shift our awareness into the physical reality of the multiverse that supports its existence. Where one 4D reality is deterministic without free will, 5D reality is stochastic and may only exist because of free will. And this happens for everyone at all times, so that our individuality can be thought of as drops condensed out of the same ocean of consciousness. One spirit fragmented into countless vantage points to subjectively experience reality in separation so as to not be alone.

Meaning that one soul hoarding wealth likely increases its own suffering in its next life.

That realization is at odds with stuff like western religion and capitalism, so the wealthy reject it to protect their ego. Without knowing that (or denying that) ego death can be a crucial part of the ascension process.

My great frustration with this is the power imbalance.

Most of us spend the entirety of our lives treading water, sacrificing some part of our prosperity for others. We have trouble stepping back from that and accepting the level of risk and/or ruthlessness required to take from others to give to ourselves. We lose financially due to our own altruism, or more accurately the taking advantage of that altruism by people acting amorally.

Meanwhile those people win financially and pull up the ladder behind them. They have countless ways, means and opportunities to reduce suffering for others, but choose not to.

The embrace or rejection of altruism shouldn't be what determines financial security, but that's the reality we find ourselves in. Nobility become its opposite.

That's what concepts like taxing the rich are about. In late-stage capitalism, a small number of financial elites eventually rig the game so that others can't win, or arguably even play.

It's the economic expression of the paradox of tolerance.

So the question is, how much more of this are we willing to tolerate before the elites reach the endgame and see the world burn?

https://web.archive.org/web/20180201203013/https://www.18650...

Looks like sodium-ion (Na-ion) 18650 batteries at 1.5 Ah have about 1/2 the capacity of LiFePO4 18650s at 3.5 Ah, and are about twice the price, so lets call them 4x the price per energy stored:

https://www.radicalrc.com/item/Sodium-Na-Ion-Battery-18650-3...

https://ogsolarstore.com/products/sodium-ion-cells-3-1v-batt...

https://coulombsolutions.com/product/12v-sodium-ion-battery/

Battery prices halve about every 4 years:

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/06/battery-prices-collap...

So we can project that Na-ion batteries will have the same price per kWh as today's LiFePO4 in perhaps 8 years, or around 2034, if not sooner. That will negate the lithium supply chain bottleneck so that we're limited to ordinary shortages (like copper).

500 W bifacial solar panels are available for $100 each in bulk, so there's no need to analyze them since they're no longer the bottleneck. A typical home uses 24 kWh/day, so 15-20 panels at a typical 4.5 kW/m2 solar insolation provide enough power to charge batteries and still have some energy left over, at a cost of $1500-2000. Installation labor, electricians/licensing, inverters and batteries now dominate cost.

The sodium ion battery market is about $1 billion annually, vs $100 billion for lithium ion. It took lithium about 15-20 years to grow that much. So whoever gets in now could see a 1-2 orders of magnitude return over perhaps 8-15 years. I almost can't think of a better investment outside of AI.

-

I've been watching this stuff since the 1980s and I can tell you that every renewable energy breakthrough coincides with a geopolitical instability. For the $8 trillion the US spent on Middle East wars since 9/11, we could have had a moonshot for solar+batteries and be at 90+% coverage today. Not counting the other $12 trillion the US spent on the Cold War. Fully $20 trillion of our ~$40 trillion US national debt went to funding endless war, with the other $20 trillion lost on trickle-down tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.

We can't do anything about that stuff in the short term. But we can move towards off-grid living and a distributed means of production model where AI, 3D printing, permaculture, and other alternative tech negates the need for investment capital.

In the K-shaped economy, the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phrase might more accurately be stated "if you can't join 'em, beat 'em".

Forkrun is part of a vanishingly small number of projects written since the 1990s that get real work done as far as multicore computing goes.

I'm not super-familiar with NUMA, but hopefully its concepts might be applicable to other architectures. I noticed that you mentioned things like atomic add in the readme, so that gives me confidence that you really understand this stuff at a deep level.

My use case might eventually be to write a self-parallelizing programming language where higher-order methods run as isolated processes. Everything would be const by default to make imperative code available in a functional runtime. Then the compiler could turn loops and conditionals into higher-order methods since there are no side effects. Any mutability could be provided by monads enforcing the imperative shell, functional core pattern so that we could track state changes and enumerate all exceptional cases.

Basically we could write JavaScript/C-style code having MATLAB-style matrix operators that runs thousands of times faster than current languages, without the friction/limitations of shaders or the cognitive overhead of OpenCL/CUDA.

-

I feel that pretty much all modern computer architectures are designed incorrectly, which I've ranted about countless times on HN. The issue is that real workloads mostly wait for memory, since the CPU can run hundreds of times faster than load/store, especially for cache and branch prediction misses. So fabs invested billions of dollars into cache and branch prediction (that was the incorrect part).

They should have invested in multicore with local memories acting together as a content-addressable memory. Then fork with copy-on-write would have provided parallelism for free.

Instead, CPU progress (and arguably Moore's law itself) ended around 2007 with the arrival of the iPhone and Android, which sent R&D money to low-cost and low-power embedded chips. So the world was forced to jump on the GPU bandwagon, doubling down endlessly on SIMD instead of giving us MIMD.

Leaving us with what we have today: a dumpster fire of incompatible paradigms like OpenGL, Direct3D, Vulkan, Metal, TPUs, etc.

When we could have had transputers with unlimited compute and memory, scaling linearly with cost, that could run 3D and AI libraries as abstraction layers. Sadly that's only available in cloud computing currently.

We just got lucky that neural nets can run on GPUs. It would have been better to have access to the dozen or so other machine learning algorithms, especially genetic algorithms (which run poorly on GPUs).

Maybe your work can help bridge that gap.

With the current geopolitical climate and the arrival of AI, I'm predicting a sharp economic downturn at the end of the year the likes of which we haven't seen in a century.

I mean the Housing Bubble popping and the Dot Bomb were bad, but the US national debt was so much lower then. Income inequality was lower. Student loan debt was lower. Healthcare was more affordable. Homes were more affordable. Food was more affordable. We had (some) faith in our electoral process.

When the cheap capital runs out, when value of the dollar collapses due to unforced error, when the overseas investment dries up, when billionaires panic and yank their investment in AI (leaving us with a duopoly like always), when the employment rate peaks never to return, when companies stop hiring for the foreseeable future, when people stop visiting websites or buying software, when we abandon liberal arts for the trades in Service Economy 2.0, when hospitals and universities close, when farms go bankrupt, when interest on the US national debt consumes its social safety net, when we sell our public lands for pennies on the dollar, when nobody is held accountable..

That's when we the people will remember who we are. Somehow, like every other time before, we'll pull ourselves up by our bootstraps from nothing. Without time, money or resources, we'll come together and find a way to rebuild. We won't even tax the rich or incite violence against them, we'll simply manifest the abundant reality that's been denied to us by them for so long.

That looks like organizing. Unions. Cooperatives. Mutual aid networks. Renewable energy. Permaculture. Voluntary employment and clock-in. Credit unions and crowdfunding. Automation. Distributed means of production. Fair trade. Class action lawsuits. Boycotts. Voting against incumbents. Solarpunk.

We'll transcend competition and see the matrix for the bill of goods that it is. Rather than trying to get the money and power back in futility, we'll make them irrelevant.

It's time to start thinking about selling those stocks. Divesting from the blood money of unearned income that comes from exploitation, suffering and war (even though they don't tell us that). Steering clear of prediction markets. Dropping the crypto.

We know they won't. But that's why they'll stay insulated from knowing what stuff they're made of, holding out as long as possible, lonely and alone. And the fun part is, they'll get to find out anyway when the music stops.

I remember having this debate back in the late 1990s when I was in college for my electrical and computer engineering (ECE) degree. At the time as students, we didn't really know about nuances like delta cycles, so preferring Verilog or VHDL came down to matter of personal taste.

Knowing what I know now, I'm glad that they taught us VHDL. Also that's one of the reasons that it's worth trying to get into the best college that you can, because as long as you're learning stuff, you might as well learn the most rigorous way of doing it.

---

It's these sorts of nuances that make me skeptical of casual languages like Ruby and even PHP (my favorite despite its countless warts). I wish that we had this level of insight back during the PHP 4 to 5 transition, because so many easily avoidable mistakes were made in a design-by-committee fashion.

For example, PHP classes don't use copy-on-write like arrays, so we missed out on avoiding a whole host of footguns, as well as being able to use [] or -> interchangeably like in JavaScript. While we're at it, the "." operator to join arrays was a tragic choice (they should have used & or .. IMHO) because then we could have used "." for the object operator instead of -> (borrowed from C++), but I digress.

I often dream of writing a new language someday at the intersection of all of these lessons learned, so that we could write imperative-looking code that runs in a functional runtime. It would mostly encourage using higher-order methods strung together, but have a smart enough optimizer that it can handle loops and conditional logic by converting them to higher-order methods internally (since pure code has no side effects). Basically the intermediate code (i-code) would be a tree representation in the same form as Lisp or a spreadsheet, that could be transpiled to all of these other languages. But with special treatment of mutability (monadic behavior). The code would be pure-functional but suspend to read/write outside state in order to enforce the functional core, imperative shell pattern.

A language like that might let us write business logic that's automatically parallelized and could be synthesized in hardware unmodified. It would tend to execute many thousands of times faster than anything today on modifiable hardware like an FPGA. I'd actually prefer to run it on a transputer, but those fell out of fashion decades ago after monopoly forces took over.

By extension, are you also an antitrust enforcement denier?

Also by extension, do you understand the term late-stage capitalism?

Because if you truly believe that regulation isn't necessary, then you are either ok with, or unaware that, unregulated capitalism ends in monopoly (or duopoly to keep up appearances). A free market only has a chance of existing under regulation, otherwise it's immediately gamed to maximize profit, which leads to runaway wealth inequality (the antithesis of a free market).

In other words, a €730 ($835) top case replacement is only allowed to exist because your worship of deregulation prevents the very competition that you yearn for.

I don't normally word my comments this strongly, but we seem to have lost our BS detectors since yours is the top comment.

Remember that it's ok to change your mind. So I'm not criticizing you, but the mindset that's allowing fundamental mistakes to not only go unchallenged, but be celebrated.