Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 7e's comments login

There is no gouging. Climate change and other factors have caused California to turn into a hellacious inferno in the summers due to wildfires. In response, they are burying a very large number of power lines, because they spark them. This cost is causing rates to spike, but in return, hopefully less apocalyptic summers.

Use CHERI for this?

Many cyclists bike like raving a*holes, and it is dangerous, both for them and for cars which cannot predict how they will behave. I could imagine cases where the the car might swerve and hit something else besides the cyclist. So yes, bicycles can be dangerous to cars in a roundabout way.

I find drivers are often utterly shocked by the presence of a pedestrian at a pedestrian crossing as well as a cyclist at a cyclist crossing. Unpredictable!

Feel free to operate your car at a non-lethal speed if your driving skills do not permit you to damage other road users. In the neighborhood of 20 km/h should probably allow you to never commit fatal mistakes.

I think the economics of space are are much more likely to be transformed by something like https://www.longshotspace.com/. Rockets are complex, still costly, and polluting.

The problem with space guns is you can't just yeet rocks into orbit. Any orbit that starts at the surface returns to the surface. So you still need a disposable rocket and avionics and fuel in every payload to change the orbit once out of the atmosphere. Only now the rocket needs to survive being literally shot out of a gun and then traveling at orbital velocity in atmosphere. That puts a pretty high floor on the cost per shot.

If you want to look at someone that is further along on a concept like this you can look at SpinLaunch. Exactly what it sounds like with a gigantic centrifuge to spin and throw things really fast. But they are still throwing a small two-stage rocket.

https://www.spinlaunch.com/orbital


I think a reusable orbital tug which rendezvous with payloads is the play here. The tug would refuel from some of the gun-launched payloads.

I think it would probably have to refuel with every payload. Changing orbits that fast isn't cheap. It would be cool to see an analysis of this, I don't know if it would really make sense. I've seen some interviews with the space gun guys but unfortunately nobody really pressed them on this issue and they didn't mention any plans for space tugs.

Plus, your payload needs to be gun compatible. Not gonna put people in there.

Well, in WW2 we did manage to put working radar in artillery shells.

With vacuum tubes, no less!

Space is for robots.

While mass to orbit costs as much as it does now, sure. However later on it's gonna be great to have humans closer to the working robots to reduce the round-trip latency. They could also perform tasks robots are not suited for.

Consider operators living on Mars and operating drones near their habitat each day. It would be like modern day drone operators and robot assisted surgery. Like remote operators of mega-trucks today.

Those robots could interact with the operators - driving into a "garage" that can be pressurized for maintenance, upgrades or science.

StarShip promises to reduce the cost of mass to orbit, making larger and more complex scientific, industrial and habitat options feasible.


Vertical scaling is usually more expensive than horizontal scaling. This is not a surprise. What surprises me is that it’s only $1 more expensive here. I suppose that’s because you don’t get double the number of CPUs in the vertical case.

Well, maybe it's a wrong analogy, but when you see a 1l glass bottle of stuff selling for almost exactly twice the price of a 0.5l glass bottle of the same stuff, then there is something off because glass bottles themselves ain't free either.

Of course, when it comes to bottled water my experience is the bigger bottle is cheaper than the small one!

> Well, maybe it's a wrong analogy

Yep. Try comparing the price of a 1 L bottle with 1 kg of water to a 1 L bottle with 2 kg of water. Vertical scaling can be very, very expensive.


Can we replace the Perplexity CEO with AI?

This is a huge security risk (both from a personal and desktop malware perspective), so I assume most people are only allowed to use it in staging. How many bugs reproduce in staging, though?

Thank you for the question ! My assumption is the same. For your question I am looping in the mirrord team.

Not only do more bugs reproduce in staging than locally (for obvious reasons), but mirrord also saves you the trouble of figuring out how to run your stuff locally in the first place. Previously, before you could add a single line of code to your microservice, you had to be able to run it and all of its dependencies on your local machine. This is such a huge challenge in some cases that people actually prefer to git push and deploy to the cloud for every little change. With mirrord you can just clone the repo and debug.

Doing his duty to shareholders is my guess.

You claim that your apps are faster on Linux on an M1 than macOS on the M1; can you add more detail? Which apps, and did you run benchmarks? I find it hard to believe that Apple hasn't optimized apps to be faster on their own OS and hardware.

In short, all apps run faster - I have some more detail in this blog post (which also includes a link to my original blog post with additional performance details): https://jasoneckert.github.io/myblog/fedora-asahi-remix/

I suspect this is primarily due to Linux being a more performance-optimized OS compared to macOS, which seems to have introduced a great deal of bloat over the years.


Brain gunk could accelerate those causes, no?

Eh, you gotta be careful with One Weird Trick medicine.

Once you get past painfully obvious problems, everything not currently easily fixed by modern medicine tends to be "well it's really complicated" sets of problems; there's not one Cancer, your blood pressure can be elevated for many reasons, syndromes like chronic fatigue are almost certainly a mix of dozens of problems binned together by common symptoms but will have different causes and treatments.

Anyone saying they have one treatment to fix dozens of problems is a huckster, and trying to come up with a medical Theory of Everything to explain large swaths of disease is your origin story for how you become a huckster.


The difference between panaceas and this is that the idea for extending life isn't to add something, but not to fuck an essential part of life.

If you think of life as the careful coordination of millions of parts, then there will be a million of things that if you fuck up you will die.


Which is the model that matches acceleration of death rates as we age.

The reduction of death rates which is not due to panaceas but to fixing specific causes of death, one by one, yes.

I meant more like this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7272078/

Like it breaks down at an exponentially increasing rate. Hard to keep up with that.


Oh interesting. Yes I agree that such a model of accumulating damage would show a logarithmic scaling with life expectancy.

...or those causes could accelerate brain gunk buildup.

Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: