Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | osigurdson's commentslogin

This is hindsight but managing your domain separately from your cloud provider might be a good idea.

I would think the incentives to produce things no one wants would already be pretty low.

Supplier MOQs can create significant incentives to overproduce. For example, you get 9000 things someone wants and 1000 that no-one wants.

This can be profitable for the customer, if they can't just easily get rid of those 1000 they can't sell, it's presumably less profitable.


Presumably the split between things people want and do not want is not known a priori. It seems the EU is trying to legislate into an existence a solution to an unsolvable equation.

Not really, the EU is just introducing additional weighing in favor of smaller order quantities.

They are -- so I hope Europeans will remember this when they have more trouble finding the size and color they need. If you can't throw anything away you do have to underproduce to avoid being stuck with crap that no one wants, is illegal to throw away, and can't even be recycled (because that would be 'destroying' the clothes, wouldn't it?)

So you have to underproduce always, and maybe not even make things that aren't a safe bet to sell out.


You can just donate them. If no one will take them, you are in fact allowed to destroy the products when it's "the option with the least negative environmental impacts".

Clearly written before Codex 5.3 and Opus 4.6 shipped :)


I've just moved on from docker compose. Instead I have a K8s like yaml file and use podman kube play. The learning curve is pretty small in my opinion and at least it is a little closer to production.


Great if you’re you, but try getting AverageSWE a local kube setup and see how quickly they ramp up on it

In my ideal world everyone would use kubernetes, it is the hammer and everything is a nail, but we must recognize that it is difficult for a lot of people to pick up.

That being said, if you’re deploying on kube in production, use kube locally. But if you’re not, dont


Using kube in production but really, even if I wasn't, I would still use the podman play kube approach. It isn't hard (at all) and isn't kubernetes, just kubernetes yaml. I actually find docker / compose a bit harder sometimes with the daemon running in the background.


this is OpenClaw's docker compose yml - https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/docker-compos...

I'm not arguing for the relative superiority of jsonnet vs yaml vs anything else. I just recognise that Docker Compose is loved by most open source developers. And invariably any project you touch will have a docker compose setup by default.

I'm just making it possible to run those on kubernetes seamlessly.


I mean if you are going to bother to introduce the concept of kubernetes yaml to a developer shouldn’t you just go all the way and teach them proper k8s instead of some weird intermediary? I fail to see the value of offering k8s yaml that isn’t k8s or one of its siblings that’s basically k8s


fair. however, i do genuinely find docker compose yml and dev-experience to be much more pleasant and intuitive.

if you ever wanna try it again - use kappal. you will get a full k8s but with the UX of docker compose.


>> I believe in math therefore I believe in cryptography

You aren't really believing in math. Doubling the number of Bitcoin in the world is not blocked by mathematics (trivially change the constant in the source code), it is blocked by a consensus of humans believing in the artificial scarcity that a system robustly provides. For instance, if Bitcoin ever adopts post quantum cryptography, the math breaks - it is a technical fork. But, since a vast majority of participants (maintainers, miners and holders) will likely agree that it is a good idea this new fork will be named "Bitcoin" and everyone will be happy. Not math at all, rather a broad consensus among humans.

I'm not suggesting Bitcoin is a bad investment at all, but believing in it because it "is math" is not correct.


It seems that current advantages would compound with AI. I.e., if I am making a SaaS for Popsicle stick makers today, why I am disadvantaged with AI vs a new competitor in the space? I guess the hypothesis is the Popsicle stick maker will vibe code all of the software that they need instead. For that, we need significantly better AI than we have today - perhaps something like a 1000X improvement. Basically, this is a world in which non-technical grandparents can vibe code anything that they want. This means, it understands what you want without you being able to articulate it well in the first place.


That's not a 1000X improvement in current AI. That's more like a 2x ~ 5x improvement in current AI, which is measured in months.


So, within months your prompt can simply be "increase NPV" and machines will do the rest? If not, what prompt will work perfectly in your estimation by the end of the year?


“Analyze these business requirements and create a software solution for the problems you identified”.

Right now it can get part way there but quickly falls flat.

In 12-24 months? It’ll be able to audit itself and determine how to fix issues as they come up, mid-stream. That’s (all of) what a human dev does.


How detailed are the business requirements however? "Increase NPV" is certainly a business requirement, albeit a very abstract one. "Add a checkbox to this form" is another, far more concrete business requirement.


Good AI asks clarification questions. Codex plan mode is already getting there-ish.


I suppose it is really only possible to know how close something is until it arrives. When I type in "Maximize NPV" into Codex / Claude Code, I feel like it is incredibly far away from full autonomous capability. I guess we will see.


What do you get when you type in “Maximize NPV” to a human?


"Maximize NPV" is exactly what shareholders prompt boards of directors with. Not all humans can do it, but some can. Perhaps your argument is that AGI isn't required to solve software. This would imply that human level intelligence isn't actually required today to build software.


I suspect Musk has a workable plan of some sort, realistically. Clearly, the one thing that is available in space is an abundance of square meters. There is no need whatsoever to conserve space at sufficient orbit. It is a little counter intuitive as we are so used to needing to conserve all the things.

Power input and heat radiation both scale with area so maybe there is some way to achieve this at scale. For instance, maybe it will not look like a traditional data center or even traditional chips.


The rumor I heard is that Musk's big issue with SpaceX was that he was only able to employ US citizens with a security clearance, as per the limitations of a rocket company, which he has rallied against multiple times.

One of the motivations behind this whole thing could be that he could make a way for foreign talent to work on space projects without the necessary government signoff.


Would that really be that much of an unlock?


Yes. I don't have an estimate right off the bat, but if you considered all the people employed at top tech companies, what percentage do you think are US nationals eligible for a security clearance?

I'd say less than a third.


I had a look at SpaceX career page. There are 128 software related roles available. Perhaps half of those could be filled by big tech type companies, the others are more specialized (like antenna software engineer). I don't think that 64 open positions would move the needle really. And, if it were that easy to get around the security clearance by having another company, he could have created a new / separate company years ago.

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that SpaceX is making a lot of money while xAI is losing a lot. If funds have to flow through Elon personally it is likely complicated and costly. Also, if the "space data center" idea is actually workable (I have no idea if it is) then it does make some logical sense as well. Of course, Twitter just seems like kind of a write off to me at this point.


I was talking about technical talent in general, and using big tech as a yardstick. I think it's even more likely there are a lot more capable antenna engineers outside the world than in the US, since the US didn't spend the past decades vacuuming up talent (then again, it it did, most of those would not be able to get a security clearance).

> Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that SpaceX is making a lot of money while xAI is losing a lot.

Just checked, and SpaceX made $15B last year (with $8B in profit). Afaik xAI spent $12B last year, meaning it would make the whole company operate at a loss, with no clue as to why it would make it profitable (none of the revenue came from AI).

Even if datacenters in space make sense, wouldn't OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. want those? By merging with a competitor, SpaceX loses all that business, and possibly invites govt scrutiny.


So if we assume that the primary rationale is indeed to gain access to non-US talent, and simply having or merging with another company is a workaround for that, why not do this sooner by creating or merging with another company? What is unique about xAI / Twitter?


Honestly, when working with computers, KiB, MiB, GiB, etc. just makes more sense usually. It is easier to reason about address space and page sizes are often delineated in 4KiB chunks. It does come off like "inside baseball" a little but there are practical reasons for it.

If you really want to come at it from an information theory perspective, even the "byte" is rather arbitrary - the only thing that matters is the number of bits.


Agree. I was thinking that this be more targeted toward hobbyists and start ups. If I can get 5 - 10 people interested enough to try it, I'll do a release of some sort.


In addition to the search tools mentioned above, feel free to use https://nthesis.ai/public/hn-who-is-hiring. You can search and chat with the posts on this page. Updates live. Hope it helps!

Note: The default view is a basic text / tag search, click on the "Chat" button to chat with the results (direct link: https://nthesis.ai/public/396dee3b-b181-4f6a-a17b-c0d72a0cde...).


The chat works well enough to be helpful, thanks! Maybe missing a link to the HN post


Thanks! Agree, good idea.


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

Search: