Out_of_Characte

The author doesn't go far enough into the problems with trying to convert information theory to SI Units.

SI units are attempting to fix standard measurements with perceived constants in nature. A meter(Distance) is the distance light travels in a vacuum, back and forth, within a certain amount of ossilations of a cesium atom(Time). This doesn't mean we tweak the meter to conform to observational results as we'd all be happier if light really was 300 000KM/s instead of ~299 792km/s.

Then there's the problem of not mixing different measurement units. SI was designed to conform all measurements to the same base 10 exponents (cm, m, km versus feet inches and yards) But the authors attempt to resolve this matter doesn't even conform to standardised SI units as we would expect them to.

What is a byte? Well, 8 bits, sometimes. What is a kilobit? 1000 Bits What is a kilobyte? 1000 Bytes, or 1024 Bytes.

Now we've already mixed units based on what a bit or a byte even is and the addition of the 8 multiplier in addition to the exponent of 1000 or 1024.

And if you think, hey, at least the bit is the least divisible unit of information, That's not even correct. If there Should* be a reformalisation of information units, you would agree that the amount of "0"'s is the least divisible unit of information. A kilo of zero's, would be 1000. A 'byte' would be defined as containing up to 256 zero's. A Megazero would contain up to a million zero's.

It wouldn't make any intuitive sense for anyone to count 0's, which would automatically convert your information back to base 10, but it does prove that the most sensible unit of information is already what we've had before, that is, you're not mixing bytes (powers of 2) with SI-defined units of 1000

auto-magic-ing size reading to access members after it

From the article

we now have everything we need to calculate the size, offset and alignment of every field, regardless of their positioning in the struct. init to allocate the memory get to get a pointer to a field resize to resize the arrays deinit to free the memory

You're now suggesting to do exactly what the article is about without being aware of it.

Because arrays simply do not deal with fragmentation. Yes, you could probaly get decent performance on a modern system that has memory overcommit strategy where you could allocate sparse adress ranges where you would probaly never run out of pointers unless you actually write to your variable array.

But its just kind of mediocre and you're better off actually dealing with the stack if you can actually deal with certain fixed sizes.

Dosing seems correct, they established that psilocin (the metabolite of psilocybin ) increases lifespan. The on hand mouse expert likely understood roughly how much psilocybin could be metabolised safely by the mouse. The mice also had some head jerk indicating that they were under influence and they also established that the mice didn't lose more weight compared to the control group.

Some comparisons between animals and humans just aren't compatible with understanding dose and volume. Some smaller animals eat their weight in food, I just wouldn't recommend basing your own dietary fiber intake on that.

That’s just throwing more probabilities at the problem

Think about protein folding and enzymes. That's all solved with probabilities and likely outcomes for the structure and the effect it has. Any replicator would already need to prove the things it is allowed to create, adding the items that it is not allowed to create is probaly needed as a safety protocol anyway.

I would also imagine that there could be a food and drug safety prover that would simulate billions of prompts to see if the replicator would ever have a safety violation that could result in horrible nerve agents from being constructed.

The evolution of our species was based on the carbon lifecycle. Yet the machines we produce are not evolving in a similar manner at all, just the ability to redraw everything from scratch is a luxury that evolution cannot make use of.

To reiterate, The belief that evolving machines have to match the kind of evolution we're subjected to is illogical. Machines wouldn't be there without us and we wouldn't have what we have now without evolving our machines.

In vivo would make no sense.

It would certainly be one of the more stranger ways to explain the birds and the bees

Biological evolution is also impossible to measure on small timescales. that does not mean it does not exist, clearly it exists. It has an exponential effect on the future. I think we fully agree on this definition.

as people and societies become wealthier and better educated (both correlated with intelligence), their reproduction rates drop precipitously.

There is also the unmistakeable influence of evolutionary psychology on people throughout human history, that seems to have accelerated. When people decide to have fewer kids, especially the more affluent ones, doesnt yet point to any biological influence. Other than the correlation between wealth, IQ and genetics. I dont think there are any risks of a reduction of intelligence through evolution. The world population reduction we're seeing might accelerate it instead.

Its impossible to properly seperate biological evolution from current day enviromental pressure. There have been many natural and man-made disasters that have killed or otherwise economically robbed millions of people from a good future in their lifetime. Its difficult to say what the fitness function actually selected for.

If you could look back far enough and understood most of the enviromental pressures we faced, then we are all lottery winners of our tumultous history.

I do like hyprland, Its what I have installed. I hope they can offer 5$. of value to people with their 'premium' experience, I just think its either way too little or way too much additional support for what their price suggests.

Things that are close to this value proposition:

Video streaming services

Email

Online game subscriptions

Data backups

VPN

Very few of these actually offer anything for 5$ a month and they do not offer 'customer support' or 'forum support' in the way you would probaly expect from people that offer that for your linux desktop. If anything, I expect the value proposition to be more like custom art pieces, where someone actually sits down with you for an hour, writes down what you want and programs up an entirely artisic desktop representation for whatever theme/idea you have. That would cost hundreds of dollars and would be a far better value proposition and the person in question could always be called upon for aftercare and newer projects.

I'd guess there is a significant language barrier, for lack of better words, on the meaning of 'god' and 'virtue'(which might have been more descriptive, but I'm not willing to edit my comment for the clarity that it lacks out of respect for the other posters/readers)

Its true that many things co-evolved with us, like viruses and blood types(yes, we're somewhat on topic again) and even though we share many similar characteristics, like blood type, mayor, minor. Its also true that discovery of new things doesn't always invalidate the old way of thinking. Usuallyit just adds to what has already been existing. Like how multicellular life is a true breeding ground for single celled organism.

Similarly, the ABO+- blood type system was good enough to not kill patients, which is quite the improvement. Though only a fool would treat that system as gospel and align personalities with it. Now we're classifying the minor types and we're getting closer to rediscovering the uniqueness of everyones blood just as everyones beliefs,god or no god, is unique if you are willing to look.

I know that HN is not very appreciative of religion or god. I'd just like to change someones perspective on that as we've all evolved from very humble beginnings, both in our personal lives and as the silly monkeys we all still sometimes are. I definitely wouldn't want our economy to become a paperclip maximiser but any perceived missteps should be dissected with a good blogpost on how we got here in the first place.

That's where correlations of random events and placebo end and where discovery begins.

There are 'gods' that are 'better' than others. Even if the principle of what you/people believe goes against what you find scientifically relevent, or factual, or sensible. There still is something to be said about a group of people following a strange set of rules that could be demonstrably better than other sets of rules and beliefs. May it be enviromental, genetic, placebo or a tiny edge over what gives life meaning. We ended up with the gods we have today, not by coincidence, but because all the other ones failed their followers.

They need something that can land on Mars and return with a crew A three stage rocket is something you’d use for one-way missions with smaller payloads

The only succesfull human spacecraft that landed on another body and taken off again used a three stage rocket to deliver a three stage lander,

The Command and Service Module(CSM) which brought the two stages into low lunar orbit The Lunar Lander (LM) contained a descent stage and an ascent stage, the descent stage was used as a platform for the ascent stage.

To say that three stage rockets are just for one way missions is silly, especially considering that more stages enable larger payloads. We've yet to see whether SpaceX's two stage solution will actually be any good. I also do not expect a single stage to the surface of the moon and back to Low Lunar Orbit to be very usefull. Any mars mission will likely follow the exact apollo staging plan.

What's really vexing to me is how spacex refuses to build a triple stage rocket. Their 'reusability' adds a significant amount of mass in terms of heatshield and in terms of fuel margins for landing. Using additional stages benefits them more than saturn V. They likely thought they could get away with two stages and have them both return to the launch site, one the short way, the other the long way around. But the exclusion of a multi stage reusable architecture means that their empty mass fraction becomes a linchpin in bringing anything into orbit.

No wonder there's a v2 and v3 with much, much larger fuel tanks and less payload.

the poster above was very conservative in his metrics and throtteling requirements.

Modern pressure vessels can reach 5% empty mass, thats a factor of 20

Rockets have stages, a good approximate is to stage half your rocket to get rid of the most empty mass. This also means your first stage has to have double the thrust to lift itself and its stage. Now you're at a factor of 40 just to hover.

Now you actually have to take off, usually around 1.2 to 1.4 thrust to weight.

So a more realistic scenario means your rocket engine has to throttle down to exactly 2% power while the laval nozzle is optimised for takeoff thrust only.

I like the article for brainstorming possible technological solutions. Though whats missed is the cost of maintaining and repairing seafloor cables. This is what makes or breaks your idea after its already built and broken in a couple days rather than its rated lifespan of decades.

As conspiratorial as this sounds, alot of successfull non-profit organisations have a vested interest in becoming a critical part of their infrastructure so that funding cuts would be a humanitarian disaster in of itself which neccecitates the continuation of the organisation.

Foreign aid has always been a double edged sword when it comes to self-reliance and lasting change

This wouldn't detect overhead cables, which is the primary concern when using this to improve visual landing issues.

archiving isn't just to circumvent a paywall. There's also the HN hug of death, possible geoblocks or an actual interest in archiving the article as it was written at the time these comments.

There is limited evidence that farming use of antibiotics is what drives resistance in clinical cases.

This is a classic example of asymptotic behaviour analysis.

That is - we use enormous amounts of antibiotics in farming

You're entirely correct, the data fits an almost exponential curve, the only limiting factor so far has been soil health and costs. the amount of biocides we have to use to keep our productivity will be impossible to match and therefore, even with 0 transference of resistance to human antibiotics, you're gonna see more transference to humans because of farming-biocide resistance. ofcourse, most of this will result in lower crop yield instead of actually selling bad product, this can be slowed down with essentially the same policies and techniques as hospitals employ. But the core problem is the exact same, the extremely quick and deadly takeover of a single strain resistent against our current quo pro due to overuse of a single line of defence.

Practically, there's no way to stop anti-microbial resistance. We've only been capable of using said drugs for an x number of years because of the relatively long time it takes for these resistant spores to become dominant in most soil around the planet. The problem isn't really the development of resistance itself but our way of farming is the perfect petri-dish for fungal and bacterial evoluton. E.G. large monocrop fields with single-use anti-fungal spray and rinse.

Yield would be the amount of functioning chips. This may be chips, entire packages or even a complexer answere where good chips also need to be below certain leakage. Cores and caches could be disabled and the list of potential yield increasing tooling is always increasing when wafers nowadays costs thousands of dollars.

Excel is really easy to use for smaller data collection and manipulation. There's no input validation, signing and other complicated design decisions needed to start an excel spreadsheet. There's alot of tools out there for easy integration. So its not something you need to switch away from once you have rather static requirements. Billions are just numbers that fit inside a cell just fine until someone complains.

only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. No one can sell at a loss all the time. That's just stupidity. Either I get a return on money invested later or I get a return on my balance sheet now in the form of profit. Shareholders primacy is because they can only be cut trough a buyout.

Superpermutation must repeat all possible combination in the shortest number possible. De Bruijn sequence places a lower bound on the length of superpermutations but shorter sequences are possible. De bruijn is also cyclical, which superpermutations in the literature are not.

Drones have always been in extensive use during warfare. Though in the past it was only very high altitude gliders of the american military whereas today there are countless low-altitude consumer grade drones.

In the context of the article, We could assume it means "Most valuable Pull request"

Just dont let corporations use MVPR as a metric or it will cease to be a fun challenge

We already have 70 years experience of marine nuclear reactors. Most of them highly enriched uranium or plutonium.

Submarines for electrolysis of water into breathable oxygen and electrical power for propulsion and aircraft carriers for its massive power density.

On the other hand, we have 0 years of operational experience with fusion reactors. We have 0 energy positive land based designs, 0 marine adaptations. We have discovered exactly 0 benefits of fusion reactor designs over fission. and I'm certain that we'll have more than 100 years of experience in commercial fission operation before we even have a single decade of net positive fusion energy.

Highly dangerous? Absolutely, but the giant weapons attached to these nuclear marine reactors have killed far more people than those reactors. Hell, those aircraft carriers experience more radiation from coal power plants than their own reactor. And I'm not kidding.

The mere fact that you're proposing doing this on a moving vessel already tells me you're completely incompetent. No one has made fusion net positive, somehow building a net positive fusion reactor on a boat would be fine I guess but to suggest its better than enriched uranium is dishonest. You'll have more luck building a regular fission reactor on a commercial freighter than verify a fusion reactor for any ocean capable ship.

Have you modeled how plasma will behave when your reactor walls move tens of meters in any possible direction while rotating violently in every degree of freedom? Mind you, its not the plasma I'm concerned about. The ideal gas law keeps the atmosphere nice and steady. Its more of a combination of high magnetic field strength with salt water everywhere around the reactor that when destabilised in the slightest will cause a massive implosion.

Jason and I come from SpaceX and Tesla in the coming decades (2050-2060) we'll pivot to decarbonising the grid and saving the world

just make a fission reactor, on land, in a pit, with a massive concrete wall between me and potential neutrons.