HN user
All of three of these companies are huge $10+ billion corporations who are capable of doing good and bad simultaneously. If you’re happy painting them as black or white, that your choice, but some people are interested in the specific facts of each case.
All I did was quote a fact without any additional comments, and you are the one being dismissive and handwaving it away.
The $634 million judgement you’re referring to was only for Masimo’s patents, and the other claims they made about trade secret theft were dismissed.
The jury ruled against Apple only on the issue of patents, and the claims of trade secret theft were dismissed. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that the Masimo employees who went to work for Apple brought any confidential information along with them.
Thank you, I found your summary helpful because the article doesn’t start with any explanation about what it will cover.
It crashed my browser twice on mobile, so I just gave up.
It’s not hypothetical at all. The FCC is currently being used for political attacks: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/media/abc-fcc-disney-licenses...
Those who are under attack happen to also be the biggest copyrighter holders, so this would open up a new avenue of attack.
My iPhone 13 performs better since the Liquid Glass update. Animations seem to have been optimized and are much smoother. I also replaced the battery last year, so it might be worth checking if you are getting degraded performance due to a old battery.
The article quotes the creator saying he used AI
It says in the article that the creator used OpenAI Codex, presumably because the spectrogram image wouldn’t have enough resolution by itself.
I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Do you have any interest in understanding why CPPIB invests the way they do and doesn’t seek the highest returns?
During the Great Depression, the stock market stayed below 50% of its peak value for about 20 years. Imagine that the $600 billion turns into $300 billion overnight. It will only last 5-10 years without inflows, but the GDP has also dropped by 40% and inflows have plummeted.
$780 billion divided by 6 million current recipients is a little over $100,000, which is hardly comparable to your wealth retiree example.
Future payments in the short term are covered by inflows.
That wouldn’t work in a major depression when there is high unemployment and inflows drop.
Yes, if a retirement fund had put all their money into a stock index in 1926, it wouldn’t have been able to pay out pensions throughout the 1930s and 1940s and would have been bankrupt before the market eventually recovered.
Going full index is a great strategy for an individual person aged 20-50, but not a strategy for a pension fund which needs to continuously pay out.
I just tested this and the default setting is to include location, but once turned off it stays off (unlike the iPhone share sheet where you need to turn it off each time).
What’s the point of saying one stat is better than another, when all of them are meaningful in a different way? When renewables reach big numbers of TWh, someone will say “total generation is misleading if doesn’t line up with demand; what matters is capacity for power when we actually need it”.
I did the same math. The closest guess I have is that it is derived from the poverty line for a family of four, $32150 (which divided by four is $8037).
Nope, I just spent 15 minutes reading the original paper and can’t make any sense of what he is calculating.
International dollars are normalized to USD, so there’s no conversion necessary. The figure he quotes of 63 min per dollar converts to $8343/year. However, his original paper states that he created this measure by inverting income, so the number 8343 is his starting point.
The closest guess I have is that is derived from the poverty line for a family of four, $32150 (which divided by four is $8037).
If that is the case, what he is really doing is comparing poverty line definitions between countries.
Yes, the original procedures didn’t find the problem, but it says they were eventually able to duplicate it in the lab and the new material has passed that test.
There’s been plenty of coverage of this issue, and this article discusses some of the changed they made: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/the-artemis-...
The only thing the author of this blog piece has to offer that’s new is his very strong personal intuition that the new design hasn’t been properly validated, without any engineering explanation about why the testing the performed won’t adequately simulate real world performance.
It would be a stronger argument if you first tried looking at the cases where hydrogen has an advantage. The port example you brought up, where hydrogen is produced on site, is a good one to analyze. If you can look at cost projections of fuels cells and electrolyzers vs. batteries over the next 20 years and demonstrate that there’s no chance hydrogen will catch up, that would be a very strong argument, since it doesn’t rely on the hand-wavy “fueling infrastructure will never happen” argument.
This is a very poor analysis, since it doesn’t account for the capital costs. Even if hydrogen is inefficient compared to batteries, it could win if the upfront investment was low enough to offset the additional fuel cost. This is quite obvious, since that’s why diesel trucks are winning today — the upfront cost of a diesel engine is cheap enough that it offsets the higher lifetime fuel costs.
I do think that batteries will win, but the correct argument is one that shows that capital costs of batteries are going down faster than the cost of hydrogen production.
Great analysis.
Great to know that all of the existing bugs in Microsoft’s code will be faithfully translated into Rust using LLMs.
Both of the charts I posted have GDP as the denominator (although I incorrectly said the first was “share of budget”).
I think it’s very important to use GDP as a denominator, because otherwise you’ll be stuck crying wolf, saying “debt always keeps going up” even during the good times.
There are a lot of people who simply don’t believe that the government budget needs a trim right now, because people have been continuously saying there was a debt crisis even when the financial situation was relatively favorable.
I was mistaken to say “share of budget”, because the chart I linked to is actually share of GDP, which hopefully isn’t affected by the problem you pointed out.
If you compare government budget as share of GDP, you can see that is hasn’t “exploded”, outside of crisis periods. Current spending rate is elevated about 25% over the 1990s period of restraint, but quite close to the 1980s.
Was the 1990s austerity “severe”? I remember a lot of complaining at the time, but it doesn’t seem too bad in hindsight.
Rather than reading this opinion piece, you can learn more about the “debt crisis” by just studying this chart which shows what percentage of the federal budget goes toward paying off the debt:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
The situation is similar to what it was in the late 1980s, and it can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that.
On the contrary, that’s exactly in line with how much the average American spends on holidays: