anon1m0us

This has not been my experience as a consumer trying to buy 18650 batteries for my 3.3V ESP-8266 projects. Is there a good place to buy these? Searching Amazon for them shows me tons of AA and AAA batteries but no actual 18650's. In the past couple years, the price has gone up for me and the availability down.

Are there better options? I've read about 26650's but I have never tried them. Do they last longer? Are they safer? Can I charge them in my NiteCore charger that works great for 18650's?

How can a consumer/tinkerer wanting to scale up production take advantage of these options? The prices may have gone down at Tesla scale, but not at consumer scale.

Alternatively, patients are turning to youtube to fill in the gaps in their doctors' training.

I've been switching to DDG as well and I haven't noticed my life change in any measurable way. You might be right and my results may have been better using Google, but I am willing to make that sacrifice in order to participate in a world I prefer.

I suppose I consider it like this, Google's results might also be better if they didn't show me so much spam. I don't know. My life isn't that much improved due to them. I don't know what I don't know.

I'm okay not having a 10% faster car as well. I'm okay with that. I'm willing to drive a slower car to save the environment. I'm willing to make that personal decision for what I think will be a better internet too.

We can't constantly say, what's best for me, what's best for me without expecting that everyone on the planet doing that will never lead to a planet that's best for all of us. My search results might be 10 or 20 or even 30%, without Google, but the world is better without Google, IMO.

Kind of and after some digging, I think the difference is this: https://www.nutanix.com/products/hardware-platforms#nutanix

Notice how the hardware is actually sold by IBM, Dell, etc.

The difference is oxide is building and selling the physical hardware themselves. When the customer needs more capacity, they could just order 10 new, let's call them "blade" type computers from Oxide and pop them in a rack at much lower cost than a blade from IBM.

To function at youtube scale, you need access to multiple backbones. Yes, I agree, Sprint will run an OC3, or fiber, what have you, to your office anywhere in America for $15,000 a month, but that will still be several hops from UUNET.

That Sprint line is like a farm to market road to your warehouse, which works fine when you are serving customers from an ecommerce site or sending and receiving emails or even opening files from NYC and your onprem cloud is in NYC.

It breaks down when you need higher throughput to serve millions of customers. At that point, you need to be at the crossroads of a couple interstate highways which would be analogous to a carrier hotel like at 1 Wilshire in Los Angeles.

I expect oxide.computer will open up on demand scalability to existing service providers who already rent the physical space in locations like 1 Wilshire. Most of those providers today buy hardware from HP or Dell, which is expensive and then also have to manage the software layer on top.

From what I can tell, based on the very little actual product marketing I have found, is that oxide will provide a turnkey solution from one shop. Unfortunately, at the moment, it's hard to figure out what the company actually does, because it's about the team right now.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Here is a human person doing to corporate persons what they have been doing to human persons.

It drives a stake in the heart of their hypocrisy.

They take your private info and sell it for marketing and he takes their marketing and sells their private info. The desire for HN'ers to silence this publication of private data speaks to the nature of the community being blind to their own wrongs.

I think this is the way of the future and it's exciting to think about. Who you are is yours, not some other social media sites. You control what is and is not available. That would be good.

My initial impression is a return to on-premise data centers but with cheaper, commodity hardware and a software stack on top.

They are doing for on-prem with hotswappable computers in a cloud what hot swappable hard drives did for on-prem storage.

My prediction is that their technology will be used by existing data centers more than it will be used by enterprises wanting to return to on-prem from their current cloud operations. They might help serve internal customers in the enterprise, like developers, and intranets, but the cost of pipes will be prohibitive for companies needing lots of bandwidth to serve external customers.

Acknowledging my very primitive understanding of quantum computing, would it be possible to simulate quantum computing?

Shakti themselves used rows as the comparison metric in the original link: https://shakti.com/database-software-history/

Again, saying the speed of k is unrivaled is hype speak. You're adding negative value to the discussion.

I'd like to see some real metrics. All the words are subjective and the technical ones are common to other databases as well. How many results can it return in how many seconds from a table with how many rows? Can it do full text indexing? Can it aggregate?

It feels like something from wallstreet, the language is almost pump and dump "I have this really great stock tip from this guy who made millions once, he's a legend. He says buy, so you should."

We need more tangible and quantifiable information about this database. Until then it's not even hype it's vaporware.

How do I make this my default search engine as for when I type something into my address bar like I can with Google, Bing, or DDG?

Mostly he sold ads on his Instagram to other teenagers looking to promote their own pages, apps or online storefronts.

This is so MLM-esque. You can get big because I got big and if you follow me and do what I do, you'll get big like me too.

Meanwhile, exactly no value is being created. We need value creation not ... piggy backing? What is it? You might learn how to persuade people or know what people will click on or generate ad revenue, but what are you creating? What are you doing that makes the world a better place?

What practical skills are you improving or sharing or developing that will move the world forward?

The value appears to be merely convincing someone that something without value has actual value.

He wanted the clout to convince people of something that people shouldn't be convinced of. Don't go to college and get an education, because you can make 10k a month regurgitating someone else's meme photos.

Frankly, I don't understand it. I don't think it's good. Yes, in the article, there was mention of someone who appreciated what he was doing because it made them feel better, but so would developing a skill and being a productive member of society.

I can't see how the instagramification of the world is a good thing.

We were at Thanksgiving dinner and my friend's 8 year old was glued to his iPhone. He had almost zero interaction with anyone except to say, "I turned it down!" after he was finally called out at the dinner table for a super loud music video that started playing and the old folks around the table could recognize the song. It was ironic because finally those without a phone could connect to him by the sounds that had the prior part of the evening been distracting noise. We couldn't talk to each other because we were so aggravated by the phone.

You can't even get away from the internet when you aren't on a computer anymore. It's infiltrated every aspect of life. People don't share their lives in person anymore. If you ask how someone is doing, they say, "Didn't you read my feed?"

No. I didn't read your feed. I want to connect with you in real life. I want to create something with you if it's only a conversation.

I don't know what to do or where to go to change, but I fear the opportunities to rectify this bad direction are diminishing.

I actually think wordpress has contributed significantly to the decline of the web. It's not secure. It proliferates so it's easy to hack. It's easy to embed untested plugins in it that are also vectors. It's plagued by all the same problems as microsoft windows.

It's time for a new search engine -- and no, ddg is not it. We need a search engine that doesn't search the new internet. The instagrams, the pinterests, the wikihows, the seemingly every single blog on the internet that is designed to take your time away from you by hydrating you in droplets between sweat lodges.

We need create a new internet on the internet that does not search the new internet. DDG brings back content from the same sites google and bing does.

I want a new search engine focused on the passionate creatives who produce for the web. The early adopters of the web who have been overshadowed by the adwords and the interstitials and lightboxes.

I want content. I want a recipe site with the ingredients at the top and a list of instructions below it. Not 6 paragraphs of why you want to eat this food because of your grandma making it and then people come NO, just tell me what to put in it and how to do it and that's it and load in .1 seconds instead of 100 seconds and then stall every time I try to scroll because you need to tell your advertisers which part of your page is looked at the most.

Your advertisers are more important than your readers and it's not cool.

video game art is often beautiful, cool and interesting to look at.

Is a great reason to buy art. Period.

However....

Which makes it an attractive proposition for value collectors.

Is not a good reason to buy art. It's not really a good reason to buy anything without intrinsic value, because art's value cannot be quantified. It is subjective. Art's value is subject to the price someone is willing to pay for it. There's no real scarcity. You could say, "Original art, from the artist is scarce." Okay, yes, but that is not the value in art. The value in art is the aesthetic feeling in art. It's the reason to buy art.

Buying art to make money, cheapens art. It jeopardizes the very institution of art, because the purpose of art is to evoke feelings, not make money and we should reward art that evokes feelings, specifically aesthetic feelings in order to promote the creation of that kind of art.

That's what art is about. Art is about emotions and thoughts and awareness. Not dollars. That's the opposite of what art is about. That's what ad creative is about. That's what marketing spreads are about -- not art for your wall.

"Just for being compatible" is disingenuous at best.

Ask yourself, "Why did they copy the Java API? Why didn't they use Python or Go or Dart?" They invented Dart after all.

David Suzuki profiled a rammed earth house on Vancouver Island that's a neat overview of it in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra4Pldetd_M

You aren't exactly correct. Cement is a binder. Cement can be used to bind rammed earth. I think you mean to say "Concrete." There is a difference.

Rammed earth will crack in a flat application just like concrete, which also will not crack as bad in a wall formation as it will in a flat foundation type application. This is due to rammed earth and concrete having excellent resistance to compression, as gravity does to a wall, but they are both weak in tension.

Sometimes rammed earth does require binders like I said before depending on locally available materials. There is fussy carpentry involved because you need to make forms for the walls within which you ram the earth.

It's not as strong as stone, unless you use the appropriate binders and you should get your finished product tested for strength before using it in a load bearing capacity.

It's still a good building material, I do agree with that, but it is not just as good as concrete and it only approaches the strength of concrete when cement is used as a binder. No readily available natural materials come close to the strength of cement bound aggregates.

smh It really isn't an obvious thing either. lots of folks think greenland is as big as south america only because they don't understand the map stretches at the poles and they also don't know there are other projections.

What you said is true and non-obvious. I can only wonder if the downvotes you received are from people who don't agree with you and if that's the case, either they don't understand what downvotes are for or dunning-kruger has taken over hacker news.

No, it's more analogous, but worse so, IMO, to copying all the sentences of the book in a manner like this:

"Jack and Jill ran down the hill."

into

"Gil and Jacky descended the mound."

It's exactly the same story just with different implementations that exhibit the same behavior. They didn't make something compatible with Java -- they replaced Java with something exactly like Java.

It's even worse than the example above, because they kept the same names of the classes, interfaces, etc.

You are a private entity. You can write software. If you do, you should have the same rights as Oracle does on software it owns. Corporations are people and you are people.

Private entities create things of value and share them with an incentive to recover their investment, and then some.

If it's possible for anyone, including private entities like Google, to CTRL-A, CTRL-C, CTRL-V it into their own use, then there is negative incentive to create that kind of value for the world.

I don't mean to do anything that I am not doing. I am saying, there is property owned by one company being appropriated for use by another company without respecting the compensation requirements specified by the owner of that property. Period.

That is illegal. Google intentionally committed that illegal act due to the financial incentive. Sun explicitly told Google they cannot do that. Google did it anyway. Now, Google should have to make amends.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is exactly what I have been saying. You are saying I'm saying something else or saying what I have said isn't the case, but provided no evidence to support that.

I have repeatedly provided evidence that what I am saying is true. You have provided no evidence to support your case.

I'm not glossing over any distinctions. You are saying there are distinctions, but you are not saying what those distinctions are. You are saying there is common law property and other kinds of property and that is relevant, but I am saying, the laws governing the kind of property Google appropriated for their own financial gain is exactly the kind of property that is governed by the laws I have stated, specifically copyright law and patent law.

For some reason, you are claiming those laws don't apply or something like that. I'm not sure why you believe that, but the court precedents have already been set to indicate that they do.

Clearly, the courts are debating this already because someone agrees with you and someone agrees with me.

What I do know, is that Google has flagrantly broken copyright law to their own ends since their inception. They have copied books. They have copied newspapers. They have copied people's private healthcare information.

Google does not respect people's rights to their property and intellectual property is property, regardless of what you are saying about common law property. Yes, I agree that "intellectual property" under the law is distinct from "real property" under the law in the form of land or real estate, however, I am not claiming Google broke those laws. I am claiming Google broke Intellectual Property Laws and they have done that -- very clearly -- many, many times.

I hope the Supreme Court, once and for all, puts Google in their place and says, "No, Google, You do not have the right to break the law simply because you want to."

Google is not greedy? Oracle paid money for Sun and the property Sun owned at the time. Google said, nope, we'll just copy that property for ourselves and keep our money. That seems greedier.

They didn't take it from the public any more than Led Zeppelin took their songs from the public when they sued those who violated their IP rights.

Software has a real and tangible value. Songs ... well, you decide their value, but I don't understand why the value songs create should be protectable, but software not.

That's really what this is about. This is about granting to those who write software the same rights to that property as anyone else who has rights to what they write.

Software is both patentable and copyrightable, so there's no blurry line here. You are trying to say it's blurry, but it's quite clear.

Yes they do cover software. Software is patentable: https://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html

Software is copyrightable: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-register-copyrig...

The precedents establishing those rights are long, they go back decades. You really don't have the facts.

I didn't say these rights extend to every kind of idea or writing. I said software writers and inventors should have the same rights as writers and inventors in any other industry.

Really, I ask this in all seriousness, why shouldn't software writers have rights over what they write? Why are words in software different than those in books or movies? Why shouldn't inventors of software have the same rights as inventors of mechanical devices?

Um, no. I said, "If I write a book" the respondent said, "... write a title and chapter names..."

One is an accurate analogy, the other is a false analogy.

I think rather, it's on you to explain why the software industry doesn't have to respect property laws like every other industry.

The industry wouldn't have to grind to a halt if it had been respecting those rights from the beginning.

If companies want to provide their code, API's, or any other intellectual property to the world at large, a la public domain, they are free to do that. No one is stopping them.

But if someone in the software industry wants to protect their IP, they should have those rights, just like any other inventor/writer in any other industry.

That is not what the wikipedia article says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v._Oracle_America

Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform.[7][8] Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android operating system.[8] During development of Android, Google wanted to incorporate the Java Standard Edition libraries. Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt had approached Sun's president Jonathan I. Schwartz about licensing the Java libraries for use in Android. Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for that license, but they were concerned that Sun had also requested some shared control of Android along with the fee.[9][10][11] Google states that they wanted more control in order to open source the language and allow third parties to take better advantage of its code;[9] Oracle states that Sun refused because Google's intention was essentially to fork Java to a Google version of the language, and to prevent it being inter-operable with other versions, an idea which was "anathema" to the "write once run anywhere" basis of the language.[12] Because of these differences of view, the negotiations failed to reach a deal and Sun refused Google a license for Java.[12]

At this point in time, the OpenJDK implementation offered by Sun was not as mature or complete as the Java Standard Edition.[13] Instead of licensing Java, Google chose to develop a cleanroom version of the Java Standard Edition libraries