checker

I agreed that AI will enable entrepreneurship but yes everyone will continue to lose ground to the owners of compute.

Parent didn't say they liked it; I'm reading it as an expression of concern (that I share).

Nice thought, but who controls the production (AI Compute) that enables this lifestyle? Those who control the production will control the non-workers.

I agree in the short term. But in the long term, the owners of the compute will become disgustingly rich without a wealth tax, nationalization, or local AI becoming competitive and ubiquitous. There are still problems to solve; the alternative is an absolute oligarchy.

Tokens are not fungible for hosted models but there are resellers like Github Copilot and OpenRouter. These allow you to purchase capacity and choose which hosted models to burn your tokens on. Obviously there is some margin being taken in order to provide this flexibility, but there's probably some offset with volume contracts.

https://opencode.ai/

A parent wanting to record a fleeting moment with their child without the potential distraction of pulling out a phone or other camera.

This alone doesn't outweigh all of the negative uses, but I would argue that it's reasonable and legitimate.

I wonder why this is on HN and not Reddit.

This is where this belongs.

Sounds like parent was using async to mean that JS has single-threaded concurrent functions by default.

Disclaimer: I'm just the messenger here so you might hate what follows, the community is choosing the words.

Concurrency as a keyword is increasingly being used to differentiate single-threaded event handling from parallel processing (threads). As long as event handling is quick enough, it can give the illusion of parallel processing. And in some cases it can outperform parallel processing because the cost of context switching between events can be lower than context switching between threads. See https://medium.com/@caophuc799/nginx-architecture-and-why-ca...

The async keyword, in practice, simplifies the callback boilerplate required to handle the event model. When used in communication, async is increasingly being used as a word to describe "Single-threaded Concurrent Functions Built On Hidden Event Handling", because there is no succinct way of saying STCFBOHEH in English.

So: JS has async/STCFBOHEH/context-switching on its functions by default whereas Java's functions are (by default) executed in order without async/STCFBOHEH/context-switching.

| Just like the ratcheting trolleys that go up and down hills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular

"Too big to fail"

And the I stands for Internet. I guess we're considering local BT networks to be "the internet" now.

Perhaps the BT connection bridged the device to the internet, but we have no indication of that and the internet was used as the vector. It could have been a local wireless software update interface so maintenance doesn't have to open up each pump to apply the patch.

Awesome, thanks! I am in fact guilty of using logrotate but thankfully I haven't been burned yet. Although perhaps with the advent of containers piping logs to streams I've unknowingly absolved myself.

Also, you have an amazing website. Looking forward to reading more.

What's your recommended alternative to the newsyslog style of external logfile rotation? I'm not much of a sysadmin but it might be useful to know at some point. Thanks in advance!

Please be clear about your affiliation with this service (as you were in another thread). Anyway, looks it might be useful with Docker shooting themselves in the foot.

RTA. In the article, the author writes the following:

    That correlation holds up after controlling for all sorts of other dietary and
    physical variables (weight, age, gender, known cardiovascular risk factors,
    and more).

Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) mentioned that his right capacitive turn signal button is occasionally unresponsive with his Model S Plaid and he's had to resort to lane changes without a turn signal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VZzBWBDN0&t=648s

Granted, this is one anecdotal case. But when spending over 100K on a car, features like this should be bullet-proof.

Actually ... scratch that. Features like this should be bullet-proof because they have been a solved problem for ~50+ years. Tesla is sacrificing safety for minimal cost savings and/or style points.

I was so excited to roll up to my grandparents house for Thanksgiving and have to stop for wild turkeys crossing the road.

Creating zones is one thing, enforcement is another. Hopefully technology can help solve this because I honestly don't see any other way - the oceans are too vast.

Alright, I'm no MAD game theory expert so I'll probably get ripped apart, but I'll appreciate the discussion.

I've wondered if there's any MAD incentive to keep some major groundbreaking technology under complete wraps (beyond TS - see recent headlines). If MAD is disrupted by groundbreaking tech, and if this technology would significantly boost strike capabilities and possibly render nuclear weapons useless, then the rival nations would be forced to exercise a nuclear strike preemptively to ensure their security to prevent a war they would inevitably lose.

So that's one theory that I've kicked around in my head as to why we might have such tech but keep it such a tight secret. It certainly could be complete fantasy or misunderstanding of MAD. Please tell me why I'm wrong so I can bury this line of thought!

He posted a correction (at the bottom) that they are running Windows 7, so it's a marginally better situation.

You have a typo, it's HATEOAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State).

The author is affiliated with Virginia Governor Youngkin. There is definitely an agenda being pushed here, probably for Youngkin. Interesting that the author is calling for an end to political games within the CDC when he's playing one himself.

Pandemics are hard. If the CDC doesn't present a unified public voice, then a large chunk of the population will latch on to the people they agree with, and no policy would be effective. So I can understand how it came to this.

Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here). And not everyone is going to trust them and they will be blamed for any mistakes. Sometimes there isn't time to do the science, so it ends up being an educated guess at maximizing reward vs risk. It's not a position I would want to hold.

I'm going to guess the first is Webb due to the mirror pattern (but that's cheating and your larger point stands).

I got them mixed up, thanks for the correction.

Wow that's incredibly depressing. Yeah glyphosate kills weeds by inducing unsustainable growth and forcing the plant to overextend itself and die as a result. So it makes sense that if you apply it to a crop you're going to harvest anyway you'll get a bit more yield out of it.

I guess tech+ban is the only way to go, unless we're okay forcing ourselves to play the cancer lottery with worse odds.

Farm weeds steal nutrients and sunlight from the crops.

How far off are we from having drones that mechanically remove weeds at a reasonable cost? It's ridiculous that we put up with spraying sketchy chemicals on our food. We can build loyal wingman drones to kill enemy aircraft but we can't kill weeds??

Edit: I'm talking about farming, not lawns. RTFA

Strategy sounds legit but my concern would be that the (previously distracted) incoming driver attempts to dodge at the last second. Their car will hit your car with torque that could send it into oncoming traffic. But that angled impact also means less push in your car's forward direction, so maybe this concern is overblown.