creato

Between 2005 and 2024, Chinese firms received on average three to eight times more subsidies than competitors in OECD economies.

https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2026/06/industrial-subsidies-h...

Disclosing private repos against the owner's intent is a much more immediate and significant business risk than violating the license of open source code.

Maybe that shouldn't be the case, but it is.

Israel can fly aircraft over their adversaries at will. Russia can't.

Other than nukes, Russia does not have significant spare capacity. They use missiles and drones with months of their production. They fly bomber aircraft as close to the front as they can. They've burned through most of their cold war era stockpiles of equipment. 0.5-1% of their entire population is a casualty of this war (so probably closer to 5% of their working age men).

I would think that the shipping executives are less willing to take the risk to run the strait than the crews are. Being stuck for months with very little freedom, uncertain future, uncertain supplies, missiles and drones flying overhead, it sounds like hell.

I can see how something like this happens. We're talking about a 5 year old kid seeing something at school, and describing it to their parents. Who knows what the kid said?

Then you have situations like the young kid that did bring a gun to school and shoot a teacher, and there were tips not followed up on, and the school getting absolutely dragged through the court of public opinion because of it.

So, the adults in this situation are in a difficult position. They've got 5 year olds telling them things that are very unreliable but very concerning, and they do need to actually consider that 5 year olds might have guns.

What happened to you is probably the best case scenario: kid told their parent something incorrect, that parent calls the school, the school checks in with you, you tell them they're wrong, the end. If the principal actually thought there was a problem, I doubt she would have simply called you.

I don't think that craziness was baked into the model, it was in the prompt they used. So, easy to fix once they realized how stupid it was.

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, firearms manufacturers seem to think they're entitled to instead stomp their feet and say "no, no regulation, you have to let me do whatever I want!".

Who exactly is the "firearms manufacturer?" I've owned and used 3D printers for years. Not once has anything I've used or seen from any 3D printer manufacturer or other related supplier have anything to do with guns.

It's a strategy to make their competition lose, but it's not a strategy to win.

Even if you think this this is what OpenAI is doing, they surely don't think that. So why would he write that in his diary?

I don't think Waymo needs to dominate the market to succeed. They just need to scale up (time)x(number of vehicles) enough to amortize the R&D costs of the self driving capability. Paying a driver is a big chunk of a taxi/Uber's costs, so eliminating that leaves a lot of room to maneuver.

If this guy was still just a guy on a mailing list and otherwise living a private life, this article would be inappropriate to publish IMO.

However, he's a significant public figure in the Bitcoin world (apparently). Still a gray area I guess but I don't think he's off limits from this kind of scrutiny.

The idea is great in the same way the idea of a perpetual motion machine is great: I'd love to have a perpetual motion machine (or C++ modules), but it's just not realistic.

IMO, the modules standard should have aimed to only support headers with no inline code (including no templates). That would be a severe limitation, but at least maybe it might have solved the problem posed by protobuf soup (AFAIK the original motivation for modules) and had a chance of being a real thing.

It really doesn't matter as long as someone is living in it.

It doesn't matter whether prices are going up or down, it matters if the price is more than the cost to build.

It's pretty tiring seeing so many people push the bounds of acceptable behavior. It's pretty simple: should someone in your chain of management discipline you for setting aside that cheese? If yes, you are engaging in corruption.

That action is basically stochastic theft from the grocery store, because you've altered the pricing of a possibly scarce good.

Using this example: a computer was an unlikely purchase for a lower-middle class person in the US, but it wasn't totally unattainable. Many people in the US probably did it, and some of them probably found some positive return on that investment.

That's not true of many "objectively" poor people in the world, who even if they could buy the computer, they might not have had access to electricity to run it.

other participants can alter the outcome and bet accordingly.

Do you think it is acceptable that someone may have altered their behavior due to the outcome of a bet on attacking Iran?

Of course. The point is whether you interpret a call to arbitrary_precision_add or compile the call doesn't matter much.

I don't protest to signal my moral outrage, I do it to effect change in my elected leaders.

How'd that work out for you?

If you actually believe this, then what is your explanation for a manufacturer to do this?

Do you think they are just stupid?

Is there a lower risk, lower interest option with the same capabilities (ability to use the money to pay others)?

Genuine question, I have no idea, but I didn't choose my bank based on interest rate. I can't pay bills or transfer money if it's cash under the mattress.

In most such countries there is also an entrance exam requirement that would exclude most student loan borrowers in the US.

Even if a law is wrong, it isn’t right to allow particular corporations to flaunt it in a way that individuals would go to prison for.

No one goes to prison for this. They might get sued, but even that is doubtful.

It's not at all obvious that this is what happens. To begin with, do you regard the average phone thief as someone who even knows what expected value is?

They know if their fence went from offering them $20/phone to offering $5/phone, it's not worth their time to steal phones any more.

Just establish a registry for the IMEI of stolen phones so that carriers can consult the registry and refuse to provide service to stolen phones.

This seems like something that the average HNer is going to get equally riled up about as a surveillance and user freedom issue.

It reduces the expected value of stealing a phone, which reduces the demand for stolen phones.

The point is, robots.txt was definitely a thing that people expected to be respected before and during google's early existence. This Kagi claim seems to be at least partially false:

Google built its index by crawling the open web before robots.txt was a widespread norm, often over publishers’ objections.

robots.txt was being enforced in court before google even existed, let alone before google got so huge:

The robots.txt played a role in the 1999 legal case of eBay v. Bidder's Edge,[12] where eBay attempted to block a bot that did not comply with robots.txt, and in May 2000 a court ordered the company operating the bot to stop crawling eBay's servers using any automatic means, by legal injunction on the basis of trespassing.[13][14][12] Bidder's Edge appealed the ruling, but agreed in March 2001 to drop the appeal, pay an undisclosed amount to eBay, and stop accessing eBay's auction information.[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt

This ignores capital and opportunity cost. Building a GPU data center or chemical plant costs a lot. If you only use it 20% of the time, you're effectively paying 5x more for that capital equipment.

In the 80s, the US was 80% white, and upper management is going to be people from the 1930s-40s, when the US was 90% white.