HN user
cordial.cat8113@fastmail.com
OpenAI had argued that the word "open" has multiple possible meanings and that "OPENAI" is a coined term without a fixed meaning.
Duh. The open in OpenAI isn't supposed to mean open. We've all been complaining about nothing.
... which is entirely unsurprising given that exhaled air is about 50.000 ppm CO2 and can vary by several 10.000s depending on depth and rate of breathing. I actually consider the recent wave of findings that CO2 levels as low as 500-1000 ppm measurably affect cognitive performance and well-being to be a great example of how you can prove literally anything with statistics and a sufficiently small sample size.
This is cute, but here is the result I got by always clicking the longest answer, or the first one if two seemed equal:
Scientific Estimate: 71,650 words
"Unbelievable. Are you actually Stephen Fry in disguise?"
Core Basics: 16/20
Intermediate: 15/20
Advanced: 19/20
Expert: 18/20
Grandmaster: 16/20
This is significant beyond this particular app, because biases like this are found all over the place in popular LLM benchmarks.
I remember when Microsoft was the new darling not many years ago, because of VS Code and WSL
I was genuinely puzzled by that, actually. I thought it quite obvious from the start that Nadella is no longer interested in Windows and other Microsoft software as products and will be moving them to thin cloud wrappers, but for some reason people were really optimistic about the "New Microsoft".
"A guy on HN told me one time, 'Don't let yourself get attached to any cloud services you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner.'" -- Robert de Niro
Theoretically yes, practically no. The ECJ can order the revision of national laws, but the country in question is responsible for implementation, and can send plaintiffs on a multi-decade merry chase. Several countries have also taken the view that they can refuse changes to their constitutions. This stands on shaky ground legally, but there is no real enforcement mechanism anyway.
Thank you for Making Minesweeper Great Again!
What you are seeing here is probably the effect of window size. BZip has to perform the BWT strictly block-wise and is quite memory-hungry, so `bzip2 -9` uses a window size of 900KB, if I recall correctly. Dictionary-based algorithms are more flexible in this regard, and can gain a substantial advantage on very large and repetitive files. The article kind of forgets to mention this. Not that BZip isn't remarkably efficient for its simplicity, but it's not without limitations.
Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking"
I wonder if that's really true.
That claim is in fact based on extremely poor research methodology. It is made by combining the linear no-threshold model of radiation damage (which contradicts everything we know about cellular repair and hormesis) with evidence from "case-control studies", a kind of retroactive hand-waving that has nothing whatsoever to do with a "controlled trial", despite the name.
Maybe a bit late to comment, but for what it's worth: There is no primer that could be actually useful, because the "tax optimization" landscape is fragmented and constantly shifting. Everything depends on where you live, where you do business, how much much money is involved, etc.
But there is a central driving force behind it all: governments constantly fight for "tax justice" with one hand and create various "incentives" and exceptions with the other, in an effort to briefly gain the upper hand over other countries in the zero-sum game of attracting international capital. The former tends to plug all possible loopholes for the "ordinary wealthy", while the latter always leaves options for the truly big fish, they just don't stay the same decade-over-decade.
[flagged]
At the risk of stating the blatantly obvious, this will be a rebranded Chinese phone, if it happens at all. The photo on their website [1] is a quick and sloppy Photoshop job (note identical lenses and lack of flash), and the specs and pricing are totally implausible for a US-made phone. Compare that to the 2000$ Purism charges for their comically under-powered Liberty phone [2] that is mostly US-made.
1. https://trumpmobile.com/t1-phone 2. https://puri.sm/products/liberty-phone/
It's legalized graft, not a subsidy. The tens of billions flowing into SLS do not bolster productive capability in the civilian or military aviation sector, they tie up engineers in a nonsensical, dead-end project, and totally mess up incentives on top of that.
I think you are misusing Berkson's Paradox here. It applies when you sample two extremes, i.e. when you look at the richest 0.1% and the most moral 0.1% and notice that the two appear mutually exclusive, even though they might actually be uncorrelated in the general population. When you look only at the richest 0.1% and notice their lack of morals compared to the general population, that is a legit correlation.
Yeah, seems I was wrong about that. Apparently most IFRS countries allow expensing R&D for tax purposes, regardless of accounting. Many even have an R&D superdeduction nowadays.
Sorry for the noise :(
Elsewhere in the world (under IFRS accounting rules) capitalization of R&D costs has been a firm requirement for a while. The US has been somewhat unique in allowing them to be expensed instead, until recently.
If the business has some revenue, but is not yet profitable after deducting development costs, it can become profitable on paper (and owe tax) if R&D is capitalized instead.
That depends on what kind of aviation we are talking about. An air taxi usable over 200km with 2 passengers is easy to achieve. But a minimally useful regional plane with 100+ passenger capacity is an entirely different matter, because it will be subject to the same regulations as conventional airliners. That is operational margin, winds, diversion and hold, etc. This means you probably need something like 2000km net range to be able to fly 500-1000km routes, which means you need close to 1000 Wh/kg batteries under reasonable assumptions for battery mass fraction and L/D-ratio.
That's an interesting sentiment, coming from you. Is privacy officially over then? Should I stop pushing my friends to use Signal over WhatsApp?
Note: When I say “wheel” throughout this post, please replace it with whatever tool, protocol, service, technology, or other invention you’re personally interested in.
How did we sink this low?
I could see a highly hydrophilic capillary restricting a vapor enough to where it has better entropy in a liquid state.
My other comment here (and and a reply to a similar question) has more detail [1], but in short: this is true for capillaries and pores, it is not true for "collectable" droplets on a flat surface.
What you are referring to is called capillary condensation [1]. When you have a hydrophilic surface with thin capillaries or small pores, they can pull water from the air below 100% RH. However, this process requires an enclosed space with a very small radius and the air-water interface is always concave in this case (it's just how capillary forces work).
Forming a convex surface, on the other hand, requires an at least slightly hydrophobic material and produces a positive internal pressure. This is a key difference, because condensation into a hydrophilic pore is favorable in terms of free energy, while condensing onto a hydrophobic surface is unfavorable (unless you have a supersaturated vapor).
Theoretically speaking, you can have a material that somehow absorbs high moisture from the air but has microscale properties that promote creation of droplets then somehow these droplets are separated from the rest of the air
That "somehow" is what makes the paper's claims impossible. The water condenses spontaneously into the pore because it thereby lowers its free energy. Extruding it onto the surface is then even more unfavorable than direct condensation. Unfortunately, no passive system can achieve this feat, no matter how cleverly nanostructured, as it would go against the arrow of increasing entropy. You need an external energy source to drive that process.
Keeping the temperature constant with a thermostat is not an issue here. That would only explain things if the surface were kept cooler than the surrounding air (below the dew point), but from the description in the paper that does not seem to be the case. They basically claim that macroscopic droplets form spontaneously from an unsaturated vapor. And no, this is not something permitted by the second law of thermodynamics.
Unless they have buried some really important caveat somewhere in the paper [1], it really looks like they are making claims that are incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. They claim that water droplets are condensing on their nanomaterial at constant temperature and less than 100% relative humidity. This is absolutely forbidden by thermodynamics as we understand it. Under these conditions droplets can condense within pores (forming a concave surface), but they can never form a convex droplet on a flat surface.
Their mumbo-jumbo about water being "squeezed out" onto the surface by the hydrophobic component is totally bogus as well. The condensation will just stop earlier, without overflowing. Water condensing in concave pores and being squeezed into convex droplets requires hydrostatic pressure to be positive and negative at the same time.
The possibilities I see are: 1) contaminated surfaces 2) miscalibrated relative humidity or 3) they've neglected to mention a cooling plate that keeps the material below ambient.
Zeus would like to file an injunction against the impostors associating his name with a something-equivalent¹ something. The Zeus brand stands only for supreme dominance. Zeus would not object to an actual zettawatt laser being named after him.
You'd get the same result if you asked a random student to fully translate a passage from Hamlet, sentence by sentence, with no prior context. Or asked a random CS student to explain a random snippet of source code from the Linux kernel line by line. Most people don't deeply understand most things unless they get the bug and decide to dig in for fun.
I would rate the amount of specific context necessary to understand a random snippet of kernel code much higher than what you need for that Dickens passage. It's certainly much more dense with metaphor and playful use of language than normal prose, but I don't find it that opaque, even as an non-native speaker.
The point is that you can't force comprehension on someone who isn't interested or motivated on their own. Most students are just muddling through because they "have to get a degree".
Well, yes, but that doesn't necessarily contradict the article. The bell curve at the bottom basically says that the comprehension they were expecting is in the top 3% or so, not the 60% of the general population who "have to get a degree". Add in all the Netflix and TikTok casualties, and the result ceases to be surprising.
Presumably they mean that the CO2 captured in the wood of the tower can offset the manufacture of blades and other components at some point in the future. Not that reaching net zero in wind power is an important milestone or anything. From their technology page:
The life-cycle emissions from modern wind power plants made of steel are about 4–7 grammes carbon dioxide per kWh. Building the tower in wood lowers the emissions from the wind power plant by approximately 30 percent per kWh.
That would put wind power some 50-100x below fossil fuels already. Additional improvements are always nice to have, but not really a big selling point.
For all those who are peeved by "stronger than steel" claims: No it's not. Or only in an extremely specific, not very practically relevant way. Their Nature paper [1] has the details, but let me summarize:
Tensile strength along the fiber direction is up to 600 MPa, which is higher than mild steel used for ordinary construction (~400 MPa). Except that mild steel is isotropic and highly ductile, i.e. it will deform by 50% or so before finally breaking, while the densified wood will snap as soon as its strength is exceeded. There are also steel grades that are way, way stronger than mild construction steel.
Flexural and compressive strength is up to half as high (300 MPa, below mild steel).
Strength in the weakest direction (across fibers) is around 50 MPa, or 1/8 of mild steel.
This densified wood is essentially a rather weak fiber composite. With careful planning it can be used instead of steel in construction, but their marketing is simply BS.
I think at this point it would be preferable for the government to take over the payment infrastructure directly. This is often seen as dystopian, but it's a dystopia that has already come to pass for the most part. If we made it official, at least the rules for what can be blocked or refused or frozen would be out in the open.
It's not illegal. Even though having access to banking is absolutely essential to every imaginable business, bank accounts are still treated as a voluntary business relationship by regulators. Some protections exist in the EU for individuals, but for businesses, it is entirely at the discretion of the bank to open and maintain a relationship.