HN user

ranadomo

36 karma
Posts0
Comments10
View on HN
No posts found.

This is a common fallacy. Criminals often turn to crime because they're not very good at honest endeavors. Having failed to succeed on a fair playing field (hard), they victimize the weak and take advantage of others' naivety and trust (easy).

Almost nothing about crime is indicative of an intelligent mind that could be put to good use. It's a lot of lowlife midwits who are bitter they have no chance to compete or associate with real players.

That relatively small in-person games would use rigged shuffling machines, cameras, see-through playing cards, lenses etc seems to all but guarantee that every manner of deception and fraud is being perpetrated by all online gambling sites.

Just stuffing any table with two or more "players/bots" that can see all the cards or share their hands with each other would guarantee enormous payouts on the hundreds of millions at stake in the industry. There are obviously a million more things sites could be doing to take money and there's absolutely no source code control the government does to ensure that the whatever code the regulators look at is running in production and that no other systems are running in parallel, like a bot service that colludes to win.

Fun game. Great work. I think schools are billed twice, once when you build and then again at the end of the month. Also there may be a bug with "lowest rent". It never seems to change and is higher than the "median rent".

Would also like to see more infrastructure like water and electricity. Any plans to open source parts of this?

This is an absurd statement to make about a DOD program. Securing communication is communication in the most adversarial environment imaginable. There are thousands of problems that only emerge once cryptographic authentication and authorization are enabled. This isn't a b2b sass app where you can just add an "auth layer" once the api is built out. It's passing mission-critical messages through signal-jamming and unimaginably hostile imitation scenarios. Many DOD programs are built as prototypes that don't ever factor security in the architecture, and then have massive problems and delays trying to implement it later. DOD cyber acquisition is run by the most incompetent clowns on earth. The only reason they don't know how terrible their software is, is because they're not capable of detecting how fundamentally compromised their systems are, and China and Russia are not exactly white-hats looking for a bounty.

Transit violence is not limited to outlier cases like the nyc immolation or Iryna's horrific slaughter. Women in particular may never feel safe on public transit and avoid it entirely at night and alone. Daily harassment, stalking, threats and verbal abuse are "facts of life" for the majority of female passengers in metro areas. They will all move up or out to safer environments and take their car or private transportation everywhere. Pretending like Americans are instinctually averse to public transit is an absurd contention when they've been behaviorally conditioned by the insanely dangerous environment and a justice system that works to inflict it upon them until they give up or die.

I believe this is the case and the wiki summary seems to agree.

Geoffrey K. Pullum's explanation in Language Log: The list of snow-referring roots to stick [suffixes] on isn't that long [in the Eskimoan language group]: qani- for a snowflake, apu- for snow considered as stuff lying on the ground and covering things up, a root meaning "slush", a root meaning "blizzard", a root meaning "drift", and a few others -- very roughly the same number of roots as in English. Nonetheless, the number of distinct words you can derive from them is not 50, or 150, or 1500, or a million, but simply unbounded. Only stamina sets a limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow#cite_not...

The Lexical Elaboration Explorer app does not allow one to see the actual words for snow for any language, so the tool is mostly a geographic and word-density plotter, but neither the article nor the website add much nuance to this debate. The hypothesis is fairly obvious: languages have words for common things. It's not really falsifiable and I find this type of analysis typical of modern research. Sloppy, surface-level, coding-tutorial demonstrations of mostly useless data display.

Let’s focus on America’s strengths in high end manufacturing, agriculture, and innovation instead of applying tariffs to all countries and products blindly. We should be taxing automated drones for agriculture at 300% to encourage their manufacture here, instead of applying the same blanket tariff of 54% to that that we apply to t-shirts.

Everything wrong and right with the author's thesis. Our present day high-end manufacturing, agriculture, and innovation are already facing the steepest tariffs from a broad range of countries. The uneven playing field extends to IP theft, heavily subsidised and protected industries abroad and other forms of unfair competition like port traffic manipulation or burdensome legislation.

The author think that "targeted tariffs" would have a different effect from what we see now with trade war and retaliatory threats, market instability and uncertainty. This is false, but also ultimately harmful to our "agricultural drone industry". It's hard to have a niche industry without the larger picture, and it's hard to have "drones" without knowing how to manufacture constituent parts and having a reliable domestic supply chain for such. A domestically sourced supply chain encourages innovation and adaptation to immediate customer demands and goods can arrive in days or hours instead of weeks or months. Innovative requests to parts makers aren't immediately harvested by Chinese industrial spies and knowledge and technological advantage can remain local for longer, allowing for time to progress again before others can catch up.

Encouraging lazy and unoriginal drone manufacture in moated "made in USA" assembly lines is precisely the low-end type of job that "no one wants to do" and will inevitably produce the least capable drones the least efficiently or profitably. Our manufacturing and industrial capacity needs to be the world's best and most cost competitive because nothing else will do.

Only automation can save American industry. There will be "fewer" jobs but they will require skill and training. Robot management and supervision and repair and update and retooling will all require a large labor force. Creating robots and the software they run on will continue to be an important and large sector of the software industry. But manufacturing is only about jobs in the way that having a healthy agriculture industry is "about jobs", hardly at all.

Manufacturing real goods is the difference between servility and freedom given that modern war in the nuclear age also entails producing billions of tonnes of metal and blowing it up in distant countries, and could require replacing percentages of the global shipping tonnage that would be destroyed in a major conflict. It requires manufacturing thousands of substation transformers and the aa systems to defend them.

If we had invested strategically into a variety of heavy and light industries over the past 30 years, we almost certainly would have invented better processes and formulae for making things than we currently possess. We could have more globally competitive steel, even more advanced finished products and the knowledge and experience to "make anything better and more profitably than anyone". Industrial production and manufacturing make up roughly 15% of US GDP today. "Bringing back manufacturing" might increase that number significantly but it's hard to see how or why it would need to be more than 30% outside of wartime. That wouldn't even require a doubling of the jobs involved because much of this would have to be automated.

I agree with the author's emphasis on education and "fixing" things being critical in the execution of any kind of industrial renaissance. If the tariff fight lowers tariffs globally, that is a small move in the right direction of leveling the playing field and rewarding domestic producers who are globally competitive.