HN user

runako

9,206 karma

@ProjectLockerHQ alum working on the next thing.

Posts17
Comments2,630
View on HN

Aren't consumers benefiting from cheap chinese batteries, EVs, and drones?

Yes?

Not remembering my economic theory here, but it is likely more efficient/expensive to simply have the federal government cut checks to our moribund industrial sector companies and let consumers benefit from modern technology.

Cut GM/Ford/Stellantis a $20B check each, let consumers save (conservatively) $200B annually on new car purchases + downstream benefits. Huge win for consumers & taxpayers.

If it's not worth subsidizing explicitly like this, then we also should not subsidize by banning Chinese imports, which also ensures US drivers have less access to modern vehicles. (And downstream ensures US auto designers are less likely to have had contact with modern vehicles, making it less likely that they will be able to design future generations well.)

It's a rational position to care about the law, but insist on a queue when related parties are involved.

In this case: resolve the theft claims against the US frontier labs, and only then let them make claims against third parties. It would be totally unreasonable for (say) OpenAI to extract a settlement from Moonshot and use that to pay its own claims. Ordering matters.

If it's costing $650+ per sqft to build, it sounds like there may be some externalities about the site(s) that might be relevant here?

For scale, in much of the country it is possible to build a new home for well under $200/sf. New detached homes retail for <$175/sf, which includes the builder's profit.

Companies posting ranges of $100K-$900K.

Yes, this is extremely Netflix. The "fix" for this is to mandate that they can no longer post an ad for engineers, but rather they have to post separate ads for each engineering role. Maybe this is better, maybe not. If a person applies to L4, are they allowed to be hired at L3 pay? Will that confuse people?

For small companies and single openings

levels.fyi chooses not to publish some comp datapoints because there's too little data, which means publishing the data is tantamount to publishing an individual's compensation.

I hear you on the goal, but the details are tough.

Caveat: I am pro more transparency in compensation data. But it's hard to do right.

mean(), median(), and std()

play this out a bit, and you'll quickly realize that there are infinite ways to game this. Something like levels.fyi only works because levels are a thing, and they are consistent across a relative handful of companies (most tech workers do not work at those companies).

And even levels.fyi won't publish salary data until there are enough data points at a company to prevent such publication from inadvertently publishing how much an individual person makes. This makes it less useful for (say) a senior looking for a job at a non-tech or small firm.

Qwen 3.8 3 days ago

Popular open-source projects:

Google: Chromium, Kubernetes, Android, TensorFlow

Meta: React, PyTorch, Llama

Microsoft: VS Code, TypeScript, .NET Core

LinkedIn: Kafka

Slotted in along these, an analogous explanation is that Alibaba needs Qwen internally (vs depending on an American company), but licensing is not part of their revenue strategy. (As a cloud vendor, they can make money on inference. The strategy is very similar to the US hyperscalers ex-Google.)

Joel Spolsky wrote in depth about this notion of commoditizing one's complement in 2002[1] using tech examples stretching back into the '80s.

1 - https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

People are forgetting that the kind of conduct alleged is also likely illegal.

In the not-so-distant past, Uber's head of self-driving was indicted and sentenced to jail time for similar conduct. The criminal case didn't start until ~2.5 years after the civil case was filed.

My understanding is that Starlink can only service ~6-7 houses per square mile today. The US is ~95/sq. mile on average. 80% of Americans live in "cities."

Anchorage metro is ~15/sq. mile; Yuma, AZ is ~36. The Nashville metro is ~250.

Also, Starlink satellites spend ~70% of their time over the ocean. This will impact the utilization ratio of their gear and force them to launch still more satellites.

This idea that putting $500m+ of assets in the water, but thinking that even one person on the boat is too many has got to be one of the silliest things in modern capitalism (obviously the crown goes to orbital AI data centers).

The same bosses will pay multiple security guards, in addition to staff, to guard <$10m in goods at a Walmart. But when 50x the goods are in the ocean, suddenly the staff is the limiter?

I will go out on a limb and say that's not going to be an Apple product, period. It doesn't fit anywhere in the value envelope.

The relevant questions here are: will the person using this machine also conceivably be wearing a pair of $549 AirPod Max? Or a $399 base Apple Watch? Does that person expect to pay more or less for their largest-screen computing device than their headphones?

Framing that way points toward a $350 price point being a laptop for young children (younger than Apple Watch age, so lower elementary). That's a whole different software experience beyond just the hardware.

And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase

Yeah, this is mind-boggling. The requested increase is roughly the size of the entire 2004 military budget. 2004, when we were fighting two separate ground wars.

There were close to 200k US troops on the ground in combat theaters in 2004. We're proposing to add a "2004 US military" to our military. The unnecessary wars we will start with this capacity[1] will cause havoc in unpredictable places.

I'm not quite that old, but didn't people look down on cassettes due to their lower audio quality? Weren't most home systems (hi-fis) still vinyl or 8-track for a while longer?

If Microsoft didn't want to use IP of existing studios, they should not have bought those studios. Why buy id if not to get more id?

Disney + Marvel offers a roadmap for extending existing IP. (Keep in mind that the Marvel acquisition was in 2009.)

... prevent access to information. ... or find countless video reviews which contain its ideas

Popping in to point out that novels are not "information" in the sense of being lists of facts or ideas. The medium is part of the message. That's why novels can be banned but a list of the facts/ideas are often not.

Reading an AI summary of a novel is not even roughly equivalent to reading the book. (Before AI, there were handwritten summaries like Cliff's Notes that served the same purpose of allowing a person to gain a superficial understanding of a book.)

For example: one could list the key facts of _Roots_ (banned in school libraries in the author's home state of Tennessee in 2026) and not convey the points of the book, which is embodied in the totality of the work. Incidentally, _Roots_ was banned for integral parts of the message of the book.

Whether that person is talking their book or not, there absolutely has been an app explosion. Github & the app stores have all reported as much over the last year.

I also have repeatedly experienced the phenomenon of nontechnical people having built custom software to run their businesses. A lawyer friend was first, sending me a link to his GitHub(!), where he has built a custom client intake/practice-management application to work as the firm works. He's not the only non-technical lawyer I know who has shared vibe coded apps with me.

I personally build many, many single-use apps than I ever would have before. Gnarly debugging sessions can be greatly simplified by inserting a custom piece of disposable tooling/etc. I am not a Mac programmer, but I now have custom Mac apps to solve problems that only I want solved. Do these count?

Honestly, I would be a little surprised if anyone posting on HN did not have some personal exposure to the explosion of apps.

impossibility of enforcing fireworks bans

Because fireworks are not usually homemade, enforcing bans is pretty easily done by cracking down on retailers who illegally sell them. They are easy to find (have to advertise) and have a lot to lose by breaking commerce laws. Notably, cannabis grows naturally in many climates in the US (so retail not strictly necessary) and we still ban it.

IIRC our state long prohibited the kind of fireworks that go into the air (roman candles, etc.) and only allowed sparklers and similar ground-effect pyrotechnics. Of course, the odd person would drive hundreds of miles with fireworks in their trunk, but overall the ban was fairly effective.

No one is motivated to actually enforce it.

All that said, I am a fan of removing laws that continue to exist only as a pretext for targeting disfavored groups. A lot of the rot in the country is downstream of us not really being a nation of laws.

I laid out a set of scenarios, and it's impossible to know what would have happened had US laws been enforced.

Bankruptcy is a legitimate option -- many companies with productive assets survive and thrive after restructuring. Even a liquidation tends to preserve functioning assets.

Regardless, the larger point stands that it's bad, actually, for the US to selectively enforce laws. In particular, anticompetition enforcement has been notoriously lax for a generation. Hard to make an affirmative case that regulators should continue to ignore existing laws the way they have been doing.

Even so, mergers foreclose options to promote competitiveness. For example: no well-capitalized companies from outside the immediate industry could buy MDD to enter the space (as RocketLab bought Iridium). A failing MDD could have limped along for a decade or more until a tech billionaire (say) decided to buy in and reinvigorate it. It could have been split up, allowing smaller entrants to buy parts of it. It could have been allowed to fail, so any of these types of transactions could have happened at smaller dollar amounts.

Basically, allowing it to merge with its largest competitor was the worst possible outcome for competitiveness and long-term health of the industry.

More to my point, though. There's no real reason our existing anticompetition laws should not have been enforced here. Our culture of selective enforcement of laws is a cancer that manifests in all kinds of negative ways. I strongly advocate that we move towards being a society governed by written laws.

The free market fundamentally doesn't have a good response to this problem

The market may not for the most capital-intensive businesses, but US laws at least attempt to address the situation. In Boeing's case, for example, the McDonnell-Douglas merger likely could have been blocked under existing anticompetitive laws.

The US's longstanding refusal to apply antiticompetition law causes a number of harms to consumers, entrepreneurs, and the stability of our economy.

A $1m machine with (say) $100k of annual operating costs with a 10-year lifespan. Assume low cost of capital, call it $200k/year for those 10 years.

The machine itself covers its cost at only ~84 monthly scans @ $200 each. That says to locate near population centers where the demand exceeds 84 scans. At the global mean of scans/population, said "population centers" only need to be about 15k residents.

Labor costs + junk fees make them appear expensive.

we have observational evidence to answer the question.

Isn't the point that the observational evidence amounts to the companies in question steer clear of illegal behavior?

There are anti-money laundering laws, so banks institute procedures to help them comply. Yes, we expect companies to change their processes so they don't break the law. That's the point of the law.

I am confused with what you think companies should do in this situation. Expose themselves to legal and civil liability? Or change their behaviors so that close scrutiny indicates they are trying to comply with the laws and any bad actors acted against internal procedure?

selectively adhering to the letter of the law

Are you suggesting that companies should violate the law here? What do you recommend?

Edit: charitably, "adhering to the letter of the law" is sometimes shortened to "law-abiding" and is generally what we want.