Gathering6678

In today's world this shouldn't have come as a surprise.

Would satellite dishes still be allowed when push comes to shove and the Internet is completely locked down?

Care to elaborate why? I'm just curious since I didn't know (1) there was actually any kind of serious usage, or (2) there was pushback from rescue team...

It reminds me of what3words, using three words to describe any location on earth. I really hoped that could catch on.

My knowledge may be out-of-date, but sodium-ion battery has a 30-50% lower energy density to lithium (200 Wh/kg vs 300-400). My understanding is it will be confined to cheaper solutions.

Oh okay, that's fair. How long would you achieve breakeven, i.e. save enough money from electricity to cover the initial cost?

That makes sense. I am running a desktop PC as server, and a NAS for backup. Only the PC is protected by a UPS, and the NAS is directly connected to the socket. I can't recall experiencing any glitches actually...it was a bit more common ~20 years ago. Most of the outages were things like maintenance, or some guy at a construction site did something stupid.

As for the remote rural argument, I totally agree with you: it's just that I don't know about those places. What I said about affordability was regarding the article: I don't think Anker would be able to sell those in China, since those who might want one probably couldn't afford it.

We live in a big city now (though not exactly close to hospital or government), but my wife's hometown is a smallish rural town, and power outage is also extremely rare (less than once per year?) in the past decade or so. If you need e.g. oxygen ventilation at home, probably safer to have a backup generator or UPS, but I don't think anyone I know would need one at home.

I don't know about "remote rural". But in those places, I don't think anyone could afford an energy storage system even if needed......

Oh I didn't mean 'violated', but 'no longer work as intended'. It's been a while, but I think there were cases where the robot was paralysed because of conflicting directives from the three laws.

I'm always curious why homes in the US need energy storage systems, basically UPS for the house? I live in China, and the only times my UPS for the home server tripped in the last 5 years were scheduled maintenance that lasted for no more than 30 minutes, and even that was rare...

Well, in the books the three laws were immediately challenged and broken, so much so it felt like Mr Asimov's intention, to show that nuances of human society can't be represented easily by a few "laws".

I meant the enforceability of such clause: to the extent of my limited understanding of law, you would need to at least appear to prove that: someone has breached the agreement by, for example, using your code to train AI. I am not sure how it is possible.

How do you propose someone who uses this license to enforce such clauses?

That is probably a good idea. I was so confused listening to the example.

This number is wrong. Instead, ~70-75%[0] of China's oil demand is met by importing.

[0]: "2024年，中国...石油对外依存度71.9%，同比下降0.5个百分点。" (In 2024, China's ... dependence on foreign oil was 71.9%, a year-on-year decrease of 0.5 percentage points.)(https://finance.sina.cn/2025-01-24/detail-inefzsek2941040.d....)

Emm...I played the sample audio and it was...horrible?

How is it voice cloning if even the sample doesn't sound like any human being...

I suppose it would be trivial to simply block or severely throttle high-volume SMTP traffic?

I have to emphasise that this is all my personal feeling and experience: I used to think these people and their actions actually mean something, and could lead to a different future. I was uncertain of this future, but willing to try.

Seeing recent US politics makes me reconsider: if this is democracy, or at least what it could very well turn out to be, is it really something I would want in my own country? I know my answer would be no.

Honestly, nowadays, if given the choice of "one person one vote" for the head of state tomorrow, I would strongly oppose such an idea and prefer the status quo.

Given such sentiment, I really don't care about these people and their campaigns anymore.

As a native Chinese, the recent years of US politics definitely made me more unsympathetic for people like Jimmy Lai and the (for lack of better words) campaigns related to them, and, at least from my personal experience, my sentiment (that such people and campaigns are inconsequential at best) is shared amongst a significant portion of Chinese.

I live in China, and even I am surprised to see completely electric heavy trucks that are eerily quiet compared to diesel ones and carrying building materials, just cruising by on public roads. No idea how well or expensive they run, though.

More automation while keeping trained professionals in the loop is definitely going to help with safety.

But the money comes from ... ?

For a country built on dead bodies of independent natives, the last sentence seems disingenuous at best.

I honestly don't even know about your company before and the only thing I remember now about PlanetScale is the CEO telling HN readers to f off...

This is an interesting statement I've never thought of before. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Where this current administration is leading, the US does not need an enemy to "lose".

Not sure about the true/false of your premise, but a potential conflict between US and China will adversely affect all risk assets, which include US equity and crypto (unless you are one of those who equate crypto to gold). However, I don't think you could reverse the thinking and try to associate US-China conflict with a market disturbance solely based on the previous observation.

I wonder if there's a comparison between level of (a) pollution from satellites burning, and (b) pollution from other sources. If (a) is only a tiny amount compared to (b), I think this is not a significant issue.

The calculator also misleads in another direction, in that it could underestimate the probability of failure by only considering the "takeover" scenario, while I think it is much more likely to be defeated via other OpSec failures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this feels like a long-winded way of saying: if an adversary could control a significant portion of relays without being found out and for a not-insignificant period of time, it could defeat Tor.

Is it correct? Probably. Does it justify the "Not secure at all" indictment? No.

My understanding is Anthropic is closed source and has been unavailable for Chinese companies for a long time, and if they wanted to use offshore entities to use closed-source LLMs, they would have gone to OpenAI...?