Veserv

To add on, that is just ~40 million m^3 of water.

Desalination, turning unlimited sea water into fresh water which is one of the most expensive sources of fresh water, is ~0.50 $/m^3. They can literally manufacture the water they use with zero impact on the water table for ~20 million dollars.

Capability passing and dependency injection are just convoluted ways to describe passing parameters instead of using globals.

Capability passing is just extending that to the level of imports. Your files do not import the global I/O library and then use io.print(). They are passed a I/O library as the parameter {io} which defines a print() function and then call io.print().

No tzdata. When a time becomes the past you canonicalize it to the UTC, or better yet TAI, second it occurred at. As in, this occurred N cesium atom vibrations after the zero timestamp.

That is permanently fixed and can be losslessly and perfectly converted to the corresponding date in the past if you care about what local time was at that instant at some location.

Just to clarify are you saying a 1 gigabyte/s link or a 1 gigabit/s link? And you are seeking to saturate a 10 gigabyte/s link or a 10 gigabit/s link?

Obviously. The cubicle was invented as a more humane and private alternative to the standard open plan office of the 1960s, let alone hotdesking which is somehow even more of a fungible human cog than the open plan office.

> One can make the argument that the requirements is a much smaller surface to verify than that of the entire program.

This argument is unfortunately empirically false for any program of any meaningful complexity (>1000 lines, probably even as low as >100 lines ignoring well-defined algorithms and data structures) using current formal methods.

Complete formal specifications are usually multiple times larger than the corresponding source code and encode esoteric propertys necessary for the proof, but which are largely even more impenetrable than a undocumented codebase.

So, it is both harder to figure out if you encoded the desired requirements and it is more complex. Your only advantage is confidence that what you wrote down is proven.

Not at all. WASM is a repudiation of the thesis, not a confirmation.

The thesis is that javascript-compatible source will be the substrate of the future. A javascript engine, though one highly optimized to efficiently interpret a compatible subset, is a potential universal platform of the future despite generic javascript being a terrible substrate.

WASM fundamentally rejects this by creating a new javascript-incompatible substrate that is actually designed to be a low level target. Claiming WASM is confirmation of the thesis makes as much sense as claiming that a future where everybody has a Rust interpreter in the browser is confirmation of the thesis.

If you are arguing that, then you are just arguing that web browsers will run code in some form in some language as they already do. As the video is clearly discussing a “surprising” possible future, it makes little sense for it to be consistent with literally business as usual and literally every possible future.

Huh? It is a argument against government backdoor access to messages.

The government demonstrated that they are unqualified to keep data securely under their control. As such, any argument that a backdoor only allows the duly elected government access is empirically false. Any such backdoor empirically allows nefarious criminals access to your messages whereas the absence of a backdoor keeps your messages safely between you and the other party.

So, your options are:

1. Encryption with no backdoors so all messages are safe.

2. Criminals can freely read your messages so the government can more easily investigate potential criminals.

Nope. Those accusations were proven false and the people who made them have lost all their credibility. It was just a smear campaign by Tesla promoters so effective that here you are parroting it against reality to protect a trillion dollar company that actively lies and promotes illegal and dangerous behavior. They really outdid themselves with that smear campaign.

If you disagree, I presented the criteria for evidence needed to support your case. Remember, no shaky cam.

Ah yes, consistently, correctly, and truthfully highlighting serious safety defects and unacceptable design oversights for years in the products of a trillion dollar company with a rabid fanbase well known for running smear campaigns is "not interested in pedestrian safety".

I imagine everybody relishes the opportunity to get smeared by entirely false accusations by Tesla promoters with a conflict of interest. You can tell the Tesla promoters running the smear campaigns are worth listening to because their smears keep getting disproved by video evidence.

Please point at any clearly visible video evidence that their whistleblowing is inaccurate. No "shaky cam" "Bigfoot" evidence where you point at something blurry and falsify a claim to fit your desired narrative.

Your job would have been a lot easier if any of those Tesla Promoters accepted the Dawn Project's offer to attempt the tests themselves with their own Tesla's and their own cameras giving them the perfect platform to debunk the Dawn Project's claims. Weird how they all chickened out on that slam dunk.

It most likely does not recognize the sign. Last I saw, after years of furious development they were still unable to recognize standard "Do Not Enter", "Road Closed", and "One Way" signs in the US. Here is a video [1] from a week ago where it fails to recognize a clearly visible "Do Not Enter" sign with "One Way" road indications.

[1] https://bsky.app/profile/realdanodowd.bsky.social/post/3mnhw...

Really, your first instinct is: "The journalists are engaging in a baseless smear campaign."

The video evidence clearly demonstrates it engaging in a clearly signed illegal maneuver that it should never have even begun. Furthermore, your mischaracterization of the video is significant. The car straightens out having crossed the pedestrian walkway clearly indicated on the dash screen. The dash screen clearly indicates the vehicle intending to continue to travel on the bike-only road.

In addition, this is Tesla's own official curated video [1]. Tesla is the one who decided that failure to obey clearly indicated signs and engaging in a illegal maneuver is the best representation of their product they could muster.

[1] https://x.com/teslaeurope/status/2064350518907167166

No, as can be clearly seen from the video, it is doing a right turn onto a road where the only lane is a full-size lane with a sign indicating that cars are not allowed to use that road in that direction.

Okay, so in 14 years they replace all cell phone service in the US achieving 6% of the revenue goal. Just have to find another 15 “all cell phone service in US” and do it all in 14 years and we are golden.

Just add a whole Apple worth of revenue yearly and they can just barely make it.

Ah yes, the horrible anti-feature of IP fragmentation strikes again.

Pair it with the anti-solution of dropping large packets instead of truncating them and we get our perfect storm of bad design that is MTU incompatibility and modern MTU discovery.

Of course they do. Have you literally never run into a problem that the average developer can not solve, but a expert can solve? That is infinity times more productive.

Even assuming that maybe the average developer could come to learn how to solve the problem you can easily see the gap between taking months to learn how to solve a problem versus already knowing how to solve it on short notice being over 10x.

Large productivity differences are mostly a function of differences in capability than differences of speed in solving rote problems easily within their capabilitys.

A problem of incentives. How can we fix it?

Advertising tied to liquidated damages.

1. Any company handling PII must prominently advertise a amount of money per user they must pay in cash in the event of a data breach. This is a mandatory minimum payment and does not preclude subsequent lawsuits on specific damages.

2. Any claim of security or privacy must prominently advertise that amount earlier and in larger text than any other statement: “We provide 25 cents of security.”

3. In the event of data breach, your first notification must inform all affected partys and you immediately become tentatively liable for your data breach amount. Any affected party not notified in the initial disclosure receives 3x damages in the event their data was lost.

4. You may disclose to partys that you now know they are not affected. In the event that their data was lost they will receive 3x damages.

5. In the event of a data breach, you must issue your first notification within 1-7 days of when you discover it or are informed of it. Failure to do so constitutes a first notification to 0 partys, so you become liable for 3x damages to all users.

6. A data breach of any vendor you supplied PII to constitutes a breach.

1 and 2 align marketing with capability. 3 and 4 prevent underreporting. 5 prevents late reporting. 6 prevents diffusion of responsibility or the creation of scapegoat entitys and incentivizes only using vendors who properly track data provenance so their lawyers can tell your lawyers your users are unaffected.

Except in [0] the birth rate is relatively flat between 1950-1970 and then suddenly starts a rapid reduction. Developed countries have already been industrialized for 100 years by that point. The modern work day and access to many modern fun and rewarding activitys have been available for literal decades. Mass urbanization already occurred. Many of the modern household appliances have been in use for decades. Antibiotics, vaccines, and childhood mortality had already been dramatically reduced to within the vicinity of modern norms. In developed countrys female workforce participation, education, and political activity were material with no clear fundamental shift in those metrics in the 1960s-1970s.

But you know what did occur in the 1960s-1970s? The invention and popularization of the birth control pill. Here is the US birth rate [1]. Rising from 1950-1960 then a sudden and precipitous drop in the 1960s until stabilization in the 1970-now range. This coincides with the global drop in fertility rate. How about Germany [2]? Growth from 1950 to late 1960s then a sudden drop until stabilization in the mid 1970s. France [3]? Flat and high until mid-1960s then a sudden drop until stabilization in 1980. UK [4]? Growth from 1950 to mid 1960s then a sudden drop until stabilization mid 1970s. Australia [5]? Growth until 1960 then drop until stabilization in 1980.

Every single developed country in the world is flat to growing and then sees a sudden and rapid decline in birth rate just a few years after mass availability of the birth control pill until stabilization around the time that the pre-birth control cohort ages past reproductive years. The birth control pill is so new that the reproductive cohort that lived prior to its invention is still alive.

My hypothesis is that fertility is just a function of access to cheap, effective contraceptives. The fertility rates we see today are the natural rates when pregnancy is a choice.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/deu/ger...

[3] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/fra/fra...

[4] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/uni...

[5] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/aus/aus...

Yep, it is a fairly old technique with a lot of of general applicability beyond just allowing mutex elision for usage of per-core data structures amidst potential core migration. But apparently using your own expert knowledge and actually explaining things and describing generalizations is worthy of flagging these days.

Restartable windows, or more generically introspection windows, are a really useful technique you can apply in any situation where you understand or control the sources of preemption. The earliest uses of this technique in operating systems that I am aware of are ~25 years old.

The key insight is that the preempter can introspect the program counter of the code being preempted (which is now stable since it was preempted) and act accordingly. The simplest mechanism is to reset their program counter if in a critical section. The more generic mechanism is to jump them to a supplied address. This allows you to do things like hard abort and more.

You can further remove the need for the preempter to understand the preempted code by having the preempted code create a self-introspection code snippet and supplying that with the program counter at preemption. So the preempter just vectors them to their own code which knows how to interpret its own state at any preemption point.

Their popularity is a fad. You are talking about their popularity when they first released in the US. They faded significantly for at least a decade if not two until seeing a recent resurgence so massive even random corner stores carry pokemon card packs these days.

If it mattered they would not be using C without any of those tools or techniques. Therefore, it is empirically proven that it either does not matter or they are deploying code unfit for purpose and should not be writing such code.

And that is precisely what they said:

> Ideally people who don't care about secrurity [sic] should not write code when security matters.

The absence of legal consequences further supports the fact that it does not matter.

Voluntary unions do not have a free rider problem. That is only the case if you legally require collective bargaining to apply to non-union members (as is the case in the US).

For instance, in Germany [1] collective bargaining agreements are agreements between employers and unions, and are only required to be applied to union members. Companys may voluntarily choose to extend those same benefits to non-union members. Despite the fact that unions are voluntary in Germany, they still have significant union membership as a whole and German unions are frequently held up as a good example of the benefits of unions to both workers and society which is evidence against the claim that it is necessary to legally enforce union membership.

[1] https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.86564...

A key problem in the US is that in a unionized job you are legally required to be represented by the union. Union membership is non-voluntary.

If you think you are part of that top percentage or even if you think that the union is not representing your interests, tough luck. It is illegal to quit or reorganize like-minded individuals to form your own that better represents you. To reform the union you need to get 50% of the members to vote for change instead of just forming a new, smaller organization that represents your interests.

This is in contrast to many European unions where you can choose to join because you think they provide worthwhile benefits. Or you can choose to not join because it does not. Unions need to compete on benefits to their members and are thus incentivized to provide better benefits.

What a inane comment. They gave you a link that literally spoonfeeds the data and you complain because you can not be bothered to read until what is literally the second sentence in the article before accusing them of making statements in bad faith without supporting data.

> Starbase, a sprawling launch-and-manufacturing site that recently incorporated as its own Texas city, logged injury rates that were almost 6x higher than the average for comparable space vehicle-manufacturing outfits and nearly 3x higher than aerospace manufacturing as a whole in 2024, according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) data released in May.

Literally the second sentence which answers all of the questions you just posed and invalidates your accusations in the second paragraph. Geez.

What are you talking about? Injury rate at Starbase (Brownsville) was 6x higher than industry average in 2022 [1].

Furthermore, you have gotten the burden of proof backwards. The default presumption is non-safety. The burden of proof is on insiders (who have all the access) to robustly demonstrate in a clear and convincing manner that things are safe, not on outsiders (who only have limited access) to demonstrate in a clear and convincing manner that things are dangerous.

So, please present your evidence that their injury or fatality rate is normal. Absence of evidence defaults to your claim it is safe being unsupported.

edit: codingdave comment has a more recent link that also determines 2023 and 2024 also had injury rates multiple times higher than industry average.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48214074

[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-m...

Yes, you clearly do not understand how percentages work given that you continue to argue that the difference between 30x and 100x is just "2%".

You are correct that there were Space Shuttle missions to the vicinity of the ISS until 2011. I was talking about ISS crew rotation missions where the last Space Shuttle mission was STS-129 in 2009. The Space Shuttle was still used for ISS assembly flights until 2011. I was using crew rotation missions to highlight that not just commercial satellite launches, but also one of the other important class of missions, crew rotation, also regularly used alternatives to the Space Shuttle disproving your point that the Space Shuttle had some sort of magical monopoly on launches and thus the only alternative to compare against.

You were the one arguing that alternatives cost over 100x more than SpaceX. Even deceptively comparing against the Space Shuttle you were still off by a factor of 3x and comparing against actual competitors your claim is off by a factor of 16x-30x. Your claim is egregiously wrong. Continuing to argue it means you are either completely ignorant or utterly biased or both. I am done here.

They do, it is a draft [1]. There are other design flaws that also limit data path performance (ignoring encryption) to probably something on the order of just 30-50 Gbps/core though I would not be too surprised if you could get ~100 Gbps/core in a well-behaved case.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-ack-frequen...

No it did not. Nobody launched their commercial satellites on Space Shuttles. Soyuz, Atlas, Proton, Delta, Long March, Ariane; those are commercial launch vehicles. Even considering crewed missions we can look to ISS crew missions which were half Soyuz missions and then entirely Soyuz missions between 2009-2020.

And again, you do not seem to understand how percentages work. If I have a thing that costs 1,000 $ and I find a 99% cost reduction it is now 10 $. A 97% cost reduction means it is 30 $. That is a 3x difference. The difference between 1% and 3% is a factor of 3x. That is half of a order of magnitude right there and here you are claiming it is small.

So you are wrong on history, wrong on comparables, and wrong on math to defend a man who runs a company that is legally, and I quote a actual legal decision: a "greviously reprehensible... grossly racist workplace"[1]. But, you know, racism man good because he slightly lowered the cost of cruise ship internet I guess.

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06... Page 31.

I am baffled you can even get to six figure LoC implementing QUIC. Having done the majority of a QUIC implementation before deciding I needed to design a new protocol that fixes QUIC's performance limitations, a minimal, but fully functional and performant implementation with zero dependencys (except for cryptography) should only take maybe 5,000 lines.

If you use the default parameters with such a implementation you will likely cap out at a pretty slow ~10 Gbps/core, but if you reduce the ACK frequency you can probably get to ~30-50 Gbps/core without too much trouble.