tony69

If it’s translating at constant velocity, the satellite is orbiting the point in space where the object actually is. There is no “lag”, gravity points to where the center is now, not where it was 8 minutes ago.

You might be right that the AI is more difficult, but I disagree on the androids being dangerous.

There are physical limitations to androids that imo make it very difficult that they could be seriously dangerous, let alone invincible, no matter how intelligent: - power (boston dynamics battery lasts how long?), an android has to plug in at some point no matter what - dexterity, or in general agency in real world, seems we’re still a long way from this in the context of a general purpose android

General purpose superhuman robot seems really really difficult.

https://nuitka.net/ ?

I don’t understand the “security theater” criticism. There hasn’t been an airplane hijack or terrorist attack since 9/11. That is not proof that we can relax security checks. Nor is it proof that it’s just about the locked pilot doors. If anything, it’s proof that the system has worked well so far.

I really enjoyed this sci-fi novel. It’s free (funny that the download format is “.doc”)

I use pdftool.org which I saw on HN a while back

Sure, but in the context of stocks “analysis” typically refers to “fundamental analysis” which means some sort of deep dive into the business model and financial statements of the company… the rules of the S&P are more like “it the market cap above X” and “did it make a profit in the last year”. This is by design as far away from discretionary/traditional “fundamental analysis” as can be.

You don't need to be at the limit case of 100% of the market owned by passive funds to start creating problems [1].

Still, my point was that passive EFTs create a constant bid on company shares, disregarding any fundamentals. The speculative mania of 2021 artificially inflated the market cap of many SPACs like NKLA - speculators have all the rights to do this, but passive ETFs will blindly follow and increase their allocation based on market cap (the effect goes both ways, as price goes down allocation decreases). Who has been buying NKLA shares? Vanguard, for one: look at fund flows since 2021, mostly positive https://etfdb.com/etf/VTI/#fund-flows most of those inflows result in purchases of NKLA shares.

[1] https://www.acheroninsights.com/blog/wbdvi4uarbd3hdssx3f5kaf...

There is no analysis done to be included in the S&P500. It's 100% rules based. It's extremely unlikely that a stock like NKLA would ever qualify for the S&P500 but it was included in the Russel 2000 (also rules based), and by definition in any total stock market index fund.

I was trying to be brief but you are correct. NKLA was not in the SP500, but it was in the Russel 2000. Also, target retirement date funds will hold total stock market index funds, which will contain NKLA.

Look: https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s... Top ten holders are Vanguard, Blackrock, & the other usual providers of index ETFs.

Part of the story is how passive index ETFs work. https://www.etf.com/stock/NKLA sort by # shares owned, you'll see the biggest owners of NKLA stock are ishares funds, vanguard etc. These funds buy based on market cap of the stock. Anyone with a retirement account that holds passive etfs (or things like target date retirement funds) is a stockholder in NKLA, a stock which no active fund manager would touch with a 10foot pole.

As passive accounts for more than half of the total market funds/flows, blatant frauds that somehow manage to be included in these funds have an easier time surviving (and the larger the market cap, the more inflows their shares receive). In the 2021 stock mania there were other factors at play too.

It’s not about blaming the victim. It’s about getting the simple true message out there that wearing a helmet when riding vehicles can save your life.

> because Intel was largely "just" a memory chip company at the time

Intel management didn’t want to pivot to microchips despite the team’s pleads, so they left and founded Zilog, which eventually prompted Intel to pivot (https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Invention-Microprocessor-Scie...)

Federico Faggin is a hero

Agree except on the peer review part. Peer review is a farce perpetrated by the journal industry, both of which are an unnecessary burden and tax on science. What “peer review” pretends to accomplish should happen after publication (comments or the sort).

Check out Nuitka

Electrical generation is a small part of the problem.

Electricity generation takes up less than half of global energy consumption, I think the figure is 30-40%.

This means most fossil fuels are burned for purposes other than generating electricity, and even if 100% of electricity generation was carbon-free you would still have a ton of fossil fuel consumption, things like heating, transportation, etc.

Transitioning all of that energy consumption to electricity is a huge feat, AND you need a f-ton more electricity generation, transportation, and storage, and of course it needs to be carbon free otherwise the problem is just made worse by the inherent inefficiencies.

Materials science is more focused on these topics than mechanical engineering fwiw

What do you use windows arm for? The Windows-only software I use only works on x86 Windows. Obviously it’s subjective, but my god, windows is so bad.

To be fair, the amount of money in uranium and refining is orders of magnitude less than the amount of money in natural gas (which is one of the arguments pro nuclear), so your counter argument isn’t so strong either

I’ve already discovered some cool bands with this. Much better than the big platform’s music recommendations. Love it!

The cost function is exponential. Ie getting the last 1 microgram out costs as much as getting down to the 10 micrograms before that

Yes, happens all the time, and it’s not a big deal. There’s product and business strategies to help protect against that. Also, it’s not as easy as it seems, and in cases where it is, it’s good for the overall economy: competition lowers prices the right way (unlike mergers and acquisitions).

But then if you want to avoid the non-compete you would just get fired on purpose. Classic unintended consequence of regulation. But I do agree that non-competes should be illegal or somehow highly disincentivized.

This is easily solvable by requiring an ID to obtain a phone number.. and any additional phone number is taxed or something of the sort.