Oh is that why it happens? Was wondering why the spot directly under my wrist was pitted into a sawblade. I also filed it, though just enough to remove the pitting, nothing like the OP did.
It's easy for me to feel the mains frequency while gently rubbing the top surface of the MacBook while it's plugged in. Really feels unsafe, but neither me nor the computer have suffered any serious injuries yet.
a single AN/FPS-132 radar costs $1.1 bln, not $500m. And Iran stuck 17 of the CENCCOM sites hosting radars of all kinds across Qarar, Bahrain, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, etc).
Total cost is so much bigger, it is staggering. The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.
in addition to cost, they all require Rare Earth Minerals, and China has banned the export of these (they own like 99% of the market).
So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
To summarize all nepotism indicators posted here by various people:
- The Kushner family has invested in OpenAI.
- OpenAI uses Oracle cloud. Ellison is close to Trump.
- Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan (the “spy sheikh") has invested $500 million in World Liberty and is also invested in OpenAI.
- Altman is a protege of Thiel, whose Palantir integrates the external AI at the Pentagon.
- The scam occurs right before the Iran war starts. The Groq sale scam (where Trump Jr.'s 1789 Capital bought shares just months before the sale) occurred right before Christmas. So both were timed to be overshadowed by larger events or holidays.
Enigma Technologies sells customs manifest search; the Ferraris are marketing bait. Their headline correlations (Bitcoin +0.70, S&P +0.75) are meaningless — any two trending series from 2020–2026 will correlate due to shared macro shocks. Their own showcase contains VINs from Jaguar and Land Rover misclassified as Ferraris, revealing mechanical parsing without validation.
Look at these VINs:
SAJWA4GB2DLB50982 — This is a Jaguar VIN prefix, not Ferrari. Listed under “458 458 ITALIA”
SALLDHMV8BA298639 — This is Land Rover. Listed under “488 GTB TURBO ABS”
The page is data about data-selling, dressed as analysis.
This is the flat-earther epistemology problem.
Flat-earthers’ beliefs tell you nothing about the shape of the Earth, but their existence tells you something about humans. Similarly, this page tells you nothing about Ferraris or markets. It tells you what a B2B data company believes will attract clicks: luxury objects, stock tickers, correlation coefficients presented without methodology. The content is a signal about marketing culture, not economic signal about anything.
The web is saturated with this species of artifact, simply put, web pages built not to inform but to rank, to appear in searches, to gesture at sophistication while delivering none.
B2B is particularly fertile ground because the audience is assumed to be busy, skimming, and impressed by dashboards. The dozens of Ferrari photos aren’t information; they’re texture. The correlation numbers aren’t findings; they’re decoration.
This is the substrate on which large language models train. Not a library with noise, but a noise machine with library fragments embedded.
Billions of dollars spent to grow models that simply learn to reproduce the texture of authority with extreme confident tone, the fake mathematician with a white coat, the implied rigor.
No one is coming to clean this up because the garbage is the product. Pollution is the business model.
Why we care about Busy Beaver numbers, from “Who Can Name the Bigger Number?” by Scott Aaronson:
Now, suppose we knew the Nth Busy Beaver number, which we’ll call BB(N). Then we could decide whether any Turing machine with N rules halts on a blank tape. We’d just have to run the machine: if it halts, fine; but if it doesn’t halt within BB(N) steps, then we know it never will halt, since BB(N) is the maximum number of steps it could make before halting. Similarly, if you knew that all mortals died before age 200, then if Sally lived to be 200, you could conclude that Sally was immortal. So no Turing machine can list the Busy Beaver numbers—for if it could, it could solve the Halting Problem, which we already know is impossible.
But here’s a curious fact. Suppose we could name a number greater than the Nth Busy Beaver number BB(N). Call this number D for dam, since like a beaver dam, it’s a roof for the Busy Beaver below. With D in hand, computing BB(N) itself becomes easy: we just need to simulate all the Turing machines with N rules. The ones that haven’t halted within D steps—the ones that bash through the dam’s roof—never will halt. So we can list exactly which machines halt, and among these, the maximum number of steps that any machine takes before it halts is BB(N).
Conclusion? The sequence of Busy Beaver numbers, BB(1), BB(2), and so on, grows faster than any computable sequence. Faster than exponentials, stacked exponentials, the Ackermann sequence, you name it. Because if a Turing machine could compute a sequence that grows faster than Busy Beaver, then it could use that sequence to obtain the D‘s—the beaver dams. And with those D’s, it could list the Busy Beaver numbers, which (sound familiar?) we already know is impossible. The Busy Beaver sequence is non-computable, solely because it grows stupendously fast—too fast for any computer to keep up with it, even in principle.
"When compared to Intel-based systems, it delivers up to 86x faster AI performance"
I'm imagining the engineers responsible for running the tests finely tuning the test suite for days and days so they could get that number into the press release, lol. There's no way that's a coincidence and someone definitely advocated for that line being the way it is.
The fix is to disable Glass.
In a terminal:
defaults write -g com.apple.SwiftUI.DisableSolarium -bool YES
This gets rid of the slow animations, inconsistent window cornering, and other annoyances.
Then (so menus aren't transparent and unreadable):
System Settings > Accessibility > Display > Reduce Transparency
If you do those two things your machine should look and feel normal again. I've been running an M1 Max since 2021 and Tahoe was simply a disaster. Removing the glass layer made everything feel good again.
If for some reason you ever want the bad performance and glass back, you change the YES to NO in the Terminal command. Maybe someday it won't suck.
Texas' official policy on homelessness and drug users for at least a decade was to buy them a bus ticket to California. Gov Rick Perry bragged about it in a presidential debate. His successor bragged about it in a gubernatorial debate.
When the LA Times tried to survey the homeless population two years ago, fewer than 25% of the homeless in Hollywood were from California and none of them were locals. Want to guess the #1 state of residence for LA's homeless (Hint: it's Texas.)
But this article is right: once LA started buying the non-local homeless bus tickets back to their real home cities, things started getting better in LA. It's now part of our current mayor's homeless strategy to convince people to go back home.
Also: California defines homelessness differently (more broadly) than most states. Using the California definition, Texas, North Dakota, Florida, New York, and Oklahoma all have almost as many homeless. But when those states redefine homelessness to mean something narrower, of course they're going to look better. If California were to limit the "homeless" population to just Californians who became homeless (meaning that they owned, rented, or otherwise had housing before losing it), it would have fewer homeless than Texas.
The EU's bank count per capita is tiny compared to the US. Their offers are never competitive if you compare to the US banks (e.g. interest rates, apps that actually work, customer service, etc). They lack competition due to over-regulation, which, if you understand the history of corruption within banking in europe, should not imply good regulation.
Regulating big tech is good. Kill gatekeeping platforms and engagement-driven newsfeeds that are tearing us apart. I wish they could do that. Big tech competition with banking, on the other hand, would be welcome.
It's too bad, too, because overall the EU in most places has a history of better representing their citizens. I wish that mechanism was more functional.
My experience is living in 3 EU countries as an American - the banks are similarly terrible and entrenched in each.
I loved this one back in the day, and have referenced it within the past month. The author felt that simply changing "cloud" to "butt" was less funny. But that always brings to mind the 1994 TSR mage-to-wizard search-and-replace: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/s82mi4/til_that_in_199...
CUDA isn't really used for new code. Its used for legacy codebases.
In the LLM world, you really only see CUDA being used with Triton and/or PyTorch consumers that haven't moved onto better pastures (mainly because they only know Python and aren't actually programmers).
That said, AMD can run most CUDA code through ROCm, and AMD officially supports Triton and PyTorch, so even the academics have a way out of Nvidia hell.
Inference is (mostly) stateless. So unlike training where you need to have memory coherence over something like 100k machines and somehow avoid the certainty of machine failure, you just need to route mostly small amounts of data to a bunch of big machines.
I don't know what the specs of their inference machines are, but where I worked the machines research used were all 8gpu monsters. so long as your model fitted in (combined) vram, you could job was a goodun.
To scale the secret ingredient was industrial amounts of cash. Sure we had DGXs (fun fact, nvidia sent literal gold plated DGX machines) but they wernt dense, and were very expensive.
Most large companies have robust RPC, and orchestration, which means the hard part isn't routing the message, its making the model fit in the boxes you have. (thats not my area of expertise though)
Removal of occupants from West Bank and Gaza, completely, was always the overall goal here. Israel doesn't seem to care overly much how this occurs, but they're making it happen. The goal is almost reached.
There will be no Palestine. Egypt doesn't want the refugees. Jordan doesn't want the refugees. Qatar doesn't want the refugees. UAE doesn't want the refugees. Syria doesn't want the refugees. Lebanon doesn't want the refugees. Iran and Iraq don't want the refugees. America doesn't want the refugees. Europe doesn't want the refugees. Russia & China don't want the refugees.
When the fortnite-circle closes in Gaza and West Bank, where do you think these people will go? To a gigantic concentration camp? They'll fight -and die- first. Israel, and all of the surrounding nations are counting on this fact.
Palestine is done. Over. Finished. They have nowhere to go. They won't accept permanent incarceration. That leaves rebellion unto death.
That is the option the world has given these people. Do we help them? Move them? No. We condemn Israel's actions and blah-blah-blah.
I started with SML in the 1980's, implementing a core math algorithm (Grobner bases) used in my K&R C computer algebra system Macaulay. Then I got this idea there should be a related algorithm in a different problem domain (Hilbert bases) and I managed to convert my code in twenty minutes. It ran. This completely blew my mind, on par with switching from punched card Fortran to an APL terminal in the 1970's.
Everyone talks a good line about more powerful, expressive programming languages till they need to put in the work. Ten years effort to program like ten people the rest of your life? I'm 69 now, I can see how such an investment pays off.
I moved to OCaml. Studying their library source code is the best intro ever to functional programming, but I felt your "all the way" pull and switched to Haskell. (Monads make explicit what a C program is doing anyway. Explicit means the compiler can better help. What it comes down to is making programming feel like thinking about algebra. This is only an advantage if one is receptive to the experience.)
I'm about to commit to Lean 4 as "going all the way". Early in AI pair programming, I tested a dozen languages including these with a challenging parallel test project, and concluded that AI couldn't handle Lean 4. It keeps trying to write proofs, despite Lean's excellence as a general purpose programming language, better than Haskell. That would be like asking for help with Ruby, and AI assuming you want to write a web server.
I now pay $200 a month for Anthropic Max access to Claude Code Opus 4 (regularly hitting limits) having committed to Swift (C meets Ruby, again not just for macOS apps, same category error) so I could have first class access to macOS graphics for my 3-manifold topology research. Alas, you can only build so high a building with stone, I need the abstraction leverage of best-in-category functional languages.
It turns out that Opus 4 can program in Lean 4, which I find more beautiful than any of the dozens of languages I've tried over a lifetime. Even Scheme with parentheses removal done right, and with far more powerful abstractions.
I can't speak for the above person, but what the OP of this comment thread said also tracks with my own experience of schizoaffective disorder: when I'm psychotic, the pattern matching part of my brain goes into overdrive and not only does my brain erroneously fill in the blanks in sensory input (causing hallucinations), it does the same thing on an abstract or logical level with ideas and people. It's easy to fall into the trap of paranoid delusion when you feel like you're seeing connections between so many otherwise benign, disconnected things and events.
I think what really gets me is that despite my constant vigilance and skepticism toward my own thoughts, I simply cannot talk myself out of how truly real those delusions feel when they happen. I can even acknowledge how absurd they are, even in the moment, but I can never shake the feeling that they're still very, very real. It's so maddening. The best I can do is to just not act on those thoughts.
Maybe the above person's family is actually unearthing valid insights, but if they're prone to psychosis, in that state they'll be prone to finding connections, associations, patterns, and so on between things in a way that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It'll feel very real to them in the moment, but when they exit that state (if they do) they'll likely be on the same page as others in thinking those ideas were a stretch.
I have schizoaffective disorder, induced by a bad trip from marijuana. It was like the 3rd time I had tried weed, and I naively took too much.
For me psychosis feels like pattern matching going on extreme overdrive, while at the same time memory goes to shit. It's truly an awful illness, and what's worse is that the current medical treatments are bad. I've been fortunate enough where I can get by on a low dose olanzapine, but for many people they simply don't work at all.
Even though I'm doing well enough to function normally and hold down a good, well paying job, it's impossible to find a partner. If I were to have kids, I would have to go through one of the embryo prescreening services. I am strongly in support of these screening services - the disease is truly horrible.
There has been little progress on treatments for schizophrenia, the mechanism of action of these drugs has remained the same for decades. The side effects are almost as bad as the disease, which is why so many schizophrenic stop taking them. The only novel medication recently released is Cobenfy, which I have not tried yet.
I really dislike this take and I see it all the time. Also I'm old and I'm jaded, so it is what it is...
Someone decides X technology is too heavy-weight and wants to just run things simply on their laptop because "I don't need all that cruft". They spend time and resources inventing technology Y to suit their needs. Technology Y gets popular and people add to it so it can scale, because no one runs shit in production off their laptops. Someone else comes along and says, "damn, technology Y is too heavyweight, I don't need all this cruft..."
"There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”
For fun last month I decided to see if i could build a fully functional business of agents. It's 175 python files (employees) build up of internal roles within those files (tasks). So what I have is 175 employees who are able to pass output around each other, understand the work, complete the work, understand where to send the output. The whole system has the ability to do around 275 base processes (same as a business at > 100MM arr) I started on a Friday afternoon and slept a little bit and finished on Monday afternoon. After I had it running I sent it to a VC friend to show them and they sent back the deck of a startup that is in stealth with $25MM doing it the exact same way. With 1 month and a designer and an engineer, I could have it mvp functional for anyone to use ($40k?). Times are changing. Here is kinda how it looks: https://s.h4x.club/9ZuO4XQR / https://s.h4x.club/jkuB8ZED (I've evolved it a little since this, and if you're an engineer and look at my files and think, this guy is a moron: I know!:))
It's not just MS. I think they might have fixed it now, but my personal favorite was when Google photos would send me a notification with a preview of an AI generated album of my photos they made for me even though the app did not now, nor ever have permissions (on Android) to look at said photos. And it too would then "catch up" and ask permission to see my files and I'd say "no" and then the preview would go away.
The central problem of Objectivism is that they tie their logical conclusions into emotional knots. You can see this in their use of loaded language such as "theft".
The problem is that this causes them to believe that their conclusions are purely logical, even when they are not. Therefore any disagreements are "proof" that the other is being illogical and should be rejected. This leads to an intolerance of disagreement, that in turn leads to the excommunication, loyalty tests, and so on. All of which will be expressed in the rhetoric of the philosophy, which is designed to appeal to reason while connecting to emotion.
It is perfectly predictable emotional behavior. As is the inability to process inconvenient information that does not align with what the philosophy wishes to believe is true.
This could be overgeneralising a bit... but I see a lot of people with ADHD (on- and offline) who tend to make it an essential part of their identity. I realise it's a very impactful thing to have to deal with (I have ADHD too) but I feel like a lot of the time it's brought up for no real reason.
E.g. you started daydreaming when reading a book? Forgot something to do when you walked through a doorway? Got angry? You lost track of what you were thinking about? Must be the ADHD.
There are YouTube channels whose whole gimmick is that they're run by and for people with ADHD. And guess what kind of content you'll see there: "Why cooking with ADHD is hell", "How ADHD can make you lie", "Music for people with ADHD". What happened to "music for concentration"?
HN is a place where I see this play out a lot.
