Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 00F_'s comments login

why not lock replies in such threads to being non-repliable? its not the initial comments or the replies but the giant argument chains that are the problem. or you could allow arguments but offload them to twitter spaces or another real-time platform thats well-suited to such nonsense.


> why not lock replies in such threads to being non-repliable?

People would just post their replies at the top level instead.


for me, not being able to harass a comment from directly below takes a lot of the visceral enjoyment out of it. but ok.


Yup and being denied that enjoyment would create resentment that would convert into mischief.

Basically, technical tricks for controlling discussion don't really work—that's been our experience anyhow.


i was at south padre island for the first starship landing. even though it blew up a minute or two after it landed, i consider it the first landing. i had seen pretty much every major launch from spacex on their livestreams but i was still taken aback at seeing starship. its as odd as watching a skyscraper slowly levitate upward into the sky. and to see it standing after the dust settled was unreal. and after it was over people shuffled away and even i was halfway to my car when we heard the explosion. i thought it was a sonic boom or something and only later realized it had blown up because by that time the landing pad was well out of sight. i got a crazy sunburn.

im not sure if im even going to attempt to see the next launch in person because i think it will be absolutely thronged. finding a hotel room, parking, even a good spot in the grass come launch time. its going to be a fucking mad house. if some people here want to split a hotel room then i might consider it. hotels can really add up because they can scrub or cancel or whatever and youre just stuck there. i think there were a couple scrubs on my last go too. my advice to anyone who goes: bring sunscreen and a really good pair of binoculars and a tripod for the binoculars.


ive made a reservation with another user. show up at the lighthouse inn on south padre island the night of the 16th for a raging party and to save money on a room


Now this is what the internet is all about.


I'm down to share a room, my email is in my profile.


My email's in my profile, I'm trying to figure out how to get down there. Looks like the flight and renting a car is going to cost more than the hotel room...


Tim Dodd just released an excellent guide on how to visit Starbase.

https://youtu.be/aWvHrih-Juk


Thanks for the link.


Thank you, such a nice inspirational and personal writeup! Keep it up!


Drive don't fly. Rent van or large jeep. Sleep in it.


Do it in style. Rent a Tesla. Sleep in it.

I’ve done tours like that through Europe with the S, the 3 and the X. Can sleep comfortably in all of them as one person. In the X, it even worked with my wife and kid (plus baggage for a one week tour).

Can’t speak about the charging situation though down there. If you have to wait in line at chargers while depending on running the A/C all day it might be less fun.


Only under 400 mi after that it is cheaper to fly & rent. Current gas prices it's probably 350.


Inflatable mattresses are available at Walmart for like $10 :)


older model s came with free lifetime supercharging. I have mine. I'm tempted to go. S Padre Island isn't going to let you sleep on it in your car, I would guess. Are there campgrounds nearby? Only 2 70kwh superchargers on the island. I will watch that video.


im sharing a room with another HN user. 3 ways would be even cheaper.


so what did you do after the 3 day delay? I ended up not going all the way there from the west coast. I need a one week delay, then I could torture myself with considering it.


just booked more nights


Get/make some magnetic window covers. I couldn't find any when I drove cross country spontaneously so I just got a bunch of the cheapest black pillow cases and some binder clips.

Park literally anywhere not obvious, it is only one night. I am not sure how charged up you need to be to maintain a comfortable temperature. 5%? Just go and problem solve on the road. You'll be fine.


I wonder if you could head over to Matamoros and give a fisherman $50 to take you out on the water. The launch tower is maybe 500yds from the beach.


Probably a bad idea. Rocket launches tend to have exclusion zones for sea traffic and they will scrub the launch if some boat wanders into the area, and speaking as someone who likes to watch rocket launches on stream, I’m confident in saying that lots of people will be mad at you for doing this.

Edit: Oh, you said Matamoros, which is in Mexico and presumably out of the FAA's jurisdiction. Everyday Astronaut seems to think Matamoros is one of the more dangerous parts of Mexico[1] but I'm not one to talk anyone out of adventure travel. Just be wise to what you're getting yourself into.[2]

[1] https://everydayastronaut.com/how-to-visit-starbase [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mexican-cartel-says-sorry-a...


"Wayward boat" is the term for when someone does this and they're forced to scrub the launch as a result. Please don't.



Looks like you can get like half a mile north or south (based off some crude eyeballing) & be out of the easterly-directed exclusion zone. I have no clue how that compares to where people can be on land to watch, how far up rt 4 people are allowed. It seems like it might be a good option.

Also the launch should pivot & head out more your-a-way too, which could be cool.


https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/16470015572111605...

The green areas are the closest you can get by boat. Which is basically just as close as viewing from South Padre Island. You might have a slightly less obstructed or crowded view from a boat versus parking and standing with everyone else on South Padre.


I'm surprised how greatly this differs from the marine exclusion zone that Boca Chica posted.


This reads a lot more optional than a NOTAM.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but, i think if you're sufficiently motivated you can still go inside the exclusion zone.


Boats in the exclusion zone can and have caused launches to scrub. I can't speak as to whether you will face legal consequences, but there may not be a launch to watch if you violate the safety perimeter.


Matamoros is INSANELY dangerous. It is impossible to overstate that.


But the best (only) surf in Texas


Matamoros is.. not in Texas?

The Texas side of the border is way safer than Matamoros.


I had a similar thought about watching it crash down into the Pacific off of Hawaii. If it makes it that far, they plan to sink it in a naval graveyard about 50 miles north of the island. Watching it attempt to soft landing and then sink below the waves would be remarkable


This second stage is going to slam into the water at terminal velocity (per FAA filing). No mock landing flip and burn. The two after will break up on re-entry (no "wings", people suspect they are for payload or propellant transfer tests).

The booster, however, will do a mock landing over the water a ways out from the launch facilities (40 miles I think it was).


I imagine because of ITAR etc they particularly want to have very little to be able to recovered by foreign parties.


That area is restricted during launch. If you head out there you'd end up canceling/delaying the launch. https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/16470015572111605...


so when you have a student driver, or a new driver, the lives of not just them but the people around them are being risked just to test a system. so we should just stop all new drivers. no more new drivers. because a new driver, especially a teenage one, is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the current fsd.


Student drivers are typically subject to significant limitations - no other kids in car, no driving past certain hours, parental supervision for a certain period of time, etc. They're not learning for a billionaire's profit, and they're fairly unlikely to get a software update that causes a whole bunch of them to make the same mistake in a short period of time.


so where is your proposal to limit the passengers of a self driving car, all of the countless brands who are advertising level 2 systems? where is your proposal for compromise? there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

so self driving cars could only exist for a billionaires profit? how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this technology? tens of thousands of people die every year. cmon dude.


> so where is your proposal to limit the passengers of a self driving car

That limit is in place for student drivers to limit distractions; it's a specific mitigation to a problem specific to them. FSD needs its own.

> where is your proposal for compromise?

I'd like to see safety data reporting requirements that come from regulators, not Tesla, whose self-reported cherry-picked data points I find quite suspect. (Example of this issue: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-27/tesla-stop...)

I'd like to see safety-critical beta software in cars undergo independent audits prior to widespread release. (My dream would be for it to be open source, but that's probably unrealistic.)

I'd like to see formalized safety testing processes of such software at the regulatory level, similar to how crash testing is currently conducted.

I'm sure others have specific, useful suggestions.

> there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

This, ironically, doesn't sound like it comes from a place of intellectual honesty.

> how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this technology?

I certainly hope that happens someday.


these compromises are productive and show that you do come from a place of intellectual honesty.

if the federal government had been tasked with overseeing the early versions of fsd, it would have been swiftly shut down because of the nature of the federal government, not to mention the politics. but thanks to the private sector we now have modern fsd which is bar none the most advanced and capable self-driving solution in the world. now that self driving has gotten this far, its probably much less likely to be aborted if subjected to government intervention and oversight. in light of the huge benefits that self-driving cars stand to create, measured in human lives, compromise is the only rational proposal. shutting down fsd like mouth-breathing internet commenters talk about would be objectively wrong given the state of its competitors and the nature of the problem.

edit: your bio says 'fuck elon musk.' making a two dimensional character out of elon musk isnt a good way to understand him or his projects. when the time comes and elon musk uses his influence and money to do something really bad, it might be boy crys wolf thanks to your camp.


> your bio says 'fuck elon musk.'

My Twitter bio does. Added shortly after he banned links to Mastodon, broke Tweetbot (and lied about them breaking the rules), and announced breaking changes to the Twitter APIs I use extensively at work with a few days warning.


you seem passionate and knowlegable about this so i will ask you. i want to know more about the API changes. detractors say that it was at best an irresponsible change to the API that inconvenienced companies that use it. proponents say that musk simply stopped making the API free which was always unsustainable and people should have known better. what was really going on?


Entire businesses had their products cease to function, with no warning, and no explanation from Twitter, until a couple of days later they got vaguely libeled by Twitter's developer account. (https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/1615405842735714304)

They then announced the free API would go away entirely with a week's notice and pricing details "next week". (https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/1621026986784337922) That change got delayed several times.

Absolute clown show. If they'd said "in 90 days we're shutting down third-party clients and implementing a paid tier", people would've grumbled but seen it as fairly reasonable. Kneecapping devs who've been building Twitter apps and integrations for a decade was cruel and unnecessary.


I 100% agree with you that we should have regulators auditing and verifying safety information for autonomous systems.

But I'd like to point out that the link you included is out-of-date. Tesla has continued to publish their autopilot safety numbers in their quarterly slide decks. Here is Q3 2022 for example, see page 10: https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/SVCPTV_2022_Q4_Quarterly_...

Miles between accidents on Autopilot Q4 2021: 4.3 million miles Q1 2022: 6.5 million miles Q2 2022: 5.1 million miles Q4 2022: 6.2 million miles


That’s the same old sketchy number they like to tout.

Autopilot can only be used in safer conditions, and if the car goes “whoops I’m out, take over” shortly before an accident that doesn’t count in that stat either.


It’s not an old number, it’s a new number reported every quarter.

But you’re right that comparing largely highway miles vs all miles isn’t completely fair. FSD on the other hand can be activated and used in most scenarios and has 3.2 million miles between accidents vs the US average of 500,000 miles. So still quite a bit safer but less so than autopilot.

As for autopilot deactivating right before an accident, if autopilot was active within 5 seconds of the accident it is still attributed to autopilot, not the human driver.


> It’s not an old number, it’s a new number reported every quarter.

"Old number" here means "the same old stat they trot out every time". The value gets updated; the concerns over its being a cherry-picked apples-to-oranges comparison remain.

FSD still nopes out in the most challenging circumstances, which are the circumstances where accidents are far more likely to happen. It's like a surgeon bragging about their low complication rate; if they run out of the OR screaming when something unexpected happens and their colleague has to take over, it's not a super useful stat.


so when they introduced drive by wire, and just put it out there on the roads without telling anyone, that was reckless? or any of the countless other designs that have led us to the modern cars we have now? how about all the severe recalls, not over the air recalls that tesla gets press for but real safety issues? GM and the others have tons and tons of real physical safety recalls, way more than tesla, and thats not shoddy to you? thats not reckless to you? thats foolish. fsd as it is now probably drives more safely than a teenager. so do you want to take all teenagers off the road? and where is your crusade against drunk driving which kills way, way more people than fsd ever will every single year. doesnt bother you. no, your issue isnt with safety or with ethics or principles or anything like that. your issue is with elon musk. because you read brain-rot mainstream media all day who use lies and misdirection to paint elon musk and tesla as evil.


Well, drive by wire wasn't just put out there, it was tested on military jets for decades and the tech eventually got to cars. There are also testing rigs and failsafes for such designs, however Tesla is just putting a black-box AI on the roads in charge of massive vehicles.

I'm not going to engage with someone like you any longer, though, as you're being really fucking rude.


no, youre not going to engage because you know youre wrong. high volume drive by wire is way different than millions of dollars jet fly by wire systems. and it doesnt matter anyway because it was one of countless systems that were tested on the road. hydraulic brakes. for a long time half the industry wouldnt trust them because it was too out-there. and yes, these systems are developed and tested in house and safety measures are put in place, all true with fsd i should add, but putting them out there on real roads in thousands or millions of vehicles is not something you can ever test for. the simple and plain fact is that when you deploy these kinds of system updates at scale, there is risk. so far, fsd has proven a lot less risky than other systems deployed by other auto manufacturers because there have been many recalls and many deaths associated with systems that did not pass the at-scale test and none of those are fsd related. there are some articles that try to attribute a crash or fatality to a malfunction of fsd but none of them have panned out. its bullshit. and even if they were all true, it would still probably not be the most dangerous system thats been deployed at scale in recent times. but its not true...

ABUSING YOUR FLAGGING PRIVS IS RUDE, DISHONEST AND SHAMEFUL. A PERSON AS OLD AS YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER


wrong. watch the latest FSD videos. FSD has proved all the detractors wrong. it drives unbelievably well. and the rate of improvement is astounding. this comment might have been valid a few years ago but not anymore.


i dont trust anyone who has a fancy media head-shot. i clicked on the link and before i had a chance to read anything i was confronted by a giant head-shot of a guy who is trying to look sophisticated -- a person who is clearly very concerned with his brand. at that point reading on is pointless because i already know that this person will never say anything that would threaten that brand, nothing that goes against the current societal dogma. and its likely that what he writes optimizes for reader engagement over truth.

even though the headshot is not of the author, everything i said is still true! you cant flag a comment that hasnt broken the rules.


when someone says stochastic parrot my brain turns off. here is an article that punctuates each section with a meme. you dont need to read it to dismiss it. i did read it though. there is literally nothing of substance in it. i rightly assert that the safety of AI research must be proven before any more progress is allowed to happen. the burden of proof is on them, not me. i think if this guy wrote an article where he picks apart the black blob of gtp4, explaining how it might work and then making some kind of axiomatic argument for safety based on this, i would find that to be very convincing. but instead i get meme pictures. does this guy write bots or is he a bot himself?


demur, not demure


hey, im very concerned about AI and AGI and it is so refreshing to read your comments. over the years i have worried about and warned people about AI but there are astonishingly few people to be found that actually think something should be done or even that anything is wrong. i believe that humanity stands a very good chance of saving itself through very simple measures. i believe, and i hope that you believe, that even if the best chance we had at saving ourselves was 1%, we should go ahead and at least try. in light of all this, i would very much like to stay in contact with you. ive connected with one other HN user so far (jjlustig) and i hope to connect with more so that together we can effect political change around this important issue. ive formed a twitter account to do this, @stop_AGI. whether or not you choose to connect, please do reach out to your state and national legislators (if in the US) and convey your concern about AI. it will more valuable than you know.


this is such garbage logic. the semantics of that comment are irrelevant. creating and testing AI node structures is well within the same ballpark. even if it wasnt, the entire insinuation of your comment is that the creation of AI is a task that is too hard for AI or for an AI we can create anytime soon -- a refutation of the feedback hypothesis. well, thats completely wrong. on all levels.


Sorry, what is the "feedback hypothesis"? Also, despite my use of quotes, I'm not arguing about semantics.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: