Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bahmboo's commentslogin

It doesn't compile for you or doesn't compile at all? Honest question. It's a nice project in the face of it but if it's all AI fever dreams that would be disappointing. I don't have the cycles to try it out right now.

It won't compile for anyone, it's not a real software project.

Bummer

Impressive! Very complete on first glance. You might want to soften or qualify the RTOS statement so people focus on its compactness and low latency. As you are already seeing in the comments the RTOS aspect has a lot of opinions depending on what one is trying to accomplish.

I'm concerned because it is April 1

Other way around - the Saudis are making bank.

well, until the Iranians blow up their refineries.

Iranians are also making bank. Why kick a hornets nest when you're winning?

> Why kick a hornets nest when you're winning?

Tell that to Trump and his glorious way of bombing Iran. Nothing against the idea itself, the Mullahs all but asked for it to happen.

But the execution? That was a level of dogshit I haven't seen in the time I was alive lol. Even Russia was better prepared with their invasion of Ukraine.

Both Trump and Netanyahu had a somewhat solid perspective on not getting utterly wasted in the next elections. Instead they go on one of the most ill-prepared wars in modern history, with results that may seriously upend the global economy if not lead us to WW3 outright.


I have been using the internet since before the www. In the last few years I pay attention to every speed bump and evaluate it seriously. I check the url of every financial site I log into. I disable automatic security blocks as a last resort. There's just too much consequence for failure.

This speaks to first principles. I don't want judges making law - and any good judge doesn't want to make law. Laws are from elected legislatures. Of course this is all wishful thinking.

If a judge had ruled differently in the Betamax case, we'd still have the ability to vote in representatives who'd enact a law that explicitly gave us the right to record for personal use. Judges should only have power to decide what a law means in situations where it's not already clear how or if the law applies.

Isn't "judges making law" a key feature of common law systems? IANAL, obviously, I would know the answer to such a basic question if I were. But this is my understanding, and given that this case is in the US and the US is based on common law, I'm genuinely curious if you're advocating the US change to civil law?

Special interest groups throwing their money at suitable cases of random people to further their interests is not a key feature of common law, it's a very unfortunate side effect.

Judge's rulings set precedence. So as a judge you can point to another judge, usually up the chain, and say "this is what those laws mean". Legislators write laws that are very broad and ill defined. Almost on purpose. Then the judges have to figure it out. I don't like that. It is an ill defined spec and we dump the details onto a judge who may or may not have any idea of what is going on.

As it happens, natural language is "ill defined". This is an important piece of the argument for teleological justice, where the law is framed and interpreted according to the intent of the sovereign rather than some linguistic literalism.

By the involved professionals laws are commonly understood as norms, i.e. what is established through judgement in court when the instructions from the sovereign (and sometimes sources like common sense) are interpreted and applied to so called facts presented to the court during proceedings.

In this sense, what the politicians have their minions type down into some document isn't actually the law. Common law systems give judges more leeway in how to frame and interpret the sources of law than e.g. the swedish system, where politicians apply a process that produces a series of documents that explain and teleologically ground the text that parliament then votes on. This gives the sovereign a larger degree of influence over the instructions that judges use when creating law through their judgements.

As I understand it, this leeway in common law systems is thought to balance the latent tyranny of the sovereign, and function similar to constitutional courts in that judges can take the view of the people into account to a larger extent.

Not that I'd trust US jurisdictions in anything but certain business law settings, but some clever people thought and deliberated a lot when designing what they have over there.


So what is the difference between "setting precedence" and "making the law" in your view? Essentially there isn't one? I think legislators write vague laws not almost on purpose, but absolutely with purpose: to leave it up to the judge to interpret. But then, you don't like that judges exercise judgement, which is frankly really quite puzzling to me. That is explicitly their job, it's right there in the name. But why don't you like that? Oftentimes, someone has to figure it out. Why not someone who is used to exercising good judgement? You're absolutely right that it's an ill-defined spec, but we're not gathering requirements to develop some application, we're talking about law?

This feels unavoidable when you have a new circumstance turning up in court? There's no "decline to have an opinion" option, the ruling has to go one way or the other.

How does this work in Civil Law jurisdictions? Do you get the opposite of precedent, similar cases having different outcomes until the legislature resolves it?

(it is something of a problem for the US that most of its really big important freedoms come from courts against more repressive legislatures, though)


Meteorites are generally cold when they reach the surface of the earth. The heat of reentry is very brief and generally just on the surface. That's my understanding.


The surfaces are typically melted - the ones that don’t just explode anyway.

Icy meteorites never survive re-entry that I’m aware of; and most carbon/chondrite ones don’t either, but they are the most common type that do. They tend to be ‘dry’, however.

Re-entry is a very ‘angry’ process.


Have you familiarized yourself with Whooshh Innovations? They have been operating in this space for over a decade and have solved many of these problems. It is an interesting space for sure! Best of luck!


Thank you!

Whoosh has really interesting tech more focused on the fish transport side with products that move fish from tank to tank while performing some operations.

Our initial focus with inspection is taking high quality images of fish to pull insights needed for maximizing efficiency and improving breeding programs. We have designed our system to easily drop-in to the current operations so it is seamless.


Glad to see this here. Age-wise I'm in the oldest 10% of users here, maybe 5%. I have noticed over the years the eroding of the ability of young people (20s basically) to interact in what I consider normal social situations.

Talking to your fellow humans in all sorts of situations is how you can form actual knowledge within yourself derived from direct observation. Everything else is a filter and synthesis. How can you know "reality" if you don't interact with it directly?


I'm 39 myself but it's disturbing how you don't even see kids playing out in the street nowadays - a lot of them are indoors on ipads and the like. I knew all the kids on my block and it was regular to ring each other's doorbells so we could go out and play, which is basically early social skills.


Yes, but they were human cancer cells.


The result that it didn't affect any other cells really doesn't matter nearly as much when the other unaffected cells are literally from a completely different animal.


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

Search: