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

I think the goal of reducing short flights isn’t bad (or rather decrease transportation CO2 emissions).

But, the way is not working: even today flights are faster and often cheaper than trains, with less delays.


Because flights are massively subsidized. Also, passenger rail has to yield for freight as the latter brings on more money.

Personally I prefer high speed rail over flights where available. It is far more comfortable and end to end usually as fast as flying in Europe.


Eventually, we'll have to either decide to get serious about not burning fossils, or not.

If we do become serious about it, there's no reason internal flights that can easily be replaced by slower rail today, shouldn't be pay as high taxes for fuel, as the cars do.

Cars can also be more convenient than transit, and we tax them for it.


>Cars can also be more convenient than transit, and we tax them for it.

Well, it is not taxed because it is convenient. It is taxed because of the huge negative externalities it brings with it.


Ah yes, The European Solution. Tax the better method until it’s at least as bad as the worse method.

Better than pretending the problem doesn't exist.

There's a story I heard about the oil industry in not-europe. Flaring off natural gas because it wasn't economically feasible to capture it and store it for energy is just "how things were". Ever idiot can see it's a waste, but it takes a special government to see how to fix that waste.

Talk to the engineers to figure out how much it would cost to capture that natgas. Set the fine for flaring natural gas to be that, + $10,000 or so per day.

Voila! Suddenly it's economical to capture that natgas.


Cheaper != Better.

That's why we need to make the worse method more expensive, so price sensitive buyers don't go for that one.


Reminds me of a question I had when working in a restaurant: what’s the difference between home dishwashers and restaurant dishwashers?

I mean, how come restaurants dishwashers wash things under 5 minutes? (Albeit with a lot of noise and with stronger water jets).


I strongly recommend the entire channel, if you want to learn more about lubricants in general.

It's far from software work, but it's so interesting IMO!


Porting on more platforms is always great, and a good way to find hidden assumptions.

C# is blessed on that front. Java’s SIMD state is still sad, and golang is not as great either.

Yeah, golang is a particular nightmare for SIMD. You have to write plan 9 assembly, look up what they renamed every instruction to, and then sometimes find that the compiler doesn't actually support that instruction, even though it's part of an ISA they broadly support. Go assembly functions are also not allowed to use the register-based calling convention, so all arguments are passed on the stack, and the compiler will never inline it. So without compiler support I don't believe there's any way to do something like intrinsics even. Fortunately compiler support for intrinsics seems to be on its way! https://github.com/golang/go/issues/73787

> Go assembly functions are also not allowed to use the register-based calling convention, so all arguments are passed on the stack, and the compiler will never inline it.

Even if you had access to the register convention (which you kind of do), would it be of any benefit? The registers in question are general-purpose registers, not vector registers.


Go has been using register based calling for a while now?

GP comment said it's not used for FFI, not that it's not used.

You're both stating things that are a bit beside the point.

Pure Go code uses registers to pass function arguments whenever possible. Large structs and/or numerous arguments can still spill onto the stack, though.

FFI (cgo) uses whatever the platform's calling convention requires. These conventions also usually favor registers.

Go has its own assembly language, which is neither of those two things. Go assembly technically supports two ABIs, one called "ABI0" and the other called "ABIInternal" [1]. The former passes all arguments on the stack and is stable while the latter passes some arguments through registers but is unstable and subject to change. Accordingly, people writing Go code outside of the Go toolchain almost always use ABI0, so that the code keeps working even when new versions of Go are released.

[1]: https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/refs/heads/dev.regabi/src/c...


To be fair, Java's lack of support seems to have more to do with them needing to fix the whole primitive vs object mess rather than a lack of effort. It sounds like the Vector API will be stabilized shortly after they figure that out, but who knows how long it will take.

While it is blocked on Valhala, it is quite usable, if folks use nightly all the the time with Rust, what is the problem with --preview?

Makes me wonder why IBM never tried to make a GPU at some point.


Ah, you're right!

I didn't realize they actually made a version of the Cell for blade servers at the time


At first, I thought it was to produce graphs by _encoding the positions of nodes_ as _vim movements_.

I think there is a tension between preserving artifacts as-is, vs restoring them.

Restoring them would also cause repeated wear and tear, and potentially erasing clues we haven't recognised as important yet.

Making replicas is more suitable: the public can also touch and use them as well.


Sounds interesting.

But, languages like Java or python simply lack even programming constructs to program on GPUs easily.

No standardised ISA on GPUs also mean compilers can’t really provide a translation layer.

Let’s hope things get better over time!


You might be interested in a previous blog post where we showed one codebase running on many types of GPUs: https://rust-gpu.github.io/blog/2025/07/25/rust-on-every-gpu...


Python has decorators which can be used to add sugar to methods for things like true parallelization. For example, see modal.com’s Python snippets.

https://modal.com/docs/examples/batched_whisper


Changing buttons or live results are annoying, indeed.

Something I find worse: being unable to click a target while the animation is running! Because the target only gets focus after the animation is done: you start spending you time waiting for the animations in the end.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

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

Search: