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

For your first point, on the off chance they have other equipment capable of surpassing MANPADS I’d prefer as a passenger they just fly around.

Second point, it’s not obvious if its for MANPAD reasons or it’s our own operation though we can speculate.


I'm not sure if the person I replied to edited their comment, or I looked at the wrong one, but the one I originally read said the TFR only had the restriction below 18,000 ft. I was addressing it on that basis, which wasn't requiring people flying above that to route around it.


I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next 5-10 years the new and popular programming language is one built with the idea of optimizing how well LLM’s (or at that point world models) understand and can use it.

Right now LLMs are taking languages meant for humans to understand better via abstraction, what if the next language is designed for optimal LLM/world model understanding?

Or instead of an entirely new language, theres some form of compiling/transpiling from the model language to a human centric one like WASM for LLMs


As I understand it, it was in part about their Azure miss more about capital expenditure and market anxiety around their OpenAI investment ROI.

Also a portion of their Azure spend was some clever accounting they did if memory serves me

https://www.geekwire.com/2026/microsofts-historic-plunge-why...


Too little, too late. Switched to Brave and haven’t been happier. Firefox lost the plot years ago.


Brave comes with its own branded "Leo"[1] AI assistant built into the browser lol

[1] https://brave.com/leo/


Every time brave gets walked out as some good alternative I cant get past the vc / crypto coin / brave-reward holding garbage.

Maybe they're ok now but they had some really gross mistakes (?).


There's a lot of confusion around the "brave-reward holding garbage."

To be brief, Brave issued grants to users, which those same users could then direct to their favorite content creators. So, the grants _started with Brave_, and initially _remained with Brave_ until they were claimed by the designated content creator. If the content creator never claimed the grant, it could be recycled back into the pool, and re-issued to another Brave user in the future.

The _grossness_ of this "controversy" is in the fiction surrounding it, and not in the details itself. Some falsely claimed Brave solicited donations on behalf of content creators—that was never the case. _Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it._


Rewards has always been opt in, so you don't need to get past it to use Brave. We would not be here without it, but use Chrome or Firefox if you prefer. IMHO "really gross" applies to the Google spyware embedded in Chrome, and Firefox has had its share of "gross mistakes" since I left.

For those who don't want to free ride, we will offer Brave Origin soon. One time payment for stripped down Brave, no opt-in UX of any kind.


[flagged]


The moment you read “crypto mining in the browser while you browse” should be an immediate red flag that you should run away. Absolutely no need to respect him even when he was the creator of JS. So what.


“but it’s opt in, bro, you dont have to use it” — every Brave stan


We never, as in not ever, offered crypto mining in the browser.


In fact, Brave was the first browser to block nasty crypto-jacking/mining scripts (e.g., CoinHive) when they began to appear on the scene, nearly a decade ago.


> ... things like "Come home, white man" and other dog-whistles on image-boards

Wow, that's a new lie.

Do you have any evidence? This isn't something Brave ever did, but it's easy to make unfalsifiable "There's probably archives" b.s. claims on HN.


Thank you for signaling you had no idea this was happening. I wouldn't make such a thing up, if that's what you're asking. If you have no idea this happened that's one thing - but I am telling you the truth in saying that is what I saw.

You might also want to evaluate what kind of people are attracted by your image. Your actions have spoken far louder than any accusations I have made here. Hint.

> it's easy to make unfalsifiable "There's probably archives" b.s. claims on HN.

The grapevine literally called them (not my words) "brave shill threads". Companies have been scraping the text based web for decades. Of course there's archives. They may not necessarily be indexed by search engines.


I think it has a potential to raise a lot of the salaries of blue-collar positions in middle America, and then create demand for the trades over the next decade or so.

I find it unlikely that white collar positions will be switching drastically to blue collar unless they’re already on the fence about it or they’re not middle to high up in the white collar ladder (six figures+)


Despite how obtuse the current administration views are, this has been true for decades. The churn of new papers and hype around medicine/biotech is nothing new.

Says nothing about endemic reproducibility crisis of the social sciences.

Since student loans have been basically guaranteed (bankruptcies can’t erase student loan obligations, in an attempt to push rates lower) and tuition steeply rose, academic institutions’ ratio of administrators to students has skyrocketed to a bureaucratic mess, leading to a flywheel of higher education costs and incentivizing research for money’s sake over impact to the field.

Real impact would be reproducing notoriously iffy studies, but that doesn’t bring in the dollars.


Its just another layer of potential misdirection that BBC themselves, and many other news orgs, perpetuate. Im not surprised.

From first hand experience -> secondary sources -> journalist regurgitation -> editorial changes

This is just another layer. Doesn't make it right, but we could do the same analysis with articles that mainstream news publishes (and it has been done, GroundNews looks to be a productized version of this)

Its very interesting when I see people I know personally, or YouTubers with small audiences get even local news/newspaper coverage. If its something potentially damning, nearly all cases have pieces of misrepresentation that either go unaccounted for, or a revision months later after the reputational damage is done.

Many veterans see the same for war reporting, spins/details omitted or changed. Its just now BBC sees an existential threat with AI doing their job for them. Hopefully in a few years more accurately.


Defaulting to China stealing IP is a perfectly reasonable first step.

China is known for their countless theft of Europe and especially American IP, selling it for a quarter of the price, and destroying the original company nearly overnight.

Its so bad even NASA has begun to restrict hiring Chinese nationals (which is more national defense, however illegally killing American companies can be seen as a national defense threat as well)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wd5qpekkvo.amp

https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-chinese-communist-party-us...


I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, this is well known knowledge and many hacks in the past decade and a half involved exfiltrating stolen IP from various companies.


Agree, I think the high cost of full time hires for entry level software jobs (total comp + onboarding + mentoring) vs investing in AI and seeing if that gap can be filled is a far less risky choice at the current economic state.

6-12 months in, the AI bet doesnt pay off, then just stop spending money in it. cancel/dont renew contracts and move some teams around.

For full time entry hires, we typically dont see meaningful positive productivity (their cost is less than what they produce) for 6-8 months. Additionally, entry level takes time away from senior folks reducing their productivity. And if you need to cut payroll cost, its far more complicated, and worse for morale than just cutting AI spend.

So given the above, plus economy seemingly pre-recession (or have been according to some leading indicators) seems best to wait or hire very cautiously for next 6-8 months at least.


"I think the high cost of full time hires for entry level software jobs (total comp + onboarding + mentoring) vs investing in AI and seeing if that gap can be filled"

I think it's more to do with the outsourcing. Software is going the same way as manufacturing jobs. Automation hurts a little, but outsourcing kills.


Knowledge workers aren't fungible, and outsourcing them always fails.


The numbers say otherwise. The US is outsourcing about 300k jobs annually, with about 75% of those being tech. The trend has generally increased over the past decade.


Even then why hire a junior dev instead of a mid level developer that doesn’t need mentoring? You can probably hire one for the same price as a junior dev if you hire remotely even in the US.


The fact something is profitable (even vices) does not mean it requires regulations, unless the regulation in mind is direct or indirect cap on profit margins?


The missing regulation is some kind of tax or other disincentive against e-waste. I believe the premise of the GP is that such things can only be profitable if we chose to ignore their environmental impact.


I think it's a lack of regulation to prevent negative externalities. Particularly with respect to waste management / product lifecycle.


...and consumption/dispersion/degradation of the finite/rare/precious resources used in the manufacturing process, which we could also factor in, if we wanted to be serious.


E-waste like this exists because it's legal and profitable.

I believe that we as a society don't want e-waste (at least I don't). And when the society does not want something profitable to be done, it sets regulations.

If it wasn't illegal to steal your neighbour's car and sell it, then it would be profitable. But we as a society don't want it to happen.


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

Search: