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

I think it would have been much better, if the nation that launched that mission did not in the same time start a war... I personally simply cannot separate these two things.

Have you always felt the same way about Apollo and the Vietnam War?

Or are you considering this for the first time?


I was not around at that time, so I have not considered it. But it is a fair point.

Even with darkness in the world, it’s still healthy and moral to appreciate the good that happens. I’d say it’s actually important to do so in life in general.

Emotional maturity is balancing both the good and bad in life and not letting either completely dominate your reality.


I’m finding this a lot. I always found the scrutiny of Trump to be quite over the top and never really found him to be any more corrupt or awful than any other politician, just that he was openly anti establishment. Which is what I guessed was the reason for the hyper scrutiny. I ask some people about Iraq and Afghanistan and they never really seem to know as much or have as much detail as they do with how illegal this Iran war is. I find that odd and have maybe chalked it up to this over-scrutiny again. To be clear I actually think this is good. I feel like we might finally be looking at politicians with the amount of scrutiny we need to, but am not optimistic it will continue when the next pro-establishment character is installed. People also seem to be on board with the Ukraine war, which I also understand but find strange that fighting wars on foreign soil are sometimes “good” and sometimes “bad”? For me I have a simple rule; if they’re not at the birder of my own country I’m not interested. You can argue details and complexities but the way I see it is that wars are a fucking mess and there are lots of complexities that can be used to sell you either way. If you’re not there, you don’t know. I always wonder if France and the UK hadn’t declared war on Germany, would WWII ever happened? It’s an interesting one and more of a thought experiment but the implications are interesting and raises some very touchy moral questions. It’s basically a massive trolley problem question with lots of unknowns.

"People on board with the Ukraine war" - that reads as if Ukraine invaded another country, started a war, and people somehow support that.

Russian invaded Ukraine, and people are on board with helping Ukraine defend itself - because Russia is trying to reconstitute the soviet union, and Ukraine is just one stop along the way.


Yeh. I mean your comment kind of reads like the whole thing is simple and Russia just randomly invaded Ukraine 4 years ago for no reason. Rather than there being rising pro-Russian sentiment in the east for years resulting in an all out civil war 12 years ago when the government went after the separatists.

Then you say well they were Russian backed so Russia were involved from the beginning.

Then I say well, where were these separatists born, what language do they speak, and how do they identify?

And then you say something about propaganda, then I say something about propaganda.

Then I say what I said in the beginning which was maybe if you’re not actually there, and involved, you should stay out of other people’s shit.


> I mean your comment kind of reads like the whole thing is simple and Russia just randomly invaded Ukraine 4 years ago for no reason.

Not randomly for no reason - the reason is to bring the former soviet bloc nations back under Russia's control, to rebuild the Russian empire. Putin has even spoken openly how he does not recognize Ukraine as a real nation or a real identity and that all of Ukraine, it's land, resources and people belong to Russia. And he's on a genocidal mission to manifest that reality.

Putin is happy to use separatist movements (organic or not) as tools and thin pretexts for his expansive imperial ambitions, sure - but separatists aren't the reason for the war - Putin's imperialist ambitions are.


Ah you’re one of those people where it’s like talking to a wall. Well you seem to have an intimate relationship with Putin so maybe you can just ring him up and have a chat with him or something.

Let me put it this way. Imagine you’re at school and there are two kids that have a long history starting to shout and even throw fists at each other. You come over from the other end of the playground, try to understand the situation the best you can… and start throwing fists at the kid you think is wrong?

You’re acting like a proper ape and seem to lack any imagination or ambition for a peaceful future. You know there are other ways? Smarter ways. We have mind blowing technology that is optimised for death and destruction but you don’t reckon we can, like, maybe just ASK the people what they want? Nobody ever asks. Nobody talks.

Everyone’s sold this skewed reality that bombing people is the only way we can resolve conflict and you’ve been sold it by massive companies that make bombs.

Anyway this conversation is causing way too much negative emotion in me and it’s not like you’re even understanding what I’m saying so I’m just gonna bow out I think. At least for you there are plenty of people like you and there will be plenty more wars for you to drool over and completely understand with your big brain.


> Everyone’s sold this skewed reality that bombing people is the only way we can resolve conflict and you’ve been sold it by massive companies that make bombs.

Yes, Ukraine can only resolve the conflict by winning - which means killing lots of Russians and driving Russia out.

Russia can resolve the conflict by... leaving. That's it. They just have to go home. No bombs necessary.


> winning

That’s such retarded language, no one “wins” in a war.

Anyway you don’t seem to be actually be reading anything I’m writing so peace and love mate. Hope you realise our war waging ways are unwise one day.

It’s been fun at least!


Alas, then it seems this exchange is ending where it started - with the reality inverting insinuation that Ukraine and it's allies are the bloodthirsty warmongers here, because they continue to defend themselves from an invading army.

I do agree that waging war is generally unwise and tragic - but the people waging the war here are the Russians. The obstacle to a peaceful resolution to the war are - once again - the Russians.


You missed the argument. When we are talking about faculty, yes their result is the only thing that matters, so if it was produced quicker with a LLM, that's great. But when we are talking about the student, there is a drastic difference in the student in the with LLM vs without LLM cases. In the latter they have much better understanding. And that matters in the system when we are educating future physicists.

I am not sure it is that. The job of Microsoft is to satisfy shareholders. That is the only target. They only care about users to the extend that helps the shareholders.

This is how you'll end up destroying planet earth. Shareholders have to co-exist with the rest of us, if you wreck your environment to please yourself you'll be like that guy I knew in LA that had a Ferrari that he couldn't drive on the road just outside of his mansion because the roads were so bad. But on his private grounds he had clean blacktop and zero potholes...

This is repeated ad nauseam, but do they really? Can you honestly say that Nadella's setting a hard target for conversion of local users into Microsoft ones caused their shares go up?

In other words, the world beyond the next quarter does not exist.

Exactly. Which is why we must increase the social and economic cost of these bad decisions so much that it’ll be in the shareholders’ best interest to make the platform better to get us to stop. Precisely what happened here.

Just as with politics, the only way to get them to do what’s in our best interest is to make them come to the conclusion that they’ll risk losing money (or status or power) if they don’t.


The shareholders would certainly understand, destroying a key tool for undefined gains is not good for the shareholders.

What it is, is purely incompetence. Revolving door of executives forcing shit ideas because they need to assert control.

Big Tech has become a space led by lizard brained nepo babies who have nothing to contribute to the world, but think they're entitled to it all.


Which shareholders are being satisified by the stock dropping seven percent in a month?

Some bizarre obsession with 'Soviet'. Did they invent optics, that was since forgotten ?

No, they disassembled German optics industry plants in 1945, moved them to the Soviet Union and started cranking out great cameras based on German designs. I've heard that some Soviet cameras had Leica labeled parts inside.

Stuff like that happened repeatedly: GAZ Chaika was a copy of Packard; SM-1 computer was a copy of PDP 11/34; Tu-144 looked just like Concorde, etc. etc.


Chaika was not a copy of a Packard. (They certainly admired the Packard bodywork, but Soviet industry was in no way ready to clone a Packard sedan)

Tu-144 was not a copy of the Concorde. (Convergent evolution is not the same as copying a design!)

The Soviets did clone a lot of DEC gear but I don't think SM-1, specifically, was a DEC clone. (In this lastmost case, the Soviets were left cloning computer equipment because it was forbidden to export to COMECON states)


Sorry, SM-4 not SM-1, was a full emulation of 11/40, with UNIBUS, and all. There were DEC copyright strings latent in some system files. It was a pretty good copy, but quite unreliable, and the reason was quite pedestrian---the connectors! It was a good lesson on how the entire technology chain needs to be high quality for the final product to work well.

Another example I forgot: the first Soviet nuke was directly copied from the stolen Fat Man design. Of course later they did novel stuff, especially the fusion designs of Sacharov et al.

It is well known that KGB got hold of the Concorde blueprints, so yeah, not a direct copy but certainly a lot of influence in that design. Again. the details like engine performance made the difference: apparently Tu144 had to continuously use afterburners to stay supersonic. It was also quite unreliable---I've heard that towards its end of life it was just flying cargo and airmail.


The Concorde and the Tupolev both relied on afterburners, because they operated under similar design constraints -- the "western" jet engines in the Concorde were not that much better than what Soviet design bureaus could produce.

The Concorde was much smaller, and lacked one of the major innovations of the Tu-144 -- forward flap canards to improve handling on a larger jet.

Probably for the better. The Tupolev killed a lot of its passengers, and it was almost immediately withdrawn from service after the first few incidents. The Concorde, a simpler and smaller design, served for decades.


The Americans "hold my beer" and then later "you know what, fuck this". Classic example of bad choice, good choice. Overall the arguable made out the best with this. Boeing instead focus on 747 and commercial planes airlines actually wanted and damn near became a global monopoly.

Tu-144 was built because of concorde, but it wasnt' a copy. It was reimplementation of a shared idea. It's not like Tu-4 and B-29, which was a copy.

Swan and b1.. which came 1st...

Soviets did not have two things the West did. Concern for quality and market forces to direct development focus. This means Soviet stuff varies amazingly between specimen and can sometimes be over-engineered in particular ways. Soviet optics had a specific visual style, but everyone ditched them as soon as alternatives became available as hunting for the ones not made on a Monday was just too tedious.

Germany would be amazed to hear that they lacked concern for quality. As would the rest of the world, which continues to hold their engineering in esteem. Leica lenses >> anything the Soviets ever made.

Generally, Soviet-made = crap. Suggesting elsewise requires documentable proof.


These Soviet lenses are copies and adaptations of classic optical formulas at the time, e.g. the Helios 44 is a Carl Zeiss' Biotar. But while Zeiss produced in limited numbers, these Soviet versions are abundant in the used market and therefore very cheap.

Due to this, these lenses developed a cult following, and even more now that some prominent cinematographers used in some high caliber productions (The Batman (2022), Dune (2021)).


It is a pretty good book, but when I got, I personally hoped for more finance in it. A large fraction of the book is devoted to people.

This is Telegraph for you. The cost of electricity is not driven by green levies or net zero targets, but by gas prices, as gas is a backstop when all other sources are exhausted. Therefore electricity prices are pretty much tied to gas.

Obviously, Electricity is a National Security issue. It's naive to state that the problem is gas prices. Germany is seeing Steel, Automotive, and other hard science companies leave for that very reason.

The strategy should have been to build an energy architecture that reduces prices while being robust against force majeure events.


Renewables inherently require gas peakers.

At this point, I would rather these people enrich themselves as long as they stop the war, but I am afraid they will continue doing both.


That's the neat part, they get richer whether the war is happening or not. Some get way richer when there's a war on.


The US ended most of their subsidies to Ukraine last year. Historically the defense-industrial complex is eager to stir something else up as soon as one money source gets cut off.

After Afghanistan it went to Ukraine, and after Ukraine it has to be something else. This is the unstoppable flow of the defense industry moving to a new outlet.


The U.S. didn't invade Ukraine.

We gave Ukraine a lot of old stuff from our stockpiles and bought new stuff for ourselves.

It's generally not called a "subsidy". It's called "foreign aid".


Can you be sure the war was not actually started to enrich those people?


It certainly makes more sense than any of the explanations proffered by the regime so far.


Why would we settle for anything less than discontinuing both?


Because you never really had any choice so you'll settle with the only hand you were dealt. Thanks for playing


I don't know if this just anecdotal random impression, but in a last week or two I had mostly good experience with Google cli. While previously I constantly complained about it. I have been using it together with codex, and I would not say that one is much better than another.

It is hard to say nowadays, when things change so quickly


When I see this: "One of the longest-standing misconceptions about software development is that writing code is the difficult part of the job. It never was." I don't think I can take this seriously.

Sure, 'writing code' is not the difficult often, but when you have time constraints, 'writing code' becomes a limiting factor. And we all do not have infinite time in our hands.

So AI not only enables something you just could not afford doing in the past, but it also allows to spend more time of 'engineering', or even try multiple approaches, which would have been impossible before.


It's hard to reconcile "I don't think I can take this seriously" followed by an immediate admission that you agree but that there's some nuance.

I think the author's post is far more nuanced that this one sentence that you apparently agree with fundamentally.


Agree. Writing code has always been the most time-consuming part that distracts me from actual design. AI just emphasizes the fact that anyone can do the keyboard mashing while reading code is the actual skill that matters.

Give a woodcutter a chainsaw instead of an axe and he'll fell ten times more trees. He'll also likely cause more than ten times the collateral damage.


I have a similar situation and Amnezia (either in WG mode or Xray mode) works well with a self-hosted server. Also SSH tunnel as proxy so far also works.


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

Search: