Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ggm-at-algebras's commentslogin

Good ideas never die!


"Lie" is a word I dislike in much discourse. Being wrong, fine. Misunderstanding, fine. The implied intentionality in "lie" demands evidence.

Not always wrong, but overused. My own personal nitpick hot buttons:

* "learnings" should be lessons

* "jealous" should be envious.


The proof of the pudding will be affordable housing, which demands both a fall in property values and acceptance of a lower return on investment for property.

I wish I believed there won't be social engineering and lobbying to counter this.


I look forward to the first LLM-designed massively multifamily dwellings. I'm sure no one will fall through any floors.


As few variances from the unadorned ui as possible.


Dedupe over edited photos, and handling highly approximate date information are my "nobody has this right yet" criteria.


Confirmation bias but a very good friend did this: bought back the hail damaged car from the insurer in preference to keeping the undamaged VW Beetle, sold the beetle, has been driving the hail damaged car with the minimum legal insurance to third parties for 15 years since. She's streets ahead in costs of car ownership and drives long and short distance, urban and country.


if you don't believe in market regulations, this is confirming evidence of the distortions of trying to regulate an open market.

If you believe in climate change, this is evidence of how the vested interest behind profit in cars manipulates the intent of the regulations, to continue to get what they want.

It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.


Sounds like something a functional Congress could address after the flaws in the legislation became evident. Then, they keep revising it as manufactures try to do anything but comply. If it costs the manufacturers engineering money to try to circumvent the intent of the regulation, they learn to follow the intent instead. It's not so much an argument against regulation as it is against a dysfunctional Congress. I don't think anyone was rooting for that anyway.


> It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.

Unfortunately, the whole thing wasn't built right for the goal. Setting the mpg bar lower for bigger footprint vehicles is on the one side realistic, but on the other side made it hard to build compliant small vehicles. Small trucks in particular disappeared; some say the market wasn't there, but annual sales of the Ford Ranger were pretty decent in 2005-2010 [1]. 2005 was more than the rest, but there were a couple facelifts, and the Chevy S-10 ended production in 2004, so there was probably some spillover from that. (The 2005-2012 Chevy Colorado isn't significantly bigger than the S-10 though). Post the mid 2010s, small trucks basically don't exist, even when small truck names are used. Supposedly Toyota and Subaru are going to bring one back, but we'll see if it happens.

Some sort of special small car class, with benefits, would be needed. Like the kei cars in Japan. Maybe not that small, and maybe not that small of an engine, but that idea of a smaller than normal footprint, but still highway capable, if only just. There is a federal 'low speed vehicle' thing, but the restriction to streets with speed limits 35 mph or less makes it hard to go anywhere in a lot of places. It's not a reasonable alternative to a regular car for most. There's also some recent push to formalize legal use of kei cars in many US states, but federal import restrictions mean they do have to be fairly old (or have expensive and destructive testing), which further restricts the market.

[1] https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/ford-ranger-sales-figures/


More parallelism. Less clock. More l1 cache per CPU and less disk stalls. Are there plenty of tricks in the sea, when clockspeed goes flat?

Dual ported TCAM memory isn't getting faster and we've got to 1,000,000 prefixes in the internet and ipv6 are 4 times bigger. Memory speed is a real issue.


The question is at what cost? Cache hasnt scaled down for a long while now, it is part of why it takes up so much die space nowadays.

Dont mistake technical viability for economic viability.


What does economics in die area say about using die for highly repeatable simple memory forms, vs complex instruction/ALU? I would think there is a balance point between more cores, and faster cores with more cache and more lanes between them.

We're on 8 as a mixture of fast and slow, hot and cool, on almost all personal devices now. I routinely buy Intel instruction racks with 16 per CPU construct, and a TB of memory. At one remove, chips seem to be fulfilling my mission but I am not in GPU/TPU land. Although I note, FPGA/GPU/TPU seems like where a lot of the mental energy goes these days.

VLSI is a black art. Quantum effects are close enough to magic I feel confident saying few people today understand VLSI. I know I don't, I barely understand virtual memory. I ache for the days when a zero pointer was a valid address on a pdp11


I'm wondering if cache is due for a one time doubling of line length. Apple did it, but they seem to be unique in that.


I think its possible. When 128 bits came along, I wondered if the very long instruction word people were going to come back into the room. If we imagine mapping addressing into the world, how about making some rules about top bits addressing other nodes in the DC and see how "shared memory" works between distinct racks?


Moore's law isn't about clockspeed.


There has been a relationship between die area and speed for much of time. That stopped being true. Perhaps it was only a side effect of shorter paths on chip.



Surely for most time, musicians have been working class. And precarious?

I'm not arguing in favour, I'm noting the deep historical social worth of a musician. It's classic veblen goods for a few, and serfdom for the rest.

Composers had ambiguous social standing. Virtuosi were superstars, but you didn't want your daughter to marry one.

What if the underlying relative value of music was returning to its organic roots? Maybe this is a version of the burger index and their labour value has been overweight for 50 or more years?

The cost in time and effort to become a musician is comparable to an apprenticeship or a surgeon. That cost isn't reflected in their value in the market.


surgery isn't an additive market though, we don't all have access to hundreds of thousands of surgeries for $10/mo


Surgeons also police membership, it's an old school guild. We could have many more sugeons, if the restrictive practices were changed. I don't think this answers your fundamental point btw, I think musician==surgeon is only analogous in the time to achieve mastery, the application of the skill diverges.

We did in some ways (cosmetic procedures) go to low cost rental models. They're terrible.


It's not "quite expensive" if you compare it to the Australian passport which is 2x as expensive and so notoriously badly bound, holders joke Australian Border Protection forces test for forgeries by checking if the blue cover curls: if not, it's a fake.


The Australian passport curl was so disappointing. I have a decade-old passport from my third-world country of origin, and that was in far better shape than my new Australian passport that was freshly delivered.


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

Search: