Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | grobbyy's comments login

For the record, in my local elections, we have plenty of people voting illegally.

"Is it legal" is very different from "Can they."

By "local," I mean municipal and below. I didn't mean "federal elections conducted in my locality." Election security kicks for state, federal, and some municipal elections.

Others are intentionally fraudulent (e.g. local corruption) or unintentionally broken (e.g. using Google Forms for a school-level public body, where people not legally qualified to vote might still do it, unaware they're committing a felony).

And "public body" has a specific meaning under my state law which extends the same laws as e.g. cutting for my state senate. That's bodies like local school boards, but not random school clubs.

That's the level where we have massive illegal voting where I live.


That would be a very, very bad outcome for the free world.

We lost commercial ship yards, and or navy is on a long, slow march to obsolescence. That's messy decades it -- we have a huge lead -- but it's the path we're on.

I don't know the solution here.


I don't see a problem with the military rotting away.


Boeing has a lot of untapped markets. It's one of the few companies which can do things which require scale and regulatory changes in aviation.

Technology is where autonomous flying cars, for example, are mostly constrained by regulatory and major capital.

Less ambitious would be things like sleeper planes for long haul red-eyes.

General aviation is a smaller industry, but also ripe for distribution by someone with capital and regulatory connections. It's stuck in 1970-era technology.

I can name dozen of other things Boeing could pull off, if lead by someone like Jobs -- someone with both vision and the ability to execute.


If you want flying cars, please invent a silent, energy-efficient and safe levitation technology first, then we can talk...


Silent is hard, but safe and efficient is virtually any modern jetliner. The interesting problem is safe, easy, low-maintenance and cheap.


>Technology is where autonomous flying cars, for example

This just sounds like fantasy wishful thinking like Elon's Hyperloop or FSD Model 3 Robotaxis that have been constantly around the corner in the next 6 months for the past 6 years.

>are mostly constrained by regulatory and major capital.

Ah yeah, those pesky regulations about *checks notes*… not killing people. Just like that millionaire "innovator" that got himself and others killed with his carbon fiber submarine who thought he could innovate his way around regulations and engineering process build around decades of accidents and deaths at sea.

Maybe stuff like this shouldn't be left to the move-fast-and-break-things crowd.


Your notes are quite wrong. Most regulations are not about not killing people with checks notes state-of-the-art-1970-technology.

This is even more true in zoning. There are much better ways to build homes possible, but not when a regulation is phrased in terms of distance between wooden stuffs, rather than safety and durability.

Economies of scale continue to mean that entrenched technologies get used.

Pilot licensing is especially onerous, where control systems allow flight to be a lot simpler, and a lot of very hard-to-fly technologies (like autogyros) can't be brought to mass scale not due to technology but simply due to regulation.


Didn't think of that.

I think a bankruptcy restructuring would do a world of good for Boeing, the sooner the better. The longer it keeps in this state, the further behind it gets.


Honestly, learning things and doing projects together brings memories too. If that wasn't the case, your family was doing it wrong.

Plenty of kids jam together in a garage, have awesome memories from the school band, or otherwise. Great memories are formed. Or sitting around a camp fire playing a harmonica or a guitar.

If you're learning "instead of" rather than "as a means to," well, there's your problem.


The browsing experience is dramatically faster with uBlock. The thousands of regexps don't come close to the CPU or memory load of ads.

A 386 could handle a regexp fine. Compare that to audio or video decoding for ads. Not the same ballpark by orders of magnitude.

It's dead because Google makes money from ads. I shifted to Firefox ages ago.


I traced the CPU usage on my wife's laptop many years ago. That wasn't a fast machine, but it wasn't a 386 either. The ad blockers were her performance problems, alone.

If the browser maintainers have seen a couple of machines with similar problems and maintainers of regexp-using add blockers simply insisted that their code was fast, "a 386 could handle" etc, I can easily see how the browser maintainers might lose patience. Don't need to assume ill will.


My comment wasn't that every ad blocker was performant. My comment was about uBlock specifically.

My comment wasn't that all algorithms are always efficient. It was that properly compiled regular expressions are.

Extensions often lead to performance issues.


The reason for them is reliability. Running everything closer to limits really limits reliability.

Aside from that, 1000W is very theoretical. You have some maximum on each rail. If you have 500W on the 12V rail max, and need 600W, it doesn't matter you have another 500W on the other rails. You're SOL.

Another reason is start-up surge. It's less of an issue without mechanical disks, but charging all those capacitors on power-on can really lead to badness.

And droop and ripple are also lower if you're not near the limit. Computers have things like audio cards, WiFi, and other analog parts which perform better with cheap power.

I always overspec PSUs.


It would suck to build a system only to find out the PSU isn't up to snuff but my 4090 and overclocked CPU run fine on an 850w PSU.

I may upgrade preemptively to beat the PSU rush when their next cards release.


I have a ruggedized Dell. It's not nearly as tough as the Panasonic I used, but it's tough enough. On the other hand, it is much more useable.

I don't know if that's a brand or model difference.


It's not quite an accusation but mainstream practice. Agarwal, in the early days, earned more than everyone else combined, and took credit for the work of others. After the sale, he was offered a coushy job at 2U.

Funneling nonprofit money into private pockets is like an art at MIT. How many professors are millionaires? How many would be without MIT?


I don't. The place is full of worst thieves and con artists from edX, and very few people who are competent or care.


I'd like to hear more about this and how you know it.


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

Search: