HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

rzwitserloot

2,742 karmajoined 19년 전
Programmer and Entrepreneur.

comments

rzwitserloot
·7일 전·discuss
Hear me out:

There's a way the desert states can export and store their solar energy production cheaply, easily, at scale, without needing any rare earths (nothing that is hard to obtain / limited supply / is dirty to extract). And as part of the process, they get clean water as a side effect. Unlike e.g. export via electrolysing water and shipping the hydrogen gas which requires clean water and thus requires spending more energy on desalinization which is a dead end, literally: desalinisation is ecologically speaking terrible, and e.g. the persian gulf is already becoming saltier due to the many desal plants dumping their brine.

How?

Re-invent the Castner Process: An endlessly repeatable process.

Step 1: Combine energy + Caustic Soda (NaOH); out comes Na2 (sodium metal, ready to export), H2O, and O2. The water is clean, the oxygen you gas off (not exactly an environmental disaster, gassing off waste oxygen), the process is essentially perfect - nothing is lost, and the anode and cathode use cheap materials (iron, mostly). Ship the sodium bars in a big boat (wrap em in some oiled up paper first. Yes, if the boat sinks, it'll explode; if an H2 carrying boat springs a leak you also get fireworks. Energy storage mechanics have nasty failure modes, it's pretty much inherent in the concept).

Step 2: Once the sodium bars have arrived at some industrial port that wants energy, all they have to do is chuck a proverbial bucket of water at it; doesn't have to be particularly pure. The Na reacts, turning back into NaOH + H2 gas (useful feedstock gas! Don't ship it - ship the sodium, use the sodium to make H2 gas out of water at the site of the plant that needs hydrogen! If you don't need the hydrogen, burn it for energy) - and this reaction is highly exotermic on its own (let alone if you also burn the H2). Ship the NaOH back to the desert-based solar panels.

A boat loaded soup to nuts with sodium metal is about as energy dense as half of the energy in a boat loaded to the gills with hypercooled, hypercompressed H2. Except you can ship this stuff on any old creaky vessel vs the extremely expensive H2 carriers.

You can store the energy in any old warehouse, requiring pennies at best for safety - no need to store under pressure, nothing is particularly toxic, stuff lasts for years and doesn't lose appreciable amounts of energy during storage. Yes, if some catastrophe causes a flood to go through a warehouse full of sodium that's gonna be a nasty surprise, so preferably you don't build this stuff in the middle of town square, but it's orders of magnitude less scary than MIC, nuclear waste, a tank full of pressurized H2, and so on. This stuff is no more scary than an oil depot, really.

So.. why in the blazes isn't this a thing? Shouldn't the middle east be spending their money on a modern take on the Castner Cell instead of The Line or a pet war in Yemen?

Win win win. It can't even be patented. The only thing that needs to be done is to update/reinvent the castner cell: We haven't electrolysed caustic soda in about a century, because chlorine gas is a valuable feedstock for industry, and the Downs Cell (electrolysing salt into sodium + chlorine) is therefore the way it is done today. The sodium is a lucky byproduct (the process is run to fulfill the need for chlorine gas as feedstock). Due to this there's plenty of sodium to fulfil industrial needs and therefore no need to run Castner Cells. That's the only reason nobody's run one in many decades.

I'm sure I'm missing some key chemistry but I can't figure this one out.
rzwitserloot
·16일 전·discuss
It's the local v. federal thing. The US has been suffering from this for a while, as has Germany. The EU, too, is suffering from this.

The local politician's thinking is thusly:

- Datacenters are going to happen somewhere. And when this inevitably occurs, jobs everywhere, including here, will disappear. There is nothing I can do about that. It's as baked into my assumptions about the near future, as is the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

- If I allow the datacenter to happen here then while the builders are here they might buy some stuff locally for the build, and after they are done, the datacenter will employ literally a handful of people to guard and maintain the place. Not much of a gain, but, hey, the alternative is that I have nothing at all.

In other words, the 'competition' aspect between states / bundeslander / EU countries is causing these entities to race to the bottom together.

The solution is... not to do that. As somebody living in a country that doesn't suffer from this particular malady (The Netherlands, which does have provinces, and provinces work in reverse from states: The only rights they have are ones explicitly allotted to them by the state; The Netherlands is not a 'federation of provinces', whereas the US is a 'federation of states', Germany is a 'federation of bundleslander', and the EU is a federation of countries).

It means a province in The Netherlands cannot just offer a would be major company some ridiculous boon to come settle in their province at the cost of other provinces, because provinces in The Netherlands do not have the right to dictate e.g. tax rates, and even any infra project they would do requires permission (and funds) from the 'federal level' (the country).

It's been going on for ten years and there have been nada, zero, zilch solutions to the problem. Thus my stance remains: You have to put a stop to that. The problem is, of course, this requires an entity that currently has some power (namely: states / bundeslander / EU countries) to voluntarily give up power to the federated entity that sits 'above' them, and it's always difficult to convince an entity with power to voluntarily relinquish it.

Still, that's the job.
rzwitserloot
·19일 전·discuss
Let's not conflate these two issues. For this specific case there is absolutely no confusion.

A quote, from his own talk page, written by himself:

> But as of fall 2025, I have returned, with the aim of helping Wikipedia in various ways to reform.

This is somebody who (re)started their wikipedia editor career with one goal in mind, and set up a project to reach this goal, and then canvassed for that project.

There is no doubt about any of those 3 things. Specifically, he wants this project to get accepted, he is not all that interested in anything else, and it was him, himself, canvassing for this project in ways that wikipedia policy clearly delineate are not allowed.

This is specifically what the 'no canvassing' rule was written for. One can make quite a few remarks about how the 'no canvassing' rule can be abused, but this isn't an example case, at all. Quote the contrary: This is a textbook case for why the rule exists, and serves as a trivial slamdunk case as to when it should be applied.

Your point stands as an interesting debate, but it has no meaningful effect on Larry Sanger's banned status. It would have been interesting if, for example, somebody else started this project, and Larry Sanger started canvassing for the project. Banning Larry Sanger as an editor would then be an obvious community decision (banned for canvassing), but do you ban the project at that point? The cat's out of the bag, and, indeed, if you adopt the policy of: "If anybody on any social media anywhere canvasses for project X, then that automatically means project X gets canned without any further vote", then one can trivially can any project by canvassing for it.

But none of that is relevant here.
rzwitserloot
·20일 전·discuss
You cannot bet 50/50 on that question. Hence, you aren't actually asked to evaluate whether the answer to the questions you posted is 'yes' or 'no'. You are instead asked 'is the actual chance of it happening higher or lower than the current breakeven chance as posted on Kalshi / Polymarket'.
rzwitserloot
·22일 전·discuss
A good point and the java ecosystem makes similar mistakes. In general any:

``` if (x != null && !x.isEmpty()) doAThing(x); ```

is either:

[A] Code directly on the boundary between systems; the other system is explicitly documented to treat null and empty as semantically equivalent, which is bad, but given that the mistake lies in a system beyond the control of this programmer, they're working around it. It can exist in this boundary code and nowhere else, or

[B] Extremely rare, but there is a real semantic difference between the notion 'x is null' and 'x is empty' but this code wants to do the same thing in both semantically separate cases, or

[C] it's bad code.

NPEs are better than endless defensive dealings. If code checks for null I'd expect that null has a semantically identifiable meaning, and one that isn't also covered by something else (such as some notion of 'empty', e.g. an empty string or an empty list).
rzwitserloot
·25일 전·discuss
One obvious alternative plan, presupposing that Full Body Scan is dirt cheap, is the following protocol:

- At 25 years old or whatever you get a FBS. Pretty much no matter what, this FBS will not be used to do more checks, procedures, and so on.

- ... and now we give you another FBS every so-many years, and only those things that are different from the previous scan are investigated.

There's still an issue with needless procedures, but the amount of 'weirdness that are not going to cause an actual issue had the patient never been aware' is significantly reduced by looking only at changes. i.e. most 'weirdness' shows up early and is fairly stable.

The difficulty is the moral issue. You cannot show that first scan to the patient. Even if every soul agrees beforehand that the rule is that nothing on that first scan, no matter how scary it looks, is further investigated... any medical issues raised by patients are used as a major information input for diagnosing issues. If I show a patient a scan that has this tumor looking thing on the left lung, then no doubt a few months later they'll be back complaining about shortness of breath and a pain on the left side of the torso. The mind is a powerful thing. At that point you can do a scan and see... the same nasty tumor looking thing we saw on that first FSB, and we're right back to the issue of these scans doing more harm than good.

Is it morally acceptable to hide that first scan from the patient?
rzwitserloot
·26일 전·discuss
In normal times, what you say is obviously true.

But specifically at this moment in time what you've written is total hogwash. Currently the US is spending money as if it's, specifically, an infinite resource.

Hence, this kaibosh on science funding can only be explained because the powers that be want it dead and gone.

Do with that info what you will. The various flavours of conspiracy-theory-leaning ideas on wanting to 'scare the scientist community away from commenting on political affairs' seem like the most likely explanation to me despite how petty and crazy that sounds.

If you are a scientist, get out.

Either out of science, or away from US-centric research systems.
rzwitserloot
·지난달·discuss
Your premise is incorrect; if apple truly wants to do the 'right thing for its users', it would allow choice. The fact that the current crop of likely alternate choices include quite a few companies and offerings that seem far more user hostile than apple's offering doesn't change that fact (it merely raises separate concerns that there need to be more laws such as the EU's DMA, not fewer).

However, even if your premise is correct, it does not matter.

In the end, trying to manage such products (require massive investment, have network effects, offer significant gatekeeping and rentseeking opportunities) is extremely problematic.

On one hand, the market cannot do it properly: There are tons of externalities, and, like e.g. building out rail, the absolutely gigantic barriers to entering the market means the existing players merge into a monopoly or oligopoly.

On the other, the product is too complex and too dependent on continuous evolution to officially turn it into a state-controlled / state-run monopoly (the solution many countries have deployed to solve e.g. how rail, or medical insurance, or road networks, end up in a terrible state if left up to the market).

So what is one to do?

The current crop of mostly US led large companies seem to have gone with a 'just trust me, bro!' argument, with some 'AI is so important you cannot put up any roadblocks at all!' sprinkled in.

And yet these companies time and again prove that they can't be trusted. Which is obvious and logical: Companies must conform to the law, but are otherwise amoral. Or rather, their 'moral' compass has nothing to do with human moral compasses: They must earn money for their shareholders, in whatever legal way they can find that is most efficient, paying as much attention to future company growth and health as its shareholders desire. That isn't just 'what they are incentivized to do' - that is what they are legally *required* to do.

And yet you've gone with a motif of 'but apple is the one company that is doing it right so lets just trust them.. bro'.

There *is* a solution:

Use the fact that the state has powers of persuasion that companies simply do not have. The threat of law, and the monopoly on violence.

Essentially, a state can simply tell a company: The populace have spoken and they value X (say, privacy). They value it a lot. You will deliver. At low cost. This is not a request, it is a demand. If you don't want to or can't, then we shall write laws to regulate you and then *everybody loses*.

Conceptually this works, in a weird game of chicken / madman theory: If the corporation in question believes that society will regulate them into oblivion unless they comply with society's demands even if this means society incurs a great cost, then the corporation *will comply*.

This has happened before. There is no actual law in the US that a movie gets a rating, and the movie industry pays for and manages the ratings of its movies entirely as an internal affair. And yet, in general, movie ratings are stellarly well run compared to what a government run institution would have done.

The reason *is* that threat. The movie industry decided to police itself because it was quite clear that if they did not, the government would have, at great cost to the movie making industry (and at significant cost to society as well, in the form primarily of much worse films).

For some reason that isn't entirely clear to me, CEOs of large corporations that deem themselves 'IT companies' do not understand this part. They will fight tooth and nail to fight every law, and especially in the US, perhaps due to extremely dire and long-term distrust by its populace in its own government, many of its citizens incorrectly side with its corporations on this idea, even though time and again corporations prove that they have no allegiance other than to the almighty dollar (which, to be clear, is not a complaint. That is how society has set them up. My only complaint is that e.g. you seem to have forgotten that this is how it works).

Hence, given that the system works on, in essence, fear / coercion, the only right answer is to do an attitude adjustment, find a massive club, and beat a whole bunch of IT companies into absolute pulp until the remaining CEOs understand.

And before you make a note about the brash, medieval nature of that comment - it is already clear that these CEOs who think they are God's Greatest Gift To This Planet, are already meekly running, tail between their legs, to kiss the pinky ring of a personalist wannabe emperor president. They are _clearly_ motivated by such fear and _clearly_ cannot be trusted to rise to the occasion and be a new form of benevolent leadership for the citizenry.

I wish they were. It'd be so much easier.
rzwitserloot
·2개월 전·discuss
In this context, a social construct. In terms much more popular a century ago, a 'nation': A people who have some similarities in how they approach, in this case, a combination of 'privacy aspects in regards to business' and 'to what extent America can be trusted to be of similar social construct and thus likely to end up between company policy and legal principles at the same or a similar conclusion'.

Or to make it even simpler: The EU's written and unwritten rules, along with countries that closely track such things, such as Norway, Switserland, Iceland, etc.
rzwitserloot
·3개월 전·discuss
Switserland is a true confederation. It consists of 26 cantons and in most ways each canton is sovereign.

As an example, swiss cantons are considerably more independent from the Swiss Confederacy (i.e. what most people know and call 'Switserland' the entity) than the states of the USA are.

As an example of how far that goes: Switzerland essentially does not have a capital. The cantons usually do, though. Bern is the seat of the Federal Assembly and is usually considered the capital, more because social norms and systems are based on the notion that all countries must have one.

Swiss cantons can work together and often do, but evidently, not on this.
rzwitserloot
·3개월 전·discuss
It is the same premise, because the person you are responding to is not talking about the moral implications at all, only about the financial / hardware implications.

Running AI inference increases the power draw, and requires certain hardware.

Mining bitcoin increases the power draw, and requires certain hardware.

OP's point thus stands: Bad players will find places to get far cheaper power than the intended audience, and will buy dedicated hardware, at which point the money you can earn to do this will soon drop below the costs for power (for folks like you and me).

Maybe that won't happen, but why won't that happen?
rzwitserloot
·4개월 전·discuss
Not to mention that the actual controls in a car (from gearshift to button to change the brightness on the on-board display to 'open garage door' button of a built in radio wave thing) are never called chrome for fairly obvious reasons.

However, jargon words are just jargon words. There really are only two options:

1. Police them ruthlessly. Even if the word would only cause confusion in the amateur / casual observer, they must be eliminated anyway. I venture that this means almost all jargon words must be turned into words totally devoid of meaning. Jargon is useful - nobody wants to spend the same 3 paragraphs to convey a complex but very common concept - they invent a word for it. So, are we ready for the 'floobargle' and the 'glorpnitz'?

2. Just let them be, and instead police the idea that words that are jargon imply anything at all. Police the idea that their plain english dictionary definition holds any relevance beyond being a memento for what the jargon word is truly meant to convey.

In other words: The problem lies with those who realise 'chrome' is a jargon term and then kneejerk into '... it is frippery' anyway. That's stupid. Those who do that should be ridiculed.

I think that's the only way partly because that feels right and because I think it would lead to eliminated of jargon (bad endresult) or always ending up with jargon that is just a random word that has no meaning at all and wasn't in any dictionary.

No, it's the only feasible way, because of pragmatic reasons: Changing existing jargon? Hoo boy. That is extremely difficult.
rzwitserloot
·5개월 전·discuss
that's a bit of a hairy situation. You're doing it wrong. Or not really, but.. complicated.

As per [RFC 5321](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321.html):

> the local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the address.

You're not allowed to do that. The email address `[email protected]` is identical to `[email protected]`, but not necessarily identical to `[email protected]`. If we're going to talk about 'commonly applied normalisations at most email providers', where do you draw that line? Should `[email protected]` be considered equal to `[email protected]`? That souds weird, except - that is exactly how gmail works, a couple of other mail providers have taken up that particular torch, and if your aim is to uniquely identify a 'recipient', you can hardcode that `[email protected]` and `[email protected]` definitely, guaranteed, end up at the same mailbox.

In practice, yes, users _expect_ that email addresses are case insensitive. Not just users, even - various intermediate systems apply the same incorrect logic.

This gets to an intriguing aspect of hardcoding types: You lose the flex, mostly. types are still better - the alternative is that you reliably attempt to write the same logic (or at least a call to some logic) to disentangle this mess every time you do anything with a string you happen to know is an email address which is terrible but gives you the option of intentionally not doing that if you don't want to apply the usual logic.

That's no way to program, and thus actual types and the general trend that comes with it (namely: We do this right, we write that once, and there is no flexibility left). Programming is too hard to leave room for exotic cases that programmers aren't going to think about when dealing with this concept. And if you do need to deal with it, it can still be encoded in the type, but that then makes visible things that in untyped systems are invisible (if my email type only has a '.compare(boolean caseSensitive)' style method, and is not itself inherently comparable because of the case sensitivity thing, that makes it _seem_ much more complicated than plain old strings. This is a lie - emails in strings *IS* complicated. They just are. You can't make that go away. But you can hide it, and shoving all data in overly generic data types (numbers and strings) tends to do that.
rzwitserloot
·5개월 전·discuss
The vast, _vast_ majority of such infrastructure was turn down in the 60s to make way for the almighty automobile.

The number of places in the north american continent that retain their street focused infrastructure is pretty much countable on one hand, and most of that is being terribly managed.
rzwitserloot
·6개월 전·discuss
That boils down to the second point, doesn't it? Just - with tooling that checks you are doing the thing that the model requires you to do.
rzwitserloot
·7개월 전·discuss
2 friends of mine did an entire presentation on their deep dive into crypto. They started a long time ago, and very smartly: Instead of trading it themselves, they wrote bots to play the arbitrage game: Find price differences between 2 markets for the same product.

They made money with it. More and more, spending significant amounts on hosters to run their bots more often and on more markets.

It was an interesting presentation even if only for the technical details on how they implemented it all.

It took one whole hour. Somewhere near the end, about 5 seconds was spent on 'anyway I lost it all due to the fall of FTX', and then another 5 minutes on how they want to get back into it and what they're looking at, because an individual can no longer play the arbitrage game today.

I had to ask some fairly blunt questions to disillusion the audience. At the end of all that, and with all that effort, *they lost quite a bit of money in the endeavour*. And they wanted to get back into it.

What. the. heck.
rzwitserloot
·7개월 전·discuss
I don't think these LLMs were explicitly designed based on the CEO's detailed input that boils down to 'reproduce these servile yes-men in LLM form please'.

Which makes it more interesting. Apparently reddit was a particularly hefty source for most LLMs; your average reddit conversation is absolutely nothing like this.

Separate observation: That kind of semi-slimey obsequious behaviour annoys me. Significantly so. It raises my hackles; I get the feeling I'm being sold something on the sly. Even if I know the content in between all the sycophancy is objectively decent, my instant emotional response is negative and I have to use my rational self to dismiss that part of the ego.

But I notice plenty of people around me that respond positively to it. Some will even flat out ignore any advice if it is not couched in multiple layers of obsequious deference.

Thus, that raises a question for me: Is it innate? Are all people placed on a presumably bell-curve shaped chart of 'emotional response to such things', with the bell curve quite smeared out?

Because if so, that would explain why some folks have turned into absolute zealots for the AI thing, on both sides of it. If you respond negatively to it, any serious attempt to play with it should leave you feeling like it sucks to high heavens. And if you respond positively to it - the reverse.

Idle musings.
rzwitserloot
·7개월 전·discuss
There is utility in indicating how surprised / concerned you are at a certain process or event. We can flatten out all communication and boil everything down to an extremely neutral "up", "down", and "nailed it to exacting precision".

I find the fact that this painting has been hung crooked by 0.00001º: down

I find torture and mass murder: down

Clearly this is a ridiculous state of affairs. There's more gradations available than this.

Possibly coloured by my dutch culture: I think this rewrite is terrible. The original sentence was vastly superior, though I think the first rewrite (newbies to rookies) was an improvement.

The zig team is alarmed, and finds this state of affairs highly noteworthy and would like to communicate this more emotional, gut instincty sense in their words.

There's a reason humans invent colourful language and epithets. They always do, in all languages. Because it's useful!

And this rewrite takes it out. That's not actually a good thing. The fact that evidently the internet is so culturally USA-ised that any slightly colourful language is instantly taken as a personal affront and that in turn completely derails the entire debate into a pointless fight over etiquitte and whether something is 'appropriate' is fucking childish. I wish it wasn't so.

In human communication, the US is somewhat notorious in how flattened its emotional range is of interaction amongst friendly folk. One can bring anthropology into it if one must: Loads of folks from vastly different backgrounds all moving to a vast expanse of land? Given that cultural misunderstanding is extremely likely and the cost of such a misunderstanding is disastrously high, best plaster a massive smile on your face and be as diplomatic as you can be!

Consider as a practical example: Linus Torvalds' many famed communications. "NVidia? Fuck you!" was good. It made clear, in a very, very pithy way, that Linus wasn't just holding a negative opinion about the quality and behaviour of the nvidia gfx driver team at the time, but that this negative opinion was universal across a broad range of concerns and extremely so. It caused a shakeup where one was needed. All in 3 little words.

(Possibly the fact that the internet in general is even more incapable of dealing with colourful language is not necessarily the fault of USification of the internet: The internet is a lot like early US, at least in the sense that the risk of cultural misunderstanding is far higher than in face to face communications on most places on the planet).
rzwitserloot
·7개월 전·discuss
It wasn't an 'it' it was a 'some'. Some of these companies that are investing massively in data centers will fail.

Right now essentially none have 'failed' in the sense of 'bankrupt with no recovery' (Chapter 7). They haven't run out of runway yet, and the equity markets are still so eager, even a bad proposition that includes the word 'AI!' is likely to be able to cut some sort of deal for more funds.

But that won't last. Some companies will fail. Probably sufficient failures that the companies that are successful won't be able to meaningfully counteract the bursts of sudden supply of AI related gear.

That's all the comment you are replying to is implying.
rzwitserloot
·8개월 전·discuss
I read in multiple somewhat off-beat sources lacking good info (in the sense "They did not back up their writings and don't enjoy an impeccable track record of such high regard that I will take their word for it", not in the sense "its known untrustworthy drivel") that the hiring rates in the US in particular for 'junior developers' is way, waaaaaaaaaaay down. As in, off a cliff.

I wonder if that's true; I'm not in the US myself so I can't exactly just go have a drink in a place with lots of devs to try to find out.

The reasons are somewhat obvious:

* World economy in general and the US in particular is a rollercoaster, with the current administration being apparently dead set on flip flopping on every decision it makes, and always making extreme decisions. That's not a good time to invest. Hiring juniors is investing.

* AI not necessarily replacing the jobs, but that's not actually relevant: AI has already torpedoed the general notion that 'if you have investor money you gotta spend just hire a bunch of folks; # of employees is the primary yardstick to check company size / success', whether AI works or not. If the boss tells a VP to 'use more AI to get a handle on hiring practices', then they're going to stop hiring juniors because it looks like you're outright refusing a direct order if you hire a bunch. Even if AI 'employees' are useless, you are strongly incentivized not to hire juniors in such an environment. Juniors both lost the job opportunities stemming from companies just hiring folks because they have enough cash to do it and no good idea on where to spend it, and the downside of looking like you aren't on the AI hypetrain, if you hire juniors.

* There's evidently been a rather massive push in particular during the previous administration to get folks from dead end jobs into IT, so there's now an overwhelming amount of junior devs, and many of them didn't naturally get drawn to the profession; they were told it's an easy way to get a steady job.

* Even though there's some downturn/uncertainty, seniors/mediors aren't being fired because companies still remember how expensive and difficult it was to (re)hire dev teams post COVID. But that just makes the market for juniors even worse and makes it harder to hold out hope. When everybody is getting fired, then once the economy is in better shape you stand a good chance. But that's not happening; those mediors and seniors are continuing to get job experience whilst the juniors aren't.

Those 4 combined: Sure, yeah, I can imagine your average junior dev's odds to get hired are at this point well into the single digits. But is that actually true?