skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't get the snark

The snark comes with annoyance about the "asbestos really isn't that bad" contrarian talking point, which tends to be sourced in hearsay from other online "hasn't killed me" edgelords.

> So, when asking 'for source' regarding niche topics with controversial opinions...

Are you kidding me? The health dangers are known since the 30s or something. If anything, scientific consensus on asbestos dangers had to fight decades of well-funded industry resistance and lobbying. Look at the regulatory history in Canada...

> there are PLENTY of materials in use that degrade to a more dangerous thing over time, and it hasn't really kept us from using them.

The question is about severity of health impact, persistence and quantity of emission, to compare health hazards here. Cured meat and plutonium are both class I carcinogens, but their dangers are vastly different. Many bad substances can be detoxed by the liver, their ROX-burden blunted by antioxidants within cells, to some extent. There are NOT PLENTY of materials with similar hazard characteristics as asbestos.

I do agree, some carbon fiber products may be the "new asbestos". Looks like their different crystal structures pose different risks, and some erode to asbestos like particles - which altogether really does raise the question why they are not more thoroughly investigated and regulated. However, I suspect a mesothelioma association would probably have shown by now. Although bio-persistent and of similar shape, CF-particles may interact differently with the immune system.

I do absolutely cringe about carbon fiber usage in e.g. 3D-printing. I think, something like CF-rods/rails in the Bambulab printers may be a really bad idea in a living room space, and some people even casually mention acute eye and skin irritation symptoms when printing CF-filaments...
In the 70s-90s, it was! A lot of shops and movie theatres have closed in some areas like Champs-Elysées, Montparnasse, Saint-Germain, ... where people used to come by car from suburbs on the week-ends because they could, because it was practical, because they could park.

Places for shopping and entertainment have been created in the suburbs since then, which is a win for the suburbs but not for Paris which has become depressing.
It's a bit hard for me to wrap my head about this "borrowings" as being part of the positive part of the equation. I understand that if you want to buy the company, then you need to pay that off, but is that really "value" in the way the article says to compare companies?

- Imagine a company with 0 market cap and 0 cash, but 100M in debt. That company would be "enterprise valued" at 100M.

- How can you compare that to a different company, let's say at 100M market value, with 0 debt and 0 cash and say they are the same for "enterprise value"?

- Or to go even funnier, an arbitrary high market value, let's say X + 100M, with an arbitrary large amount of cash, let's say X, and say that both of those companies have the same "enterprise value" as one company that has 0 market cap and 0 cash but 100M in debt?

When trying to get a "peasant estimation" of how big a company is (not in a "how much it'd cost for me to buy it" way), which is what the article is trying to argue, I'd say that it should be "market cap + cash - borrowings". Or maybe not even include the cash and borrowings, or do some more advanced calculations I don't know about, since the market probably accounts for those indirectly on the market cap!
It is a path that was being explored. I think the issue was that so much of the standing work was based on the explicit functions of the original API. A case of they would have to build up Tiny3D to get equivalent functions.

Definitely viable but I guess if you are working on a game, all of a sudden you are focusing on the core workings of an API rather than getting a project done.

Like building an app in Rust and then getting side tracked on optimizing the actual compiler. Very cool but a different task.
Upcoming: GlitchTip 4.0
Because the sensor package isn’t good enough or else they’d be much closer to Waymo’s capabilities.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10808926> (spam, trolls, same thing)
I actually self-host all my web assets and use Matomo already. So I do actually agree with the premise.

What I object to strenuously is someone dictating terms to the world from distant shores, especially since they seem not to get how the internet works (it’s all funded by ads, online sales, and ads for online sales, all of which involve metrics and tracking!)

The diktats I mentioned include a ruling that Google Fonts are illegal now. So if I’m using those, or I’m using Google Analytics, and a European happens across my site, I’m now a criminal? Fuck that.

The consequences of contravening the GDPR are uncertain but sounds scary. This is terrible for the open and free internet.
I’m wondering whether another motivation for this could be trying to keep the data set as clean as possible for future model training.

Creating videos takes quite a bit of time. If AI video generation becomes widely available, pretty soon, there could be more AI content being uploaded to YouTube than human-made stuff.

Presumably, training on AI generated stuff magnifies any artefacts/hallucinations present in the training set, reducing the quality of the model.
No. They’re not. How people keep falling for this bullshit is beyond me https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/19e8hjf/wh...
Being among the best usually means you can stay in there because you can reinvest your earnings into becoming even better.

Google still makes tens of billions of dollars from search every quarter. The revenue is actually still growing.
Indeed - in that kind of environment an important role is "managing upwards", preventing the people who are actually doing the work from being overwhelmed by constant requests for status and explanations.
When the CEO declared that FSD was a "solved problem" EIGHT years ago, then there is good reason to doubt it will be solved in another ten. People who bought cars eight years ago and paid a premium for the promise that their car would have FSD basically lit thousands of dollars on fire because their car is approaching end-of-life, and it still can't drive itself.
Touch grass my man, you're putting down a CS student's cool project over what compiler flags they used.
A way to look at it is that "even though it has x debt, it's still worth y". For instance, imagine you have a choice between two sports players. One is currently sick and scores at one goal a game. The other is in great health and scores at one goal a game. Which player do you pick?

Though of course he mentions it differently: how much would you have to pay to acquire all of the surplus from the company? You'd have to buy the company and it's debt.

It's a way to look at it, of course.
> but at least we can hide our data from big government with little repercussion

They come and ask. You say no? They find cocaine in your home.

You aren't in jail because you refused to hand out data. You are in jail because you were dealing drugs.
Alternatively, I think you could try r/SideProject
I think the response to this is then to just study condensed matter then.
Thanks for raising this. I hadn't anticipated this as a major concern.
Is your main concern that you can't see the compiler code -- in which case would it help if the the source were available?
Or is it even more than that, that you want to ensure that your build outputs are untampered and verifiably produced by a (deterministic) compiler?

I wonder though, would you trust remote CI/CD servers or Intel's proprietary C++ compiler (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12363973)?
I don’t know what I’m more surprised-but-not-actually-surprised by: the fact that the US is this far behind the rest of the world, or that the comments are packed full of American debating the merits of this ban as if they’re in some sort of vacuum. When it comes down to it, the typical born-and-bred American truly cant help but engage in some good old fashioned American exceptionalism.

This is great news, worldwide. Presumably the US was a major buyer of some of the asbestos products that were up-til-now legal to sell. As that market gets smaller, there’ll be less of a chance of asbestos-laden products fraudulently making their way into other markets with more same asbestos bans. As a resident of one of those countries, thank you for getting your act together, I guess.
If Tesla’s cars are more capable, why doesn’t Tesla market them as Level 3?
There was a divide between people who thought computers would soon beat humans in chess and people who did not believe that.

Computers made only small progress for many years.

That's the nature of technological progress.

You know that it will take place. But you can't predict very well when.

Nowadays, no human even stands a chance in playing chess against a computer.
Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich is I think a great book if you're interested in human migrations.
Training takes a lot more than using
Find a billion dollar company who dislikes those you want to criticize.

For example, Google dislikes Texas Law Enforcement, so today YouTube is a good place to publish video of Texas cops committing crimes.

This has not always been the case.
Exactly, I argue here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39754171) that "market cap" is probably better than this strange "enterprise value" for the stated goals of the formula, which is to compare how valuable companies are in an intuitive way for your average person.

My point being that the market cap already includes (partially) the debt and cash priced in, while this whole debt is positive, cash is negative is "if you wanted to buy the company". We do not use "country debt" to measure how "valuable" a country is, we use GDP for a reason.
There are numerous tools that auto-rig humanoid figures. The obvious one: https://www.mixamo.com/#/
I share your intuition, perhaps unfairly, that it's indeed not as hard in absolute terms. However, it certainly requires a different set of skills and organisational practices.

Just because an organisation is extremely good at one thing doesn't mean it can easily apply that to another field. I would guess that SpaceX probably does have the talent on hand to throw together a Facebook clone, but equally I think they would struggle to actually complete with Facebook as a business at scale.
“The current policy around ACM and its handling makes you _LESS_ safe because everyone looks the other way.” is your own personal view, based on a hypothetical. You can be as steeped in the literature as you want. If you’re unable to separate the “I think”s from the “I know”s then you’re untrustworthy, no matter how knowledgeable you are.
I only got a cookie banner on the first of those links, and as far as cookie banners go it wasn't very annoying; I clicked "no" and it went away immediately.
I'm not entirely sure, but I guess it might be because I added a background in the hero using Tailwind CSS
> Talking rationally about FSD always results in reflexive downvoting here on HN.

Its hardly a reflexive downvote when you say you haven't heard any solid arguments, when musk has been promising it "next year" every year since 2014 (i.e. the last 10 years). What solid argument do YOU have that the next 10 years will be any different?
I don't know where you got this impression from, but that's not what the official data says. In relative terms, the bottom 50% hold a larger share of the total net worth than they have since 2003 (ignoring the obviously temporary Cantillon spike), which is over 5 times as much as they did in 2011, and finally comfortably above 50% of their record in 1993 (since 1990) [1]. In absolute terms, they hold twice as many real dollars as they did in 1990 [2], which they got to through the largest relative spike and smallest relative fall of all the tracked tranches. Meanwhile the relative wealth of the two rich segments of 99-100 and 90-99 have been flat for a decade and hardest-landed slightly above the all time low in 1996 [3].

It's truly remarkable to me that people don't remember just how bad things used to be. It's not even been eighteen years; what's the excuse for such short institutional memory? I even doubled the standard graph height and it still pretty much disappears both absolutely and relatively. Or perhaps the talking points are just a little under eighteen years out of date? In that case, there's some good news on the horizon: The yield curve has risen dangerously close to un-inverted [0], which has precipitated or tracked with every recession since the mid 50s, and will probably rise more soon as the market prices back out Powell's flinch in the face of thirty-five months of inflation over 3%; the poor usually take it on the chin the hardest during malinvestment blowups as they scramble to underbid each other for the remaining jobs that didn't fold under the weight of unprofitable compassion, so we can expect the reality of poverty to give wealth inequality rhetoric a comeback. Give it two good years and we can all join Alan Kay in complaining about "That [second] time the bankers stole all our money" once again when the data refresh our memories on just how bad they can get.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1317951

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1317969

[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1317984

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y
The equation is for more for "cost to buy".

For your company A, you need to pay 0 to buy all its share, and also pay 100M to the lender to have full-control of the company.

For your company B, you need to pay 100M to buy all its share, and also pay 0 for the debt.

So they are both going to cost 100M for you as potential buyer.

To expand a little bit, actually the "cost to buy" should exactly be how "valuable" it is. But why does it feel counterintuitive? Because when we're thinking about buying something, we usually don't really logically.

Say you want to buy a car at $10000. But it also has a broken AC and you have to fix, which costs you $1000. At the end of the day, to buy a "car with a working AC" you paid $11000. That's the value of the car.

But most people will think they "spent $10000 to buy car that actually only worth $9000". Is that true? For a totally fair market, you CANNOT buy the same car with working AC for $10000. It would be priced as $11000. Same goes for the company -- a company the has exactly "same" inherent value", whatever that means, but no debt, would have higher market value than the one with. So the market value, at least in theory, already reflected that difference. Hence you can add it together with the debt to get its "true value".
I didn't link a video, I linked an article.
>- Imagine a company with 0 market cap and 0 cash, but 100M in debt. That company would be "enterprise valued" at 100M.

The fallacy here is assuming that market cap is an independent variable, whereas in real life it's dependent on cash/debt. This makes sense, because a company loaded with debt would be less valuable to shareholders, since the debt has to be serviced which eats into future profits. If you set all 3 values arbitrarily, of course you're going to get absurd results. It's not any different than setting the side lengths of a right angle triangle to arbitrary values, then complaining that the Pythagorean theorem is broken.
I recently accidentally drained the battery on my car while I was fixing unrelated stuff on the door (and therefore had the door open for 3 hours). I bought a "jumpstarter kit" which is basically a 12000mAh LiIon battery (3.7V) and some electronics. It's just a little bigger than a large mobile phone, but you clip it to the car battery and it's capable of providing 12V at 600A to turn the starter motor for up to 5 seconds. That's 7.2kW from a shockingly small device. I treated it with all due respect.
Sdf's Origins and History
Are pharmaceutical companies starting to see a decline in sales? Recently, the process of autophagy was praised, and its discoverer even received a Nobel Prize. Starting today, I'm beginning fasting because if they want to convince me that it kills, I'm now certain that this is another lie.
A few select high end restaurants use ants for their sour taste. Why specifically ants? No clue. I do know that such restaurants like to switch it up and be a bit unconventional.
For anyone interested in CHERI for embedded/IoT and other similar use cases lowRISC (whom I work for) are building a couple of FPGA based evaluation platforms for CHERIoT (The Microsoft created CHERI variant referred to above): https://www.sunburst-project.org/

The first is the Sonata system: https://github.com/lowRISC/sonata-system. This comprises a dedicated PCB with an FPGA along with various peripherals and headers. The PCB design is done and will be available through Mouser (plus it's open source including the board layout so you can assemble your own if you like). We're currently working on the RTL for the FPGA. When complete you'll have a complete CHERIoT based microcontroller like system with documentation and tooling.

Additionally we're building the Symphony system, which combines Sonata with the OpenTitan Earl Grey root of trust: https://github.com/lowRISC/symphony-system
QML is not just a markup language, it supports js, data bindings and various other structures.

It's like saying why people had to invent JSX in their react app when they could use JSON.
>If we're really digging into it, the actual value of a company should be the amount of money you need in total to buy it. Including the parts that are not for sale (so not just the public shares)

That doesn't make any sense. The "actual value" of something must include what people are willing to pay for it, not what the existing owners are willing to sell at. If I have a trinket that I'm not willing to let go for less than $1M, the "actual value" isn't suddenly $1M.
Like Chromium?
If self-driving works it's inevitable that the market will transform from mostly selling cars to mostly providing robotaxi service.

Robotaxi service has "winner takes most" dynamics, just like regular human-taxi service. Just look at how stable Uber and Lyft marketshare was over the years.

Imagine company X drops 10 thousand robotaxis in San Francisco area. Anyone who cares to can get a taxi for half the price (or less) of regular taxi.

Company Y develops self-driving technology 6 months later. There's just no way for company Y to re-take significant market share in San Francisco if their costs are similar to company X.

They can drop 10 thousand cars but most San Franciscan who want such service already have app for service X installed and a habit of using it.

Company Y might decide on (expensive) marketing campaign or price war but company X can do that as well. Company X can finance price war from profit but company Y must borrow. And there's only so much you can borrow.

In US we saw this with Uber vs Lyft vs everyone else. Early market share of Uber proved to be bullet proof regardless of what Lyft tried to do.

In China Uber was in a trench price warfare with Didi and when they didn't see a way to win, they decided to loose (and sold their business to Didi).

So the winner of robotaxi market will be the first company that has a working self-driving software AND can produce millions of cars per year to capture the market.
In comparison to Apple keynotes, precise, polished, practiced and pre-recorded.
There’s nothing hilarious about the fact that QML and JSON solve different problems.
why is word count the thing people key off of? I like writing and it's fun for me and sometimes I get on a roll, and just keep going. that doesn't make me an LLM, though it might make me pompous and long-winded.

unfortunately you can't say something offensive add then add a disclaimer that you mean no offense, knowing full well what you just said is offensive when couched/framed that way. if you don't have something nice to say, you can just not say it, after all.
...which means nothing, especially since string theory didn't solve physics either.
so ... you are looking for a free and unbiased marketing channel?
> I think it is always good to have some people working on weird, unverifiable ideas.

The problem is, for 40 years theoretical particle physics was working only on this one single weird unverifiable idea. Pretty much all other ideas were brushed aside.

People's egos, careers, reputations and funding are dependent on keeping up the façade, so you can't just reboot and start over. You have to keep paying lip service to the emperor with no clothes. Theoretical physics used to be the "king of sciences", but now it more and more appears as a dead end, intellectually and career-wise, for the next generation of physicists.
1) We’re talking about a scenario in which Tesla does achieve FSD

2) says who? They seem quite close in my view. Certainly beyond ehere waymo was when they started test rides with safety drivers in Phoenix

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fd9cEEHCzY

https://twitter.com/TeslaPodcast/status/1769500530739421414
Also: <https://www.butajape.com/comic/say-it-to-my-face/>
>This is how an actual coup attempt looks like.

There is no "one true way to coup" - what you are describing is the propaganda you have consumed that makes you believe your nation could never do something so heinous as poison its opponents, imprison them indefinitely without charge, etc - when in fact, it DOES do that - in spades - and you are really just projecting. What you are describing is how Hollywood protrays coups, lol.

Anyway.. Your straw man arguments are interesting, but this:

>When it comes to Eastern Europe, the CIA is not even in the top three most influential intelligence organizations.

Is curious. Its not through lack of trying!

Its just that there is MUCH resistance to American imperialism in that region. Thankfully!
Today's spotlight shines on Devin AI, a legit AI Software Engineer, an overview of the latest LLM releases, and the gist of the book Generative AI - Navigating the Course to the AGI Future!

Devin AI is especially interesting (not an ad) as we're stepping into a new era of AI development, folks.

Please look and let me know where you think software development is headed.

#generativeai #ai #book #softwaredevelopment
The article touches fundamentals in capital markets: Stocks and bonds are essentially the same thing.

The way to think about the enterprise value is: How much should I pay in order to gain exclusive control over the company and all its assets.

> Imagine a company with 0 market cap and 0 cash, but 100M in debt. That company would be "enterprise valued" at 100M.

In this case you would pay 100M to not have any liability to bond holders.
I like this question. You raise a very good point. Occam's Razor tells me the simplest explanation is "core competency". Running AI-SaaS is just a very different business from creating GPUs (including the required software ecosystem). As a counterpoint: Look at Microsoft. Traditionally, they have been pretty good at writing (and making money from) enterprise software, but not very good at hardware. (XBox is the one BIG exception, I can think of.)