skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I worked this out a while back, based on the percentage of the earth’s crust that is lithium and the percentage of a car that is lithium.

I worked out that you could cover > 10% of the planet with EVs if Lithium was the only bottleneck resource.

The bigger problem is the environmental impact of extracting the lithium. My guess is that desalination plants would be a big part of my plan to cover the planet with EVs.

(We’ll probably need desalination anyway because we keep electing politicians that are intentionally causing increasingly severe droughts).
I routinely see coverage of workers not being paid what they’re owed.

People do sometimes go to jail for not paying workers what they’re owed (https://kfoxtv.com/amp/news/local/el-paso-contractor-jailed-...), but this article illustrates pretty clearly why you don’t hear more about it. Advocacy orgs aren’t going to brag about some random contractor or McDonalds supervisor going to jail, and the corporate fat cats they could brag about rarely commit wage theft themselves.
"Shareholder" are not people who own a stock in robin hood.

It's large players with board positions who reap the benefits and turn a blind eye to blatant corruption.
> imperfect state of AI

Don’t forget to compare with the alternative. Caffeinated staffers pulling all-nighters to ship a massive document will also make errors.

> a law should never be so complex

That ship sailed decades ago and AI had nothing to do with it.
There is no room for million people in any jail system on the planet.

What should happen is to send the share price to zero or give to the government.

This was e.g. done with 2008 financial crisis for Fannie Mae and it had been paying dividends to the US citizens since then.

However there exists discussion whether this was a good thing in the end.
I think the key insight that the article misses is that when consumers interact with an app they have an excess of trust in "the app".

I run an ecommerce site. It's hard as a small retail operation to keep inventory in sync and model the complex network of supplier relationships for special-orders: we can get some products in a day, some things in a week, some in 6 months. Nonetheless customers assume that the computer is the word of God, and that if the website lets them order a product that product must be available immediately.

When you make an app to do something that is illegal, people for some reason assume it is legal (or at least less bad) to do in the app. The presence of a computer intermediary somehow cleanses the action of moral ambiguity. I think this is because most people don't understand how computers work, and they assume that "the computer is always right".

This goes as far back as Babbage:

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question
The OP asked for examples of things that prevent ethical companies from outcompeting unethical ones and I provided a few. Hyper-focusing on potatoes doesn't invalidate that.

Your local CSA is also unlikely to be audited by the FDA unless they tried to go larger than your community.
Because true inflation isn’t CPI!
> If a single company can sell almost 100% of an essential good, they need to atomatically lose the power to set their prices and margins independently.

The fallacy is assuming that the government will make everything cheap for consumers.

In practice, government regulation of prices just changes the game. Look at any market with rent control: There are numerous meta-games around building or not building new supply, landlords are incentivized to not fix units because they know tenants don’t want to give up their rent control and move, and a new market emerges where people illegally sublet their rent controlled apartments because it becomes attractive to take advantage of the market demand that landlords aren’t allowed to capitalize on.

The other fallacy in all of this is thinking that companies control both supply and demand. For nearly all commodities, there is a price where consumers won’t pay for it. If rents get too high, people move to a different city. If gas gets too expensive they start carpooling and looking for WFH jobs. If eggs are too expensive they eat something else. These choices make people angry as hell, but there’s no denying that these choices exist. Companies can’t push past these limits and force people to buy at any price. They still have to discover that point on the supply and demand curve.
There is nothing wrong with raising prices.
Sure - then don't let them get big enough that they start to affect public at large. Name and shame the company, not the individuals. Let the public and market decide if such a company lives or dies. Right now, we are letting them get big enough that they are turning back and are eating us.
The GP did not mean "individual crimes". The meaning was: "most crimes that an individual will commit turn out to be easy to prosecute".

I.e., shoplifter steals candy bar, surveillance camera has clear view of the shoplifters face, and of the theft, and security camera in parking lot gets license plate of car they drive away in. Easy conviction for prosecutor, as there little question of who committed nor of what crime was committed.

Contrast that with the GP's example "business type" crime. To prove the "business" committed a crime, they have to find a way to prove the business, when buying the truckload of candy bars, at the time of the purchase, intentionally never intended to pay back the loan taken out to buy the truckload. Proving intent (i.e., effectively "mind-reading") is way more difficult than proving a crime happened in the "shoplifter" example above. There's no security camera footage recording the "intent" of the business when it purchased the truckload of candy bars.
There is a disconnect. And information on how to properly insulate and isolate away from the voltages that you may be dealing is also easily found.

It requires maybe a bit of research but it's not impossible.

Are you also able to rebuild your engine and transmission? Service every sensor on board your car? Have access to a diagnostic computer and dicern those codes?
It could be a matter of massively parallel computation (trillions of synapses functioning at once) plus efficiency of chemical-analog vs transistor. But, personally I believe, there are a lot more algorithmic issues between what we are doing now and what the brain is doing. Even if it's just a matter of scale, we are at least a million fold away from the bandwidth and processing power of a single human brain vs exaflop supercomputers, especially in efficiency. Closing that gap, will require 20 years of Moore's law + bandwidth + efficiency + equivalent of 18 years grounded training (probably faster than 18y). We are not close to having our most powerful computers as flexible and general purpose intelligence as a single human. The 20 year limitation is based on processing, efficiency, and bandwidth. Hopefully the algorithms will catch up by then.
Wearing these down downvotes as a badge of honor. Appistocracy gotta keep the truth down
You say that as if other (presumably non-"addicted") company leadership has achieved similar goals.

The reality is that other companies consider SpaceX's goals so preposterously unattainable that they don't even try.

Or to put it another way,

> At SpaceX we specialize in converting things from "impossible" to "late."
Your last sentence sounds more like event sourcing than bitemporal databases, which are quite different concepts. I don’t see how bitemporal schemas simplify schema migration.
I think it’s even more sinister honestly. It’s trivial to make synthetic methane today (basically the exact same process as synthetic hydrogen - electrolysis of water but in presence of co2 and a catalyst will make methane instead) and that’s a very common fuel source with a functioning distribution network already.

So if the goal is to make green fuel why not just use supply the existing natural gas network with synthetically produced fuel? Why go to great lengths to ship and store hydrogen that’s really really hard to work with in so many ways?

I think the answer is that there’s no intention of hydrogen being actually a green fuel source. It’s just going to be made from cracking hydrocarbons but it’s branding as green will obfuscate that. If they wanted to make fuel from electricity which is the implied promise of hydrogen they’d do that already. But they don’t. There’s absolutely no intention of being green here.
The incoming administration wholesale replaced the contents of whitehouse.gov

Web content from previous administrations, is archived by the National Archive. (Eg https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/)

You can grab the archived copy at https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/oncd/briefing-room/2024...
They’re describing capitalism. The end state of capitalism is a single entity co trolling everything. We might not let the end state happen, we might stop at duopolies as described in the article but it’s not much better. It’s not a system benefitting regular people only the wealthy capital owning class.
Okay, irrelevant. What's next?
Microsoft Windows BitLocker Vulnerability Exposes Passwords
Easy to criticize, hard to actually build something.
Zelle has a limit on the amount I can transfer, especially for new contacts. And it is precisely new contacts where I need to make a big payment, latest example being the contractor to remodeled my kitchen and didn't want credit card payment for some reason.
Yes, it's preferably over allowing a monopoly to set prices. However, wherever possible you should break up the monopoly or prevent it on the first place. Of course there are conditions where that's very hard and you mention some of them.

Setting prices where you could just have a functioning market has historically been well proven to lead to disaster. Look at any communist country. The GDR ended up allowing luxury stores that were not price bound and they were a huge hit for a reason.
Can confirm, Sunshine + Moonlight are a killer combination.

I run a Windows VM on one of my servers for some gaming because I don't run Window's otherwise, and with Sunshine on the VM, I can play with moonlight from my TV, laptop, desktop, phone, ROG Ally (Bazzite), tablet, basically anything that can support Moonlight.
For iOS there’s absolutely an argument that it’s not capable enough, but as a regular user of all three major desktop OSes I find such complaints about macOS overblown. While there’s small kernels of truth here and there much of it comes down to macOS being built around a different set of conventions than the desktop environment they’re most accustomed to (usually Windows) than inherent incapability. This is further evidenced by how it’s common for longtime Mac users have similar complaints about the Windows desktop being inadequate/incapable.

Desktop environments and user workflows are insanely personal things, not unlike clothing, diet, and music preferences but for some reason many in the tech sphere refuse to acknowledge this and try to position their preferred environment as objectively more correct/superior/etc. It’s really tiring.
> They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way

If you're trying to imply such crimes are hard to prosecute because The Powers That Be™ deliberately made it that, how does that explain the difficulty in prosecuting long firm fraud (and other white collar crimes)? You can argue that price fixing being hard to prosecute helps "corporate America" or whatever, but basically everyone is united against long firm fraud. Yet, it's hard to prosecute. Why is that?
Lab leaks admit the possibility that China was developing a bioweapon. If you're a Chinahawk, this is something you'd be concerned about.
> Maybe if the thinking blocks from previous answers where not used for computing new answers it would help

Deepseek specifically recommends users ensure their setups do not feed the thinking portion back into the context because it can confuse the AI.

They also recommend against prompt engineering. Just make your request as simple and specific as possible.

I need to go try Claude now because everyone is raving about it. I’ve been throwing hard, esoteric coding questions at R1 and I’ve been very impressed. The distillations though do not hold a candle to the real R1 given the same prompts.
> Clearly, we the minority have failed in explaining our views. Many years ago I wrote an essay called Two Laws of Explanation. One law says that if you’re explaining something and the person you’re explaining to doesn’t get it, that’s not their problem, it’s your problem. I still believe this, absolutely.

I agree with this whole heartedly, it’s the responsibility of the person doing the communicating, not the listener to pass on the message. If you feel your message is worthy, true, and just, what gets in the way of the listener not accepting a message?

Seems to me there are three main things…
- You are not able to effectively communicate the message.
- The message is actually not as worthy, true, and just that you believe it is.
- The listeners don’t recognize your authority
The use case is basically every /search endpoint or any table view where the user can select filters.
Guest column – I'm fat. Here's why I'm not taking a weight loss drug
under what statute would this be illegal?
Also in some tribes in south America - checkmate!
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21210
According to the author, there is - through an app - and they even admit to it.
It got me curious; lets say I go to a protest, lose my phone and wipe it remotely. I couldn't possibly know who exactly got it (since I lost it) so if I remote wipe it while in police custody, could they really get you for "obstruction of justice" for example? Wouldn't that require intent?
This was not my experience at all. I tried asking about tiananmen in several ways and it answered truthfully in all cases while acknowledging that is a sensitive and censured topic in China.
That does not refute their main point:

> They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.

It’s difficult to prove intent but we make that necessary to prove when it doesn’t have to be. It could be that negligence is enough for it to be a crime.
>Depending on the topic

In the sense that there might be something you could say to tank a relationship? Sure. But that's a far cry not generally being able to express "unfinished opinions" or any vulnerability, as the original commenter said.
The author’s entire thesis is that there isn’t a market for lots of goods because of oligopolies colluding. Supply and demand don’t work like the textbook says they will if there’s no market. He’s saying that almost all potatoes are sold by a couple firms, and those firms collude on price, effectively meaning (from a pricing perspective) that there is only one potato company. They therefore can charge whatever they want, up to the point of driving their customers out of business.

This is in contrast to a healthy market, in which producers compete by lowering prices to the point where the producer would go out of business.
Stock dividends and stock price appreciation are two sides of the same coin. Both are "money returns to investors in the business".

All that differs between them is the tax treatment each gets come tax time.
They often mention the environmental implicat of lithium mining. I wonder how that compares to the environmental impact of green house gasses though.
My problem with Windows today is it taking so long waiting for it to switch focus sometimes. If I don't artificially wait, a few keystrokes go to the previous target or off into the aether.
Nobody cares for people like me, but the consequences of the actions of this guy may now impact life of millions. Questionning his sanity, ethics, sense of priorities is always a matter of public interest. I don't know if HN is the place for that though.
Dapper – a simple object mapper for .NET
Hard numbers in the Wayland vs. X11 input latency discussion
yup, how are lawyers to charge $1k/hour otherwise :)
What supply and demand? The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. The demand has not changed in any material way. And yet the prices have increased, and those increases have far outstripped the increases in the cost of goods sold.

It’s worth noting that, in classical economic theory, the price in a competitive market is set by matching supply and demand, but the price in a monopolistic market is set higher such that the profit (“producer surplus”) is maximized, which harms the buyers (“consumer surplus”) even more than the amount by which the seller benefits. The net loss is called deadweight loss, and one can argue about whether and how government policy should be arranged to minimize deadweight loss.
I think it's not so much "maintenance" in stuff you're expected to do, the issue is when something goes wrong, the repair infrastructure isn't great. I.e. yea, the motor doesn't go wrong as often and there are less fluids, no transmission. But say, there's an issue w/ suspension or even the specialized wheel/tires, Tesla is notoriously bad at fixing these (such as, of all ironies, Ford dealerships have a brisk growing business in fixing Teslas).

I don't know if things are better at Hyundai/Kia now that their EV business is growing but I would hope so since traditional auto repairs/dealer and parts networks should be one of their core competencies
I guess if our goal were to stop this sort of corporate behavior, we would remove the requirement of a crime being intentional for corporations.
We built a visualization along these lines at Sidewalk Labs back in 2017. It's open source if you're interested in playing around with it: https://github.com/sidewalklabs/router

I particularly liked the multimodal comparison feature. It lets you answer questions like "where does the bus help me get to faster than the subway?" (Answer: basically nowhere.)
Most of this applies wherever but do check your local laws where applicable, I know that in the UK you can be compelled to provide a PIN/password under some circumstances.
DeepSeek: What the Headlines Miss
Notes on Argentina
Would bet that this is exactly why. I run Tesla GPUs in my server rack which don't even have display ports, but they run any OS just fine with the vGPU drivers, which Nvidia make an absolute pain to obtain.
Eventually oil will run out and the only vehicles driving around will be electric. It’s not about cost, it’s about sustainability.
Part of an issue for me is it feels like pissing into the wind - some of my ideas cant even be implemented on current gen ios, because of all the “smart” ai features that try to gobble up everything I do on it. I know better now than to give that stuff out, most people have some sense, because it’s like, most apps work a lot better when that’s turned on, but completely break when it’s off, so aren’t they kind of being coercive there? Windows is becoming more like this too. I don’t use androids much if I can help it because being tied into google system is often incredibly annoying. so what is left? no one can just recreate a sane and semi comfortable less invasive internet from scratch. But if I can’t even trust my own tech not to tattle on me for crimes as “egregious” as the accelerometer in my phone reporting i braked a little too hard, welp, congrats, now my policy went up even though I didn’t do anything wrong and likely even avoided accident. That’s my main gripe with this tech, like just let me do what I want without trying to subtly influence or manipulate me and get me off of these invasive applications.
Be the change you wish to see.
> "drive train" is electric motors from a lithium ion battery... you know, like a "regular" EV

It's an EV + a fuel cell and tank assembly. Same drivetrain. Complicated powertrain [1].

> Toyota spec page says it can fill the tank in 5 minutes. How many EVs can go from nothing or practically nothing to a full charge in 5 minutes?

5 minutes to fill, call it ten minutes round trip to get there and back, plus scheduling friction: that's 20 to 30 minutes out of the day. If you don't own a car, you don't have to do this.

I don't own an EV. But the people I know who do spend close to zero minutes a year actually charging their EV. It happens silently while parked at home or at work or, on road trips, while they lunch. The normalisation of the fill-up routine is mind-bogglingly taxing in a way that's obvious to anyone who's spent any amount of time as an adult not driving a car (for Americans, living in New York).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powertrain
(Not the previous poster but) for me wth RA2 there's a slickness to the gameplay, the mechanics, the controls, and the graphics. I've tried to get on with RA several times (via OpenRA) but it never quite clicks for me - it feels old and clunky in comparison.
>something about the layers below

Absolutely. They were tests over a big ball of mud in a company I had joined recently.

This is, I think, the only good way to work with what is probably (unfortunately) the most common type of real world code architecture.

If your testing approach cant deal with big fragile balls of mud then it is bad. This is why I dont have a lot of respect for the crowd that thinks you must DI first "in order to be able to test". Such architectures are fragile and will break under attempts to introduce dependency inversion.

>Compared to testing APIs or Unit tests they are though.

In the above example there probably wasnt a single code interface or API under the hood that was any good. Coupling to any of those interfaces was fragile with a capital F if you actually expected to refactor any of them (which I did).

Even for decent quality code, the freedom to refactor interfaces is wildly underrated and it is curtailed by coupling a test to it.
Yes, Non-Existent Entities Exist (Part 1: The Nature of Abstract Objects)
Perhaps if there was a tighter line pointing at corporations using 'apps'.

Traditional rental property corporations, were pre-existing, and also adopted the use of an 'app' that allowed them to raise prices over the inflation rate.

So, traditional corps, taking advantage of the new 'app-crime-for-free' model.

But really, where the logic broke down a little. Was all those 'crime-apps' are actually reducing prices for most part. So should help inflation not hurt it.
Maybe they mistake recreation for the cp command
JWST is an amazing achievement that we have a lot of sunk cost in, so I hope it continues to be funded for longer. At the same time, I could see why citizens think we should be more focused on their daily problems first. I feel like a better marketing campaign showing off its images would really capture the imagination of people, in the US but everywhere else too.
Couldn't you, in theory, provide a service using ActivityPub + DID to kind of make this happen today? It's just that the current implementations (Mastodon et al) didn't implement things that way. I think I've read people arguing that here on HN at least.
Antitrust suits were filed against these four companies in November, alleging that they conspired to fix prices: https://archive.is/fp44d
Electricity is expensive in California, more at 11.
> "Shareholder" are not people who own a stock in robin hood.

If you own even a fraction of a share of a business (say IBM), you are, by definition, a "shareholder" in that business. It does not matter if it is via the RobinHood app., or a JP Morgan Chase Premier Brokerage Account.
>No one person understands (or could possibly understand) the whole system from the silicon up.

I'm not a fan of this meme that seems to be very popular on HN. Someone with knowledge in EE and drivers can easily acquire enough programming knowledge in the higher layers of programming, at which point they can fill the gaps and understand the entire stack. The only real barrier is that hardware today is largely proprietary, meaning you need to actually work at the company that makes it to have access to the details.