Blaming immigrants is easy because you get an immediate base amongst racists (the immoral). They'll perk up at the sound of your dog whistles, and immediately start barking shit like "finally someone had the bravery to say what we're all thinking". That amplification of your message then reaches the reactionaries, who accurately look around at the world that is hell bent on destroying them, but are a little too dense to understand the web of systems that make up that world, and thus are eager for a simple explanation (the stupid). And once your message gets embedded in the zeitgeist from that lot, normal, relatively detached from politics people start hearing all this talk about immigration being a problem, and believe it (the wrong).

The same way you can't be frugal to make up for making poverty wages, you can't shrink the pool of disadvantaged workers to make them advantaged.

Research and development of new technologies often is a "rising tides lifts all ships"-type deal, which it is absolutely in the government's best interest to support.

For China, the best case scenario would of course be to control a locked-down best-in-class frontier model that the rest of the world becomes reliant on. The US seems to be beating them at that, and "Everyone is reliant on the United States" is a pretty bad scenario. A middle ground, positive outcome is that no one is reliant on locked-down closed models, so they're supporting that outcome.

It's really not that nefarious.

Like, maybe my vape runs out of battery while I'm out for a night of clubbing with my friends. Nicotine and alcohol get along like a house on fire, and I've got a bit of a habit, so I pop into a gas station. They're not selling vapes, they're selling cigarettes. So I buy a pack of cigarettes, smoke a couple, and probably end up ditching the pack once I get a hold of a charger because vapes are better in every way.

I'm in an age bracket where a lot of people picked up a nicotine habit in college, and literally zero of couple dozen users I know stopped vaping and started smoking cigarettes. Vaping's cheaper, more comfortable (no burning your throat), safer (not to be confused with "healthy"), and doesn't make you stink. And the single biggest reason nobody switches from habitual vaping to habitual smoking is that smoking provides less nicotine. You need to be slurping down cigarettes to get a similar hit.

Imagine I'm a factory building widgets. If I buy materials, my default assumption is that I get the materials I asked for. If 5% of the time, or even 1% of the time, my vendor sends me junk that breaks my machines, now I have to introduce a step to verify that the vendor sent me the right ingredients to every widget. That's an asymmetric cost.

The messaging for something like this wants to be "we publicly announced and took credit for this this time", because it's good publicity, and the threat of future, clandestine attacks increases costs across the board. If you can include exactly how you did it, you might even inspire copycats.

We might lose electricity for a while. There's not a lot of utility for electricity in pre-industrial society. Like, given enough copper, I could make a wind turbine, but I can't casually make a useful lightbulb. Maybe a ceiling fan, but it would almost certainly be easier to run that off of mechanical power directly via a series of gears and belts. Electrochemistry would be a neat party trick, but I don't think my shoddily built wind turbine would generate enough juice to process aluminum.

Firearms would probably continue to exist. I could make a musket, and its utility for hunting and defense would make it immediately worth it. Black powder's not terribly difficult to manufacture from base ingredients.

Are we including domesticated crops as "man-made"? Because that would complicate matters. A lot of knowledge could be lost in the time it takes to rebreed the kinds of grains that allow for stable settlement.

We wouldn't need to re-invent writing, since that's just knowledge, and that would give a pretty big leg up in not losing a bunch of knowledge every time someone dies.

On the whole, if we keep selectively bred crops, I'd say we'd be bumped back to about the Middle Ages at the most. If we're losing the crops, then it would come down to whether we could preserve our more advanced knowledge long enough for agriculture to redevelop.

Imagine a game that's just a pistol duel. When the kerchief hits the ground, players press a button, first person to press the button wins.

In an ideal world, with no delay whatsover, the probability P(A) of player A shooting no later than player B is 100 (because both players shoot at exactly the same time). If we add 5 ms of delay to player A, then P(A) = 0 (he will always lose). If then we add 50 ms of network latency to both players, P(A) = 0 still, because 55 > 50. If we instead make that 50ms delay 50ms +- 10ms (ignoring normal distribution for the moment, pretending every value in that range is equally likely), there's a 25% chance of player A experiencing an unwinnable delay (any network delay value > 55ms results in a value greater than player B's max of 60ms), resulting in a probability of P(A) = 75% * 50* = 38%.

If we make the network delay 50ms +- 5ms, then P(A) drops to 25%.

Ultimately I ended up making a PWA that does nothing except act as a bookmark. Which was way more of a PITA than it should have been.

I'm responsible for an internal tool at the company I work for, hosted as a website, that handles a bunch of miscellaneous tasks that other employees need. Think reimbursements, documentation and reporting, gathering and presenting business data. That sort of thing.

When I took it over, it was desktop only ( a lot of formatted pages with fixed px sizes). I spruced it up, modernized it to work on screens of any size, and created a mobile version of any pages that just didn't translate well to small screens (think "large tables of information").

When I announced the update, the number of people who asked me variations of "how to get website on phone if website on computer" or requested I make the damn thing an app was outrageous.

We take tech literacy for granted, because it's like a dozen levels down fundamental to our entire field. But the tech illiterati exist, and they love apps.

]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:55:18 +0000https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48910616OkayPhysicisthttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48910616https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48910616