Rookie mistake by your AI; otherwise it did a flawless job, and the glaze it's been giving you is 100% accurate. You are the bestest.

If one more AI calls me "insightful" or says that my question "really cuts through the noise" or "gets to the heart of the matter"...

Brin is not a sympathetic marginal case. He is the standard: founder equity, $1 salary, unrealized appreciation, deferral, and access to liquidity without needing wage income.

It is a little strange to look at a very large tax bill landing at his feet and decide that is where the scandal starts. Is the number supposed to make the idea disqualifying because it is drastically more than most people make in many lifetimes?

Said another way, the revealing part is not that someone on the internet multiplied wrong. The revealing part is how quickly the error resolves into a fairness argument on behalf of Sergey Brin, a man whose fortune is almost a laboratory specimen of the thing the regular income tax keeps failing, decade after decade, to reach.

Pretending the rules of a private domicile apply to a jurisdiction by analogy is a sleight of hand. It operates like arguing that because memory safety is a strict requirement in system architecture, we must ensure human memories remain uncorrupted. The domains function under entirely different mechanics. A non-citizen in a public space is constrained by statutory law (and our statutory law is based on our understanding of inherent freedoms), not the etiquette of a houseguest.

This is embarrassing to admit, but I miss the halcyon days when folks were still nominally pretending to be free speech warriors.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals...

It seems less likely to (randomly) have the same panel on two higher profile cases so close to each other:

> https://courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-keeps-block-on-dhs-...

So I'm wondering if it is some procedural thing I am not privy to?

In the back on my head this all seemed astronomically far-fetched, but 5.5 million to get 8 GPUs in space... wild. That isn't even a single TB of VRAM.

Are you maybe factoring in the cost to powering them in space in that 5 million?

2. It's often better for the environment to keep old hardware running (manufacturing emissions usually dwarf operational ones for consumer devices).

And a more personal corollary to #2: I love old hardware and don't want to see it die (and I'm not talking about vintage tech). A 16+ core Haswell Xeon (that riiiing) and Polaris RX 480 (HWS, why yes) remain perfectly useful in the modern world. I like knowing both are out there, somewhere, just chugging away long after they were retired from some server or mining operation.

This seems to suffer from a finite-size effect. Wolfram's machines have a tiny state space (s ≤ 4, k ≤ 3). For some class of NP problems, this will be insufficient to encode complex algorithms and is low dimensional enough that it is unlikely to be able to encode hard instances ("worst case") of the problem class. The solution space simply cannot support them.

In this regime, hard problem classes only have easy solutions, think random k-SAT below the satisfiability threshold, where algorithms like FIX (Coja-Oghlan) approximate the decision problem in polynomial time. In random k-SAT, the "hardness" cannot emerge away from the phase transition and by analogy (watch my hand wave in the wind so free) I can imagine that they would not exist at small scales. Almost like the opposite of the overlap gap property.

Wolfram's implicit counter-claim seems to be that the density of irreducibility among small machines approximates the density in the infinite limit (...or something? Via his "Principle of Computational Equivalence"), but I'm not following that argument. I am sure someone has brought this up to him! I just don't understand his response. Is there some way of characterizing / capturing the complexity floor of a given problem (For an NP-hard Problem P the reduced space needs to be at least as big as S to, WHP, describe a few hard instances)?

I literally do not care what the policy says. Must I say it that way? The policy

  (1) is logically incoherent

  (2) is not policed in an equitable way

  (3) is used to launder a worldview to young tech workers just coming to hn

  (4) ... do I need to keep going? because I can keep saying stuff

  (5) is just random bits on a server

I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time. I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time on a different internet with a different HN.

NOTE: I slightly restructured this without noticing the reply. The poster below is not misquoting me in anyway.

I am sure he and I disagree on most things, but I don't fault the primary moderator. In general, dang seems pretty laissez-faire. I am venting at the flag brigade: what news gets flagged, and more importantly what doesn't.

I come here to stick my thumb in the wind and see what the prevailing tech view is. As for the tech itself, I am more "if I learn something cool along the way, neat," so I guess I am here for the vibe as well. I just wish folks were more honest about what HN is (like you are being here). Things change; it's okay for them to change.

  > “so desperate to contend”

The tech talk here is embarrassingly shallow. Depth is now the rare exception. If I want deep dives, I’ll go see about some crabs. This place now exists to launder the tech worldview, and that’s an inherently political act. Pretending it isn’t doing that is political too.

Like most folks here nowadays, I primarily come for the politics. The difference is I’m not lying to myself about my posture.

Sounds like a real monster... wait... nvm.

In all seriousness, I don't know a ton about her, but, if her Wikipedia is to be believed, the only thing she is guilty of is being a little "Leave Brittney Alone" extra while living through a genocide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTV6hrjQW8

But maybe there is another side to her posting that isn't available from a terse search?

Great idea! Le's pathalogize another thing! I love quickly othering whole concepts and putting them in my brain's "bad" box so I can feel superior.

  - full uBlock support

  - the ability to still be themed

  - first-party isolation

The common wisdom is that overall Firefox can feel bottlenecked at render and draw times (“less snappy”). That could be a result of a slower JavaScript engine (takes longer to get to drawing), or a result of poorer hardware acceleration (slower drawing), or a less optimized multiprocessing/multithreading model (more resource contention when drawing).

I honestly can't see it in the real world, but synthetic benchmark are pretty clear on that front.

It's funny because the person who wrote that article clearly loves computers (and has loved them for a long time)! I guess we are all a bunch of contradictions zipped up in a meat sack.

  "I usually don't comment on stories like this..."

  "women needs to get a grip... men who are 40 or 50 years older"

Wild idea: every adult should be able to date every other adult without having to do rape calculus.