I often like SemiAnalysis' work, but there's parts of this article that are shockingly under-researched and completely missing critical parts of the narrative.
> Eighteen months ago, Elon Musk shocked the datacenter industry by building a 100,000-GPU cluster in four months. Multiple innovations enabled this incredible achievement, but the energy strategy was the most impressive.
> Again, clever firms like xAI have found remedies. Elon's AI Lab even pioneered a new site selection process - building at the border of two states to maximize the odds of getting a permit early!
The energy strategy was to completely and almost certainly illegally bypass permitting and ignore the Clean Air Act, at a tangible cost to the surrounding community by measurably increasing respiratory irritants like NOx in the air around these communities. Characterizing this harm as "clever" is wildly irresponsible, and it's wild that the word "illegal" doesn't appear in the article once, while at the same time handwaving the fact that permitting for local combustion-based generation (for these reasons!) is one of the main factors to pushing out timelines and increasing cost.
I don't love this comparison, because I have to use Linux, not Mac. It's not really optional for me, and Asahi simply isn't far enough along to fill the gap.
As a result, the question is more Framework vs. Dell or Lenovo, and that creates a much smaller gap in capability in the 13" form factor.
Side complaint: I'm irked that the smaller surface laptop didn't continue with custom AMD chips since they were getting quite powerful in the last one.
Other complaint is that because of comments here I went looking at framework but it doesn't show what GPU comes with AMD processors so I'm going to have to not look at this on mobile.
I have a Thinkpad, Asus and surface 13" amd and none have fully scratched the itch for my go to machine. Asus is powerful enough but the build quality and durability are pure garbage.
Where is Asahi not far enough if I may ask? I've been daily driving it for 2 years by this point.
While it was not really useable for mainstream usecases in the beginning (no speakers, no webcam, other random issues), it did get better month by month and problems got resolved, I find useability equal to my x86 laptops now.
Not that it's super relevant to this discussion, but I think the largest individual machines operated would probably have to go to high energy particle accelerators like the LHC at CERN or those operated by Fermi Lab.
Billions of dollars in cost, run 24/7 with virtually no downtime during regular operations, in underground tunnels with circumferences in the tens of miles, and all throughout is actively-coordinated super conductors and beam collimation in a high-vacuum tube attached to absurdly complex, ultra-sensitive, massively-scaled instrumentation (not to mention the whole on-site data processing and storage facilities). Certainly open to bring convinced otherwise, but aside from ISS in pure cost, so far it's my understanding that those are the pinnacle of large-scale machines.
Related to [1]; this topic was discussed earlier today (perhaps inspiring this submission?) in a HN thread on C++ coding standards for the F-35 JSF (search "spaghetti").
You know, in hockey there's sometimes a saying that "if you're too small to carry your gear bag, you're too small to play hockey." Feels like there might be some kind of moral lesson there for this situation.
If the local governing body is too small to handle the requirements of governance, what then? Laws can be broken just because there are too few clerks?
If they can’t afford to provide the service, then they can’t afford to provide the service. In this case, they simply can’t afford to video anything that would require redaction for FOIA requests. Stanwood joining with Camano Island or Marrysville, it’s still a rural area that can’t afford it.
I really don't know, it's a difficult question. In this case I agree with most people here on HN that these sorts of mass surveillance tools are not desirable but the reason why is not "because the city is too small to handle FOIA requests".
For another example, some rural localities want to restrict drone usage, but actually enforcing that is expensive and difficult. What's the solution? I really don't know.
I think this is where the conversation is from theoretic vs practical limits. Most folks don't care about government overreach until it affects them or theirs personally. And because of costs, government overreach has been theoretical versus practical. And even when practical, it's more whiteglove treatment.
First example is that most folks don't care about police checkpoints, simply because they are rare, and when they do happen they are over pretty fast. You do have some that care and think they are an infringement of rights, but they are a loud minority, and even those that do have issues with them, just bite the bullet and provide them their license and tell them where they are going.
Some things we don't care that much about is simply because they can't be abused that much. For example, majority of the population doesn't care too much that the NSA is hoovering up all traffic including encrypted traffic, because there's no way to practically decrypt it a mass scale.
But if quantum computing or some other method makes it cost effective and allows them to effectively decrypt this traffic, we would see a lot more people calling their lawmakers complaining of government overreach.
Another current example is that most people never cared about the fact that ICE or border patrol can require ID and have warrantless stops within 100 miles of a border simply because the stops weren't front page news.
I seem to recall FOIA provides pathways for overloaded clerks in situations where there's mass requests. But, it only grants an extended period in which to respond (eg, 14 days instead of 48hrs). But, you can take escalate with the State government like you can with denied requests.
This is tinted with my knowledge of my Locaal (long a), and the areas I've made FOIA requests with.
And, turns out if you want to affect change- you have to make the bureaucrats care- Not the officials.
Using invasive surveillance tech to govern is not needed then. If you can't handle the full service (on both ends) of the technology, then you can't deploy it and have to use regular old police work or legacy techniques to enforce it.
Using this tech is not mandatory to have governance.
I'd be interested in seeing these guidelines updated to include "don't re-post the output of an LLM" to reduce comments of this sort.
I don't really feel like comments with LLM output as the primary substance meet the bar of "thoughtful and substantive", and (ironically, in this instance) could actually be used as good example of shallow dismissal, since you, a human, didn't actually provide an opinion or take a stance either way that I could use to begin a good-faith engagement on the topic.
My comment above serves as a covert commentary on the utility of current frontier LLMs, which imo can often generate higher-quality responses than some HN comments. (And yes, I did agree with their responses above.)
I enjoy the recursiveness of it all. Perhaps I should have said it outright.
Here's a 2022 from Quartz article that might have some context on this. Anduril isn't on the list according to the footnote, but Thiel and Lucky have since had a history collaborating on projects with the same naming scheme.
I haven't heard anyone mention this rule, which I think is useful:
Cars, dogs, and water.
These are the big three common things that children interact with regularly that can, and will, cause irreparable harm or death with functionally no warning and virtually instantaneously. Kids also don't have the experience or the intuition to figure out if a situation is dangerous; cars move too fast, dogs are too hard to read, and water danger is hard to grasp even for adults (the number of people, including grown adults, I've seen panic and had to get pulled out after gleefully jumping into water where it turns out they can't reliably touch the bottom is fairly high).
The first two require some strictness (i.e. being very clear about rules like never going near a road without an adult, and never hitting a dog or pulling it's ears), but water basically requires regular swimming lessons from qualified instructors. It's something I wish happened earlier, and that more families had easy access to.
I surf a lot, and I've lost count of the amount of times I've had to save people from a riptide. They're always completely exhausted, barely keeping head above water, and minutes from getting pulled out to sea with no energy left to swim around the rip and back to shore. I pulled out a couple on deaths door on their honeymoon just a couple weeks ago - that could have crippled their families. It's frustrating the lack of awareness people have around the sea. Unless you know the shore you're swimming on intimately, or the sea is flat with no swell, there's no guarantee you'll be able to fight the sea if you're further out than up to your waist in water.
Around here flat sea is the killer as it usually is a sign of strong undercurrents. To the uninitiated it simply looks more calm. It can pull you down for real.
If you just float to open sea (typical tourist in a dingy or paddle board) you might need to get a "fun" helicopter ride from the friendly sea rescue services. Most people tend not to know that if the emergency is due to gross stupidity they will be billed afterwards (they are kind - so that is rare). Their rates are however significantly higher than regular tour operators.
So I do agree the lack of awareness is frustrating. If the locals stop swimming you should too.
But... Send me down under to Australia.and I would probably die in 5 minutes. Everything seems to be dangerous and/or poisonous there.
We are all to some degree "tourists" at some point in time with all that entails.
Why are riptides safe for surfers? Is it because you can just take a break on your surfboard and float? I would think getting dragged out to sea on a surfboard would still be dangerous...
Not OP, but my impression from reading the literature is that the problem with rip currents is that people either exhaust themselves fighting the current, and/or get pulled out beyond their ability to swim back.
The typical distance a rip current will pull people out is about 100m. Given that about 50% of the US population can't swim functionally at all, this can be very dangerous. However, it depends — 100m is not very much for an experienced open water swimmer, who might be used to swimming 1500-3000m routinely.
Most updated recommendations suggest people should ride the current until it stops and then signal for help and/or swim away from the current. This is to avoid exhaustion and because research indicates rip currents can go in different patterns.
If you know what you're doing and can swim that distance, it's not that dangerous. Experienced surfers would fall in this category, as they're used to navigating shore currents.
Riptides are only dangerous for beginners who don't know how they work. It's a narrow stream outwards, about 3-4m wide. Like a street. At your surf you get out by paddling parallel to the beach just a few strokes. Beginners fight the rip, but you just need to step out. For surfers it's a dream
Great example. I used to love rip currents as a youngin. Just swim parallel and body surf back to shore. Sometimes I used to just swim into them for the workout and amusement. But I got older and it had been about a decade since I had ventured out into the ocean -- was out body surfing for about 20 mins before I got caught in a fairly normal riptide and ran out of energy really fast. Would have been really unfortunate if I hadn't been in the same situation hundreds of times before. I was panicked and debated yelling for help lol.
Dogs are the 3rd deadliest animal to humans (discounting humans themselves), but since they are popular pets and more like another family member in some Western countries, they get a big pass imho (or rather, their owners) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_deadliest_to_h...
Looks like most of them are stray dog attacks. There was an Indian operation where 25% of dogs rounded up had rabies, and vaccines fail due to improper storage.
What? 25%? Isn't rabies in dogs lethal in fairly short order (like in humans)?
I'm pretty sure the rural county in which I work hasn't seen rabies in a dog since like 1986.
I work in an emergency room (frequently caring for dog bites) in an area with numerous packs of strays. Dog rabies is always a concern, but I've never seen a confirmed case.
Just to go off of this, springs as well. Usually it's garage door springs or suspension of a car springs. People will DIY thinking it's a small thing but they can easily decapitate you. Some garage door springs have been known to level the families of entire neighborhoods or small townships. Garage door spring related deaths are far more common that you will ever know. Garage door springs also are known to be the main transmission vector for tetanus so if you survive the unspringing be advised there's a 90% chance it flung a deadly dose of tetatus and botulism (also grows on springs) into your every bodily orifice. You may think "well why is a kid fixing a car's suspension" but of course kids like poke around and explore because they're curious or they could be exploring your shop or your garage door mechanism.
Depends where you live and the age of the child. In the first year, asphyxiation/choking and infectious diseases are more dangerous than the three on that list.
From 1 to 10, falls are by the far the biggest risk.
If you live in the US, firearms trump all of the above, but only in the US.
I think OP was saying those three things were surprisingly dangerous. Kids have a natural fear of heights and falling, while the three on the list not so much.
Babies will happily crawl off of the edge of whatever they're on. I'm not sure if it's because they aren't afraid, or if it's because they're so used to being carried that they don't grasp the concept of gravity, or both.
My toddler recently went out on our roof to retrieve a football. I expected her to be a bit nervous, but she walked right up to the edge, no fear apparent at all. I had to desperately shove my instinct to yell for her down so I didn't scare her and distract her.
There's research (and my own anecdotal evidence) supporting my initial claim, so I don't see how it's an obvious mistake. Do you have anything to back up your point?
This is like arguing with a wall. Right back from Gibson & Walk’s 1960 visual‑cliff experiment, there's endless research showing that babies don't have an innate fear of falling. It's so uncontroversial that it's now taken as undisputed fact in medical documentation and research.
You linked to an article about the visual-cliff experiment (apparently having not read it?) as it is what kicked off the avenue of research that came to this conclusion and which has been confirmed and uncontroversial since the mid-2010's.
It's also the lived experience of billions of parents.
There is no currently viable counter-arguments presented anywhere globally. There is more consensus about this issue than, for example, anthropogenic climate change or pangea or any number of other issues than reasonable people aren't expected to defend due to their overwhelming acceptance.
He never said he hates dogs. He said they’re one of the things a child interacts with that can cause serious harm. Especially if the child hits the dog or pulls their ears (I assume trying to play).
"All dogs are completely safe, and only attack when provoked" this is relentlessly vague, and not in line what most animal cognition specialists or vets will tell you.
> For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
I wish these disclaimers went upfront, the way a newspaper by-line would have been. I've never engaged much with Fortune anyway, but this makes me much less interested in doing so moving forward--if I wanted to know what an LLM thought of airport lounge crowding, I could ask one myself.
I totally get the point you're trying to make (and don't even disagree) but I think the analogy isn't quite right.
I'd actually be surprised if I got robbed at a mobbed-up restaurant; my naive understanding was that they actual put a lot of effort into keeping places like that above-board so they have legit businesses to attach their name/revenue/employees to, while still retaining muscle in case a rival tries something. It's arguably one of the last places I'd expected to get robbed outright.
It’s like when you’re having dinner at a restaurant owned by the mob and act surprised when the owner pays for your meal because “you look like such nice girls.”
> Eighteen months ago, Elon Musk shocked the datacenter industry by building a 100,000-GPU cluster in four months. Multiple innovations enabled this incredible achievement, but the energy strategy was the most impressive.
> Again, clever firms like xAI have found remedies. Elon's AI Lab even pioneered a new site selection process - building at the border of two states to maximize the odds of getting a permit early!
The energy strategy was to completely and almost certainly illegally bypass permitting and ignore the Clean Air Act, at a tangible cost to the surrounding community by measurably increasing respiratory irritants like NOx in the air around these communities. Characterizing this harm as "clever" is wildly irresponsible, and it's wild that the word "illegal" doesn't appear in the article once, while at the same time handwaving the fact that permitting for local combustion-based generation (for these reasons!) is one of the main factors to pushing out timelines and increasing cost.
[1] https://time.com/7308925/elon-musk-memphis-ai-data-center/
[2] https://www.selc.org/news/resistance-against-elon-musks-xai-...
[3] https://naacp.org/articles/elon-musks-xai-threatened-lawsuit...