Which is totally orthogonal to the original statement, and my reflection to it, which was on one hand statig that seemingly array languages tend to be letter soupy, for which I replied that a selection bias is at play, as array languges are used widely, most notably Matlab is used widely which is not a letter soup. It is simply not regurgulated on the site as it does not seem so hardcore.
Nevertheless you are right, array langueges have been around earlier, for example Matlab itself dates back to the 1970s.
I do not understand the awe some are giving them in the comments, they are an easy to understand paradigm, which is very well suited for certain types of problems. Some having overly terse syntax is a thing, but I do not feel that only geniuses can comprehend array programming, anyone who did learn some university level physics or signal processing has the tools in their belt.
Who said "we" were going to investigate or speculate?
There is a difference between a witch hunt and making sure underheard voices get attention.
I was suggesting "we" make sure these claims are not being ignored because they are against a public figure. The fact they are a public figure and "might get blackmailed all the time" doesn't somehow relieve a person of criticism. That "we" ensure the proper authorities and groups prioritize finding new information or investigate these claims instead of being swept under a rug.
Question:
Does this take into account memory bandwidth and caches between cores? Because getting them wrong can easily make parallel programs slower than sequential ones.
Your link does not pass a smell test in the slightest.
Even the first number he gives ("688,478 Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Deaths (primarily from the Covid Vaccine)") is complete crackpot fiction and runs counter to the actual current evidence. In fact the very likely reason for this is miscounted/misattributed COVID deaths.
There could be an opposite avenue: ad-free Google Premium subscription with AI chat as a crown jewel. An ultimate opportunity to diversify from ad revenue.
The low operating margin of serving a GPT-4 scale model sounds like a compelling explanation for why Google stayed out of it.
But then why did Microsoft put its money behind it? Alphabet's revenue is around $300bn, and Microsoft's is around $210bn which is lower but it is the same order of magnitude.
The CCP control is strictly about blast radius. Individual citizen in their homes are rarely subject to any enforcement action. Even talking critically on social media in small circles is mostly fine (apart from simple "bad-word" filters that just remove whole messages).
The moment you reach a wider audience or "disrupt public harmony", they come down on you.
Yeah but ultimately that is far more dangerous, no? The law enables severe punishments that are applied arbitrarily by those tasked with enforcing it. Knowing there is a clear and reliable line you can't cross allows for opposition movements to take advantage of that line and build within the narrow demarcations. Arbitrary enforcement means you can never know if someone in charge has it out for you that day because you probably already broke laws that could be used against you before coming anywhere near actively participating in political dissent.
As the common wisdom goes: Al Capone was not arrested for being a crime boss but for tax evasion. Why bother setting clear boundaries on what behavior is or isn't anti-revolutionary if you can just make sure everyone already violates the law based on technicalities and then just decide who you want to arrest for it as necessary?
I'm not sure what the surveillance has to do. I was responding to a comment saying that while the CCP cracks down on dissidents it does so mostly based on perceived "blast radius" (i.e. reach). I'm saying this selective enforcement is actually worse than if they just blindly enforced a specific ban.
If anything "spy on your neighbor" plays into what I said: you not only need to worry about getting on the bad side of the authority (i.e. those able to enforce the law against you) but of literally anyone else who might have it out for you. The legal basis for arresting people is just legalistic window dressing to create a pretense of law and justice.
This is, by the way, the biggest practical distinction between the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: in peak Nazi Germany the police would just drag you off the street and throw you in a hole or shoot you for treason, in the Soviet Union the police would disappear you into a gulag but only after giving you an unwinnable mock trial where you would be put on record to confess (after torture if necessary or desired) to your treasonous counter-revolutionary beliefs. Because one followed purely from "might makes right" and the other tried to maintain a pretense of ideological principles and justice. Not that this mattered much to those on the receiving end - you'd still end up dead or imprisoned.
The results of the Safire type 3 reactor were verified by a third party lab. It's amazing that you can just post out of your ass like that as if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.
Maybe I'm just bad at it but your claim does not show up on Google. Can you please give me a report that shows which lab verified it and the results? And no, a random video from the Safire website does not count because my assumption is that they are scam artists.
If you sincerely believe they are scam artists, then please explain something for us.
The finding, shared at the EU 2017 conference here https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI , documented on video, is an example of a Langmuir probe (a tungsten rod) evaporating.
After the tungsten rod evaporated, the Safire team tried a much larger tungsten rod which did not immediately evaporate, but rapidly decayed, as was documented.
If the Safire team is a team of scam artists, how were they able to do something new that had not been done* before?
Is there any example of this given before year 2017? Is any other team able to take credit for this finding?
[*] done unclassified, many suspect this knowledge was already attained in classified (as in national security secrets) type environments.
>> your claim does not show up on Google.
I want to make sure I answer your question, can you narrow down which claim you are asking about?
As far as "which laboratory verified the results of the Safire type 3 reactor rendering radioactive material benign?", I will reach out to them and just ask them.
The EU 2017 conference is not a science conference, it's a pseudo-science conference with little to no evidence or science behind it. Anyone claiming any wild thing can go and present there. There is no actual peer reviewed evidence here.
So as long as no reputable independent team is a able to verify their claims, I'll remain extremely sceptical. So far all we have are wild claims and fancy videos all from a single source and that just won't cut it to convince me.
I appreciate your tacit yet loud acknowledgement that you are UNABLE to provide a single example pre-dating year 2017 where a tungsten rod was demonstrated to rapidly decay when exposed to a plasma fusion reaction.
A scam artist would not be able to originally discover and present such a result.
>> So as long as no reputable independent team is a able to verify their claims
The Safire team has worked directly with LLNL, which is as "reputable" as Science(TM) gets.
>> The EU 2017 conference is not a science conference
Nobody said the EU 2017 is not a Science(TM) conference. The Safire team is just one of many speakers there.
Can you please give me evidence for anything you have written in this thread that did not originate from Safire or aureon?
Let me state this again, I do not trust them as a source. I can't find any information regarding any Safire and llnl collaboration as well. Especially nothing from the llnl side.
>> any information regarding any Safire and llnl collaboration
What I know about this information is from about six years ago, which is what I can tell you today. I probably have it saved somewhere.
>> Can you please give me evidence for anything you have written in this thread that did not originate from Safire or aureon?
The short answer is yes. Separate from that, I also have access to two of their laboratories later this year. This is contingent not on their willingness to allow me access but my own itinerary for the year.
Given the details the Aureon team has shared, very clearly not Rossi's lab. I don't want to hurt your feelings or whatever here, I'm just going to be very very honest with you, if your comment wasn't so obviously in bad faith, that would be a very dumb guess.
I understand the provocations and have warned the other commenter elsewhere in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584466). But you also broke the site guidelines badly—not just here, but also:
Please don't respond to bad comments by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The very real fact that the radioactive material was rendered benign was proven by the third party laboratory. You presented a guess about which laboratory it was. Your guess was both stupid and wrong.
You have not successfully trolled. You did not "strike a nerve", but you did provoke a disgust response. You are not even midwit tier intelligence.
I applaud your optimism but the bcachefs install base is tiny compared to btrfs and still there are corruption and data loss stories on Reddit so maybe give it another 5-10 years of mainstream use to stabilize.
I’m mostly excited about having access to a filesystem that can happy handle a heterogeneous set of disks with RAID 5/6 style redundancy.
BTRFS RAID-5 implementation has know data loss issues (write hole) that has existed for years now, and doesn’t seem likely to fixed soon.
Then there’s roadmap feature of extending bcachefs native allocation buckets to match up with physical buckets on storage media like SMR drives and also SSDs that expose their underlying NAND arrangement, allowing bcachefs to orchestrate writes in a manner that best fits the target media. Creates the opportunity for bcachefs to get incredibly high performance on SMR drives (compared to FS that don’t understand SMR media), which would probably provide CMR style performance on SMR drives in all but the most random write workloads.
But yeah, there’s still some distance for bcachefs to go. But given its inclusion into mainline, and the fact that mainline only accepts filesystems that have already demonstrated a high level of robustness and completeness (semi-recent policy change driven by experiences with FS like BTRFS which took so long to become complete and stable after merge), gives me hope we won’t need 5-10 years of mainstream use for bcachefs to stabilise.
