jeffdn

Joined 12 years ago

Karma
255
Submissions
111
Member since
Nov 5
I'm a software developer from southern California, currently residing in San Francisco.
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 5 months ago
It says right at the top, 35B active, 1T total.
Comment · 11 months ago
WandB and performance/scale, name a less iconic duo. There’s a reason many labs switched to Neptune.
Comment · 1 year ago
They don't run on Azure!
Comment · 1 year ago
VGT is 0% fossil fuels, ESGV is 0.54%.
Comment · 1 year ago
If all of the galaxies we see rotate the same way, are we “looking down” from a pole and seeing only those with the same rotation we have, as opposed to a more equatorial view that would be evenly split.
Comment · 2 years ago
I'd make sure to do an extended trial run first. Painful transition.
Comment · 2 years ago
I’d start by saying that the Russians aren’t winning the war, it is in a period of stalemate, like 1915 or 1916. Accepting tens of thousands of casualties for incremental movement of a front line, over time periods that allow the side withdrawing to first build new fortifications to fall back on, is not a recipe for success. The Russians are digging deep into Soviet-era stockpiles, rolling out tanks built in the ‘50s and ‘60s (T-55 and T-62, respectively). Each of these is much less well equipped to face Western-style military hardware than more modern variants. Russia’s ability to replenish its stockpiles is at even more a disadvantage than the West, and meanwhile Ukraine has been tooling up to build shells of their own.

The U.S. has (had?) colossal stockpiles of shells and ammunition. There is a false equivalence between the ability to supply the Ukrainians at a rate of 10,000+ shells a day for years on end and the ability of the United States to engage in a major conflict. The Russians are also having trouble keeping their artillery pieces adequately supplied. The calculus is about the acceptable rate of drawdown of stockpiles in relation to the increase in the likelihood of a near-peer conflict arising due to the support given by the very drawdown of those stockpiles. If we give everything we have to Ukraine, and they lose, for whatever reason, then we have disadvantaged ourselves.

However, any major conflict between the United States and a near-peer adversary wouldn’t be so heavily reliant on artillery as this current war is — the U.S. has spent decades building an Air Force that can dominate the battle space in ways that artillery alone cannot match. As Ukraine is set to receive several squadrons worth of F-16s this year, I believe we will see things change. Planes can interdict resupply and troop movements in ways that are beyond the capability of artillery. SEAD aircraft can target and destroy SAM radars to allow large strike packages to accurately blow bridges and rail lines with a much greater radius and accuracy than any other conventional munition.

It is very cynical realpolitik, but Russia’s armed forces have been gutted with this approach.

Comment · 2 years ago
Is it a surprise to you that all of the countries that have historically been imperial subjects of Russia seek protection from the possibility of that eventuality coming to pass again? Is it surprising after Georgia in 2008 and Crimea/Donbas in 2014 that Ukraine would want some assurance of security and independence for the remainder of their country?
Comment · 2 years ago
The United States is certainly not solely responsible for the demolition of all of the factories of Europe. Sure, they played a majority role in the bombing of Germany, Czechoslovakia, occupied France, and Italy, but that is not the full picture and you know it. The British bombed, the Germans bombed, the Soviets bombed, and massive ground campaigns carried on by all of the above with the profligate use of artillery didn’t help either.
Comment · 2 years ago
In 1912, that's 1 representative per 207,000 people.
Comment · 2 years ago
A major contributing factor to the lack of realized benefits with electronic health records in the United States is that the interoperability specification, CCDA, is only loosely complied with under the "meaningful use" rule from Health and Human Services. Certification is done on site at the EHR manufacturer, in an environment controlled by the manufacturer. The demonstration of compliance does not have to be done in a default "out of the box" environment, but merely that the system is _capable_ of being configured in a way that allows for emitting standards-compliant CCDA.

In practice, this means that most manufacturers do not build systems that are standards compliant by default, and definitely do not install systems that are standards compliant in their initial configuration. Then, individual healthcare practices add customization on top of that, which further complicates data integration.

Comment · 3 years ago
Are you sure that number doesn't include Vietnam?
Comment · 3 years ago
Absolutely! VMWare Fusion supports Apple Silicon (as do several other VM software, like Parallels.
Comment · 3 years ago
If you know which unit he was in, they often maintained their own histories which, in many cases, are separately available online.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton