thereddaikon

Joined 5 years ago

Karma
2,503
Submissions
690
Member since
Jan 12
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
Or the classic example of,

"Hey man calm down!"

"I am calm!"

One of the best ways to upset someone is to claim they are upset.

Comment · 1 year ago
I'm not even sure I would compare ford to Jobs or Woz. Woz is a talented engineer. Jobs was a great product guy. I've always thought of Ford as process/production expert. The Model T wasn't a particularly great car compared to its competition. What made it and Ford succeed was his production process made it cheaper than the competition. But his processes also allowed him to make it faster and he came up with the franchise system which gave Ford national reach at a time when every other car maker was regional. The Model T wasn't just cheaper than the competition, in many parts of the country it was realistically the only car you could buy for awhile.
Comment · 1 year ago
Nobody claims Ford invented the car. Its undisputed in the mainstream that Karl Benz did. What Ford achieved was making it into a viable mass market product. Ford's inventions had less to do with the car itself and more with the process of mass production. Ford's system was incredibly influential and very wide reaching. But the car was very much invented and known before he did that.
Comment · 1 year ago
There's already a process for this, its called chain of custody. If you cant prove the evidence has a solid chain of custody then it was potentially tampered with and isn't reliable.
Comment · 1 year ago
Everything has a reason. Xi didn't make that decision for the lulz. The reason is they see Taiwan as part of China and in active rebellion. Simple as. That doesn't make it right, but that explains why they are doing it. You don't have to accept that but that's what actual chinese and taiwanese nationals have told me and I'm inclined to believe them.
Comment · 1 year ago
Its an imperfect analogy but I'm trying to illustrate an idea in a more relatable way. If you pick at the details it will fall apart.
Comment · 1 year ago
I use China in this context to mean the Chinese state which given their system is interchangeable with the CCP. So you can subv in CCP in my statement or even Xi if you want since he is unequivocally running things.

In the case of Ukraine, Russia's (read: the russian government which is synonymous with Putin who dictator in all but name) motivation is somewhat similar. But they don't see Ukraine as a rebellious province. They see it as a vassal state as they do all of the other former SSRs and members of the Warsaw pact. Putin and his nationalist group have a very old world view of things and a very specific concept of what their rightful sphere of influence is and what exactly it means to control it. This isn't even unique to them. After securing power, the Bolsheviks quickly attempted to bring former Russian imperial possessions back under their control. That included Ukraine, Poland and Finland. Poland and Finland were able to secure their independence, Ukraine was less fortunate. For all the talk of anti imperialism, they were just as imperial as their predecessors. So this is just russians being russians and an inability for their world view to evolve past the 19th century.

Comment · 1 year ago
Insider knowledge? Not really, unless you count asking actual chinese and taiwanese nationals what they think about it instead of assuming their world view is the same as my own.
Comment · 1 year ago
China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious province. In their mind, the Chinese civil war never ended and that island is the last bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it described in a way that is easier for Americans to understand is; Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.

I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan. But that's closer to their real motivations than anything having to do with economics or technology. And its important to understand your potential adversaries motivations because that will inform their decisions and tactics.

Comment · 1 year ago
Older games used precompiled shaders. These are inaccessible to the game devs and usually handled by the hardware makers, so the platform OEM for consoles and the video card OEM on PCs. Game devs have begged for the ability to write their own shaders for years and finally got it with DX11 and Vulkan. And that's when things went to hell. Instead of the shaders being written and compiled for the specific hardware, they now have to be compiled for your GPU at run time. It's a messy and imperfect process. EA, Ubisoft or anyone else is never going to have the same level of understanding of a GPU that Nvidia or AMD will have. Often the stuttering is due to the shaders having to be recompiled in game, something that never happened before.
Comment · 1 year ago
It's just a front end for tweets from that account. Clicking on any of the posts takes you to the original.
Comment · 1 year ago
The difference in the UK is, there is no recourse. It's actually why America exists as a state to begin with. They have parliamentary supremacy and no enshrined checks and balances against parliament. Nor do they have a formal constitution. And the populace is disarmed. A sufficiently united parliament can in theory do what it wants. The only practical risk they have is a coordinated coup by the military.

The US system, while far from perfect, does have enshrined checks and balances. A formal constitution that limits the powers of branches. And an armed populace with a history of protest and unrest when things don't go their way.

Comment · 1 year ago
They wouldn't be moving, they would be expanding into the US market. Its a win-win. Hyundai get's access to a previously closed off market due to cabotage regulation. And we get modern ship building. The only loser here are established ship builders who would be forced to modernize and compete. But long term that's a good thing for them too.
Comment · 1 year ago
Concorde was a large program backed by two governments and designed and built by nationalized aerospace companies. This is a strictly private affair, so no tax dollars behind it, just private funds. The end goal is also to be much more efficient than Concorde, which was a pretty brute forced effort which multiple large afterburning engines. They hope to make the production model capable of supercruise.
Comment · 1 year ago
Nice that they are admitting to perjury on twitter like that.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton