zhdc1

You forgot about React.

There was a period where it felt like Hacker News was a front-end dev message board.

Thought it was worth a read.

Seems reasonable and closer to American averages than I would have expected.

Yes, well over a hundred iirc that the US can requisition on day one of a conflict. America still leads here.

Worth noting that, outside of WW2, the US has never really had a large merchant fleet.

Good article but, like a lot of stategic studies pieces, grossly underestimates what the American industrial base is capable of.

1. The US is second in the world, behind Ukraine, in military drone production.

2. The US is a close second to China in logistics + last mile drone production.

3. The US is still the only country with the proven ability to move mass anywhere in the world.

None of this means that the US will win a hot war against China. However, that has - always - been the case. The US fought against China in Korea and SE Asia/Vietnam and had the opportunity twice to move the conflict into Chinese territory. They didn't, for obvious reasons.

Geography + LOCs + population are a b***h.

Bought a TI dev board with c7x and c66 dsp cores. Have it doing PEQ and FIR room correction, along with tube amplifier emulation.

Will be trying to implement a virtual bass array next.

> Maybe slightly higher.

…

They’re just about dead even. Maybe slightly higher. Not unreasonably higher.

Inflation is a pain in the rear.

A Big Mac meal in the states (fried and drink) cost 2.99 USD in 1990.

It now costs around 8.50 USD.

The inflation adjusted value of 2.99 USD in 1990 is about 7.88 USD.

Did the price go up? Sure. Are you likely getting slightly more in 2026 than you were in 1990? No idea, but it seems plausible to me.

Inflation is the answer.

This. It’s ugly.

All of talk about the technical merits or demerits misses the point. I can spout of a dozen or more memorized IPv4 addresses. IPv6? Good luck.

It's a very US-centric perspective to assume that density = cities.

Almost every town in the US, at one point, was dense enough to support a vibrant main street. Many (most?) of them even had tram lines and other forms of public transportation.

It's not an either or proposition. You can have cost-effective infrastructure through relative density without having to deal with all of the trappings - good and bad - that come from a city.

> which can still be far less dense than urbanists really want.

And this was my comparison?

The Swiss public transport system is a century-plus old at this point. Compare pictures of the Zurich tram system in the early 20th century with today - squint your eyes and you won't notice any difference.

That said, I'm willing to bet that San Fransisco and the surrounding communities had comparable public transportation in the 19th and early 20th century. While I can't speak for the bay area, you can still find exposed tram tracks in many US cities - Philadelphia, for instance.

The US's move from having the best to arguably the worst public transportation system in the world among developed countries is a lesson in disastrous government policy.

East coast cities were built before modern building codes.

Something that, for some reason, people in the states don't want to accept is that - when given the choice - the vast majority of people prefer living in dense urban environments.