Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more Matl's commentslogin

I'm happy for you that you're always the perfectly informed player in every transaction you ever make having the most up to date information, ensuring that you're getting the best deal possible at any given second, groceries and all.

Sadly, some poor slobs are too lazy to be as informed as you.


I do none of those things, but I understand that there is a chance of losing money gambling in the stock market. Its not a free lunch with 100% upside.

I am not endorsing what China is doing in terms of surveillance by any means, but their argument would be that every nation not subservient to the US got overthrown by CIA backed forces the moment they opened up.

The surveillance tech that is much more likely to be deployed in the US and that few are talking about is Israeli tech used to spy on and suppress the self determination of Palestinians. Especially given the recently proposed fusing of US/Israeli military tech.


> Especially given the recently proposed fusing of US/Israeli military tech.

This has been a thing for a while to be fair. Not sure if you're just mentioning of some new project instead? We've given and gotten back tech to and from Israel.


https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-us-military - this goes beyond previous technology sharing

> just like their GPUs are

So with proprietary blobs that give you more trouble that they're worth?


Those blobs are worth $5T; show some respect.


Bubble incoming....

Kids these days, amirite?


I've never had a single problem with my Nvidia GPUs on Linux.


It can work quite well in the desktop GPU 'happy path' (single monitor etc.) if you don't care about the proprietary nature of it.

But once we're talking about laptops, hybrid graphics etc. it quickly shows that this is not a platform Nvidia cares about.


Agree - but even for the basic use case, it has not been trouble free for me. With a simple 1080p display on a desktop running LTS Ubuntu on an older 3060: - I've had updates where stuff just stopped working and I had to futz around with drivers - Just the fact that you have to 'pick' from a selection of drivers (which one won't you hit issues with for your use case?) - At least on mine, there have been display glitches on suspend/resume - as it's a desktop, I just leave it running

Just anecdotal, but I never had these issues with the desktop AMD APU I had before it or Intel on board graphics on numerous laptops.


Depends. It is the typical Nvidia problem. Everything is a black box but when it all works it is the best option available. But when it breaks, you hate them with a passion.


What trouble? If you want a GPU that works on Linux, let alone FreeBSD, you buy nVidia, install their drivers and get on with your life (and sure, maybe you can't use Wayland, but why would you want to?). I'm all for open-source in theory, but in practice the AMD drivers cause far more trouble than the nVidia ones ever do.


After I switched from Nvidia to AMD GPUs on my main rig, I can now run Sid without issue and upgrade my Kernel whenever I want to without getting a black screen with a blinking cursor on the next boot.

Indeed. Having a machine where I don't live in fear after every reboot is a killer feature for AMD

> Sid

Are you refusing to use the Nvidia binary drivers and/or a setup like DKMS that ensures kernel modules are rebuilt as necessary? While I respect the principle, it's a problem you're creating for yourself.

> upgrade my Kernel whenever I want to without getting a black screen with a blinking cursor on the next boot.

Really? I had very much the opposite experience.


I installed the drivers according https://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers. Yet every time a new kernel is released (note that this is new, new kernels, e.g. at the moment I am using 7.0.10, just one point release off the current tippy tip 7.0.11), whether or not Nvidia drivers would work after boot was a crapshoot. Maybe it's better now, seeing as they are trying to open source some part of the drivers, I guess. It got so troublesome at the time that I just got a 7800XT to replace my old 2070. Never had the issue again.

You're conflating why people want to rewrite it in Rust vs what is the likely end result i.e. I do think people want to rewrite things in Rust because they believe long-term it will mean fewer (memory safety etc.) bugs especially because there's been almost no meaningful improvement in this space for a long time. But of course in the short term it will mean regressions compared to the established C written version.

That is different from AI where the calculus seems to be that if AI isn't involved, it aien't relevant.


> I do think people want to rewrite things in Rust because they believe long-term it will mean fewer (memory safety etc.) bugs

I don't believe that anymore - if that were true, the large portion of code now being rewritten in Rust wouldn't be vibe-coded slop.

I'd be more willing to believe that "quality" was the reason if those doing the rewrite weren't fucking vibing everything!


> if that were true, the large portion of code now being rewritten in Rust wouldn't be vibe-coded slop.

There may be some recency bias with the whole Bun fiasco, but Bun is after all owned by Anthorpic.

The wast majority of software in Rust that's actually used is not vibe coded as far as I know. There may be a large number of vibe coded Rust projects on GitHub but that's a poor metric to judge by given how easy it is to publish a new repo.

Is a large portion of in use Rust code vibecoded? I don't believe so.


I too want to go back to that, but I fear most consumers/potential visitors to your website have been conditioned to expect flashy web by this point and so it's a self reinforcing paradigm.


Nothing has changed. The "flashy web" of the 2000s was ... Flash. Corporates paid premium rates to Flash Designers who couldn't write a line of HTML.


Oh God I hated that. I'm not entirely sure why I hate it so much more than over-Javascripted sites. It feels even more alien.


I wonder, though, if there are those who notice a simple, comfortable page.


Tesla is known for hazardous factory conditions, worker mistreatment etc.[1]

Then there's the autopilot misleading marketing, Cybertruck being glued together with spit glue and duct tape etc.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Worki...


So then the European ones should join with European copyright holders to sue OpenAI/Anthropic and watch them trying to BS their way around what they train on.


Training a model on copyrighted material is fair use and copyright holders already operate a mafia-style extortion ring in Europe, so I don't think that's a good idea.


> Training a model on copyrighted material is fair use

I am not sure this has been actually established, but I don't see how distilling a model is not fair use then.


> it's against the OpenAI ToU

Given that OpenAI doesn't care about training on copyrighted data, why is suddenly their ToU something anyone should care about?


That OpenAI was in the wrong when they ignored everyone copyright, does not make it right to ignore their ToU. If a one wants IP and rule of law (incl contracts) to be respected, one should not violate others rights when it is convenient.

On a more risk-strategy level there is the size of their legal team, general endowment, and supplier and political connections to consider.

Everyone is free to ignore their ToU, but I can understand why a company would avoid it...


> If a one wants IP and rule of law (incl contracts) to be respected, one should not violate others rights when it is convenient.

Yes that's what should be said to OpenAI. Now they should not cry about their T&Cs not being respected when they never cared about others' copyrights.


As we say in Spanish, "quien roba a un ladrón tiene cien años de perdón".

There was no race anymore once the first Moon landing happened. Same as the Soviets won the 'space race' since they were the first to get into space.

The Moon landing race was a new race.

Now the Back to the Moon race is a different one altogether.


Are you saying that Americans, who have close to 1,000 known and many unknown bases in every corner of the globe are worried someone else might set up a base somewhere before them?

I guess I am just not that bothered, because I don't assume American intentions are inherently better.


Would you really be surprised to discover that Americans in general might be more inclined to assume that American intentions are better?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: