where is the grift from him? he's not a salesman pushing a particular product but is talking about his experience with them. That's a really unkind and unfair thing to say about him.
He's a salesman pushing an entire industry who regularly receives special treatment and access from LLM vendors. The fact that he's open about getting these favors and subtle enough to sprinkle his salesmanship with a thin veneer of skepticism and plausible deniability doesn't make it any less of a grift.
I'm obviously biased when it comes to FOSS foundations, but Simon is also a member of the board of the Python Software Foundation, which is not nothing in terms of looking after our craft.
The LLM stuff feels minor in comparison, even if it may be what HN knows him for. It's certainly not the same level of achievement as your average bargain bin AI rambler in your LinkedIn feed.
If anything, Python programmers should be mortified that PSF leadership includes someone who seemingly spends all his free time and social capital trying to normalize slop and downplay the negative externalities of a bunch of companies that openly wish to undermine software authorship, depress programmer wages, and obliterate career opportunities for novice programmers.
The Industrial Revolution is coming again. Look at data center spend for massive companies like Microsoft. Love it or hate it, the AI you see today isn’t going away. It will only become more capable.
Maybe the next generation can / will need to start the Butlerian Jihad but we’re stuck for now.
An important part of the pollution in the Seine is from Paris itself. Due to being an old city, the sewer system and the flood water system (i.e rain) goes through mostly the same tubes and are dump directly in the Seine. This leads to the river being full of biological contaminent, a.k.a, shit.
A lot of effort was done to remediate this very old issue, with a very big push before the Olympics games (but improvement to the sewage system has been going on for years).
Hi, I'm Ansel! I'm a full-stack developer with recent experience at a workforce management company, where I built scheduling and real-time communication tools to streamline shift coordination. I come from a background in project management and real estate development, which sparked my interest in data visualization and web development. My formal training is in quantitative finance and music technology.
Full stack React/Next/Express web dev with professional experience in start up environments. Currently working on LLM GraphRAG NLP pipelines and ML in Python/FastAPI and HTMX. Lots of experience in dataviz and mapping.
> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA.
> Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration, which cited the group's work to defend its immigration policies. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement. The CIS sued the SPLC over the designation, but the lawsuit was dismissed.
> Since 2021, Yon has worked as a fixer in the Darién Gap, a dangerous stretch of jungle used by migrants entering the United States illegally. He has worked with figures such as Alex Jones and Laura Loomer, getting them access to the camps where legacy media are barred by security. A New York Times article noted that he targeted the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, quoting him as saying that "they’re coming across the border and it’s being funded with Jewish money.”
I watched one Yon's recent videos, I didn't detect any "white nationalism". I prefer original sources over race baiting. We should be capable of evaluating individuals and their messages on their own merit. There are many areas where I disagreed with Yon, but I didn't find any of the inflammatory content your sources suggested. To the contrary, it fits with my past experience with the SPLC's partisan crusades.
The deep ocean is naturally acidic due to the natural carbon pump. Because of this, below a certain depth (typically around 15,000 feet), calcite and aragonite just dissolve (the "carbonate compensation depth") and there is no accumulation in the ooze. The carbon pump involves dead organic matter falling to depth, where it is consumed and oxidized, producing CO2 there.
Or, "Public has head in sand about plastic recycling." In my city it's public knowledge (even if not well known) that nearly all plastics that get collected on recycling day end up in the local landfill, yet everyone dutifully washes, separates and collects plastics for recycling. This costs tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars, just so they can feel good about not putting plastic in the trash.
Instead of blaming the public who are doing their best and making an effort, send the bill to the people who are lying and not making the effort. Maybe send some of them to jail too, the US has far too much tolerance for corporate fraud.
This is really the only way to improve the situation. Hold the companies generating the plastic “trash” responsible via taxes/fines. The regulatory pressure will make a difference.
> Instead of blaming the public who are doing their best and making an effort, send the bill to the people who are lying and not making the effort
Evidence for this? I can point to dozens of members of the public that I know who aren't making an effort or doing their best, and people in companies who are. It seems like you just have an axe to grind.
The people who are recycling their plastics are doing their best, even though their well-intentioned actions aren't effective. A previous post was suggesting that they are somehow at fault for not paying ore attention and compelling regulators to act.
As in, a URL that you could post or something? Because if Redmond, WA came out and made it "public knowledge" that Waste Management was tossing our plastic straight into the landfill, someone's getting a spanking. Now, that's not to say that it doesn't happen, I'm just questioning that any municipality would be so upfront as to make public want many already suspect. But if that's actually the case, I'd love to read up.
None of these links back up your initial allegation.
They mostly talk about a recycling center that is producing low quality recyclables with other materials mixed in because they've had issues with their sorting machines, currently involving a lawsuit with the manufacturer.
The closest parallel is the use of crushed mixed glass as landfill cover, which is down-cycling, since they'd need to buy sand instead, which crushed glass is a substitute for.
Thank you for going to the effort to post links. However, I wasted my time on the first link only to find that it doesn't support your assertion. I will assume the other two links are equally unsupportive of your point (and sibling comment confirms).
In fairness, what matters is the rate. Although those stats don't include rates so they seem to be not-comparable.
Denmark seems to have a Boeing-737 Max accident every year, except using cars. Boeing is at 2x 737 accidents globally in the last 6 years. I'm not sure what conclusions we were expected to take from this.
obviously I was being slightly facetious - especially as I am unable to find stats on bus death but I'm going to assume that rate of death in bus accidents are much less than those in car accidents because not especially serious - but if that were the case and given that there were two serious crashes of the Boeing Max and there are 1160 I guess the rate there is somewhere around .1 whereas there are 3 million cars in Denmark and 154 fatalities is .009 (again, facetiously assuming that every car was driven)
But since the statement was it was safer than taking the bus to work and given the very minimal stats shown I think it is a reasonable supposition that probably the bus is safer in Denmark although obviously it would require a significant longer and more in depth amount of analysis than one generally expends on a comment on an HN text box.
>I'm not sure what conclusions we were expected to take from this.
given very minimal stats on car accidents and assuming bus accidents much less than car accidents then it would reasonable to think hmm, probably taking the bus is somewhat safer. But not with the absolute certainty that a year long study and gathering of all relevant stats might establish.
Could you maybe distill the serious parts? I'm not exactly sure what you think is joke and argument here. I'm also sceptical of whether that is a comparable approach. If I'm reading you right, you need to account for the fact that cars have lifespans and all the deaths over a lifespan get summed. Assuming a 15 year lifespan for a typical car that bumps the car figure up an order of magnitude and then the rates are basically the same (0.09 vs 0.10).
So the figures you're quoting suggest that a catastrophe in the aerospace industry is business as usual on Denmark roads. Putting aside rather important questions of methodology (eg, 737 MAXs would do a lot more trips than a typical Denmark car).
Not only that, but the 737 Max rate has likely dropped because they got a lot of attention and problems were likely remediated. It is easier to raise the engineering standards over 1,000 planes than 3,000,000 cars. You can see in the Denmark case that back in the dark eras past (like 2002) the situation was much worse but they improved quickly. Boeing will be undergoing the same process right now.
Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum. They are limited to 5 minutes of use in dry air to prevent the cowling from melting, flying apart, or getting into the engine and causing it to fly apart.
> Cowlings are now composite (ie plastic) instead of aluminum.
Um, no. Absolutely not “ie plastic”. Composite material in the case of aircraft means it’s made of two or more materials. In the case of modern aircraft, it often is carbon fiber, but can also mean fiberglass and Kevlar (aka aramid fibers).
A larger part is the epoxy, e.g., plastic. It being a composite would actually make it worse than just plastic under cyclic heating, because the epoxy and carbon fiber have different coefficients of thermal expansion.
Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive.
Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess is adding a trivial timed shutoff would have triggered an elaborate FAA approval and certification process. That’s probably where the savings were.
The “savings” is entirely due to weight. More weight requires more fuel. The single biggest cost by a large margin in the life of a commercial airline jet is fuel. Increase fuel efficiency by even 1% and you save the airline industry billions.
I was thinking about weight, but the cowlings are pretty small compared to other parts of the plane where composite materials are used. So i'm not sure a single digit saving in pounds of fuel per hour or flight was a good tradeoff considering the risks associated with the alternative they went with.
But, like someone else said this here, I would love someone with knowledge about this to chime in.
