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

There is a way they could. In mind only thing that will slow down the frontier is government taking control of the revenue.

So my proposal is AI companies decide which labs have come close to frontier and decide to slow it. Government decide to stop progress in that and they divide the revenue from all labs(for say 10 years), without any matter of where it is coming from. Any lab which reaches close to frontier gets a chunk in the pie. This will encourage labs to come close to the frontier but not dangerously close.


It's not that simple. Of course there is inflation but in the long run in history, real money has increased massively. We have give opportunity of education to almost everyone, abolished slavery, given food and basic medicine to almost everyone. 100 years back having all of these sounded like a perfect world.

Lean went other way on automation that there is no automation. Isabelle users frequently point that decades old isabelle is better than Lean on this. In the end Lean approach proved to be better with LLM as the outer loop is automation.

I have worked in 3 companies and none of them had installed anything on the work laptop. One IT department tried to, but I ignored all their messages. I would probably be pissed if I have to give up the right to work with privacy.

I had formatted the laptop both while getting it and returning it. I had filevault on and I wouldn't have shared my password.


Modern MDM solutions use Apple Business Manager to automatically deploy the MDM after a system wipe. If you have a company owned Apple device, and the company has it enrolled in ABM, then you can wipe and filevault all you want, but the agent will still be reinstalled, and the file vault key escrowed.

Yeah I know. It's not like Apple is trying to hide it or most companies try to hide spyware, and I know how to check for Apple business manager or spywares.

What does donation does for open source? Surely it wont come close to pay talented developers who create it. For cloud cost, there are few companies already giving generous free tier for open source.

The only thing that donation could pay for is marketing e.g. events and meetups.


That's not true at all. Donations are the biggest source of income for The Document Foundation, the non-profit behind LibreOffice, and have been used to pay developers who've joined the team in recent years:

* Michael Weghorn (accessibility)

* Jonathan Clark (language and scripting support)

* Neil Roberts (scripting improvements)

* Dan Williams (macOS support and general UI improvements)


How much do they pay them?

They don't disclose individual salaries but you can check their annual reports [1]. About 1M € among all the developers.

[1] https://www.documentfoundation.org/financials-and-reports/


It obviously depends on the project and the scale and duration of a donation, but plenty of open source projects have benefited from donations. Donations can and do pay for developers, as well, part time or full time. With LibreOffice, you can answer your questions directly by browsing https://www.libreoffice.org/donate/ and as a non-profit you can easily find more detailed reports: https://www.documentfoundation.org/financials-and-reports/

> The only thing that donation could pay for is marketing e.g. events and meetups.

You do realise there's an insanely large gap in-between "everyone is a volunteer" and "everyone is full-time staff", right?


Boring company maybe? It's not abandoned, but they likely gave up the idea of an underground system of roads under a city, and just focus on single project individually like traditional construction company.


It's far from abandoned. They're actively building TBMs at their factory and tunneling in Vegas and it's pretty different from any other transportation project I'm aware of.


DC to Baltimore tunnel, LA tunnel network, Chicago airport tunnel. New Roadster, possibly Tesla Semi. Battery swap stations. “Alien dreadnaught” factory with no humans on the production line. Dragon 2 propulsive landing. Self-driving ought to qualify at least partially, because although the project continues and is doing quite well, a huge number of cars were sold with hardware that was promised to be capable of it and turned out not to be.


TBC is still pursuing government permits and contracts to build tunnels. Not having succeeded in every case is not the same as abandoning the project.

The new roadster is delayed, not abandoned. It's known to be in active development and is very likely to be demoed this year. Wrong timeline but not abandoned.

The Tesla semi is on the road daily and the factory to build large quantities is almost complete. They're hosting a "factory inauguration" event next month. Certainly not abandoned.

Tesla has already committed to replacing hardware as necessary on cars that purchased FSD in the past so that they can run unsupervised as promised, after Tesla has unsupervised FSD working. Certainly the timeline was wrong but again, clearly not abandoned.


The DC tunnel was billed as a hyperloop, so it's not good faith to both excuse him for never intending to build one and also claim it takes time and will eventually succeed.


Did TBC ever pursue government permits and contracts for the DC tunnel? The nonsense "verbal govt approval" they mentioned makes me skeptical of the whole thing.

New Roadster is over six years late and has basically gone silent at this point. Maybe it'll still come, just extremely late, but I'm very skeptical.

Semi might be real, we'll see.

If cars that were built with AP2/2.5/3 get upgraded to unsupervised FSD, I'll eat my hat. They don't even know what hardware will be needed yet and some of those cars are now a decade old.


I'd be happy to take a bet on Roadster or Semi. As for older AP versions, Tesla will either be upgrading those cars or providing significant compensation to owners who purchased FSD, and I'd bet on that too.


Wait, is hyperloop not a Musk failure because he never said he would build it, or is it not a failure because his company is still building it? You've said both.


What they're building in Vegas is not a hyperloop.


I see my logical flaw and agree (to the specific arguments about tunnels made in this subthread), though I made an adjacent post showing Musk later expressed intent to build a hyperloop in DC, so you can't also say he never claimed to try.


> infrastructure like this probably has to be usable for something like 100 years to payoff

I don't think so. Likely the pad with last 10 years max.

In any case, I highly doubt that but in any case sea level is almost certainly going to rise below a meter. Filling a meter higher with sand is a pocket change for this project.


What was the incentive and was that specific to Tesla?


My bet would be that invasion wouldn't look like quick war, but slow control of political power either through light force like economic blackmail, or through something similar to what US did with Venezuela.

Now that US has already opened the gate to labelling nation head as drug seller, this just eases things for China.


Also the US has very publicly shown they don’t have the ability to effectively wage war over any period of time.


Yes and no. The Iran war is deeply unpopular and won’t even pass congressional approval for money. It’s being fought from pocket change budgets because they know they can’t pass a funding bill for it. Also not the same kind of war.

Any period time? US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan. Pretty effectively! To what end? Not an end an army can really achieve so… there you are.

But a war that might actually be popular? To save the world from communist dictators and make sure we have chips for our precious devices? I wouldn’t count out the United States. Or nuclear weapons, which still exist and are a thing.


> US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan

That was an occupation and a low intensity “pacification” mission. Waging a prolonged war against a military peer on the other side of the continent is a bit more problematic (considering that US is/was on the brink of running out of advanced weaponry in Iran despite having aerial superiority which they won’t over Taiwan, Japan would have to get involved as well cause otherwise US would have to entirely rely on the fragile carrier fleet).

Using tactical nukes (even regardless of the extreme geopolitical downsides that might bring) wouldn’t necessarily give a great tactical advantage either, unless they are willing to do that over Taiwan itself to destroy the landing forces).


Ah yeah that $1T a year for the last forever is just pocket change


And it'd be the kind of war the US is best at. Boots on the ground, against conventional military, with a civilian population that is on the side of the US forces

No guerilla warfare, no insurgents, no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles


> no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles

Was with you until that last one. If you haven't noticed missiles, drones, and interceptors have played a central role in ukraine.


> against conventional military,

Last time used faced a conventional military that could actually challenge it was in Korea.

It won’t have complete areal superiority or entire division surrendering after running into contact with US forces like they in Iraq. “Shock and awe” of course can be very effective just probably not against China. Even now US is running out of materiel against Iran and can’t really sustain a prolonged intense conflict while being able to protect its gulf allies from ballistic missiles and drones.


Iran is not a war funded by congress, so it's really no wonder the US appears inneffective. Trump didn't get the support he thought he would from congress and now he's flailing around trying to save face.

Change the leadership (which will happen soon) and when there is actual support from congress to fund and intervene in a conflict in Taiwan, then you will see a vastly different US military response.


How many boots on the ground could you get and how quickly/safely? The supposed opposition here is MUCH closer to the island.


The war over Taiwan wouldn't be done by soldiers on Taiwanese soil. So you wouldn't need many boots on the ground in a literal sense.

But if you mean in a metaphorical sense, how long until the 7th Fleet could get to Taiwan, the answer is 0 days for first response, 3 days for everything located in Japan, and less than a week for the full mobilization of the 7th Fleet (that's 50+ ships and nearly 30K soldiers). The entire Pacific fleet could be there in a week and a half.

(Granted, we're assuming competent US leadership, which is not the current administration.)


just a gut feeling, but if they had to for some reason, I feel like they'd just go in and bomb as much strategic assets and invade, because in their eyes aside from Taiwan, there isn't much left to "unify" and it'd be historic, not something they'd need to do every decade or even century

I feel like Russia thought the same of Ukraine, even though it is way bigger


Any country that competently adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently. And that's for a continental invasion.

Taiwan? All surface ships are sitting ducks. Troop transport ships would get absolutely decimated, and then the landing troops would get swarmed by drones all over again, and then they have to maintain logistics to the small minority that land (good luck with that). And that's without naval drones.

With naval drones? I have no idea how China gets anything across the strait.

And all the above is true for a competently organized Chinese invasion. Which it won't be.


> adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently

The tactical situation in Taiwan is very different though. I think it would come down more to what’s happening in the air since the stalemate in Ukraine is in large because the Russian airforce is almost completely neutralized and can only be used to launch cruise missiles from a safe distance. I doubt China would invade unless they feel they can somehow achieve at least temporary air superiority and achieve their other objectives during that period.

Air defenses are probably much more important than drones overall.


That's why I said it will be slow. I think it will be decades long political control, not a military invasion.

China have more credible threat of bombing economically relevant building like TSMC, or capturing leaders and protestors like they already are doing in Hong Kong.


I don't think Anthropic wants a stable experience on their consumer subscription plans. It is just used for customer acquisition who will then ask their employer to pay for enterprise plan(assuming most employer care about data control) which is based on tokens.

Most coders don't pay for tokens themselves. It's just on reddit and HN you would think that everybody does.


Dario said in an interview that they originally wanted to be an enterprise only company.


What changed their mind?


I would guess that it's hard to compete with Google without a consumer component. Most enterprises already have contracts and policies with Google, so anything driven from the top-down is likely to prefer Google.

(And failing that, there was a real risk for OpenAI to be the default for enterprises.)

To defeat that, you need to frontline employees the chance to experience better tooling and models which is where the subsidized subscriptions come in.


Or AWS, or Microsoft, etc who have all the other stuff enterprises want.


I pay for my tokens for my own projects, at least when the ones Google seems willing to keep throwing at me for free don't cut it. I'd think that's not too uncommon, especially here where there's likely a high ratio of hobby coders (whether also professionals or otherwise).


I also pay but just the $20 plan and just for chats/lightweight personal site editing. I get unlimited token usage from my company.

In my company the average claude token usage is something like $5k/month/employee. Most hobby coders don't spend anywhere close to it.


I strongly suspect most companies don't spend that much either.

Unlimited tokens aka unlimited cost is something that not every use case needs.


I think most good engineering companies are spending >$1000/employee/month. Subscription users spend $100-200.


Free tier Gemini is good enough for my personal projects and hopefully a local model can replace it before i ever personally pay for a single token from anyone.

Work can pay a Claude sub. At home i see no need


local models are getting pretty close. they still require some serious hardware to run at a reasonable rate but they're about smart enough to be useful.


Yeah i just don't have the hardware to run them at a reasonable rate and am not ready to invest that much at today's prices. My tinkering with DeepSeek last year was promising but the minutes-per-response made it unusable.


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

Search: