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

>Ignoring it costs more later, but later is someone else's problem

Given the standard advice to job hop every 1-3 years, and the intern/coop work pattern of semester long stints, is this not just a structural consequence?

Do you gain competitive advantage as a company with longer tenures? Or shorter, even?

Or is it an attitude problem, compare with old people planting shade trees:

“Codebases flourish when senior devs write easily maintainable modules in whose extensions they will never work”


>I know it doesn't make financial sense to self-host given how cheap OSS inference APIs are now

You can calculate the exact cost of home inference, given you know your hardware and can measure electrical consumption and compare it to your bill.

I have no idea what cloud inference in aggregate actually costs, whether it’s profitable or a VC infused loss leader that will spike in price later.

That’s why I’m using cloud inference now to build out my local stack.


Not concerned with electricity cost - I have solar + battery with excess supply where most goes back to the grid for $0 compensation (AU special).

But I did the napkin math on M3 Ultra ROI when DeepSeek V3 launched: at $0.70/2M tokens and 30 tps, a $10K M3 Ultra would take ~30 years of non-stop inference to break even - without even factoring in electricity. You clearly don't self-host to save money. You do it to own your intelligence, keep your privacy, and not be reliant on a persistent internet connection.


I think “test the function does what it does” is not necessarily the intent here, it’s being able to write tests that fill themselves in and assuming you’ll double check afterwards.

That said, I don’t see how it’s much different to TDD (write the test to fail, write the code to pass the test) aside from automating adding the expected test output.

So I guess it’s TDD that centres the code, not the test…


Taleb calls it the Ludic Fallacy (game fallacy)

The statistics of games are understandable, defined and easy to work with.

The statistics of markets, as Soros spent his career investigating, are filled with feedback loops, and as Taleb investigated, fat tails.


Make sure to assign your agent all the required security trainings.


If this works via induction could you even eliminate the need for the drones to land?

Assuming flight conditions are good, there would be a region around the wire (line of charge) with an electric/magnetic field that the drones could use, any shielding notwithstanding.


Coupling falls off rapidly with distance. It's why a thick enough phone case will interfere with magnetic charging, and that's only on the scale of a few millimeters.

Drones consume a lot of power while in flight. You can get a little bit of power out of powerlines standing underneath them with some tricks, but it's not enough to keep a drone in flight. At least not without something prohibitively large to couple to the line.

It's also risky to hover near a stationary object because the longer you hover, the more you're exposed to the risk of a wind gust knocking you into the nearby obstacle.


iirc efficiency loss in wireless energy transmission is exponential? someone correct me. But basically after just a few mm the losses are so great that the amount of electricity needed becomes ridiculously wasteful.

to power a running drone at more than a few inches would be just...a lot.


Inverse square, so each time the distance doubles the power density drops by a factor of four.


That was my thought as well...I suppose there may be something I am not thinking of. Perhaps they get more total energy if they "perch" on the tower.


My gut says there's something like an inverse-square law that governs how far away they can effectively charge.


It’s exactly the inverse square law.

You get a million times more power if you can put a coil 1mm away from the wire than if you hover 1 meter away.


It's actually an inverse first power law, assuming that the distance of the drone from the wire is much less than the length of the wire. The inverse square law applies only to a point source of electrical energy, to a sphere, or to an object whose largest dimension is much less than the distance to the drone.


Yes, feels like perching via some insulated "feet" and only using energy for stabilisation (as opposed to flight) would allow the drone to get very cloe (and suck much more power) from the line.


It'll definitely charge faster, if only because it's drawing less power to stay up and getting closer. The only question is, is it like 10% or 100% faster?


Drones consume something like 100W to stay in the air (ballpark, of course), so they'd probably never charge if they had to hover.


No, but if there were something convenient for them to grab and hang from, like a power transmission line…


More like 190W / Kg.


Just for the synth intro


Ironically the Apple TV Netflix app really wants to soup the intro - going so far as to mute the intro to offer the “skip” button. You have to hit “back” to get the audio back during the intro.

Not she why Netflix is destroying destroying the experience themselves here.


> This is only because they are focused on some narrow aspect of the business

Is this a bad thing though? If some technical decision has downside risk, I’d reasonably expect:

- the affected stakeholder to bring it up

- the decision maker to assuage the stakeholder’s concern (happy path) or triage and escalate


I think you are right. It's still worth encouraging people to question decisions even though most of the time it won't be the right compromise for the business.


As a Brit I feel very at home when hearing/reading Dutch and Frisian. It’s a reminder that England and the Low Countries share a lot of close history all the way back to Anglo-Saxon times; of being fishers, traders, burghers and mercenaries moving around the North Sea chasing opportunities, spreading and augmenting languages.

“Brea, bûter en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk”


That’s because all those languages are all essentially rooted in the languages/dialects of the Germanic tribes. It is why the Dutch get their English name from the German for German, Deutsch; and Nederland (Neder = Low) is German/Dutch for the Lowland Deutsch.

I’m sure everyone is aware that English comes from Anglish, i.e., the Angles as in the Germanic tribe.

Deutsch is derived from proto-germanic (as best we can tell) þiudiskaz, meaning “the people” i.e., the group of the different self associating tribes. It gets far more interesting in that it seems many of the strong dialects of especially southern Germany, Austria, and England have in fact retained some very old words and pronunciations that were lost in more standardized, conformed, and perverted dialects.


Not only on the language but also in gastronomy and architecture. When I see old towns in UK I usually think about Dutch towns but just without any biking infrastructure.


Dialect of Liverpool is called scouse, after a popular local dish -> lobscouse/Labskaus is very popular (love/hate really) in northern Germany as well.


> However modern standard Dutch (Nederlands, Hollands) is based upon Franconian, rather than Saxon dialects.

> Some of these [Old Saxon] speakers took part in the Germanic conquest of England in the fifth century AD. While it is not true that English and Plattdeutsch derive completely from the same source, the Old Saxon input into Anglo-Saxon was of primary importance and this linguistic group contributed greatly to the Anglo-Saxon dialects which our English forefathers spoke.

[1]: http://www.plattmaster.de/plattoew.htm


If you've ever read anything written in old English, it's a even closer to Dutch.


Old English looks more or less like old Norse to me. Or old Scandinavian as we say in Sweden...


Old English and Old Norse are mutually intelligible (especially after you realize the precise correspondences like un- = o-). Gunnlaugs Saga explicitly says the English and Norse are of one tongue and features a Norse poet singing to an English king. As another example, Ohthere of Hålogaland (Norway) visited King Alfred's 9th century English court and simply spoke to them in his own language:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170530232902/https://blogs.bl....

> Whoever preserved this story was also curious about Ohthere’s descriptions of where the Angles had lived ‘before they came into this land’ (England). Members of Alfred's court remembered that their ancestors came from mainland Europe, and they wanted to learn more about the lands which they identified as their own places of origin.

The scribe explicitly wrote things like "he said krán which we call crein" showing they were speaking in their own languages. It's even clearer if you consider our standard Old English is West Saxon from 850 and our standard Old Norse is from 1250 in Iceland (more different than the Danish variety of most Scandinavians in England). At the same time point,they would have more similarities (8th century Danish had wír before w turned to v).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohthere_of_H%C3%A5logaland


Before the Dutch arrived would it have been something like Welsh that was spoken in England?


Anglo-Saxons not Dutch. But the short answer is yes. The word Welsh is derived from the Old English word for foreigner.

Latin would have been spoken in towns and cities but as Roman rule collapsed it was replaced by Brittonic (ancestor of Welsh), unlike in the continent where it developed into various Latin derived Romance languages.


Reading something like the Canterbury Tales is interesting as a Frisian, because old English really is close to Frisian — much closer than Dutch.


Dutch is funny - when I hear people speaking Dutch I almost feel like I should be able to understand it (but clearly as I've never learnt it, I can't).

The cadence and general way it sounds is much closer to English than any other language


Is that the Almond Front of California, or the Californian Almond Front?


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

Search: