fooker

36 ms·

811.
by fooker 11mo ago
Okay, assuming you could invest 100k out of your 170k per year into companies you know were doing well on tech from 2015, how much would you have ? (say: AMD, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Facebook) The answer is about 10M, which is not that far f
812.
by fooker 11mo ago
Yeah someone joining a good company as a senior engineer in 2015 would retire with about 15M in assets now assuming smart investments (say... half on big tech stocks, half in market indices) Someone joining now on the other hand, might have
813.
by fooker 11mo ago
It's performance of generated code, not performance of the compiler.
814.
by fooker 11mo ago
> United States, one of the most sparsely populated developed nations, already has all the large cities it can support. That was not my argument, please don't twist my words. I was replying to the idea that you should be able to tak
815.
by fooker 11mo ago
Did you notice how the best candidate you found is already another city? Why would the current residents allow such a (presumably hostile) takeover?
816.
by fooker 11mo ago
I'm amused at your confidence in stating that we have a good understanding of what's literally the most prominent open problem in physics, gravity at small/particle scales.
817.
by fooker 11mo ago
That's exactly the point. The areas where you could easily do something that provides work for a lot of people are already occupied by large cities, near river deltas, trade routes and coastal areas good for ports. The only recent exce
818.
by fooker 11mo ago
All the 'large areas of land' that people want to live in already have dense cities. This sort of ideas have been tried again and again, and it falls apart because people just don't want to move there. Would you be enthusiast
819.
by fooker 11mo ago
It's more about discrediting conspiracy theories to shift the Overton window so the real ones with the flavor of 'the government is spying on you' also seems crazy to most people.
820.
by fooker 11mo ago
> corrupted simultaneously This sounds like a software bug. Something like - {copy a to b, checksum a--b} Instead of - {copy a to t, checksum a--t, copy t to b, checksum a--b} I bet the fix is along these lines, with the caveat of real t
821.
by fooker 11mo ago
Yeah I don't buy it either. If it was really 'solar radiation' there would be more small details.
822.
by fooker 11mo ago
> at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity That is what I meant, I doubt we really understand what 'powered by gravity' means. You could win a Nobel prize or two by discovering all the details involved here. You woul
823.
by fooker 11mo ago
CERN is trying to do fundamental physics, not trying to weaponize antimatter. If/when it comes to that, the pace will pick up. Also, 25 years to the breakthrough discussed in the article seems like a reasonably good pace.
824.
by fooker 11mo ago
Neutrons were first definitively observed in 1932. First nuclear reactor was 1942, and bomb was 1945. Once the science is established, we have smart engineers to make a short work out of it. Fusion energy is really the only counterexample i
825.
by fooker 11mo ago
The real question is if we'll get back hole or antimatter powered steam engines before GTA 6
826.
by fooker 11mo ago
If it turns out to be useful, Nvidia can't just tweak a parameter in their verilog and declare victory? If not, what's fundamentally difficult about doing 32 vs 256 here?
827.
by fooker 11mo ago
If I knew that, I'd probably have more important things to do than comment it here.
828.
by fooker 11mo ago
The difference between a bomb and a reactor is just clever engineering.
829.
by fooker 11mo ago
Not before efficiently converting a large amount of mass into usable energy.
830.
by fooker 11mo ago
That's exactly what Nvidia is doing with tensor cores.
831.
by fooker 11mo ago
Some kind of nuclear reaction or matter-antimatter collision, I assume.
832.
by fooker 11mo ago
Carry or produce antimatter. Make it collide with stuff colliding with the ship, redirect it's energy for propulsion.
833.
by fooker 11mo ago
No, it probably can not be a chemical rocket. Nuclear, yes. My point is that we are in the realm of just needing new engineering (how to make nuclear reactions, or even antimatter-matter collision work for this goal), not new science (warp
834.
by fooker 11mo ago
or a star :)
835.
by fooker 11mo ago
That seems pretty promising actually. Our moon landing missions had a similar ratio, so I assume we can do the engineering to make even a slightly worse ratio work for us a 100 years after it. In practice it would be better with slingshot m
836.
by fooker 11mo ago
> The rocket equation is a stone cold bitch in this case. It might not be. Plenty of hydrogen around everywhere. We just need tech to use it.
837.
by fooker 11mo ago
You are conflating two things - the language of math, and the language of proving facts about the language of math. The former is almost entirely sets, while the later is necessarily types.
838.
by fooker 11mo ago
> Space is so ridiculously big that I don't think it will ever happen You are underestimating acceleration. To travel and come to a stop at 4.2 light years, a spaceship with 1g acceleration barely needs 3.5 years in relativistic shi
839.
by fooker 11mo ago
> making sure there are no side-channels in their code Any side effect is a side channel. There are always going to be side channels in real code running on real hardware. Sure you can change your code, compiler, or, or even hardware to
840.
by fooker 11mo ago
It's cheaper with unlimited fusion energy, which defeats the point.

More ›