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

As a Chinese living in China, you must know the layout of the city does provide logical sense. I've only been once, and I buy stuff from factories fairly often. When I went there I basically went to a mall district where all the furniture was sold, then I went to the tile district to review tiles, I went to several other "districts" that where nothing but that single item.

I went to the window factory, which was directly beside more window factories, and directly beside that was the place that extruded aluminum for use. The aluminum they used was produced a up the road in what they called the metal district.

You are even saying that "industrial clusters in China" so there is clearly some amount of planning involved. There is obviously benefits to having all of the aluminum factories beside a aluminum producer, and having the shipping/packaging warehouses by the docks, etc.

There is some amount of government work at play here, either on a small scale or a larger scale to provide a reason for places to all setup.

I've also seen things that just are not possible in North America. Asked for samples of aluminum extrusions and had the die made and extrusion done in a day. Locally it would take months before a sample is at my door.

I've sent designs for quotes and get quotes in hours, half the time factory in NA doesn't even reply. And even when it does it's more of a "go away" then anything else.

I've seen live video of robotic factories building entire cabinets for housing.

There is some amount of rose coloured glasses in this thread. But we cannot deny that China wants business and can get stuff done fast and efficiently. That cannot be said for modern day factories in US or Canada. The work ethic and desire for business are just completely different.


You seem to assume that just because similar industries exist near each other in China, that it must have been government intervention. Which maybe it was, I don't know. But this same trend exists in the USA too.

You have areas with lots of Oil Refineries, Houston and Baton Rouge for example. You have areas with lots of steel mills, like in North West Indiana. These are examples I personally know of. Obviously a lot of big tech factories exist close to each other in Silicon Valley and in Austin Texas too.

There are "industrial clusters" in America too, simply put. It is natural for large chemical plants or industrial sites to build up near where their source is. Hence all the oil refineries around the gulf. This is not a uniquely China thing at all. Lots of major US cities are known for specific types of industries.


You'd have better luck mailing a letter, but to be honest the kind of "sending a letter and getting a reply from the CEO or some sort of higher up" is long gone unfortunately. There is a few exceptions, but all of them are for very old private companies. You will never get a reply from Pepsi as a kid with a new flavour idea. Or Disney about a new ride for that matter.

Salt water absolutely murders things, combined with constant movement almost anything will be torn apart in very little time. It's an extremely harsh environment compared to space, which is not anything. If you can get past the solar extremes without earths shield, it's almost perfect for computers. A vacuum, energy source available 24/7 at unlimited capacity, no dust, etc.


The vacuum is the problem. It might be cold but has terrible heat transfer properties. The area of radiators it would take to dissipate a data center dwarfs absolutely anything we’ve ever sent to orbit


Also solar wind, cosmic rays etc. We don't have perfect shielding for that yet. Cooling would be tricky and has to be completely radiative which is very slow in space. Vacuum is a perfect insulator after all, look how thermos work.


Times inches by 25.4 for mm, there is 25.4mm in every inch.


Derp


You cannot deny that Tesla has not been selling as well as other EV manufacturers. You also cannot deny that Tesla has took a heavy beating internationally.

Tesla valuation is not baked in anything, it's entirely hype about potential, and has absolutely nothing to do with automation, robotics, AI, energy. It is largely betting that Elon Musk will do well, not that Tesla will do well. It might as well just be called EM.


> You cannot deny that Tesla has not been selling as well as other EV manufacturers. You also cannot deny that Tesla has took a heavy beating internationally.

What other EV manufacturers are you even referring here? Do you even know the top 5 EV manufacturers in terms of global sales?


> If your solution is actually good, it will get adopted eventually...

This has never been more incorrect. The entire world of software is people using garbage solutions because the CTO is convinced Oracle/Microsoft/what ever new random software is the best thing since sliced bread. In no fashion has the best software solution ever been a factor.


Just to be completely clear... you do not need React just so you can turn JSON into HTML. HTMX can 100% can do that.

You're argument is fine assuming you wish to become another react frontend in a sea of react frontends.

But the documentation example is a terrible argument, the benefit of HTMX is it is easy to understand what is actually happening. There is no magic, you don't need to dive through millions of lines of code to figure out what this is doing like react. It's very basic javascript. Just read the library, frankly you don't even need any documentation. Just take 15 mins and read the entire library.


> become another react frontend in a sea of react frontends

Whats the big deal here?


There is a big difference between back testing scalping and back testing buy 100 NVIDA at $103 and sell at $110.


I don't particularly disagree with you, but do you have evidence that modern movies are calibrated and written to allow for someone to sit on their phones the entire time and understand?

Largely seems like some movies are written to be mass consumed and some are not. No different then a movie from the 90s. Our attention span is decreasing a lot obviously, but it's never been that long.


I remember seeing something like that referenced a while ago, and went back and found it:

https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/

>Several screenwriters who’ve worked for the streamer told me a common note from company executives is “have this character announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along.”

I don't necessarily agree that it means all movies (or even most) are doing this, but it is some evidence that at least some are.


A couple of months ago I started listening to the Scriptnotes podcast, by Craig Mazin (showrunner for Chernobyl and Last of Us, also wrote for Scary Movie and Hangover sequels) and John August (Go, Charlie's Angels, Big Fish, etc.). They discussed receiving notes like that from executives on their scripts- that there needed to be a line of dialog here to explain, rather than just using the visual to explain, so that someone on their phone could follow along.

There are, of course, ways that writers and directors get to ignore executive feedback, have a bunch of recent hits already is one, do your movie outside the studio system is another, have it in your contract because you gave up some money or whatever is a third. This is why some movies are still made in older ways, but from what they said that feedback is pretty universal now.


This is not a good distinction between modern and older TV.

In the past the note would have been "Include the line of dialogue so someone folding laundry can follow it."

Or "Include the line of dialogue so someone channel surfing who just started watching can follow the plot."


https://www.pcmag.com/news/netflix-is-telling-writers-to-dum... (https://archive.is/RE0pz)

> Amid a push to perfect 'casual viewing,' creatives say streaming execs are requiring them to remove nuance and visual cues, and do things like announce when characters enter a room.



That long article on the second link was really good, thank you.


Frequently referenced/discussed Netflix directive for 'second screen' viewing.

Some discussion:

Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42529756

and Related:

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44567683


No neither black box stores video. One stores audio on flash memory and the other stores flight details, sensors etc.

I don’t think video is a bad idea. I assume there is a reason why it wasn’t done. Data wise black boxes actually store very little data (maybe a 100mbs), I don’t know if that is due to how old they are, or the requirements of withstanding extremes.


This isn’t true. This was a 787. It does not use a separate recorder for voice and data (CVR, FDR).

(Most media outlets also got this wrong and were slow to make corrections. )

Rather, it uses a EAFR (Enhanced airborne flight recorder) which basically combines the functions. They’re also more advanced than older systems and can record for longer. The 787 has two of them - the forward one has its own power supply too.

There should be video as well, but I’m not sure what was recovered. Not necessarily part of the flight data recording, but there are other video systems.

https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-air...


That's really interesting. From reading air crash reports there's a lot of times I've seen."Nothing is known about the last 30 seconds because the damage broke the connection to the flight recorders in the tail"


In the US, the NTSB has been recommending it for over 20 years. The pilot unions have been blocking it, due to privacy and other things.

I'm not in aviation. But my between-the-lines straightforward reading is that unions see it as something with downsides (legal liability) but not much upside. It could be that there are a million tiny regulations that are known by everyone to be nonsensical, perhaps contradictory or just not in line with reality and it's basically impossible to be impeccably perfect if HD high fps video observation is done on them 24/7. Think about your own job and your boss's job or your home renovation work etc.

Theoretically they could say, ok, but the footage can only be used in case the plane crashes or something serious happens. Can't use it to detect minor deviations in the tiniest details. But we know that once the camera is there, there will be a push to scrutinize it all the time for everything. Next time there will be AI monitoring systems that check for alertness. Next time it will be checking for "psychological issues". Next time they will record and store it all and then when something happens, they will in hindsight point out some moment and sue the airline for not detecting that psychological cue and ban the pilot. It's a mess. If there's no footage, there's no such mess.

The truth is, you can't bring down the danger from human factors to absolute zero. It's exceedingly rare to have sabotage. In every human interaction, this can happen. The answer cannot be 24/7 full-blown totalitarian surveillance state on everyone. You'd have to prove that the danger from pilot is bigger than from any other occupation group. Should we also put bodycam on all medical doctors and record all surgeries and all interactions? It would help with malpractice cases. How about all teachers in school? To prevent child abuse. Etc. Etc.

Regulation is always in balance and in context of evidence possibilities and jurisprudence "reasonableness". If the interpretation is always to the letter and there is perfect surveillance, you need to adjust the rules to be actually realistic. If observation is hard and courts use common sense, rules can be more strict and stupid because "it looks good on paper".

You also have to think about potential abuses of footage. It would be an avenue for aircraft manufacturers, airlines, FAA, etc to push more blame on the pilots, because their side becomes more provable but the manufacturing side is not as much. You could then mandate camera video evidence for every maintenance task like with door plugs.

I wonder how the introduction of police body cam footage changed regulations of how police has to act. Along the lines of "hm, stuff on this footage is technically illegal but is clearly necessary, let's update the rules".


Airlines would certainly try to surveil regularly, but if the video data is only sent to the sealed FDR, they'd need to tamper with the system.

Additionally, footage could be encrypted with the NTSB having the keys.

Or simply make it a crime to use the footage in non-accident situations (this should be applied to other forms of surveillance, too ...).


If you work in a job where the lives of hundreds could be ended in seconds due to an error or intentional action then there is no excuse to not have critical control surfaces recorded at all times. Non-commercial/private flights/flight instructors and trainees have cameras, trains have camera, stores have cameras, casinos have cameras, buses have cameras, workers who work for ride hailing services have cameras as do millions of other people who just drive.

Hopefully other countries will start deploying recording systems or start forcing manufacturers of planes to have these integrated into cockpits.


> The answer cannot be 24/7 full-blown totalitarian surveillance state on everyone.

Surveillance is actually pretty common in many high-risk environments. And piloting is very much not just any other job but an exceedingly rare situation where the lives of hundreds of people are in the hands of only two people without anyone else being able to do anything to influence the outcome.

That pilot unions don't want surveillance is to be expected (the union is there to act in the pilots interest) but ultimately it isn't just up to them.

> Should we also put bodycam on all medical doctors and record all surgeries and all interactions?

Yes. We are finally starting to do so for police. These are all situations where an individual or very small team has direct control over the life of others who can't defend themselves.


Not sure why something so important isn't included.

Heck they can make a back up directly to the cloud in addition to black box considering I'm able to watch YouTube in some flights nowadays.


ALPA (pilot union) has consistently objected to cockpit video recording. I believe other pilot unions have a generally similar stance.


So? Those unions act in the interests of pilots so that is to be expected. That doesn't mean that a regulator should be swayed by their objections.


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

Search: