I am sure Carmack himself encourages debates and discussions. Lionizing one person can't be expected of every employee (unless that person is also the founder or the company is tiny).
I was one month into my first full-time job, when I've (unknowingly of his rank) challenged the CTO in a technical discussion - in a public email exchange. Regardless of the outcome - I've been treated like an equal. This one short exchange has influenced not only the rest of my career, but my entire worldview.
I mean to some extent sure. But also you need to respect expertise and experience. So much of what we do is subjective, and neither side going to have hard data to support their arguments.
If it comes down to someone saying “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, I’ve shipped something very similar 5 times, and we ran into a problem with x each time”. Unless you have similar counter experience, you should probably just listen.
What happens in tech is you get a very specific kind of junior who wants to have HN comment arguments at work constantly and needs you to prove every single thing to them. I don’t know man it’s a style guide. There’s not going to be hard quantitative evidence to support why we said you shouldn’t reach for macros first.
Ugh. Can we as an industry stop blowing people up like this? It’s a clear sign that the community is filled with people with very little experience.
I remember this guy wanted $20 million to build AGI a year ago (did he get that money?), and people here thought he would go into isolation for a few weeks and come out with AGI because he made some games like that. It’s just embarrassing as a community.
Carmack's best work was between Keen and Quake, and it was mostly optimizations that pushed the limit of what PC graphics could do. He's always been too in-the-weeds to have a C-level title.
He is just a guy who can write game code well and has good PR skills online. I wouldn’t give him a cent if he promised anything in the AI field, no matter how much a bunch of online people gas him up.
He's a guy that knows a lot of math and how to turn that math into code. I don't know if he'd be able to come up with some brand new paradigm for AI but I'd want him on my team and I'd listen to what he has to say.
AI math is not game code math. There are plenty of actual experts in AI who know “how to turn math into code” with years of experience. I would not want this guy, his ego, his lack of social skills, his online fanbase, and his lack of experience in AI to be anywhere near my AI team.
I guess the general stuff is movies, Netflix shows, music, your last short weekend trip, and pretty much everyone has their own personal non work thing, usually attached to a club or group (hiking, photography, whatever).
I guess in that last category sports are commonplace, but it’s more “I’m training for a marathon next month” or “you should come bouldering sometime” rather than following professional sports on tv.
This sounds like it’s particular to your friend group rather than some coarse regional geography. If you toss a rock in Western Europe, you’ve got a better chance of hitting a football fan than someone who wants to go bouldering or train for a marathon.
>If you toss a rock in Western Europe, you’ve got a better chance of hitting a football fan than someone who wants to go bouldering or train for a marathon.
Yes and no. If you HAVE to choose a specific hobby, football will have more chances than others; but it will still work in a minority of cases and assuming carries an implication.
A comparison I could make is starting a conversation in the US with 'did you watch fox news yesterday?'. Out of all channels, it's the most watched one; but you still have high chances of asking a non-viewer, and then get hit by negative connotations.
Personal hobbies are much better topic for various reasons (you don't assume, people will naturally be exited about discussing their own, etc).
Yes, Henry Ford had Nazi sympathies. But VW was literally founded by the Nazis:
> "Volkswagen was established in 1937 by the German Labour Front (German: Deutsche Arbeitsfront) as part of the Strength Through Joy (German: Kraft durch Freude) program in Berlin" [0]
> "The German Labour Front (German: Deutsche Arbeitsfront, pronounced [ˌdɔʏtʃə ˈʔaʁbaɪtsfʁɔnt]; DAF) was the national labour organization of the Nazi Party, which replaced the various independent trade unions in Germany during the process of Gleichschaltung or Nazification." [1]
It's a pretty dumb ordnance, gravity delivered GBU57 is a physics bound problem. The dimensions etc are known, you can give it the most optmistic assumptions, i.e. complete steel for max penetration, release at altitude where it reach max terminal velocity without grid fins deployed, run that through ndrc/young pentration equations etc. There aren't any super secret parameters for subterfuge like electronic warfare. Eitherway there's public videos of GBU57 in action - grid fins deployed to hit a traffic cone - defense autists counted frames, did napkin math, it's more or less what's purported ~ mach 0.8-1.2 penetrator designed for ~60m concrete. IIRC the assume sphere cow math for heavier all steel, no grid fin (i.e. not accurate), max out at mach ~2, doubles energy, penetrates ~80m.
On the other hand, Fordow's construction time is known... as far as I know, many years before fgcc / uhpc and other "advanced" concrete formulas PRC formulated against US penetrators. And Israel probably has entire blue print, so who knows. E: quick lookup and GBU57 seems to be revealed shortly after guestimate of when Fordow started construction, possible Fordow could update design in anticipation, but then again, B2s were known entity and Iran's engineers can probably guestimate out what the maximum size/weight penetrator US could deliver on B2s before knowing GBU57 existed.
What if it has some sort of a booster to increase its kinetic energy just before the hit?
Also the behavior might improve in an area already weakened by a ventilation shaft/previous hit (first bomb turns 40 meters into fine gravel + detonates weakening quite a large are, second and third bomb easily go deeper)
I think 1) is unlikely, b2 bays can't fit much more, gbu57 is mostly metal and no booster for penetration 2) is what no one knows, but we (as in the public) also don't know layout/construction, i.e. actual depth, bunker design (can emb sloped concrete/steel layer to deflect penetrators laterally so follow up drop don't go straight down).
The real weapons system specs are never disclosed. Even on retired systems the real capabilities are often still classified because they can provide clues to their replacements capabilities.
The math is really that hard? I have no idea what the soil or rock is, what happens when the first bomb hits it, the second, and then the third? Does the timing matter? Does the timing matter if it's 5 minutes between? 1 hour between? Seconds between? Does the type of soil or rock compact or loosen when bombed? What's the variation in explosive yield? Does the ground transfer force from a shockwave well or poorly? Does that change after the first one?
For it to be super-linear an additional meter of concrete / earth / whatever must be easier to penetrate than the one before it which I would classify as a physical impossibility. This is why linear is the ideal case.
Even if I were to accept the dubious premise that there is enough fractured rock to make a difference and there is no hampering with rocks falling into the void and that it's possible to hit the exact same spot repeatedly without touching the sides, all that would do in big O notation would be increase the constant factor. It would not be super linear after the second bomb.
If your are talking about bombs that hit side by side then clearly that is sub-linear as no matter how fractured the rock it’s not easier to push through than air.
An explosion creates a pressure wave. A pressure wave fractures rock. Fractured rock may be easier to pierce than solid rock.
Ergo, if first bunker buster penetrates to maximum depth -20m and then explodes, fracturing rock within a __ radius, then second bunker buster travels through that fractured rock, the second (and so on) may be able to penetrate deeper.
I have no idea about the physics of penetrating fractured vs non-fractured rock, but it's a physically plausible mechanism.
Furthermore, given the multi-minute timeline reported, there's enough time for the bombs to be deployed sequentially.
In the linear case a bomb twice the size goes twice as deep.
Take a bomb, cut it in half and drop each half separately, one after another into the same hole, would you except the cumulative depth to be greater than the whole bomb or less? Consider that in the case of the whole bomb it is equivalent to two halves arriving at the exact same time.
The strike may have been able to achieve greater penetration depth with multiple sequential weapons impacting the same point (i.e. the three seen in satellite imagery).
I'm confident that 'drilling' with multiple bombs was the known approach prior to the attack. The planned approach to soviet bunkers was to use repeated accurate strikes of nuclear bombs to achieve a similar drilling for their bunkers.
There appears to be an assumption that the main facility was exposed to blasts from the tunnels and since that appears to be an obvious weakness I'm wondering why the Iranians wouldn't have blast doors between the tunnels and the facility as a form of redundancy. I am still worried that this is part of an approach to slowly warm Americans up to another war, much easier to sell a limit strike as a success, then 3-6 months later when the Iranians have recovered it'll be even easier to sell another strike or a more involved engagement.
There are physical limits to weight, hardness, max explosive energy and max kinetic energy and these are all known. The only way to exceed them would be to drop it from a higher altitude, like space, or give it a nuclear warhead. The US isn’t the only country that has tested bunker busters and the physics involved isn’t that hard. It’s just expensive.
Sure, but you have no firsthand knowledge of that information.
You are told the B2 can carry a certain payload weight.
You are told the B2 has a certain operational ceiling.
You are told the bombs are a certain weight.
You are told the bombs are made from a certain material.
You are told the bombs contain a certain type of explosive.
Everything you know about this device and its capabilities came from an organization that has every motivation to publish specs that are just enough to raise the eyebrows of the people this device is supposed to scare hell out of, but they have less than zero motivation to publish specs that speak to maximum capabilities.
So while your calculations might be accurate for the component values you gave it, your component values of your calculation are not accurate, because all you know is what you were told.
You can calculate these things based on wing size and airspeed and neither are hard to figure out, it’s clearly subsonic and it’s been seen in public.
While skunkworks are certainly a thing they’re not hiding some Star Trek antigravity device, physics is still physics and physical limits are physical limits. Look at the Otto Celera 500L if you want to see what attacking physical limits looks like. It’s an engineering problem and the fundamentals are well understood. The real magic is in creating the money to pay for it.
> You can calculate these things based on wing size and airspeed
If you can calculate the depth and damage those bombs did based on wing size and airspeed (which technically is another parameter you really don’t know, but are relying on what you are told) you ought to be working for the government.
The US military isn't the only entity making airplanes and bunker busters. We don’t need to rely on their figures to know a great deal about what happened. You are assuming they have some order of magnitude hidden capacity which would break the laws of physics, and I’m very confident that they didn’t do that.
Gotcha. So your perspective is there are other entities making airplanes with the capabilities of the B-2 and a bunker buster bomb equivalent to the GBU-57 so much so that you can reliably determine capabilities of those weapon systems…as a layman with just a hand calculator?
That is a $2B aircraft and a $20M ordinance (each). You want to tell us exactly what entity has anything even remotely equivalent? No one else but the US could bear to afford it. Maybe China…but if they have it’s not common knowledge.
I think you have pretty much dug yourself a hole here on your knowledge and capabilities…you have landed into silliness now. (That pun was definitely intended)
No amount of money enables an aircraft to violate the laws of physics. Clearly your knowledge on aircraft is limited otherwise we would have a shared understanding of the physics involved and wouldn’t even be having this argument.
Who is arguing that? I’m not. The only argument I have made is that you do not have all the values you need to plug into your “calculator” to make a BDA.
But perhaps you can figure all of those values you need by just knowing the wingspan and airspeed of the aircraft delivering the payload, if so…I defer to you and this amazing deductive knowledge that you possess.
Taxing the workers and giving the money to the 'poor' is an indirect subsidy to the dragons. Dragons are rich and cunning enough to afford to 'plan' their taxes, so it's not like they need to contribute to the UBI. They just reap the benefits.
The German UBI experiment we're discussing didn't involve 'taxing workers to give to the poor' - it gave unconditional payments to people across economic backgrounds, most of whom continued working.
Your assertion about tax planning misses that proper UBI implementation would include tax reform to ensure the wealthy can't avoid contributing. If anything it demonstrates your clear understanding of whom would actually be taxed to achieve the funding for such social programs. The dragons.
More importantly, the data shows UBI recipients spent money locally on necessities and small businesses, not funneling it to large corporations. The 'indirect subsidy' theory contradicts spending patterns observed in UBI trials.
Well, all I can say that if I was a major shareholder of Volkswagen I'd be 100% in support of UBI and made sure everyone can afford a new car, not just a used one.
It's a poor analogy. Dragons take the gold from the people and kept it from them so it can't be used.
The 200 billion that Bezos is assumed to be "worth" is currently in the hands of the people, being used by us. If we wanted to fix society instead of buying amazon shares we could do it today. Bezos hasn't "hoarded" it, we have it.
"To the dismay of Thorin, Smaug the horrible turned out to sit on a pile of paper that anyone could buy if they wanted to and all the gold was already in circulation in the town of Bree."
If the taxes are landing just on "the workers" then that sounds like a poorly designed tax system, not a problem with UBI. Replace UBI with anything (roads, defense, welfare) and it is the same problem.
Not the economy as a whole, but there are some aspects of the economy that are. Indeed, negative externalities can be worse than a zero-sum game to those affected.
To be frank, this whole “the economy is not a zero-sum game” argument is kind of a meme at this point.
And from Steven Levy's Hackers, she was one of the women in the hot tub for the cover and ad for the game Softporn Adventure, published by the company that was soon renamed to Sierra On-line.
I always found those photos deeply unsettling. None of the women look particularly happy about being there. “If I don’t do this, Timmy doesn’t get that operation” vibes. The photo in the advertisement was bad enough, the outtakes are worse.
These aren't slice-of-life photos you can deconstruct like this, it's a professional shoot with amateur models. Professional models are paid to look happy to be there after hour three under hot lights. Amateur models thought you were going to snap a few pictures.
It's entirely possible that everyone in the photo needs to pee.
My wife and I homeschool because we feel we can provide a better education to our kids than the local public schools can - making this decision after giving them a trial run. If you do decide to homeschool, it is important that you never grow complacent in how much responsibility you are taking on.
So many families around us homeschool for religious/dogmatic reasons and the quality of their kids education is a secondary concern. Naturally, they tend to do worse than public school children.
That's a subjective evaluation, no? ;) I'm sure their parents would say they did way better on the religion/dogmatism ruler!
> So many families around us homeschool
This seems like the "gateway drug" to cult indoctrination and worries me.
I'm going in completely the other way- My son (who will be 4 in June) is going to a good public school system here for socialization reasons, and I will supplement that with whatever I can (such as the critical-thinking skills I have acquired which were never taught to me). Additionally, I refuse (despite having a Catholic family) to indoctrinate him into ANY religion before he learns critical thinking first, because I will make an argument that this is no different than "grooming", except for "worldview control" instead of "sexual control".
I've met and worked with some of the most startlingly brilliant home schooled people, that are utterly crippled socially. They ended up being unable to work with others, despite on paper they ought to be leaders. People underestimate the critical value of childhood socialization. When a child finds they do not know the giant host of media nonsense other kids know intimately, they cannot participate in a huge amount of their imaginary fun which uses these media products as the foundation for their social set's humor and identity. That creates a very difficult to unseat insecurity.
False dichotomy. After a certain age you should let them have a voice in their educational goals, and before they are able to express their preferences you should be helping them figure out what those are. You should be creating a family environment where your kids feel like people, and where they feel safe no matter what happens. You should be teaching your children to think critically and stand up for what they believe in, and setting a good example for them in terms of your personal values. If you don't have a self-consistent set of ethical values, and expect everyone else to determine those for you, I hate to break it to you, but you shouldn't have had kids.
> If you don't have a self-consistent set of ethical values, and expect everyone else to determine those for you, I hate to break it to you, but you shouldn't have had kids.
Clevon's not listening to this slop and neither should anyone else.
Unless you're a total psycho, go ahead and have kids. They are wonderful and life changing. They'll probably make you a better person. You don't need to be a perfect parent. You don't need to read a bunch of heavily marketed books on how to be a good parent. You don't need to listen to internet hero advice. You'll figure it out.
Did you even notice that you only spoke of the significance of having kids in terms of what it means for "you", i.e. in terms of the parent's experience? You did not move even minimally towards figuring their perspective, i.e. the first-person conscious experience of the kids themselves, into your moral reasoning. At all. You speak as if they are extensions of your being, and not actual completely new individuals. In my book, such lack of theory of mind towards even those who are closest to you, is exactly "total psycho" behavior. Of the disavowed kind, sure.
Sorry, but it's not your kids' job to "change your life" or "make you a better person", that's entirely on you. This does not change once certain pre-human hormonal changes and other self-delusion incentives manage to scrub it from your mind. Saying "I've done my job: I've raised a family; what more is there to ask of me?", and passing the responsibility of becoming a non-idiotic human being down the generations is doing your offspring (as well as everyone else on the planet) a disservice verging on the truly monstrous. No surprise that a stochastic parrot can outsmart half of yall, and its yesmen are quite successfully bullying the other half into smiling submission.
Also, what the fuck is a "Clevon"? Lemme guess, nobody told you that you could've given your kid a real name instead of not betting their entire identity on a contingent societal norm of mutual acceptance that we now see falling apart in real time?
> Did you even notice that you only spoke of the significance of having kids in terms of what it means for "you"
It was a direct response to your "point", which was even quoted.
> You speak as if they are extensions of your being, and not actual completely new individuals. In my book, such lack of theory of mind towards even those who are closest to you, is exactly "total psycho" behavior.
Wow. One of us is definitely psycho.
> Sorry, but it's not your kids' job to "change your life" or "make you a better person", that's entirely on you.
You're putting words in my mouth. As I said, this is in direct response to your "point" which was directed at the unenlightened "you". I never said it was your kids responsibility (or job). What a convenient leap of logic.
I don't even know how to address your paragraph of your word salad. I will say only that I have kids, they are lovely, they definitely changed me and I wouldn't trade them for the world. Luckily we weren't deterred by sanctimonious parenting slop.
Clevon is a reference from the movie Idiocracy.
> Lemme guess, nobody told you that you could've given your kid a real name instead of not betting their entire identity on a contingent societal norm of mutual acceptance that we now see falling apart in real time?
Whew... you've owned me now I guess? You might need a break my dude.
I'm terribly sorry that your culture has imposed such low thresholds of permissible cognitive density! I definitely believe that it would be morally horrendous to pass that down to one's offspring.
>I will say only that I have kids, they are lovely, they definitely changed me and I wouldn't trade them for the world. Luckily we weren't deterred by sanctimonious parenting slop.
And again you did not acknowledge their perspectives as sentient beings separate from you. You could've said, they are happy. You could've said, they are doing well. You could've even said, they will never entertain convincing doubts as to whether their particular lives are worth living - which is not the case for you can't imagine how many people who were also the kids of some parents at some point.
But what you said is, they are lovely (external appraisal) and that you wouldn't trade them for the world - a fixed expression with zero meaning and misleading premise. There's no weird either/or situation where "trading one's kids for the world" would be on the table (though I've seen parents sell out their kids for less, or sometimes for nothing at all, with the same air of moral stuperiority that you are here attempting to exude); the purpose of repeating this formulaic phrase is to distract from the understanding that kids are given to the world, and, in return, the world is given to them. If anyone even remembers to tell them that, anyway.
I do admit my biases: I only speak from observation and experience, not from a set of phraseologisms drilled into me during freshman year to make me unable to critically examine how my life choices affect other people.
Hey, that's exactly how I made my first buck! How did you know?
Two of them in fact. I keep that holy $2 banknote on the cork board above my mantelpiece. It's pinned next to my todo list with a gold butterfly pin. Actually I'm lying - that banknote is my todo list.
Anyway, that was yet another really fucked up thing for you to say, broski, considering my entire sector has repeatedly been brought to starvation and used as the world's bank of "artificial intelligence" (first by brain drain, then by outsourcing - once yall realized our people might want to raise families too, what, in your backyard?) before enough smart people slipped through the cracks of the education system to accumulate the corpus of knowledge required for building human-free stochastic parrots.
Think about that the next time you feed your lovely children their mandatory freedom fries.
It’s more about the whole package. I homeschooled. Thanks to COVID and some ensuing frustrations with the district, my kid has done public, private and homeschool at different times. I’m in a moderately large metropolitan area, for context.
If a kid has a good environment at home — safe, fed, loved, healthy, encouraged and given access to do things they’re interested in — they’ll do great. Public schools are mostly in the business of serving kids who have problems with one or more of these things, so if you can provide all of them you are not their target audience. Such families don’t have the problems that the district spends most of its energy thinking about.
IMHO, that’s a situation where homeschooling shines if the kid is ok being alone a lot and also has a good social life. (Young kids tend to play with neighbors anyway; older kids move in friend groups, so the game is to get them opportunities to meet other kids until they can break into one of those.)
A lot of people get stuck on “can you really teach everything yourself?” No. You can’t. But that’s ok, because it’s a completely different process to school and the skills and resources you and your kid need are different. Your kid will need to self-teach more and more as he or she gets older, and your job is to make sure they have the resources and encouragement to do that. If they’re not independently interested in doing that, it’s probably not a good fit.
Alternatively, you can pick a private school. These are costly to families, which can make it seem like they’re rich when in fact
they often have less funding per student than a public school. What they DO have is a more tightly focused mission. Private schools also tend to target families who are able to provide that strong home environment, and who don’t have serious learning disabilities or behavioral problems. Thus, they don’t need as high a budget per student, as they can skip many of the most difficult and costly responsibilities a school has. Their governance structures can vary, but in general I think the fact that they’re outside of the normal election process helps them define a more coherent set of principles and consistently apply that over many years. They’re also smaller and so information has fewer layers of bureaucracy to penetrate, and decisions can be made faster. This shows in everything from curriculum and facilities to discipline and staff morale. Some private schools do this better or more nobly than others, but public schools struggle to do it at all due to the realities of electoral politics. Thus, the private schools near me have tended to be no-phones-allowed for many years; the public schools are only now and with great effort able to implement that, and even I think it will be hard to make it stick.
Most importantly… it’s about what the kid wants. Do your best to avoid making your kid spend his or her childhood somewhere they don’t want to be, doing stuff they don’t value.
