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

The entire site is AI slop. Just flag it & move on.

That's because oil tankers are going up in flames: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTzdxq0trb0

It works well enough for my use cases so I don't know what these folks are looking for. I have it configured to run everything in WSL sandbox so the blast radius is limited to the VM w/ the code.

It would be much better to replace CEOs & other C-suite execs but no one is working on that kind of AI.

What level is numeric patterns that evolve according to a sequence of arithmetic operations?

Scott Aaronson is the guy who keeps claiming quantum supremacy is here every year so he's like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

What do you mean? The original 2019 supremacy experiment was eventually simulated, as better classical methods were found, but the followups are still holding strong (for example [4] and [5]). There was recently a series of blog posts by Dominik Hangleiter summarizing the situation: [1][2][3].

[1]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/01/06/has-quantum-advantag...

[2]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/01/25/has-quantum-advantag...

[3]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/02/28/what-is-next-in-quan...

[4]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04792

[5]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02501


Minor update: Dominik condensed the blog posts into a pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09901

the reason people pay attention to him is that he does a good job publicizing both positive and negative results, and accurately categorizing which are bullshit

All I know is he keeps being wrong about quantum supremacy but maybe this is the year he finally gets his wish.

he's been right about it. quantum supremacy was achieved in 2023 (but only for incredibly useless problems)

Yeah I think GP might now prefer his statement(s) to have been about "quantum _advantage_". Which is the modish term after all.

It doesn't matter how many "wunderkinds" Zuckerberg pays off to work at Meta. Meta is not an AI company so they will never produce anything of relevance in that domain.

I don’t see meta around in 10 years frankly. They are very vulnerable to technological shifts they aren’t leading.

Meta, Reddit, Twitter, they're staying around. Too much of the population has been captured in those places and is too passive and docile to seek out better options. The disruption we've seen in the last with social networks won't happen anymore. These places are so bad already that there's no reason to think the remaining people will leave for any reason.

Same with apple

Meta is the smallest but also the most profitable of the FAANGs in terms of percentage profit margin at 30%, vs 25% for Apple and Google and much less for Amazon and Netflix. Their position in social networks is a license to print money and unless humanity goes fully autistic all of a sudden, this is unlikely to change, technological shifts notwhitstanding.

The one thing that can kill them is the fact each successive generation avoids their fuddy-duddy parents' social network, so Boomers and Gen X are on Facebook, Millennials on Instagram and Gen Z on TikTok. If TikTok had been killed as was originally the plan, they would have benefited massively, but Trump does not trust Zuck and made sure it went to his son Barron and the Ellisons.


Congratulations, you reinvented yet another stack language.

No, stack languages can’t achieve this as described.

If you added a function to the examples, you could do a few of them, e.g.:

    2025 July 19 date

    299.8 M m / s velocity
But even this breaks down when you get to something like “Meet Alice Tuesday at 3pm”. Sure, you could contort things to make it resemble the concept, but it’d be a stretch at best.

Everyone here sits in front of the computer & types words all day so it's kinda like the guy whose salary depends on not understanding what he is paid to not understand. Telling programmers that no amount of arithmetic will add up to anything except a bunch of numbers is a waste of time & energy.

Nice job but I'd like to see it implemented w/ polynomial rings & quotients.

It is implemented with polynomial rings!

I use SageMath to find minimal polynomials and solve the constructions algebraically. The reason I say that the library is only "arbitrary precision" and not exact/symbolic is that I use approximation in order to distinguish between points. I believe the "correct" way to implement this as exact would have been to save for each number its minimal polynomial and some interval that contains it and distinguishes it from the other roots of its minimal polynomial. It shouldn't be too much work to incorporate this, maybe I will do it some day :)


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

Search: