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

Great. Let us hope that support for hardware without TPM is next. Creating several mountains worth of electronic waste was a terrible decision. And in the middle of the AI-induced memory shortage!

Although I have to admit: The combination of AI and required new hardware has been a nice boost for switching to Linux.


TPM is necessary for security. Microsoft should not relent on this as the largest deployed consumer desktop OS.

Motherboards have had TPM support (built-in/exteral) since like 2017. Are there a bunch of models that don't support a plug-in TPM? I guess the BIOS would probably be the next issue.

fTPM is in the CPU [package], which has been the norm since around that point in time. Motherboard slotted TPMs should be a rarity, now.

The only thing my 2010 desktop can’t do well is run a local LLM.

It can even run diffusion models. I spent a few hundred on a video card for it during the pandemic.

Why should I want to add a TPM to it (assuming it’s even possible)?


I think the most intriguing part of this effort: Farmers traditionally employ machines to achieve their harvest. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time that machines are employing humans to achieve their harvest.

I mean, more or less, but you see what I'm getting at.


> Farmers traditionally employ machines to achieve their harvest

Most food is picked by migrant laborers, not machines.


It depends on the crop. Corn (Maize): Harvested using combine harvesters that pick, husk, and shell the grain. Sweet Corn might be the exception. Soybeans: Harvested using combines to cut and thresh the plants. Wheat, Barley, and Oats: Harvested using combines to cut, thresh, and clean the grain. Cotton: Harvested mechanically using cotton pickers or strippers. Rice: Mechanically harvested with combines when the stalks are dry. Potatoes and Root Vegetables: Lifted from the ground using mechanical harvesters that separate soil from the produce. Lettuce, Spinach, and Celery: Mostly hand-harvested by crews, though automation is increasing. Berries (Strawberries, Blueberries): Primarily hand-picked for fresh market quality, though some are machine-harvested for processing. Tree Fruits (Apples, Cherries): Mostly hand-picked to prevent bruising, though some processing cherries use tree shakers. Wine Grapes: Frequently harvested by hand to ensure quality, especially for high-end wines. Peppers and Tomatoes: Processed tomatoes are machine-harvested, while fresh peppers are largely hand-picked.

Something that appears to be missing: Certain events attract "advertising" types of bets. E.g. There is value in making a candidate appear to be a leader, so dedicating dollars to swinging the market is more of a form of advertising than an intelligent bet.

So it would be interesting to measure the inefficiencies of various bets vs the total market value in that bet.

e: Although full disclosure, I did not pick apart the entire paper. Maybe it's buried in there.


super interesting, re: spending money to move the line is just another form of non-profit-seeking "consumption."

i didn't filter for manipulation specifically, but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap), suggesting the market absorbs those flows pretty well.


> but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap)

I confess I'm surprised by that result in particular. I realize your results are for Kalshi, but ISTR some reports from the presidential elections on Polymarket.

But more generally: When you say there is "only a ~1% maker/taker gap", is that weighted by the size of the bets? or is it averaged over the number of bets placed?

In any case: Thanks for a very interesting paper!


If we weight by contracts purchased the gap is 1.02%, dollar weighted the gap is 1.00%.

I'm glad you enjoyed the paper :)


[I'm still thinking about this a day later!]

I think an additional table/graph of how large-bet performance vs small-bet performance would be interesting in general, as well as broken out by market type.

It kinda answers of the question: Are large bets equal to smart money? or are they equal in "smartness" to small bets?


I would guess that someone is beaming a whole lot of wideband power at the satellites themselves, to overload the input receivers.


Thank you! I now realize that my analogy was misplaced due to how Starlink is bidirectional and GPS is unidirectional.


Maybe they could add a helpful paper clip to improve sales.

Edit: Or better still, convince all of their customers to throw away perfectly good hardware and upgrade to one with a single extra chip, creating a hazardous waste epidemic for landfills as a nice side effect. It's especially important to do this in the middle of a RAM and HDD shortage.

Really, I'll just never be half the great business strategist that these guys are. <sigh>


Hold a chain at its ends, and let it hang down naturally. What is that shape called? A catenary and its equation is y = a cosh(x/a).

Maybe you all knew that factoid already, but I learned the name of shape only recently.


I actually did already know that factoid but was struggling (am still) to see how it relates to a wooden trough that merely holds cables.

Another interesting factoid about the catenary: Robert Hooke proved that it takes on the shape (though inverted) of the ideal arch, in terms of supporting loads above it. La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is filled with them.


> but was struggling (am still) to see how it relates to a wooden trough that merely holds cables.

Overhead Catenary [1] is a standard term, for a system that has two wires overhead - one suspended from the posts (forming a series of catenary curve), the other suspended from that cable at regular intervals (and held level relative to the track). The wood in Boston's system seems to replace the catenary cable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_line#Overhead_catenar...


The Gateway Arch is an inverted catenary structure

https://www.nps.gov/jeff/planyourvisit/materials-and-techniq...


In a nutshell, the overhead power lines hang from their support points as catenary curves.

This is important to the design of trains, because you have to calculate the variance in height over the caternary length (highest at attachment point; lowest at somewhere near the middle, but depending on incline).


And efficiency of the line depends on the curvature so for a given target efficiency you can calculate how far apart the poles can be. For electrical lines I mean.


> so IBM handled manufacturing of its first-generation CPUs.

I'm curious: Is there a consensus on which startup companies achieved success using IBM as a fab? or if not a consensus, I'd settle for anecdotes too.

My own company (which built 40G optical transponders) used them back in that era. While the tech was first rate, the pricing was something to behold.


My own memory of the events (which might be very wrong) was that a new vice-president of IBM semiconductors decided to drop bulk CMOS and focus exclusively on SOI (Silicon On Insulator). That suddenly left Transmeta without chips to sell. They had to scramble to find a new supplier and design their next generation processor for it (since the Crusoe wasn't portable to any other fabs). They were able to launch their Efficeon on TSMC 130nm (with a later version on Fujitsu 90nm) but the gap in supply was far worse for a startup than it would have been for a big company.


Backwards. The incompetent Transmeta board picked a VP from NVIDIA to be the CEO and his first action was to kill the IBM contract and move to TSMC, and forced TSMC to use a new unqualified process. This left us without chips to sell for over a year and notebook venders were furious and never returned.

This is what killed Transmeta, not all the technical details.


Thank you for correcting me. I don't know where I heard the story I mentioned.


That doesn't make any sense. IBM is the last company that would shut down a fab with no warning, breaking a bunch of contracts.


I don't know about startups, but the Cell processor in the PS3 and the Xenon processor in the Xbox 360 we both fabricated by IBM.


The Nintendo GameCube and Wii also had IBM CPUs.


Cisco and Cray used IBM fabs for multiple generations in the aughts but they weren't startups. Before the rise of TSMC it was a weird situation where fabless companies were kind of picking up extra capacity from IDMs.


> the pricing was something to behold

I guess you mean that not in a good way?


I'd imagine so, IBM are many things (some of them brilliant) but I don't think anyone's ever accused them of been cheap.


> worry instead about stroke.

You say that as if stroke is orthogonal to heart disease. Much of what prevents one prevents the other.


Yes but there are habits that are especially important for preventing stroke, such as getting 7-9 hours of sleep, monitoring and controlling risk factors related to blood vessel health that affect the brain uniquely, such as preventing irregular heart rhythms (atrial fibrillation), anti-inflammatory diet choices focused on brain health, and so on.


> Although I’ve never had a boss that needed to find an error.

I think that is key. A great mentor early in my career pointed out to me: "A" rated people need to work for "A" rated bosses. It's possible to have a "B" or "C" person work for an "A" boss, but when you put "A" people under "B" or (god forbid) "C" bosses, all kinds of problems ensue.

[I've personally experienced that situation only once, and swore never again.]


I’m not sure what maps to “A,” “B,” “C” here. My gut says: “B” is the kind of person who you’d use this trick on, “C” might be too lazy and just not bother, and “A” might be confident and respected enough to say (and have everybody believe) that they checked and didn’t have any issues. Only “B” has that mix of insecurity and some ability…

Actually, I bet you could have an ok workplace with “A” workers under “C” management. Or maybe the “C” turns into an “A” if they manage to hire good people and get out of their way…


I guess it depends on what "A", "B" and "C" means exactly.

But the problem with "C" managers is that they won't judge "A" work as "A" work, won't understand why some of the "A" work is important, and will get in the way of the "A" engineers, making them go down "C" paths.

A "C" level manager brings the whole team down to "C" level and destroys the morale of "A" and "B" workers while they're at it.

An "A" level manager can guide everybody towards "A" level work.


How do you deal with the short lifespan until EOL? I've been using Rocky (and CentOS before that) simply to avoid dealing with EOL so often.


Fedora makes major upgrades pretty easy - you can even do it via the GUI Software Center, then reboot.

Personally I'm using Kinoite[1], an "immutable" version of Fedora that has an immutable base image, which makes it nearly impossible to break things during updates (even major upgrades).

[1] - https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/kinoite/


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

Search: