Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lz400's commentslogin

This is not to me but a friend of mine was climbing Mt Fuji in _winter_ (this is a serious thing you need to be prepared for, alpine climbing with lots of snow and ice) when he slipped and started sliding down the mountain out of control.

When he was about to fall to his death a father and son that happened to be there in a struck of luck managed to grab him and save his life. My friend had banged a few rocks in the way down so his leg was fractured and they had to help him down for hours.

They saved his life and risk theirs to ensure he had the best chance. They visited my friend in the hospital where he was grateful and teary eyed. And then the father and son asked him for money, straight up. My friend of course agreed on an amount to them, all in all, he didn't know how to repay them anyway and this was oddly simple. I found everything heroic and strange at the same time but a good story.


In the meanwhile...

Google should demand another $1bn from Disney to crush the lawsuit

https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/11/disney-hits-google-with-ce...


I have similar stories, I showed the Confluent consultants a projection of their Kafka quote vs Kinesis and it was like 10x, even they were confused. The ingress/egress costs are insane. I think they just do very deep discounts to certain customers. The product is good but if you pay full ticket it probably doesn't make sense.


If you see the bitcoin charts, price has gone up a lot in the last few years but volume has tanked. Do I read this right that now crypto is basically a smaller market where a bunch of whales scam a ever dwindling but never completely disappearing flow of fools and marks?


I think a lot of the volume on spot BTC has gone to ETFs, DATs, perps, WBTC, and other derivatives, when a few years ago spot was really the only option. Hard to track total volumes now.


I suspect that most of the trades are off-chain now, due to blockchain being being complete and utter crap for fast transactions by design. So people are entrusting their tokens to the centralized entity and receive some IOUs from it, with which they trade and that centralized platform. Basically unlicensed banks recreated with all negatives of the bank and no benefits.


Volume appears pretty normal to me. Where do you get the idea that it’s tanked?


Volume has been on a steady downward trend since 2018. https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/5y?c=e&r=week&t=b


In BTC. In USD it is +-same.


Volume != value. Less trading can be a sign of more holding


But people are “holding” nothing more than a line on a spreadsheet. The only true value a cryptocurrency has is in enabling transactions.

If that’s not what it’s doing, then it will eventually have no value.


Less trading is the sign of an illiquid market, which can mean pricing becomes volatile and eventually meaningless.


What would it take to reconnect there? evidence that FSD and robots are vaporware?


Evidence that he's going to stop getting boatloads of government money probably


>If we took your brain and perfectly digitized it on read-only hardware, would you expect to still “think”?

it wouldn't work probably, brains constantly alter themselves by forming new connections. Learning is inseparable from our intelligence.


Our intelligence, yes. But that doesn't establish it as essential for thought.


I mean, _we_ probably can't think with our wetware on a read-only substrate. It doesn't establish it as essential, just that the only sure example in nature of thought doesn't work that way.


Do you have any particular brain systems in mind that are essential for consciousness and also require mutable state?


I'm not an expert but as far I understand, plasticity is central to most complex operations of the brain and is likely to be involved in anything more complex than instinctive reactions. I'm happy to be corrected but it is my understanding that if you're thinking for a while on the same problem and establishing chains of reasoning, you are creating new connections and to me that means it's fundamental in the process of thinking.


Also not an expert :) I thought plasticity is an O(hours-days) learning mechanism. But I did some research and there is also Short Term Plasticity O(second) [1] which is a crucial part of working memory. We'd need that. But it seems it’s more of a volatile memory system, eg calcium ion depletion/saturation at the synapse, rather than a permanent wiring/potentiation change (please someone correct me if this isn’t right :) ).

So I guess I’d just clarify “read only” to be a little more specific - I think you could run multiple experiments where you vary the line of what’s modeled in volatile memory at runtime, and what’s immutable. I buy that you need to model STP for thought, but also suspect at this timescale you can keep everything slower immutable and keep the second-scale processes like thought working.

My original point still stands - your subjective experience in this scenario would be thought without long-term memory.

1: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscie...


It would be funny if what you get from a read only human brain is a sort of memento guy who has no capacity to remember anything or follow a conversation... kind of like an LLM!


Even if/when the bubble pops, I don't think NVIDIA is even close to need rescuing or being in trouble. They might end being worth 2 trillion instead of 5 but they're still selling GPUs nobody else knows how to make that power one of the most important technologies in the world. Also, all their other divisions.

The .com bubble didn't stop the internet or e-commerce, they still won, revolutioned everything, etc. etc. Just because there's a bubble it doesn't mean AI won't be successful. It will be, almost for sure. We've all used it, it's truly useful and transformative. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.


I want to offer a different data point. I took my daughter to a Montessori-adjacent school for 3 years. It's not Montessori exactly and they didn't advertise as such but they had a different European name attached to it that is downstream from Montessori. They had multi-age education, stressed in children directed learning and individual growth, they didn't have exams, etc.

I changed my daughter this year and overall I'm disappointed in that school. There were many issues but the most important ones to me where:

- No exams, only individual growth meant there's no guarantee the kid is learning at a good pace. When I worked with her at home I could easily identify many gaps and deficiencies. She's now struggling a bit in her new school because of this but I think it will resolve soon.

- Because they didn't like comparing kids to standards or among each other the feedback I received was useless. It was always "she's doing excellent, we see strong growth" but it wasn't true.

- The school rejected most parent feedback and issues raised with something "maybe this style of education is not for you". For example, I know of a few other kids that had to leave because the school didn't take action against bullying because they didn't believe in punishments, etc.

I have to say there were good things too, in particular my daughter really enjoyed it there and formed strong bonds with other kids. I think in general it was ok for elementary education but I strongly think it's not after that and I now have a perhaps unjust bias against Montessori and derivatives.


No exams, only individual growth meant there's no guarantee the kid is learning at a good pace.

that's not true. it is possible to notice if a kid is learning at a good pace without exams. that is part of what the montessori method is about.

it sounds like this school just picked the things they liked but did not understand the point. the core of the montessori method is intensive observation, to understand what the children need and how they can thrive. it looks like this didn't happen in your daugthers school.


There is definitely a survivor bias. It probably works well for those kids who make it through. The kids who it isn’t working for, leave and there are so many of them.


I wonder sometimes if that kind of school is only good for the high-strung go-getter child prodigy types because they are so hands off. But the very lack of metrics and standardization that purports to help with that kind of mission unfortunately certainly makes the shopping a lot harder for prospective parents. Similar with other private schools later on. Is it a good academically strong place where kids get pushed and excel later? Or is it a party den where rich kids joke around and snort coke all day? Hard to tell. It also depends on the student and parent body itself. Good luck :-)

Another thing that kind of tempers my opinion of this kind of school is anecdotal, some friends were lamenting that in their otherwise excellent public elementary school in an affluent district, some parents are pulling their kids out of _first grade_ and moving to private school because "there is not enough homework." What a sad image.


I attended Montessori in the 80s up to high school level and was part of a "gifted" group who went on to a public school a couple of years younger than typical. I was completely unprepared for student bullying in HS and the generally harsh attitudes of teachers. Also my learning style had to completely change, and I did not adapt well.

My Montessori persona was to be competitive about "finishing my weeks work first" usually on Monday or Tuesday, so I could enjoy working with other students on their work lists, and getting a crack at the highschool algebra book when the teacher would let our group at it. I had some strengths in English, math and computing, but weaknesses in foreign language and science where there were fewer opportunities for social learning. Obviously there were no opportunities for that in HS.

In addition to terrible grades, the transition to public school completely destroyed my social confidence and I had to stop playing sports due to my small stature. My dad noted this year (in my 40s now) later that I was unrecognisable after just a few months but he lost the argument to pull me out. It wasn't until my late 20s that I started to find my original confidence.


Very interesting story. If I may ask, looking back, do you blame Montessori for the “lack of real world preparation” or do you think rather that it was the regular school that had a bad system and you were in a better one and should have stayed there? If you had stayed there until uni do you think you’d adapted well to higher edu?


I think my Montessori teachers did a great job. I don't have much love for the public school model but I was a special case being put up several grades and not being familiar with that teaching style.

I don't think I would recommend putting an 11 year old into high school early. Better to be an A+ student and have peers your age than take on a heavier burden to scrape through with Cs.

I have some friends who went through the entire steiner school model and they seemed fairly happy well adjusted adults. So I think yeah, if the model is working stick with it until uni.


You guys had a shooting last year, but school shootings in the US average to ~1 per day


Mass shootings in the US, are a little over 1 a day. School shootings are a subset, and as cudgy says, so far 13 this year.


I think there are actually more school shootings than mass shootings because mass requires ~4 victims and school doesn't. There were ~330 shootings in 2024. 70 people died. 200 wounded.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-17/us-school-shootings-2...


Finland be a wee bit smaller than the US and 1 per day in US is a huge exaggeration. 13 total in US in 2024 … you were only off by 1,300% though. Also, Finland has the population of 1/2 of Los Angeles. Wow


>School shootings in 2024 dipped slightly from the year before, but the 330 school shootings recorded last year still mark the second-highest number since 1966

https://www.k12dive.com/news/school-shootings-2024-near-reco...


Believe this article is quoting the total number of students shot not the total number of incidents as the numbers are much higher than any other statistics that I’ve seen from more reputable sites.


That's not correct. It counts the total number of school shootings. Some of those shootings had no victims. The total of students shot is also provided with some more elaboration with charts here.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-17/us-school-shootings-2...

As you can see your number of 13 makes no sense, there were 200-300 students shot (!)


> And listeners/consumers can tell the difference between art created with intent and soul, and a pale imitation of that.

Strong disagree there. I think that's true of a very small % of consumers nowadays. I mean, total honesty, I think that Suno is not worse than a large fraction of the commercial pop made by humans (maybe) that tops the charts regularly. It's already extremely formula based artificial music made by professional hit makers from Sweden or Korea.

The objective was never to grab discerning listeners but the mass of people. It would work even if they grab 50% but honestly I think it's going to be higher.


The difference between human and computer music would be obvious at a live concert for anyone.


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

Search: