Realistically, how long would it take this company to comply with all the relevant regulations (even just the local ones) before it can fly with human passengers? I imagine new safety guidelines would need to be written for wherever this aircraft is permitted to fly.

> they stole the IP, then used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets

If you steal my IP and you make a better - or at least comparative but cheaper - product, that's on me for not innovating further.

It's trivial to compete if you don't have R&D costs, and don't care about stuff like your employees, regulations or safety, or even sales since you can just use government money (this is not without consequence either). And it's not only about free market stuff, why do you think they're so excited for all countries to use their 5g products for example ? Don't think this is benign.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Chinese policy, but you should probably reread your arguments and check for coherence.

Chinese EV trucks make no economic sense even though they're 30% of China's fleet but also they're only investing all that as a trojan horse even though they use them almost exclusively domestically, plus the old "Asians don't innovate they just copy" canard even though there wasn't much Western IP on electric trucks to copy in the first place and China's battery technology is somehow not Alibaba knockoffs but more performant than Western equivalents (whilst state sponsored Chinese industries remain generations behind in stuff that's actually strategically critical for them to clone via industrial espionage like semiconductors and jet engines)

I really don't see the contradiction, if that 30% was true, which, really... but ok, it still would normal for the CCP to do stupid stuff because they think it makes them look modern or ecological or similar. That's why there's no need for economic sense to explain that development at all. There are also excellent non financial reasons to want to dominate that market. So to circle back, their use of trucks, which if you buy the 30% "omg lol" as they say, is in no way an argument to them making sense, neither economically nor ecologically.

That's the kind of content I come to HN for, thanks!

If you want to support the creators is through affiliate marketing by buying whatever they're selling, or by subscribing to them on Patreon – they earn next to nothing from YouTube.

They're indeed planning a BiBo (“Be in – Be out”) alternative to EasyRide [0], which will rely on BT beacons placed in the cars and stations, as well as the motion sensors and GPS (like now). [0]: https://www.vybe.ch/ov-wird-einfacher-sbb-testet-automatisch...

There are no gates anywhere in Switzerland, but one will encounter patrollers much more frequently in the trains (seldom in the trams/buses). I was flabbergasted by the low-trust look of the 2.5-meters high gates in the Paris subway

At least for now Reddit doesn't require neither phone number nor email address (I think)

I just don't want to be logged in. I used to be an active user. It sucks up too much time and there's a lot of toxicity. I finally got off when they blocked third party apps. Their official app is horrible and the website has enough annoyances that I don't want to use it. I was content to click on the occasional search result though. Now that they finally took that away I'm done.

In practice you wont be able to comment if you don't provide email. Though, you will be able to view.

It requires email now. It used to not. And if you don't want to be shadowbanned you also need phone, and if you want to view NSFW you need government ID.

The NSFW part definitely depends on where you live, Switzerland doesn't require it for example

Yes this is their reasoning, it doesn't mean we shouldn't hate the players and the game alike

That same hacker can choose to responsibly disclose the vulnerability through the proper channels, or take advantage of it to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Which one they choose objectively determines the quality of person they are.

That is how we find ourselves in this mess, we design systems thinking only of everything that can go right and not what can go wrong.

Protecting yourself from every possibility where things can go wrong is not something anyone can afford.

Let’s bring your example into the physical world:

“That is like hating a thief who robs your home which has an old lock and a window you forgot open. If there is an open window in the house someone will eventually climb through it, sure not you or me but there is always someone out there that will.”

It is perfectly reasonable to hate the person who robbed your house or hacked your server. “If that someone hadn’t, another someone would” is in no way a defence. It is not OK to actively harm someone just because they didn’t protect themselves.

Yes. My point is that until you learn to lock your door, thief will enter and steal your property. You can hate them all you want, that wont change the facts or magically lock your door.

Unfortunately the thief has introduced legislation that bans any better locks, and they have a magical veto that allows them to strike down any attempts at changing said laws.

Should I still not hate the thief?

I prefer to live somewhere where I can be relatively sure that forgetting to close my windows doesn't get me robbed. That means punishing those who take advantage of open windows. Turns out deterrence can be quite effective.

Security is always about tradeoffs and in a functioning society you don't need to have perfect security (and pay the extreme cost required for it) because we do indeed put blame on individuals that abuse the system.

It’s not the players we should hate but the ones who make the rules of the game. Specifically not the ones who make the rules for the greater good but for themselves.

So, the players?

No rule makers. Players are not the one making the rules of a game. They just play it.

> understanding the bare-metal firmware for a computer

IMO this is still relevant, everything surrounding the LLMs needs such a vast infrastructure that I don't know if I would find it more useful to learn the maths behind ML than CS

As a 17 year old, I agree with this. Ofc I'm against all the hate directed at PG, I believe that all knowledge has value regardless of its economic utility, but I understand where the hate is coming from. Personally, I find LLMs boring for now, and I'm more focused on CS and electrical engineering.

Similarly I often read ticket or PR descriptions written by Claude that are so jargon-heavy that I just can't understand on first try. On one side it's a reality check because I always considered English to be close to a mother tongue for me, on the other side I never had to deal with words like "idempotent"... (Seriously, when did this become one of the go-to words to use?)

Idempotency is a crucial trait in the world of web APIs (and any other system where commands that modify state might need to be retried due to communication failures). It's not a new word or concept, but it's certainly a niche one.

Idempotent is definitely a word that’s strangely awkward and alien to actually use, but makes reasonable sense when the etymology is known.

The closest alternative I can think of is debouncing/debounced

> jargon-heavy

Yes. It’s even worse than jargon tho I think it just invents its own metaphors. At first I thought this was clever and useful, helping me to internalize the code (“the normal path vs the escape hatch”) but I’m increasingly finding the metaphors to be so thick and esoteric that it’s actually a hurdle to understanding the actual code.

Also used in mathematics. A projection P is basically an idempotent mapping, that is P(P(x)) = P(x) for all x.