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

In CA AB-435 is written to apply a 5-point fit test to anyone under 16.

I knew a few drivers (small females) who we teased because they’d have to be in a car seat if they weren’t 18+.

Is that not just further formalizing "Use a car seat until the kid is big enough that you would expect seat belts to function properly"?

If you don't count the externalities, sure. Healthcare is a cost too. We need more holistic accounting, the financialising of everything into a tidy but ultimately false P&L column is literally killing us.


Government physical mail is pretty great, you just need the right regulations.


Government physical mail has the benefit that substantial tampering is way harder to do at scale.

It's the same vein as criminals using cash vs Bitcoin; both can hide crime, but one is way easier to scale up.


But does it work? I’ve used LLMs for log analysis and they have been prone to hallucinate reasons: depending on the logs the distance between cause and effects can be larger than context, usually we’re dealing with multiple failures at once for things to go badly wrong, and plenty of benign issues throw scary sounding errors.


Post author here.

Yes, it works really well.

1) The latest models are radically better at this. We noticed a massive improvement in quality starting with Sonnet 4.5

2) The context issue is real. We solve this by using sub agents that read through logs and return only relevant bits to the parent agent’s context


So you’re not getting alerts at 2 am from hallucinations?


Not from AI no.


I would be very interested in reading about this kind of orchestration and filtering than data acquisition if you have the energy for another post :)


We started writing very recently: https://www.mendral.com/blog - there is a another post we made yesterday about the overall architecture. And we have a long list of things we're planning to write about in more details.

Taking good note of your comment :)


We've actually started to gather metrics this week to write that exact post :) Coming soon!


It can, like all the other tasks, it's not magic and you need to make the job of the agent easier by giving it good instructions, tools, and environments. It's exactly the same thing that makes the life of humans easier too.

This post is a case study that shows one way to do this for a specific task. We found an RCA to a long-standing problem with our dev boxes this week using Ai. I fed Gemini Deep Research a few logs and our tech stack, it came back with an explanation of the underlying interactions, debugging commands, and the most likely fix. It was spot on, GDR is one of the best debugging tools for problems where you don't have full understanding.

If you are curious, and perhaps a PSA, the issue was that Docker and Tailscale were competing on IP table updates, and in rare circumstances (one dev, once every few weeks), Docker DNS would get borked. The fix is to ignore Docker managed interfaces in NetworkManager so Tailscale stops trying to do things with them.


> it's not magic and you need to make the job of the agent easier by giving it good instructions, tools, and environments.

This. We had much better success by letting the agent pull context rather trying to push what we thought was relevant.

Turns out it's exactly like a human: if you push the wrong context, it'll influence them to follow the wrong pattern.


I'd put it somewhere in the middle, but closer to the pull end.

- I force the AGENTS.md into the system prompt if the agent reads a directory, or file within, that contains one such file. This is anecdotally very good and saves on function calls and context growth in multiple ways. Sort them. I'm now doing this with planning and long-term task tracking markdown files.

- Everything else is pull, ideally be search, yet to substantially leverage subagents for context gathering. Savings elsewhere have pushed the need out.

btw, hi Al, I see you are working on a new company since our last collaboration, want to catch up sometime and talk shop?


Thanks - that’s the maddening with flakes - is it the thing under test or the thing doing the testing? Hermeticity is a lie we tell ourselves :)


Mendral co-founder here, we built this infra to have our agent detect CI issues like flaky tests and fix them. Observing logs are useful to detect anomalies but we also use those to confirm a fix after the agent opens a PR (we have long coding sessions that verifies a fixe and re-run the CI if needed, all in the same agent loop).

So yes it works, we have customers in production.


I can't get an LLM to properly handle analyzing a single 200K+ line log without making things up so whatever anyone is saying about this "working" is probably a lie.


Honestly, with recent models, these types of tasks are very much possible. Now it mostly depends on whether you are using the model correctly or not.


They are both the legislature and the judiciary.


Society needs art. Artists produce art. There a pantheon of greats that had no commercial success in their lives but moved our culture, we’d be so much more culturally impoverished if we’d insisted they become shit plumbers.


The bigger issue: datacenters in space are disposable. All the extremely recyclable aluminum, silica - you extract it, manufacture it and instead of recycling it when it’s done you incinerate it in the atmosphere and scatter the ashes far and wide across the earth, the harder to recapture later.

You do this when the most fragile part in the system fails. Solar panels good for 25 years but the SSDs burn out after 2? Incinerate the lot!

This kind of thinking is late capitalist brain rot. This kind of waste should be a crime.


Aluminum is 8% of the earth's crust and silicon is 28%; I think we're good


Also Wired and weirdly People Magazine (and before they were all fired J17)


No, rockets landing themselves is just controlling the mechanism you use to have them take off, and builds on trust vectoring technology from 1970s jet fighters based on sound physics.

Figuring out how to radiate a lot of waste heat into a vacuum is fighting physics. Ordinarily we use a void on earth as a very effective _insulator_ to keep our hot drinks hot.


This is a classic case of listing all the problems but none of the benefits. If you had horses and someone told you they had a Tesla, you'd be complaining that a Tesla requires you to dig minerals where a horse can just be born!


> Figuring out how to radiate a lot of waste heat into a vacuum is fighting physics.

Radiators should work pretty well, and large solar panels can do double duty as radiators.

Also, curiously, newer GPUs are developed to require significantly less cooling than previous generations. Perhaps not so coincidentally?


Well there lies the rub, solar panels already need their own thermal radiators when used in space ...


Great, so you seem to agree the technology exists for this and it is a matter of deploying more of it?


It's a matter of deploying it for cheaper or with fewer downsides than what can be done on earth. Launching things to space is expensive even with reusable rockets, and a single server blade would need a lot of accompanying tech to power it, cool it, and connect to other satellites and earth.

Right now only upsides an expensive satellite acting as a server node would be physical security and avoiding various local environmental laws and effects


> Right now only upsides ...

You are missing some pretty important upsides.

Lower latency is a major one. And not having to buy land and water to power/cool it. Both are fairly limited as far as resources go, and gets exponentially expensive with competition.

The major downside is, of course, cost. In my opinion, this has never really stopped humans from building and scaling up things until the economies of scale work out.

> connect to other satellites and earth

If only there was a large number of satellites in low earth orbit and a company with expertise building these ;)


> And not having to buy land and water to power/cool it.

It's interesting that you bring that up as a benfit. If waterless cooling (i.e. closed cooling system) works in space, wouldn't it work even better on Earth?


I mostly agree with you, but I don't understand the latency argument. Latency to where?

These satellites will be in a sun-synchronous orbit, so only close to any given location on Earth for a fraction of the day.


You need to understand more of basic physics and thermodynamics. Fighting thermodynamics is a losing race by every measure of what we understand of the physical world.


> Fighting thermodynamics is a losing race

The great thing about your argument is that it can be used in any circumstance!

Cooling car batteries, nope can't possibly work! Thermodynamics!

Refrigerator, are you crazy? You're fighting thermodynamics!

Heat pump! Haah thermodynamics got you.


Actually all of those things agree with the same laws that dictate why data centers can't work in space.

Your examples prove our case. You just must not understand how they work


I guess you _really_ don't understand how thermodynamics works. Call me back when you think you can get better efficiency than a Carnot engine.


1kW TDP chips need LESS cooling?


Yes, Rubin reportedly can deal with running significantly hotter.

That makes radiating a much more practical approach to cooling it.


I see what you’re saying - higher design temp radiates better despite more energy overall to dissipate.


> I see what you’re saying - higher design temp radiates better despite more energy overall to dissipate.

Yes, running hotter will cause more energy to be radiated.

but

These parts are not at all designed to radiate heat - just look at the surface area of the package with respect to the amount of power they consume.


I think OP was saying hotter part -> hotter radiator attached to the part, not that the part itself will radiate significantly.


> I think OP was saying hotter part -> hotter radiator attached to the part, not that the part itself will radiate significantly.

Hmm, surely the radiator can run at arbitrary temperatures w.r.t. the objects being cooled? I'm assuming heat pump etc is already part of the design.


Figuring out how to radiate a lot of waste heat into a vacuum is just building very large radiators.


From what I understand, very, very large radiators every few racks. Almost as much solar panels every few racks. Radiation shielding to avoid transient errors or damage to the hardware. Then some form of propulsion for orbital corrections, I suppose. Then hauling all of this stuff to space (on a high orbit, otherwise they'd be in shade at night), where no maintenance whatsoever is possible. Then watching your hardware progressively fail and/or become obsolete every few years and having to rebuild everything from scratch again.


His point is that everyone said landing and reusing rockets was impossible and made fun of Elon and SpaceX for years for attempting it.


The difference is that it was mostly clueless people like Thunderf00t who said it was impossible, who nobody took seriously. I don’t remember that basically all relevant experts claimed it was near impossible with current technology. That’s the situation now.

There’s also fairly clear distinction with how insane Elons plan has become since the first plans he laid for Tesla and SpaceX and the plans he has now. He has clearly become a megalomaniac.

Funnily enough, some of the things people said about Tesla is coming true, because Elon simply got bored of making cars. It’s now plausible that Tesla may die as a car company which I would not have imagined a few years ago. They’re arguably not even winning the self driving and robotics race.


No, people made fun of Elon for years because he kept attempting it unsafely, skirting regulations and rules, and failing repeatedly in very public ways.

The idea itself was proven by NASA with the DC-X but the project was canceled due to funding. Now instead of having NASA run it we SpaceX pay more than we'd ever have paid NASA for the same thing.

DC-X test flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7XJ5HYQW4

It's awesome that Falcon 9 exists and it is great technology but this guy really isn't the one anyone should want in charge of it.


>Now instead of having NASA run it we SpaceX pay more than we'd ever have paid NASA for the same thing.

This doesn’t pass the smell test given that the cost of launch with spacex is lower than it ever was under ULA.

NASA has never been about cheap launches, just novel technology. Look at the costs of Saturn and SLS to see what happens when they do launch.


SpaceX is heavily subsidized and has extremely lucrative contracts with the US government. Not to mention they get to rely on the public research NASA produces.


He also said he could save the us a trillion dollars per year with DOGE, and basically just caused a lot data exfiltration and killed hundreds of thousands of people, without saving any money at all


Elon Musk killed hundreds of thousands of people?


Yes. Mostly kids, because of the DOGE ransacking of USAID

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/the-human-cost-one-year-afte...


Not to be crass, but as much as I dislike Musk US taxpayers are not responsible for the lives of children half a world away. Why is the US the only country held to this standard? No one ever complains that Turkey is killing thousands of children by not funding healthcare initiatives in Africa.


Not crass, it's a fair point.

It is our money and we're not obligated to give it away if we think it's needed for something else. I'd note though, that in terms of the budget, USAID was like change in the couch cushions and nothing else in the world was even close in terms of lives saved per dollar. Why the man tasked with saving the government trillions of dollars went there at all was nonsensical to begin with.

Nevertheless, it is fully within our rights to pull back aid if we (collectively) decide it's best thing to do. But the only legal way to do that is through the democratic process. Elected can legislators take up the issue, have their debates, and vote.

If congress had canceled these programs through the democratic process, there almost certainly would've been a gradual draw down. Notice and time would be given for other organizations to step in and provide continuity where they could.

And since our aid programs had been so reliable and trusted, in many cases they became a logistics backbone for all sorts of other aid programs and charities. Shutting it all down so abruptly caused widespread disruption far beyond own aid programs. Food rotting in warehouses as people starved. Medications sitting in warehouses while people who needed them urgently died. The absolute waste of life and resources caused by the sudden disruption of the aid is a true atrocity.

Neither Elon or Trump had legal authority to unilaterally destroy those programs outside of the democratic process the way they did, so they are most directly morally responsible for the resulting death.

To add insult-to-injury, Elon was all over twitter justifying all of it with utterly deranged, insane conspiracy theories. He was either lying cynically or is so far gone mentally that he believed them. I'm not sure which is worse.


> landing and reusing rockets

Currently SpaceX have managed to land the booster only, not the rocket itself, if you are thinking about Starship. And reusability of said rocket is also missing (collecting blown up pieces from the bottom of the ocean doesn't count!).


In 2026? Grift.


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

Search: