Am I the only one who couldn't tell whether this was real or not for a good long while? I legitimately wondered whether the BBC site might have been hacked. I just simply cannot find a way to make sense of just about anything in the news story; I had just assumed it would go under and that's that. Why would someone who has that kind of money to invest put it into this pivot as opposed to a completely fresh, new effort? What's the efficiency I'm not seeing?
Me too. It had me genuinely wondering if the Brits have their own version of April Fools in the middle of the month.
Forget the AI -- I'm just as shocked to see that shares went from $500+ in 2021 to below $3 this year. That's insane. I had to verify it's actually real.
I thought this was just a normal shoe company that had invented a cool look with some good branding.
> I'm just as shocked to see that shares went from $500+ in 2021 to below $3 this year. That's insane. I had to verify it's actually real.
Well, sort of. They did a 20 for 1 reverse split in 2024, and possibly that wasn’t the only reverse split. That means the stock peaked at $25 (pre reverse split) and dipped below $0.25 (if the reverse split didn’t happen) so they did a reverse split to stay listed on the NYSE, as you need $1/share minimum price or something like that.
Number of shares and share price are completely arbitrary, FWIW.
Yes, that's how you get a $500 historic price. It wasn't at 500 at the time, but due to the reverse split the current price is correct relative to a $500 historic price.
For anyone who liked this, I highly suggest you take a look at the CuriousMarc youtube channel, where he chronicles lots of efforts to preserve and understand several parts of the Apollo AGC, with a team of really technically competent and passionate collaborators.
One of the more interesting things they have been working on, is a potential re-interpretation of the infamous 1202 alarm. It is, as of current writing, popularly described as something related to nonsensical readings of a sensor which could (and were) safely ignored in the actual moon landing. However, if I remember correctly, some of their investigation revealed that actually there were many conditions which would cause that error to have been extremely critical and would've likely doomed the astronauts. It is super fascinating.
And that's why it's harder (or easier?) to make the same landing again -- we taking way less chances. Today we know of way more failure modes than back then.
They sent people up in a tin can with the bare minimum computational power to manage navigation and control sequencing. It was barely safer than taking a barrel over Niagara Falls. We do have much more capable and reliable technology.
Buzz Aldrin (?) was quoted as recalling holding a pencil inside the capsule as they were out in space and thinking "that wall isn't very thick or strong, I could probably jam a pencil through it pretty easily..."
Death being a layer of aluminum away changes your mind.
It's a miracle nobody died in flight during the program. Exploding oxygen tank, rockets shaking themselves to pieces during launch, getting hit by lightning on top of a flying skyscraper full of kerosene and liquid oxygen....
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee died on the Apollo program. I feel it's not polite to ignore that fact even if you add an 'in flight' qualifier.
And it's even more interesting in the fact that our rocket program started with the former rocket scientists from Nazi Germany who were brought over at the end of WW2 to work in the American rocket/missile program.
Starting from the first test pilots, a lot of people died for us to get to the point to launch that flight. So while no one died on the flight, lots of people died just getting us there. If I recall, in The Right Stuff, it's mentioned that those early test pilots had something like a 25% mortality rate.
The early jet age was pretty nuts. Check the Wikipedia page for a random fighter from the era and you'll see figures like, 1,300 built, 50 lost in combat, 1,100 lost in accidents. And that's operational aircraft. Test pilots were in even more danger.
Some were pretty bad, but none were nearly that bad. The B-58 Hustler lost 22% of its airframes, the F7U Cutlass 25%, the F-104 Starfighter in German service lost 33%. And those were outliers.
You're right, those numbers are from the F-8 but include non-total-loss accidents.
I don't think the numbers you quoted are outliers, though. The F-100 lost ~900 out of 2,300. The F-106 lost ~120/342. That's a pretty big list of planes with a 1/5-1/3 loss rate.
Think about the "failure mode" of the aircraft that won World War II, the Supermarine Spitfire.
There was a fuel tank mounted between the engine and cockpit so if it took enough of a hit to puncture right through (not hard, in practice) the failure mode was that the cockpit was now full of a 350mph jet of burning petrol.
"popularly described" and how it's currently understood are two different things. Because it's hard to explain to lay people, it's popularly described in a number of simplified ways, but it's well understood.
Since we are on HN, I think it could be explained there (before it's all consumed by AI slop):
For complex reasons, available CPU time during landing was lower than expected (it was stolen by radar pointing peripheral). This caused regularly scheduled job to spawn before previous instance finished. As such, this caused two effects: job instances were suspended before finishing by new instances in the middle of the routine, and that pilling up of the old instances eventually exhausted resources and caused kernel to panic and reboot. Rebooting during landing sounds scary, but that actually was fine: such critical tasks were specifically designed to automatically restart from previously saved checkpoint data in the memory.
What was more dangerous, was the suspended tasks before restarts occured. First, it meant routine wasn't executing to the end, which in actual flight caused blanked displays (as updating the display was the last thing routine was doing). Any more CPU time stolen, and it could be interrupted even earlier, eg. before it sends the engine commands.
Another issue is that in case of fluctuating load, new instances could actually begin running to the end, and then previously suspended job instance could be resumed, potentially sending the stale data to the displays and engine.
And finally, while each job instance had it own core and VAC set properly managed by the kernel (think of it as modern kernel switching between task stacks), that particular routine wasn't designed to be reentrant. So it was using various global variables ("erasables") for its own purpose, that when interrupted in unluckly place might have caused very bad behavior.
How likely all of above is to occur, depends on the exact profile of fluctuating load caused by the confused radar peripheral. I guess that's why Mike Stewart is trying to replicate these issues with real CDU.
His point of Omega doubling-down on the things that would progressively harder to establish a moat on made me think about what we have been seeing with higher ed. It seems the "smart ones" definitely read the book that making the "education better," in a world where it is mostly free, was a fool's errand, and now the margins that they all compete it stray far, far away from the quality of the schooling. I work in K-12, and see the same things happening here too.
P.S.: It is odd to me to have such a length pg essay been up for such a long time with just a handful of comments. Did something happen? I would've expected a wealth of discussion on a post like this by now.
I think there are a number of reasons for this, but a couple come to mind. First, pg seems distant from YC now (to those not at office hours, I guess), and rarely publishes new essays, so he's rarely discussed or present in the minds of commenters here. Also, pg has the fortune or misfortune to write in a way that feels like some LLM writing, when he's writing well. I haven't gone back to earlier essays to check this notion, but I think he's going out of his way to break up thoughts into less likely sentence fragments, now, which give his recent writing a choppier, less well-written feel, with standalone sentences like
> But you could recognize one from across the room.
> pg has the fortune or misfortune to write in a way that feels like some LLM writing, when he's writing well.
It pains me to think how simplistic some peoples' LLM writing detection heuristics are (or at least appear to be). Prose such as in TFA is really obviously human-written to me. It's using those choppy sentences properly. It doesn't strike me as "less well-written" at all; the resulting contrast is clearly very intentional.
Although, of course, what you describe is still a couple levels above "Behold, what doth mine Ctrl-F espy but U+2014 EM DASH! Hie thee hence, O wretched automaton!"
The something that happened was ChatGPT. Enough commenters didn't like the idea that everything they write publicly online is fed in as training data for AI that there's been a shift in this site's community. That, and everyone got laid off, either for section 174 or AI reasons, but Twitter employees are no longer collecting that fast paycheck and posting here. I'm sure a data scientist could make a good analysis of if what I'm saying is backed by actual data, but that's my feel based on spending more time on here than is healthy.
> Enough commenters didn't like the idea that everything they write publicly online is fed in as training data for AI that there's been a shift in this site's community.
Pardon; your theory is that this attitude was prevalent among people who like discussing pg's writing, and that they have left in favour of a new crowd that doesn't care about pg but is also pro- the AI companies?
... Because that doesn't seem to line up with the general tenor of discussion in threads about AI companies doing things.
Looking at the stats, there's been a huge influx of accounts. The theory that fits that isn't internal inconsistent is then there are multiple people using the sites that can be grouped into a set of people that don't care for pg, and a set of people that are pro-AI. How much of an intersection there is between those two groups, you get to imagine for yourself. The individuals in the group that see a PG essay, and go "Ooh, lemme dump my unfiltered opinion of him and not read the essay" and the individuals that won't bother with that link, and the individuals that comment on AI stories is a small set. The sata science query to prove me wrong wrong is left as an exercise for the reader.
Why are you sure it was an accident? Couldn't the people who rose up the ranks around his orbit have learned the right lessons, and this having been very intentional?
I had a demo for some high-school students for an ethics and tech class that successfully demonstrated these with a GMail account, so when this started happening I got very upset lol.
reply