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

In the same way that a Tesla Model Y isn't so different from a golf cart.

If you showed a 1980s EE any component taken from the Neo, it'd look like science fiction. Some of the least sophisticated parts (motors & batteries) are still an order of magnitude better than anything available 40 years ago; the most sophisticated (processors, memory, camera sensors) are at least six orders of magnitude better. The Pentagon of the 1980s would have fought a small war to get their hands on a few of the MEMS IMU chips that we put in video game controllers.



>no experiments have been able to prove danger

Which is strong evidence that the danger is very small, very rare, or takes a very long time to develop.

You don't need a large clinical trial to prove that being shot in the head is harmful; you do need a very large trial to detect that, say, a drug increases the risk of cardiovascular disease by 4% in a specific sub-population.


The popularity of the Bamba peanut snack has a huge impact on peanut allergies - plausibly a 10x reduction when comparing similar populations.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(08)01698-9/ful...



To be fair, the atmospheric engine was just barely practical for pumping water out of mines. Newcomen sold over a hundred of them, but they were rapidly replaced by Watt engines or retrofitted with a new cylinder and a separate condenser. The atmospheric engine was however far too inefficient for use as a locomotive engine, or as a replacement for water power in most industrial applications.


Watt engines were also atmospheric engines, but the rest of your comment is correct.


>Steam power wasn't feasible until the Bessemer process and rolled sheet steel made the creation of pressure vessels a reliable and repeatable process.

Also precision boring to produce tight-fitting cylinders. James Watt spent nearly a decade trying to build a viable steam engine, but only succeeded after John Wilkinson invented a machine to bore cannon barrels in 1774. It turns out that making a hole that is straight, deep and round is fiendishly difficult without specialist equipment and expertise.


> Also precision boring to produce tight-fitting cylinders.

Which is what the GP's referenced book, The Perfectionists, is all about. There's an entire chapter on Watt and Wilkinson.


To treat the machine as a machine: it's like complaining that cars are dangerous because someone deliberately drove into a concrete wall. Misusing a product with the specific intent of causing yourself harm doesn't necessarily remove all liability from the manufacturer, but it radically changes the burden of responsibility.


That's certainly a reasonable argument.

Another is that this is a new and poorly understood (by the public at least) technology that giant corporations make available to minors. In ChatGPT's case, they require parental consent, although I have no idea how well they enforce that.

But I also don't think the manufacturer is solely responsible, and to be honest I'm not that interested in assigning blame, just keen that lessons are learned.


The general vocabulary for describing timbre is limited and highly imprecise. There are many ways in which a passage of music could be perceived as "bright" or "dark", even if the timbre is identical.

It might just be a translation issue, but the paper gives me the strong impression that the authors do not actually understand timbre.


HP, Canon and Epson all sell printers that use bulk ink - no cartridges, just bottles that you pour into the printer's reservoir.

The handles-and-blades business model that is implicit when you buy a $40 printer is still utterly miserable, but it's no longer the only option. If you're willing to spend $200, you get a reliable piece of equipment that isn't constantly trying to nickel-and-dime you.


Yeah if you can’t justify a >$200 inkjet, you may not need an inkjet.

Order photos from a store instead of printing them.

Get a laserjet if you just want document printing at home.

If you are doing crafts, then buy a nice inkjet. The nice inkjets pay for themselves past some volume because (1) OEM ink is actually relatively cheap and (2) they are reliable.


I personally think inkjet has superior richer color printing to laser jet even for basic use like printing out websites and recipes, and it also doesn’t take up a massive amount of space and weight like a laser printer. I also don’t like the power spike that laser printers do that flickers the lights.

Plus, a lot of inkjet buyers really need the scanning and copying functionality more than the printer itself.

I have a ~$200 HP OfficeJet printer it’s small, has all the multi-functions I need, and has been reliable.

Yes, the ink isn’t cheap. But I buy it at Costco which makes it less painful and it’s not the 1990s so printing isn’t an everyday thing. I have never had an issue with ink drying up or anything like that.

I think the thing you have to understand is that customers like me are not looking for the best dollars per page, they’re just looking for something convenient so that they don’t have to print at work or go to the library. They don’t want to buy a serious appliance that can’t be lifted by a large portion of the population.


The issue with laser jets is the microplastic pollution


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

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

Search: