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

if any car hits a child it's probably going to kill them.

they aren't tall enough to roll over the top, even a smaller sedan.

being defensive around stupid people is a lesson, teach the child to always be aware when near a road.


> if any car hits a child it's probably going to kill them.

That's not true. Obviously if you hit a child on the highway with 100km/h that child is gonna be dead. But when you're going 30 in a residential area and suddenly there is a child in front of you car, so you hit the break slowing down to 15km/h it makes a huge difference how your car is build.

> being defensive around stupid people is a lesson, teach the child to always be aware when near a road.

Safety doesn't work by just teaching the weakest part to protect themselves while allowing everyone else to build more and more deadly machines. This car centricity that puts the blame on pedestrians for daring to walk in the sacred car reserved area that separates everything from each other is exactly the problem.

These huge trucks are dangerous for absolutely no reason and they also take away insane amounts of space for no reason. They make everyone unsafe, destroy the planet and make cities shittier.


You don't know what people use their trucks for.

They have utility and getting rid of trucks in the name of safety is really stupid. How are you going to stock food, how are you going to transport goods?

There's safety, then there's regression. Might as well put everyone in a bubble suit.


They’re talking about pickup trucks, not delivery semis.

And if you look at pickup trucks, they’ve gotten way taller since the 00’s, for no reason except style.


> for no reason except style.

There are other reasons (not that they're good ones):

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/how-us-emiss...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy


So take everyone's pickup away and your child still gets hit by an illegal driving a u-haul, okay.

Just teach safety and enforce speeding/dwi/immigration laws.

Much better than taking a certain vehicle away from law abiding citizens.

I need my large truck just as much as I need my EV. I haul stuff constantly while also driving safely and following all laws.


I don't think being left handed is purely genetic, if at all. Seems like a physical anomaly during gestation.

Twins are slightly more likely to be left handed, might be something to do with crowding in the womb where a specific hand is free more than the other.


Sad day. I have a sha256 hasher in asm.js that's faster than any wasm solution.


In SpiderMonkey, asm.js code has been compiled by exactly the same pipeline as wasm since at least 2019. In fact, the way we compile it is literally to construct a pseudo-wasm module and run it through our wasm compiler (with a few flags to tweak the behavior to fit the asm.js semantics). In other words, if you're running asm.js in Firefox, you're literally just running wasm anyway, so how could it possibly be faster?

Furthermore, if you use wasm, you'll have fewer bounds checks (because of better memory allocation strategies[1]), access to SIMD, bulk memory operations, and a host of other niceties that have been added to wasm over the years. If your asm.js code is outperforming someone else's wasm code, that probably just means their wasm code is worse.

[1]: https://spidermonkey.dev/blog/2025/01/15/is-memory64-actuall...


yeah turns out it was chrome that was slow, not firefox.

wasm hashing in chrome is half the speed of firefox for me.

https://theultdev.github.io/web-sha256-benchmark


Made the requested benchmark:

https://theultdev.github.io/web-sha256-benchmark

https://github.com/TheUltDev/web-sha256-benchmark

It's Chrome wasm (windows) that is slow for me, 2x slower than asmjs.

FF with asmjs optimizations are 2x slower than wasm on FF.

Wasm in FF is 2x faster than wasm in Chrome for this hashing solution (for me).


That is surprising. Do you know the reasons? Is it a special use case or was asm really faster? I find that hard to believe.


It's a custom solution, but nothing special just incremental hashing for large files.

I took off the shelf wasm crypto libraries to compare it, but the leading one was 10x slower.


can we see?


yeah check back at the end of the day.

will try to rip it out of the project and put it in a standalone benchmark.


It'd be interesting to compare it to a SHA-256 algorithm that uses Wasm simd: https://github.com/ChrisWhealy/wasm_sha256


Noted, will add that.

Last time I tried https://github.com/Daninet/hash-wasm

edit: I focus on browsers, that's wasm but not for browser envs.

----

https://theultdev.github.io/web-sha256-benchmark

https://github.com/TheUltDev/web-sha256-benchmark

seems it is chrome wasm that is slow.

asmjs is about the same speed in chrome and firefox (with asm optimizations still enabled) but wasm is slow as hell in chrome, asm still better.

side note: someone mentioned native crypto.subtle, but that doesn't have incremental hashing so can't use it for large files. however I do use it in practice for smaller files.



Requires a secure origin. If you serve a local (but non-localhost) SPA over HTTP then you're blocked from using crypto.subtle.digest. At least, that is one reason I have seen a hand-rolled SHA-256 deployed.

Edit: oh, and it forces async.


no incremental hashing, so you can't hash files too large for ram.

I do use it for smaller files though, it's much faster.


Yeah, also makes it easy for humans to train on it.

That's the point of open source, sharing the knowledge.

We'll all make the same shit over and over if noone shares.

But if we all share, then the only thing left to make is the unknown.


That doesn't explain why particularly in the AI era software should be easily accessible. All that stuff you said isn't relevant as it applies in the pre-AI era as well.


If anything it matters more. I want both myself and my AI agents to have as much knowledge as possible.

Sharing is always better.


Hey cool this is like those myspace surveys. Let me participate.

1. I support nuclear, really stupid not to use anything else. Blame politicians and the hippies.

2. Yeah wind imo is useless, and it's more than 2 dozen. Quite high, I don't think comparing kills to the top predator is a win. Also windmills are in raptor's paths, generally cats don't eat raptors. Noisy and ugly too.

3. Solar is nice, will use it as aux, but panels and batteries don't come close to a propane generator. Different use-cases.

4. I own a cybertruck and a trailboss, but it's Texas, can't really speak to cold weather ev experiences.

5. Owning an EV I know how they work, anxiety no issue, just hop free SCs and enjoy the ride.

Bonus: Garage doors can look stupid if it's the entire front of the house, like those mcmansions, but can be subtle with a long ranch house for example.

Solar panels always look awful on a roof.


Solar panels may not be everyone's cup of tea, but they're fine, you get used to them. I think windmills look cool as shit. But then I think cybertrucks are one of the ugliest things created by man, so I guess the point is we each have our own taste.


A windmill by itself looks cool as shit. But the landscape gets ruined.

It's the equivalent of 100 radio towers crowding the area. Kind of takes you out of nature.

And I don't have a CT because it's pretty. I have it because it's functional and so fucking cool.


What energy installation improves the landscape? Do oil wells look nicer? If I had a choice of minimal impact on the beauty of the landscape, I'd choose solar and wind.

Great that you like your car, windmills and solar panels are also functional and fucking cool, so I don't know why you've bought up them being ugly. You're happy to drive an ugly car, but draw the line at looking at ugly roofs?


Yes oil wells are nicer due to the fact they aren't 124ft+ tall.

A few select spots for nuclear would be ideal ofc.

No I don't buy things based on whether they are "ugly" or not.

Solar panels don't make any financial sense in my scenario, would take half of their lifespan to break even on the energy savings.

But yeah tastes are different. Personally I find the CT to be a cool look overall, albeit different, so I get why you are so fixated on them.


You're mixing up arguments. I don't know or care if solar makes financial sense for you, it does for many people. I was only addressing the fact that you seem inconsistent on whether something deserves to exist based on whether you think it looks nice. You have the right to drive a huge car that many people find unappealing, but windmills are useless because you don't like looking at them, despite them producing a third of the UK's energy?

I'm not fixated on the cybertruck, you bought it up unprompted. Though I do find it uglier than most cars, I think all of those enormous American "trucks" are an eyesore, and I hope to never see one in person.


> 3. Solar is nice, will use it as aux...

I said I use solar, just think the panels are ugly on a roof. That's subjective also, it's not the reason I don't have them, cost is.

Windmills are useless because of the amount of maintenance, the resources/carbon used to make them, lack of recyclability (huge blade graveyards), and most importantly, it's not a base load. Them being ugly is just the cherry on top. They are useless when you could just use nuclear.

Yeah you keep wanting to bring it back up though, it wasn't unprompted, the GP mentioned EV and range. I was giving a duality example of owning both vehicle types. You focused on the CT for some odd reason. As did another person.


Before you get down voted to oblivion:

> 4. I own a cybertruck

Mind if I ask why?


Yeah I love FSD and I need a lot of space.

Feels like a space ship and I love it more than my ICE truck.

And yeah, realized that would be downvoted. Fun to break the bubble here with other opinions though.


not a mill


I'm conservative and own an EV and ICE truck. I know many conservatives with Tesla's. I have solar and a propane generator as backups.

I think the propaganda would be whatever said we're all against it, that's untrue. We just want both, no gas bans.


Conservative bots are out strong in Pacific NW forums slop posting against new "green energy" energy projects. Blaming the (not yet built!) green energy projects for upcoming rate increases.

Nevermind that solar is why Texas has such cheap electricity prices.

> no gas bans.

I'm all for the free market.

Price into gas the expected increase in healthcare costs due to air and ground water pollution. Stop subsidizing it for non-critical uses.

Same for extra tire dust from EVs (that shit is toxic AF).

Right now I see astroturfing that EVs are why our electricity infrastructure is overloaded (rather than blaming 50 years of neglect), or that the cars burst into flame (no more than other cars and newer battery tech not any more).

Subsidizing EVs is interesting because it is obvious that EVs are the future (battery tech gets ~6% better year over year, compounding, ICE designs haven't seen improvements in decades), but recent removal of government support caused American car companies to basically give up on anything except the domestic car market, which spells their long term doom (which the Ford CEO has pretty much come out and admitted.)


There's already like 90c of gasoline tax in California and some of the highest auto registration fees, and that's on top of other rules that make it more expensive.


The gasoline and registration taxes pay for (most of the cost of) the roads. Change them all to toll roads and we can get rid of those taxes.


Somehow other states don't need to make them all toll roads, and their roads are better


It's not a wasteland. Plenty of insects live in the mud. Plus the pattern of the playa is special on its own. I honestly hate that burning man ruins the ground. Never the same after so many cars and people drive on it.


Skill issue.

Been doing this for 20 years.

I have less dev energy as an adult and dad, but I know what I want and how to make it.

All of my ideas I'm able to make not only a proof of concept but an entirely polished app, all thanks to AI.

I wouldn't say it's more or less fun than coding manual, apples to oranges, but it's certainly entertaining.


That's not what this article is about. It's really about algorithmic social media. There is one short paragraph near the end that mentions AI: "AI did not kill the Internet; it inherited an Internet with the fun already optimized out of it."


Yeah I admit I only glanced at it. So okay, it was the other common nostalgia take...

Yes it was more whimsical, yes I miss it, but no point talking about it anymore, that part of life is over.


Terrorists will generally target anything of opportunity.

It was also perplexing when Iran was shooting missiles at their allies, until you realize they aren't rational humans.


Which allies are you talking about? Gulf nations with US bases actively being used to kill their children?


You say "actively" as if it wasn'y a one-off event... maybe because Iran is forcing children to sit at IRGC checkpoints or other military targets?

None of the gulf countries allowed offensive US strikes to occur from their territory. Its all used to defend against attacks from Iran trying to kill Gulf country children.


> maybe because Iran is forcing children to sit at IRGC checkpoints or other military targets?

The school that the US hit on the first day of the war had been a school, visibly and physically separated from the military base next to it: https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/a43bac...


I am not describing the school


> None of the gulf countries allowed offensive US strikes to occur from their territory.

Saudi Arabia did after Iran bombed their residential buildings and civilian airports.

UAE doesn't have any US bases but they got hit anyway.


> they aren't rational humans.

Would you be able to point to any rational humans?


Maybe ones who don't follow supreme religious leaders that called for the gunning down of 3000 men, women, and children in the streets. And then approve beatings/the murder of doctors that treated them.

Imagine that being your moral leadership. And 3000 is the official Iranian number. Some claim as high as 30,000. Those religious leaders are calling for more murder/death in todays Friday prayers. I don't know how anyone who calls for (or especially signs off on in a religious theocracy) murder can be called spiritual leaders or anyone could follow their 'teachings' .

Edit: Just highlighting the horrors/behaviors you are normalizing/waive away as 'shared by everyone' with your statement 'but what humans aren't like this'.


I think you're conflating "rational" with "moral". The question was about rationality, and from their POV (given the goal of keeping the regime going) everything was rational.


They have always done the same. Just attack everyone and then get the win by getting others to fight for them. Get the maximum reaction through PR/propaganda. It's how they came to power in the first place. It's how they got a massive leftist uprising to unseat the previous government.

Before and during 1979. They'd attack the security forces, deny their involvement and then blame the government for the response, which then was supposedly an attack (e.g. Khomeini would send armed men into protests then put out propaganda that security forces "fired at protestors"). Or argue that the response to their attack was disproportionate. Or argue that his forces "don't have any choice but to" ... etc. This has been the way their proxy forces fight (hamas, houthi's, hezbollah). Control and punish people who detail what their side does (they massacred their own soldiers and their own allies, not just once. This is why people argue they're not leftists: they massacred the leftist factions that helped them unseat the Shah government)

They never explain their own actions. If anything, they put them forth as rational. But more likely you'll never hear about them. Such as killing 30000 people in January when their propaganda efforts totally failed. That's what happened: due to devaluation a number of traders in the "Tehran Bazaar" (a set of streets with lots of stands) very publicly, including to tourists, complained that the government made their lives impossible through economic mismanagement.

They locked off the streets and started going through, killing everybody they possibly could, "clearing" the market as they called it. Men, women, a few children who were sent to buy bread for their families. A few hundred dead. (yes, the way the Iranian government fights has more than a few parallels to what the Nazi's did)

This then set off the large scale protests everywhere in Iran.

Btw: the Iranian tactics are obviously working to some extent. Hence it's probably rational to do this because


Part of the reason those tactics are so effective, even today, is there are leftist elements in the west who are eager to eat it up to substantiate their own agendas and echo it as truth. You can see it live on Hacker News people constantly spewing FUD and propaganda that the Islamic regime likes and is obviously false to actual Iranian people who are vaccinated and won't believe it once they have passed grade school.


There is a difference between calculating and rational.

There are certainly calculating elements within the regime. Not all of those elevate to rationality.


'gunning down 3,000 to 30,000 of your country's men, women, and children in the streets because they don't feel one gender should be forced to wear hats upon pain of abuse/rape/death is completely rational'


> Maybe ones who ...

Ok but could you point to anyone or any people and tell me that they're rational? I didn't just ask for a possible condition of rationality and "maybe" feels like a very flimsy foundation for the acidity of what you're saying.


> until you realize they aren't rational humans

How did you get to that realization?


I'm not sure dismissing the people who invented the term "checkmate" as a bunch of irrational terrorists really works. They stared down Saddam Hussein, so how hard can it be to stare down Donald Trump?

Bombing Iran is like nuking an asteroid. Now, instead of one giant asteroid on a collision course with Earth, there are a half-dozen medium-sized radioactive asteroids on a collision course with Earth.


was iran a muslim theocracy when they invented the word “checkmate”?

congrats on the glorious past or whatever, in the actual present iran is a failed state ran and supported by loons


Similar arguments could be made about the US republic. The land of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln, now also speed running its way to failed state status and being run and supported by loons.


> It was also perplexing when Iran was shooting missiles at their allies, until you realize they aren't rational humans.

Ah yes, the classic “my enemies are ontologically evil” gambit.


Good to have concerns, but if I was deaf I'd weigh them based on how much I want to hear and discuss the risks with my doctor.

Personally I think I would want to hear once in my life, even if it meant a potentially shorter life.

I'm glad the Trump admin prioritized this.


This was not a political decision. These kind of accelerated paths have been available for years for a wide variety of therapies.


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

Search: