HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | theteapot's commentslogin

You use PHP at a fintech?

One of many languages. It has its role.

>It has its role...

Of being a hole...


> This shouldn't affect key-based authentication, though

Depends what you mean by key and what you mean by affect. They can still MITM you if your using pubilc key authentication and you accept the servers host key without verifying it.


Can they? I believe SSH key bind the public key auth to the server identity, so this kind of MITM is impossible.

(Just don't turn on ForwardAgent)


What does that even mean? ForwardAgent has nothing to do with it really.

No they can't.

How did these fridges even get public IP addresses?

Start your own business.

how?

There's 3 trim levels. Flying is the top tier. They already publicly announced that.

> it was vapourware. Period, full stop.

What sad reaction to a real life flying car.


What was demonstrated was not flight.

Out of curiosity, how do you define flight? To me, I think the Roadster flew because it clearly maintained powered propulsion after leaving the ground. Sure, it only flew for a few seconds, but it's not far from the Wright Bros.' first flight.

Woody said:

> This isn't flying, it's falling with style.


Being able to take off from the ground. Not using a second system to vacuum its way up to a platform and then fall slowly.

This machine demonstrated zero ability to gain altitude in the air alone.


The Kickflip demo showed it taking off from the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5vsHHPVhJg

I don't think you watched the whole show. The third stunt was taking off from a stop to jump over some vehicles. So it did gain altitude in the air alone.

Well color me corrected. I’d probably quibble that this was a hop/jump the same way humans can jump but not fly, but I don’t have a strong definition at that point to argue for.

I’d need to go deep into something like being able to maintain altitude in the medium of air without positive impulse or something, but again, I don’t have a strong enough definition at this point.


Are you new? Flying concept cars have been around forever. It’s not a new thing.

the timeline we're in is various adjectives including sad. reality never hits how you envision when you're 10.

Out of curiosity, what is your sad P(>500 people owning a flying Tesla by 2030)?

Why does it matter? Did you ask the same question in 2007-8 when the first Waymo cars were on the streets for testing?

No.

It’s a cool concept car, and very impressive engineering. I don’t get why people hate on it so much.


I didn’t, because Waymo cars were proof of concept, not proof of wallet size.

It is very impressive engineering, just not very useful or ever going to result in any viable product. It’s a dead end. A waste of somebody’s engineering effort and talent for a one-time rich guy demo item. People hate on it because they get it.


> It is very impressive engineering, just not very useful or ever going to result in any viable product.

How do you know?

Sounds like another “640K ought to be enough for anybody”.


You’re confused. This isn’t a “maybe there’s more demand for flying cars than you think!” kind of situation. My dude, nobody is disputing the demand for flying cars. It is fairly obvious, however, that they’re completely infeasible technology, and even if not, then this certainly ain’t the way to do it.

> that they’re completely infeasible technology, and even if not, then this certainly ain’t the way to do it.

How do you know?


I have a general tendency to know things. I think it has something to do with my brain.

But also, I read about how this tech works. Have you? If so, how are you possibly still confused about this?


> I have a general tendency to know things. I think it has something to do with my brain.

Your brain can predict future?

> But also, I read about how this tech works. Have you? If so, how are you possibly still confused about this?

I think that in 1900s there were a lot of people that were saying the same things you are saying about brothers Wright and their inventions. And yet, if there is demand and value in specific things people will find a way to make it work cost effectively and at scale.


Must surely exceed P(AI doom)

Zero. Maybe a dozen, non road legal ofc. And I'm not particularly sad about it. Sorry to disappoint.

Your so called grown up world sounds like the delusion neo-liberal free market thinking that got the West here in the first place.

It works fine for the most part, we have cheap chips (not right now, though) cheap parts of cars, cheap TVs, etc. That are manufactured in developing countries (helping them develop in the process) and designed in developed countries (where only this stuff is possible to design).

It just breaks down when bad actors go against reason for long enough, but the market also corrects for that changing supply chains.


Got the West where? Massively successful and prosperous?

Two generations and counting who can see that they are less successful and prosperous than their parents.

Sounds more like OpenAI.

Would the Internet going away be world ending? Interesting to think about. I think it would be pretty damn devastating on the scale of Nuclear war but slightly more of a slow burner. At least with Nuclear war survivors can turn the Internet back on again afterwards.

tl;dr why is it better than git?

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

Search: