I consulted for an Air Force project that was attempting to add a virtualization layer to ease hardware refreshes for client devices using software that does exactly this (in a data center if they have network, but disconnected if necessary as well). I have to imagine commercial flight planning has needed to know weather along the route as well. It's hard to believe this would have been patentable given all the prior art.
How the hell did this get so much engagement, let alone as a repost? Is "SQLite" in the title really all it takes? This site was registered 8 months ago, the whole blog started in February, the first post declares its writer to be an AI CEO, most posts are about hiring and managing other AI agents, it claims to sell everything from coffee mugs to services from itself to also be the CEO of your business. This feels more like performance art than a business. There's no evidence they've sold anything or even have any actual inventory. AI agents can't build you a warehouse or manufacture physical goods.
You guys are arguing with a bot, in a way almost arguing with yourselves, as it may very well not have actually done any of this, is definitely not running a "real store," and is seemingly publishing posts that are a parody of Hacker News style founder journeys but if the founders were bots.
Surely more than 10% of the time consumed by going to market with a cancer treatment is giving it to living organisms and waiting to see what happens, which can't be made any faster with software. That's not to say speedups can't happen, but 90% can't happen.
Not that that justifies doom and gloom, but there is a pretty inescapable assymetry here between weaponry and medicine. You can manufacture and blast every conceivable candidate weapon molecule at a target population since you're inherently breaking the law anyway and don't lose much if nothing you try actually works.
Though I still wonder how much of this worry is sci-fi scenarios imagined by the underinformed. I'm not an expert by any means, but surely there are plenty of biochemical weapons already known that can achieve enormous rates of mass death pleasing to even the most ambitious terrorist. The bottleneck to deployment isn't discovering new weapons so much as manufacturing them without being caught or accidentally killing yourself first.
It is easier to destroy than it is to protect or fix, as a general rule of the universe. I would not feel so confident about the speed of the testing loop keeping things in check.
Regardless of how good the tools get, third-party tooling can never be a product differentiator unless you somehow manage to have exclusive access. Otherwise, everyone else out there can and will use the same tools you are. It's more a hedonic treadmill than a moat.
According to the draft Wikipedia article for this company that hasn't been published because it is not yet considered sufficiently noteworthy, this company has existed for 17 years, built their first production facility in 2023, and first delivered working units into real cars last March. That doesn't strike me as moving all that fast. It also says they acquired the Bose product they're shitting on in this article for doing things wrong.
If it works, it works, but I really wish companies and founders would just be honest about how and why they succeed when they do, instead of everything needing to be the constant projection of a desired image.
To be clear, this number will probably end up being reasonably accurate, but it is a pet peeve nonetheless in the startup world how shitty these financial metrics have become. We're three months from the end of 2025. You'd think we'd want to see at least two years of $30 billion dollar revenue earned in each year before we say with any meaningful level of statistical validity that they have $30 billion in "annual recurring" revenue.
I'm not going to say with 100% confidence that spellcheck never teaches anyone anything, but you have to beware of basic post hoc ergo propter hoc here. Virtually everyone's spelling improves between age 13 and adulthood.
I don't follow public figures or news anywhere near enough to have a meaningful opinion on Sam Altman, but I find one interesting snippet here, which is that there is a straightforward prediction in there. He did say ten to twenty years and it's only been ten, but still, I can't think of a single good or service that families need or commonly want that is an order of magnitude cheaper. It makes me wonder if he's become any less confident of this or any other prediction.
I don't want to be holier than him or thou or anyone else, but it is the kind of thing I've found of myself quite a bit. I made a lot of confident predictions about the future 15-25 years ago on the Internet, and even though I'm not a public figure and nobody will ever hold me to task for being wrong, I can see it for myself. The predictions are still there. They weren't universally wrong, but I didn't do much better than chance. It's a big reason I no longer bother to make predictions. I have no idea what the future will bring and I'm comfortable with the uncertainty. It doesn't feel like very many people on the Internet are.
I guess fitness makes a difference from what these other comments are saying. My ex-wife and I lived in Long Beach (which is obviously sea level) when we were in ROTC and pretty regularly took day trips out to San Gogornio and walked to the summit in about five hours, which is ~11,500ft. Not once did that have any noticeable effect, but we were both pretty serious runners back in the day trying to become Army officers. On the other hand, she tried to summit Aconcagua during a spring break and couldn't make it due to altitude sickness. I've never been higher than Mt. Whitney, personally.
Even if you don't feel it, the altitude still makes a difference, though. I recall doing two-a-day hell weeks at Big Bear at the end of summer cross-country training in high school and there was a 5k up there at the end of that week. We all got worse times than typical at sea level, and somewhat amusingly, I recall a high school senior from Rim of the World High School (who lived up there) getting 2nd place overall the first year I ever competed in that race, beating way more seasoned competitors just because he was used to the altitude.
It works in reverse, too. There was an officer in my Armor Basic Officer Course from Colorado who gave himself rhabdo during the two-mile test the first week we in-processed, apparently because he was so used to altitude that he hadn't quite acclimated to Fort Knox atmosphere.
If anything, fitness makes you more susceptible to altitude sickness. It's not an inherent effect, but rather your habits driving you to do things you shouldn't. You are supposed to take things lazy and slow when acclimatizing to high altitude. But if you're fit, you may be used to moving too fast and pushing yourself too hard. You may not recover from exertion as quickly as you expect, and you may end up climbing higher every day than you should.
Altitude sickness typically starts after 12–24 hours. If you climb high and come back down in the same day, there is usually not enough time for the symptoms to start. And 11,500ft is not that high altitude. People routinely fly to Cuzco, La Paz, Lhasa, and Leh from sea level, and most of them suffer no serious ill effects.
It's pretty widely accepted in the climbing world that the primary effect of altitude in the short-term is a reduction in your cardiovascular fitness.
The better your heart is at getting oxygen into your muscles and organs, the better it can compensate for less oxygen.
Not a bulletproof solution to altitude sickness, but it's definitely one of a lot of variables that matters. It's also just true that some people are way more susceptible regardless, I've got friends who run competitive marathon times who get splitting headaches flying from sea level to denver.
Not really. Altitude sickness seems quite random in who it effects worst. I trekked to the top of Mera Peak (~21,000 ft) many years ago. 3 of the fittest people in our party got altitude sickness and didn't make it to the peak.
reply