Because there isn't much that is actionable with sleep tracking. You can lose weight if you have sleep apnea, and anecdotally people claim that not drinking helps, but you don't need a watch to tell you that. With blood pressure, you get on losartan and see the results immediately.
I don’t see how there is nothing actionable from sleep tracking.
If I have a week of bad sleep scores I don’t go for a long run on the weekend. I don’t indulge in things I would otherwise do, and I make an effort to get off a screen and to bed earlier until I get a solid 8 hours of sleep
This is such a strange comment that is full of contradictions. Pixels are supported because the manufacturer supports alternate OSes. I don't get what languishing means here. Pixel hardware lags behind the latest Snapdragon hardware, but it's not something that average people know or care about. So, you can gush all you want, but I don't see why it's a big deal. It's great that they found an OEM and it's great for the overall health of the project, but not because of gaming or the latest Snapdragon.
Does pixel support alternate OSes or it just doesn't get in the way of custom firmware developers?
And for the gaming aspect, there is a huge market for mobile gaming, specially in Asia, so having a manufacturer like Motorola adopting GrapheneOS as a first class citizen will improve the chances that high performance applications will have better performance in such OSes which is a big win.
The Google Pixel has first-class support for alternate OSes (not custom firmware like a Chromebook). The OEM has to go out of their way to support avb_custom_key as mentioned in https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/avb/+/mas... and I believe the GrapheneOS founder strcat was heavily involved in helping Google design this feature and flow for Android Verified Boot.
If you conceive a device to be shipped with a specific OS that's a completely different relationship with the developer than just giving the keys to the kingdom and wishing good luck, so I hardly think this is subjective
Since ~2023 all Motorola phones with Snapdragon SoCs (the ones most likely to support MTE as needed by GrapheneOS first) have been larger or equal to 6.5" screens.
I do hope however having a Snapdragon device will be beneficial to having postmarketOS support.
For now having Android-type OS on a daily driver is a must, but for older devices (thinking of 10 years time) I'd like to explore an OS which doesn't depend of Google open-source drops and delayed security open-source drops, which is the situation for ROMs without an ODM partner.
Do you mean to say that postmarketOS is somehow better on non Pixel devices? I would assume that Pixels are closest to upstream and have the longest software support life in Android world.
pmOS runs well on a couple OnePlus phones (6, 6T). For whatever reason the Snapdragon 845 and 865 have decent mainline support. I expect the OnePlus 8T to join the prior list of phones in the near future. You can similarly look at which gaming handhelds are supported by ROCKNIX and what SoC they use to get an idea for which ARM SoCs have decent mainline support. I expect the vast majority of phones and other ARM devices to not be very well-supported. RockChip is usually the safest bet, but I've been pleasantly surprised with some Snapdragon stuff.
All that is fine and well, and I love coreboot, openbmc, etc. as much as the next guy, but how is this a business with growth or scale? In particular, you are not going to sell to the large clouds as they do a similar thing in house, you are not going to sell to the large LLM labs as there isn't much of a story with NVIDIA here. All you are selling to is on-prem deployments for old(er) school workloads, which to me is a shrinking market to begin with. You are like a fancier version of Dell or Supermicro. I don't get it. But maybe this is the Dropbox comment.
> you are not going to sell to the large LLM labs as there isn't much of a story with NVIDIA here
Oxide just recently talked about that actually the LLM people do want to buy Oxide. Because turns out, doing everything around LLMs also requires compute, and quite a lot of it. And when you already have to deal with massive issues to run a complex advanced Nvidia stack you might not also want to worry about what firmware bugs Supermicro is delivering.
If you are not one of the hyperscaler who already has all the CPU based infrastructure on their own cloud stack (google, amazon, facebook) then Oxide is quite interesting.
Also as for this shrinking/small market claim. About 50% of IT spend is still outside of the cloud. While nobody know the real number, its still a gigantic market, much bigger then most people realize. And it might not be shrinking because the bad economics of cloud are becoming increasingly clear to many company. Along with other trends such as making computing more local, not letting US companies control everything.
> You are like a fancier version of Dell or Supermicro.
Dell has a market cap of 80 billion $, Supermicro has 20 billion $. Must really suck to be them I guess. I'm sure Michael Dell wishes he had done something worthwhile with his live instead. I mean he could have worked for Digital Equipment Cooperation instead then he might not have ended up being such a loser.
I feel you are being really dismissive talking as if aiming for that is somehow not worth doing.
>Dell has a market cap of 80 billion $, Supermicro has 20 billion $. Must really suck to be them I guess.
For a startup, if the thesis is to take market share away from those two, it's actually not such a good story. You need a product that is 10x better than the competition, and I'm not convinced that the enhancements to firmware, reliability etc. amount to a 10x jump in business value prop. You aren't making silicon. You are still ultimately a purveyor of other people's IP.
The claim that you need a 10x better product to win any market share is simply incorrect, both logically and historically.
Maybe if people that bought Dell had a deep love for Dell products and were deeply integrated unable to move, but even then 10x is a waste exaggeration.
But if you have any serious academic literature that underlies this 10x claim I'm happy to take a look.
> You aren't making silicon. You are still ultimately a purveyor of other people's IP.
And neither does Dell and they are worth 80 billion $. And AMD doesn't make semiconductors, so they relay on other people IP. And TSMC doesn't make their lithographic machines or many other things, relaying on other people's IP. And all those materials relay on other people IP to be brought to market in the first place.
This is just a silly argument that for some reason puts CPU design companies as 'the real deal' and everybody else is somehow not good enough.
Historically good systems companies make just as good margin as most CPU design companies, specially those that don't have near monopolies.
> it's actually not such a good story
They are making inroads in a market that is 100s of billion $ large and people invested 300M$+ in them because they see costumer demand. If that's not good enough for you then I don't know what to tell you. I wish any of the starups I have worked at that kind of opportunity.
It seems to me you operate in a sense where anybody that doesn't go for a monopoly in a 5 trillion $ market is somehow not 'worthy' of being a startup. That just a very strange perspective on reality.
I think you might be underestimating how big the "old(er) school workloads" market is. And, at least from Oxide's point of view, it isn't shrinking but instead growing. A certain segment of tech has been enamored with the public cloud for the last ~15yr but personally over my career spanning that time I've seen some real drawbacks. "Spaghetti infrastructure" is a real, bad problem. Cloud pricing models heavily penalize some totally legitimate workloads. Keeping costs down while scaling up is really, really hard. If you own a fixed amount of hardware and buying more of it is expensive, you tend to use it more intelligently. Or maybe the one on-prem company I've worked at was just exceptionally good at computers?
There are plenty of old-school companies in Europe still working on moving to the cloud. Now that there is a burgeoning movement towards avoiding American cloud providers, Oxide could have an opportunity to sell "private cloud" servers instead. If they play their cards right, they could make significant inroads in European markets.
Companies who are still 'on-prem' are not necessary 'old school' and they don't just exist in Europe and many are not planning on moving everything to cloud and just haven't done it yet.
Because when customers go from on-prem to cloud they throw away their distro tooling and support needs? I get it, I've worked at plenty of small and large cloud-native places, but saying "All you are selling to is on-prem deployments for old(er) school workloads, which to me is a shrinking market to begin with." you're not at all accurate. Or if it is shrinking, it is still a huge market, likely a much larger market than you think.
Honestly, I keep an eye on them because we are a core market for their product.. We run a bunch of K8s clusters, and Postgres databases. We currently use cloud, but if someone bought us up, and demanded we stop all cloud, we could move to something like this in a fairly short time, with limited changes. I wouldn't have to deal with Dell, plus VMWare, plus a SAN company plus a networking company, and hope they all work work together nicely.
I could get a spot in a colo, drop 2 fibers assigned to a few subnets, and be up and replicating our databases in a day or two. We have no need for GPU right now, but do need to often switch DB's to add cpu, ram, etc. Honestly, it would pay off in a year to 18 months, depending on the rumored prices, and colo costs.
Well, the monster wearing broadcom skin fucking over vmware licensees makes for a very interested market.
There's a lot of stuff that even if you put majority in the cloud, you want local deployment for security (inc. "operate when internet is out" security/reliability) and latency reasons.
For various reasons, vmware was pretty strong contender in this. Oxide racks are comparable in "sanity of mind" in deployments, and last time I was in a company that could use that the only major breaker was lack of ability to ship a raw VLAN to a VM, to enable direct replacement of existing vmware stack. But if it's not already fixed, it is not particularly hard to fix.
Proxmox is fine if your vmware deployment was quite small. Single oxide rack at max density is going to similar values as official scaling sizes for proxmox, and very much isn't limit of what we did with vsphere.
And Oxide sells a complete hardware + software solution, including virtualization and SDN - essentially it's a physical equivalent of up to 32 node virtualization cluster per rack, with builtin SDN and SD-SAN, that already has features to combine for more.
Is this about limits to what the Proxmox folks will officially provide support services for, or perhaps what can be comfortably managed in the Web UI? These are very valid concerns either way, but the Proxmox VE software itself does provide a comprehensive API and that should scale quite a bit higher.
Proxmox VE configuration database has limitations compared to even simple HA vcenter setup, from my understanding the 30 MBs of configuration data it can hold is for all or nearly all configuration information, and has issues with synchronization timing out above a certain number of nodes.
They do now have "datacenter" single pane of glass interface, but a) it's very new b) no idea how the integration between different Proxmox VE clusters compares to integration between VMware clusters.
Good use case and an example of brokenness of UX on Linux in many small and subtle ways. It frustrates me to no end that GNOME, Nautilus, etc. will truncate or hide information in many places. I don't think this has been fixed but the launcher will truncate names with ellipsis. So analyzer will appear as "anal..."
What a moronic take. You end your sentence with a ?, so it looks like you want an answer. Here is the answer: Don't watch the reaction clips. No one is forcing you to watch them.
Generally a sensible list, except I'm sure you have seen how the national list of "Certified Bad People" is used these days. A majority of people that ICE rounds up have no convictions or traffic type issues (https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...).
Yeah, I'd at least put the bad people list in some way under the control of the judiciary, but in the end you pretty much have to assume good faith when designing any system of supreme control.
I've heard this argument going back to Milton Friedman, but the immigration discourse these days is quite detached from any economic concerns. Forget impoverished people; there is rabid opposition to pretty much all immigration including, for example, investor or employment categories. It's a lot more tribal than rational.
Sure. But hypothetically, if we pretend people are rational for a few minutes here, how does the Ellis Island idea interact with a functional welfare system?
I would imagine more young, ambitious working age adults would help the welfare system, not hurt it.
If you look globally at countries which have issues with their large social services, they're almost all mostly homogeneous and declining in population, especially among the young. Which makes sense if you sit back and think about what social services are typically offered and where the money comes from.
Friedman's argument was more so to just keep them as illegals but not deport them. That way they can support the welfare system but not use it. Friedman didn't want to make them legal until the welfare system has been crushed.
Of course that might require some changes to make it actually true illegals don't use state benefits. You need to cut off WIC for illegals, public schooling for illegals for instance before they will actually not be using public benefit. Also their children become legal via jus soli.
The obvious down-side is that those citizens / legal residents who have the skill level of illegal immigrants (sad, but commonly true) will see their real wages depressed and more competition for the job.
Man I'm ashamed that I wanted to see H1B reformed and was a part of this crowd.
I want more immigration I just don't want companies able to abuse people/people be treated any different/having less rights/power than anyone else in American. I think I'm just going to be full 'open borders' now because otherwise it always ends up with trash manipulating things in racist/corporate power way.
High skill immigration still brings cultural change. My parents came here from Bangladesh, and while they superficially assimilated, they’re still culturally Bangladeshi. They, like virtually all the Bangladeshis and Indians I know, still overvalue formal education, undervalue risk taking, elevate familial over civic obligation, don’t value economic modesty, believe elites should rule over “the common people,” etc. And this was despite spending 35 years almost completely isolated from other Bangladeshis. Culture is very deep and not easily changed.
Libertarians assign culture zero substantive value, viewing people as fungible economic actors. Like many libertarian assumptions, that one isn’t grounded in empirical observation.
The cultural differences between companies in a country are superficial compared to the cultural differences between countries.
We have strong evidence that deeper cultural, everything from attitudes towards saving, government, and social trust, persists for generations after immigration: https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/2/rethinking-immig... (“The authors found that forty-six percent of home-country attitudes toward trust persist in second- and fourth-generation immigrants—in the adults whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were immigrants. People from high-trust societies, like Sørensen, transmit about half of their high-trust attitudes to their descendants, and people from low-trust societies do the same with their low-trust attitudes.”).
You can see this just by going around the country. Scandinavia has much higher social trust than Italy. The upper midwest, where Scandinavian immigration dominated, has higher social trust than NJ/NY, which saw mass immigration from southern Italy.
These deep-seated cultural variations, in turn, have a strong impact on societal prosperity: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henric... (“One of the points I want to make is a lot of the big institutions we think about, like Western law or representative government, actually flow, in part, from the way people think about the world.”).
> You can see this just by going around the country. Scandinavia has much higher social trust than Italy. The upper midwest, where Scandinavian immigration dominated, has higher social trust than NJ/NY, which saw mass immigration from southern Italy.
OK, that's interesting, I'll have to look into that book.
I can see that (as you said) the Nordic countries have much more trust than Italy, and Italy, Spain and France are similar (along with a similar language and large inter-mixtures over time).
However, look at Ireland vs the UK. Basically the same genetics, an extremely similar culture (particularly given the amount of cross migration back and forth), and yet very divergent amounts of social trust (I'm sceptical of the metric here, would like to see it very density as I suspect that drives a bunch of the results).
> Think about your own life. How important is food to your family and friends as a way of social bonding? Do you think you’d be able to change that easily?
In terms of my parents/culture, not at all. It was much, much, much more about drinking alcohol rather than food. And yet, while that part is still there, there's far more emphasis on food as a socialisation tool in my generation.
Some of that is because of drink-driving laws being enforced, but some of it is definitely a cultural change which would seem to argue against your suggestion of long-term impacts due to culture.
> The cultural differences between companies in a country are superficial compared to the cultural differences between countries.
Again, I'm not convinced this is true. Like, if a company in Ireland has majority European employees but American leadership, what culture will it have?
> You can see this just by going around the country
I think that the particular outcomes of one country, predominantly founded by Europeans, tells us very little about how culture works.
> However, look at Ireland vs the UK. Basically the same genetics, an extremely similar culture (particularly given the amount of cross migration back and forth), and yet very divergent amounts of social trust
Ireland is culturally distinct from the U.K. For example, the U.K. is historically predominantly Protestant, while Ireland is historically strongly Catholic. That manifests in many ways. For example, the Anglosphere tends to have the latest gestational limits on abortion among European and European-derived countries. By contrast, abortion was illegal altogether in Ireland until recently (2018).
There is also the fact that the Irish were brutally colonized by England and Irish society developed a strong cohesiveness from that external pressure. The Bengal Famine of 1943 killed 3 million people out of a population of about 60 million. The Irish Famine, by contrast, killed 1 million people out of a population of only about 8 million. Indeed, the Irish population peaked in 1841, a few years before the start of the Great Famine and never returned to that peak.
> I think that the particular outcomes of one country, predominantly founded by Europeans, tells us very little about how culture works.
According to official stats, 16% of Irish residents are citizens of other countries. Keep in mind that this number will exclude foreign nationals that got Irish citizenship through naturalization (and therefore became Irish citizens).
Most recent numbers from the UK list 16% of the population being "foreign-born". While this number may be similar to Ireland, it still counts someone as foreign born even if they became UK citizens by naturalization.
Also, consider that one of the most prominent migration sources for the UK is of Irish nationals (that can live and work in the UK even after brexit). Irish culture is not too dissimilar to UK culture (especially considering that Northern Ireland is currently part of the UK).
If anything, Ireland experienced more foreign culture immigration than the UK, not less.
Do they count North Ireland as 'foreign born' even though they are notionally Irish and born in Ireland (but not RoI)? Those have got to be one of the major 'immigrants' to RoI.
> The Good Friday Agreement, which was signed between the Irish and British governments in 1998, confirmed that people born in Northern Ireland could choose to be either British or Irish citizens.
> Since 1 January 2005, if you are born in Northern Ireland, you can claim Irish citizenship if your parent (or parents) are either British or Irish citizens, or one of them has lived on the island of Ireland for at least 3 out of the 4 years immediately before your birth.
Are you of Aboriginal extraction? Otherwise, I'm not sure an ethnic homeland for you would be Australia, right?
This stuff is so weird, as basically all humans migrated to wherever they are now. Like, I'm pretty sure that I have Celtic, Norman, Viking and other ancestors, despite my official ancestry being Irish (and all of my last 3-4 generations being born in Ireland).
Is it culture? That would seem to be what people are actually looking for, and I can definitely see the appeal, but culture is something that is generated from interaction with other members of a culture, and isn't dependent on genetics (consider how you or I might behave in OpenAI vs Anthropic vs Goldman Sachs).
Yes it is culture. The desire for an ethnostate is a proxy desire for a monoculture, somewhat easier to implement because it's easier to see someone is white than to see their behavior patterns. There are also studies that show most people have subconscious tension among other races even from the same culture, though.
But the outright desire for an ethnostate or a monoculture are both politically untenable in the West. Never mind that every country we idolize, e.g. Japan, Scandinavia, are essentially that.
America is not a good candidate for that for various reasons, but I see no reason that Denmark or Japan shouldn't be able to codify their ethnic makeup and adjust immigration policy accordingly. As a Korean, it is really nice to visit Korea and feel among 'my people', even though culturally I'm an American. I've heard very similar things from my white friends who move to Utah or visit Scandinavia. It's a feeling that seems to be deeply embedded in the lizard brain, to be among your tribe, identified visually and then culturally. Countries have the right to cultivate this feeling among their citizens.
Okay, but those are very recent developments to which the historical sentiment hasn't fully caught up. To the extent it has, it's via negative memetic sentiments, e.g. "Stockholm is now the rape capital of the world!" Sweden, at least, also, doesn't capture racial demographics, so we don't know the makeup of the foreign born population. Walking around Helsinki, you don't need statistics to notice the homogeny.
Didn't have time to check Norway and Denmark before, but looking now it seems most of the foreign born population is still white/European.
> figures from World Population Review suggesting around 83.2% are Norwegian, and another 8.3% are other Europeans, totaling roughly 91.5% of European descent, though exact "white" percentages vary by source and definition, with estimates often placing the broader "white" or European-origin population well above 90%.
Another source I found puts non-Danes in Denmark at 9%, putting their white/European percentage at 95%.
For approximate parity comparison, Japan is 98% Japanese, UK is 82%, and France is 71%, all falling. Imo Norway and Denmark still qualify as ethnostates, though maybe not for much longer.
Whites visiting scandinavianis a funny one, because today we treat all white people as one race but unless that man was of origin from scandinavia it's most probable its the governance system and culture he likes not a racial kinship.
> Countries have the right to cultivate this feeling among their citizens.
I disagree, because what seems to always be the logical next step is "My monoculture is superior, and deserves dominion above your monoculture, which deserves eradication. And oh by the way, if you don't like our monoculture and try to escape it, we'll invade that place too."
That's kind of what the "mono" in monoculture implies. Multiculturalism isn't an asset because it's the most stable form of soceity, rather it's best we've figured out when the alternative is bloodshed between warring tribes.
I don't see it that way. From my perspective, America would be more stable socially if it balkanized. There is a lot of tension borne of cultural heterogeneity. Coasts vs South, most of Texas vs Houston, etc. Nothing about it is positive, except maybe economically.
I guess this might lead to wars via a more cohesive national identity, like how diversity in the workplace reduces unionization efforts, but I largely doubt it would turn out so poorly.
I don't necessarily think it would. But what makes you think that a hypothetical status quo will go any better than what happened in the Roman empire? There are no great options imo.
What is the Roman Empire worse than in your mind? It lasted centuries, its literally perhaps the longest running in history. If it's the fate of the Roman Empire we have to face, then I can't wish for anything better. You can of course say it slid into dictatorship, now prove it was due to the race admixture. Anyone can read anything into the transition and fall of the Roman Empire.
Suppose a future world where all the world, every country is thoroughly mixed up by today's racial standards. There is no "white" country, no "chinese" country, no "black" country. How do you think race wars would be organized, "Lets kill all the [racist slur] bastards of this country" wait what, there's no easy country to point to, already making race war quite difficult. Or do you like having race wars?
Again, I fail to see what exactly is the "loss" or "gain" of a race existing or not? What has it ever given us? It's like religion and nationalism, very little benefits and pure destruction and waste of human life in the balance of history.
I suppose you will then say, you fear your country would become "Muslim" or insert whatever religion you hate. But Muslim is an idea it's not a race. A religion can convert a country without even a single marriage or mixup because it's an idea, so tell me again how do you feel you are safe from a foreign religion just because your "race" is different? And the nice thing is the arabs or whatever race has you wetting your bed will also have had thoroughly had to mix up with the locals by that point, already rendering them "impure". And I have you covered with a great anti-democratic solution for that: forcible state mandated atheism.
If you do believe in anti-democratic system of governance, then I propose we force every person to marry a person of a different race and forcibly make every locality thoroughly mixed up using information theoretic entropy definitions. Why not, why's mine better or worse than your idea of anti-democratic rule?
Why do you feel among all the cultures there, you know which one among them would will out. I see no point in being among my race if it's a communist or fascist country. The race has already failed me then. Hell give me aliens from mars and I'd gladly live among them if they are liberal democratic and capitalistic. To me these three principles are paramount, the identity of the agents executing them is irrelevant.
I absolutely don't feel comfort based on common ethnicity. I find comfort more or less in any democratic, capitalist liberal society and I absolutely hate life in anything not this even if it may be my race people or anyone else.
>A lot of discourse in America revolves around, "Why don't get come in legally?"
Do you honestly believe that people who say "Why don't [they] come in legally?" are complaining about a lack of administrative process? Do you really, honestly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can give you a great deal on.
"Why don't [they] come in legally?" is just conservative doublespeak for for "they don't belong here." It's begging the question and everyone knows that, even the person saying it. They know there's no legal avenue for the vast majority of "illegal immigrants."
It's a bit of both. I would wager that most Americans believe that there are reasonable pathways, either through education, work, family ties, or even asylum, to "legally" immigrate to the US. They have never dealt with the Kafkaesque nightmare that is USCIS or the State Dept.
I can 100% guarantee you that most Americans have no clue whatsoever how hard it is to "come in legally".
People from cosmopolitan well-educated world traveler tech-connected circles are common on HN, but are extreme outliers. I would agree that the overwhelming majority of those sorts are aware of it. The general public? No.
It's true that many don't want anyone (or certain anyones) to come in at all and are saying those kinds of things as a deflection or smokescreen, but plenty of others saying "they should just come in legally" don't realize what a feat they're demanding. They don't know what any immigration process anywhere looks like, in the US or elsewhere. They don't know what ours has been like in the past, either, at all (in fact I bet many think it's been trending less strict and difficult over time, which, LOL). But they're still comfortable suggesting people should simply find a legal route to come in (while, again, having no idea what that actually means).
> Why don't [they] come in legally?" is just conservative doublespeak for for "they don't belong here." It's begging the question and everyone knows that, even the person saying it.
While this question is definitely used in the way you, I’ve heard it come from the mouths of more legal immigrants than I can count.
You’re attacking a strawman. The administrative process is not the end in itself. It’s the process we use to control the number and type of immigrants. The fact that most people wouldn’t be able to get through the legal system is exactly the point! It’s like any other administrative system for controlling access to a fixed number of slots.
I don't see VAWA derived visas on there. That's probably one of the most straightforward ones. Those who can credibly claim or frame sex trafficking, or in some cases domestic violence, against a US citizen can go straight to a visa. Obviously this has severe moral hazard.
If you mainly use a browser like chrome, it should be pretty safe. The general threat model is likely not as safe/mature as Win/MacOS as far as running a bunch of untrusted apps go.
reply