There’s definitely some of that. Relatively in most places in the US, it’s safer now than it has been since the 60s.
But the relative comparison works over distance as well as time. For example in the city center 25
minutes from me the violent crime rate is about 1,000 per 100k people. In my suburb, it’s 80. The difference in property crime is even worse.
Edit: 80/100k is also an overestimate because they included simple assault, and the violent crime stats I was looking at for the city center only included aggravated assault. Also if you look at murders, we haven’t had one since the late 80s.
So apples to apples it’s essentially 0 compared to 1000/100,000
If that was the case, you wouldn’t expect property crime like motor vehicle theft to follow a similar trend, but it does. A very large chunk of the crime is gang related, and there is no gang violence in the suburb I live in.
Bars are also disbursed all over not just in the city center. We have bars here, and they produce essentially zero crime.
But even if all of the crime was alcohol related, all of the crime isn’t occurring inside bars.
I don't think you have an accurate and full understanding of the issues plaguing some areas of American city centers. I can't even recall the last time I saw a person who was drunk in public causing a serious issue after leaving a downtown bar. It just doesn't happen. Besides, you don't need to go to the city center to get drunk, we sell full proof booze in the supermarkets here.
People go to the city center to buy their fentanyl and their P-2P supermeth, shoot up, and zombify the city streets. I see that on a daily basis. If you are not familiar with this phenomenon, go to YouTube and search for Kensington, Philadelphia. Most American cities have similar areas, For example Pike/Pine in Seattle, Tenderloin in SFO, and Skid Row in LA, but the scope of the situation is of a different magnitude in Philly.
The real problem with these conversations is that code quality isn’t something we have any kind of consensus on.
To a lot of engineers code quality means upper-case C Clean Code. Other engineers are in the Grug brain camp where they think that premature abstraction is the worst kind of code.
But to your point I think the majority of engineers think they high quality code is anything that compiles or passes their (almost definitely insufficient) test suite.
Yeah, it’s not even consistent with their own incident history. I spot checked it and consistently found incidents with downtime/elevated error rates in months listed as 100.00000% uptime on that chart.
The unofficial and offical charts are both lying. The GitHub one ignores actual outages and the unofficial ones count minor display bugs in minor features as a “github outage”.
Just vibes wise, before Microsoft acquired GitHub, they added almost no features on a regular basis. These days they are adding tons of stuff every month.
When I dug in to the latest outages, they were almost all in small newer, features like all the AI stuff. The actual core GitHub platform seems much more stable than the unofficial uptime trackers propose.
I’m not sure about how stable it seems. I’ve been running into to slow or not working at all GitHub issues constantly over the last few months.
There’s also this blurb from a story on HN the other day that supports what I’m seeing.
“ I've felt this way for a long time, but for the past month I've kept a journal where I put an "X" next to every date where a GitHub outage has negatively impacted my ability to work2. Almost every day has an X. On the day I am writing this post, I've been unable to do any PR review for ~2 hours because there is a GitHub Actions outage3. This is no longer a place for serious work if it just blocks you out for hours per day, every day.”
Louisiana isn’t poor by almost any objective measure. They’re in the bottom half of US states by GDP per capita (not in the bottom 10), but they’d be in the top 20 countries in the world by GDP per capita if they were a country.
> Income inequality isn’t the same things as government resources available per person.
Correct. You clearly understand that your citing of averages papers over the poverty rate and conflates the gains of the rich with the plight of the poor.
Louisiana is literally ranked the #1 poorest state in the nation today counting the percent of people who don’t have enough to pay rent or eat properly.
“Government resources available per person” is cold comfort to the over one in four children in Louisiana who are living in poverty. How are those government resources actually being used, and if it ranks so well, why isn’t that reflected in LA’s health and education? “Government resources available per person” includes tax credits for oil and gas…
You’re arguing with a different person than you think you are.
I’m arguing about available resources, not willingness to use them.
If you want to define poor purely by percentage of people who are living below the poverty line instead of median income, average income, gdp per capita or tax revenue, go ahead. But in the context of whether the government has the resources to do something, that’s not a good metric.
And beyond this scope if you look at average or median personal income, the average or median person in Louisiana is not poor, which is the metric I would use if I was going to call a group of people poor.
Okay I see your point; the state has money, even if a significant portion of the population doesn’t. That in itself is a problem. I was arguing, and many others here are arguing that the population of LA is poor, and you’re arguing that the state isn’t poor, and has options (whether or not it uses them). Both points are true - the state has resources, and the population has the greatest poverty in the US. Poverty rate is a valid objective metric of whether a state is “poor”, but it refers to the population and not the state budget, which is also a valid objective metric of whether a state is “poor” or not.
> if you look at average or median personal income, the average or median person in Louisiana is not poor
This is one to be more careful with. Neither the average nor the median inherently tell you anything about the state’s poverty rate, and having a poverty rate that’s the highest in the US and almost twice the national average absolutely supports the viewpoint that LA is relatively poor. When it comes to median household income specifically, the LA Budget Project says “These numbers obscure stark racial disparities” and points out that the median Black income is around half that of White non-Hispanic household income. (Page 9 - https://www.labudget.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/LBP-Cens...)
It might seem like the median $60k household income isn’t poor, but 50% of households are below “ALICE” levels and having to compromise on basic necessities. This doesn’t support your claim that the median resident of LA is not poor. https://www.unitedforalice.org/introducing-ALICE/louisiana
That metric makes Louisiana look relatively better because cost of living is low. For example, 48% of households in New York are below ALICE levels.
It highlights one problem with using percent of people below the federal poverty level as your metric. Median income doesn’t tell the whole story, but neither does percent below the poverty level. $33k goes a lot further in Louisiana than it does in New York.
> Median income doesn’t tell the whole story, but neither does percent below the poverty level.
You’re equivocating. Poverty rate is a much better metric for measuring poverty than median income is.
Louisiana has a higher poverty rate, and a higher child poverty rate, than New York State. New York’s ALICE level seems comparable because New York’s cost of living is so much higher, but it’s actually true that around half the people in New York (and Louisiana, and make other states) are struggling to afford all their basic necessities. Poverty rate isn’t ALICE, poverty rate is high probability of compromising on nutrition.
Come on, be honest, are you willing to live on $16k/year in Louisiana? (Or any state??) I wouldn’t want to, and I bet you don’t either. Are you really going to argue that’s not poor?
> ALICE level seems comparable because New York’s cost of living is so much higher
That’s my point. You’re the one who brought up ALICE as a metric to show how someone making the median income is still poor.
If it applies to Louisiana, it applies to New York as well.
> Louisiana has a higher poverty rate, and a higher child poverty rate, than New York State.
If you adjust for cost of living, New York and Louisiana have the same poverty rate.
> Come on, be honest, are you willing to live on $16k/year in Louisiana? (Or any state??) I wouldn’t want to, and I bet you don’t either. Are you really going to argue that’s not poor?
No but I’d rather live on $16k in Louisiana than New York. I’m not making a value judgement on what constitutes poor or not, I’m saying that if $16k is poor in Louisiana, then $22k is poor in NY.
Incidentally for big chunks of my childhood my family was below the poverty level in the Deep South, and so were many of my friends.
It’s looks poor because there are some very poor people living there because they are the descendants of slaves and share croppers who are still suffering as a result of that.
However if you have look at average incomes and state revenue which represents the resources available, which was the what I was responding to.
Whether they chose to use those resources is a different question.
Also even looking at something like average or median personal income, Louisiana ranks in or near the top 20 counties in the world.
What you’re seeing is that America has a terrible safety net so the floor is much lower than most of Europe.
From the panhandle of Florida all the way through Port Arthur in Texas that area is one of the poorest places in the United States. It’s not even close.
And anyone that could get out they left a long time ago very happy my parents decided to leave that part of the world, the best thing that could’ve happened to the south is that everything from Virginia to South Carolina is gentrifying.
The sad part is that a large part of the population don’t realize that the conservative upper end of the population is selling out the conservative lower end.
Louisiana isn’t poor by almost any objective measure.
Uh, by the objective measure of my own two eyes? You can trot out all the fancy numbers you want, I’m not blind. The resource extraction that goes on in Louisiana does not necessarily trickle down to its residents nor even stays in the state.
GDP per capita is meaningless in the US bro. It's literally a cooked number that holds up big capitalists making money "in the state" from extraction of natural resources, but that money isn't staying in LA.
Drive through LA and those places you mentioned and you'll see it.
Louisiana only pumps about 3-4% of the total crude oil that the US produces.
The money in Louisiana is primarily in refining oil pumped elsewhere. There are definitely externalities that big oil unloads on the people of Louisiana, but the refineries inject a lot of money into the community.
Feels more than a bit cherrypicked. There is also not much daylight (less than $1000) between them, and, once again, dead last.
They're also, once again, dead last in economic oppurtunity.
Frankly, I call bullshit on your interpretation. Have you ever set foot in Louisiana? I've lived in the deep south my entire life.
The entire south, outside of a few cities is generally pretty poor, but Louisiana/Arkansas/Mississippi is just a different level. That's what happens when you elect a bunch of MAGA morons.
PS: The local governments are doing everything possible to NOT help their citizens.
My wife is from Baton Rouge, her whole family still lives there and in New Orleans, and I’ve been there a couple weeks out of every year we’ve been married. I’m also from the Deep South and I’ve traveled extensively through the US.
Most of the rural south is indistinguishable from rural Pennsylvania or most other rural part of the US. The main difference in the Mississippi Delta region is that the population is mostly Black descendants of former slaves who are still suffering the after effects of slavery and subsequent generations of sharecropping.
But the state still has plenty of resources compared to just about anywhere else in the world.
>less than $1000
$1000 is 20% of the entire per capita amount. Louisiana is only $1000 behind Colorado and Rhode Island.
14 of the 20 poorest counties in the country are in Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi, and other than one in South Dakota, none of the 30 poorest are outside the South. Only 4 of the top 50 are from outside the South.
>Most of the rural south is indistinguishable from rural Pennsylvania or most other rural part of the US. The main difference in the Mississippi Delta region is that the population is mostly Black descendants of former slaves who are still suffering the after effects of slavery and subsequent generations of sharecropping.
Obviously not, but the current administrations method for getting out of a hole is to yell at the workers to dig faster while passing another tax cut for the big corps and billionaires.
Louisiana isn’t poor by almost any objective measure. They’re in the bottom half of US states by GDP per capita (not in the bottom 10), but they’d be in the top 20 countries in the world by GDP per capita if they were a country.
Huh? Your link shows them between Chile and Portugal.
Whether you believe in immigration reform or that we need tariffs to protect domestic industries or not, Trump executed both in the absolute worst way possible. And destroying USAID, threatening to take Greenland by force, constantly threatening to pull out of NATO, abducting the leader of another country, and invading Iran with almost no preparation or planning were not things Bernie would have done.
Just specific to tariffs, if you are a US company that wants to setup domestic manufacturing you have no idea what the situation will be next week much less several years from now. The chaos isn’t good for anyone but Trump. The rule of law is as much about stability as it is freedom.
> You have no idea whether those companies are making a profit.
I doubt the various providers on OpenRouter are benevolently operating at a loss because they’re so generous.
You can also calculate the cost to run these models yourself. They are open weight and the hardware required to run them is not a secret. They can be modeled and many have done the business modeling.
I’m always surprised at how many Hacker News commenters are unaware that a lot of financial modeling and analysis has been done on these companies and models. It’s naive to think the the hottest topic in tech has not already been dissected and analyzed by the finance industry at every level.
Selling a brands new project at a loss to gain market share or to compete with other companies doing it because you hope you can outlast them isn’t being benevolent or generous.
If you want to link to a specific cost analysis that was performed by someone without a vested interest in generating hype then do it and we’ll discuss that.
Because what you wrote sounds an awful lot like “let me tell you a lot of very smart people are saying it.”
GPU depreciation cycles are slowing down a lot. A big chunk of frontier model inference is still being run on Hopper-era GPUs because anything more recent is heavily bottlenecked and it makes more sense to use the newer stuff for training,
It’s a brand new market that they want to claim a share of. I doubt they would be making much money of selling deepseek inference right now even if it were profitable, so why not throw sum subsidies at it for a little while in the hope that you are one of the big names left standing once everyone runs out of money.
I don’t know enough to be certain either way. But I will say that I know that Amazon has operated certain product segments at a loss before. Whether that’s with direct price subsidies or credits is irrelevant in the face of a new product with hype unlike anything I’ve ever seen in over 20 years in the industry. It’s highly plausible in the face of this absolute mania and FOMO that Amazon is operating open source inference at a loss to gain market share. They might think that inference prices will drop in the future.
They might be panicking because they don’t have good models of their own. Or they might just be price matching other open source inference providers. They have cut prices to keep up with competition many times over the years.
Whether they are doing it or not, you don’t know they aren’t, and it’s plausible that they are. So the claim that starts with “we know that people are making a profit selling open source inference at X price therefore Y” is unfounded.
I find that adversarial multi agent setups eventually fall down because one side or the other always manages to convince the other side to give up given enough time.
I’ve tried all sorts of things to keep Claude from cheating, but the only one that works is to restrict access to the tests files, which obviously isn’t a real solution.
We recently had an “AI week” at work and I spent $1000 in tokens trying out different iterations of this.
My setup always has an adversarial loop, when speccing, when planning, when building. It never finds everything though, even obvious things. So I have copilot check at the end and it finds things. But for whatever reason, maybe magic prompting, I don’t know, but I have a Claude routine that checks all commits of the last 24 hours and it has fresh PRs every morning. Legit ones too.
Amd it isn't only geopolitical threats we have to worry about. The world's hard disk supply disappeared with a tsunami in Thailand. Taiwan is vulnerable to those and earthquakes. Efficiency and robustness are at odds and we are leaning too far towards efficiency. Even if China hadn't been so large it could absorb the costs of capturing the world's entire manufacturing base with subsidies, centralizing that much has risks completely apart from politics.
No one cares about flooded engines that Google has to pay for. They care about a taxi that might kill them.
You have to compare this to the number of taxi and Uber drivers who will drive into moving water with passengers on board while a passenger is telling them to stop.
If you live in a city like Atlanta that gets significantly more rainfall that Seattle but concentrated into fewer rainy days, you’ll see flooded roadways multiple times per year.
But the relative comparison works over distance as well as time. For example in the city center 25 minutes from me the violent crime rate is about 1,000 per 100k people. In my suburb, it’s 80. The difference in property crime is even worse.
Edit: 80/100k is also an overestimate because they included simple assault, and the violent crime stats I was looking at for the city center only included aggravated assault. Also if you look at murders, we haven’t had one since the late 80s.
So apples to apples it’s essentially 0 compared to 1000/100,000
reply