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

Perhaps worried about downloads being used for training music models

Can’t have competitors when they inevitably move in that direction themselves.

Well then you just have a very overpriced, extremely low power linux box that doesn't do what you want it to do


Helium likewise


And brave!


Screw Brave and their crypto bullshit.


Its opt-in unlike most of firefox data selling like Google search.


I spend a lot more time using AI for work than I do eating chocolate


Are you talking about Antigravity, Firebase Studio, or something else?



The state of things...meaning AI companies buying up the world's supply of RAM


Yes.

AI companies will continue to buy up all the RAM so you and I have to pay the cost for it.

They will also eat up all the energy so you and I have to pay more for energy.

They will also then try and put you and I out of a job.

And if they fail to do so, they will then get your and my tax dollars to bail them out.

There should be real AI research and technology development, but the way it’s being done right now is heads the AI hyperscalers win, tails, all of us lose.

It’s being run as a massive scam against the rest of us.


We need to figure out how AI can use housing and food to complete resource exhaustion. You forgot to include AI water consumption.


It’s all very Orwellian. Consolidation of resources and the eventual result of total control over those.


It's like cancer eating at the body.


Lets be honest: Most peoples computing needs have been satisfied in the last decade.

FOMO and Number goes up is the primary issue both with AI and most compute today.

There's so many made up numbers these days that does zero productive work, like FPS, refresh rates, 4k, 8k, 16k.

Bloat is everywhere.


When the battery in my current laptop dies and I need to get a new one, none of that matters.


I think maybe long-term the effect of Korean companies no longer daring to reuse old machines to produce DDR4 because of US retribution is the bigger cause of that.


Repeating this weird claim won't make it true. DDR4 isn't going to come back into fashion, even during a DRAM shortage. Demand for DDR4 can't increase meaningfully when no current-generation processors can use it, and older-generation processors aren't seeing any increase in production or sales. DDR4 is not a substitute good for the RAM that's in short supply.


He's kinda right even though he's kinda wrong.

He's confused about the retribution thing. Korean manufacturers aren't afraid of US to restart DDR4 manufacturing. They don't want to restart it anyway. But I'm pretty sure I've recently read it somewhere credible that they'd normally sell their old machinery but now they can't because they're afraid China would be the eventual buyer (via proxies) and they'd be inadvertently in violation of US sanctions , so instead of selling they just locked down the old machinery to gather dust instead.

And about DDR4 not being relevant, even though DDR4 manufacturing stopped earlier this year and DDR4 prices have been slowly but steadily increasing long before this crisis, after the crisis DDR4 prices have also tripled just like DDR5 prices, even in the used market. So regardless of whether it's a real demand or panic response, the effect is still real on people wanting to upgrade their DDR4 systems. These people who probably just wants to update RAM in their systems in the hope that it'd help them delay their switch to DDR5 systems for a few years while bracing the impact. Had Chinese manufacturers continued to manufacture DDR4 at least this wouldn't be that bad for the existing system upgrades of DDR4 systems.


That said, I wonder if anyone is thinking about bringing back the RAM disk. I have 64GB of DDR4 just sitting here and would love to page to that instead of my SSDs.


> meaningfully when no current-generation processors can use it

... You don't seriously believe no one is using DDR4 today, right? Sure, they may no be developing new chipsets or whatever, but large swaths of the PC population will still be on DDR4 for the foreseeable future, especially now with these prices.


That was true at the beginning of congestion pricing and perhaps over the summer, but it is definitely not true anymore


Are there numbers to back this up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York... says "By July 2025, there were 67,000 fewer daily vehicles in the congestion zone compared to before implementation. The same month, one study found that travel times within the congestion zone had decreased, and that delivery companies were opting to use smaller vehicles (which were charged lower tolls) in the toll zone".


Your comment aligns with what I said. "Over the summer"


I'm asking if you have post-summer data you're referencing, as I'm struggling to find some.


The problem is that no one in NYC, rich or poor, has any confidence in the MTA's ability to properly and efficiently use these funds. This stems from a long history of incompetence and wastefulness by the MTA


> no one in NYC, rich or poor, has any confidence in the MTA's ability to properly and efficiently use these funds

They're already using them, and the results show. They could have done it cheaper. But the LIRR is operating at Swiss rail efficiecies since the recent electrification and signalling improvements.


What electrification and signal improvements are you talking about? Signal upgrades are a constant thing in the MTA, both for the LIRR and the subways. They are not something that just started with congestion pricing funds.

Also, efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds[1].

[1] https://www.mta.info/press-release/icymi-governor-hochul-cel...


Congestion pricing was agreed to in 2019.

Expected revenue was used to budget quite a few projects; this caused a bit of a scare when Hochul put it on hold for a while. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/nyregion/congestion-prici...


The loans backed by congestion pricing revenue weren't taken out until this year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-07/ny-mta-ge...

That money you're talking about was money that was already spent to implement congestion pricing


One specific loan was taken out this year. (And planning tends to preceed the actual loans.)


Planning is not the same as spending


It’s not shovel-ready spending. But it’s absolutely part of the process, and not one you can skip in a democracy.


That article was about expenses related to implementing congestion pricing, so I'm not sure what your argument is here


> They are not something that just started with congestion pricing funds

Correct. But they’re being expanded. Early signs are there. And we have precedent to show that funding this work, and funding it sooner, works.

> efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds

Correct. Congestion funds accelerate that process.

I spoke an inarticulately, but the point was trying to make is that we have precedence for quality and efficiency improving capital spending by the MTA. The bonds the MTA issued earlier this year double down on that. The early signs of that spending show those capital deployments are helping in the way the preceding spending did.


Sounds like a great area to advocate for improvement.


Not necessarily. I use my brake far more in stop and start traffic on the highway than I do in Manhattan.

In the city stop and start is primarily determined by traffic lights, which are predictable, rather than the traffic itself.


> I use my brake far more in stop and start traffic on the highway

Is that because of gridlock or because of the higher energies?

> In the city stop and start is primarily determined by traffic lights

Source? In my experience it's unexpected incursions, whether that be cars changing lanes, pedestrians stepping off the sidewalk or food-delivery bikers yeeting themselves into an intersection.


You don't get any reasoning with Copilot


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

Search: