boulos

No, the main barrier is concern over warranties for the vehicles.

In California, the law requires that vehicles still hold up to 70% of their original charge after 8 years and 75% in the future [1]:

> and d., to deteriorate to less than 70% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2026 through 2030 model years, and 75% for a warranty period of eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs, for 2031 and subsequent model years.

The law is unclear on bidirectional charging and whether this would give manufacturers an out. So they're cautious.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/13-CCR-19...

The point wouldn't be just for backup during outages. It would be growing your kWh of storage and doing daily TOU optimization. That increases the charge / discharge profile by a lot.

Though for an 80 kWh or larger battery, you're only likely to store up and discharge 10-ish per day maybe this way? (Assuming you have actual dedicated BESS, and this is supplementing that). Still that's ~30 cycles per year, which is nothing in the grand scheme of a vehicle battery.

You can't do just V2H, but Enphase and others have moved to simpler meter collars and grid disconnect for exactly this reason.

The main question for this thread remains who the Enphase / ISO standards friendly OEMs will be. With Tesla saying they'll allow it now, maybe others will get onboard, but the risk is that they wall themselves off.

Yes. Google is famously selling TPUs on prem to big customers (e.g., Anthropic) and Crux AI is now a venture to do just that.

Only in marketing name. They're not related otherwise.

Having a non-trivial cost advantage is part of business-model math.

I think you misread the post. He's saying that his ignorance was great, and maybe we should go back towards that.

I don't think Tumblr was particularly influential on the neighbors aspect. It never reached that kind of broad base. Twitter did though. Unless you just mean social media broadly?

Like you, I dislike the "talker" role for people on IC ladders. I often encourage those people to switch to Director+ roles.

The flip side is people who get and stay too far into the weeds. Solving little problems here and there is a great way to keep your finger on the pulse of what's actually going on.

But if you get totally bogged down in details, you are probably avoiding your leadership responsibilities. You should be observing the structural or strategic opportunities, and then dragging the org(s) in that direction.

Sometimes you do that by writing some code to prove a point, other times you do it by getting the nearest VP to take something on as a commitment. For me, personally, I find that the style of work waxes and wanes. Sometimes I get almost no code committed in a month :(. Other times, I get to go off and do some work that nobody else would have done.

I prefer the latter, but I respect that my job requires the former. Many of the people who you see spending all their time talking believe that's the most responsible use of their time. They might not personally prefer it!

This is one of the meandering arguments in the post. The whole executive team, in fact. But it doesn't compare how much other executives are making, etc.

I feel there's something in this article, but the meandering really ruins it. Either way, it's obvious that no earnings call would explain the metrics or decisions behind a layoff. But at 7% this is well within "Eh, we want to try a performance layoff and hope we get a better 7% of new hires".

It is too bad that people aren't more direct about this. But if folks remember Meta/FB's attempt at saying they did performance-based cuts, people ripped into them for labeling all the fired personnel as un-hireable. Earnings calls are heavy lawyered and regulated, so there's no reason to say anything.

As aek and dahart said, updating a BVH (refitting) is not expensive. If anything, it's bandwidth limited.

The challenge is minimizing the cost of (selectively) rebuilding.

I get that he's maybe a bit into LLMs, but your take is pretty unfair. He's said repeatedly that as a non-native English speaker, his writing will come across a bit strangely.

If he'd said: "We all need to learn to be like Linus", would that have changed your take?

It's clear he's very respectful not only of Linus, but of all the people involved as well. He's instead using Linus's transition from full-time writing software to full-time "leading" as the point of his write up. Don't get hung up on the verbiage.

0 x inf is also NaN. It's not just division.

But it's not clear that using Sonnet or any other LLM as a "grader" would result in the same improvement. For objective grading, you could be sure that the additional adaptive support is helping. For subjective things like writing style, literature, poetry, you end up with whatever Sonnet thinks is good (and randomly so).

It still could be better for students, but it's not obvious that it would be (or maybe not as strongly?).

Do you have a larger study planned for the Fall? It definitely seems promising.

I'm curious how well you feel this worked because the subject was Statistics (objective grading) versus something more subjective like Civics or Literature.

PS - I'd say this qualifies for Show HN, too!

Do you

And it made a classic optimization: removing New Zealand :).

This is nice work, but I found the bug finding example to be weird:

> One such bug was in the sign function for zigzag decoding of the datrs/varinteger library. On input Std.U64.MAX, the expression (value + 1) overflowed, causing crashes in debug mode and silent corruption in release mode—an edge case that testing and fuzzing would typically miss.

In what way would this boundary condition case be considered something that "testing [...] would typically miss"? It's certainly something that bad tests would miss or not think about, but I find that (a) careful people and (b) ML coding systems are actually really good at "oh, I should test the extreme values". Especially for things that parse user input.

I'm curious if they found other bugs that were more interesting, but found them too hard to explain quickly.

I appreciate the focus on amusement in:

> Some of the newly added features may come as a surprise to those of you who keep a close track of ZLUDA development. Most of them were previously explicitly outside ZLUDA's roadmap. There has been a change of plans. ZLUDA development is no longer commercially funded, so it's back to being my weekend project. This means that the priority is no longer what makes commercial sense, but what I find the most entertaining. That's why the sudden addition of textures, PhysX and better Windows support.

Outside of the time commitment that full-time support would offer, I generally think focusing on amusement is a good life strategy.

Yep. Google does this in Finland for the Hamina datacenter: https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/around-the-gl...

529 and not 429?

Technically, we did RTSL before Ingo and then Matt did their stuff at Intel. LLVM wasn't particularly usable in 2007, but Austin and I did try it (this isn't in the paper!). A few years later, I did an actual LLVM JIT for OSL, but we didn't have enough coherence for vectorized shading at the time at Sony.

But none of it was surprising. The original RenderMan shading language was "vectorized" and it even used SIMD instructions on modern processors to run the "interpreter loops". That is, a single "color add" in RSL might have looked like:

  for (int i=0; i < grid_points; i++) {
    out_color[i] += foo;
  }

and the inner part there could use vector instructions. That just isn't nearly enough to get useful wins.

The point of ISPC et al. was to give people CUDA-like easy mode for "trust me, just vectorize the whole thing and deal with the masking for me". It goes beyond a hardcoded shading language (easier target!) though didn't reach as far as CUDA with complex structs / C++ capabilities.

Because it's complex?

Perhaps you missed work like https://crfm.stanford.edu/2025/05/28/fast-kernels.html ?

That's not the "edge" in the title. It means competitive advantage in this case.

How do you like the brikka vs the classic?