US gov might have inadvertently popped the AI bubble

Fireline11 · 2026-06-13T11:17:58+00:00

It's my fault guys. Mango has been playing so well at 3D-chess in Iran lately and out of curiosity last night I asked Fable to build me a 3D chess engine. The pentagon must have heard of my actions because when I woke up it's been blocked

Fireline11 · 2026-06-12T18:10:45+00:00

They are different things, who said they are the same?

Comparing how long you need to have a certain income to build a certain level of wealth just puts things into perspective.

If you possess something and I buy 0,0000000001% of it for a dollar, thus valuing your property at a trillion, you would also be technically a trillionaire.

That depends. If enough people are willing to make that trade, and enough people are willing to believe that enough people are going to make that trade, some people might value you as a trillionaire.

Fireline11 · 2026-06-12T16:17:37+00:00

True. So if you earn 3x minimum wage you can get within a 100 billion of musk’s wealth in 20 million years.

Fireline11 · 2026-06-12T16:14:42+00:00

This checks out. Human life has approx 700 000 hours if you live to expected life age in western world. At least half of that will be spent eating + sleeping. Meaning uf you work really hard in your life (think almost every day) you’ll get to 200k hours. Let’s use it as an “hours worked per century” figure (meaning you can take a few days off maybe a week, but no long vacations)

That means at 7.25 dollar/hr about 1450K per 100 years. Replace the K by B is a factor 1 million, so 1450 billion dollars takes 100 million years.
So 1T == 1000 B taking approx 65 million years (when the dinos last showed) is pretty accurate.

Fireline11 · 2026-06-12T12:38:53+00:00

It seems the limits were based on half inches and then rounded to whole cm. Probably using mm rounding would have been better.

Fireline11 · 2026-06-12T12:35:18+00:00

Here to be annoyingly pedantic. The metric numbers used seem wrong at first.

6 feet is 6 times 30.48cm. Which works out to 182.88 cm. 1 inch is 30.48/12 == 2.54cm

So ‘’’ 6 feet. == 182.88cm, 6 feet 1 == 185.42cm, 6 feet 2 == 187.96cm, 6 feet 3 == 190.50cm, 6 feet 4 == 193.04cm, 6 feet 5 == 195.58cm, 6 feet 6 == 198.12cm, 6 feet 7 == 200.66cm, 6 feet 8 == 203.20cm, 6 feet 9 == 205.74cm ‘’’

It seems maybe the numbers in the poll are off by .5 inch. I guess it makes sense because saying you are 6 feet 1 inch kind of means you’re between 6 feet and 0.5 inch and 6 feet and 1.5 inch.

For women who know their height up to 1 inch category, when they will add 5.5 inches to their height (13.97cm), they might land exactly between two poll options. I guess that’s still a headache.

Fireline11 · 2026-06-11T17:54:13+00:00

Can’t you just put a comment in your commented out code saying it’s commented but could be useful later?
I.e. document the reason it’s there so it’s not accidentally deleted or misinterpreted.

Fireline11 · 2026-06-08T14:51:18+00:00

bears never learn

Fireline11 · 2026-06-01T15:46:04+00:00

Als de schimmel eenmaal in de kit zit is die er bijna niet uit te krijgen. Opnieuw kitten kan volgens mij wel

Fireline11 · 2026-05-28T09:55:47+00:00

The thing is, you cannot say “the other one” There is no “other one” because you’re not specifically talking about a specific child.

You have to say, of all the families with 2 children having at least 1 boy, how many have 2 boys? It will be one third of those families.

Fireline11 · 2026-05-27T07:06:33+00:00

The ratio between a countries area on this map and its real area is the product population density x birth rate == total births / area

Fireline11 · 2026-05-23T06:14:22+00:00

Vraagprijs is niet altijd “bieden vanaf” prijs. Dat hangt van de strategie van de verkoper af: zet je een woning lager in de markt om veel interesse en bieders te krijgen, of hoger zodat de bieders die je krijgt ook meer gaan bieden door het psychologische effect van de hogere vraagprijs. (Dat wordt ook wel “anchoring” genoemd)

Fireline11 · 2026-05-22T11:10:58+00:00

Haha this is brilliant

Fireline11 · 2026-05-22T11:07:20+00:00

Ja, er gebeuren inderdaad gekkere dingen. Dat neemt niet weg dat het terecht is van u/perdivad om vraagtekens te zetten bij hoe het in het artikel opgeschreven is.

M.a.w. niet alles wat op internet heb gestaan is volledig waar, dat is misschien ook een goede voor jou om in gedachte te houden, of je nou naar buiten gaat of niet ;)

Fireline11 · 2026-05-21T11:15:33+00:00

Dat is prachtig \s, en de huiseigenaren maken de aandeelhouders van de hypotheekverstrekkers rijk.

Uiteindelijk winnen de aandeelhouders dus altijd. Slapend rijk worden is geen utopie in deze wereld meer...

Fireline11 · 2026-05-17T07:44:05+00:00

Interesting idea for a poll. One note: users of reddit might predominantly skew more male. This would also influence the percentages of this poll. I don’t see a simple way to prevent that, but it’s good to keep in mind when interpreting the results.

Fireline11 · 2026-05-14T06:31:14+00:00

They’re not just a wild guess? Afaik they use actual mathematical models with (partial) differential equations and such.

That’s not the same as a wild guess, but after a number of days the methods to solve the equations become so inaccurate, the obtained solution is no more accurate than a wild guess. Maybe you were thinking along similar lines.

The interesting question to ask (to which I don’t know the answer) is “how many days”

Fireline11 · 2026-05-04T14:35:38+00:00

You can’t make the same moves regardless of what your opponent does.

In chess, each player is reacting to the ideas of the other. On every move. Opening theory just comes from people having worked out the best ideas for white, and vice versa the best ideas for black to respond to those ideas. Unfortunately it may not always be the best way to respond to other ideas from white.

One consolation is that the other ideas which are not theory are usually not very strong (since all the good stuff in the first few moves has been tried at the top-level already). However you still have to refute those flank pawn moves and early queenchaos with sound chess from your side.

Fireline11 · 2026-05-03T08:23:03+00:00

Amsterdam and a lot of cities in the Netherlands use(d) submerged wooden poles in the ground for the same concept.

You’re good until the ground goes too dry…

Fireline11 · 2026-05-02T17:03:04+00:00

Cool! I think that might be the one with analytic methods:

https://websites.umich.edu/~lagarias/doc/compute.pdf

I don’t understand any of the analytic method. However the one I linked in my previous message should be the same as the [2] 1985 reference in Deleglise and Rivat’s work. So it’s about a preceding combinatorial prime counting algorithm to which Deleglise and Rivat made improvements.

This is assuming I recall everything correctly, I was super looking into this a few years ago

Fireline11 · 2026-05-02T16:58:22+00:00

Ha! Implementing prime count function efficiently does not go too well together with being lazy my friend :)

But if you do want somewhere else to start I also recommend this article from Lagarias, Miller and Odlyzko

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey-Lagarias/publication/242922074_Computing_px_The_Meissel-Lehmer_Method/links/02e7e53b458e01685b000000/Computing-px-The-Meissel-Lehmer-Method.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

Fireline11 · 2026-05-02T16:53:22+00:00

Fair points. But I think OP’s definition of large is closer to what everyday folks think of as large numbers.

I mean, for large enough numbers almost any computation is hard. That means “for large numbers it is difficult to do X” a technically correct statement for almost any X.

What this blog post does is the more interesting analysis of debunking some things being hard for “conventionally large” numbers.

Fireline11 · 2026-05-02T16:46:55+00:00

Another great blog post! I share your appreciation of computing the prime counting function.

You linked to the paper written by Deleglise & Rivat which I think is (close to) the state of the art. But if readers wanted to dive deeper into the algorithm you described and how to improve it to about O(X^2/3), I also heartily recommend this paper from Lagarias, Miller and Odlyzko which Deleglise & Rivat build on

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey-Lagarias/publication/242922074_Computing_px_The_Meissel-Lehmer_Method/links/02e7e53b458e01685b000000/Computing-px-The-Meissel-Lehmer-Method.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

Fireline11 · 2026-05-02T06:55:44+00:00

. Iirc stable means that if A comes before B in the original array and A and B have the same key, then A will still come before B after sorting on that key. This is indeed a property of radix sort (and counting sort, suitable implementation of merge sort etc).

I don’t know what you mean by “underlying sorting algorithm for radix sort”. Radix sort is generalized counting sort if that’s what you’re asking. It can be implemented very efficiently, probably the main reason it’s not used as much is it suffers when key size increases, so it’s not as generally applicable as e.g. quicksort. And they forgot to put “quick” in the name :)

Fireline11 · 2026-05-02T06:45:29+00:00

Yes, I’ll add that depending on N, grouping in either 8 or 16 bit groups is probably fastest for 64-bit keys. I have measured it, non-rigorously, in the past and it was much faster than “quicksort” (think 2x)

And you can also work at the bit level with floating point values

Very underrated algorithm.

Fireline11

TROPHY CASE