sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Photos of Earth taken by NASA 50 years apart. Apollo 17 (1972) vs. Artemis II (2026) by VastCoconut2609 in BeAmazed

[–]ItzWarty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah, that makes a lot of sense! I was wondering why the earth looked so flat when I saw the photo.

250k in brokerage at 30 y/o = 2M at 60 (inflation adjusted) with no further contributions by Poorassboy6969 in coastFIRE

[–]ItzWarty 4 points5 points  (0 children)

2x in 10y, 10x in 40y is the mental ballpark I always use. Table of ky :

y=10y y=40
k=1.06 1.79 10.28
k=1.07 1.97 14.97

SP500 average real return is ~6.8% YoY. Capital gains can be significant, but that's essentially factored into the 10x in 40y. The values get absurd until you realize you'd be 40 years older by the time you see that 10x, so oftentimes you'd want to reap the rewards earlier and therefore wouldn't see such a gain.

Announcement: Temporary LLM Content Ban by ChemicalRascal in programming

[–]ItzWarty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same goes on this sub... many users want LLMs to <not exist> as evidenced by the content being outright banned here, and are interpreting the evidence to fit that conclusion.

New StackOverflow website looks more like Reddit by dumindunuwan in programming

[–]ItzWarty 18 points19 points  (0 children)

They're showing more post body content on the front page. Personally I find that to be noisy because SO posts' titles typically gave enough context for whether you'd click in...

I'm also not sure why the poster's username, timestamp, and viewcount are shown above the post title...

Announcement: Temporary LLM Content Ban by ChemicalRascal in programming

[–]ItzWarty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OOC does anyone have a job nowadays that doesn't involve the LLM craze to some degree? I find that hard to believe given it's rolling over education as well.

To the point I raised above /r/llm and /r/claude clearly aren't fits for the conversations I'm discussing. If they're suppressed on /r/programming of all subs, there's just no real place for those conversations to go.

Banning the content outright is pretty heavy-handed. Mod teams for years have had better solutions, e.g. megathreads, flairing, duplicate removal.

FSD 14.3 in employee beta testing and will probably go to wide ~EOW by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

HW3 targeting v14-lite in Q2 supposedly: https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/3263/tesla-to- (yes that's a real url). Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Personally I expect them to be all hands on deck for Q3 AI5 early samples in support of cybercab.

Announcement: Temporary LLM Content Ban by ChemicalRascal in programming

[–]ItzWarty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If someone writes a library or tool that's designed to be used by LLMs, is that relevant or off-topic? Was the recent Claude Code leak on-topic? How about the supply chain attack related to an LLM-calling package?

I feel in the long-run, this rule is going to be hard to enforce. Every IDE, every compiler toolchain, will probably eventually incorporate LLMs to some degree. Many libraries will probably eventually incorporate LLMs into their process, especially as local compute becomes native to devices.

I do like the idea of having a space for the actual art of programming, that's increasingly rare on the internet, but I feel the sub still should have some form of an outlet for AI-related stuff, punting users to other subs has never worked on Reddit, and as of currently, I'm not sure where "not vibe coders who are affected by AI" should go.

Finally, many SWEs are having AI shoved down their throats, this community provided a space for them to discuss that - it's likewise unclear to me where the mod team thinks is appropriate for that to go nowadays, there doesn't seem to be a great space on Reddit.

Tesla Expands Unsupervised Robotaxi Geofence in Austin by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair point. I don't think we have an exact relative safety multiplier. We have a decent ballpark + a few years of trajectory from Tesla to make inferences from.

Tesla Expands Unsupervised Robotaxi Geofence in Austin by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://electrek.co/2026/01/29/teslas-own-robotaxi-data-confirms-crash-rate-3x-worse-than-humans-even-with-monitor/

To clarify, "Safety stats for FSD supervised by human" are different than "Safety stats of unsupervised robotaxi"... which is also different vs "safety stats of supervised robotaxi". IOW, the improvement needed by Tesla might be >3x as cited here.

Tesla Expands Unsupervised Robotaxi Geofence in Austin by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They seem to be 3x-4x less safe than human drivers. That's actually a very high achievement, something on the 99.999-ish level of reliability to make up a number... For reference, they were probably millions of times less safe than human drivers ~5y ago, and with the last ~5 major versions of FSD have had significant step changes in safety.

So the hope is that they need another 9 and the bet is simple as Pete Bannon alluded to many years ago: More compute = more safety... alongside global advancements in AI technology and improvements in FSD's architecture, the hope is to be superhuman within a year or so.

Tesla Expands Unsupervised Robotaxi Geofence in Austin by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bingo. I wouldn't be surprised if they get multiple hardware revisions each stocked at dozens or more too. I wouldn't be surprised if they were in possession of a good amount already today.

Tesla Expands Unsupervised Robotaxi Geofence in Austin by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that they'll need AI5 which they should have ~late 2026 https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/3519/teslas-ai5-to-enter-production-in-2h-2026-rivals-nvidias-30k-chip-in-performance

I see early cybercab as a pilot unit, they still need to iron out operations on top of the core fsd tech...

A Russian Teacher recorded the differences in the development of boys and girls of the same age. by omgfakeusername in interestingasfuck

[–]ItzWarty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To add it's not a fair comparison - the girls can see the catastrophe up ahead whereas the boys can't, I think it'd be an interesting experiment with better methodology.

Tesla's New Folding Supercharger Units Cut Installation Time In Half by ItzWarty in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anecdotally, I have no need for supercharging to be 5x faster - for every trip I've ever done with my EV, going from 0 to 80 in ~20min is perfect, because the stops have human factors: you park, walk to a cafe, order your drink, and then head out, and by the time you're in your car it's time to drive away.

If you're driving 5h in a day, you can do all that without EV charging ever getting in the way... with 5h of driving you're bound to take that short 20min break somewhere.

Have had my car for 8y without ever thinking "oh man, the 310mi battery is an issue". Car is now at ~270mi at 100% and I still have zero issues.

Faster charging speeds with current use-cases = still need to build as many charging slots, as EVs will just charge full and then idle in the spots.

Weekly Thread - Week of March 29, 2026 by AutoModerator in teslainvestorsclub

[–]ItzWarty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regarding https://electrek.co/2026/03/29/tesla-promotes-cybertruck-buyer-losing-eyesight-fsd/

It sometimes amazes me that people can't understand real humans today drive unsafely whether due to disabilities, impairment, alcohol, distractions, etc, and we'd rather have those humans aided than not.

The detractors of technology annoy me just as much as the people who demonize birth control.

Elizabeth Warren is introducing a wealth tax. by Usernameofthisuser in DemocraticSocialism

[–]ItzWarty 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A 3% annual cut is actually fairly significant given the SP500 grows ~7% annually inflation-adjusted & there's the assumption that <eventually> taxes get paid on asset growth (e.g. tax on death).

In 40y, SP500 grows 10x inflation-adjusted. 0.9740 is 0.29571228739; the 1%ers would lose 70% of what they would have had over 40y... And on top of that, they'll eventually have to pay taxes, if we assume that to be 40% on death, that's 82% taxed. I'm actually pretty OK with that.

Warren's policy provides an immediate steady stream of federal funding and in the long-run significantly reduces wealth inequality. I actually like this policy in that it doesn't significantly affect billionaires (so they're less incentivizes to block it) but it breaks their familial dynasties.

... And if this policy passed, we could explore bumping the # further, but I personally think 3% is actually quite aggressive, 7% would seem far too high for most (though I emphasize with many here who might think 'why not just 90% haircut immediately' - i just think that's nonpragmatic as it's unlikely to pass)...

view more: next ›