they are saying that LA takes water from sources which would otherwise drain into the sacramento and san joaquin river delta. The video from this post mentions the California State Water Project which takes water from the Feather River (Oroville Dam) and distributes it along the Western edge of the central valley South to Bakersfield where it is then pumped over the mountains both towards Los Angeles and further East to San Bernardino and Riverside. It provides way more water to SoCal than the two Los Angeles-specific aqueducts from the Owens Valley on the Eastern side of the Sierras.
The CWP is designed for robustness, on top of delivery. Those aqueducts you're pointing to that feed into the municipal portion of the Inland Empire are frequently empty because the IE has it's own (mostly) self-sufficient water store (the San Bernardino Mountains). They exist in case there is a point in which those regions need water fed in. You can literally just drive down to them at pretty much any time through the year and see that they're dry.
Additionally, if you're focused on the 6% (out of 11% total) water allocation that goes towards supporting the infrastructure of 22million people over the 50% that goes into non-optimal agriculture (almonds, for instance) in-between the two...then you're missing the forest for the trees, my friend.
I don't know if switching from a extreme partisan site to another extreme partisan site is the right solution just because of the need of login credentials. In any case, Twitter/X has been online almost 20 years. Bluesky still has to prove its staying power long term.
The justification of better UX seems reasonable regardless of politics. I'd prefer not to have to log in on any HN link, and I also can't say I want to optimize for link health as this is super topical and I will never want to look at it again after this discussion is over.
1. You start off by labelling both platforms as "extreme partisan" - care to explain?
2. This charge is used to minimize the original complaint (login requirement), which is a hard blocker to view replies, i.e. additional context.
3. This all then somehow morphs into a point about platform longevity?
How exactly does any of this address parent commenter's statement that "bsky is just a superior viewing experience."?
I appreciate that you can so readily admit that - definitely not something commonly seen.
Could you say a bit more about what's behind your dislike of Bluesky? I'm curious as I don't know much about it, other than it's possibly become a home of the more liberal/left-leaning base that found themselves disguested by Twitter/X once Musk took over (fairly so IMO, given how that's led to things like Grok AI's sexualized photo).
Basically what you said. I find it to be a liberal echo chamber as intolerable as any conservative echo chamber. I actually prefer Twitter because in my experience there's a lot of neutral content and you can pretty much evade all political commentary if you take care of who you follow. For example, I follow almost exclusively accounts that talk about art history, archaeology, and cinematography... and it's really hard to find dedicated accounts about most topics on BlueSky. It's too small.
Basically, over there users tend to be in a position of "we're against $topic" while on Twitter you can still find millions of users with the position of "we just really like $topic". At least that has been my experience so far.
Sounds like you've managed to find a configuration on Twitter that works well for you. I've recently seen some people anecdotally say the same about Facebook, which I find surprising in 2026.
I think its worh bearing in mind that Twitter was born in a period of creation and tech-optimism, when the world thought a "digital town square" could accommodate all voices. This is obviously no longer the case. Maybe in thr future it will change, who knows.
Is this relevant to the question of whether we should replace the link? Seems like we're going to spend a lot of time running down the views of the UBO of every domain posted here.
We need to tax personal vehicals by the ton. And I mean like, punitively. Pickup trucks should cost $500K if they're not registered to licensed business.
> how can we be sure that it's the same cell from the charge performance test?
I would imagine they will run the same tests again. Light testing for specific things during development or scaling, increased testing as you feel more confident in the product.
I think you are confusing cost inflation with an increase in the money supply. The way the US government funds deficit spending is not by increasing money supply (though it could) but by issuing debt in the form of US Treasury bonds. That is a transfer of money from bond investors to the government. No new money is made. This is distinct from the way that banks issue loans which is by creating new money in the form of credit (but that credit money gets "burned" as loan principal is paid back). So federal taxes do not actually control inflation in the way you are describing. Since federal deficit spending is not financed by increasing the money supply, it can only cause price inflation if it increases aggregate demand over the current productive capacity of the economy. An example would be paying more for healthcare subsidies when there's a shortage of doctors. Or subsidizing demand for housing with more mortgage subsidies when there's a housing shortage. Taxes could also increase inflation if they have the effect of reducing supply of some goods or services (like tariffs do).
Edit: I want to mention that the Federal Reserve can and does increase money supply by buying US Treasury Bonds from banks (converting the asset into cash reserves). There are various reasons why they do this but overall it's done with their dual mandate in mind: control inflation and minimize unemployment.
> That is a transfer of money from bond investors to the government. No new money is made.
All forms of debt are money creation. All loans are money creation. Fractional reserve banking is money creation. It doesn't have to be "oh now we are making dollar bills" to count.
> The way the US government funds deficit spending is not by increasing money supply (though it could) but by issuing debt in the form of US Treasury bonds.
Sure it does. That Treasury debt is often bought up by the FED in huge tranches by increasing the money supply, they call it things like "unlimited QE (quantative easing)". For example, the FED announced unlimited QE on March 23rd, 2020 causing the stock market and real estate market to bounce. Trillions of new dollars were created in these last 5-6 years, and that's why everything costs more. The USG continues to overspend, and too often on dumb shit too (e.g. tax breaks for the ultra wealthy).
> I want to mention that the Federal Reserve can and does increase money supply by buying US Treasury Bonds from banks (converting the asset into cash reserves).
Fun small print. As though that's not the exact mechanism of the brutal inflation the US has suffered the past 5-6 years. The US money supply says it all. There are no other serious buyers for $20 trillion in new garbage paper debt every ten years. It's inflation by currency destruction plain and simple and there are no other paths. It's also why gold is $5,000 instead of $500.
In particular, the central bank, charged with controlling inflation, cannot use taxation to reduce the money supply, because banks do not get to set tax policy. That leaves raising interest rates as its only policy tool.
As the political arm of the government chooses to run deficits in excess of growth plus inflation, then (a) that causes more inflation, and (b) the central bank raises rates, increasing the cost of government borrowing, causing bigger deficits.
This escalates as a result of the central bank trying to control the effects of high government spending by applying a mis-matched policy tool (interest rates) in place of the politicians who have abdicated their responsibility to use a matched policy tool (taxation). Either it spirals out of control, or more and more of the government budget is devoted to interest expense (direct government transfers of wealth paid exclusively to the debt holders) and less of it is spent on providing actual government services (that benefit all taxpayers).
If the central bank does not raise rates, of course, things go even more badly.
The debt cycle causes short term upward and downward inflation spirals, but overall the inflation is caused by total money supply multiplied by the ratio that the debt is allowed to be compounded to. the ratio is determined by both current regulations regarding loaning practices and the interest rate.
Given that these were constant then then inflation is just a ratio of Productivity(how much things cost) to total money supply (money printing).
So if the government just prints a similar amount of cash relative to the supply as the percentage productivity increase then we get a constant value of for the dollar.
In practice though a small amount of inflation is good in a currency as it encourages spending, if you have deflation this can cause people to speculate on holding cash and not engage in commerce which lowers productivity and thus can cause even more inflation itself.
The real problem is that wages are not growing at the same rate as inflation meaning wealth is being transferred from the working class to the owing class as their businesses get more efficient from the cheapened relative labor costs.
Now I can't stop thinking about _The Experience Machine_ by Andy Clark. It theorizes that this is how humans navigate and experience the real world: Our brains generate what we think the world around is like and our senses don't so much directly process visual information but instead act like a kind of loss function for our internal simulations. Then we use that error to update our internal model of the world.
In this view, we are essentially living inside a high-fidelity generative model. Our brains are constantly 'hallucinating' a predicted reality based on past experience and current goals. The data from our senses isn't the source of the image; it's the error signal used to calibrate that internal model. Much like Genie 3 uses latent actions and frames to predict the next state of a world, our brains use 'Active Inference' to minimize the gap between what we expect and what we experience.
It suggests that our sense of 'reality' isn't a direct recording of the world, but a highly optimized, interactive simulation that is continuously 'regularized' by the photons hitting our retinas.
This is one of my fundamental beliefs about the nature of consciousness.
We are never able to interact with the physical world directly, we first perceive it and then interpret those perceptions. More often than not, our interpretation ignores and modifies those perceptions, so we really are just living in a world created by our own mental chatter.
This is one of the core tenets of Buddhism, and it's also expounded on Greg Egan's short novel "Learning to Be Me". He's one of my favorite sci-fi authors and this particular short led me down a deep rabbit hole of reading many of his works within a few months.
This is absolutely what happens. It's even more tricky since our sensory inputs have different latencies which the brain must compile back into something consistent. While doing so it interprets and filters out a lot of unsurprising, expected data.
“ This is one of my fundamental beliefs about the nature of consciousness.
We are never able to interact with the physical world directly, we first perceive it and then interpret those perceptions. More often than not, our interpretation ignores and modifies those perceptions, so we really are just living in a world created by our own mental chatter.”
This is an orthodox position in modern philosophy, dating back to at least Locke, strengthened by Kant and Schopenhauer. It’s held up to scrutiny for the past ~400 years.
But really it’s there in Plato too, so 2300+ years. And maybe further back
Indeed, it's been great learning about the various interpretations as this idea took hold over the years!
What I wasn't able to properly highlight is how this belief has become a fundamental part of my day to day, moment to moment experience. I enjoy the constant and absolute knowledge that everything that's happening is my interpretation. And it gives me a superpower -- because for most of my life the world felt unforgiving and unpredictable. But it's actually the complete opposite, since whatever we interpret is actually in our control.
I also credit my understanding of this as a reality vs an intellectual concept to Siddhartha Gautam and his presentation of "samsara". But wherever it comes from, it is an inescapable idea and I encourage all HNers to dive deeper.
Afaik, there's a difference between classical philosophy (which opines on the divide between an objective world and the perceived word) and more modern philosophy (which generally does away with that distinction while expanding on the idea that human perception can be fallible).
The idea that there's an objective but imperceivable world (except by philosophers) is... a slippery slope to philosophical excess.
It's easy to spin whatever fancy you want when nobody can falsify it.
In my amateur opinion, it's almost the opposite. For Plato, the material world, while "real" enough, is less important and in some sense less True than the higher immaterial world of Forms or Ideas. The highest, truest, realest world is "above" this one, related to cognition, and (more or less) accessible by reason. We may be in a cave, but all we have to do is walk up into the sunlight — which, by the way, is nothing but a higher and truer form of light than our current firelight. (This idea that material objects partake of their corresponding higher-level Ideas leads to the Third Man paradox: if it is the Form of Man that compasses similar material instances such as Socrates and Achilles, is there then a third... thing... that compasses Socrates, Achilles, and Man itself?)
For Kant, and therefore for Schopenhauer, the visible world is composed merely of objects, which are by definition only mental representations: a world of objects "exists" only in the mind of a subject. If there is a Thing-in-Itself (which even Kant does not doubt, if I recall correctly), it certainly cannot be a mental representation: the nature of the Thing-in-Itself is unknowable (says Kant) but certainly in no way at all like the mere object that appears to our mental processes. (Schopenhauer says the Thing-in-Itself is composed of pure Will, whatever that means.) The realest world is "behind" or "below" the visible one, completely divorced from human reason, and by definition completely inaccessible to any form of cognition (which includes the sensory perception we share with the animals, as well as the reason that belongs to humans alone). The Third Man paradox makes no sense at all for Kant, first because whatever the ineffable Thing-in-Itself is, it certainly won't literally "partake" of any mental concept we might come up with, and secondly because it would be a category error to suppose that any property could be true of both a mental object and a thing-in-itself, which are nothing alike. (The Thing-in-Itself doesn't even exist in time or space, nor does it have a cause. Time, space, and causality are all purely human frameworks imposed by our cognitive processes: to suppose that space has any real existence simply because you perceive it is, again, a category error, akin to supposing that the world is really yellow-tinged just because you happen to be wearing yellow goggles.)
Thank you for linking this! I'm a big fan of Egan but had never read this particular short story. I feel like Egan is perhaps the only contemporary author who actually _gets_ consciousness.
He's the best hard sci fi author by far. Permutation City is also a must read especially because of its thought experiments around consciousness and computation.
I'm not sure this is unique to consciousness (whatever that is). What would it even mean to directly interact with the physical world? Even the most precise scientific experiments are a series of indirect measurements of something that perhaps in some sense is fundamentally unknowable.
That's a fair point. I envision this as the difference between an electron interacting with the proton or an acid reacting with the base vs me touching my keyboard. Do you feel there's a difference there?
I don't know what consciousness is or how to talk about it. But at a basic level I don't believe there is a category of phenomena separate from the physical world or inaccessible to the scientific method; and if there were I don't know how you would say anything meaningful about them. I am however willing to believe that rocks are not conscious.
I think this is pretty well established as far as neurologists are concerned and explains a lot of things. Like dreaming for instance.. just something like the model running without sensory input constraining it.
I'll also recommend Being You by Seth Anil. It makes a lot of sense of consciousness to me. It certainly doesn't answer the question but it's not just throw your hands up and "we have no idea why qualia", and it's also not just "here's a list of neural correlates of consciousness and we won't even discuss qualia".
It goes through how sensations fit into this highly constrained, highly functional hallucination that models the outside world as a sort of bayesian prediction about the world as they relate to your concerns and capabilities as a human, and then it has a very interesting discussion about emotions as they relate to inner bodily sensations.
Always wondered if dreaming is some kind of daily memory consolidation function. Logged short-term/episodic memory being filtered and the important bits baked by replaying in a limited simulacrum.
There was once a neural network that used dreaming phases for regularisation. It would run in reverse on random data and whatever activated was down–weighted.
This is easily corroborated by taking hallucinogens. Your subjective experience is a simulation, augmented by your senses.
Personally I often catch myself making reading mistakes and knowing for a fact that the mistake wasn't just conceptual, but an actual visual error where my brain renders the wrong word. Sometimes it's very obvious because the effect will last for seconds before my vision "snaps" back into reality and the word/phrase changes.
I first noticed this phenomenon in my subjective experience whenever I was 5 and started playing Pokémon. For many months, I thought Geodude was spelled and pronounced Gordude, until my neighbor said the name correctly one day and it "unlocked" my brain's ability to see the word spelled correctly.
The effect is so strong sometimes that I can close my eyes and imagine a few different moments in my life, even as a child, where my brain suddenly "saw" the right word while reading and it changed before my eyes.
Just want to say this is a really good description of our brain's simulation, and I have experienced the same catching-the-misread-word phenomenon, and it's a subtle reminder about how this is all working. But does this mean our wires are crossed in a particular way that is uncommon? I haven't heard others share a similar experience.
I'm not sure. At times I've wondered if I have something similar to dyslexia. There are few common failure modes with me such as flipping consonants or vowels between adjacent words, or writing down a word and it being the wrong one.
My brain seems to store/recall words phonetically, possibly because I taught myself to read at age 3 with my own phonetic approach, but also possibly due to how I trained myself out of a long spell of aphasia during high school by consciously relearning how to speak in a way that engaged the opposite hemisphere of my brain; thinking in pitches, intonation, rhyme, rhythm, etc. and turning speaking into a musical expression. I'd read about this technique and after months of work I managed to make it work for me. So in that aspect, there really might be some crossed wires out of necessity.
I was homeless in high school and thus too poor to visit doctors and get scans done, so I'm really not sure if the assumed damage to my left hemisphere which I experienced was temporary or permanent, or even detectable. The aphasia was coupled with years of intense depersonalization and derealization as well. The brain is a very strange thing and many events in my life such as the ones described above have only reinforced to me how subjective my experience really is.
Like, "Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality" as exposed by Anil Seth[1]? Found that one while searching for something like "the illusion of the self" a few years ago.
It’s also easy to find this treated in various philosophy/religion through time and space. And anyway as consciousness is eager to project whatever looks like a possible fit, elements of suggesting prior arts can be inferred back as far as traces can be found.
At the point where Samsung detects a photo of a white circle while the phone is pointing upwards and substitutes a high resolution picture of the moon.
Yeah, this kind of thing was part of the subject of my PhD, first postdoc, and ongoing scientific work. The question is how to produce generative models and inverse-inference algorithms that are powerful enough to work in tens to hundreds of milliseconds in high dimensionality :-/
Google DeepMind’s Project Genie is being framed as a “world model.” Given a text prompt, it generates a coherent, navigable, photorealistic world in real time. An agent can move through it, act within it, and the world responds consistently. Past interactions are remembered. Physics holds. Cause and effect persist.
From a technical standpoint, this is impressive engineering. From a philosophical standpoint, it’s an unexpectedly clean metaphor.
In analytic idealism, the claim is not that the physical world is fake or arbitrary. The claim is that what we call the “physical world” is how reality appears from a particular perspective. Experience is primary. The world is structured appearance.
Genie makes this intuitive.
There is no “world” inside Genie in the classical sense. There is no pre-existing ocean, mountain, fox, or library. There is a generative substrate that produces a coherent environment only when a perspective is instantiated. The world exists as something navigable because there is a point of view moving through it.
Change the character, and the same environment becomes a different lived reality. Change the prompt, and an entirely different universe appears. The underlying system remains, but the experienced world is perspective-dependent.
This mirrors a core idealist intuition: reality is not a collection of objects waiting to be perceived. It is a structured field of possible experiences, disclosed through perspectives.
The interesting part is not that Genie “creates worlds.” It’s that the worlds only exist as worlds for an agent. Without a perspective, there is no up, down, motion, danger, beauty, or meaning. Just latent structure.
Seen this way, Genie is not a model of consciousness. It’s a model of how worlds arise from viewpoints.
If you replace “agent” with “local mind,” and “world model” with “cosmic mental process,” the analogy becomes hard to ignore. A universal consciousness need not experience everything at once. It can explore itself through constrained perspectives, each generating a coherent, law-bound world from the inside.
That doesn’t prove idealism. But it makes the idea less mystical and more concrete. We are already building systems where worlds are not fundamental, but perspectival.
Yes I used an LLM - to post my thoughts from my phone as typing that down and spell checking/grammar cleanup is hell on mobile -
- but does it mean I don’t believe all the words written above are valid? No absolutely not.
I reviewed and copyedited what I posted and the meaning is exactly what I intended to post so I’m not sure what’s the issue here
If we use LLMs to expound on our own thoughts is it a crime? They are literal masters of wordplay and rote clarification on complex topics so I think this is a very legitimate use-case for them, since I was going for clarity as an objective- esp considering the topic
Also none of my previous posts were LLM written (including this one)
People are a little over-sensitive on this topic these days
Consciousness and perspective are temporally stable fixed points in the universe. You come to understand yourself as "you" or "I" because it's the only thing in the world around you that does not immediately change under many transformations.
For example, you can spin around, or change position, or close your eyes, and you're still you. As you navigate and interact with the evolving universe, the only continual, relatively unchanging part of the experience is what your brain uses to differentiate itself from the rest of your perceptions.
mid-drive e-bikes like this one are generally more expensive also but more efficient than rear hub motor systems. They also provide better overall weight distribution.
a full suspension e-bike, 500+Wh battery, with a belt drive for $4,500 is honestly a really good deal. There is a shortage of options when it comes to full-suspension bikes that are good for commutes. Compare this to any e-bike with the Bosch e-bike system. The big risk here for consumers if whether they can match the service, support, and reliability that Bosch has. There appears to be a class-2 e-bike option which is something that significantly differentiates it from bikes with the Bosch system.
I was in the market for a commuter recently and my runner-up was this bike from Bulls (German brand trying to break into the US market) with full suspension, a Bosch motor, and coming in at a staggeringly light 58 lbs (battery included) for $3300. Extremely tempting, if I hadn't managed to snag a heavily-discounted Aventon Level 2 instead. https://bullsbikesusa.com/products/iconic-evo-tr-1-750
I really don't get what the point of the pedals on a thing like this, though. I guess mainly to satisfy some sort of regulations which separate bikes and motorcycle like vehicles? Considering that they aren't even connected to the drivetrain...
In the U.S., there are 3 classes of e-bike:
Class 1: pedal-assist only up to 20mph (helmets optional for adults)
Class 2: same as Class 1 but with optional throttle to 20mph
Class 3: pedal-assist only up to 28mph (helmets required, adults only)
There's also a maximum power rating of 750 watts for all of these. I'm not sure where the "pedal by wire" feature is from a regulatory perspective, but to me this fits into either class 2 or 3 depending on what option you get.
My state doesn't even require helmets for motorcyclists. I am guessing any regulations on e-bikes date back to the days when 2-stroke "moped" bikes were briefly popular.
Based on the video and rivian history I think they wanted to redesign from the ground up a bike to match the packaging success they had at rivian and companies like lucid vs how legacy automakers approached it. The problem is the current laws about bikes and ebikes limited them and they had to make many tradeoffs which is what we are looking at. I guess we will find it if it was worth it to go ground up vs more off the shelf. As a rivian owner I'm concerned about repair-ability and maintenance.
The way I read it is if you use throttle-only you can reach 20 mph, but then if adding pedal-power you reach 28 mph. The pedal is probably not generating sufficient force to add 8 mph, but it’s telling the control system to do that.
class 2 and class 3 are mutually exclusive. You cannot legally have an e-bike that supports throttle up to 20mph that can also continue to e-assist if you pedal up to 28mph. While it's technically possible in software to switch between these modes, consumers aren't supposed to be able to do this on their own.
No consumer GPS is precise enough to reliably distinguish between a bike path and an adjacent regular road, especially if there are any overhead obstructions nearby. Many bike paths don't have a 20mph speed limit anyway.
It's an e-bike. The competition is stiff, better looking, and better priced.
If they're lucky, this will appeal to university professors and over achieving parents of unsuspecting kids who want a cool bike but got an expensive dorky one instead.
The e-bike market has multiple tiers/segments. This is not priced to compete with brands like Rad Power Bikes, Lectric, or Aventon. It's likely going to compete with brands like Tern, Benno, Gazelle, Trek, etc.
edit: ask yourself why the median new car in the US sells for over $50k when you can easily find cars for less than half that price.
I find it hard to imagine what the overlap between this and e.g. ebikes from Trek, though. Besides the price of course... It's an entirely different product.
you can get a high quality 4khw 20kw electric dirt bike for $4500... oh right, maybe not the best for commuting. they were fun before the cops caught on.
