Senior/Lead Platform Engineer and backend developer with 12+ years of experience building distributed systems, data platforms, IoT fleet-management platforms, and infrastructure automation.
Recent work includes platforms managing 10,000+ distributed energy devices, telecom monitoring systems processing tens of millions of data points across millions of devices and sensors, and Kubernetes/GitOps platforms spanning AWS and private data centres.
Strongest in architecture and hands-on implementation: backend services, telemetry ingestion, time-series data, developer platforms, CI/CD automation, reliability, and cost-aware infrastructure. I have led small engineering teams, established engineering practices, and improved release frequency from weekly deployments to several releases per day.
---
Interested in Senior, Lead, Staff, or early-stage founding/platform engineering roles. Open to permanent employment or B2B contracts through my Swedish company, Tomalaci Systems AB.
I had quite a rollercoaster going from Windows 10 to Arch to Windows and then settling on NixOS. Main reason being able to do clean package/program setup and centralize, version-control my configuration.
My main issue with Arch was that after installing and trying stuff it left OS dirty even after package removal. This might be because I had some things built and installed through AUR (e.g. latest mpv releases that sometimes broke). Eventually I went back to latest Windows 11 build wanting easy no-bs setup.
Of course, then MS decides to shove down half baked AI integration that somehow used half my RAM and randomly slowed my CPU. I am guessing it was busy indexing, searching or security-scanning something.
Got increasingly annoyed by Microslop and tried NixOS. Bumpy ride initially but after committing for few weeks I am finally settling on it be the last OS I need.
I also really like that Nix (both on NixOS or as a package manager for Linux/macOS) can temporarily fetch packages with `nix shell` removing entirely the need to install something I am just trying out or something I know I am not going to need on a regular basis.
Similarly the integration of flakes/devshells and direnv is great to create reproducible development environments. Everything I need and at the correct versions are automatically setup as soon as I `cd` into a project directory.
Project README.md Install instructions: List of software to install and what those packages are called on different distributions: Just kidding, it just works.
> My main issue with Arch was that after installing and trying stuff it left OS dirty even after package removal
Yeah, that's literally a problem with every single OS that is not NixOS (or, shoutout, Guix, or the other Nix-based variants).
That's also why I am sticking with NixOS. Been at least 5 years now- it's wonderful having a reliable LINUX system as my daily driver (or one of them).
And you can reboot into any old configuration! Even more insurance against fuckups!
> I am finally settling on it be the last OS I need
Same here. As soon as I got everything set up just how I like it in a declarative, reproducible fashion, I had this feeling of... "OK, this is great. I can't see a reason to ever leave this."
Not a Nix user yet, so i'm wondering if you can describe a little more about the "reproducibility" aspect which implies that you are often "reproducing" stuff. What needs reproducing? What is a basic daily-driver use case for whatever we are "reproducing"?
The entire system configuration is one file or a small set of files. If you copy it to a different machine, you can "run" it and get pretty much the same machine. If you screw up the config, the system tells you before it even tries to apply it. If something breaks while applying it (which is rare), NOTHING is broken because the entire system still points at the old instance, since cutover is atomic. This is already different from pretty much every other system out there. And if you reboot and things are STILL messed up, you can boot into a previously-known-good instance and repair things from there, without using a bootable USB key.
The builds are deterministic, unlike on any other linux or other OS, because Nix basically captures a closure of all the possible inputs to a build, which means that the build always "sees" the same things, which means it always builds the same way. Once you grok this, doing it any other way will seem insane.
Truth be told I think I only appreciated it more after having used (and bricked) other Linux distros simply by "installing the wrong thing". This is what i mean by "daily driver". You need something reliable AND reconfigurable for that; NixOS (or nix-darwin on Mac) offers both.
Aconfmgr is a good solution (practical trade-off for me). When it feel like "my OS must be dirty at this point", then I spend a couple minutes with this and I'm back to the clean state.
I don't do this more then twice a year, so if you insist on an always clean system, YMMV
> installed through AUR (e.g. latest mpv releases that sometimes broke)
On my home system I'd do this to switch to a new mpv release:
"gitty mpv"
(This is my alias to check out the latest mpv sources, from github, via git clone URL_HERE.)
Scripts repackage mpv into .tar.xz after this git clone step.
Then I do:
"clangy mpv"
clangy is my alias to compile via clang from llvm; and the
specific instructions would be found in my COOKBOOKS_DIRECTORY
aka recipes (similar to homebrew, but in .yml files), where
all information is gathered from mpv.yml then.
One setting there is:
prefix: f
This means "non-traditional prefix", aka "AppDir" prefix. AppDir
prefix is how GoboLinux installs software, e. g. in /Programs/Mpv/22.06.2026/
(I keep the dd.mm.yyyy notation, but this can be toggled; on my home
system I use /home/Programs/ though rather than /Programs/ for historic
reasons, and also as I want to backup my /home/ directory, including
all programs).
So the above would, via clang, compile mpv from source (if the git clone
worked), into the AppDir prefix. Then it would simply create symlinks
and so some more processing, so /usr/bin/mpv would point at /home/Programs/Mpv/Current/bin/mpv, and Current is a Symlink to the
current version in use. I can keep old entries of mpv under /home/Programs/Mpv/
so switching is trivial. And cleaning up is also trivial, I remove e. g.
an old mpv version there, then call one post-removal script (or I simply
pass the name of it, but I find it easier to work via the commandline in
two steps here). The benefit of the above is that, for instance compared to
your "latest mpv release sometimes broke", this would not affect me, the old
mpv versions would work still, and there can not be any outside installation
other than the versioned AppDir.
Right now my /home/Programs/ has 499 entries. I'll eventually have all programs
there, and work, then I'll switch to a completely custom LFS/BLFS. Right now my
base system is manjaro, which works very well as a base system, even though it
uses systemd. /lib/ is a symlink on manjaro by default towards /usr/lib/ and so forth. I find this works so much better than e. g. debian.
> Got increasingly annoyed by Microslop and tried NixOS. Bumpy ride initially but after committing for few weeks I am finally settling on it be the last OS I need.
Not disagreeing at all, but imo the issue you had with AUR is one that by design could be completely avoided. I am not saying this is your fault, mind you; just pointing out that this may be an assumption by both AUR as well as you, since your expectation is to trust the package manager. Here, my input would be the question whether a package manager would be necessary in the first place or not (I still have scripts to handle that, mind you, but the assumptions made via AUR may be wrong in many areas, including not offering versioned AppDirs by default. I don't understand why all package managers do not offer versioned AppDirs; it would solve so many issues).
I should add that some programs are harder to install from source, but mpv works very well; ffmpeg too, surprisingly enough. LLVM/clang is a bit harder to setup, and by far the worst offender is firefox. Mozilla should be ashamed of mozconfig for life.
God bless Hacker News, where "just start building your own package management system, like I did" is an earnest comment, including a sketched out implementation.
You might be interested to note that what you have written is basically the same paradigm that Nix uses, except with a content addressable store in /nix that the binaries are compiled from source to. All packages (read: binaries, libraries, configuration files) are symlinked from the store to wherever they are needed e.g. PATH, another package's environment, etc.
Probably because American AI companies are on the hook for quite a lot of investment money. I think they are trying to find the magical moat to justify their valuation.
Revealing optimizations similar to these would pretty much reduce their competitive position.
The question is also what game they're playing. Deepseek came out of a hedge fund. I think it's no coincidence that their publications tend to have a large impact on AI stock prices.
Destroying the growth story of overvalued stocks is an interesting investment strategy. It's not even new. Shortsellers understandably get terrible rep from execs, but their actions are more often in the public interest than you'd think. Normally it's exposing fraud, but here we get the really fortunate side benefit of what could eventually amount to the most significant contribution to the general software community since Linux.
> The question is also what game they're playing. Deepseek came out of a hedge fund. I think it's no coincidence that their publications tend to have a large impact on AI stock prices.
Its revealing that they always seem to publish after some big announcement by American AI companies. But regardless, this is one of the benefits of a duopoly.
No more revealing than OpenAI, Anthropic and Google always having some new model that just so happens to be waiting in the wings whenever their competitors announce their own model bump.
That's because OpenAI, Anthropic and Google work on many models in parallel which work cooperatively from the user's POV. So GPT-5.6 is just a checkpoint of their multi-model development.
> They're backed by a quantitative hedge fund that views AI as infrastructure, not as a product to monetize directly. The ROI for them comes from trading alpha, not API revenue.
That used to be true, but now they've raised ~7B$, so we'll see how / if that changes.
Also, we’re seeing a classic commoditization spiral with open models rapidly closing the gap and driving prices towards the marginal cost of inference. The reality is that models themselves are general commodities and there's just not enough difference between them. A company can get ahead of others by a few months, but then the rest quickly close the gap. It's a really low margin business because there's no way to differentiate yourself.
Chinese companies understand this and they're treating models as shared infrastructure akin to Linux. The money is going to be in customization niches. Companies will charge to tune models for specific use cases and charge support for that. There's also going to be money at the bottom for hardware vendors making chips and memory. But the middle tier of generic LLMs is seeing involution where there's relentless competition driving profits towards the bottom.
Open-source is also altruistic. If DeepSeek does become self-serving once they get the top spot, it doesn’t take away from the altruistic contributions that they made towards open models.
Contributing to it might not necessarily be. Most open source development is funded by large companies after all and from their perspective it can function as a cost saving measure. Allowing them to focus on their core products and removing the possibility of their rivals from getting a competitive advantage due to having a superior low level stack under their product.
Which is why open source is so successful in areas where software is a cost-center but mostly failed for consumer products (since spending resources on them would actually be altruistic unlike e.g. Linux kernel development)
And ultimately the motivation for those contributions just doesn’t matter, except to those who like to anthropomorphize company and argue about their souls.
No parent is right. The core root driver of the world is capitalism, open source exists downstream of that.
Software engineers need money to survive. If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive? Follow the money trail… even a donation… eventually it leads to an incentive based source or action.
You’re right. One of its big uses is for big companies to destroy the ability of individual developers or small companies to make a living selling software. It’s also used to harm larger competitors whose revenue depends on some non open source software. Essentially, open source is the new “dumping”.
That’s not to say open source is bad. But in a capitalist context, it’s certainly a very double-edged sword.
Are you not implying below, with your words, that working exclusively on open source cannot bring money?
> If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive?
You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something else in addition to open source.
> you need to follow the money trail. Money given to people who work on open source comes from non-open source places.
Money spent on coffee comes from non-coffee places, mostly. Does that mean one cannot make money exclusively selling coffee?
I get your point, it is very uncommon to live only of open source. That I can agree with. It is the exaggeration and dogmatism that is untrue.
> Are you not implying below, with your words, that working exclusively on open source cannot bring money?
No I am implying that it in itself does not generate money because it is given away freely. Open source can draw donations but that is not part of a transaction and the source of that money is from incentivized labor.
> You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something else in addition to open source.
Usually yes but not necessarily. They may exclusively do open source but then in this case they must be supported by some kind of monetary source. That monetary source will be a for profit incentive. For example: donations. Donation money must be generated by for profit ventures. Or salary money paid by companies for employees to work on open source. That salary money is generated from for profit ventures.
> Money spent on coffee comes from non-coffee places, mostly. Does that mean one cannot make money exclusively selling coffee?
Dude. You’re missing the point and making a wrong analogy. It is not about where the money comes from but whether a transaction occurred. When you sell coffee you make a transaction. When you give away software… no transaction occurs. You lose time effort and money for nothing in return. Thus the effort must logically be supported by something else. I am exclusively talking about a logistical issue with a logistical consequence. That’s it.
> That I can agree with. It is the exaggeration and dogmatism that is untrue.
Where did I exaggerate or dogmatize anything? I am talking about a logistical reality and you’re getting emotionally worked up over it. Don’t fucking accuse me of shit I didn’t do.
The problem is you define open source as giving away software, and any money making aspect as "not open source". That is the exaggeration.
If one releases some software as open source and charges for support they are living of open source (my pov), not doing some open source + something else on the side (your pov). I disagree with your definition of open source.
Imagine I create my own illustrations and make them available for free (with some conditions GPL, or even almost without conditions MIT) and print tshirts with the illustrations, and sell them for money. Would it be fair to say I live of being an illustrator? or would you argue I am not living of my illustrations, that I am merely giving them away and really selling tshirts is the business?
> If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive?
These are orthogonal. One can have a paid job while contributing to open source for entirely altruistic reasons.
> Follow the money trail… even a donation… eventually it leads to an incentive based source or action.
BS. Humans do things for altruistic reasons devoid of individual reward all the time.
I, myself, maintain multiple OSS projects entirely for fun and with the hope that others will find it useful. That's it, that's all. I also donate entirely anonymously to charities simply because I believe others deserve support and dignity.
This form of cold, American libertarianism you espouse is pure poison in the body politic, both in this US and globally. It degrades all of human interaction to transactions. Its no wonder that the US is where sociopaths like Zuck were birthed.
> This form of cold, American libertarianism you espouse is pure poison in the body politic, both in this US and globally. It degrades all of human interaction to transactions. Its no wonder that the US is where sociopaths like Zuck were birthed.
Was an outright attack. But whatever, all water under the bridge, stuff like this happens. I might attack someone too if I misinterpreted something. Not a big deal.
> That I misunderstood your point in context is a different issue, in which case, yup, my mistake.
Thank you for taking the extra time to understand.
>Talking like this is not only against the rules here but it is some of the most vile and direct insults I’ve ever fucking read. And it doesn’t even stem from us disagreeing. It stems from you misunderstanding what was said. Why don’t you read over what I wrote and my explanation before making such a stupid comment. Let me be clear. You’re not stupid, but your reply is stupid. And your reply is stupid because of a misunderstanding. So make yourself understand and clean up your act because shit like this dies worse damage for the world than psychopaths. More wars are started over misunderstanding and uncalibrated anger than actual psychopathic tendencies.
I suggest you practice a much greater degree of self awareness.
I am self aware. I’m fully aware of the potential feelings that what I said could evoke but reality is reality and a forum is one of the few places we can still talk about reality without cancel culture or feelings muddling everything up.
I’d rather speak the truth and what I believe in rather than cater to the feelings of people who cannot face objective reality.
And I didn’t openly or directly insult anyone. I criticize where it’s deserved and where it is true. He personally attacked me and I criticized his attack as appropriately as I could.
If you disagree with my premise, attack my argument. Don’t make it personal by telling me to be self aware and replying to a section of my comment not meant for you.
Responding to the operatingthetan sibling reply because for some reason it’s dead (he just deleted it):
> Your comment is highly uncivil because it relies on aggressive profanity, condescending directives, and absurdist hyperbole to attack the other person. It lacks self-awareness because you hypocritically engage in the exact same hostile, rule-breaking behavior you are condemning.
From my interpretation here he attacked me. A defensive response is appropriate, but one where I do not attack his character directly but one where his unjust actions are criticized honestly. Unfortunately criticism is always somewhat condescending and for people to even be receptive of it you need to match the tone.
1. Profanity helps illustrate my point and I never directed at him.
2. I disagree with hyperbole. I think you’re outright lying to me here. So this is on you. You’re exaggerating things. He literally associated me with psychopaths and I called what he did a “misunderstanding”. So really you need to be more self aware, not me.
3. I never commented on my own rule breaking behavior and my stance on the rules of HN. I just commented ON his rule breaking behavior just as you are commenting on my behavior while ignoring your own.
I think this is enough. I’m not perfect with the rules here but this is becoming a bit of flame war and I’m fucking done. I’m ejecting myself from this thread.
Is it though? A large number of people get to experience a lot of power over others because they moderate Wikipedia. That's certainly why some of them do it, just like on Reddit
This statement is factually true and you are voted down because many people lack knowledge.
Any individual that provides free labor cannot survive off of said free labor. He must work for money to survive or get donations from someone who earned that money from incentive based labor in order to even buy the food he needs to exist as a living human being. Much of the time that labor is actually closed source.
This is a logistical reality. A lot of open source advocates are unable to get their brains out of the whole mentality that open source literally cannot exist without incentive based software supporting it. Who pays for GitHub to exist? Who pays for the food swes eat? I just code for open source all day and money falls out of the sky.
My smart friend says there are jobs that pay you to work on open source exclusively. Smart guy. In this case you follow the money trail. How does that company get enough money to pay a guy to work exclusively on open source?
Free labor enables capitalism, especially if you consider labor arbitrage as a mixture of free labor and properly compensated (according to the real value) labor. From literally being born, to family culture, education, and whatever level of broad social cohesion, it’s all free labor. Without that background, money itself loses its value, since an individual cannot have reasonable confidence in trading it for something of actual tangible value. It is abstract stored value, banked into society for free. Indeed, in many cases, the free labor is in the rational self interest of a group. But stability and love and peace aren’t monetized to their true value. Otherwise, markets should be much less stable. Bubbles are only notable for the large impact of a small group of bad actors. Overall, it’s pretty amazing what free labor does. Open source is just another instance of this long and critical tradition.
Free labor is derivative to incentivized labor. Your statement here doesn’t disprove or counter what I said. Again, follow the money trail. Everything you said if you follow the origin of the money it comes from paid, incentivized labor. Parents need money to raise kids… where do they get that money?? Our economy is called capitalism for a reason there is literally zero reference to charity or altruism in the vocabulary or even standard models that describe our economy and economic theory.
Put it another away: if we removed your ability to do incentivized labor and all you can do is charity work… you would run out of money and die from starvation. If we did the opposite and we removed your ability to do charity work… you’d be fine.
All of this re-emphasizes the point of this thread: In our objective reality, the world is driven by incentive based work while altruism is a side effect of surplus wealth generated by incentive based work. That is the fundamental reality.
I know this is such a late reply, but for clarity: my foundational point is the exact opposite hypothesis. Free labor enables incentivized labor. Economic theory has a neat concept of externalities, a necessary mechanism that only that which can be valued can be traded. If we removed all economic activity, then after most people die, the remnants would revert to much earlier models of free cooperation existing in small communities. Our world does require huge numbers of people to forcibly cooperate to create resources to then allocate.
My one other point is that incentivized labor is not the same as the value it creates. Indeed, it must be less. Otherwise, our economic system could support only a fixed number of people (subsistence), which would decay inevitably because there is no margin for error. But my point is that margin in reality isn’t fully realized, even by trillionaires, because then there would be no growth to support more people growing in their standard of living. There must be slack in this distributed system and the slack wasn’t valued: it’s free labor. It’s mixed in with incentivized labor, so I understand if you reject the premise entirely, but I do believe this is the essence of modern (specialized) capitalism. If skilled workers try to optimize or invent, more resources will be available for distribution for the same incentive (i.e. “worker productivity”). You can say “yeah that’s their job,” and I can say “that productivity wasn’t fully monetized because otherwise productivity would be lower overall.”
So, incentivized labor presupposes free labor, and economic productivity is a mix of free and monetized labor.
I hate to quote pithy proverbs, but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." One can have an altruistic goal which ends up harming people too, which is where that proverb comes from. Prohibition and The War on Drugs in the US are two good examples of something that had altruistic origins[†] but ended up doing way more harm than good.
[†] Another problem with altruism: we don't all agree on whether a goal is altruistic, and what's altruistic in the enactor's eyes might not be in yours. Curating a fountain of human knowledge like Wikipedia? Probably altruistic. Protecting humanity from itself by installing your company as the stewards of frontier LLMs? Not so altruistic in my view.
> Prohibition and The War on Drugs in the US are two good examples of something that had altruistic origins
The War on Drugs had the purpose (not just in its origin but in its perpetuation) of inflicting harm on elite-disfavored subsets of the population that could not be openly targeted for Constitutional reasons, which is about as far from an altruistic reason as it possible to get.
Look at how far OpenAI has drifted from their original mission. Everything comes back to greed, so it's ideal for the world if selfish motives happen to coincide with what's good for the world, like advancements in open models
Every company on the face of the earth has a mission statement involving some bs goal that sounds altruistic. For a good example look at googles mission statement.
The real mission statement for most companies is to make as much money as possible.
It's a standard take since it is how markets tend to work. They aren't powered by altruism, it is a big system for turning greed into good results. We don't have all this stuff because people suddenly woke up one morning and decided to be nice.
The standard is applied very inconsistently. Nobody accuses the local bakery of being motivated by profit, and that they don't bake bread for you out of altruism.
Mostly they kind of do since we do live in an utopian society of unlimited abundance. Extremely few people can afford to (or want to) spend a very large number of working hours without ever getting anything directly in return for it.
Projection is a funny thing. It causes people to misread situations all the time. Southern slaveowners feared violent retribution from freed slaves, for example [1]. It was pure projection and said more about the South than it did the slaves. The reality was there was no violent retribution. It was the opposite where the former slaveowners continued to inflict violence on the formerly enslaved.
I say this because we see the same thing used as an argument against China. "If they overtake us, they'll do imperialism (like us)." Again, it says more about us than them.
A better reading (IMHO) Of the situation is that China believes that AI shouldn't be used simply to mint a few more trillionaires but the benefits should be shared with society. Why do I say this? Because we now have 70+ years of China doing exactly that. The transformation in China all the way from rural villages to Tier 1 cities has been utterly astounding. China has lifted ~800M people out of extreme poverty.
In some ways we're at a similar point to the late 1990s and 2000s when Microsoft execs complained that Linux, being free, destroyed intellectual property value. Linux should be a perfect example of how people can and do act altruistically, or at least not in a way to bait-and-switch to enrich themselves.
It's even worse than that. China publishes stacks upon stacks of policy documents in which they explain clearly what they will do and why. This includes why they do poverty alleviation and why they believe big monopolies that own everything are bad. But almost no western observers care to read those documents. Instead, western observers, including HN, speculate endlessly about China's intentions, and "it would be naive to believe they would not do X" or drawing equivalences to Soviet Union or whatever. And the "journalists" sell this notion that Chinese state intentions are "untransparent" and "unknowable" while pretending the policy documents don't exist.
Meanwhile, Xi Jinping has published his 5th book on how governance in China works and what they're after. These are not books written for a western audience: they're compilations of speeches that he already gave to the Chinese party and state apparatus, so the contents are not sanitized for foreign audiences. But there are no English reviews of summaries of this 5th book at all by the usual China experts that distribute what western audience know about China.
This extends to beyond the government. Even though "for the people but only against the government" is an often-heard mantra, nobody seems to listen to what Chinese AI companies themselves say about why they publish open models. DeepSeek and GLM have said multiple times publicly what their motivations are, yet people on HN still speculate like they usually do.
Truly mind-boggling. I get that a lot of people don't like China. But setting aside the question of whether their dislike is justified, it would at least be rational to properly understand China, even if it's to defeat it. And listening to what China says themselves is absolutely essential for proper understanding. But people don't bother to? And they seem mostly happy with sticking to speculations that match preconceived notions, even if that hurts their chances of defeating China.
Extremely interesting comment, thank you. Got some links where I can download this source material? I don't read or speak the language, but will try interrogating it with an LLM
For Central Party documents: https://news.cn/politics/zywj/. It lists recent Central Committee / General Office / joint Party-State documents, e.g. 2026 documents on township duty lists, Party member development rules, carbon evaluation, long-term care insurance, and SOE leadership rules.
> The review is behind a paywall, but not expensive.
I think the author wrote a twitter post with a summary of the content, and someone on twitter who had read the original Chinese source also chimed in with a summary
If you simply take what the Chinese government says at face value, you will be correct way more often than 95% of Western policy wonks, media talking heads, "analysts" and so forth. Because, like you say, they tell you everything they're doing.
In the recent US-China summit, Xi Jinping just came out and used the Thucydides Trap metaphor, which tells you everything about where China thinks it is and where it sees the US going, which is to become increasingly belligerent as their power declines. Now whether or not you agree with that assessment (I do agree), it still tells you China wants to avoid open hostilities, it sees itself as continuing to rise and it fears what a declining US might do.
The Thucydides Trap mention is different from what you describe. Xi has dismissed the Thucydides Trap multiple times in the past as being hearsay and self-imposed bias (https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/944179.shtml). "We should strictly base our judgment on facts, lest we become victims to hearsay, paranoid or self-imposed bias. There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides trap in the world. But should major countries time and again make the mistakes of strategic miscalculation, they might create such traps for themselves."
But western politicians keep raising this metaphor. So at some point they're like "okay we'll speak your language". They then used this metaphor to make the point "our rise isn't the threat, your fear of it is. If you resist it you're walking right into the trap Thucydides warned about". So your conclusion is still right, they don't want open hostilities, a stable world is in their interest.
Then western media ran away with this and were like "OMG Xi mentioned the Thucydides Trap", completely ignoring his point.
> And they seem mostly happy with sticking to speculations that match preconceived notions
...you've almost achieved enlightenment on the nature of the majority of HN comments: vibes-based, off the cuff braindumps, where an idea is examined as it is being typed. It's great for tech and software discussions where many commenters have good knowledge or even mastery, but on "exotic" topics, an incorrect take can be voted to the top because it sounds right by affirming the biases of the majority. If you're a practitioner in a non-tech field and a topic in your field comes up for discussion on HN, be ready to be disappointed - and be ready to question all the other correct-sounding comments in areas unfamiliar to you.
Aspiration for the masses and policy reality are different things. They will say monopolies are bad, but what they mean is only if the state doesn't control them. The CCP has huge state run monopolies and there's nothing you can do about it. You can't understand their policy without understanding Marxism-Leninism. When pesky reality gets in the way of policy, it's called corruption.
In communist or post-communist countries like China and Russia, the percentage of government workers is extreme. To them, all social action is political action, and that includes economic. Since there is only one party allowed, any economic action (and thus political action) which threatens the CCP is unacceptable. They leave other private companies alone.
The CCP is bad and this conclusion is justified not only in theory as a distant observation of ideological concepts, but from their behaviors around the world which echo some of the causes of World War 2. That doesn't mean Chinese AI companies are bad, but the CCP will certainly find ways of using it for its purposes. For now, they're quite far behind on AI, but they deserve credit for optimizing for some use cases which masks poorer generalization.
I had the most ironic rollercoaster ride thanks to your comment.
I copied it into DeepSeek because I figured who's better to teach me about greatness of Chinese government policies if not the most popular Chinese LLM?
Anyhow, it must have detected _something_ in your comment because Chinese censorship policy kicked in and DeepSeek refused to talk about it. Funny because I would wager the overall sentiment about China's abilities to govern in your comment was positive but okay.
I literally asked it "expand on it so I can learn more about Chinese policies" and that was enough to get censored!
Anyhow, after saying few times "huh? but I want to learn what's great about Chinese policies!" it finally gave me response in... Mandarin. So I asked it to provide me that information in English and... it refused. Talk about difficulty of finding any materials in English ;-)
After starting a new chat and using plenty of positive adjectives to make sure I don't want to learn a single bad thing about China, I finally got a list. Looks like China is 100% successful in everything they do! How neat!
So I said "That's cool. Does this set of policies have one name? Can you recommend any books about it? In English of course" and...
...request denied again.
I mean, maybe it says more about how horrible DeepSeek is for this kind of research but boy, it was so ironic I now have stack of iron at home.
Chinese censorship rules are not about criticizing vs praising the state. They are about avoiding any kind of social controversy or collective action. They don't care when you talk about these topics in private or small circles, even criticism is fine, they just don't want them to spread far no matter whether it's positive or negative.
I can't reply to your reply so let me do that here.
In Netherlands, the government wants to reduce emission, so it incentivizes people to isolate their homes better, and to use heat pumps instead of gas heating. On the other hand, if you actually try to install a heat pump, you'll run into all sorts of regulation issues: the unit can't be too big, there are only a few specific places where you're allowed to place it, a ton of people can object to it, permitting takes years if at all. Oh and if you isolate your house, then voila, during the current heat wave it's a constant 35 C in your home. So you try to install AC and you run into permitting/regulation issues. So you then use a super inefficient portable AC that just barely lowers the temperature by 3 C and uses 4x more energy, and that's fine. facepalm
And the government and banks also want to combat money whitewashing, so they incentivize people to use digital payments and discourage cash. Police could look at you suspiciously merely for having too much cash on hand. On the other hand, NATO and also a bunch of government agencies are warning about war and encouraging people to have lots of cash at home for emergencies.
"They" do not "clearly" want one or the other. Different government branches can have different, conflicting priorities.
The Netherlands is tiny. China has 1.4 billion people, and its state apparatus is orders of magnitude bigger. Forget about coordinating the population, even coordinating the tens of thousands of local government bodies has always been a huge problem. All the previous dynasties have said that governing such a large country is a nightmare.
Xi is not personally in charge of the censorship bureau. The top government sets broad direction and KPIs, while local governments and government agencies are given a lot of leeway for implementation as they see fit. And frankly you cannot run a large organization any other way — there is no large company in the world where the CEO micromanages everything without burning out. The KPI is "social stability", and as long as this is kept and there are no grave problems like corruption, it's not the top government's job to dictate how the censorship bureau do their work. Of course, you may be of the opinion that something like "freedom of speech" is more important than "social stability", but the point is that they value "social stability" more, and that they're motivated by that, and by not some idea of "suppressing freedom". This ties directly into my point of properly understanding them.
Furthermore, many people tend to be risk averse, and would rather instinctively deny something than to take chances. There was a famous scene in the Jiang Zhemin days in which Jiang said something frank in some meeting with a foreign politician. Then the cameraman was like "uuh should we record this?" and his boss was immediately like "no, cut it away". Then Jiang said "why shouldn't we record this? of course this should be recorded!"
This risk-averse attitude is still pervasive in a lot of places. It's not just DeepSeek that's "paranoid", everybody implementing censorship rules is paranoid similarly. On Xiaohongshu/RedNote they don't want you to talk about societal issues at all, even "positive" things like "I think Taiwan belongs to China" — they recently banned a Taiwanese's account for saying stuff like that, they want you to focus on travel and food or whatever. This attitude likely won't change until the current censorship bureau generation retires, and gets replaced with the next generation that's more confident.
Finally, whatever Poland did pre-1989 has absolutely nothing to do with China. There are no similarities in motives or circumstances. You can't just lazily lump random Soviet-era countries together with China just because you give them both the "communist" label. China's adaptation of and motivation for adoption of communism is wholly different from the Soviet Union.
This is a really bad, poorly thought out take, and historically inaccurate. Also, we're not afraid China will somehow be like us. If they were like us, that would be great. The problem is that China is already behaving like it is ready to abuse the power it has on a scale that the US never has.
Russia, China and Iran all make public statements as if they abide by international law and everyone else are the law breakers, while their measurable actions are shockingly contradictory.
It is their actions that have caused the US reactions, but many people present them as if they occur in a vacuum.
The AI race sits within this context, with a constellation of concerns that most people do not think about. Of course the AI engineers have their own motivation, the companies will share some of that motivation combined with their business trajectory and governments will get involved with it for the justifications they see.
> I say this because we see the same thing used as an argument against China. "If they overtake us, they'll do imperialism (like us)." Again, it says more about us than them.
Or because they're human and that's what humans have always done. If the US is no longer a check on China, what will happen to Taiwan?
Frankly, you seem to be arguing that the US is somehow uniquely bad when, in actuality, The US has been hegemonic during a time of incredible peace and minimal imperialism.
Peace for who? Like just look at the last 50-70 years of US intervention in LatAm. Backing a series of coups and extremely violent right wing dictatorships.
The issue is one of incentives. The US needs cheap foreign labor because of deindustrialization policies in the 60s and 70s. These were arguably passed as a check on labor power since socialism was still looking potentially ascendant at the time. Whatever the reason though, the contemporary US is reliant on keeping foreign wages down and domination of the oil trade. Imperialism grows out of this need for external resources to maintain economic growth. It would be less relevant to us if we had better fundamentals, but we traded those away to avoid letting certain demos get wealthy and powerful.
China's play is more mercantile. They benefit most from stable trade conditions. They get richer the more customers they have. They benefitted massively from becoming an industrial trade partner with the US in the 60s and 70s. Because of this, they have completely different foreign policy objectives. All they need to do to win is normalize relations and build trade infrastructure. Its way cheaper than imperialism.
> Peace for who? Like just look at the last 50-70 years of US intervention in LatAm. Backing a series of coups and extremely violent right wing dictatorships.
For the world. Compare the those 70 years to the previous 70 years. Regime change and intervention is significantly better than full scale invasion, total war and colonization of other people.
> China's play is more mercantile.
Because they are held in check by US power. Remove the US and China is taking what it wants.
I'm not sure I'd put Google in that list, but either way: Because they think they have enough capital that they can catch up and don't need the reputational boost of this.
The concept of open source doesn't really apply to AI models since their behavior is mostly controlled by the data they were trained on and the complex ways they are trained. Having the source code of the model by itself wouldn't help you.
From a practical POV having all the training data, training infrastructure, and training know-how wouldn't help you either unless you could afford to spend the millions of dollars (hundreds of millions for a SOTA model) in compute to train it each time they released a new training set, in which case you're only talking about the big commercial companies. "open source for the people" just does not apply.
Publishing RL/SFT/self-distillation harnesses would be very impactful even without the data.
Particularly when it comes to tool use w/ self-distillation it can be done without any data... have a tool the model doesn't know? a teacher model RTFMs and the source code, and helps the student learn to get it right.
> If (and that is a big if) the concept of open source doesn't apply, then the term shouldn't be coopted to mean something else though.
Yes, but for whatever reason this usage seems to have stuck. Open weights is definitely a better name. I assume the reason "open source" has stuck is because you can download and use it for free, but "open source" was always intended to be about "free as in speech", not "free as in beer". That said, I remember when the term "open source" was invented, and it was always a bit different, more commercially aligned, than the goals of the FSF.
> But even if I can't build it from source locally, being able to see what went into the model is an important part of what open source is about.
True. Unfortunately LLMs have become such a big money and closed enterprise (the opposite of OpenAI and Anthropic's altruistic founding principles) that it's hard to see these commercial models releasing their training data, especially since this data is the closest thing they have to a moat other than the cost of training.
The most valuable training data right now seems to be "reasoning data", and the need for this at least may disappear as AI moves beyond pre-trained language models to smarter systems capable of learning for themselves, and that can actually reason, not need to parrot reasoning data.
They are focused on the things you do when you are not over-capitalized and you can’t get unlimited nvidia hardware to train on. And the results speak for themselves.
Meanwhile we in the US are blocked from buying Huawei GPUs and retirees are boasting about the nvidia in their portfolios.
You ask me what I think. So far deepseek has been very consistently trying to advance state of the art research in a transplant and public way by writing papers and publishing working code. They are also not at the mercy of the stock market in the same way many Americans companies are. Before anyone assumes too much, I live in Europe.
This is the way! Open source models will benefit, and once open source models reach the state of "good enough" the hyped up US AI companies will fear, since the availability of free, good enough, AI models will set the ceiling for how much they can charge. Then the bubble will pop.
Regardless of where they are, the Chinese will always share their progress, as they're collectivist/cooperative at their core, compared to the individualistic/competitive US.
I don't really see the moat for frontier AI labs being "more efficient models" although that could help their margins - I think moats will be built by expanding the horizontal and vertical market expansion - like Anthropic is doing the most at the moment
I seriously am far from fear mongering and doomsday mentality, but I just can't see how OpenAI and Anthropic can have a successful IPO if the quality gap between the free and paid continues to narrow like that...
For real. Reading old comment threads makes me sad, because the level of discourse was so much higher in the past. Although this place is still deeply appreciated, it’s clear that its culture is going monotonically towards reddit.
Is there anywhere public anymore that isn’t being overrun by lobotomized p-zombies (partisan zombies)? Is it even possible to make such a public space? Ressentiment consumes all discourse.
Yet accumulation of power by a very small elite through state and selected corporations happens to be a defining characteristic of that political regime.
Until recently, DeepSeek were self-financed (it was a spin-out from a hedge fund). They just raised ~50million RMB (US$7bn), and according to media [0] (which admittedly can be unreliable), the lead investors were:
1) The CEO himself
2) Tencent
3) CALT (the battery company)
4) NetEase (internet/media company)
5) JD.com (ecommerce)
6) Chinese investment firms
What are they expecting in return? I'd say the same thing that all those investors in OpenAI and Anthropic are expecting - profit.
I don't think this question would get to the reason. There could be one or two persons in charge who simply shape the culture of the company, including how much to publish.
> Unlike most OECD databases, which rely on government data provided at country-level, the OECD MAGIC database uses firm-level data. The subsidy estimates included in the database are based on raw data obtained from firms’ annual reports, financial statements, bond prospectuses, IPO prospectuses, etc. The data are collected and verified manually by the OECD to maximise accuracy, consistency, and comparability. In some cases, additional information is also obtained from government databases, either to verify the firm-level information or to complement it. Care is taken to avoid double-counting where the data mix corporate and government sources.
Does that figure hold up when we look at Silicon Valley financing? Uber alone was subsidized to the tune of billions. Let alone the recent batch where we're into hundreds of billions.
Even the latest World Bank report, the defacto neoliberal institution, recognized a couple of months ago that leaving the industries focus be dictaed by purely capital decisions was bad, as in _really_ bad.
Not everyone has the American “fuck you got mine” zero sum game attitude. Also they’re making some of the American and European AI companies look bad which they can leverage with their trades if they wanted to.
Edit: I'm a fan of deepseek and believe it's good to make the technology open/available. And do think that also help business - which I support as well.
This is incorrect binary thinking. Them releasing open source can be good, but that does not commit you to think that china or chinese companies are saints. There are many shades of grey here and one does not exclude the other (nor include it).
I think there are some sockpuppet accounts active but what also contributes is that many people are absolutely fed up with US technological hegemony and welcome alternatives to core technologies from elsewhere.
Not just US technological hegemony, but the USA has threatened to invade Europe (Greenland) and Canada, and has actually invaded Venezuela and Iran. China hasn't. Maybe lots of people that live in those places are now switching sides.
Over the past 2y the US also started a trade war with Europe, triggered the worst oil shock the world ever experienced for no reasons, threatened to leave NATO, tried to force Ukraine to give up its territory to the invading country, and way more
Amazing news for EU! If Tisza can get supermajority after votes are counted then they can also easily reverse a lot of constitutional corruption in Hungary done by Orban.
For many years I had been advocating for Linux distros to optimize for lower spec machines as their life times got extended. Best case, you head off potential hardware end of life, worst case you allow newer hardware to run more effciebtly. The latest shortage I didnt see coming, but it would have helped out regardless. Keeping old hardware going is vital nowadays, need to end the mind set of disposable goods.
Old 2nd hand enterprise drives on ebay have seen pretty modest increases.
Actually just went through my purchase history and its even lower than I thought. 37% inc versus May '25.
Pretty niche crowd that is down for building a NAS out of drives that have had long lives already. Basically only people with grasp on zfs redundancy & willingness to accept the risk of SSDs with heavy use but enterprise endurance.
Might even bring back some value to those _westerners_ who are still hooked into the nostalgic scene -- have you made a trip to Akihabara district lately?
I usually have a script/alias cmd to automatically convert images to webp. The webp format has pretty much replaced jpg/jpeg (lacks transparency/alpha support) and png (no compression) formats for me.
There is also AVIF format which is newer and better but it needs to still mature a bit with better support/compatability.
If you are hosting images it is nice to use avif and fallback to webp.
I know it’s more efficient, but It’s too bad webp is basically supported in browsers and nowhere else. I don’t think any OS even makes a thumbnail for the icon! Forget opening it in an image editor, etc. And any site that wants you to upload something (e.g. an avatar) won’t accept it. So, webp seems in practice to be like a lossy compression layer that makes images into ephemeral content that can’t be reused.
(Yes, I know, I should just make a folder action on Downloads that converts them with some CLI tool, but it makes me sad that this only further degrades their quality.)
The only OS that doesnt as far as I'm aware is windows. And what image editors still have problems? Affinity has supported it for several years, GIMP, lightroom/PS, photopea, everywhere I test webp works fine. All work just fine.
Most social media sites take webp these days no issue, its mostly older oft php-based sites that struggle far as im aware. And when it cuts down bandwidth by a sizeable amount theres network effects that tend to push some level of adoption of more modern image formats.
To be clear, PNG only supports lossless compression, while WebP has separate lossy and lossless modes. AVIF can do lossless compression too, but you're usually better off using WebP or PNG (if you need >8 bpc) instead as it really isn't good at that.
PNG can be lossy before the lossless step. You can take areas of near-matching pixel values and make them actually match, to work better with PNG's near neighbor compression. There are a few encoders that can do that.
It is not that trivial, because there are tons of existing JPEG files and lossy recompression costs quality. (PNG does get replaced primarily because lossless WebP is kinda a superset of what PNG internally does.)
On your last point: I find it super annoying when both lossy and lossless codecs have the same name, and, more importantly, file extension. I get it that internally they are "almost the same thing", just with one extra step of discarding low-impact values, but when I see a PNG/FLAC file I know, that if the file was handled properly and wasn't produced by Windows clipboard or something, it is supposed to represent exactly the original data. When I see JPEG/MP3, I know that whatever it went through, it is not the original data for sure. When I see WEBP, I assume it's lossy, because it's just how it's used, and I cannot just convert all my PNG files to a newer format, because after that I won't be able to tell (easily) which is the original and which is not.
Ah, in that case you would be more annoyed to learn that lossy WebP and lossless WebP are completely distinct. They only share the container format and their type codes are different.
Awesome. It would be interesting to learn why they even thought it is a good idea. Content-agnostic containers may make sense for video, but for the vast majority of use-cases a "video" is in fact a complex bundle of (several) video, audio, metadata tracks, so the "container" does much heavier lifting than specifying codec details and some metadata.
The PNG and FLAC format doesn't doesn't tell you that. While both specify lossless encoring algorithms (assuming data is already quantized to a supported bit depth), that doesn't prevent encoders from adding additional lossy preprocessing steps that improve compression - and there are several such encoders for PNG.
This is probably the neatest feature of JPEG XL. Although, creating a thumbnail by literally truncating the image bytestream is a close second in 'neat' factor.
I usually give myself 30-60 mins to solve. If I can't do it by then I will look up solutions and -study- them (also break it piece by piece and see if I can generalize it for future problems). I would look at solutions even after solving it by myself.
I find that to be the best balance between challenge and learning something new. You will mentally burn yourself out if you keep bashing against the wall for hours or more, not quite a healthy thing to do :)
Meanwhile, people who actually try to compete on this stuff have already developed rich library of specialized algorithms to leap ahead of average programmer. Well, I guess nowadays a lot of it is LLM assisted too.
Yeah, I definitely think there's benefit in seeing others solutions, and in this situation I want to learn from it, if I can ever reason out why it's working.
Certainly using nushell means anything beyond the true basics seems to be beyond most LLMs.
When I first started programming it used to get me down if I couldn't solve these things. But as I've got old and a little more experienced, I can now admit things like AoC are just not my thing. It's like crossword puzzles or low level algos. I find them extremely hard to reason about.
Companies should quickly realize that ChatGPT can go both ways - it can turn a "script-kiddie" into fully fledged hacker if vulnerabilities continue to be this sloppy. I am fairly certain that low-skill hacker sweatshops already heavily rely on LLMs to quickly exploit trivial vulnerabilities like these.
Like it or not but I feel like account logins, PII and payment stuff will have to be handled by central big orgs. Ideally, I would like that to be a competent open-source government service. For now it is big companies like Google that can shove its SSO around in accessible manner to other sites.
