Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | breck's commentslogin

There are shockingly few images of mitochondria available online.

I started a project to increase that number by 1,000,000x: https://powerhouse.breckyunits.com/

I'm currently mastering the same confocal fluorescence technique used in this image (but borrowing microscope time, as the scope costs >$250K), but also developing an at-home protocol using Janus Green that should cost less than $200.


hey I've something to say, this reply I'm making is not related to the parent. i'm kind of disappointed you "tried" colider by looking at the syntax. Not mad just sad, makes sense that I didn't add build instructions when your video was recorded.

thx.


The loading jokes make me lol. Browser Base looks interesting.

The actual roast wasn't so great, but I had fun trying. Nice job.

Here's my user test: https://news.pub/?try=https://www.youtube.com/embed/a5A2sEB4...


Why would they ever want to sell ads?

They did not get addicted to selling ads, have billions in revenue from paying subscribers, and don't have to wean themselves off of ads (as Google and Meta would love to do).


Because they are massively structurally unprofitable right now?


Why make $1 when you can make $100?


Because Sam Altman needs to buy another Greubel Forsey, of course.


If they are making billions from subscriptions, why on earth would they want to switch to an ads business?


Because it is never enough. We see this time and time again. Once they are making billions, the people in charge will demand that they start making dozens of billions, and then hundreds. The growth must never cease, because the moment you stop growing, you can't sell the dream that supports ridiculous PE ratios anymore.

Google was a very profitable business 10 years ago and the search was still decent. In the last decade they absolutely butchered their core product (and the internet along with it) in an effort to squeeze more ad dollars out, because it's not the level of profitability that they need to maintain, but the growth of that profitability.

Microsoft was a ridiculously profitable company, but that is not enough, they must show growth. So they add increasingly user hostile features to their core product because the current crop of management needs to see geometric growth during their 5 year tenure. And then in 5 years, the next crop of goobers will need to show geometric growth as well to justify their bonuses.

Think about this for a moment: the entire ecosystem is built on the (entirely preposterous) premise that there must be constant geometric growth. Nobody needs to make a decision or even accept that this is long term sustainable, every participant just wants the system to keep doing this during their particular 5-10 year tenure.

It's an interesting showcase of essentially an evolutionary algorithm/swarm optimizer falling into a local optimum while a much better global optimum is out of reach because the real world is something like a Rastrigin function with copious amounts of noise with an unknowable but fat tailed distribution.

<rant/> by a hedge fund professional.


If you consider complex forms of life serving as an entropy-increasing phenomenon, then you might as well consider that the evolutionary algorithm is governed by such goals. It's even plausible to take the human behaviors like increasing consumerism and growth-orientation as being connected to this fundamental thermodynamic drive. Perhaps we'll find even more efficient principles to drive our consumption further. <extending on your rant obviously />


>It's an interesting showcase of essentially an evolutionary algorithm/swarm optimizer falling into a local optimum while a much better global optimum is out of reach because the real world is something like a Rastrigin function with copious amounts of noise with an unknowable but fat tailed distribution.

I've never heard it framed like this before, that's beautiful.


I would gladly read long-form pieces in this vein and style. Have you considered writing?


Just copy pasting the response to another commenter asking in similar vein:

Thank you for the kind words. I've been thinking of doing something long form, I'm just unsure if there's enough of an audience in this age of catchy tweets and tiktok videos.

Full disclosure, I had no formal education in writing... I suppose all credit goes to the actual great writers I take inspiration from.


This is such a good rant, and I think you should develop it into an essay and I think there is an important catchy natural equation to mine here.


Ha, thank you for the kind words. I've been thinking of doing something long form, I'm just unsure if there's enough of an audience in this age of catchy tweets and tiktok videos.

Full disclosure, I had no formal education in writing... I suppose all credit goes to the actual great writers I take inspiration from.


Making billions but spending trillions for no moat (GPUs and models aren't moats) means that the only moat they have are users. Users aren't paying enough to offset costs, the only way to get value from non-subscription users for their scale is through ads.


Might have something to do with the fact that they're also still losing billions operating their services at a loss!


Seems like the sane thing to do with would be put ads on those using the service for free.


but the capitalist thing to do would be to put ads on both the paid and free versions of the service and infuriate all your customers to add penny shavings to your short-term bottom line!


First ads on free version then "limited ads" on paid version while creating another tier for paid users for more money


No, the capitalist thing to do would be to optimize profit. Optimizing profit isn't some trivial thing, when there's competition (as there is now). It's literally optimizing the desire and will for people to pull money out of their wallet and give it to you. It's a chaotic system with many attractors.

If adding ads causes a reduction in profit, from people moving to add free LLM (there are many), then it would be capitalist, in the interest of profit, to not have ads. And, let's say there's a scenario where all the companies have ads, the capitalist thing to do might be to remove ads, to capture all the users that don't want them.

Sure, once competition is gone, capitalism stops working, but we're not even close when it comes to AI.


You can ask the same for ie Apple where you pay a proper premium for products, yet their ad business keeps growing slowly into respectable proportions, and not by accident.


To make more billions



Slightly more accurate: they're raising billions making pennies.


They get inspired by streaming services doing the same.


they're not making billions from subscriptions


They do.


Switch? Por que no los dos?


· Revenue was $65.6 billion and increased 16%

· Operating income was $30.6 billion and increased 14%

· Net income was $24.7 billion and increased 11%

Impressive


Time for layoffs then

/s


Yes. Turns out everyone should have just been eating fats all along.


hmm, ahem no!

veg fats okay, animal fats no so much as if you limit them you tend to live longer due to the decrease in oxidative damage.


Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), whether from plants or animals, are most susceptible to oxidative damage because they have multiple double bonds that can react with oxygen. Each double bond creates a potential site for oxidation.

Societies consuming high amounts of oxidized oils (repeatedly heated cooking oils, whether plant or animal) show increased rates of cardiovascular disease

Mediterranean populations consuming fresh, minimally processed olive oil show better cardiovascular outcomes

Populations with high fresh fish consumption (like traditional Japanese diets) show better health outcomes despite high PUFA intake, likely due to immediate consumption and minimal oxidation

Modern food processing/storage methods increase exposure to oxidized fats

Fast food consumption correlates with higher intake of oxidized fats due to repeated oil heating

Socioeconomic factors influence exposure - processed foods with oxidized fats are often cheaper and more accessible

Oxidation status of fats may be as important as the traditional saturated/unsaturated classification


> if you limit them you tend to live longer due to the decrease in oxidative damage

Can you elaborate on that? Aren't animal fats, particularly dairy, rather rich in saturated fats? And saturated fats oxidize less easily than unsaturated fats precisely because they lack weak double bonds.


10 seconds, why not 1s?

We deploy in <1s. New sites, mods, small sites, large.


Perhaps you could talk about how you do it?


Let's take a conservative estimate of 200MB/s write speed on a Digital Ocean Droplet.

If your site is 100MB, write the new site to disk and read it into memory, kill the old server and bind to port on new server, in 1 second.


"inks"


is there a slim chance at a title change?

or a fat chance?



Hey Breck! Really appreciate you trying and no sorry, no web version just yet - I did launch an early web prototype but the majority of feedback wanted a native experience.

The email signup is purely so I can send out invites to TestFlight atm


I like how it's open source and the site looks nice!

I missed at first that it was for aquarium monitoring. Makes sense!

I'm not the target market, but here's my user test anyway in case it's at all helpful: https://news.pub/?try=https://www.loom.com/embed/3e0de3dc94a...

Nice job.


Thank you for the user test. The site is in fact not AI generated :D. You have mentioned a good point, that it isn't clear at first glance what it is about. Thats the result from swimming in my own bubble for too long.

Thank you very much


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact