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

Chat, is this real? I've seen this guy pop up on youtube. I assume he's a Chinese state mouthpiece as he's a westerner in the mainland with a very pro-China spin (substack recommended the other posts below), but I'm curious how strong the factual basis for this reporting is.

China's factories are in another world - Mar 23, 2025

Chinese factories build fire trucks for under $400,000 in six weeks. In the US, it's $2 million in 4 years - Apr 19, 2025

Iran is blowing up $500 million radars. China's export bans mean they are gone forever. - Mar 16, 2026


There's a few of these guys that make posts about technology that doesn't materialize after a few years, they can be ignored. There are plenty of pro-China observers that offer grounded analysis of Chinese military-industrial base out there that don't make claims that China has unobtainium technology. /r/LessCredibleDefence has a shortlist of these propagandists.

Yeah it's certainly unimaginable that the civilization that invented gunpowder, cannons, guns, rockets a thousand years ago can make it for cheap now :)

'Hypersonic' missile makes it sound like it's alien technology, no it's solid boosters that do not follow the usual ballistic trajectory with a computer from 1970.

The raw materials cost less than half of a standard car.


"no it's solid boosters that do not follow the usual ballistic trajectory"

Hypersonics do not. They are extremely fast and extremely low flying.


No, hypersonic is a marketing term here that indicates 'difficult to intercept'.

It does not imply anything about speed, just automatic or controlled maneuvering later in the stage than normal missiles do.


The very definition of hypersonic requires at least Mach 5 in terms of speed.

sigh


We have had mach 5 missiles for about 60-80 years now, that's not what the novelty is.

Mach 5, high maneuverability, inside the atmosphere. Normally a non-ballistic trajectory. That's been the goal for a very long time.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archive...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_weapon

Do you have something to add to this discussion?

We just redoing definitions, or what?


> Mach 5, high maneuverability, inside the atmosphere.

Out of these, Mach 5 and inside the atmosphere have been doable for several decades. Pretty much all countries that make missiles can make missiles with these two characteristics.

My point, which you seem to either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent, is the other one - "maneuverability" - being the distinguishing factor for what we call hypersonic missiles. That makes these difficult to defend against.

Think of it like calling humans hyper-limbed animals, but limbs being not what really distinguishes humans from, say, chimpanzees.


Maneuverability isn't new either, aim-9x's can pull 60Gs.

MUTANT missiles will take that a step further as the tech works through the Program Office trials.

I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here, this whole thread seems like a silly waste of time.

There are people on this site that work directly in the offices of these programs.


> I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here, this whole thread seems like a silly waste of time.

Yeah, step one before replying to something should be trying to understand the point.

> There are people on this site that work directly in the offices of these programs.

Maybe even in this thread!


> Maybe even in this thread!

Maybe! :-)


I've only read a few short blurbs about this. What makes you think the booster doesn't follow a normal ballistic trajectory?

That's pretty much the entire point of what people are calling hypersonic missiles. All ballistic missiles fly at hypersonic speeds. The advance is being able to do so at low altitude with maneuverability.

You are correct, but I should point out that Russia has described its Kinzhal missiles as hypersonic, when they are really more of a traditional ballistic missile fired horizontally. So very fast (Mach 10), but not as maneuverable as what the U.S. has been calling hypersonic.

Since the original story here does not provide many details, we can't know which side of that fence this falls on (assuming it is real).


Was there any evidence that the Kinzhals fired, for example, toward Kyiv during the current conflict were fired on a depressed trajectory? I remember reading one account that looked like a plain old interception of a ballistic missile. (which is impressive enough to someone who remembers when "Patriot missile" was not exactly synonymous with excellence)

Kinzhals being intercepted all the time could also be propaganda or missile defense having progressed more than publicly known.

It's not a great idea in war to assume your enemy is incompetent (even when they are).


> That's pretty much the entire point of what people are calling hypersonic missiles.

Most missiles endowed with the "hypersonic" moniker are simply theater ballistic missiles used for standard ballistic missile things, which is part of why I asked the question.

> The advance is being able to do so at low altitude with maneuverability.

Hate to burst your bubble but arms dealers and governments are as capable as anyone else of marketing spin.


Good question. I think China is undoubtedly far better than the US at advanced, cheap mass-production. So wouldn’t be surprising they could do that for the military too. Not to say the US couldn’t get better.

Better than the US at producing almost anything at this point. There are a few tiny islands of advantage left for the US in advanced engineering but they won’t last.

Prediction: China will win the new race to the moon for this very reason.


This is basically what made the USA a military super power in the first place? At least it's what made them so powerful during WW2 and I guess beyond.

You don't have to assume: He seems to provide ample detailed western sources to back up his claims in every video.

Perhaps it'd be more difficult for him to broadcast if he had an anti-china perspective, but the content itself seems legitimate.


> He seems to provide ample detailed western sources to back up his claims in every video

Does he? The only sources seem to be a CNSpaceflight tweet from last november of a promo animation from the missile company, and a South China Morning Post article that is just quoting commentators on Chinese state TV talking about the the possible capabilities of the missiles.

The other sources (someone else's substack that's sourced from a December article[1] from The Independent, and two articles on "interestingengineering") all just quote the same animation and commentators.

[1] https://www.the-independent.com/asia/china/china-hypersonic-...


China does keep close tabs on foreign bloggers in their country (especially over the past decade or so), and anything remotely nonpositive does get people visits from police or worse. There is a huge chilling effect, even for people who mostly do have positive things to say.

The Occam's Razor position (Sora was the most expensive to operate, least monetizable model) seems like a simpler explanation. The legal costs/difficulty on top of "most expensive" are just the cherry on top.

I'm totally with you personally, but sometimes doing the actually hard part is fun. Type 2 fun.

Long ago I took a CPU architecture class and we implemented designs in Verilog as a final project. Apparently people who took the class in the late 90s (before my time) could actually tape-out their designs and pay a few hundred dollars to get fabbed chips as part of a multiproject wafer. I was always curious if those chips actually worked, or just looked pretty.


Type 2 fun, totally stealing that!


N=1, but I’ve been doing low carb paleo for 15+ years, from about age 20 to my current late 30s. I live off of butter, tallow, and lard. My weight has only crept up when I’ve eaten a lot of processed food. I get quite lean even with high fat if I fast more frequently or dip into ketosis. I’m trying to pack on some extra muscle with weight lifting right now and it’s not easy to get enough clean calories short of eating spoonfuls of (happy, pastured) bacon grease.

All I’m trying to say is that butter isn’t the enemy. Maybe commercial dairy production practices are the enemy, won’t argue with that.


> I’m trying to pack on some extra muscle with weight lifting right now and it’s not easy to get enough clean calories short of eating spoonfuls of (happy, pastured) bacon grease.

I thought I was the only one with that issue! I'm not paleo but my diet is heavy on whole foods, salads, and I don't eat much in carbs so once I started weight lifting, getting enough calories during the bulking phase has always been a struggle.

Protein is pretty easy by just chugging a few protein shakes a day, but calories? I had to start drowning my salads in olive oil and trying to sneak it or avacado oil or butter into every dish I cooked. A stick of butter only has like 800 calories!


I highly recommend the book Running Weight. Despite the title, it's useful for all kinds of athletes.


Problem with eating lots of animal fats isn't necessarily weight gain, but increased risk of ASCVD from raised LDL-c/ApoB. Can't really see/feel that until you keel over with an MI.


>N=1

I do wonder if you keto people are storing up problems for your later life.


What is "lower quant"? What is "higher quant"? I mean, I know what they are, but the very people you intend to reach don't know the difference between Q4_K_M and Q6_K and blog posts like [1] have nuggets like "For tests of the type ran here, there appear to be major diminishing returns past Q4".

[1] https://big-stupid-jellyfish.github.io/GFMath/pages/llm-quan...


> "For tests of the type ran here, there appear to be major diminishing returns past Q4"

These statements are silly, because the only interesting comparison is among models with highly comparable on-disk sizes, or sizes for their active parameters. Obviously, a Q4 model is not going to be the same effectiveness as a Q6: no one sensibly expects that, you need to compare the Q4 with a smaller model. (The GP has the same problem of course.) I believe that once you do that kind of comparison, higher quantizations tend to do better up to Q2 or so for casual chat, maybe slightly more bits-per-param for agentic use cases where avoiding erratic behavior is important.


Lovely idea. You got a photo printer model you like? I've been meaning to get a photo printer, but I'm scarred by experiences with inkjets back in the day.


If you are ok with 6x4 prints, postcard size, then canon selphy cp1500 might do it.

It doesn't do great with bw photos, but colour pictures are good enough.


If they are printing 100 or more prints a month even they are probably absolutely fine - inkjets die when not used because ink dries on the jets or other places.


Sure, but LAX is uniquely hostile. All of the other LA/OC airports are way better.


Haven't been to the others, but have found most major airports around the world are hostile. They are designed so you aren't comfortable unless you are forking out a lot of money to be in a bar or restaurant, or a business lounge. Everything is overpriced, even the buses going in and out of them.


+1. I wish Gemini 2.5/3 Pro's "personality" and long context handling wasn't so erratic, because the medical stuff in there is great. Whatever they did to produce the MedGemma models is clearly built on a strong baseline. I haven't had need to try using MedGemma on x-ray imagery, but I'd be curious to hear results — imagery diagnostics is part of what it's built for.

Opus 4.5 seems good too, though getting dumber. OpenAIs fine tuning is clearly built to toe the professional medical advice line, which can be good and bad.


I had progressively worsening pelvic floor pain issues that AI helped me with and are now in remission/repair. My decade of interaction with multiple urologists and clinicians could be characterized as repeated and consistent "pretty obvious oversight from the healthcare practitioners".


I have a dear friend who suffers from this and she has also got nothing useful out of the many visits to doctors and specialists. If it's not too personal, could you share what helped?


Chia is awesome for making pudding out of random liquids. I have to restrain myself from eating a batch of coconut milk cinnamon chia pudding in a single sitting.


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

Search: