Looking through the website and github, it looks a bit premature to post at all. I don't have too much love for ROS personally but that claim the title is making is quite bold

I did not expect HN to become this geopolitical.

And are you sure about your claim? Every time I hear anything about China and Solar the core of it is that solar in China is growing more than anywhere else on the planet ( 40% increase in 2025 and creating ~11% of China's energy already )

And that there is no sign of that trend slowing down anytime soon. And why would it. Solar panels are dirt cheap and they have more than enough space for it.

China is also really strong in the battery space, so they have everything they need to ditch oil/coal eventually

They also are building more coal, gas, and nuclear than anyone else at epic yearly increases.

That they have the internal political means to get large infrastructure projects done is laudible - they can actually build transmission lines that make unreliable energy sources like solar and wind feasible. In the US that is effectively impossible due to the NIMBY legal situation.

That they lead in battery production is going to be pretty interesting to watch. I admit I was skeptical that current battery tech could be scaled up enough to make it financially doable, but China is very close to making me wrong on the topic. If they can be the first to truly seasonal storage that works without hand-waving games like pretending you can "just use another source" when you run out of storage I'll be very impressed.

They seem to understand that you need to back unreliable sources with reliable sources - and have the political means to build a coal plant that will sit idle 95% of the time.

No other country is close - it's parlor tricks at the moment. China seems to understand how energy works, and that you need a reliable grid to run an industrial economy. They are very much being pragmatic in how they are building out everything they possibly can. The West has forgotten this.

They’re building more dirty plants than anyone, but they’re STILL making their mix cleaner at an impressive clip. Over 80% of new electric demand growth was met by renewables in 2024.

> They also are building more coal, gas, and nuclear than anyone else at epic yearly increases.

Are they really? Coal use for power generation stopped growing, so newly built coal plants are replacing older, not adding to them. Nuclear while still being built does not seem to be accelerating anymore.

Who else is building more nuclear or coal, regardless of the reason?

There's plenty to criticize about China, but as far as energy production goes they are a leader and have demonstrated what can be done when the country is aligned (albeit by force in this case) to provide cheap and clean energy to power their economy.

The US, under the current admin, is literally the opposite of that.

> I did not expect HN to become this geopolitical.

Everything is geopolitical now. Expect the hawks to look at the "success" of Iran and move on to bombing China soon.

The more I think about openclaw, the more it seems to be for AI agents what ROS is for robotics.

openclaw defines how to interact with distributed nodes ( how those provide the capabilities to the "orchestrator" ) but the real benefit are many task specific nodes that when put together make up something much bigger than the sum of it's parts

> openclaw defines how to interact with distributed nodes

Does it actually? AFAIK, there is no "specification" or "protocol", it's a cobbled together "platform" you run, with a bunch of integrations, but none of that is specified by openclaw itself. Happy to be corrected though, I only spent one weekend with openclaw before tearing it down.

> AFAIK, there is no "specification" or "protocol"

The protocol is english. You want your claw to check a hacker news comment and let you know when it gets a reply? You tell it "Check every 5 minutes if this comment has a reply", which then generates an english message to save and send to the agent each time, resulting in a browser tool invocation.

The claws live in a post-API world, where the API is english which turns into bash invocations or browser tool calls or such.

I've only just started to dive into it from the documentation side of things. They have ( maybe recently? ) started to create this Gateway Protocol https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/protocol to connect the stuff together.

It may be a "we are changing the wheels while driving" thing, but if enough people make nodes for openclaw it will become somewhat of a standard. And then we probably see 100 different claw offshots that all use the same nodes but with a different claw in the center

> They have ( maybe recently? ) started to create this Gateway Protocol https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/protocol to connect the stuff together.

That's a communication protocol between openclaw server and clients authenticated to that server though, it's not a communication protocol between different openclaw servers, is it? More like defining a HTTP+JSON protocol between a web server and a browser side client application. It's not a "protocol defining how to interact with distributed nodes", again, unless I misunderstand something.

Yes, that's why I compared it to ROS. I didn't mean multiple openclaws communicating with each other but openclaw communicating with nodes ( which are self contained programs running on your desktop or phone providing capabilities like webbrowsing to the claw server )

Right, I guess that's why I got confused by:

> openclaw defines how to interact with distributed nodes

When one talks about "distributed nodes" that usually means N nodes talking with each other, and being somewhat homogeneous between each other, unless the protocol temporarly can lift/lower some functionality.

You typically don't say "distributed nodes" when you're talking about a server<>client architecture, which seemingly is exactly how openclaw operates, both according to what I saw myself, and what you wrote in this comment.

I looked through several of the source files and if you had said it's 100% handrolled I would have believed you too.

It looks like a project made by a human and I mean that in a good way.

+1 on the meeting tranecription

I recently saw a video discussing fasting effects on cancer.

In the past it seems the consensus was that since cancer cells need more fuel than regular cells, starving them is beneficial in combating it.

But recently it has been discovered that some cancers can grow better with ketones.

So it seems that some cancers benefit from fasting while others are starved from fasting.

+1 for platformio, I recently switched to it and working in VSCode on the code is much more to my liking than the separate Arduino IDE

Would someone doing a clean room reverse engineering be permissible to then share would they built?

Depends on the country; US, probably not. Many european countries, probably yes. Asia? Your gov will ask you why you would bother them with a stupid and meaningless question like that in the first place.

I don't think you need to move the mouse, you just need to click slightly offcenter while still bein inside the ball.

I was looking at the source and it appeared there was special handling on the mousemove event. I also had to introduce timeouts, otherwise it wouldn't work (not entirely sure why). So was being safer since I didn't want this to become a time sink :D

I guess the story here is more like

If you take the Top 500 companies as an indicator how well your economy is doing, but everything is carried on the shoulders of only 1.4% of those 500 companies then what is the point of looking at the 500 companies in the first place.

Make an S&P10 then instead. or in addition to the S&P500

That would probably be a good way to look at it anyway. Looking at the trend of the S&P10 vs. S&P500 and if they agree then thumbs up, but if they disagree then things might not be as rosy as everyone thinks

The problem with that approach is you miss out on the gains of tracking a company from when its market cap is small to when it is large, and only capture the opposite as it leaves the top 10.

This is one reason people are so concerned with companies going public later. If they just appear in their fully formed embodiments then you can only capture their growth after they are large and their death.

> If you take the Top 500 companies as an indicator how well your economy is doing, but everything is carried on the shoulders of only 1.4% of those 500 companies then what is the point of looking at the 500 companies in the first place.

It's valid to argue that success of companies in the S&P 500 is not evenly distributed, but if you really want to understand the impact of that distribution on the economy you have to look at the value of each company rather than treating them equally.

The top 7 companies might only be 1.4% of the companies in the S&P 500, but they represent roughly 35% of the market cap of companies in the index. Because of that, they have an impact on the broader economy much larger than the raw number of companies would suggest. "Just" Nvidia doing well is going to have a much larger economic impact than just Newell Brands, which I have never heard of but is apparently one of the smallest on the index. In fact Nvidia's market cap is roughly 1000 that of Newell Brands with presumably similarly disproportionate economic impact.

> Make an S&P10 then instead

How do you pick these 10? After the fact, necessarily. So then meaningless for tracking the economy.

Them not agreeing isn't a bug. I bet it's pretty historically normal.

How about S&PMedian? Wonder how this would do over the time.

Probably not well. You'll be consistently betting against the market with very little reason to believe you're really adding information.

Also, cap weighting reduces your need to trade and thus your overhead and tax costs.

Interesting idea, even average would probably already work, it would give high performers some impact but not as much as now.

But it kinda misses what the S&P is in my pov. An index tracking how the value of those companies developed over the years measures by what you would have now if you would have invested in each of them