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

Why do almost all phones have to be in that narrow band of 6.5 to 6.9 inches?

I wish there were more size choices on both ends of the spectrum. While most people prefer more choice below 6", I would like some choice above 7", since I keep my phone in my belly pouch, and never use it one-handed. My current Huawei Mate20X is actually ok at 7.2" (but worse than the Mediapad X1 I had before which at 7" was actually wider) but is way behind on Android updates, and will soon stop running my banking app.


Quick reality check that

- 7" used to be tablet category, e.g the Nexus 7

- anything above 6" would be considered phablet

Phones are really just like cars now, size inflation included.


While I agree with the spirit of the thread and dearly love my mini, I think this reasoning doesn’t account for a substantial reduction in bezels: my iPhone 5S had more than a centimetre of black bars above and below its 4" display (altogether it was 5.4" in diagonal), I bet those phablets you mentioned had even bigger bezels and were closer to modern 8.5" phones.

> Mining requires traversing a DAG with a mainnet floor of 512 MB (32,768 nodes × 16 KB each)

How much memory does PoW verification require?

> Genesis Address: 2,696,969 KNOX (One-time mint for the Founder/Son legacy).

> Treasury: 1% of each block's public reward, allocated to the protocol treasury.

Yet another grift...

> Post-Emission: After 21 years, miners are sustained by transaction fees only. The hard cap is absolute.

Even for the #1 blockchain, the ability for tx fees to provide sufficient security is strongly in doubt.


> not much territory has changed hands

Russia occupies about 20% of Ukraine, an area three times larger than the country I live in (the Netherlands).


Majority of that is since 2014, gains since 2022 are way lower

Not true, prior to 2022 February Russia controlled small parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, now they control them almost entirely, as well as good chunks of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/24/mapping-russian-att...

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...


All were captured during their thrift store blitzkrieg. Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Mariupol were captured because pro Russian rats sabotaged mine defenses in Kherson oblast.

An implicit K suffices for universality, as in \x\y\z. x z (y (\w.z))

The light power increase is even more impressive at 67%:

> The company's researchers have found a way to boost the power of the EUV light source to 1,000 watts from 600 watts now.

with more on the horizon:

> We see a reasonably clear path toward 1,500 watts, and no fundamental reason why we couldn't get to 2,000 watts.


High tx fees are an essential goal in Bitcoin's design: in the long term, when the block subsidy becomes insignificant, Bitcoin's security will rely almost entirely on tx fees.

Individual busy beavers BB(n) are finite natural numbers and thus quite computable. A related uncomputable number is the halting probability Omega of a universal prefix machine (whose programs form a prefix free set). By collecting enough halting programs to accumulate a probability of at least the first n bits of Omega (as a binary fraction), you will have determined all programs of length at most n that halt and thus also the busy beavers up to that size.

"A real number in which each decimal digit at position n is equal to the first digit of BB(n)."

Since you asserted that individual BB(n) numbers are computable, I think you will have no difficulty writing an algorithm that outputs that.


Such an algorithm would be computing the (uncomputable) function BB : Nat -> Nat, and not the computability of a given BB(n). Every fixed natural number is computable: just print out the number.

This is a subtlety of doing computability theory in classical foundations. It’s akin to how every concrete instance P(x) of a decision problem P is decidable: just use excluded middle to figure out if P(x) is true or false, and then use the Turing machine that immediately accepts or rejects regardless of input. This is very different from writing a machine that has to decide P(x) when given x as an input!


I did just that for the first 37 BB numbers at https://oeis.org/A333479

I could write a few more given enough time, but writing later ones will take someone more omnipotent than me.

You may be confusing the true statement "for each n, BB(n) is computable" with the false statement "\n -> BB(n) is computable".




Or, even more challenging, an okapi on a recumbent ?!


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

Search: