/* Emits a 7-Hz tone for 10 seconds.
True story: 7 Hz is the resonant
frequency of a chicken's skull cavity.
This was determined empirically in
Australia, where a new factory
generating 7-Hz tones was located too
close to a chicken ranch: When the
factory started up, all the chickens
died.
Your PC may not be able to emit a 7-Hz tone. */
#include
int main(void)
{
sound(7);
delay(10000);
nosound();
return 0;
}
That's a more natural way to consider the resonance, certainly. What I was getting at is that if we were using a 7hz tone to explore a big room, we couldn't tell if there was a chicken in there or not. We'd have a hard time sensing an elephant. Let alone exert enough of a force to harm. Because the wave is so much larger that they barely interact.
The SVS PB-17 Ultra advertises a range of 12-220Hz at -3dB. I imagine it could play a pure 7Hz tone if you turn it up.
And most speakers can play infrasound for many non-sinusoidal waveforms [0]. They'll drop the fundamental and some lower-end harmonics but can still give a sense of what it sounds like
> I imagine it could play a pure 7Hz tone if you turn it up.
You're misunderstanding the numbers here. Going from 12 to 7 Hz is most of an octave, nearly doubling wavelengths.
Also SVS's numbers are gonna be the usual marketing stuff, so they're assuming a fat room gain curve, and just looking at their website they have a disclaimer on their graphs that it doesn't represent actual total output capability. Which is a way of hiding that if you actually try to drive it that hard that low with ~3kw electrical in those voice coils are going to torch.
The non lying way to prove that claim is to show large signal Kipple results including the heat soak. They ain't doin' that here.
Basically stuff going this low is really exotic and more in the realm of servos that simulate earthquakes than traditional transducers.
Tom Danley is the world expert on this sort of thing. He used to build stuff like ultrasonic levitation ovens and full scale sonic boom simulators for JPL/NASA.
In the audio world he was first famous as the tech lead behind ServoDrive. This now defunct company made special effects subwoofers using DC rotary servo motors to drive the diaphragm. They were used as special effects subs in that era by big acts like Garth Brooks. But they didn't catch on outside that niche because very little music has significant content below 40 hz as it just turns into a muddy rumble that harms sound quality as a whole. So to use these sorts of things you have to mix for it specifically. Cinema goes lower with the rumbles down to 15hz, but that's basically it.
Getting anything that's like a clean tone at 7hz is not gonna happen without a purpose built device.
FWIW Tom Danley started his own company[1] after Servo Drive failed on the business side, where he focuses on large scale horn speakers using novel topologies. They're among the best in the business at what they. Again, they don't have anything that even remotely tries to go down to 7hz.
Tom's a nice guy, I've traded emails with him a few times over the years. He used to be pretty active on the DIY speaker building mailing lists sharing his very in depth knowledge freely.
If I feed a 7hz input to some cheap hand-made thing like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSEwqdq7aA , will it not vibrate at 7hz and thus produce a 7hz "tone" (disregarding that humans won't perceive that as sound, at least not the fundamental)?
No, because reproducing the fundamental is the thing. Saying otherwise is kinda like me saying I'm gonna take a voice call, run it through a filter that generates a ton of distortion harmonics, then seperate out those distortion harmonics, and then call it a "tone" of your voice.
But also the original post was about a 7hz tone somehow resonating with a chicken's skull cavity, which if you know the basic wave equation relating wavelength with frequency is an absurdity. The waves involved are multiple orders of magnitude too big to couple to a volume that small. They'll just diffract around like nothing.
An easier way to generate a 7 Hz tone is to just move your hands back and forth 7 times a second. Either way you won't be able to hear because we can't hear 7 Hz anyway
B) All info the OP(= author) knows is known to the professionals dealing with the due diligence. They decided to do so while looking at data which is not available the public. So assuming they know some things why we don’t know is not a far fetched idea.
These things are essentially the opposite of one another. Bellard's project is a PC emulator in JavaScript. Compiling things to wasm is pretty trivial now, but jslinux was much more impressive when it came out. It actually still is, for reasons you can see in the technical notes: https://bellard.org/jslinux/tech.html
This project, on the other hand, is the opposite (and kind of a joke): a set of Linux utilities mostly written in JavaScript.
I posted it 4 days ago here but it got zero attention.
Surprisingly, the recovery process from Yesterday's outage of HN, had it reposted, and I was surprised to see it this morning in the front page.
here is the story of this post
I have just started studying math in October, and my first course is linear algebra.
I have read too many introductions to complex numbers that follow the same script:
"Mathematicians needed to solve x^2 = -1, so they invented i, and despite calling it imaginary, it turned out to be useful..."
Then comes the complex plane, and everyone nods along, pretending they understand why we’re drawing circles when we started with algebra.
I never bought it. Something felt wrong.
So, last week I took a break from my lecture/recitation routines to write down everything I know about the topic, fill in the gaps, and search for the real answers.
While I was working with the LLM to answer the questions to myself, at the end of the day, it felt like sharing it might be beneficial, so that took another two days of me fighting the LLM to control it in place and have it focused on the historical facts and chronological order of events.
When my search led to Cardano's actual book, and pages in discussion, I was so thrilled, naively thinking others will find it useful as well. Apparently, everyone want to start an "AI-STARTUP", but refusing to get involved even in reading if AI was involved in the process.
I am open and clear about the use of AI and had no intention of claiming "discoveries" whatsoever.
This is in fact my first "math" related post I put out online, and I get the criticism with open arms, as long as they related to the math and history facts (and there are issues spotted which I may take the time to correct).
The Oil Well analogy (and other spicy terms) is not an AI's but mine, see, at a certain point, I was drinking coffee in my balcony, here in Abu Dhabi, over looking the sandy horizons, and while thinking about a discovery of new layer of numbers, the association with the Oil wells was inevitable.
here is a comment I have written by hand, no AI/LLM involved whatsoever.
This case study reveals the future of AI-assisted[1] work, far beyond mathematics.
It relies on a combination of Humans, LLMs ('General Tools'), Domain-Specific Tools, and Deep Research.
It is apparent that the static data encoded within an LLM is not enough; one must re-fetch sources and digest them fresh for the context of the conversation.
In this workflow, AlphaEvolve, Aristotle, and LEAN are the 'PhDs' on the team, while the LLM is the Full Stack Developer that glues them all together.
[1] If one likes pompous terms, this is what 'AGI' will actually look like.
> Aristotle integrates three main components: a Lean proof search system, an informal reasoning system that generates and formalizes lemmas, and a dedicated geometry solver.
[from elsewhere on how part 2 works]
> To address IMO-level complexity, Aristotle employs a natural language module that decomposes hard problems into lists of informally reasoned lemmas. This module elicits high-level proof sketches and supporting claims, then autoformalizes them into Lean for formal proving. The pipeline features iterative error feedback: Lean verification errors are parsed and fed back to revise both informal and formal statements, iteratively improving the formalization and capturing creative auxiliary definitions often characteristic of IMO solutions.
> same Mike in an org wide email: thank you all for your support. Starting next week I will no longer be a developer here. I thank my manager blah blah... I will be starting my dream role as Architect and I hope to achieve success.
> Mike's colleagues: Aww.. We'll miss you.
> Mike's manager: Is this your one week's notice? Did you take up an architect job elsewhere immediately after I promoted you to architect ?!
Kind of tells you something about how timidly and/or begrudgingly it’s been accepted.
IMO the attitude is warranted. There is no good that comes from having higher-level code than necessary at the kernel level. The dispute is whether the kernel needs to be more modern, but it should be about what is the best tool for the job. Forget the bells-and-whistles and answer this: does the use of Rust generate a result that is more performant and more efficient than the best result using C?
This isn’t about what people want to use because it’s a nice language for writing applications. The kernel is about making things work with minimum overhead.
By analogy, the Linux kernel historically has been a small shop mentored by a fine woodworker. Microsoft historically has been a corporation with a get-it-done attitude. Now we’re saying Linux should be a “let’s see what the group thinks- no they don’t like your old ways, and you don’t have the energy anymore to manage this” shop, which is sad, but that is the story everywhere now. This isn’t some 20th century revolution where hippies eating apples and doing drugs are creating video games and graphical operating systems, it’s just abandoning old ways because they don’t like them and think the new ways are good enough and are easier to manage and invite more people in than the old ways. That’s Microsoft creep.
> Forget the bells-and-whistles and answer this: does the use of Rust generate a result that is more performant and more efficient than the best result using C?
The Burry short is just one data point, but the "facts we know" are piling up fast.
Here is a possible roadmap for the coming correction:
1. The Timeline:
We are looking at a winter. A very dark and cold winter. Whether it hits before Christmas or mid-Q1 is a rounding error; the gap between valuations and fundamentals has widened enough to be physically uncomfortable.
The Burry thesis—focused on depreciation schedules and circular revenue—is likely just the mechanical trigger for a sentiment cascade.
2. The Big Players:
Google: Likely takes the smallest hit. A merger between DeepMind and Anthropic is not far-fetched (unless Satya goes all the way).
By consolidating the most capable models under one roof, Google insulates itself from the hardware crash better than anyone else.
OpenAI: They look "half naked." It is becoming impossible to ignore the leadership vacuum. It’s hard to find people who’ve worked closely with Altman who speak well of his integrity, and the exits of Sutskever, Schulman, and others tell the real story.
For a company at that valuation, leadership credibility isn’t a soft factor—it’s a structural risk.
3. The "Pre-Product" Unicorns:
We are going to see a reality check for the ex-OpenAI, pre-product, multi-billion valuation labs like SSI and Thinking Machines.
These are prime candidates for "acquihres" once capital tightens. They are built on assumptions of infinite capital availability that are about to evaporate.
4. The Downstream Impact:
The second and third tier—specifically recent YC batches built on API wrappers and hype—will suffer the most from this catastrophic twister.
When the tide goes out, the "Yes" men who got carried away by the wave will be shouting the loudest, pretending they saw it coming all along
I don't believe your comment is just a direct dump out of an LLM's output, mainly because of the minor typo of "acquihires", but as much as I'd love to ignore superficial things and focus on the substance of a post, the LLM smells in this comment are genuinely too hard to ignore. And I don't just mean because there's em-dashes, I do that too. Specifically these patterns stink very strong of LLM fluff:
> leadership credibility isn’t a soft factor—it’s a structural risk.
> The Timeline/The Big Players/The "Pre-Product" Unicorns/The Downstream Impact
If you really just write like this entirely naturally then I feel bad, but unfortunately I think this writing style is just tainted.
and this one for books:
https://standardebooks.org/blog/public-domain-day-2026
reply