USPS started sending me pictures of the place where I used to live 5 years ago all the sudden, they are not addressed to me and there is no way I can stop these mails (I could block them on gmail but that will affect my own digest).
I am originally from Europe and I must ask : how many startups of global reach has Europe produced in the last 30 years compared to the US as a whole (or even just the SF Bay Area). What is Europe doing in AI compared to the US or China?
Achieving Euro-Big-Tech for social media and AI would not improve European's lives either, except for the few oligarchs that would run the equivalent corporate giants there.
I can't help hearing Bender's voice after getting kicked out of the Casino...
> How has living in the same country as a crop of successful tech startups made the lives of an average American noticeably better?
Average American is materially wealthier than the average European, with more influence over the latter than the latter has over the former. Go above the bottom 20% or so, and you have vastly higher living standards in most of America compared with most of Europe.
This is obscured by our terrible treatment of the bottom 10%, as well as by the burdens we put on our middle class. But the American middle class is wealthier and, I’d argue, more powerful than most European countries’, the exceptions being in the West and the North of the continent.
60 percent of Americans can’t afford a basic quality of life. I disagree with the way this is argued. Materially wealthier how? Home equity? Household net worth? Absolutely of no value based on the currently observed outcomes.
If you ignore the wealth metrics, Europeans live objectively better lives than a majority of Americans.
> 60 percent of Americans can’t afford a basic quality of life
Define that “basic quality of life” and map it to the EU. We define our baselines much higher in America than they do in Europe because of course we do, we’re richer per capita.
Quality of life for the bottom I think 50% of Americans is worse than in Europe, almost entirely due to food quality and healthcare. But for most Americans, it’s materially better for most values worth measuring. (For the richest Americans it’s way better, but that isn’t how I believe one measures a society.)
Keep in mind that I’m counting the whole EU. If we restrict ourselves to its richest members, sure, QOL is higher in Switzerland and Norway than in Mississippi.
Unburdened by housing costs, affordable and accessible healthcare, transportation, child care, groceries, etc.
It is possible to live comfortably in most of Europe for €1000-€1500/month. This is almost impossible for most of the US, more so as upcoming Medicaid cuts occur.
Let's take Germany as a case study for someone making roughly 3000/month NET salary. Health-insurance premiums are generally higher in Germany than in the United States. U.S. Social Security benefits tend to be more generous, backed by roughly USD 2.7 trillion in trust-fund assets, while Germany’s state pension scheme runs a deficit that consumes about 25 percent of federal tax revenue.
The United States provides universal coverage through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA); none of these programs expose citizens to unlimited liability. Under the ACA, annual out-of-pocket costs are capped at about USD 9,200 even when bills exceed USD 1 million. Even in Germany, there is a co-insurance payment; liability is at 1300/year, I think. Given that US coverage is cheaper, this can go either way. It is widely accepted that it is much easier to see a specialist in the US and get appointments than in Germany, so there is a good argument to be made that US health care is better.
Living on EUR 1,500 per month in Germany is feasible only in remote rural areas, and even a net income of EUR 3,000 in provincial cities leaves little discretionary spending. Higher average earnings in the United States, together with easier property acquisition, generally offer superior opportunities for wealth building. Claims to the contrary overlook relevant data on median incomes, benefits, and costs and are pure cope about the declining standard of living in Western and Central Europe for the middle class.
> Unburdened by housing costs, affordable and accessible healthcare, transportation, child care, groceries, etc.
Few European social welfare systems unburden their populations of all of these. Those that do are comparable to America’s wealthiest states.
> It is possible to live comfortably in most of Europe for €1000-€1500/month. This is almost impossible for most of the US
It’s also a lot easier to earn more than that wage in America [1][2]. (And you can absolutely live an okay life in NYC if you got your subsidies right on a job that pays ~$20k/y.)
I also want to follow up on your claims of transportation, again using Germany as a case study. Just Google what is happening with Deutsche Bahn. It is a disaster. I know because I do not have a car and am forced ot use it multiple times a week. It is completely unreliable, and if you have an important appointment or flight, then you're best option is to find another means of transportation, preferably driving if you have a car. Relying on German public transit (specifically Deutsche Bahn) will ruin your life; you will be late for everything or just not arrive. What I am saying is not an exaggeration. So yeah, I would rather have my tax money back and own a car. And the German cope is to say that DB is a private company, which is technically true; it's a private company 100% owned by the government. It's an abomination.
Why do you think that Europe has to race with the US in number of startups? Shouldn’t we focus on the quality of life instead?
The rich people in the US have lower life expectancy than the poor people in Europe. People in Europe are also happier than the ones in the US. What those startups will bring?
> Why do you think that Europe has to race with the US in number of startups? Shouldn’t we focus on the quality of life instead?
For one thing I'm interested in quality of life for my kids, not only mine. The world is a big race: those who refuse to run become irrelevant and disappear.
One, a search isn’t a source. Two, the medical source in your results [1] doesn’t support your hypothesis:
“Survival among the participants in the top wealth quartiles in northern and western Europe and southern Europe appeared to be higher than that among the wealthiest Americans. Survival in the wealthiest U.S. quartile appeared to be similar to that in the poorest quartile in northern and western Europe.”
The wealthiest 25% of Americans have mortality similar to the poorest 25% in Northern and Western Europe. And the wealthiest 25% of Europeans as a whole outlive the wealthiest 25% of Americans.
The richest Americans, where I mean top 1 to 5%, on the other hand, match with the richest Europeans because of course we do, we’re accessing the same global pool of health services. But there is zero evidence rich Americans are outlived by poor Europeans, even if we restrict ourselves to its wealth West and North.
Followed here from your link on one of my other comments. Would you not agree that the bottom 95% of Americans have poor mortality versus most Europeans, based on this data? Comparing rich Americans to rich Europeans is not very compelling (as you mention); comparing most Americans to most Europeans (by wealth) is. The rich will do well regardless of where they are, as they are internationally mobile for the purposes of consuming healthcare services. Therefore, we should not be including them for comparison of majority outcomes.
> Would you not agree that the bottom 95% of Americans have poor mortality versus most Europeans, based on this data?
Compared with EU Europeans, yes. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that similarly-wealthy Europeans are healthier than their American counterparts.
> we should not be including them for comparison of majority outcomes
OP made a statement about the rich in America doing worse than the poor in Europe.
I am originally from Europe as well. And still living there (not sure if that’s why you phrased it like that) but how many innovations from the us are really adding to the value of life vs just forcing eyeballs to screen.
Linux came from Europe. A lot of open source does, see blender.
I know VC money is sexy but does it add real value
That is a strange way to dismiss the innovation from the country that brought to market:
- the light bulb
- the mass produced car
- the airplane
- the artificial heart
- the gold standard in Covid vaccines
- the personal computer
- the smartphone
- the internet
- email
- GPS
- MRIs
- consumer grade LLMs
- the world’s largest public cloud providers
- TCP/IP and BGP
- the web browser
- the most popular search, social media, and e-commerce companies in the world
I know it feels good to say “but did they really make human kind better off?” and dismiss American innovation as another goofy VC-funded cash grab iPhone app; but the US is responsible for technology that has made the world better many times over.
This mentality is why Europe will never replicate the success of the US technology sector.
The web was British. The computer owes a lot from German designs. The car was a German invention. The smartphone had European pre-designs. And, on 'the cloud'... that just rehashing more than 50 year old mainframes' design. Were's the actual innovation? Again, as I said, Bell Labs/MIT with Unix and Lisp which were groundbreaking aren't hip any more.
Even 9front with namespaces has tons of European collaboration.
Lmao. Germany invented the car, most modern automotive technology (fuel injection, front wheel drive, all wheel drive, and more) were invented in Europe, the web was started in the UK, personal computers were also made in Europe by European companies to fairly widespread success, not to mention such fundamental innovations like engines and railroads
No country has a monopoly on innovation, you're being absolutely ridiculous
Eta: the tape recorder was invented in Europe. The compact cassette and compact disc were developed by Phillips to unimaginable commercial success. I'll keep coming back as i think of more :)
There is no denying that the US has done great stuff over the last 100 years or so. I don't understand this weird flex from some Americans to always claim US is the best at everything at the exclusion of everyone else. Same with the second world war; there are Americans who seem to think they somehow single-handedly won that.
My American ex said she had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school. Apparently this is law in most states. I suspect it might be related.
American support before the US entered was crucial on the western front. But it's generally agreed that the turning point of the war against the Nazis was the Battle of Stalingrad, which the US played no part in (other than occupying Nazi forces elsewhere). However, a great effect of the US joining was that the USSR didn't conquer France. The second half of the the twentieth century could have looked very different if the US had stayed out. In other words, it might not be really accurate to say the US beat Hitler, but it is accurate to say they halted Stalin's advance. It could be argued that D-Day won the Cold War, it just took a long time for that to play out.
I mean yeah we are forced to recite the pledge daily, and our elementary school history classes are full of stuff like "the US has invented every great thing you love! The Internet, cars, planes, TV, etc etc"
I mean the comment i replied to basically comes across as a 11 year old who just aced their last history exam for the year.
It's just tragic that most Americans grow into adults without ever learning anything more about the rest of the world, or realizing how narrow and biased their baseline education was
Interestingly enough, I am not originally from Europe, but chose to move here over the US.
In no small part because I utterly despise the VC fueled hustle culture winner takes all disruptive bullshit from the US. I don't want to be anywhere near that particular toxic wasteland.
Sir, are you aware that this very website is run by VCs as an advertisement for hustle culture? You are, in fact, “anywhere near” this particular vast wasteland.
The entire notion that startups must have "global reach" to be relevant seems odd to me.
There are and have been plenty of startups throughout Europe, and the typical story is that they get bought by American companies and eye-watering amounts of VC capital.
Not saying that's the only issue; it's also true that getting meaningful funding is excruciatingly difficult in much of Europe. However, at the same time US companies have this "one little trick" to get a global reach: enormous huge stacks of cash.
That's a bizarre metric to judge a continent on. I mean, I could throw it back at you with : how many people's lives are ruined because of bankruptcy from a routine medical procedure that millions of Europeans get for free?
Ask your uncle who lives in old country, what he values more. EU-developed startups or universal healthcare that cured his child without bankrupting his household?
I think this is just because law and taxes are more forgiving in the US for companies to strive and gain advantage against companies in Europe.
Companies do well there, but only some people do. This difference is clear and large even when ignoring the homeless population. Higher-ups do extremely well, tech jobs are cushy, but people doing the more hands-on work tend to get the shorter end of the straw staff with low pay and long commutes.
European here. You're spot on with your question. Europe is an extremely hostile place to start a business compared to USA.
USA embraced capitalism and is geared towards proving concepts FAST and enabling networking. I love that about USA and I miss that in Europe, when it comes to IT/Tech sector in particular.
I'm not aware if Europe produced anything of significance in the past 30 years, we're lagging heavily behind USA/China and that's a fact. One could argue that Linus Torvalds is European hence Linux === European but I won't resort to such petty claims.
We produced very little value. We're having issues due to language discrepancy. Even though a lot of people speak English, it's often the case that we Europeans aren't able to communicate as well using English as we can in our native tongue. The lack of unified language is visible. The diversity in culture drives people to favor their own, we're bad at teamplay (this is from my personal experience and I am guilty of this).
There's many valuable lessons we could have learned from USA but we failed to apply them. We have various freely available systems that are great at, say, education - but education means nothing when it's difficult to apply it once people are done with it.
I worked with plenty of people from USA and I had huge prejudices towards them, in terms of "they talk a lot" or "they are not as competent, they are really slow when it comes to pumping out code" but I learned I was wrong to the point it's not funny. If anything, USA is really good at starting and pushing projects out that actually work.
Ultimately, do we even have a microchip factory (we might, but I'm unaware of it)?
Sorry for the wall of text, I just wanted to explain my POV and agree with you.
Personally, I'd love to see movement in EU's tech sector. We're 30 years behind USA in tech. I won't touch upon quality of life or similar topics because I'm interested in exploring technology.
Your mobile phone is most likely running a CPU invented in Europe (ARM). The next time you fly you are most likely going to fly on an airplane built in Europe (Airbus). When you buy your Ozempic you are buying a product invented in Europe. When you buy your prestige car you are buying a European car (Porsche, Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW, Roles Royce etc.) When you buy toys for your kids your are typically buying a European product (LEGO). When you buy your furniture you are very likely to buy European products (IKEA). I could go on and on ...
It's not a lack of local talent. It's a combination of two governance problems:
1. Europe has no large data centers. It has no such datacenters because the Green movement is much more powerful in Europe than in America, and they have systematically blocked the expansion of gas turbine power in favor of over-builds of renewables. The result is Germany having the most expensive electricity in the world. It just isn't affordable to train an LLM in the EU. Notice how Elon Musk has imported gas turbines from around the world to power the xAI datacenter; that just wouldn't be allowed in the EU.
But, still, a German company could do so using US datacenters. Mistral in France has probably done it this way. But then you hit:
2. Copyright laws in Europe are more restrictive. Even in the US it's very unclear whether training an LLM on copyrighted works is actually legal, but the US courts are fairly efficient and US law has the concept of fair use, which is flexible enough to give them the leeway to decide it's legal. In Europe the fair use equivalents are either more restrictive or don't exist at all, and courts follow the local culture of being much less business friendly, so it's much riskier to attempt this. The EU as a set of institutions is much more in hoc to the press than people realize, and MUCH more so than US administrations are. They regularly side with copyright holders over tech companies in disputes in a mostly successful attempt to curry positive PR for the EU project.
It won't win me any friends on HN but both of these factors boil down to a lack of a strong Republican Party equivalent in Europe. I don't think Americans appreciate the extent to which their economic success is dependent on the strength of the Republicans, and they really should. If American conservatism collapsed or was taken over by the left, as has happened in parts of Europe, you'd be seeing the EU-ification of America very quickly.
>
I am an American but the idea of Germany not having a competitive LLM right now is pretty sad and embarrassing.
> As an American, It is really hard to understand how this can be for a country with such an incredible intellectual and engineering tradition.
As a German, I would claim that getting Germans on a hype train is incredibly hard.
I also cannot see anything that is "intellectual" about these LLMs. To me, the whole LLM scene is rather like "rich alpha tech bros are tech-broing; a lot of sycophants in the inner circle of these tech bros attempts to use the dictate of the moment to become rich fast; and a lot of real or feign AI fanbois attempts to rid the hype wave to make easy money".
I think the hype train was the polymath omniscient oracle. With agents sanity seems pretty much restored.
With the absorption of entire markets the sober European view should be that the US approach was correct. Throw things at the wall until you have a wall full of things that stick. It looked pretty stupid until it didn't.
> With the absorption of entire markets the sober European view should be that the US approach was correct. Throw things at the wall until you have a wall full of things that stick. It looked pretty stupid until it didn't.
This approach only works if you have an insane amount of capital to waste ...
You don't know if it works, that's the whole point. European investors are like: How do I know 100% for sure this company will be a success? Why do I need this product? I have a car with chauffeur, why do I need a taxi app? I have a cook and a butler, why do I need a food delivery app? Pitching the LLM would be outright offending.
>
You don't know if it works, that's the whole point.
I am aware of that, and this is actually my point:
Since you don't know what will work, you can easily have a long phase of "duds" in your investments until you get one big hit. If you don't have a huge mount of additional capital lying around, as an investor you will go bust during such a long "starvation period".
That is why I wrote that this kind of investment approach only works if you have an insane amount of capital to waste.
I think one can be more selective. Skip the unlikely long shots. Being first has its advantage and disadvantages, doing something reasonably early is good enough.
With an insane amount of capital you do get a more reliable % of success but with a single lottery ticket you still have odds to win.
If you are not in the game at all you certainly wont.
The manufacturing is worldwide, but mostly Western. Only one facility in the US, employing about 100-200 people.
As for US-financed... it's a publicly-traded company that makes most of its revenue from selling to big chipmakers, so largely Taiwanese and Japanese "funded".
This is the right answer, and more people (especially technical people like frequent HN) should be pointing this out.
"What ads? Oh you must be running Chrome" needs to be the common refrain.
Really hope this ends up being a surprising tide shift. Firefox has dipped really hard in marketshare, but there's no reason it can't start to gain again/grow steadily.
It's really too bad the Firefox tent wasn't big enough for all the alternative browsers that exist (though of course they're not scratching the surface of real usage either). I skipped the whole Arc wave and I'm glad I did -- it's a distraction from Firefox.
its got stronger privacy out of the box than stock firefox, modern design, big fan of vertical tabs myself and it now has basic tab folders if enabled by flags. ubo/bpc both work nicely.
And they're really good. I'm so glad I've discovered this paradigm.
I use a vertical task bar on KDE and a vertical task bar on Windows at work. It's such a huge productivity boost. First, I can see WAY more window previews at one time than before. And second, I can use text to tell the windows apart. 5 Excel workbooks open? No problem, they each have a name. No more clicking on one icon and then squinting at window previews to see which one you need.
They really should be a LOT clearer about it on their homepage, 99.99% of "original" browsers tend to be a wrapper around Chromium.
And as someone who actually lived through the "IE is the standard, deal with it" - age, I refuse to use any Chromium based browser out of principle. We need more actually viable engines in use or Google will just keep dictating what's allowed on the internet by the fact that Chrome has something like 90% market share on desktop browsers.
I left Firefox a few months ago because there was a bug in their shader cache, so a lot of stuff was laggy. I was willing to put up with until I got a 360 camera and videos were playing at like 2 fps. This was about six months ago, it’s possible that it’s been fixed, I haven’t checked.
I am using Brave right now, which seems fine. I have no idea if it actually respects privacy but they at least claim it does.
That doesn't solve the issue of ManifestV2 being removed though, Brave will have it removed at the same time as Chrome, when it's pulled from the code base
nar001 is right. Once it is pulled from Chromium, Brave can no longer support it. Although, Brave's adblocking is just as good out if the box IMO, and it is implemented without the need for Manifest V2, so it will continue to function
They absolutely can continue to support it, that is the entire point of open source. What Chrome or Chromium does by default may make it more difficult, but doesn’t mean it is something that “can no longer” be supported.
I'm not sure that that's realistic. A browser in 2025 is arguably more complicated than an operating system, and requires fairly large and expensive teams of engineers to maintain and grow.
Google has billions and billions of dollars to throw at Chromium; I doubt Brave has anywhere near that kind of money. The longer it stays fully forked from core Chromium, the harder it's going to be to pull in updates, and the more expensive it will be to maintain.
What “can” be done and what “will” be done are two entirely different things. I was simply correcting the fact they stated it couldn’t be supported.
There is a reason I stopped using Chrome-based browsers years ago. Killing V2 was never anything but a play to make sure people see ads under the guise of “security”. While there is some security benefit, the main benefit is making sure Google is the only one spying on user’s every move.
This is what you get when people trust their browser development to a monopolist instead of a consortium. You get fast and shiny bells and whistles with support for the latest whatsis, but you also get this.
I really am curious if that will hold up once bigger refactorings make the necessary internal APIs for ManifestV2 unavailable. Then Brave needs to maintain those APIs themselves, and every time downporting changes from the open source base becomes harder and thus more expensive in time and money.
I agree fully. We need to keep the idea of fully branching off from an open source project alive. But I also suspect that Google has incentives to make it extra complicated and difficult to maintain a fork of their codebase with adblocking implemented on top of it, over time. Resources are often very limited in open source and often comes down to one or a few people.
Sure, but there is a limit to bullshit I'm willing to put up with. When that bullshit level is past its threshold I don't think you can blame someone for jumping ship.
These days the term "woke" has lost almost all meaning. It used to mean being "awake" i.e. aware of socio-economic factors in society. Today, as far as I can tell, it simply refers to whatever the big corporations/alt-right doesn't like. Just like how they refer to anything left of oligarchy as "communism". To me them calling themselves "very woke" reads as "we are against anti-human behavior", which is a good thing.
> Just like how they refer to anything left of oligarchy as "communism"
To the left of oligarchy? I thought it was anything to the left of getting hit repeatedly in the head with a hammer that they labelled as communism? There must have been a massive leftward shift in society since I last checked the news!
I never had firefox pop up and tell me to attend a drag show or that I need to surf more diverse websites than my usual sports and news sites. how is it woke? I don't care what mozilla the org does. They jsut took a big revenue hit because of the decision against google, they won't have much money for any political endeavors other than maybe privacy and free speech on the web very soon
The woke reference is to LibreWolf, not Mozilla. The dev labelled themselves "very woke" and declared the project will not be apolitical. They banned someone from their chatroom for their identity/political affiliation outside the chat, and so on.
Regardless of one's political applications, I do agree who you are elsewhere shouldn't matter unless you actually start spewing that in an inappropriate context.
It crashes every few days for me and has since the last several major releases... enough that I can't rely on it anymore. (UG) Chromium has never crashed on me once.
But Firefox is so dependent on google (money, code) that it's absolutely impossible they won't also remove manifest v2. It will just take a little while, for appearances...
About a year ago FF said they had no current plans to remove V2 support, and if they did, they'd give at least 12 month notice. Which to me is basically language saying they absolutely will remove it at some point, otherwise they'd just say "no we'll never remove it, fuck google".
Did you look at the FAQ page they created afterwards?
'do not sell user data' is too broad legally. It's a challenge in some jurisdictions. So they removed that. But it's not because they sell the data. They do have partnerships (like they did Pocket for example). In this case, they have anonymous stats that they share with others and that, in some jurisdictions, could fall under 'selling user data'
> In this case, they have anonymous stats that they share with others and that, in some jurisdictions, could fall under 'selling user data'
Correction, they said personal data, which if you go by the EU's definition means "any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual".
Which wouldn't be "anonymous stats", and can you give an example of a jurisdiction where sharing "anonymous stats" would go under selling personal data?
And is "doesn't sell your data to advertisers" also too broad? Because they removed that part too.
There are many cases where "anonymous" data can be de-anonymized, mostly if the stats contain outliers or multiple small groups that can be combined to uniquely identify an individual. "Any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual" (emphasis mine) implies that if there exists a way to de-anonymize any individual in the dataset then the dataset is PII.
> It seems like every company on the web is buying and selling my data. You’re probably no different.
> Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
Specifically,
> Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love.
If you consider GDPR, even the suggestions on the new tab could send data to third parties and wouldn't be okay with this.
Any request done to a third party server, would send them your IP which is PII under GDPR.
> Why go by EU's definition when it's used globally? If it was a single location, or a single law like GDPR, that'd be easy to reword.
I tried to look up Mozilla's definition for "personal data" first but could only find "personal information":
> For us, "personal information" means information which either directly identifies you (like your name, email address, or billing information) or can be reasonably linked or combined to identify you (like an account identification number or IP address).
And again, what's a jurisdiction where sharing anonymous stats would conflict with "we don't sell your personal data"?
They mentioned CCPA as an example but they define a sale as the "selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration"
But they define "personal information" as "personal information includes any data that identifies, relates to, or could reasonably be linked to you or your household, directly or indirectly" so "anonymous stats" wouldn't conflict with that, would it?
Literally me right now, got my first SDR less than a month ago because I wanted to have an FM radio for emergencies and I am designing antennas and studying for my amateur radio license.
> because I wanted to have an FM radio for emergencies
Just make sure you have batteries/a way to run it!
When we lost electricity for 1.5 day here last month (Spain), I thought I'd be clever and use my SDR too, but since we didn't have electricity at all, and none of my laptops were charged, I was out of luck. Wife's Macbook had battery available, but since I never used it with her Macbook, of course it didn't have the software/drivers needed, and the internet didn't work as all ISP equipment was also without electricity. Ended up listening to the radio in the car which was more than cumbersome :/
TLDR: get a shitty battery/hand-crank powered FM/AM radio for emergencies
Remember schematics for radios powered just by radio waves. No need for battery or hand-crank. That was in some old books, but never managed to build one.
supposedly you can demodulate FM with "slope detection", off tuning slightly so as the signal varies in and out of the resonance of the tuned circuit you can get an audio signal. Its gonna be mono lol. The "Q" of the tuned circuit needs to be pretty good and its interesting to see that they use copper tubing as the coil wire or more technically in the linked page, a resonator.
That's AM crystal radio but there aren't that many AM stations left these days, most have been torn down because (thanks to AM) they need insane amounts of power to be receivable across larger distances.
Not in the USA. We still have 50,000 watt clear channel stations. On a clear winter night, local lore has it that WJR-760AM Detroit could be heard in Mexico. Crystal radios still work...well, not fine, but as good as they ever did. AM frequencies are low enough they skip off the ionosphere.
I remember a family road trip from Chicago to South Carolina in our '77 Impala wagon, when my whole family was listening to a DePaul basketball game on WBBM Chicago. My dad was a big fan. It was late at night, and the game came down to the last shot in the last second or so. The station was barely coming in, so we pulled over and heard DePaul win on a buzzer-beater... then the station blinked out. It was perfect.
I always think about this when I see another story about AM's demise.
Mmm, I think you may have AM and FM reversed there. If I remember correctly, FM only goes 65 miles or so, but AM can go thousands of miles under the right conditions (at night, mostly).
The most amazing part of guix (and nixOS) is that you can just copy that piece of code into your home-config.scm and have it running in a few seconds. It's pretty mind blowing.
