skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Good preparation for space exploration, moon/mars colonies, where energy might be abundant, but surface access and water will be resources in short supply.
Not exactly offline, but if you have a spare clean android device with internet access and a camera, you could use the app/website I created, https://throwpass.com .

It allows you to send your password from your android device to any computer with a browser. It encrypts the password end to end with a public key generated in the browser and distributed to the device via qr code.
Render Project Data from MS Project Database and Perform Risk Analysis on Project
> is nuclear power cost effective?

To answer this, you need to ask "compared to what?"

The article's implicit assumption is that the comparison should be between a possibly quite expensive future with nuclear power, and a possibly even more expensive future with climate change that is extremely costly to deal with. If you agree with the second possibility being a realistic one (I personally don't, but that's really a separate discussion), then the first one can look cost-effective, simply because it's cheaper than the alternative.

If, OTOH, you're comparing nuclear power with cheap fossil fuels, in an environment where even safe nuclear reactors have to undergo years of legal challenges on the NIMBY principle, whereas a new coal, oil, or natural gas plant gets up and running quickly, then of course nuclear power isn't going to look cost-effective. (People who favor the previous comparison, with the "expensive climate change" alternative, would probably say the "cheap fossil fuel" alternative only looks cheap because it doesn't take all the costs into account.) But that could change if fossil fuels get more expensive (whether because they simply get harder to extract, or they face increasing regulation based on other factors like climate change).

> if we had started focusing on nuclear power 40 years ago -- and if we had done it carefully and properly the first time -- it would have been the right decision.

Now you seem to be making a different implicit comparison, between what we have now and what you think we would have if we'd focused "carefully and properly" on nuclear power from the start. But we arguably haven't focused "carefully and properly" on fossil fuels either; for example, coal dust has killed far more people by causing respiratory problems than nuclear power has, yet it took decades for "clean coal" to even be a talking point. Why should nuclear be the only technology where we have to do it "carefully and properly" or not at all? If you're going to compare them fairly, you have to compare them at equivalent levels of risk.
This is how Relay currently works
This looks like a very promising research avenue, and I don't mean to deprecate it in any way. But this part of the article seemed a bit too pollyannish: "Currently the system hasn’t been tested on a full-scale helicopter, used instead on a rather large remote- control hobby vehicle. But as the technology fundamentally works in the same way, there’s no reason to believe this won’t make its way onto full-sized helicopters in the future."

It's not self evident to me that, at the scales necessary for use in human-piloted helicopters, the robotic legs would be light enough to avoid causing thrust-to-weight ratio problems. But as always, I'm rooting for DARPA to make it work!
Yes and no. The article acknowledges that the key to improving aircraft efficiency comes in improving engine efficiency. While it says, "Engines are pretty darn efficient already," it doesn't really quantify that or do any analysis of the efficiency limits of engines.
> In practice, you can't use a WebDAV client library. In practice, you copy-paste XML from the examples in the RFC into your source code and hope for the best.

I've written CalDav clients. This is completely true. Being both an extension and modification of WebDAV, CalDAV cannot be used with common WebDAV libraries.
Caret – Professional Text Editing for Chrome and Chrome OS
>the Fukushima disaster changed my mind a little.

This is what I don't understand. The earthquake and tsunami that caused Fukushima's problems killed 20,000 people, and created an almost unimaginable amount of devastation. No one has died from Fukushima's radiation, and no one is expected to die. How horrible would the disaster have to be for a 1,000 people to have died from radiation? Would there have been 1,000,000 other deaths?

> I still think it's scary we can build a machine with such immense power

...this nails it on the head. It seems like most of the thoughts about nuclear power seems to be in the category of "we've created something unnatural, and we're worried that we'll anger the gods, and they'll release the invisible evil spirits as punishment". Not that I'm saying that we shouldn't have to take aspect of human nature into account.

http://myths.e2bn.org/mythsandlegends/textonly562-pandoras-b...
Zuckerberg gave NJ $100M to fix Newark's schools, looks like it was a waste
Except this isn't a clock, it is an SSL certificate.
Didn't mean to imply nuclear doesn't have its own risks. I just think that they are extremely small relative to those of coal / natural gas.

Chernobyl is responsible for more-or-less 4,000 total deaths.

Air pollution is responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. annually, and about 7,000,000 annual deaths worldwide (more than smoking).

I think the only open issue with waste containment is that the waste will remain radioactive for 100s of thousands of years, possibly longer than time it would take the container to break down (and I guess someone might try and dig it up?). Not a real practical threat.
Yeah, us, and everyone else besides some of the Europeans. China, for instance, is still shovelin' on the coal. Neither coastal property-owners nor any other decision-makers actually believe the disaster scenarios. Even if they did, TFA invoking global warming is more of a button-push than an argument. Few details are specified in the chain of logic from "China imports food" to "world war", but credulous readers will conclude that global warming will make it all worse.

China importing food is neither surprising nor destabilizing. Only in the Washington echo chamber could investment and trade with developing nations be portrayed as some sort of "threat" without derisive laughter ensuing.
Not sure what to tell you. We have a current project to do the same, but it is still in the infancy stage and has no requirements other than retrieve the data on demand (search is fine). I had an old project with a bit of structure and that was quite a lot easier. Post if you find anything and I will do the same as we move forward.
I'm excited about the release of any functional-ish language, but I'm unclear as to how F* is different from F# or OCaml. I did read some of the docs, but any pointers?

I should have read more:

We aim for a language that spans the capabilities of interactive proof
assistants like Coq and Agda, general-purpose programming
languages like OCaml and Haskell, and SMT-backed semiautomated
program verification tools like Dafny and WhyML. This language
would provide the nearly arbitrary expressive power of a logic
like Coq’s, but with a richer, effectful dynamic semantics.
It would provide the flexibility to mix SMT-based automation
with interactive proofs when the SMT solver times out (not uncommonly
when working with rich theories and quantifiers). And it would
support idiomatic higher-order, effectful programming with the
predictable, call-by-value cost model of OCaml, but with the
encapsulation of effects provided by Haskell.

That sounds pretty exciting. Especially considering you can use the full .NET stack (which I'm not currently using (Linux) but definitely respect).

EDIT: formatting
Facebook/nuclide
Solar's at cost parity if you don't consider the overproduction and storage you'd need to run civilization on it, without fossil backup.
When I worked as a Research Associate I developed a genetic algorithm for the constrained via minimisation which was to help design circuit boards with the minimum number of vias/holes between the layers of the boards. Indeed it worked well . Unfortunately the professor took all the credit it was to me a good paying job. Search for constrained via minimisation using ga for more on the topic.
In the example you used you're re-defining the class by wrapping it, not creating a global variable...

Consider it like:

var a = 1;
a = func(a);

Does it seem cleaner if you use the stateless functions from React 0.14? http://facebook.github.io/react/blog/2015/09/10/react-v0.14-...

var Score = (props) => (
<li key={props.score.initials}>
<strong>{props.score.initials}</strong> {props.score.score}
</li>
);

Score = Relay.createContainer(Score, {
fragments: {
score: () => Relay.QL`
fragment on Score {
initials,
score,
}
`,
},
});
$200B could pay for 1/6 of the US's annual electricity production if spent directly on solar. US Energy consumption is 4.6e9 MWh/yr [1]. Assume $2.5 per installed watt of solar (Google search) ==> $200e9 / 2.5 Watt installed => 80e3 MW installed => 0.7e9 MWh/yr.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...

And that doesn't even account for the cost of the reactors...
How often do we get 9.0 earthquake + tsunamis? I'm sure the earth and humanity would be much better off if every nuclear reactor was hit by one of these then the catastrophic damage caused by global warming.

How many countries can afford to feed their population when their farmlands have turned to arid deserts and their coastal cities are all underwater? Just look at all the recent super storms and California's drought. Compare that to fukushima. And this is only the beginning. Global warming is the threat you should be worried about.
What's broken? I see it just fine in FF40
Also FF Dev Edition, averaging 0.94 fps. It's on Ubuntu though with Nvidia card.

Pretty sure it's all about whether HW acceleration is enabled or not.
The plant is simpler and cheaper now

I don't know, it's hard to imagine anything being cheaper than large-scale hemp farming. It's a very strong crop that grows in most parts of the world and can survive a lot of hardship. And the yield is very high, my quick estimate indicates about 300 lbs/acre/yr of THC extract. Assuming that the production cost is similar to that of corn, it should cost about 200 USD/acre/yr.

I find it hard to conceive that yeast could cultivate a pound of THC for less than a dollar.

THC is THC. It's a compound.

True. But what matters here are the impurities. Synthetic THC medications like Marinol are associated with side effects not found in patients using Marijuana. They're both the same THC, but made through different processes and therefore with different impurities. Maybe there's some nasty trace impurity in Marinol, or maybe some of the other cannabinoids in cannabis counteract these side effects.
Chernobyl killed 4000 as long as you don't count any cancers.

985,000 isn't such a feel good number, after all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-de...

We need to start with the premise that nuclear is safe, and work back from there. We can redefine terms and ignore any research that doesn't fit with our agenda. Then when people question whether its a good idea we can setup a straw man and compare it to something obviously worse, like coal mining, and thus claim by relativity everything is great!
Both of the countries lauded in this article undertook their nuclear programs at least partially for strategic reasons. The U.S. has massive reserves of coal - 480 billion tons[1]. Our strategic need is much lower.

Also, isn't Sweden supposedly phasing out nuclear power?

[1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=70&t=2
Common arguments against brain preservation
I'm in Australia, so I thought I'd check.

I get this popup over the video:

> BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only.

I've found that Googling the listed titles fairly reliably usually finds YouTube copies of the videos, sometimes from more than one user.

These links don't cover all the videos, but I feel if I keep going I'll drown in computer history (:P):

- https://www.youtube.com/user/jesuszafra/videos

- https://archive.org/details/computer-programme
عزل الاسطح الكويت هاتف 55090348
NASA’s 4k TV channel: What is it and why you should watch it
This works over TLS1.2? Without any extra software needed in Windows? Note that last I checked, clients were running Windows XP -- maybe this is fixed/improved in 7/8/8.1/10?

[ed: I seem to recall I had some issues with Windows 7 as well, but I may be misremembering things. Does seem that WebDAV is now properly bundled with Windows, and https should work as long as the certificate matches. Apparently Windows will refuse basic auth (but do digest, which really isn't that much of an improvement) over standard http -- but as part of the point is the added security of simple transport encryption over SSL -- I can't imagine why anyone would want to expose WebDAV (other than read-only, perhaps) over anything other than SSL]

As for it working in OS X -- I haven't tried it -- and my impression was that it did work. Apparently others in this thread have different experiences...
You had to have a credit card, but there was never any matching of the credit card name to the cert. Nobody is going to stop you from buying a cert for my domain with a prepaid credit card.
Bats perform 'vital pest control' on crops
The best way to think of simple back-of-the-envelope calculations is this:

To go from point a to point b at a cruising speed of v, you need to speed up to v, maintain v, and brake to a complete stop. Analyze each separately:

1. Speeding up. Since this takes so little distance (compared to the total length), let's ignore resistance. This speedup takes KE = ½·m·v² of energy to do.

2. Maintain speed. This means spending energy to resist air friction (drag) and ground friction. Drag is ½·ρ·v²·Cd·A [0]; friction is (at most) μ·m·g. Energy is force × distance, and since the distance at top speed is effectively constant, it's going to be O(m + v²) in this case. [1]

3. Braking. You can theoretically recover -½·m·v² here, but most of the energy is going to be lost to heat.

So, when you sum these up, the energy it takes to drive a vehicle a certain distance is linear in mass and quadratic in speed.

[0] The drag coefficient, Cd, is really weird. At low speeds, it's actually proportional to 1/v instead of a constant (i.e., drag is linear in velocity, not quadratic).

[1] Yeah, the article says that energy is proportional to v³. It's actually wrong--the power is proportional to v³. Whether or not the total energy is proportional to v³ or v² depends on what you hold constant: if you hold total time constant, it's v³, but if you hold distance, it's v².
I trust LastPass for 3 reasons:

1) LastPass has a history of taking ownership of vulnerabilities and taking appropriate measures. They do this publicly and provide a level of detail that demonstrates their expertise[1].

2) They're working under the same constraints as Google with the same caliber of engineering strength.

3) Most importantly, their business depends on delivering a secure product. It's in their best interest to continue providing a secure product.

[1] https://blog.lastpass.com/2015/06/lastpass-security-notice.h...
It's the last thing on most people's minds right now with the drought, but an ARkStorm style event this winter (or even just heavy persistent rain and flooding) could be disastrous for the Sacramento delta levies, which are in a very delicate state. Hoping for a slow and steady refill of the reservoirs this winter...
How much pollution and c02 can we put into the atmosphere? The total effects of pollution and c02 i would say are worse than the occasional meltdown. It's just that meltdowns are so much more high profile so everyone notices and freaks out. (Definitely not saying meltdowns are good though)
Support Amok.js – Never. Reload. Again
California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. ... There's going to be a tremendous amount of resistance from all angles to any attempts to mitigate the effects of the climate in California.

Where do you see the resistance coming from? The timescale here is interesting, because "driest in 500 years" implies that although this particular instance might be caused by human activity, that we are still in the range of natural variability. I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed?
The follow up work on parsing with derivatives is even more fantastic: http://matt.might.net/articles/parsing-with-derivatives/
> For anybody who wants to be "careful" when syncing and thinks they want this option, consider putting your collections into git repos and commit after sync.

There's a demo/beta DAV<->JMAP proxy out there by fastmail. You might want to look into that (and keep the current DAV backend in the meantime).
There's also the fact that obtaining an EV certificate is so unbelievably painful. I swear it gets more difficult every year.

Last time I bought an EV cert, Comodo wanted a certification from a Chartered Accountant. Aside from the confusion associated with Comodo wanting a letter "your CA", we then had them Google for "accountants in Sydney" and complain they weren't listed on the front page.

"Kindly address the search page to show them on the page in order for us to process the order".

It took hours of complaints and escalations before they agreed to proceed, at which point they wanted to call the company's "public" phone number. Now they could have gone to the company's website, or the White Pages, but no, they found some .ru website with an "accountant review" and called the number listed there. Instead of asking what official phone listings Australians use, the only thing they would accept is "kindly update the website".

Yes, this is probably one of the more incredible examples, but the point is, who wants to risk even possibly dealing with this, when you can have a DV certificate in two minutes and it "just works"?
Good Conceptual Books on .NET
Most of the books on .NET / MVC are written in tutorial style. For example Professional ASP.NET MVC 5. They all start with steps you need to do and make you feel like you're doing something. However, it doesn't explain much of the inner workings. Are there any books on .NET MVC that has conceptual depth ?
The article is from this year. What about these advanced designs makes them more cost competitive?

I think the arguments in the article point out that there are lots of costs associated with these small reactors. Not the least of which is that they require decommissioning sooner than their larger counterparts and that the cost of decommissioning alone can make the reactor non-viable economically. It's not clear how changing the working fluid would reduce decommissioning costs.
Yeah, it's good. Well written and not too long.
Ask HN: What is the license of comments here?
On a site like stackoverflow, all questions and answers are licensed under Creative Commons and can be copied at will (when properly attributed). So, what is the license of comments here?
I wouldn't consider that a credible source at all (the front page has multiple 9/11 "truther" stories). Other sources such as the WHO cite the 4000 number as including all future cancers: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/
Yeah, I was hoping to not need any software in Windows. Having a maintained client that presents a sane UI, with few demands for the back-end ("speaks sane WebDAV") is still quite good -- if you want filesystem like semantics over a secure connection that works reasonably well across the Internet.

Note that, according to some recent searching, in windows 7+, WebDAV over TLS w/Basic Auth should be less painful -- I'm going to have to test it later.
>> This article, like many pro-nuclear arguments, doesn't address the most basic problem -- is nuclear power cost effective?

That is really not the most basic problem though. Cost is a non-issue if the alternative is green house gas emissions which will eventually cause an apocalyptic global warming effect. What good will all the cost savings do at that point?
DVDFab Media Player 2–Free Blu-Ray Folder Player
You can't presently pass other filtering arguments to a relay query. Just IDs.

Unless I am missing something, the above query wouldn't work in Relay.
Netflix and Amazon users sue to stop Chicago’s 9% streaming tax
Please fix the title!

Should be something like "Can We Build a More Efficient Airplane? Not Really, Says Physics", not "Why Cant Commercial Airplanes Go Faster?"
There's nothing that says that two air particles that start together at the front edge of the wing and split up have to arrive at the tail edge of the wing at the same time.

Exactly. This is one of the fallacies that are explained in the best reference I know about this subject: http://www.av8n.com/how/
It's even illustrated in the title picture... ;-)
Drone hobbyists find flaws in “close call” reports to FAA from other aircraft
Version Free sounds amazing - I can see the pros of being able to add/deprecate fields at the same API endpoint, but I find most of the reason we version our API is for field type changes as the data schema naturally evolves. We need to keep track of finer grained data in existing fields that wasn't originally thought of.

To take the Star Wars example at https://github.com/facebook/graphql and build on it. Let's say after this is deployed we need to expose a Planet's population as well. Now homePlanet goes from being a String to a Planet { name population } object.

This type change would break existing clients - the only real solution I can think of is introducing the planet object as PlanetDetails (essentially PlanetV2) and deprecating planet, but that's just back to versioning.

I feel like there must be a better way to deal with it? Interestingly, the graphql format allows this to be differentiated (as the old API won't request an object), but there appears to be no provision to union two non-objects into a single field?
The article says Wang "emphasized that her research program neither assumes nor proposes that our brains are literally quantum computers. Other research groups are working on that idea; Wang and her collaborators are not focusing on the physical aspects of the brain, but rather on how abstract mathematical principles of quantum theory can shed light on human cognition and behaviors."

That does not support your complaint.
Amazon’s potty problem: Too many dudes, not enough toilets
> when things go horribly wrong with Nuclear, we literally have no plan.

What was your reaction when the Deepwater Horizon spill happened? We had no real plan then, either. And the aggregate impact of that incident was arguably larger than that of Fukushima. (For example, the "highly contaminated water" released into the ocean from Fukushima is probably going to do a lot less ecological damage than the oil released by Deepwater Horizon. The contaminated water will just get diluted to the point where it's indistinguishable from other ocean water. The oil, not so much.)

> we can build a machine with such immense power, and it can get to a point where we just stand back and watch it go bad.

First of all, a nuclear reactor that produces 1 Gw of electricity doesn't have any more "immense power" than a coal, oil, or natural gas plant that produces the same electrical power output.

Second, we have every right to insist that, before a nuclear reactor gets built, we have a contingency plan in case something goes wrong. But, to be fair, we should insist on that for all sources of energy. Want to drill for oil? What's your contingency plan if there's a leak in the well? As I commented to someone else upthread, nuclear power appears to be the only energy technology where everyone focuses on the worst case; other energy sources seem to get what amounts to a free pass in this regard.