skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> When a reactor shuts down for repairs, they sometimes take decades to complete. As of today, it can be argued that many countries' nuclear power programs were a financial mistake.

Financial mistake or not, not being dependent on Petrol for your electricity production is a huge win. It solves many other (political) problems.
That's not what the text reads, but I suppose it's possible.

> But here’s the beautiful part, doing this counted as a considerable charitable donation, which let David claim just over $800 back in tax deductions at the end of they year.
The more advanced (Stanford Energy Symposium) research that I've seen suggests that there is only one possible power source that we can look to long term to meet the energy needs of the world, and that is Solar Energy. Nuclear Energy just won't be possible to build out quickly enough, inexpensively enough - even if we could do it safely.
In particular, check out Nate Lewis's Solar Energy 101 (https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodca...) - In the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) where he makes a strong case that the only choice is Solar - not because it's a good one, but because there is nothing else out there that can meet our needs (And he spends a bit of time talking about Nuclear Energy, and why it comes up short).

The entire series is a gold mine for people who actually want to talk about energy generation and climate change on an informed basis rather than just making guesses to suit their particular world view.

With that said, one of my favorite futurists, Ramez Naam, who is a big proponent of Wind and Solar (See:
http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-blow... and http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/10/how-cheap-can-solar-get-very...) still thinks we should invest in nuclear, as it has an important role to play in regions where renewable resources (Solar/Wind/GeoThermal/HydroElectric etc...) are not available, and as a hedge against storage (which is critical for solar/wind) technology not advancing to where we need it for 100% support of base-load power.

Though he also talks about Storage here: http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-...
So if I'm a company outside China, with a web site that I want to make accessible in China using CloudFlare's collaboration with Baidu, I have to set up a WFOE in China first?
Reading the post, I understand that, at first, the branch manager was quite unhappy about that. But then, obviously, they checked with the HQ and they received the order to be smooth with the guy because they understood that he was going to give publicity.
That's an argument based on a lot of old reactors, mostly light-water variations. Solar wasn't economically viable back then either, but technology improved. The same is happening with nuclear.

In particular, simple molten-salt reactors like those designed by Terrestrial Energy and ThorCon look very promising.
Since you mention that, let me give a shout out to Violet, my vote for best short IF game of all time. Playable here:

http://pr-if.org/play/violet/

Takes maybe an hour or two to complete, `hint` if you get stuck.
> I don't see how this is superior to having the plant itself create THC which is much simpler and cheaper.

The plant is simpler and cheaper now; this looks like it is in the early stages. The yeasts cannot make THC from just simple, readily available precursors like sugars, and the yields are low, according to the article. But imagine if this is improved. Suppose that THC yeast could be improved so that making large amounts of THC with yeast is as simple as making CO2 in a loaf of bread. Just feed sugars and watch it multiply, then collect the THC.

> how is this going to change the world

If a THC "super yeast" is developed, it will be hard for the authorities to control trafficking, for one thing.

> How the THC produced from yeast is any better or different than that produced from the plant.

THC is THC. It's a compound. If it looks like this molecule picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

it's THC, whether it came from camel's ear wax, or a cannabis plant.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking more about the server side.
My criticism is more targeted at credulous blog posts, to do things like paint pictures with polygons more slowly than a human could do it in a paint program, with worse results. Professionals know what's what, and when to use it. I know it's not useless, it just doesn't particularly resemble the what blog posts like this present it as.
To make the original comment more precise, should not proving ownership of:

<some domain>

be enough to imply ownership of anything under that? i.e., DNS is a hierarchy — right? At the top level (a bit closer to how the original comment phrased it, I'd say that proving ownership of,

<some domain>.<some public suffix>

should prove ownership of all domains under that. To address the specific case of "co.uk", anyone in control of a public suffix[1] should just fail the check (i.e., owning a public suffix does not imply ownership of all subdomains, which I think is correct). Someone with better knowledge of the innards of DNS would have to speak to if the Public Suffix List is good enough here.

Really, why can't I be a mini-CA for my own domain, with only the power to issue certs for the set of domains I actually have control over? (essentially, why can't I get a nameConstraint CA cert?)

[1]: The Public Suffix list is a list of what a human might call a "tld, essentially"; "com" is a public suffix, but so is "co.uk": https://publicsuffix.org
Not that I need everything perfect, but these are my concerns:

- The corporations building these things are hyper-corporations, many in the defense industry. Corporations, especially at that scale, are at best amoral. To meet environmental, safety, disposal and cost concerns, they will go part way, but when they hit the knees of the various curves, they will convince Congress and citizens through advertising, co-opted scientists, and bribed members of Congress that everything is great and it's been taken care of.

- Waste. After however many decades, where is all the nuclear waste? Are we finally implementing the long range plans, to take care of wast and make future generations safe? At least out hundreds of years I would expect. I think the answer here is effectively no. I think we're still just studying it, and all involved are hoping someone else will deal with it later. There will never be enough Senators to vote for specific locations in their states, and transportation through their states. "On site" will magically be found to be perfectly fine after all. And it will end up being Hanford and Rocky Flats, with leaks into the water table, and shit stored next to shit that shouldn't be.

- Safety. What happens when we finally experience a catastrophe, because the corporations and governments kicked the safety can down the road so that these things could be built? It's going to happen, they're corporations and they must above all make a buck. What hyper-corporation could resist turning uranium into gold?

- Environmental. These things need to be cooled. They're next to rivers and oceans because of that. Ecosystems dwindle and die, because downstream temperatures will always be "within acceptable levels" that were set by agencies suffering from regulatory capture that are funded by bribed Congressmen. No one wants to be the single point of failure on the money pipeline.

- Cost. Balloon. Corporations make money no matter what. Even if a corporation is fined in proportion to its overrun, even if they refuse to pay and people are jailed (ha!), that money is still lost.

The only thing above that I'm inclined to give on is safety, it's probably an engineering possibility. But that's mere technical possibility, in the face of amoral corporations with a drive for profits stronger than the human drive for reproduction.

Color me sceptical.
> * Health impact from nuclear incidents can be insidious, revealing themselves only in long-term statistics, which can make risks hard to gauge.

Incidents from non-nuclear plants cause way more deaths (in short term and long term). Coal kills people too, by polluting the air with fine particles.

> * Waste containment remains an unsolved problem.

Where? There's tons of space deep in the ground, it's not like we are running out of place of where to put it. Plus, there are ways to recycle used nuclear fuel to make it less radioactive.
> and has resulted in an exclusion zone

And how many of those can we afford to have in the world?

How much liquid contaminated waste can we put into the ocean?
I remember how happy I was when I firstly made this consideration myself :) --> as racing cars have a back "aileron" which forces air to push them down (and stick to the road), airplanes have the same thing but inverted, which pushes them up. This becomes exceptionally clear when thinking about how flaps change the shape of the wing.
Yes, but the sun is free. It's not like plants grow poorly in sunlight.
Thanks. Considering it was more of a prank from the beginning I am not surprised to see it abandoned ;)
30% will kill margins on many goods.
I didn't know the site is unreadable until uMatrix was disabled.
I tend to think the 'push' for small reactors, fifth generation reactors, and alternative designs is same as the 'push' for 'clean coal'. A political ploy to keep the government subsidies coming and forestall the eventual taxing of the industries externalities. And to hopefully prevent alternatives like solar from getting funding.

Seriously, solar is already at cost parity and the economics are getting better with time. Plus externalities are minimal. Compared to nuclear power which gets less economic over time and has very open ended externalities.
It's not very good. Not that stable in my experience and none of the cross-linking/tagging tools OneNote has.
Computer Literacy as Minimal Education
While I also look forward to letsencrypt being generally available, the fact your parent comment charges $234/yr for a cert is in response to:

> I'd actually pay more than I do now for SSL certs to get that kind of simplicity.
Uh, by the downwash generated by the wing. Obviously. Are you even reading my posts? I am not asserting that the Bernoulli force is the dominating factor, or even a significant factor, in the lift generated by a typical wing. I've made that really clear. Your original post seems to take that even further, however, in asserting that the force does not exist at all, and this is flatly wrong. Have I misread your original post? The Bernoulli force does exist on a wing, and it is in principle possible to make a wing which will generate lift solely by Bernoulli force. Such a wing would likely not be able to lift its own weight, much less carry an airplane.
If someone did and it took 10 years to resolve, that'd be an issue

(Note: A lot of states have deadlines on appeal resolution, etc, for criminal cases)
GraphQL is more akin to a REST pattern and has nothing to do with the actual datastore.
I think you meant to cite the third law "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

In aggregate a force is applied to all the air in a way that is equal and opposite to the force applied on the plane. However "Ergo, air is moving downwards so that the plane will move upwards." is not quite complete. One need only look at an airfoil in a windtunnel to see that the action of an airfoil is not the simple "air based rocket" you would have us envision.

If what you said were true, the most efficient wing design would just be a flat plank strapped in at a 45 degree angle of attack.
If you search “Super Mario Bros” in Google, this is what happens
Great advice, especially in an industry with so little wiggle room when it comes to putting money in the wrong place.
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10218616&goto=threads%...
Mass Closure of Liberal Arts and Humanities Courses in Japan
The retraction episode is far better than Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory. It shows the journalistic values of Ira Glass and NPR in general. The interview with Mike Daisey asking him to account for his fabrication is one of the strangest, most uncomfortable things I've ever heard on the radio.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/r...
Yeah, everything I read on the current trends in California's climate just keeps sounding more and more dire. I was stuck inside all weekend due in large part to thick smoke and ash; I don't want to live in a drought or on the cusp of a drought every year for the foreseeable future and I don't think it's real smart to breathe smoke from wildfires year after year either.

California could mitigate a lot of this, and probably will, eventually. But, it's only been about 6 years since the CRU email leaks led to it being dubbed "climategate" and a whole bunch of people loudly declared that it was proof that AGW was a vast climate scientist conspiracy. 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.

So I started looking for work out of state a while ago, and will keep looking.

Nice place, but it would be dumb of me to stay here.
In an attempt to help resolve this issue, I suggest that you think of it as ProductQL or ProductAPI instead.

It's not a storage layer. It's not really a query language. It's an alternative way to define an API that more closely matches the typical mental and product domains than REST.

That is a tremendous and useful insight.
Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD
I enoyed this [unexpectedly] informative read right up until the conclusion:

Even if we are using a language that manages memory itself
like Erlang, nothing prevents us from understanding how memory
is allocated and deallocated. Unlike Go Language Memory Model
Documentation Page that advices "If you must read the rest of
this document to understand the behavior of your program, you
are being too clever. Don't be clever.", I believe that we must
be clever enough to make our system faster and safer, and
sometimes it doesn't happen unless we dig deeper into what is
going on.

The potshot at Go in the conclusion seems counter-productive. The author is certainly taking the quote in a different spirit than it was intended..

Erlang and Go have functional overlap, sure. However the trade-offs between both the guarantees and operational realities of the two languages leaves each one best suited to a different domain. Thus it is a pointless waste of time to argue and criticize one or the other in this manner.

While I may personally appreciate Go's opinionated-ness, it seems to lead to excessive amounts of conflict and drama. I wonder if it's an overall win or loss. On one hand, the controversy sparks interest which helps spread Go. On the other hand, it alienates many folks who may otherwise be open to getting involved.

Food for thought.

TLDR: It looks rather silly to compare languages with very different design goals.
I spent a year of my life digging through the relevant literature back in 2008-2009 when I was coaching policy debate and the topic was alternative energy.

Based on my reading, I decided that the arguments in favor of nuclear power were significantly better than the defenses of renewable energy. So I made the strategic decision to write affirmatives about uranium enrichment and targeted procurement of nuclear-powered vessels.

That was how we won the national championship.

In other words: Even when the best debaters in the country have a year to prepare their counter-arguments, nuclear energy still tends to come out on top. Like facts, energy density is a stubborn thing.
Yeah, verifying that "www.barclays.co.uk" is the correct URL for Barclays Bank PLC is what EV is for.

The other important role of a certificate is verifying that the server you're connected to is the correct one for the URL in the address bar. I may not know or care who "Hacker News" is supposed to belong to, but I do care that I'm connecting to the legit news.ycombinator.com, the same one I connected to yesterday, and that I'm not being Man-in-the-Middle'd.

The latter is what letsencrypt is for.

|browser|- letsencrypt verifies -|server|- EV verifies -|organization|
What is missing from chx's description is the definition of the natural numbers (and the S (successor) function). The standard definition is:

0 is a natural number
S(n) is a natural number, if and only if n is a natural number
x=y if and only if S(x)=S(y)
for all x, S(x)!=0

These axioms are sufficient to show that the natural numbers form a line.

At this point, we can use the definition of addition that chx provided:

a+0=a
a+S(b)=S(a+b)

It is true that, without the restrictions on S, than defining a+b=0 would satisfy these. However, because of the restrictions on S from our definition of the natural numbers, it is impossible for S(a+b)=0.
uBlock didn't allow the new site design at all, and I didn't really like it either.

Here's the link to their "classic" view of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...
Does it matter? It's not like we don't have the money, and even the most lackadaisical of climate change advocates can easily see the huge monetary cost it will impose. Overpaying by $200 billion for a very rare nuclear accident will be a bargain in comparison.

Also, there's the usual argument that with proliferation of a technology you gain efficiencies and costs drop (precipitously sometimes).

>>> Yes, 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.

Pushing the problem down the road because the solution isn't perfect probably is not the best idea at this point.
I still dream of the day that freebase's graphd or something like it is released. That was a really nice eco-system.
Machine learning best practices we've learned from hundreds of competitions
Perhaps call it a bait & switch doctrine? The bait is an exciting proposition, but when you press the author for details, they perform the switch, and what's left is not really exciting anymore.

As for the example using morality, the whole point of absolute morality systems is that moral statements have a truth value independent of human "observation", and in such a world, the sentence "morality is socially constructed" means that the truth values of moral statements are socially constructed, which is exciting! But the switch or the motte in this case is that the author didn't mean that, they were talking about people's perception of morality the whole time, and it is a truism that perople's perception of morality is socially constructed, and that is boring.

Compare for example how exciting the proposition that objective reality is shaped by our thoughts (MAGIC!!!), vs the proposition that our subjective experience of reality is shaped by our thoughts (BORING!).
Not relevant. I wanted hard numbers for students that don't take salary into account. I don't care about your apologetics for a field that pretends to take credit for granting the ability to think.

People from engineering fields and hard sciencies are much more rational citizens of the world than someone who spent all of their time on art history because they were required to rigorously think logically.
The linked explanation is relatively poorly written, in my opinion. The actual paper that he wrote (http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf) is far far better.

The original critique is of the arguments of post-modernism's claims that beliefs are "socially manufactured".

If you go around arguing that since beliefs are socially manufactured, that the belief that mountains are made up of the bones of old giants is just as valid as belief in geology, someone is going to call you on it.

If you're asked to back up your claim that beliefs are socially manufactured, you can argue that to a mother, their child's abstract finger paintings can be considered as beautiful as as a Van Gogh. This claim is quite fair, and is not particularly assailable. You've retreated to a "motte", where your giant-bone-mountains is your "bailey".
It's a classic example of diffuse versus concentrated effects. Burning coal results in smaller effects to a large population (e.g. the shortened life expectancies of Chinese breathing coal smog) while much less frequent nuclear accidents result in large effects to a small population (e.g. the people exposed to radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima and the resulting irradiated lands). Those 90 deaths from nuclear power are much more visible, while the 170k deaths from coal fade into the background.
US astronaut misses fresh air halfway through year-long mission
An interesting report, but is there any reason to conclude that "we are due"?

If the lack of rain is random (like flipping a fair coin), the expected time to event would still be 1000 years. Believing that "heads" is more likely after a string of "tails" is the classic Gambler's Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

If on the other hand the current drought is caused by a change in climate, there is even less reason to believe that we are due for a gigantic amount of rain. If the coin is biased (bent) logic would conclude that one should bet that recent performance _is_ an indicator of future performance.

While it's not impossible for alternation to be most likely, it requires some physical process that would explain it. Interestingly, weather in the Central California often does follow multi-week cycles, with hot inland weather leading to rising air at the coast, leading to fog flowing inland, leading to a cooldown[1]. But I don't know of any process that would explain this for century scale rainfall. Do you?

[1] This article offers an explanation of the "fog cycle", but with the cautious wording "Until recent years, the conventional explanation for the fog’s behavior was a simple one". I wonder if there is now better knowledge:
https://baynature.org/articles/cutting-through-the-fog/
There's selection bias involved in answering that question, because most nuclear plants (at least ex-China) are pretty old.
It must be global warming
I've been thinking about this a bit today[1], because I fear that Evernote is dying. I love and pay for Evernote, but they've been stagnant for years now. They're slowly adding features, but absolutely nothing that I care about.

As far as I can tell, there's really no functional equivalent to what Evernote does: a bucket you can throw data into and search for it later. OneNote probably comes closest from a purely note-taking standpoint, but it's missing some of the key features. This makes me a little nervous, as I now realize how reliant I am on a tool that I have very little confidence in.

[1] https://twitter.com/larrywright/status/643495960480509952
Breaking Down the AWS Certified Solutions Architect Exam Blueprint
No, you are shoehorned into buying a very specific model. It should be no problem whatsoever to choose any model on that site, and select "Ubuntu" for the OS, but you can't. If you go and look (and here I mean actually go and look[0]), the vast majority of machines that you can buy do not have the option to not pay for a Windows license. The choice you get is "Windows 8.1 or Windows 10".

[0] http://www.dell.com/us/p/laptops/xps-laptops
Here is how technical debt creeps in
Zynga buys Rising Tide startup
They create a class, then they wrap the class in a class.

A class in javascript is just a variable, after all.

I think, personally, I'd've called the initial class ScoreGuts or something, or gone with a different syntax that returned the class as a value, but ... eh. It's really not that big a deal.
You can read section 3.7 of their paper for an overview: http://static.benet.ai/t/ipfs.pdf

I imagine you could go through their codebase to try to see how far this has come along: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs

According to this, it looks like the implementation is currently in progress: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/blob/master/dev.md

Hope something in there helps you.