skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not sure I'd recommend Japan give up nuclear. Their horrible track record just means that their nuclear plants are single order of magnitude safer than their coal plans, rather than the normal 2 or 3.
90% is a best of fleet number. But for economic analysis you should really assume a lower number, unless you can guarantee that you are the cheapest producer at all times. As demand during the day can be near double of that in an area during the night, once your type of plant is over 50% of local supply your capacity factor is not a limit but demand side is.

4.5 billion capex is a really good number for nuclear in a competent regulatory environment. Still its double the estimated project cost when started.

Funnily enough nuclear and renewables really compete hard because of this. Extra power production is nearly nothing for both compared to opex and capex, so if you can produce you shall until returns hit 0. Both love energy storage for that reason. Nuclear is more dependable i.e. less peakers on because of supply issues. But capex for wind and solar are trending too be lower, as is time to market. Leading to less risks, which affects project planning a lot.

CSPs with inbuilt storage tend to go to lower generator capacity factors so that they can take a share of the peak shaving market, due to their relative good dispatch ability (send power to the market when wanted, instead of when you can).

Wind and solar projects tend to be online and producing quickly in time measured from first concrete poured to power send to market, certainly relative to nuclear in practice. Projects also tend to be smaller scale and in independent phases. Nuclear is added a GW at a time to the market, solar and wind in smaller 50-100mw projects.
i.e. wind&solar are project wise much more agile.
I assume I'm jealous for a project that brings nothing new compared to so many other solutions and still grabs 76 stars (as I write this). It seems, after all, github stars are another way to say "I'm popular" and not so much that a project is good.
I'm not sure when exactly it happened but the sz-ligature (ß) has been treated as a single character for decades if not centuries. However it's not always behaving like one.

For uppercase, instead of using the actual uppercase sz-ligature glyph (ẞ, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%E1%BA%9E) Germans will actually replace the "ligature" with SS. You could argue that this makes it an obvious ligature (although it would then be mislabeled as it's obviously an ss-ligature, not an sz-ligature) but Germans also write out umlauts as the base letter followed by e (ü -> ue, ä -> ae, ö -> oe) and these wouldn't normally be considered ligatures. The sz-ligature is also often called "sharp s", further showing it's not really thought of as a ligature.

According to Wikipedia the ß has been around since as early as the fourteenth century but its history seems a bit nebulous. I would think that it just used to be a common ligature before orthography became standardized in German and later became a character of its own when orthography became more standardized. Modern German orthography actually has a strict rule for picking between ß and ss: short vowels are followed by ss and long vowels are followed by ß (eliminating the ambiguity between Masse (mass) and Maße (metrics/dimensions)).

But another thing ß and the umlauts have in common is that they're not considered part of the alphabet. Children learn the same "Latin" alphabet as in English (except for the names of the letters, obviously) and if anything, Ä, Ö and Ü are added to the end on charts (but not typically in mnemonic songs or rhymes). Incidentally, ß is rarely added in those cases at all (likely because it has no accepted uppercase variant and only occurs in the middle or end of words, unlike A-Z and the umlauts).

And don't get me started on sorting. There are actually two legitimate ways to sort words in German: either you treat umlauts as vowel+e and ß as ss, OR you list ä after a, ö after o and so on. I think the former has become the norm for most intents and purposes but the other one can still be found in various places (including, I think, print phone books).

So, yes it's confusing, but German "Eszett" is not just a ligature and German umlauts are not just vowels with diaereses (unlike e.g. ë in names like "Zoë" where the diaeresis just indicates that the "oe" should be read as two separate vowels). Nobody really knows where this entire mess started but at least we generally have come up with consistent rationalisations for how we use them.
Already, above the fold, you see the problem:

Text Description:
three-letter word starting with 'X'.

Regular Expression:
\bX[A-Za-z]}{2}\b

"été" is a word too.
Without going out of English, "'em" is an English word, granted, not starting with a X, but demonstrating that letters are not [A-Za-z].

So once you've specified what you really meant:

Sequences of three characters, the first being 'X',
and the two others being any letter in the set
"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
(and therefore excluding accented letters, ideograms,
greek, russian, etc).

you realise that you really want to be able to write \bX[A-Za-z]}{2}\b instead. DUH.
I'm glad we have solved the nuclear waste problem.
Well, looking at the status quo the distribution of wealth in the current economy is not following Any of the definitions.

Right now wealth is distributed according to your rank. Rank unfortunately is nowhere near proportional to contribution.
We built Devarist to be a daily journal, primarily targeted at developers although it works just as well for non-developers.

Give it a try, would love to hear your thoughts.

https://devarist.com
It's not clear what you're looking for exactly but, if anything, MOOCs (Coursera at any rate) have cut back on issuing completion certificates in the absence of paying a fee. Their problem, one of them anyway, is that certificates basically aren't worth anything as a certification mechanism in most cases so very few are willing to pay for them.

And, I expect, that if you start from the assumptions that 1.) MOOC certificates aren't worth anything as a real-world "vocational meal ticket" beyond the value of the underlying education and 2.) Companies offering MOOCs are not going to become unicorns and probably won't even return investors money-- you probably end up with something that isn't designed to mirror a university course.
"Considering it’s a point of professional pride to avoid nested structures as much as possible in other languages..."

Nested loops can be bad. Nesting logic deeply in other languages is bad.

Nesting style rules that belong together, well, together isn't nesting as much as it is putting like stuff together.

I may create section.myawesomesection {...} and everything to do with the stuff in there is in there, not leaking out. I don't accidentally use a class name used somewhere else and globally change it, I don't change all global UL tags to be flat, inline, no list-style. I change them in context of section.myawesomesection.

Not to mention allowing me to put my breakpoints together in context (particularly useful with a mixin like breakpoint(small) or something).

Yes you can really go nuts with the nesting and create a giant pile of crap. But then that's you being a bad planner (not even going to say coder here, as CSS/SASS is more about planning than coding).
Come on cloudflare, that is pretty weak, the CF posts are normally informative and well written. It seems like a third of the way through you just gave up and stopped pretending that any of it was actually about Ben.
Show HN: Privatoria 8-in-1 Security Bundle
I hesitate to disagree. But ... the value of services can be easily calculated because they are so visible. Every interaction has an emotional link, and we count that highly.

The value to 'society' of improving a toaster by a small percentage, or the hits to a website by a larger one, are hard to calculate except by a bottom line. Any emotional impact is so indirect as to be invisible. Still exist; but we don't see them so can't count them.

Add to this: one-on-one services are limited by the time and attention one person can put into them - two hands, one heart, 24 hours in a day. Absolutely no leverage at all, in the economic sense. Exceeding that (admittedly large and important) impact happens at some point in less-direct exchanges (economic, technological) and can go up from there geometrically.

So I console myself, as a technician, that what I do affects those unseen people. And if successful, it affects millions, not just tens. It adds up to something important too.
Do you have any sources? As far as I know, this project is funded by the Germans, French, African Development Bank, EU and World Bank, without any funding from the IMF necessary, nor is there an IMF loan to be unlocked by this project.

The loan you describe is separate, as you say, a precautionary loan as a safeguard for oil price increases, indeed granted in 2012. Of course the opposite has happened, the price of oil dropped very sharply and so it makes no sense for the IMF loan to have been put into use on these grounds. Which is why it hasn't been, the $6.2b line of credit with the IMF expired in August 2014, without having been used at all. In July of that year, a new similar (this time, $5b) loan was negotiated, again precautionary as an insurance policy, and that, too, hasn't been used yet and that too isn't tied to any solar project. So I still don't see where you get the fact they're either 1) building this project with IMF money or 2) unlocking an IMF loan with this project, the facts suggest the IMF loan is unrelated, precautionary, not-used and the one you refer to specifically even expired already, how it could be unlocked after it expired is beyond me but you seem adamant. There's no IMF scheme here. Does the IMF have a relationship with Morocco? Absolutely, but it's not part of this project as far as I know, not indirectly either.
Rooftop solar takes no additional area. And this particular CSP plant is in a desert, i.e. a huge area that cannot be used for agriculture.
Since the risk is there you need backup capacity anyway, and even if thermal production is very stable, usage over the day is not. So you need balancing no matter what. You do need to improve balancing to integrate lots of wind/solar - however with land-wind being so cheap, there is money to spend on balancing.
Live classifying human movement through machine learning
Over enthusiastic press without observing the effects of something like this years down the road absolutely affects the debate over minimum wage though.
I've used Java with Swing before, and I've done some prototypes with Python and PyQt/Pyside, which I think works pretty great.

Been meaning to make something with Electron or NW for a while, but I'm apprehensive because of the downsides (executable size, app performance, appearance).
One nuclear core has a power of 700-1500MW (1GW per core in average in US). A nuclear plant may contain several cores. I don't see why I'm getting downvoted, I'm providing figures for comparison.
4.5 billion capex is a really good number for nuclear in a competent regulatory environment.

Is France one, and does anyone know what their's is?
Don't learn how to write code
As someone who lives in a country (Brazil) which uses lots of hydro, I have a related question...

How much space does it take, compared to a hydro plant of equivalent power? Hydro is also relatively clean, and is also known for taking massive amounts of space.
I'm glad you raise this point. I think if we are going to stick huge solar farms in the desert we need to either (a) minimize the surface area (since it will become uninhabitable) and also figure out how to minimize the impact of thermal pollution on surrounding areas or (b) figure out how not to sterilize the area. Since I doubt anyone right now is in the mood for (b), I think we should be arguing strongly for (a).

Thermal pollution on this scale is also going to cause local (or non-local) climate change, and we're going to need to deal with this at some point. There are no free lunches.

The best way to get an extra kW is to save it by improving efficiency or not wasting it in the first place. (Just as it's almost certainly cheaper to prevent the Earth from getting fucked up, complete with deflecting asteroids, than it is to colonize Mars.)

(Funnily enough, when I was designing a science fiction setting in the 1980s -- and of course like anyone paying attention I was already worried about global warming -- I posited that we'd be worrying about thermal pollution in the future. I thought we'd be using fusion power incredibly wastefully (flying cars, etc.) but life is always more complicated, and instead we're going to have thermal pollution from solar.)
However, rems don't compose as nicely. It kind of depends what you're building. E.g, if you're in a footnote or any context where the font-size differs from your general default, it's quite likely that whatever content you want to embed there also needs measurements that scale - you want ems, not rems.

The nature of compounding really shouldn't be an issue - because if that's an issue, then your font size is going to be an issue in any case.

I'd say rems are appropriate when you're making a component that has little to do with it's context. If you're conceptually emulating an iframe, then you probably don't care about the scale you came from. Most pages have a few components like this, but they tend to be the exceptions, not the rule.
I don't think the situation in WS is quite that simple: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14115273
This remind me of a old say:

"What is worse than not given anything to somebody that need it? Give to him something broken".
Facebook users urged to check privacy settings
How You Can Make Money from Unused Space
WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes
It's not about 70K minimum wage. It's about a more fair distribution of wealth. Why funnel profits towards shareholders or owners who usually do no work when all that extra wealth can be redeployed back to the people who actually run the business: employees.

Ironically what is unsustainable is not redistributing wealth towards labor. What is unsustainable is concentrating wealth towards a few people who contribute no work.
Isn't it possible to just right-click the video and save a copy of it?
This is wrong for so many reasons...

1. They're providing different valid signature, not changing the content of the communication itself.

2. Injecting anything into a valid response is a terrible idea. Broken cache, potentially breaking scripts relying on dom layout, messing up file fingerprints, etc. etc.

3. "It's not like the users "cannot" upgrade. They don't know how." No, lots of people cannot upgrade. Corporate policies, hardware requirements, weird device backwards compatibility, and many other reasons may prevent you from upgrading a system.

4. "less savvy deployers of TLS would get an opportunity to mix SHA-1 with modern browsers" They'll be marked as insecure very soon - this is a pretty good reason not to serve sha1 cert to a modern browser.
Solar is doomed by that logic then. Because its effectiveness is exactly related to its physical and thermal footprint. We are already working on making the most of every square meter (conversion efficiency, concentrating the sunlight, using the most consistently-lit sites) so no help there. So if energy must be generated, a) is a lost cause. If this project is economically successful the next step is more desert consumed, and so on forever until its all gone.
> What is the difference in learning curve ?

Everyone knows how to use an http client and everyone has an http client. Most people do not know how to use git and most people do not have a git client. It's more of a vertical line than a curve.
Last I read none of the closed plants in the USA had been completely decommissioned.

Much, if not a lot of this has to do with the simple fact that after you mothball the plany, it's easiest and cheapest to wait a while for various radioactive isotopes to decay to less hazardous stuff. As long as you mothball it properly, and maintain that, there's no hurry.
"sold equity to finance their venture."

Oh yes, I forgot about the masses of un-wealthy people who have equity.
What Is the Difference Between Responsive VS Adaptive Web Design?
It's nice to see Lamarck usually referred to as wrong, as he might still have a chance to be right.
That is a pretty rude comment and I would def. argue it reflects a pretty narrow view of the world. I think the project is alright and it looks quite useful if you need something to curl a site, check something, and blast an e-mail (essentially your own ITTT).

To the point I'm jealous for a project that brings nothing new compared to so many other solutions, I suspect the author of the program needed to call up a website check for an event and get notified; s/he probably found this to be the motivation for building this much more than getting github stars. Other people found it useful as well, and maybe it is easier for people to grep this implementation and build on it than other crawlers.

Most broadly, bitcoin combines a lot of well understood and older technologies into something completely knew. It seems this was your gripe, the project didn't do that. I just want to point out complex coordination and reorganization of current libraries/practices/technologies can be quite useful, novel and interesting.

edit: I actually concur with the above post a bit more now. I do think things done in Go get a but over hyped and if this is what parent was referring to, I suspect s/he was correct even if a bit prickly in expressing it.
The mismatch comes about because Urbit is currently for Urbit developers, and will be for a while - and even by those standards it's in alpha. The path from , say, "merge this code to a desk manually" to "click this button on your urbpanel" is just one of infrastructure and schlep work, and it'll inevitably happen - either our community developers will standardize, or core developers will come up with something. For a silly analogy, we're still burying the gold under California and teaching prospectors how to work a pan individually - BART comes later. (Our user experience will be vastly better than BART, of course.)

Ideally, the average user won't actually host their urbit, but they will administrate it, in the same sense that they administrate their smartphone today. Server administration today is Unix administration, not iPhone administration. The demand for something that's more like iPhone administration has, so far, given us more containerized and sandboxed Unixes. Urbit is a bet that the solution to this demand is developing for a 2010s network OS rather than running tiny, restricted copies of a 1970s mainframe OS.
This is old school monolithic system HPC trying to survive in a world of distributed HPC and GPUs.
Care to put some magnitude numbers on that "thermal pollution" effect? How does it compare to, say, the emission of warm water from conventional power plants into the marine environment? Or urban heat islands? How is the albedo of the plant versus that of the existing terrain?

I'm also confused about the idea of a desert "becoming" uninhabitable. The whole discussion reminds me of people talking about bird death effects only related to wind power, ignoring all other environmental and man-made causes. I do accept that the desert is an ecosystem of its own and the usual checks should be made that you're not eradicating the sole habitat of an endangered species.

Edit: there's even an environmental impact check in that EISA PDF from my other comment.

The Ouarzazate solar complex study area is not part of any protected natural zone; however, the following are located on its outlying zones:
The Mansour Ed Dahbi artificial lake, part of RAMSAR (site of the dam – located 6 km South of the site);
The Bouljir dorcas gazelle reserve (13 km to the North-West of the site);
The Iguernane Reserve (15 km to the North–West of the site);
The key site of Sbaa Chaab (20 km East of the site);
The Biosphere Reserve (solar complex in buffer zone B of the Biosphere Reserve).

None of the plant species found in the project site and its environs is considered rare or endangered.
The solar complex project site is considered to be of low heritage value.
The areas with high heritage value are located on the eastern and western reaches of the project site.
Essential links for every graphic designer
Capitalists propose that free market forces replace government enforcement.

With Gravity being the exception, this is not what happens in reality.
Don't forget though that these plants are designed for a 50 year operating life, with some talk that they might be extended upwards to as much as 100 years, and with operating costs that are pretty low. Maintenance isn't that bad, fuel is hardly even a rounding error; waste disposal is the only significant cost long term.

Definitely a long term investment, which is why only large utilities are really interested in them. I think the direction for power generation in the US is solar/wind/hydro, but supported by nuclear in areas where solar and wind are much less attractive (like the Southeast). That's discounting the possibility of clean fusion energy (or other novel tech), which is likely inevitable but still a long way off.
Find out why the meeting between Product Owner and software team is like a date
A company has a finite amount of money to spend on payroll. The less you can get away with paying the low and middle level employees, the more you free up for the higher level employees. Part of the reason high-end salaries have increased so much is because low-end salaries haven't significantly increased at all.

An experiment that drastically raises low-end salaries can therefore be viewed as a big threat to those whose wealth depends on being able to get away with paying their employees low wages.

We can all argue endlessly about what constitutes a low wage, to what degree we should let the market decide, etc, etc - but the idea that "If there was more money available, we'd happily use it to raise entry-level wages instead of giving it to the top-tier employees" is demonstrably false. This is why this has everything to do with wealth equality.
I'm not sure "live lecture" is a unique positive of a traditional college course, at least if by live lecture you mean room of multi-hundred people. In fact, I'd argue that this aspect is one thing that MOOCs can handle very well. Of course, it's also something that remote learning has been able to handle well at least since the VCR was created. I'd argue that the other thing that MOOCs can do well is automated grading when that's appropriate for the material.

What MOOCs do very badly is peer interactions whether for discussions or grading. Part of it's scale. Part of it's the vast differences in the levels and expectations of the participants. Of course, as you say, it's precisely for these reasons that we force courses to provide simultaneity.
GBPUSD: Risk Remains Lower Below the 1.5371/83 Region
Yeah, well, when this guy retires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Harry_R... we should see some progress there. And/or as the court case WRT to his stopping it proceeds, the utility companies are paying for it without getting any return and are more than a little fed up.

See elsewhere for my comments on why it's not hardly the problem it's made out to be.
I don't think this is the case will _All_ courses... Most of the CS courses allows you to access resources even after the course is completed.

Also if the course you want to enroll is not scheduled for near future, you can go to the course page and view the older version of the course.
Last I looked at a Coursera course, there are explicit download buttons as well. It's not hard to save the course materials while the course is ongoing, the problem is that the materials are unavailable after the course finishes. You're not always going to know what will or will not be important in the future.