skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can't disregard delivery systems, that's a major piece of the picture. Nuclear bombs are most effective when airburst. If you are going to deliver by ICBM or with a military aircraft then you need an implosion design with plutonium. You might be able to sneak it in with a civilian aircraft, or via a ship or something (obviously then you can't airburst).

If you want to fully open up your delivery options, you want an implosion design with plutonium. This involves running a reactor for a couple years and reprocessing the waste. And you'll have to avoid regulatory scrutiny from the IAEA to do so (which is also true of a uranium bomb).

At this point the biggest problem with building a nuke of either type is getting the material. As an experiment, some college students were asked to design a nuclear weapon back in the 70s, and they apparently got it close enough that the FBI freaked out and tried to suppress their work. It would be even easier nowadays, but refining requires a lot of energy and specialized materials (eg maraging steel) that are watched really closely, and so are the materials that would be used as feedstock.
This has been a pain point for me too. JSON Schema is so verbose. I ended up writing a tiny DSL to let me describe the schema in a denser, more human-friendly format and then generate the JSON schema from that. I see other people have done the same:

https://github.com/aromanovich/jsl

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/json-schema/cKcGsXLj...

https://github.com/lloyd/orderly
Why compare with other nations? Don't you think the USA should show some leadership here?

>>Also, what do you think should be done to encourage home ownership beyond the current scheme of making mortgage interest deductable for primary residences?

This is a good question. First and foremost, make houses affordable. For this to happen in any meaningful manner, the excess houses/spaces owned by people/companies should be freed from their clutches.
Another point is the development across the nation must be more evenly distributed across the entire nation as the population grows, this will help lessen the burden on certain areas.

Also, home ownership rate in itself doesn't speak much, what is more significant is how large (i.e. how many tens, hundreds or even thousands of houses) living space is owned by how many individuals/companies and what is the rent-income of these people/companies?

This will show that the rent seeking is already rampant in USA. See this news "The affordable units will range for $950 to $1,492 (£615 to £966), and market-rate units will start at $2,000 (£1,294). Monadnock Development is backing the project." [1].

Why these people (like the Monadnock) should be allowed to own such excessive pieces of land, which they are not using for living themselves or not using for any manufacturing activity?

No one (individual or company) should be allowed to own multiple houses or even "too big" houses/spaces for living/renting.

The dirty-rich owning even the supposedly "public" space is also already happening. See the news about Vinod Khosla [2]. Or see this news about Mark Zukerberg [3].

I understand there are various issues here (e.g. cartels building hotels, in the name of hospitality industry, and using that space to achieve some sort of rent-seeking and/or seeking some sort of leverage through excessive land ownership). But these issues can be tackled through good legislation and enforcement, without harming the interests of the large populations.

[1] http://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/21/narchitects-my-micro-ny-mod...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/vinod-khosla-...

[3] http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerb...
So the Falcon Heavy can get 13,600 kg to Mars for $90M.

By comparison, the Apollo 11 lunar (landing) module was 11,900 kg and the command/service module was 28,800 kg at launch. There were also other components that added at least 6000 kg. (according to some quick Wikipediaing)

So > 46,700 kg total.
Honest answer: to get to orbit, you've got to go really fast (like Mach 25) and there's a lot of air between you and outer space. Air resistance goes up as the cube of velocity, so you want to minimize frontal area. Balloons or propellers can't get you up to the necessary speed; you've got to use rocket engines. For aerodynamic stability reasons, those need to go at the other end of the vehicle; they also require lots and lots of fuel, and the aerodynamically best place to put that fuel is in a long cylinder behind the nose and atop the engines. The nose of a rocket is shaped the way it is because of a trade-off between aerodynamic drag at slow speeds through thick air near the ground and very high speeds through thin air higher up. The reason some rockets have a thicker section near the tip is because it turns out to be aerodynamically permissible to make the forward section fat, yielding more space for a physically larger payload while keeping the design of the engines and fuel tank section unchanged. Rockets with lots of weight up front are dynamically stable, too.
There are many cultures inside C++, but they basically spit into two.

There is the one that appreciates C++'s abstraction capabilities with ability to go low level when needed. Cares about writing safe code and sees C copy-paste compatibility as a compromise required to get C++ adopted by the industry. Those developers usually appreciate languages like Ada, Modula-3 and Haskell, and would rather kill the pre-processor.

Then there is the culture that somehow had to move from a C compiler into a C++ one, constrain themselves to the C subset of C++ while ignoring the standard library because bloat and write exploit sensitive code as always did in C.

Many on the second culture tend to do micro-benchmark driven development. Each code line is questioned how much fast and memory it takes by gut feeling, without any regard from profiler tools or actual needs from the application users.
Thanks for the reply. I am not an American, so I didn't get it.

Also, I didn't know that politely asking for clarification is a valid reason for downvotes on HN.
6 Reasons to Not Buy Redmi Note 3, Bad Things in Xiaomi Redmi Note 3
And hopefully somewhat mitigated by modules once they land and (if it happens) everyone migrates.
some lucky 20-year olds at Bard college who happen to sign up for a class by Prof Justus Rosenberg are in for an intellectual experience that they will likely never forget. This NYT article is about the 95-year old professor, who During WW II, was an intelligence agent for the French, then a soldier in the US Army's 636th Tank Destroyer Battalion. He Makes Jason Bourne look like a shopping mall security guard. Yet while the professor possesses extraordinary deep knowledge of the underground resistance in Eastern Europe during WW II, he's apparently quite vague when it comes to talking about his own role: “I was dreaming of beautiful French girls. I was 16.
Let’s not kid ourselves."
You could always use `std::for_each` and Boost.Lambda, even before C++11.
Making a gun-type bomb from enriched uranium isn't that hard. Any shop capable of building an auto engine could do it. Even machining uranium isn't that hard; there's a Union Carbide tech note on that. It requires a respirator and protective gear, but not remote controlled machine tools. That's why anti-proliferation people are so concerned about enriched uranium.

But enriched uranium is hard to make. The old gaseous diffusion process was incredibly inefficient - plants over a mile long to make tens of kilograms. Centrifuges have changed that. Centrifuge plants aren't all that big, about Wal-Mart sized. They're still expensive. Highly enriched uranium is only made for bomb purposes; power reactors don't need it (although some submarine reactors have used it), so it's not made without good reason.

There's some concern about laser enrichment, which apparently works quite well and is seldom discussed. The US has at least one laser enrichment plant.

Plutonium bombs are hard to get right. A gun bomb with plutonium will pre-detonate. It takes an implosion. Making a perfectly symmetrical implosion is hard. The explosive lenses have to be very uniform in density and accurate in dimension, while being made out of a soft plastic explosive. There are tricks to the joints where the lenses meet, some of which are still classified. Then there's the whole detonator thing, although getting the big pulse required is easier than it was 50 years ago.

Plutonium is a by-product of reactor operation. Thus, there's more of it around than is really needed. The US and the former USSR made way too much (tons). But working with plutonium is a huge headache. The dust is radioactive and poisonous. The PUREX chemical process to refine it from reactor fuel rods is difficult; places which did it tend to be toxic waste sites now. Its machining properties are strange; it expands when heated but then doesn't contract fully. Plutonium bombs usually have a neutron generator to get things started, and surrounding shells to perform neutron reflection and tamping. While the general principles are well known, it takes a lot of engineering R&D to get it working right, including many non-nuclear test explosions.

That's why we don't see terrorist groups making bombs from spent fuel rods.
Thanks! I added an index here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11698292/pvax/index.html
That is so unfathomable a finish to so bizarre a string of comments that I'm going to put it down to you going on tilt (it happens) and simply ask you not to do it again.
Im going to make a silly suggestion but it has worked for me.

There are a lot of open source projects out there, that need someone to do basic work, things like unit tests and documentation.

Pick a few of them and spend an hour a day on each making them better! Whom ever is the most appreciative of your work continues to get your time! It won't put food on your table, but it will get your name out there, and hopefully help you rebuild your confidence in your skills, and maybe even grow them!
Cron.weekly Issue #26: PHP-PM, Ubuntu Snap, Jenkins 2.0, Xamarin, SOLR and More
> That's OK but I would argue it prevents C++ from every being "Pythonic."

This got me thinking, what would one call an idiomatic C++ style (which I suppose is part of what the core guidelines are trying to push)? Cppthonic? Bjarnic? Python is 'Pythonic,' I usually hear idiomatic Ruby described as the 'Ruby Way.' Is idiomatic Rust 'Rustic'?
Asking out of total ignorance: How exactly do modules interact with templates? Is template specialization restricted to the module where the template is defined? If not, I don't see how modules could help much.
Nobody's gonna be enforcing that rule, even if it's in bold letters.

Given enough money and motivation, you can get microbes to mars.
because they're aerodynamic
Creating U-235 takes a lot of work by almost all chemical/physical methods.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...

Of course, once you can bootstrap a nuclear reactor, things get a lot easier because now you have Plutonium. Of course, Plutonium is rather toxic and working it metallurgically is problematic.

Edit: Plutonium also seems to require an implosion device. Implosion engineering is quite hard.
You're accusing me of advocating things I have not. I did not in any way billing gun ownership. Nor did I in any way suggest we should eliminate "a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded".
I tried to convince a non-developer (and Apple lover) about this a few months ago but got nowhere. Developers are like bellwethers: if they hate you, even if you're successful now, your product/service is doomed.
Relies on DNSSEC or CA to validate keys (pp. 22). Not a good idea of your threat model is governments.

Defines fairly arbitrary list of non-extensible metadata including gender, alma mater & political party (pp. 60). Seems like this should be extensible and predefining a lot of that is short-sighted.
There is no lack of resources to support science, just a lack of political will to fund it. When it comes to government funding there is not a set amount of funding for each area. If there is political will it will get funded.

The scientist who help kill the SSC [1] found this out the hard way - they thought that the money would flow back into other areas of science, but in the end it just went back into the main budget and no other area of science got more money

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disea...
Massive List of UI/UX Best Practices
This letter [0] from a NASA administrator in reply to a nun may not be what you were referring to, but it is related (and worth reading):

In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.

Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?"

[0] http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
x5n1, I don't understand you comments. Why are you damned if you as well as don't? That doesn't follow from your idea that we could fix everything but don't choose to. We can't actually fix everything - it's not only hubris, but clear that we don't know how the planet works well enough to say we are certain we could fix the human caused weather changes. Also, there's no reason to believe our civilization is terminal. We have some problems, there have always been problems, and so?
Personal attacks aren't allowed on HN, let alone ones as disgusting as this. You also have a history of posting uncivil comments to HN. Normally those two things would mean we'd ban you, but because your comments have been substantive and (mostly) civil lately, we won't. But please don't do it again.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600586 and marked it off-topic.
I get the feeling that any scientific jobs that actually pay in accordance with their merit are those that have been entirely consumed by current industrial pursuits.
Failed Unboxing Experience：Nest Protect Sucks
How is this legal? Surely after more than a full fiscal year, nobody could reasonably expect a refund? Although I suppose some consumer protection laws require many-year warranties. Is that comparable?
Very few areas outside of computer science and some applied mathematic fields have anything other than very dismal job prospects.

Even if you manage to grab the brass ring and get tenure after 15 to 20 years of low paid study, this is hardly secure. If you fail to bring in large amounts of grant funding you will soon find yourself on your own in the basement broom closet or made redundant in the next departmental reshuffle.
Go doesn't have local type inference: http://ideone.com/RQzz7E. This is local type inference: http://ideone.com/LtN1vQ.

And it also doesn't have tuples: you can't store tuples in variables or larger data structures, pass them as function arguments, etc.
For Rust at least there's been some bikeshedding about that https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/33auoe/idiomatic_rust....
The general public doesn't know who Abraham Lincoln was or who the colonists fought the Revolutionary War against; I doubt that having a well informed electorate is realistic at the present time.
Don't single out McLaren. Countless much more important systems can only be accessed through ancient tech. The Stealth bomber (the b-2) is a product of the same technological era as the F1. Would anyone here be surprised if the new ran a story about them being grounded because that one last laptop capable of talking to their systems finally gave up the DOS ghost?
While the analysis is fine, the conclusion is almost certainly false. At Google's scale, nearly any iteration made on core products is backed by an immense understanding of their end users and a near unlimited supply of user data.
...somewhere a tiny yellow light blinks at 20 bpm in a the NRA chapter tasked with online argument response, and three pagers subsequently buzz...
This comment breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re)-read them and post civilly and substantively—or not at all—from now on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
I'm sure comp sci could use some of them. Hopefully we can start attracting the same amount of women as Bio* fields, that would do a lot to redistribute STEM labour towards better compensation and alleviate supply issues in the market (on both ends).
Grey goo
So the only numbers I can find on price for the Atlas V that delivered Curiosity to Mars is 20% of $2.5 billion. If I'm reading this right, a single Falcon 9 could have launched the same payload (3,893 kg) all the way to Mars for $62 million instead of ~$500 million. Am I reading this right?
Why Specs Matter (2004)
Just met a doctor who owns three planes all worth more than $200k, one was $500k. My wife used to audit doctors in NC and some of them pulled $1 million a year net. The plane guy is not a specialist and one of the NC doctors was a podiatrist.

They have lots of opportunities for outside income on top of the peasant level $200k. Speaking and consulting and taking bribes from pharma.
yes I have had a similar experience except needing to zoom in so the Map displays a road name as not all road names are displayed when zoomed out past a certain point.
Oh, I completely agree! I have probably 5 separate TrueCrypt volumes in my Google Drive. That said, that's only maybe 15GB of my storage, and around 80GB is unencrypted.

It's all about what level of convenience you're willing to expose yourself for. I keep anything I want private in TrueCrypt, anything I don't mind "public" (Or at least exposed to Google / NSA) unencrypted as then I can access it so much easier from my phone, etc.
A lot of banks still run mainly on FORTRAN or COBOL. I guess it's "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude.
Why cosmetics? Why not pick on smoking, drinking, or even religion? Anyone can pick some thing they don't do/like and claim those wasted resources could be better spent on their dreams. Frankly, I'm betting that a great many people would rather have makeup than a men on Mars. Every time someone buys a fashion mag instead of mailing cash to NASA they make that choice.
We went from downtown Berkeley to downtown Oakland, and when renewing our lease and deciding how to expand, decided to stay in Oakland. Great inbetween for SF + East Bay teammates, urban area, and plenty of room to expand.

Interestingly, unless you're focusing on primarily VC-funded style growth, it's easier to get spaces near BART outside of SF. We've always been within 2 blocks!

Edit: as a data point, the last ~4 Berkeley companies my colleagues started all did Berkeley->Oakland somewhere between the 3-10 person point.
You should write an article about the B-2, I think that would be great.
Whodathunkit? "CA card" isn't exactly a Google-friendly phrase, even with the quotes. Which means this article doesn't say much.
Fred Brooks pointed out that with a small team of competent programmers, any organizational methodology will work.

If you pay attention, the best Agile systems focus on improving the skills of developers instead of forcing people to follow the 'steps' or a formula.
If they are looking "specifically for NYC", what is so confusing exactly? Also your "95%" seems way off. Also the concernsus here seems that Google has all the data, they know best. This is a very naive look at things.
I guess I'd expect that it could be virtualized. Or, at the very least, that the hardware-specific API was somewhat-generalized or at least generalizable, so that it could be updated or used via a VM with a similar (even if dated) piece of hardware. Is it a lack of familiarity and developers for the code, or is it just not well-engineered?

At those dollar amounts, it seems like any proven-solved "problem" is solvable again, likely "easier" due to the technology improvements...
Also, dlopen should fail on an object that requires an executable stack, unless some RTLD_WHATEVER flag is passed to allow it. There should also be some finer granularity than opening execute access in every single thread's stack.
This is a more accurate description IMO. However DNS does not have to be that way. Before DNS there used to be file sharing of all the data via a single file in the simple "HOSTS file" format. Then there was a feature in DNS for sharing all the data of each nameserver, in a "zone file" format. With network bandwidth as it is today, sharing of data in bulk could be quite useful to make DNS more peer-to-peer like. People still share data, e.g., block lists. But, practically speaking, everyone running a nameserver connected to the public internet disables axfr.

Also, in my view peer-to-peer supernodes do not monitor or forward all data, they only maintain address information of the peers (rendezvous as you say). DNS, as it is implemented on the public internet, is ripe with passive monitoring as all data flows through centralised points in the tree. Leaves, at the network's edge, are expected to be "dumb", needing to make hundreds single requests for the same information, 365 days per year, even when the majority of it is relatively static.

Every query and response packet containing a seemingly useless "Query" field that never varies from "1". There's no pipelining (when using TCP) or packets containing more than one query.

From what I understand there was interest in so-called "P2P DNS" in reaction to various incidents of censorship via the centralised points in the tree. If the leaves were truly connected as "peers", and sharing the database data directly "peer to peer", then we might have better protections against censorship.

Incidentally, "DNSSEC", as advertised, appears to anticipate centralisation and usage as a CA-like system where peers at the network edge are not only dumb but incapable or verifying messages themselves without involvement of third parties.

In contrast, encrypting DNS packets requires no third party assistance. It can be done by peers all by themselves. A client can encrypt queries and a nameserver can encrypt replies. Well suited to peer-to-peer style usage of DNS. Bulk DNS data can be rysnc'd between peers over SSH, or perhaps mrysnc'd among groups of peers.

There is "DNS" as implemented so far and then there is "what's possible" using DNS. Peer to peer sharing of the data is hardly far-fetched. But it does not yet seem to have caught on outside of small groups doing passive monitoring, blocking and other manipulation.
The outer space treaty says you can't stake a claim but your property rights are still respected under the treaty. That is, if you have a habitat on the surface of Mars, for all intents and purposes that land is yours though there is an obligation to provide for visits from representatives other countries on a reciprocal basis.
I would have expected the vast majority of the killing was of animals e.g. hunting. You don't seem to have left any room for that possibility.
Executable stacks can be used for JIT compilation-and-execution.
Freddie Mercury–analysis of frequency, vibrato, and subharmonics
Gripe: The font used on this blog is so thin it's almost invisible. I dislike this trend.
Show HN: Baseconv: a (very) tiny number conversion utility
Totally agree - to the point that the Arduino is running a "bespoke" MCU... I wonder if it was available in an artisanal mason jar would improve the appeal.