skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nuclear at the moment isn't scaleable.

We already have more nuclear waste than is currently able to be stored.. and we're talking about stuff that is going to remain deadly for tens of thousands of years.

There's nowhere to put the stuff unless we start blasting it out into outer space or develop ways to use it for more energy.
Not to sound like a broken record, but for the average American, $15/person/year will plant enough trees to offset all the CO2 released into the atmosphere by that person: http://shindyapin.tumblr.com/post/141034501197/climate-chang...

Why aren't we doing it? Because nobody is forcing us, and very few are doing it voluntarily.
That is far too optimistic, IMHO.

FDW are a great way to access external data sources, but it lacks proper support for visibility and transactions, and so on. Also, the FDW API follows the "tuple at a time" execution model, which prevents a lot of optimizations in the upper part of the stact (vectorized execution etc.).

There are several products using FDWs to change storage, but I'd call it a misuse of a feature designed for very different purpose.

IMHO it's hardly a way forward without significant changes/improvements (which may happen, I don't know).
If there is some kind of nuclear power that is millions of times cheaper per unit output than it was in 1965, I am unaware of it.
Yep...it's a pretty unbelievable situation. It's led me to face the fact that humans are really not special in any way and this Hollywood sense of "eveything's going to work out somehow in the end" is completely false. Indeed, we can easily kill ourselves off. The universe is perfectly happy to let us do that.
until Elon Musk does something about it. Right ?
I like the concept, but how will you ensure HD quality through cell phone cameras?
Why is that? I imagine a lot of species would have to move too, but basically, if we all move north (or south, depending on where you are relative to the equator)... why doesn't that work?
"G Sweet" ? I'm going to feel like such a dick saying that with a serious look on my face.
Given recent events[1], one cannot stress the word deep enough. To be honest though, it's not just the republican candidate who thinks that global warming is a non-issue. It's the entire Republican party.

Of course, I can't help but referring my all time favorite Daily Show clip, Burn Notice [2].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGEzFbRl-g8

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI
These companies search for a cure to aging
What a common people can do to help to fix that?
Why not? The research just happened in grad school [1] before the startup.

[1]: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.109.4...
I'd say it's more like we can change now or adapt later. And I mean adapt in the most Darwinian fashion. It looks like we've already picked the latter. Shame as the former would hurt a lot less.

The earth has been through huge changes before. I've still got my money on humanity to figure it out. We just passed up the early booking discount and are gonna hafta pay full price for the ride.
Bummer. We'd consider moving off of Dropbox and have everything in one place if we could support all of our Linux machines. Right now we have to have our files in Dropbox and our documents in Google Drive.
Carbon is generally not removed from the environment by photosynthesis.

In photosynthesis, CO2 is converted into sugar [0], storing the solar energy in the chemical bonds of the sugar molecule. Later, the energy is released through the reverse reaction where the sugar is converted back into CO2 [1].

Carbon is also used in biology for things other than sugar production, but in general the carbon that gets consumed by an organism eventually gets released when that organism (and the organism that ate it, and so on up the food chain) decays. This is refered to as the carbon cycle.

Under some circumstances, the carbon cycle is broken, and dead organisms end up sequestering their carbon in a place that does not allow it to return to the general environment (eg. fossil fuels).

TL;RD when we burn fossil fuels we are adding carbon to the environment. When plants consume carbon, they are moving it from the atmosphere to another part of the environment, and it almost always ends up back in the atmosphere.

[0] The full reaction is CO2 + Water -> Sugar + Oxygen, or 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) -> C6H12O6 + 6(O2)
Buried in the BigQuery "Standard SQL" blog post is support for DELETE and UPDATE statements. This is HUGE for BigQuery - the biggest problem has always been that it's an append-only data warehouse.

My company does ETL-as-a-service (https://fivetran.com/) and we've had beta support for BigQuery for the last few months using a somewhat crazy copy-the-table-every-time strategy. We're really excited to have DELETE and UPDATE and we'll be switching over in the next few days.
1.7 megabytes is essential nothing in both modern disk/flash space and network costs. This isn't to say that efficient, small code isn't important, but it seems really common for a lot of programmers to freak out when there's some minimum executable size required for general "runtime" stuff, even when practically speaking it doesn't really matter in the real world outside of niche embedded system applications.

If each 43 bytes you compiled expanded to ANOTHER 1.7mb, then, yeah, that's not good, but that isn't the case here.
and so people suddenly lose interest, those projects wont have much effect until after i'm dead and gone. If we can vastly expand the lifespan of an individual, suddenly they have a vested interest in the next 100, 1000, or whatever years. Suddenly it will make sense to spend a lot today to avoid pain later.
Thanks. My (limited) search for this a couple months back didn't turn anything up. This will be useful for my personal projects (I often work offline).
That's assuming the ecosystem holds together and the warmer temperatures don't begin to cause massive die offs of sensitive plant and animal species. That's also assuming we don't kick off some kind of dangerous feedback loop such as destabilizing methane clathrate deposits or something similar. Are we willing to take the risks? I'm not.

Though I'm not a climate scientest, I'm sure if we had one here they'd agree that ten degrees farenheit is an absolutely MASSIVE change in global temperatures. To say that it would be livable is incredibly naive.
Magnet Player – Stream torrents directly from your browser
I invested in a company that I wish I had built
'Its easier to make a million starting from zero than make a million starting with a million' is the essence of what you just said.

This is easily the dumbest thing Ive ever heard on this site. Seriously.

Can we guild and save this somehow?
What do you mean by a "money guy" on the street?
"I'm superficially familiar with Haskell's typeclass system, but respectfully, this misses my point."

I suggest becoming more than superficially familiar, then. With all due respect, I believe your core problem is that you do not understand what advanced type systems can do, so it's a mystery to you why anybody would want them, and the only cure for that is to go learn. Again, let me emphasize, I do not mean this to be mean, but sometimes there's just no way around the problem in an HN-post sized reply.

I know one recurring thing I've encountered is that I'd love to be able to say that in

type Something interface {
DoWhatever() Something
}

that the return result of DoWhatever is guaranteed to be the same type as the thing you called it on. I'd love to be able to guarantee that if I have a container and a contained type that I can associate the two things together (i.e., I have a "Game" and "Move" interfaces and I'd like to associate specific Game implementations to specific Move implementations). I'd like containers that don't wrap everything in interface{}, resulting in an inefficient representation that is also hard to use in the code. I'd like non-nillable pointers.

On the balance I still use it for my job because the benefits outweigh the costs, but there are tradeoffs I make for it.
Thanks for that, will donate. Here's a link to the charity itself. I'll take a look and make sure it's on the up and up when I'm home then either donate or sign up for recurring donations if possible.

https://donate.trees.org/charity/charity?cid=23832
> This is hugely under-paid for a worthy winner. AI
> startups are sold way more these days; Amazon would
> benefit tremendously from a novel technique
> in that domain.

In that case found a company and exit by selling to AMZN for $FAIR_MARKET_VALUE.
I don't blame you, sadly because "Search Engine" everything here is called "X Engine" (including say Maps Engine). If you're familiar with AWS services, we made a little mapping guide: https://cloud.google.com/docs/compare/aws/ .
First off, it's not "smacktalk", because I wasn't insulting anyone. I was warning the person who posted the article that smacktalk, or "shitposting" as I referred to it, might happen if you don't put a "(2013)" at the end.

Second off, I apologized for offending you, and despite you denying it, it clearly was offensive to you since you called it "low brow".

But I've learned my lesson; I'm getting enough downvotes now, I'm glad that the community has decided that certain words aren't allowed.
G Suite Upcoming Features
Why would this be a better path than using SBIR/STTR funding and the associated ecosystem for proof of concept? Unlike YC it is non-dilutive.

It's something I've long wondered but it's never been answered to my satisfaction.
Where did you read that? Pretty sure peak was after all the problems.
To extrapolate, then, we can solve this for $15 * 300,000,000 = $4.5 billion for the US? And if we are 25% of the world's carbon production (I'm pulling this out of the air) then we can do this for $18 billion? This is on the order of a 10th of a percent of GDP per year. Can it really be that low?
FTA: "I use ‘hard tech’ to mean a startup where there is doubt that the technology can be built at all."
Now, there's no way to change primary domain. Any methods were blocked from Apr. 2016.
> I understand the value of referential transparency and how it makes "certain" things easy, but saying that it automatically makes testing functional code easy is a myth. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

> And because of that, functional code is often very tedious to test.

Your argument rests on a fundamentally wrong assumption. Expressions in functional programs do not have to be (and indeed are almost never) referentially transparent. Just consider global or module-level immutable variables. Those function names? Also not referentially transparent. This goes all the way back to free variables in the lambda calculus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus#Free_variables

Further, dependency injection is a completely idiotic and broken pattern and IMO the worst thing to come out of object oriented programming. Once you have dynamic scoping (surprise! also not referentially transparent) everything that DI does (and much more) becomes trivial.
> This is hugely under-paid for a worthy winner. AI startups are sold way more these days;

Sure, but AI startups also crash and burn. This seems like a lower barrier to 500k than going to a startup.

> Additionally, a prize of $1 million will be awarded to the winning team’s university if their socialbot achieves the grand challenge of conversing coherently and engagingly with humans on popular topics for 20 minutes.

This does bother me too, but I can see how it incentivizes universities to up their game.
> The technology is inherently unscalable -- in fact, the only currently good plans for scaling Bitcoin involve not using it (No, I'm really not joking, that's literally what “off-chain” means)

You understand that there's more data in the world than is practical for all of us to store... The solution is to pick and choose which pieces need to be globally visible (ie, on-chain) and which do not. When I play poker I don't wire-transfer the result of each hand, that's what the chips are for.

> Blocks are now so full that transactions have stopped flowing

You mean, near-zero fee transactions... Because blocks are being published, and they're full of transactions.

Nobody ever said it was going to be free, it's just been small enough to tolerate the odd free-rider. That phase is coming to an end.

> But the real problem here is really the fact that the development team have refused to increase the block size even though this was always intended in the design of Bitcoin by Satoashi and even though there are plenty of resources to do it.

If transactions were free why wouldn't I backup my photos into the blockchain?

If we expand the blocks now we'll just end up with the same amount of waste and the same whining. If we let the fee rise first, then expand the blocks to balance both fee and network cost, we'll end up with something stable.

Also, Satoshi was wrong about some things. Why are you trying to treat "him" like a god?

> A hostile dev community that is so utterly clueless when it comes to real world business that their choices have managed to cripple the entire system.

No, that's exactly backwards. Bitcoin is an open system, not a startup incubator. It's not bitcoin's responsibility to support your business, it's your business' responsibility to function on the infrastructure available. Going to large blocks would benefit some companies who don't like paying for infrastructure. It'd keep their free-ride going longer, but at the cost of all the other players.

> Community is an echo chamber of ignorance that blindly believes that all advances outside of Bitcoin are traitorous, incorrect, and not worth knowing about; Outright hostile towards new users with an air of technology snobbery that makes the Linux community seem like a welcoming party at an Apple store.

Well, if you're judging by the response you've gotten, there may be confounding factors your analysis has missed... What reaction should an anti-vaxxer receive at a medical-policy conference when they stand up and declare that science has failed, etc?
Perhaps I'm just not as conversant in reverse-engineering as some of the people here, but my understanding is that if a key part of your product relies on patching somebody else's software for which you don't have the source code, this is also fraught with potential dead-ends and uncontrollable risks. What if they're using ASLR? What if they change the functions involved in the next version? What if the functions you're trying to patch have side effects that you can't afford to ignore?

That's why I prefer to put the dividing line at "must figure out things by poking at them rather than by reading documentation". The definition of "research" can be pretty vague - is a security team poking at a product conducting research? How about a UX team trying to figure out how their users behave? A search team doing language modeling? All of these would count in my head, and if a startup built their product around one of these results I would consider it "hard tech", but evidently not everyone agrees.
I think there's a good case to be made that "adapt in a Darwinian fashion" will mean "humanity doesn't continue to exist on the planet in any meaningful numbers".

I prefer to address the problem in a more timely manner.
If there's no hackable non-Retina-like model with user-upgradable to 16 GiB of memory and dual SSDs, the MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) MD101LL/A will be the last MBP I buy. Overpriced, soldered-on memory is BS.
Tenure is not turn-over. If you double the size of your company every year, but nobody quits, then your average tenure is <1 year. Nobody would be able to accuse you of having high turn-over, though.

On the other hand, if you grow your company by 25% year-over-year, and your entire staff quits after 18 months, your average tenure will be >1 year.
I'm more worried about that it increased around 4% on only five years
I had used PostgreSQL for a decade, including full-text search, but just within apps that were already storing their data in Postgres.

The time came to replace our website search (tens of thousands of pages), and we decided to try rolling our own. Someone suggested ElasticSearch, and as I read through it, it seemed to do less than PostgreSQL. I still had the hard problems of (1) spidering the site and (2) converting all the file formats (.doc, .xls, .pdf, etc.).

I ended up just putting wget on a daily cron job to spider the site. Then I ran the saved files through a hodgepodge of scripts to extract the plain text and put it into PostgreSQL.

Once it's there, it's far easier to do the rest. Postgres has its own functions to search for matches, rank the matches, give you snippets, and even highlight the search words in the snippets. It's amazing.

Searches run in a split second. Well, at first, when I was testing, they often took a few seconds. But the weird thing is that after go-live it ran faster. My best guess is that so many users caused Postgres to cache more and more of itself into RAM. The whole server is still using less than 1 GB though, and it's running Apache and Postgres for the website and all its apps.
>The picture that goes with it should be something like a Toyota Corolla sitting behind the defense's table, with somber lawyers around it.

Heh, my go-to scenario is a stack of $100 bills on the stand, being questioned:

"Is it true, Misters Franklin, you facilitated the purchase of over a kilo of uncut Colombian cocaine, yes-or-no?"

'...'

"Aha! Their silence proves their guilt!"

(I know, Fifth Amendment and all, but still...)
Certainly. I dropped an e-mail at the hyperscan account.

By the way, if you try out icgrep and use the -DumpASM option, you may notice a very unusual characteristic: the generated code is almost completely dominated by AVX2 instructions!
Unless you want to run Android the Pi remains the best bet for Linux support. I have an Odroid and have dabbled a bit. However its become clear that because of ARM, Google and their partners complete closed nature its always going to be an uphill struggle to get Linux working properly on their platform.

You get old kernels, missing or poorly functioning drivers, and blobs so even experts cannot verify anything. The recent Amlogic scandal with fradulent CPU speeds discovered only recently is case in point.

A whole army of open source enthusiasts and developers have been trying diligently to work with ARM but they only end up being bounced back and forth between ARM and its partners some for years on end, with both feigning lack of authority to make things work.

There are plenty of binary blobs, closed drivers and security blobs that will not go away unless ARM supports Linux with action beyond lip service and announcements. Given some of the issues like GPU drivers are pending for more than 3 years Linux is clearly not a focus for ARM.

Like some others suggested I would look more closely at the 25W AMD Athlon 5350 or Celeron 1037/1900 for Linux support for things like HTPC, NAS and homebrew routers. You can get CPU and motherboard for $50-60.
Maybe the doomsday argument wasn't crazy after all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
Well, for one thing, we're on a sphere. As you go toward the poles, there's less square miles of land per degree of latitude.
I made a google sheet that calculated that planting trees along the state and interstate highways for 1/2 the state of MN would capture enough carbon annually (when minimum maturity of 30 adult trees per hectare) to offset the carbon footprint of the entire state.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dA5_AMW6EJPDZv2fP-KO...
How is that a solution?
Why is it highly dubious?
And without founding on new kind of nuclear reactors that burns nuclear wasted. Good job!
I like to imagine the Earth fighting back in some crazy Jumanji way. Plants start growing super fast and breaking apart buildings... stretching out into the sky to suck up the carbon.
What I don't get is why policy makers doesn't see this as an opportunity for economic growth. Just start taxing emission and invest heavily in green technology and we could be on our way to start a new industrial revolution!
Thanks, it's nice to see the patch is likely beneficial for other people!
>This is pretty much just a few days of sitting in GDB for the right engineer[1]. Now, maybe it require people experienced with debugging tools, but...

As someone sort-of familiar with gdb (but not extensively so) I have no idea how I'd do that. Can you point me in the right direction?
You realize you're writing that in a forum where half the companies are financed by advertising...?
Of course there are many approaches to build software [1]. I also read that comment as more of a philosophy for product development than software development.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_process#A...
The quote you put isn't what is said on the blog post.
I assume they edited it after your comment, Thanks! Adding that straightforward adjective removes the ambiguity.

> I use ‘hard tech’ to mean a startup where there is doubt that the technology can be built at all.

> Some people think YC only funds straightforward software startups.
Is the $25M in US dollars? If so, that seems like plenty to be upper class in any place I'm aware of. For example, at 4% return on investment, that'd yield $1M US annually. 500K would be enough money to, e.g., rent two rooms at the Mayfair Hotel in London, or the Contemporary Hotel at Disneyland for the year and eat out every night. Maybe you live in a place more rarefied than Mayfair or Disneyland, but there aren't many of those places, so your experiences may not be typical.
If only the greenies didn't lobby for insane levels of regulation on nuclear so that we can actually build a plant in less than 30 years.
I don't see how this could work. You need a place to plant all of those trees and let them grow and then store them so that they don't decompose and release CO2 back into the atmosphere. That's a lot of land and it seems like if you continually harvest trees without letting them decompose you'll need to fertilize the land to keep the trees growing well.
Spring for Nessus if you're looking for a solid vulnerability scanner.
There was research done in various nordic countries that when men and women are free from severe economic selection pressure, They naturally prefer different roles something like nurse vs construction worker.

Also area's like India,when men and women are under more economic pressure, there is more gender equal distribution in fields.

I've had this explained to me as the "Nordic Paradox".
Algebraic Patterns – Monoid Morphism
> You can't do both.

Yes you can, because unless you're being obtuse, I'm obviously talking about processed white sugar, not fructose found in real food.
Sure, but you can partition based on country, city and even block, it's clear how this should work.

None of Twitter can be partitioned like that because every user follows different people.
Yikes! At least it's good for the plants.

I feel optimistic, however. We are on the cusp of really efficient solar panels and excellent batteries that will finally make it practical to power homes and offices from sunlight most of the time.

Electric vehicles are ramping up and it's very likely that in 20 years, the average passenger car on the road will be electric, or at least plug-in hybrid with 100 mpg or better.

Ultimately, we'll stop burning so much stuff. Will it be too late, or will the relatively sudden dropoff in CO2 production affect the PPM? Should be interesting to watch, for those of us who live long enough.
There's also "firm-specific human capital". Some knowledge is hard to bring with you.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/firm-specific-human-capital
If you have your domain with Google Domains, there's a feature which allows you to forward all emails to your consumer Gmail account. By using Google's mail servers, you don't run into problems with being misclassified as spam.
Try to calculate your carbon footprint, then take steps to reduce it where possible. For example, taking fewer airplane flights.
Cybercrime meets ransomware