skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
json.loads('foo.json') (what is that? python?) requires that the json matches your types exactelly. This, at least for me, is rarely the case.

And yes, it is. Here is code from my own project:

Json.map3 HintTemplate
(Json.field "ID" Json.int)
(Json.field "Text" Json.string)
(Json.field "Image" Json.string)

Where HintTemplate is a record type containing an integer id, a string text and a image url. What about this is difficult?
They're playing games with "major" in the title. Hydro and wind are ~5% of the US generation pool each, which I guess can be argued make them "minor". But then "biomass" appears in the chart too, and it's much smaller still, so no idea.
Mobile Phones to Deliver Education to Children in Developing Countries
If you mean Jet Propulsion Lab, then no way. I'm sure they're better than that.

The IP block is managed by INetU Inc, which was apparently a cloud hosting company now owned by Canadian telecommunications company Shaw Communications.

https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/II25-ARIN

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/inetu-managed-hostin...

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/shaw-communications
Even leaving aside the question of how much insurance should be required and how to underwrite that, as well as what kind of reserve should be mandated for cleanup and long term waste storage, the economics of nuclear are very rough.

The lion's share of the costs are upfront and the break even period is measured in decades. What is the energy landscape going to look like in 30 years? That's a question that you need to be able to answer with high confidence if you want to correctly price bonds that will be used to construct a nuclear power plant to be paid off from the revenue of the plant. If the potential bond buyers can't answer that question with high confidence then they don't know what interest rate is appropriate for the bonds and they probably won't want to buy them.
good spanners are not cast and heat treated. They cast a blank which is roughly the right size, but then they forge it - much like an old fashioned blacksmith, but there are a ton of jigs involved (probably literally 2000 lbs though I first wrote that as an expression).
[New data] Who orders from Blue Apron anyway?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151216151617.h...

Some earlier work in the area, it's just an AND gate, but it demonstrates an application.

Molecules A and B correlate with a psoriasis flare up, molecule C is a psoriasis medication. If A and B are present, the bacteria produces molecule C.
What IP is contained within LI?
> despite the screen covering deterioration in weird spotty ways

If it's like images at [1] you may be eligible for a free screen replacement. I got Apple to change mine after it started showing the defect (granted, I went to an Apple Store mere weeks before the Apple Care+ coverage ended). Mine is a late 2013 rMBP. The new screen, however, is starting to show the same kind of damage around the edges.

[1] http://www.staingate.org/#gallery
I wonder how much nuclear suffers from PR. Clearly statistics are not really effective at changing opinions. But what would happen if popular Elon Musk/Steve Jobs type of public figure get into the lobby game with a nuclear company? Could that swing perception either way?
What are the sources of CO2 for mining and all the rest? If it's electricity production then you're basically blaming nuclear for emissions from fossil fuel generation, since those would be much lower in an all-nuclear world. If it's transport then it's more justified, but when looking at how it could be in the future, transport can be electrified to close that loop.
It would be interesting to hear his actual opinion on this topic.
The public's nuclear acceptance is not about day to day death toll. It's about broken promises and Armageddon.

Looking at the chart, I'd take gas over nuclear in a heartbeat thinking of what nuclear has done to Japan. Nuclear can both power and destroy a country. Gas and other options do not. Neither does solar or wind which are not even in that chart.

Say we have a new technology that is safer than nuclear, but had a one in a million chance to destroy Earth. It would be safest on paper, for however long paper and researchers still existed.

"But Fukushima was a horrible place for a nuclear power plant and it was run by incompetent people," you say. But that's exactly the point. If we make a list of all the plants in the world and the safety measures they undermined and their staffing situation, how many would be stellar? How many would even admit anything?
I don't think you understand how much energy would actually be required to launch the waste into the sun. Costs would have to be reduced by a couple orders of magnitude to make launching any significant amount of material into the sun viable.
Patreon CEO Jack Conte Live: Lauren Southern, IGD, and Free Speech
This is where I learnt the word from.
> over any consideration to Wind, Solar,

The title says it: major energy sources. Wind and solar aren't.
> Approximately 100,000 American children suffer physical abuse

> If you're going for an argument that really bad parents are too rare to take into account

You're moving the goalposts. The assertion wasn't that there are lots of bad parents out there, the assertion was that there are parents out there who are more afraid of jail than of killing their child.
The number should fall as solar becomes something that you add when a roof is constructed, rather than retro-fitted, since that roof work is already being done.
The two fill different rolls. I expect you will use this to create a rough part and then put it in the CNC machine for final finish.
It might also be possible to model the shrinkage in software and compensate for it automatically, assuming you know what materials you are going to use.

Could be a minor surprise when you check that you have a 200x200mm work area, design a 100x180mm part, and then get told that it won't fit on the build area.
Rezoom.SQL: Statically typed SQL for F#
Comments with "bullshit" in all caps aren't a very good fit for HN. In the first two paragraphs you insinuate that they deliberately skip wind and solar (when wind and solar can't generate the kind of power that nuclear can), that this is a submarine article from the nuclear industry, that you didn't read it, and that nobody else should read it either. These elements combined are toxic to HN's culture of intellectual gratification.
Yeah it's a classic case of projecting one's personal values onto the market. A lot of startups fail in part because they design an enthusiast product that they think will have appeal outside of enthusiasts. Because clearly it's better in every way, right? So how could people not switch to this new thing that they've never seen, take the time to learn how to use it, all for a marginal increase in efficiency, if you use it perfectly, over the incumbent product they already know that currently does the thing?

Outside of enthusiast circles companies are about psychology more than anything. Make the customer feel empowered, even if they aren't, and they'll buy your thing over the technically better option.
Oh great another pro-nuclear article that focuses on deaths and ignores the long term costs of spent nuclear fuel and the damage that inevitably happens in disasters like Fukushima. Before Fukushima the story was the same as this "Nuclear is the safest! Nuclear is the best! Problems of the past are gone!" Then Fukushima happens and the nuclear industry continues its same message. Give me a break.

Solar and wind are obviously better for the environment, and the way of the future. Fortunately most of the world already knows this.
Nuclear energy was politicized from day minus one. It was developed out of government driven military technology. In day zero nuclear energy was set up by politicians: goals, strategies, financing, deployment, risk handling, etc. Everything was coming from energy politics. Investments were directed and the market&regulations for nuclear were set up.
Government largely financed it and insures it.

The large scale, the monopolistic businesses and the government centric energy politics made it ideal for corruption. Remember, Fukushima was claimed to be fully save after inspections, just before the accident happened, which destroyed several reactors.

The investment into nuclear energy was a political decision. Every further investment into nuclear is a political decision. The 'small modern reactors' are mostly funded by government and the users are mostly military. The military is already mostly the only user of small reactors: nuclear powered ships and submarines.

Now we see other players which favor other energy politics (like the current US President who favors fossil fuels like coal, because his voters want jobs in the coal industry).

The point is: energy is always politics.
What leads you to believe that LinkedIn's data is public?
I got a T470s for work and I can't recommend it. My current major issue is that the main screen attached to my docking station (Dell 4k 27") goes off for a second in random intervals. At some times as often as every minute, which makes it super annoying to work with it. After Win10 creators update I had another major issue where the video driver did not work anymore after standby. That was at least fixed with some driver updates. Besides that I experienced more bluescreens with it in 2 month than with any other PC that I owned.

Besides the stability issues the screen and the keyboard are quite good. However the touchpad is no comparison to the one on a Macbook. I can work without a mouse on a Macbook without missing anything, but not on the Lenovo. According to some reviews the T470 should be better in that area than the T470s, but I don't have one for comparison.
Lots of industrial processes create dangerous chemical wastes which remain dangerous forever. Why are you so worried about nuclear waste which is only dangerous for 10,000 years?
CNC machines will probably continue to be the king of things they can machine. The catch, though, is that you can 3d print a lot of structures you cannot machine by any means (see: SpaceX SLS's their rocket nozzles).

You have to design for the manufacturing process. Parts designed for CNC machining will always feel like a square peg in a round hole for 3d printing. Once you start designing for 3d printing, though, things get more competitive quickly. You can design parts to have hard to machine shapes, or parts that would have too much waste to machine from a solid billet of material and 3d print them without the waste.

Your computer case is bent up from sheet metal instead of machined from a solid block of steel for a lot of obvious reasons, and it makes no sense to compare the processes for a design like that. 3d printing will enable similar shifts of design.
I had the exact opposite experience. I cant fault my XPS15 9560. No issues, very fast, no crashes.
When they use .00 on all the figures it calls into question everything else about the article.
They are TOTALLY playing games. Solar and Wind are relatively young, but power generated by Water based dams have been around for decades, yet only biomass is mentioned. The omission is deliberate.
Githubs uptime is pretty bad. Isn't it under 95% for the year now?
Bad Metric is Bad.
If the goal of such an operation were to effectively create an alternative to LinkedIn, along the likes of other "claim your listing" sites, then this could be a worthwhile cause.
How many more can we expect before they develop appreciation for testing _before_ they push to prod?
Nitrocaster FHD mod. I just had an X250 with a FHD screen and I hated it. I sold it just this weekend.

https://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=122640
It's sad if growing vegetables was a positive impact because people stopped growing their own food a long time ago under the assumption that doing everything else was more productive.
With a potential reduction in the Department of Energy's budget, this might not hold. There may not be enough funding to properly dispose of the waste. Not to mention that some of the effects of past storage aren't well-catalogued [0]:

Three years ago the D.O.E. sent the local tribes a letter to say they shouldn’t eat the fish they caught in the river more than once a week.

[...]

Hanford turns out to be a good example of an American impulse: to avoid knowledge that conflicts with whatever your narrow, short-term interests might be. What we know about Hanford we know mainly from whistle-blowers who worked inside the nuclear facility—and who have been ostracized by their community for threatening the industry in a one-industry town. (“Resistance to understanding a threat grows with proximity,” writes Brown.) One hundred and forty-nine of the tanks in the Hanford farms are made of a single shell of a steel ill-designed to contain highly acidic nuclear waste. Sixty-seven of them have failed in some way and allowed waste or vapors to seep out. Each tank contains its own particular stew of chemicals, so no two tanks can be managed in the same way. At the top of many tanks accumulates a hydrogen gas, which, if not vented, might cause the tank to explode. “There are Fukushima-level events that could happen at any moment,” says Carpenter. “You’d be releasing millions of curies of strontium 90 and cesium. And once it’s out there it doesn’t go away—not for hundreds and hundreds of years.”

The people who created the plutonium for the first bombs, in the 1940s and early 1950s, were understandably in too much of a rush to worry about what might happen afterward. They simply dumped 120 million gallons of high-level waste, and another 444 billion gallons of contaminated liquid, into the ground. They piled uranium (half-life: 4.5 billion years) into unlined pits near the Columbia River. They dug 42 miles of trenches to dispose of solid radioactive waste—and left no good records of what’s in the trenches. In early May of this year a tunnel at Hanford, built in the 1950s to bury low-level waste, collapsed. In response, the workers dumped truckloads of dirt into the hole. That dirt is now classified as low-level radioactive waste and needs to be disposed of. “The reason the Hanford cleanup sucks—in a word—is shortcuts,” said Carpenter. “Too many goddamn shortcuts.”

[0] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-...
I don't see anyone making that claim, but you are yet another commenter that feels they have to take any statement to their most extreme in order to challenge the conversation. And it's so commonly done in the same lazy way that at best charitably resembles the Socratic method, but at worst is just willful contrarianism.

Females are not incapable of being sexist. Nobody claimed that. In a culture alleged (with evidence) to be at least somewhat unfriendly towards women, a female CEO is likely to be better able to empathize with the issues and experiences women face. If one of your major concerns is to make the workplace more welcome for all, then it seems reasonable that a leader that comes from the class of workers who were not given a great experience is reasonable.
I think that's still a bit heavy-handed, but it's much better than what the parent to my original comment had implied.
Some discussion on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6qizpb/statica...
What were the epic consequences of Fukushima? No one died of radiation poisoning, and the actuarial deaths from cancer in the future are going to be minuscule compared to the natural disaster the precipitated it, and in any case much smaller than from fossil fuels. Under any cost-benefit analysis, the primary negative impact of Fukushima was the absurd amount of money being spent on decommissioning, but this is an argument for more pragmatism, not historical evidence for the danger of nuclear power.
Even if we ignore the black swan events (which each time they happen we hear how it could never happen again, etc), nuclear has a long, sordid history of massive schedule, cost and operational expense overruns. Energy companies stopped building nuclear not because of those damn eco warriors, but because they had been jaded by project after project that cost multiples (or magnitudes) of estimates. It just isn't cost effective.

There are some places where nuclear makes more sense -- on a spacecraft, for instance -- but in most worldly cases it is no longer a competitive option.
Solar and wind has a lot of 'negative externalities' though that are generally borne by the grid or other operators. I think the economics really work against it at high% penetration (30-40%+).

The problem is that solar and wind requires backup generation, usually CCGT natural gas.

This is ok until you scale higher and higher. You end up having CCGT only producing 20-40% of the time (to fill in for wind and solar blips). This massively increases the capex of CCGT plants, as you're only producing rarely. This would get more and more extreme with more solar+wind penetration.

Another massive problem is solar+wind overproduction, which is really hard to solve and is starting to really hit the German, UK and California grids. On very sunny AND windy days you get massive energy overproduction. You then have to either:

a) Turn off solar+wind remotely (often very expensive to retrofit to existing installations as the Germans found out)
b) Pay other (natgas, coal, nuclear, etc) operators to shut down, which can be very expensive
c) Hope that negative electricity prices make more demand. This is unlikely to happen as industrial users can't switch on extra production quick enough to respond to this.

This is made worse by feed in tariffs being paid at any energy price, incentivizing solar+wind to continue generating even if electricity price is negative (say it is -€0.05kWh spot, but your FIT is €0.20/kWh, you are still going to produce as you will net 0.15euro per kWh.

The two 'solutions' which are often mentioned are battery storage and HVDC long distance transmission.

Battery storage is still horrendously expensive on a kWh basis. It may come down, but this is an enormous problem. I am personally not sure there is enough lithium left that is easily extracted to make this viable at the scale (billions of kWh) required.

HVDC connections I also am suspicious of - if it's sunny and windy in Germany, it is likely to also be the same 1000km away more or less.
> it's 100% accurate in prevention, so long as you work it into your routine when exiting a vehicle

Your fallacy, because you are apparently a person who is good at teaching themselves new routines based on safety statistics, is assuming that is a general skill that everyone has and that everyone could be expected to have.

If you're actually interested in preventing child deaths, and not just moralizing, the proper thing to do is treat this as a public health issue, and understand that not every parent has the same emotional and cognitive facilities as you do.
Meanwhile we have people fighting for coal power plants even though their waste disposal plan for things like mercury and arsenic is basically "dump it into the air and hope it doesn't kill too many people." And that stuff stays dangerous until the heat death of the universe, not merely thousands of years.
Dang. It's too bad their customers' source control files aren't distributed and decentralized, or they could keep working and ignore this.
Why women write about being women in tech
While the threats from coal and gas are regularly distributed through time (near constant rate of pollutants) the threat from nuclear energy are sporadic (ie meltdown, terror) and are thus harder to model and assess. Also agree with others that wind and solar are being discounted unfairly despite their growth factors.
Not enough mongodb. clearly they are not webscale yet.
The process in the article is effectively sintering. If [1] is any indication, you can get to within an order of magnitude of strength of cast/forged parts, if sintering variables are controlled for properly. Which may not be the case for a diyer, metallurgy is a complex art.

1.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14635/what-will-...
> They shouldn't have to serve that content to people who aren't actually their users.

And insurance companies only want to serve people who won't claim etc. LI is free to force users to usage agreements, but why should third-parties (taxpayers) foot the bill for enforcing them?
I'm more afraid of having nuclear power plants now that we no longer have a thriving industry to support innovation and technological progress in the field. From my understanding, we stopped innovating in fission power plant design decades ago.
Production time.

Production is always judged by how much time it takes for raw material to become finished parts. Additionally that is split between 'operator time' (person required) and 'machine time' (just the machine running).

'Operator time' is a function of how skilled the operator has to be (machinists cost a lot more than technicians).

'Machine time' is a function of operating cost and depreciation.

So anything that shortens those times, or cuts those costs lowers the cost per part. Parts "have" to cost less than a threshold amount to meet the sales price of the final assembly + margin.

That is all basic manufacturing. The key is that costs have typically been reached by doing things in volume with 'tooling' (investing in dies and jigs to configure the machine to easily make the one part). That essentially makes the production line 'single use' while it is tooled that way.

These guys are proposing that they can make metal parts at the same cost as the tool and die folks in smaller quantity and with no setup costs. That changes several things;

1) You can make warranty/repair parts "on demand" so cut the cost of making a million widgets and storing them in a warehouse.

2) You can make 'small runs' of products for more specialized markets at a price that the market will accept.

3) You can support more variations of a given product without your spare parts inventory exploding.

4) Production can be parallelized from small scale shops so a large 'mega factory' isn't needed, instead you can get a dozen shops with this gear to work in parallel to meet your production target.

If they can pull it off, it really does change a lot. If they can get the costs down further it opens the possibility of domestic delivery of parts from a certified vendor rather than a warehouse somewhere.
Elm's primary selling point is "no runtime exceptions". The subheader on Elm's homepage even says this[1]:

Generate JavaScript with great performance and no runtime exceptions.

Type safety doesn't come for free. If you want to build an application that doesn't have runtime exceptions, you have to specify what external data should look like, how to translate that data into a native datatype, and what to do if that expectation fails. With this in mind, you can't just write `JSON.parse(data)` and expect everything to work. What if your data has a different shape? What if it's missing fields? What if field "foo" is a String instead of an Int?

Here's a short example in Typescript:

import fetch from "node-fetch"

interface Post {
user_id: number,
id: number,
title: string,
body: string
}

const postUrl = 'https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/posts/1'

const show = function(post: Post) {
console.log(post.user_id)
console.log(post.id)
console.log(post.title)
console.log(post.body)
}

function getJSON(): Promise<Post> {
return fetch(postUrl).then(x => x.json())
}

getJSON().then(show)

Do you see the bug? `user_id` is supposed to be `userId`, yet this example will compile without an issue. When you run it, `post.user_id` will be undefined, even though our interface clearly states that a Post most have a `user_id` field of type `number`. The compiler won't catch this even with `--strictNullChecks` enabled.

Everything in programming is about tradeoffs. If you don't care about strong type correctness, use something like Typescript. If you do care, Elm is a great choice.

[1]: http://elm-lang.org/
I wish I had more impact. There are a lot of big problems I'd love to solve but nobody is requesting my help to tackle them.