skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable.

Go get some equipment and stand behind a car's tailpipe sometime and you'll clear up any confusion that humans are releasing CO2... That's a really bizarre thing to be hung up on. The standard skeptic line is that the CO2 isn't a big deal, not that we're not releasing loads of it.
"I get all my news from facebook. Look, a Trending story about a facebook competitor. hheheheheh"

Italics doesn't make your comment any less circular or beside the point for people looking to move away from github.
It's interesting they didn't mention the high rates amongst veterans.

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran...), in 2012 there were 6,500 which seems like enough to get a slice in a pie chart.
Reforestation, and a limitation to asphalt/concrete that replaces grass, would also take up CO2. I read somewhere that an acre of grass takes up over a ton and a half of CO2 per year. That's a lot. If we could revert a million acres a year to grasslands, we'd eventually put the Earth back on an even keel.

There's also the algae in the ocean which generate a significant amount of the world's oxygen -- reduce pollution of the oceans and maintain a healthy food chain, and perhaps this will restore itself as well.

The Amazon rain forest alone is responsible for a huge chunk of CO2-to-O2 work, and they're chopping it down at an alarming rate. Stop destroying the rain forest and restore as much of it as possible.

I think these policies would be far more effective long term than this hokey air-to-fuel thing, and without needing to crack water for the H2 that the plan requires.

That said, it sounds like cool technology and if it became competitive with fossil fuels, using (I suppose) solar energy to obtain the H2, it's a brilliant idea.
I do not believe so. Generally speaking, mathematical models often include what I call "scaffolding," which is something that, while being part of the model, does not represent anything real. (Different models are likely have different scaffolding, and some future theory might do away with virtual particles as a mechanism of interaction.)
So far the interest rate has been delightfully low. But the rate is adjustable and the bank has been making noises about massively hiking it. Let’s hope we can pay off the loan before the payments exceed our means.
Agreed, even if unpopular.

What puzzles me is the "climate advocates" pressing for such environmental engineering show little interest in changing their own behavior - say, more concerned about grandiose systems for removing CO2 rather than personally eradicating CO2 production from their own lifestyles (and I mean >90% reduction, not mere virtue-signaling). It takes an interest in personally influencing society & economy, putting their money where their mouth is, creating a demand for alternatives and normalizing society's [non-]production levels.

Compelling vastly impactful & ill-understood (and expensive) schemes, which a lot of smart people disagree with, is dangerous when serving largely as a counter to that which even "advocates" are unwilling to do themselves.

Be the change.

Particularly odd when someone like me is doing more to "save the earth" on a personal level than most "advocates".
Banks are required to do this for at least money-laundering purposes. It's called Know Your Customer.
“After careful deliberation, NASA has decided to cancel the High Performance Fast Computing Challenge competition it announced six weeks ago.“

The canceled competition would have involved running contestants’ code on a NASA supercomputer. The only logical reason I can think of for restricting the language to Fortran would be security concerns. Limiting submissions to one, well-understood and possibly safer language would limit the attack surface. But they canceled the whole thing anyway, again probably due to security concerns.

In any case, yes Fortran codes are still around. The BLAS and LAPACK libraries are implemented in Fortran, which means that Fortran code is at the foundations of a ton of numerical software (e.g. MATLAB, NumPy, R, probably Julia, probably a lot of neural net libraries, etc). Any new HPC chip always comes with an optimizing Fortran compiler, we saw this with Nvidia GPUs for example). There are two reasons why Fortran is still used: (1) decades of work has gone into implementing numerical optimizations in these libraries. I am not just talking about machine-oriented optimizations, I am referring to higher level mathematical tricks that require deep domain specific expertise in things like linear algebra as well as a very strong handle on managing floating-point error. Extensive testing has gone into those libraries, and the continued validity of that testing depends on the language standard, compiler implementation, and compiler optimization levels. There is simply no value in rewriting all of this code in another language, given the enormous cost and risk. (2) older professors just prefer Fortran because they know it, and grad students have to use it because their profs use it, and front-line experts have to use it if they want to work on making enhancements to the imoortsnt existing Fortran libraries.
I'm not reaperducer, and I can't find the old HN discussion. But here's an article about Illinois/Texas biometric data laws: http://abc7chicago.com/technology/why-googles-face-match-fea...
> Then visit localhost:3000 and add it to your remotes (git remote add local ...) and you can push your changes to your own gitea instance.

Why would you want to run a git server on your personal computer?
Stop using a big bank then
At around 600-1000 ppm of CO2, air begins to negatively affect human performance. This fact is not hard to test. I think most people would agree that it would be a good thing not to get to that level so that human can still have natural fresh air.
Instead of straw-manning the GP, why not address the very specific concerns raised? If there's an error you're seeing in a cluster of, say, 30 machines that only seems to happen once every few days, how are we supposed to debug this?

Since the application and kernel are joined together so closely, there aren't any parallel processes that could be monitoring the behavior of the unikernel app. You can't log in on the affected machine and pull logs really, because the process may not be able to even write a log about what's failing when its in the process of failing.

If you have a situation where a single server is having performance issues in a unikernel approach, there is no UNIX-style environment to log in and poke the hardware configuration and health, whereas on a more normal stack you could log in and see that NetworkManager has degraded the connection down from 10Gbps to 100Mbps because it can't negotiate a higher speed successfully, anymore, and then you can configure your alerting system to watch that stat, remove any boxes in that state from the load balancer, and inform DevOps about the bad hardware.

All of that to then say that I really do like the idea of Unikernels, and I believe they have their place, but that place tends to be very well-defined and infrequently changing problem domains that need very high performance, such as in supercomputers.

It doesn't work as well elsewhere because the application, by being joined so closely to the kernel, is also responsible for these things operating systems have traditionally taken care of for us, and problems in the application code can have an even more catastrophic effect than normal. Most applications are neither well-defined enough, time-invariant enough, or latency-constrained enough for the unikernel tradeoff to make sense.
This comment links to them:

https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/4167#issuecomment-3...
Even the highest quality roof only lasts ~30 years at the most.

I have asphalt roll roofing which is cheap but needs to be replaced every 5-8 years.
Reminds me of a project posted here a little while ago for exactly that:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13552376
Cancer Risk Matrix [pdf]
It's already being done, and doesn't look redneck at all: http://indiedwell.com/
> hellish Venusian weather

In Mars' wonderful weather, pressure is so low, at 0.006 atm, that IIRC water boils in the ambient environment, and gravity is 0.376 G.

Around 50 km above Venus, pressure is about equal to Earth, gravity is equal to Earth, and temperatures are a very friendly (relative to all locations in the universe outside Earth) 30-80 deg C. (Also, breathable air is lighter than Venusian atmosphere, so a floating base is a bit easier; and Venus is closer to Earth than Mars.)

There are drawbacks to living in a Venusian airship, or so I'm told, but weather-wise it's pretty good.
China is still expanding nuclear capacity with ~20 new reactors under construction.

They have not gone all in on nuclear and are exploring as many alternatives to coal as they can.
What does "we (read: our employees) would prefer to not work on weapons systems" have to do with a "self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people"?
I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.

The connection is the hubris that enables Google to benefit from public largesse while simultaneously believing itself to be superior to it (and by extension, the public). Like it or not, Google has benefited immensely from research facilitated/instigated by DARPA, DoD etc. which were all military technologies (GPS, internet, Grand Challenge). But now, it has serious qualms about AI that enables civilian areas to be identified in conflict zones (by its own admission).
>I've been shat on HN before for saying this

Gatekeeping: when someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.
You can’t burn oil without atmospheric oxygen.
I have a self-hosted git instance on a VPS. It's trivial to set up for doing personal projects, but it would take quite a bit more work to properly set it up so other people could clone repos or contribute. Depending on what GitHub features Zamicol is using, it could be a pretty large project to self-host.
>I can appreciate having a car can be useful, but I'd not call it a necessity. Perhaps things are different in the US of A.

American urban planning is heavily car-centric. They talk about "walkable communities", because the opposite is the norm. A large proportion of American towns and suburbs are sprawling, low-density and strictly segregated between residential and commercial developments. Public transport is often meagre or nonexistent. Parts of America are practically uninhabitable without a car. It's probably true to say that Americans are unreasonably attached to driving and averse to walking, but at this stage it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around. Please spare me the ridiculous straw men. The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past than it ever has had since we evolved. Clearly human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition.
this is kind of interesting as there's some reverse/upside down ideas that come out of it:

1. the big oil companies and the massive political machine that supports them drops the whole "global warming isn't real" line, no more snowballs being taken in to congress and all that. Because now they can just say they'll suck it out of the air and they can continue to think they can keep burning all the coal and oil they want (which of course they should not). Once everyone is on the same page that global warming is real, they can't go back on that. If the approach here proves to be insufficient (which it probably is), a lot of political points have been scored in any case.

2. the machinery to suck out the CO2 is another big "green" industry, like solar or wind, but doesn't compete with oil/coal! it's meant to mitigate the damage they do. So as you've noted, way more money and attention might end up going here, increasing the chance of its viability.

3. No matter what happens with the rate of burning oil/coal, we need this anyway. There's consensus that we're pretty much over the point of no return with warming due to all the ice that has melted, and if the permafrost goes that might be catastrophic.
Government incentives for coal are huge. It’s just that most of them take the form of allowing them to dump toxic waste without any consequences, so it doesn’t show up in the official budget.
The contribution graph displays a lot more than just commits, for what it’s worth.

https://help.github.com/articles/viewing-contributions-on-yo...

“- Committing to a repository's default branch or gh-pages branch
- Opening an issue
- Proposing a pull request
- Submitting a pull request review
- Co-authoring commits in a repository's default branch or gh-pages branch”
There are various reasons why Idris is slow, but it generally comes down to it being because the current system is the result of lots of experimentation about how to even implement a dependently typed language in the first place, and what it should look like. It needs quite a bit of re-engineering - I prioritised ease of playing with features over efficiency.

The good news is that I'm working on a new version, taking into account the many things I know now that I didn't when starting on version 1. Don't hold your breath though, it might take a while...

In the end, it's a research project, and our job isn't so much to make a good product as to get people excited about the ideas. Mostly we do this by trying to be obviously having lots of fun. But I'd still like a better implementation, because then we can have even more fun.
I'd argue that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is "environmental engineering" and designing technology to reverse that is simply cleaning up.
If it makes sense to your users, it makes sense to use it. In any case, I have no problem with the creation a library, even if I may not like the functionality it provides.

For me, it would still be an annoyance on the web, as it is something that applies to a minority of sites I use. In an app, I would be more open to it.

For older people I know, who have not fully internalised common UI conventions, this sort of thing is confusing. They would only really trigger this accidentally, and then not understand why it happened. The more dynamic and/or non-visible a UI element is, the less they understand it. I do not expect UI designers to accommodate non-tech-literate people in most cases, but it is interesting to observe.
Noting conflicts of interests makes sense, but the point of the article may still stand. Why is there no market force for extracting CO2? Do any emissions trading systems include folks who capture emissions and improve the "supply side" of the equation?
Isn't the entire point of talking about this that it's not a sure thing? In my wife's case, the pay and benefits are roughly on par with what she's gotten at her previous non-unionized gigs. Some things are better, some things are worse. Of course, every environment is different, but there's no way to prove/disprove what's related to the union and what's not.

And, to play devil's advocate, you can't say for sure that her NON-union jobs' pay and benefits weren't indirectly affected by having to compete with unionized jobs (although they're the minority in her industry)
You should find better sources. If they are appealing to fear and emotion, you are not finding any science.

For example, then you wouldn't be saying silly things like you're not sure that CO2 rose is not the direct causal consequence of human activity.

I'm not saying this for my own benefit, I'm saying it for yours. If I encountered a person in real life who said that I would say much harsher things to the persons face than I am now, because I can't see you face to face I want to try to be more reserved in my approbation.

Doubting basic science while not bothering to research the reasons that it's accepted science is exactly like believeing in the invention of perpetual motion machines in that it requires first not doing basic homework then thinking that one is much cleverer than everyone else.
This resonates with me. It's very hard to win empathy from those who haven't struggled with suicide. And it's frustrating how many people will confidently offer you advice they've never needed themselves.

Trying to rationalize suicide to someone will almost always lead to more self-alienation, so it's a conversation I avoid almost entirely.

Thanks for being forward. Suicide is nothing to be ashamed of and I believe most of the other comments exemplify the problem. Your message is mostly lost here but I wanted to make a point that you aren't alone.
You'll never get anything close to Spring Boot for Clojure. Spring grew out of J2EE and Clojure's culture is diametrically opposite, favouring curated libraries. Clojure's main/(only?) web framework - Luminus - has a very small team behind it, though it does a fine job.
"Starting your post title with "Upvote if..." is a violation of intergalactic law." - A Different Link Aggregator
Thank you for this response. It's the first one with new information in it.
What goes into the graph is documented here: https://help.github.com/articles/viewing-contributions-on-yo...
One of the most interesting materials I was exposed to in a college french course was actually an 8th-grade level French history book. It was beautifully illustrated, not all that difficult to read, and it spanned an impressive amount of time and material (at least compared to the US history books I had been exposed to before)

I was really surprised to see a whole chapter dedicated to Ancient Gaul, a place I had never even heard of until then. Brits may begin their history with Rome, but us Americans seem to start our tale in England (with perhaps a very small nod to the native cultures that predated English colonization). Anyhow, it's fascinating from the American perspective how relatively "young" we really are as a national identity.
Apple gets a lot of things wrong, but one thing it gets right is (mostly) designing things so that they couldn't get your data, even if they wanted to.
Warning: this one will pull your heartstrings and is pretty slickly produced, but it's also not inaccurate.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bVkCDZ4RUIg#

It's a difficult problem, people being who they are. Certainly, there's less public education in the area, but people are difficult to move to new things anyway.

For all the "Well, they should just change" opinions, I try and ask myself what I'd do if (constructed hypothetical) tomorrow it turned out that running computers caused cancer.

Honestly, the reason I'm here instead of living a different life was my grandfather lying his way into the Navy at 17 during WWII, taking advantage of the GI Bill, and getting through graduate school.

Sans that, I'd have been born up in the hills of east Tennessee, and probably never have seen a computer as a child.
Doesn’t the anti-fossil fuel crowd have similar incentives?

Shouldn’t all studies be held with skepticism?

If the results were the opposite, people with ideological intent would be trumpeting this study as further confirmation of their own bias.

Basically it sounds like you are saying, “be skeptical of anything that goes against my deeply held beliefs because my cause is just while the other side is evil.”

Selective skepticism is a bad way to do science. Scientists should be skeptical of everything that doesn’t have repeatable experimental evidence.

Am I understanding your point correctly?
I don't think it's irrational.

I actively choose not to support such an organization. If Microsoft got serious about being moral and then I'd play ball.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-...
Ah, my apologies, I’ve misread what you’ve said at the end there. It sounded like you’re saying there’s no legal justification.

I didn’t mean for it to sound violently but maybe I shouldn’t reply on HN too early in the morning.

I wish I could delete my post after a few hours.
Google Chrome/Chromium.
> rocketry leads to jet planes

They were developed independently of each other.
A house I owned was built in two halves, transported, and joined together down the middle (a “marriage wall” results). The primary issues I hit weren’t the house - it was insuring the thing and properly classifying it. Some insurance companies called it manufactured and raised the rates significantly outright refused to insure, others call it stick built because of the set of standards were sufficient to note that this is not a mobile home. The other issues were around the fireplace being classified as an insert (non-masonry) which evidently also makes the house uninsurable to some companies in North Carolina.

Basically on paper, a lot of these off-site manufactured and local assembled homes sound like double wides and lower income housing options and the gains get erased in insurance premiums because you get lumped in with high risk owners despite buying a $500k+ custom home basically.
Chickadee Programming Language
Try doing that with Legos.

Build all the plumbing into those walls.

Build all the wiring into those walls.

Build all the windows and doors and other openings into those walls.

Then try to put those walls together in a way that connects all the plumbing and all the wiring.

Now, let's look at the real world, at least here in the US.

Yes, there is a national electrical code that covers many parts that aspect, but lots of other codes vary on a city by city or even neighborhood by neighborhood basis. And your HOA can have some of their own codes that you're also required to honor.

How can you have a single central location that can build all those prefab walls according to all those different codes, and have them all pre-approved?
You can. It's very doable. Plenty of people do it.

But the real value of GH was "social coding" - open public access to open public projects.

That's going to fragment, even if GL takes over. And that will be a loss.

The real problem is the lack of open public server infrastructure. In the same way that everyone has access to a browser, everyone should have access to a private server, which is secure-by-default, controllably networked, super easy to set up with a selection of server apps that include social, commerce, payments, and public/private sharing of various kinds, and cheap to run.

The centralised consumer internet - where servers are far beyond the skill level of most users and can be a nightmare to set up and administer, even for professionals - is one of the reasons we have giant predators like MS and Facebook.
I've said this a lot, and I've heard others say it too. I've recently been talking to my sister (a 1st grade teacher) about it and the conclusion we've come to is that even if there was a class it would do little good because of how little high school education sinks in. Most students just don't care enough to learn a boring life skill like money management.

I think your idea of having younger kids start learning this early (before its "uncool") is key. My sister says 1st grade is probably a little too early. I think maybe 3rd-6th might be right to start introducing the concepts.

Anything would be better than what we're doing now.
Is anyone actually debating if climate change is happening? The debate is on the degree of human influence.