skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The only viable carbon removal technology yet identified is leaving it in the ground.

The article discusses this point in the second paragraph.

> We're now in "Phase 2" and stopping climate change requires both emission reduction and removing CO2 from the atmosphere. "Phase 2" is occurring faster and hotter than we thought. If we don't act soon, we'll end up in "Phase 3" and be too late for both of these strategies to work.
Just ignore him. It's him who wants to create the drama.
I once had a long conversation with a religious relative, and I think it boils down to her not believing that someone can be "moral" without believing that god is watching.

Somewhat relevant:

Why Did God Create Atheists?

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”
“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”
—Martin Buber, Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 (1991)

https://randysrandom.com/god-create-atheists/
I have to admit it's pretty funny that I'm getting downvoted to gray.

Am I being censored or deplatformed? ;-)

I'll see myself to the corner...
No law or censor is stopping anyone from yelling fire.

Censorship is prior restraint. Stopping speech before it is utterred, read, or heard because reasons.
If using the S3 remote state backend, Terraform itself has supported this with no wrapper for quite some time now.
For flooding of the deserts, id like to determine the size and power requirements for a renewably powered valve-pumping section that will work in series to pump water along the required route.
The government of the people, by the people, for the people.

We get what we vote for, for need to vote for backbones.
Maybe this? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ivancash/irl-glasses-gl...
How thinking like a geologist could help us fight climate change
From the article, here's the list of apps/websites so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BMJAHOASdeOOYgomSva9...
This is a fascinating point. I suspect it also has to do with the DIY mentality of the typical American (which can be a good thing of course).

But there's nothing like seeing an expert walk into a situation where a bunch of amateurs are squabbling, and seeing the expert just take over the situation. Expertise is still supremely valuable, even if it's unfashionable.
>As long as engineers are paid based on salary/wages this will always be the case, and has been the case in every company I've worked with.

I don't think this is 100% true, and the problem you are describing doesn't necessarily follow the cause you put forth.

Problem: Engineers do not work through tasks quickly because they aren't rewarded for completing tasks.

Solution (hypothetical): Reward engineers for completing certain tasks.

Problem: How do you value how much a task or feature is worth?

Solution (hypothetical): A task's value is correlated with the impact on the business's bottom line.

Anyone who's worked at a large SV tech firm can see the problem coming - engineers will only want to work on valuable, front facing tasks, and maintenance and technical debt tasks never get cleaned up. For example, Google[1], ties their promotion system to the value of the tasks you have done at Google - which obviously leads to a lot of gaming the system to increase your worth. So while I agree there might be a motivation problem, I don't think it's clear cut that the compensation model is the solution.

https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/
That's what I thought the story was going to be about from the headline. Someone who died at the wheel of an automated car and wasn't discovered for a week because the car was programmed to ferry the body between locations and automatically recharge itself at electric stations.

There's a short story in that, Mary Celeste 2.0
Yeah, they sure bungled that one up well.

Maybe it's the jarring worlds of security! paranoia! Absolute Control! vs. the FF wants to fun! unpredictable! Think different (no wait, that slogan's tainted now...)!

Given the way they present the extensions... it - in retrospect - should have been clear to them it would trigger more initial reactions from the first set of perspectives, and not just the second.
> Maybe the programmability and verifiability helps?

USDC seems to be more about smart contracts than crypto currency as envisioned by the early adopters.

Programmability and verifiability alone of the "old money" could open new applications, new experimentations, new use cases. It's definitely a nice initiative IMHO. It looks like an intermediate step, or another variation, to get more people interested into digitalization.
A simple ad system shows an ad in an app or page, and when you click on it, sends a request off to the ad server which causes some ad credit (money) to change hands - the advertised company gets charged for a click, intermediaries get a cut, and the app or site owner gets their share.

Unsurprisingly, a site owner is heavily incentivized to click on their own ads, or have others click on them, in order to pay themselves. To avoid this the ad server will want to check that the click came from a real human. They can check by IP (e.g. clicks coming from AWS boxes are probably fraud, excessively fast clicks are rejected, etc.); by user activity (monitoring mouse clicks, keyboard entries, dwell time, and a host of other factors); and by statistical measures (is the ad statistically likely to be clicked on by the source, based on e.g. language, prior ad preferences, etc.)

The news article makes it sound like the bot owners are gathering usage data to simulate real human behavior, which they can then pass off as being real human inputs prior to clicking an ad. Of course, one wonders why they don’t just instruct these millions of phones to click on ads directly (e.g. in the background), which would give them access to a huge legitimate pool of IP addresses.
From what I can tell, all of the other self-driving companies plan to launch a taxi service first. Even Tesla has plans for that, as evidenced by their "no lyft/uber self-driving" clause in their TOS for any Tesla you buy.
Could we sink the trees in the ocean? The water would prevent them both from rotting and burning.
That is far from discussing.

Do you think the political part of the problem will magically go away if there is a viable phase 3 technology that does not contribute more carbon than it captures?

Do you think the politicians will permit it to be used at scale when they have done all possible to slow renewables?
This is the doublethink the most people like to indulge in. The free speech I like must be protected at all cost and that I do not like should be handled via glib statements: 'free speech is not free reach', 'private companies are not obliged to give platform to anyone' and so on.
Atheism is the "lack of a belief in God". It's not the belief that there is no God, it's the lack of a belief that there is one. All agnostics are also atheists.
For the curious, here's a website that thoroughly debunks Judith Curry's "science" : https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
I'm not saying one can read their DNA and determine if they will commit crime or not.

But there are a lot of inherited traits that absolutely could lead one to be more likely to get involved in crime. Things like fight vs flight response, risk tolerance, extroversion/introversion, etc.

Saying "You're 100% spot on that it's not biological" is really absurd. Nothing about humans is 100% non biological. That absolutism is exactly blank slate theory.
There are rules that treat telecoms differently precisely because there is opportunity for market failure.

The argument is, that some software companies have crossed into becoming a telecom like entity. A market failure exists, where consumers may need protecting.

Obviously, current laws dont treat facebook, google, or microsoft that way.

Do we feel the same way about gmail/outlook starting to censor emails that google/microsoft dont approve of?
This focus on detailed mapping is misplaced. Most driving problems come from moving obstacles.
I see where you're coming from, but personally I really appreciated the depiction of an introverted main character. Also both of his sons were consultants on the film and apparently supplied part of the dialogue and tone for the scene where he talks to them before leaving for Apollo 11 [1], so that part of his relationship to his family, at least, seems pretty accurate to me.

One thing I remain curious about is how serving in the Korean War shaped the psychology of that first crop of astronauts. And I would LOVE to watch a movie with the budget and talent of First Man, but about Yuri Gagarin or Valentina Tereshkova.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/.../first-man-ryan-gosling-clai...
Even here on the left coast, I find it surprising how many people are unwilling to admit their atheism, out of some sense of social threat. I was talking to someone from the UK last week who I thought put it really well - what's happening in the US right now is the final throes of a generation who desperately wants to return to their mental image of the past, unwilling to see their own racist, xenophobic, self-absorbsion. I throw religion in that same bucket, as they've (by which I mean the baby boomers) have convinced themselves that association with Christianity == good / holy / right / just / White / American, making it challenging to move forward socially / politically. Bet in 2020 we'll continue to hear the same trope as every other election that sure, we let that black guy get elected, maybe a woman could get reelected, but there's no way we'll let some atheist get elected.
One of the challenges here would seem to be that the places where this could most obviously work (where you have standalone houses with space around them) simultaneously tend to have a lot fewer takeout delivery options today. Maybe this hypothetical delivery service would increase the delivery range but it's not obvious why it would.

Conversely, this would be very challenging in a city and there are tons of cheap delivery options already.
No, you're correct. I was going to point this out before I saw your comment.

The example I had in mind was the Rabbit's Foot in Mission:Impossible III. Perfect example of McGuffin: it motivates the entire plot of the movie, but at no point it becomes clear what it is (other than Simon Pegg speculating about it). It's in a canister, the bad guys want it, and Tom Cruise has to stop them from getting it.
I'm likely in a Canary MacGuffin situation right now. What is the reason?

I've been given a task I don't know how to do. So I'm working diligently on learning enough about it. But because I don't know how to do it, there are an infinite number of concepts that may or may not be required to complete the task.

So, I am using the time productively in the sense of breaking apart each piece I don't understand, building it myself, learning about it, and moving on to another one.

But I haven't collected the key from the shop. Every day, I write down what I need to do again, and it changes and evolves as I learn things. I try again to complete the task, fail again, use it as an opportunity to learn about that piece.

If I had just got the key, maybe the task is complete, but I am no closer to being able to obtain a different key, or providing any value on that surface area.

So I'm optimizing for my ability to get keys in the future, not getting this particular key.

Is that good? Bad? Lots of arguments in both directions I think. Maybe my optimizations are 25% what they could be with direct help. But having experienced direct help, what it actually means is someone talks over my head no matter how much I say I don't understand.

They don't get just how far away I am. Given the constraints, all that can be done is to improve to the point where their help, is help.

Hopefully that made some level of sense.
About as perfect an analysis of the current state of affairs as one could give.
Buuuutttt, since it's not dollars you have to trust that a market maker counterparty will stand behind the peg when you do want to liquidate.
YC 2019 Winter Batch Results
If you gotten an invite for interview, share here.

To join Slack group, leave you email.

https://ycw2018applicants.slack.com/
A cruise ship spills thousands of liters of waste in the Great Barrier Reef
I found codefights.com to have the most relevant exercises. I have used it for interview prep and just to get a new language under my fingers.

Other sites just haven't cut it for me. Some are heavy on arbitrary math puzzles with little focus on actual coding skills. HackerRank you spend half of every algorithm reading the inputs from stdin. Some you run out of puzzles and just have to repeat.
He doesn't have to tell them how qualified he is. He could be a waiter, or work at a grocery store.
Mobile app data sharing 'out of control'
The public wouldn't buy the 'neutral' aspect, as every mechanism that a platform provides, is in some way biasing the type of content that is broadcast. Twitter's RT feature, which requires no curation or modification of actual content by Twitter, still biases content to that, perhaps, which is most divisive or simplistic. Broadcast technology, even without algorithmic bells and whistles, is already a biased technology. I think we might in-fact agree, but to me, there is no crucial ethical difference between a chronological twitter and a algorithmically mutated one, for in either case, the very platform itself (its existence, its design) pre-biases the type of content that will flow through it, and thus we'd end up with content that would make us consider policing it.

So, in your words, I would say, it is somehow fundamentally impossible for a technology to be "passive".
in that regard, one of the most controversial privacy/cookie notices i've come across in 2018;

"If you're not a lawyer, you're probably fed up with these boxes. Here's our privacy policy if you're interested." (source: https://nukleosome.com)
Show HN: Chrome Extension - Google Analytics and Segment Helper by VICE
Cheery voice: "It's so simple and convenient!"
Important to add that plants are the only carbon removal technology with a successful track record.

As global warming devastates more of the biosphere, there will be perhaps less opposition to GMO plants engineered for maximum sequestration capacity. Also useful for Mars.
I think the problem is not so much using McGuffin in the neologism, giving Canary McGuffin a specific and well-defined meaning (which I have no problem with), but the incorrect description of the McGuffin as a screenwriting device given in the article.
The government currently lets anyone drive until proven unsafe. Self-driving initiatives are really only adding a few "drivers" to the road. Uber acted like a drunk teenager and they are off the road now. This system works, but with occasionally horrific humane toll. It's called capitalism
Thanks! Honestly I don’t know. However, since basically all the search results I’m getting are for uranium enrichment, I’m guessing gas centrifuges are not in common industrial use for any other purpose. That probably means they aren’t well optimised.

The most relevant published literature I’ve found is this:

http://www.mate.tue.nl/mate/pdfs/5250.pdf

Which is exactly about the separation of CO2, but for natural gas production. The throughput was uneconomical in their case, however it does establish that the principle is sound, it may just need a (possibly very considerable) amount of development.

I haven’t exactly done an exhaustive search though, so there’s probably more out there.
I seriously don't get the point.

Do we have to add CMs to check if stuff is happening?

Do we have to add explanation for CMs so people will solve our problems?
I find it rather humorous in reading the comments that this seems to have hit an interesting nerve, viz. being asked to perform [stupid] tasks for someone else and then being monitored and reminded intermittently in a passive way without clear communication.

Sometimes there are good and important tasks whose importance is clearly communicated, but which go undone. But, in my experience, the majority of tasks like this might need to be either (1) better specified so that they can actually be understood and completed or (2) communicate better what the importance of the task is with an honest evaluation by both people and comparing to the value of other workload priorities at present.

We have a tendency to believe that our task is the most important one right now, and that our ideas are the best ideas, without understanding what someone else is really doing and without taking an objective look at why something else could be more valuable.

We can use that ourselves when we try to assign tasks to others. Are we being fair to them, their priorities, and their workload? Maybe our task isn't all that important? Maybe we can communicate better with them to understand the totality of what they value, or maybe what they think a better alternative to our task would be. After all, Alexander the Great asked his troops if they had any ideas for strategies... and he won a lot.
It's a buffer as long as there is a forest. Once you establish a forest where there previously was none, you have tied up a certain amount of carbon in all those tree trunk/root/branches.

Sure, the individual trees will eventually die and release a lot, though far from all, carbon back again. But by then, new trees will grow and act as the storage buffer.
By the end of the war Rønneberg and a small team camped out in a tiny cabin in the mountains hiding from the Germans and planning sabotage missions agains German supply lines. The cabin was rebuilt by Rønneberg in the early 1990s and given to the Hiking association which still maintains it. For a small fee you can spend the night, highly recommended.

Pictures: https://www.ut.no/hytte/3.1381/
As much as Indianapolis feels a bit like a backwater, having one of the few true IMAX theaters has been such a great experience. Being able to see Dunkirk on that screen would have been worth driving hours for.
If you want to find out a file type on the command line there's the file command on linux/macOS:

https://linux.die.net/man/1/file
I'm incredibly pleased with Syncthing. I use a small VPS with backups to cover the passive backup angle.

Requires minimal config, uses LAN if available, also supports multiple folders and ignores. I can store all my npm using projects on there now, and I can "spin up" a new computer very quickly by just syncing my config folder.
This is a good example of why free speech is necessary. I've always considered myself a strong supporter of "net neutrality". Yet there were instances in the last 5 Years where the policies or positions labeled by many, particularly in the media, as net neutrality were not those that I would support. It was only as a result of robust debate and the free expression of contrarian views that I was exposed to critical facts exposing the misleading use of the phrase "net neutrality."
It seems obvious to me that this is unrealistic - that we're not going to do the cuts that we "need"; People will not get worried enough to take the steps necessary to avert it, it's simply not going to happen, and it's wishful thinking to expect that people will change their behaviour so much before they have immediate first-hand horrible effects (and those effects won't happen before it's too late). If that is our plan, then why not just wish for rainbow-farting unicorns to fix our ecosystem, it's just as likely to happen but more effective? Everything we know about people's psychology, social structures and politics seems to indicate that if the global population will be given a choice between those reductions and a slow-motion catastrophe, they'll pick policies that result in this catastrophe. Such reductions won't be made unilaterally or willingly, they might happen only if enforced with extreme violence (i.e. short-term threats instead of long-term horrible expectations) but no one sufficiently powerful seems willing to fight internal unrest or threaten international wars to enforce drastic measures for the sake of preventing climate change.

So we have to start with an assumption that emission cuts of the required scale are not going to happen (or, at least, are not going to happen soon enough), and look for more realistic alternatives than convincing 7 billion people to voluntarily downshift their lifestyle by 2050. Large scale carbon sequestration is one such alternative option.
It wouldn't surprise me if entrepreneurs and criminals have some inheritable traits in common -- specifically risk tolerance.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
This is great. We need a verified system where know exactly where each dollar is spend and how many CO2 tons are saved per dollar spent
In his 30s... he's in his low 60s. So he got into computer at around the time the internet was taking off.
So they have 1 car and literally coming in last in the AV field. This is a headfake for IPO. Waymo is 10 years ahead of them, minimum.

If Waymo's cars don't have usability issues and launch this year, Lyft's valuation will plummet.