skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Geostationary orbit is REALLY far away from earth (and also the atmosphere) compared to other orbits, but it's very special and so we want to keep as little junk in it as possible. Other types of orbits are so low, that they have to keep maintaining their orbit or they'll decay into the atmosphere.

So we're in a stable orbit with a high periapsis (closest part of our orbit to earth). To de-orbit we need to lower the periapsis so that it touches the atmosphere, and on each pass the satellite will slow down, further lowering the apoapsis and periapsis. The problem is that to do this we have to burn all that horizontal velocity that's keeping us in orbit in the first place, which is a crapload.

An alternative is to instead change the orbit so it's no longer in geostationary orbit and potentially interfering with live satellites, so instead they just push the satellite further out into the "graveyard orbit".

There's 100x difference in the needed energy for the two methods, and I'm sure you can see why most would opt for the graveyard orbit.

EDIT: To add, it's actually rather difficult to "plunge into earth". To do this you need to burn all of your horizontal velocity (I think that's around 3.07 km/s in geostationary orbit?). Reaching the sun is actually really difficult as well for the same reason, you have to lose all of your horizontal velocity, and earth has a ton.
> which is legally obligated to help them regardless of ability to pay.

Which tangentially makes all the Rand Paul bullshit about doctors being slaves under a universal healthcare system kinda moot.

I know intelligent people aren't making that argument but it's a reasonable counterpoint in case you come across one of them
In the US, ATC radar and military radar are one and the same - the FAA and the Air Force share the Joint Surveillance System (JSS). So, while the JSS has plenty of limitations (including plenty of areas with no coverage even in the mainland US), it's designed to meet the military objectives of being able to locate even non-cooperating aircraft.

The JSS is a descendant of the SAGE system developed during the Cold War to detect soviet aircraft. It has a reduced equipment footprint, but this is generally due to improving radar technology, coverage is similar and the backend data processing systems are much more advanced. The majority of radar sites belong to and are maintained by FAA but report directly to the Air Force air combat system.
Perhaps the deaths will be equal to deaths from the flu if it spreads widely. That would still be bad, no?
What Are the Most Important Items to Include in a Pitch Deck?
For IM there are too many alternatives to count.

For search there are a few, DDG is the best known imo, however, none of them is as good as Google's search engine, especially when it comes to Hebrew (my mother tongue).

As for Facebook itself, the problem is that it's offering now a combination of social media, photo storage, discussion groups and an IM platform - to name a few. It's not easy to make an alternative to something so complex.
Facebook has an API for whatsapp, which I believe is a closed beta. In theory you could build an app to do this for you, twilio supports this and let's you use a development key even before you get into the beta.

[I expect that's too many hoops for your use case though ;]
The maximum limit is just ... the maximum limit.

How / when you might hit it is an unknown from plan to plan for the reasons I noted.
I can only speculate as to each company’s intentions but I will say that it is not just a matter of “recompiling” to support 64-bit.

For example, one thing I noticed on the iOS side (when it went from 32-bit to 64-bit) is that pixel position rounding changed so you would see things like random one-pixel gaps where textures were previously adjacent, etc. These things add up, and a company might decide an older title is not worth fixing.

On the Mac side, the entire damned UI library was thrown out (Carbon), and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if games had been relying on it. That is a huge thing to just redo, and again I would not blame any game company for not bothering to spend the resources.
No, IntelliJ IDEA doesn't use Graal at this time.
Hiring a Trusted Hacker
I came across a post about cyberhacker906"gmail" whom happens to be one of the greatest hacker of all times. I was looking at how to change my school grade before I saw a post by a student in canada that his the best at changing grades and his trusted by many people online in canada. Just wanted to drop my own share of the good work by cyber hacker
They used to charge $1 per year after the first year
I find all of this really hilarious especially considering that a lot of Wikipedia is about trivial stuff like entertainment (films, sports, anime, whatnot), but whenever someone tries to a document something technical in the wrong way ... NO SOUP FOR YOU!

I find it really really rude and disrespectful to just trample over other volunteers' work like this. I'm all for deleting crap, but outright deletion instead of offering suggestions first and then being super-defensive when asked "hey, what's up?" Yeah nah, that doesn't fly. It's like just closing people's PRs on GitHub without offering suggestions on how to fix the patch first with just a single line of "doesn't fit code standards", "doesn't work on Windows", or just a link to a lengthy page.

Guess everyone is too busy fighting over capitalisation of movies titles or whether or not the Stanley Kubrick article should have an infobox to offer meaningful suggestions to new users shrug.

On Wikipedia, the biggest asshole with the most persistence wins. They've deluded themselves in to thinking this is "meritocracy".
I don't know how sustainable it would be, but I've always been fond of DuckDuckGo's ad model: https://help.duckduckgo.com/company/advertising-and-affiliat...

Additionally, an adless "pro" feature could be purchased for some small fee that would be comparable to what ads rake in for the average user.

This is something I've thought about for a while but I've never had the resources to throw it together. I wish you the best of luck!
Hearing about the thorium fuel cycle for the first time – would you say that this article from 2012 is still up to date?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thi...
Yes, mumble has an API that can provide that info without having to join.
I thought the way that they historically avoided detection was to quite literally fly below the radar. Wouldn't that still work with this new system, they just wont show up anywhere?
Was that legally supported? I think it just wasn't challenged
Is an(other) alternative to Facebook the solution? Can we evolve beyond this? It seems to me like we all have what you’re building in our pocket already.
As a minister, she had to agree with the government. It's called "Cabinet Collective Responsibility"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibil...

Technically, it was suspended during the 2016 referendum, but was it? Really?

Nah. Had Cameron's gamble paid off, Gove and Grayling would have been out on their ear.
Loran-C has been discontinued. However, there are occasional ongoing proposals to restore it as "eLORAN" using newer digital transmitting and receiving equipment, to provide a terrestrial backup for GNSS. These have mostly fallen flat for simple funding reasons, but increasing attention to ASAT warfare keeps discussions going.
You might say generic rom-coms, or a retread of a Shakespearean play have proven to be consistent and execution independent.

Television medical dramas or other formulaic TV might also fit the bill. They're not immune to execution flaws but they have a clear winning formula.
How can executives be expected to fix problems if they don’t fundamentally understand what them problems are? It’s the fastest way to get the problem fixed, by making those with power have skin in the game.
I don't really know, but it's pretty odd. Especially since there already was Girl Scouts, which seems to be nearly the same.

I think likely there are quite a few reasons, but personally I'd say it's because it seems like there's this big push for inclusiveness and political correctness and anything that doesn't include everyone is bad.
What's with the mobile oriented design that every startup that's trying to be cool has? Little text that doesn't say anything, check. Loads of whitespace, check. Pretty photos that don't mean anything, check. Even if your description was less technobabbleish, i'd just close the page and move on.

As someone else said in this thread, do you optimize for venture capitalists instead of customers?
Yeah, I'm aware of the distinction. But I honestly haven't settled on how to refer to it all as a whole. Do you have a preference?
Half the meme posts on Reddit look exactly like that. I have no doubt anyone who released a product labeled like that would cause Juul to go out of business within weeks.
You also just have much less dense populations.
Here's a direct link to the config param docs: https://postgresqlco.nf/en/doc/param/
Granted, I was just a kid back then. Read a book about Forth, thought this was an ideal language to write a vm given very limited resources of my home build computer (1K of static RAM). Wrote it in assembly (on a sheet of paper, compiled to hex by hand).

Then I tried to write a function that prints a number in decimal format, and realized I could not debug it. Fail!
DDG is bad as soon as you're not in the US of A and/or speak any language that is not english.
I wish baidu had an english version. But yeah, bing, yandex, ddg.
Typically people in emotionally traumatic jobs aren't going to be spending all day, every day, doing nothing but witnessing trauma. There's downtime - a police officer could go weeks to months at a time dealing with only relatively routine things.

The people doing moderation are spending all of their time, baring a few breaks, looking at stuff that other people have already flagged. That's going to take an emotional toll on you.
As well as some ClipArts to tie it together
while a bit of a toy still, might be of interest: https://github.com/masonwr/CloudSecret. basic CRD that maps google "managed" secrets to Kubernetes secrets.
Nope. We should not sacrifice poor people on the altar of quarterly profit goals. Doubly so for companies like Google and Facebook, which are hugely profitable.

There is a sufficient supply of desperate and/or naive people that the market equilibrium is significant and lasting harm to humans. If companies won't solve that problem on their own, then the alternative is regulation. Given the history of physically dangerous jobs over the last century or so, I expect regulation is the likely outcome.
DDG's quality actually decreased in the past year as now they seem to ignore explicitly required stuff in a query quite often. It used to be you just used quotes and got what you wanted, but these days that might get ignored. "-" for excluding similar popular words also seems to have stopped working.
I have to disagree fundamentally with the author on this point:

> but then Google was always ugly until relatively recently

Google was originally and for many years extremely elegant in it’s simplicity. There is nothing ugly about getting people exactly what they need instantly.

As for the main thrust of the article, I’ve already found Google’s results mostly untrustworthy. For some time search results have been so dominated by adverts that frequently the results I was looking for are buried under the fold. Search is a simple task and for 99% of searches there are at least 2 competitors who serve 90% fewer adverts per page. For the other 1% of searches I’m 3 keystrokes away from getting Google’s search laden results as a second opinion.
Do you have a good read of free markets? I often see them pop up in discussions defending capitalism, and always got the idea they are some kind of utopia in the way they were presented.
Master of Orion
Geosynchronous orbit is a Very high altitude. It’s 6% of the distance to the moon. Inverse square law tells us the surface area that we have to worry about for debris is massive compared to lower altitude orbits. Additionally, it takes a lot of fuel to be able to de orbit high altitude satellites. As orbital altitude increases, de orbit costs start getting out of hand and there is less benefit to deorbiting. So while lower altitude, crowded orbits are required to de orbit to avoid catastrophic cascades from collisions, higher altitude orbits are allowed to simply get out of the way.
Meh, western entertainment is already full of violence, torture, and murder. People get pretty good stomaching that, and I don't think it's very different if a video is real. As long as it's all happening away from you, people you don't know, events that don't affect you, it might as well be fiction.
There's too much in art that relies on unmeasured effects like the impact on the audience's consciousness and the execution on structure and intention to be bothered with numbers beyond box office or critic reviews. You could measure something related to those concepts and you would be capturing a fourth of available judgement for cultural impact.

Culture is a game we have been playing for thousands of years. Art pieces with an observable influence on other artists, the public audience or any human decision making along with an ability to survive the wear and tear of existing in the world as an artwork is a good place to start summarizing an artwork's cultural value.

A grand cathedral like st peter's stands as an example of high quality baroque architecture, the value of the church as an institution. It remains intact after a large number of years, not having been physically deconstructed. It's influence on other artists is common to this day, recently used as a baroque example of maximalism on HN. The site attracts visitors and has yet to be rivalled in it's unique baroque grandeur.

Those influences are quantifiable, and kind of comparable to a flash in a pan like a Hollywood film that gets most of its attention and influence in the first few months then sits in an institutional back pocket whilst other artists denigrate it so that new films can occupy the spotlight and the cycle continues. These films are sometimes used as reference for making new films and the industry puts out two similar styles of film at the same time reducing uniqueness. Generally otherwise left to sit in DVD/bluray jewel cases or disney vaults as they fall out of favour.

You can rank these impacts and have conversations over which interpretive labels they fit into and conclude some are mor valuable than others.
Sattelites are always falling to the ground, but they are also going sideways really fast. Imagine tossing a pebble off of a bridge onto a boat - if the sideways velocity is too high, the pebble will miss the boat and land in the water instead. Sattelites are like that. They are going sideways so fast that they miss the Earth entirely as they fall to the ground. If you want a sattelite to come back to earth, you need to get rid of that sideways velocity, which takes fuel.
> There is a philosophical conundrum at the root of all this: morality requires we maintain a safety net at the bottom that catches everyone—the alternative is simply inhumane—but we also need an aspirational target at the top, so as to inspire us to excellence, creativity and accomplishment. In other words, we need worth to come for free, and we also need it to be acquirable. And no philosopher—not Kant, not Aristotle, not Nietzsche, not I—has yet figured out how to construct a moral theory that allows us to say both of those things.

* When your worth is already infinite, you are free to aspire to whatever accomplishment you choose, knowing that it'll be the same in the end whether you get there or not.

* When your worth does not change when it is compared to another's "excellence, creativity, and accomplishment" at some superior "top", you don't have a moral conundrum (or an inferiority complex).

* The "conundrum" becomes non-sensical when you can celebrate the accomplishments of others with the same enthusiasm as your own.

* Worth is not "acquirable": it is something you always have but have to discover. Hoping that comparative excellence, creative output, and worldly accomplishment will provide it for you will simply cost you time.

So I would argue that the real game here is widening your sense of identification to include all players of the game. And once you're there, maybe you'll have a lighthearted, arbitrary aspiration to see that that point of view is spread...

Who wants to play the love game?
The first point I was being too hard on them.

The agency will add 20% on the spend because they can get better results than the client doing keyword research, writing ads and testing them.

The client did the hard work for the agency basically made the campaign themselves and then paid the agency 20% to set it live.

They should have done it the other way around get the agency to setup the campaign and then "scale" it themselves and they would have been able to an extra 20% ad spend for nothing.

The second point you are right again. I mean more that the funnel should start at the point of contact with the end user (the ad) and the landing page should be built for that ad, they seem to have tried to do it the other way around.

They obviously know what they are doing as far as tactics, it looks like they learned it from SEO, but I think they have tried to apply an SEO strategy of content first to their ad campaign and it didn't work.

You can't change advertising channels so you need to change your content to fit the channel not the other way around.
> Ostensibly in the tradition of Aristotle, Brooks distinguishes between essential and accidental complexity. This distinction is central to his argument, so it's worth discussing for a minute.

> Software development problems are complex, i.e. made up of many interacting sub-problems. Some of that complexity is accidental. This doesn't imply randomness or sloppiness, but only that the complexity isn't inherent to the problem; that it's only the result of our (human) failure to achieve perfection.

> If you imagine that you could whittle away all the accidental complexity, you'd ultimately reach a point where, in the words of Saint Exupéry, there is nothing more to remove. What's left is the essential complexity.

Okay, that might be a useful way of thinking of things...

But the author then goes on to talk about how he thinks that Fred Brooks underestimated the percentage of accidental complexity in the average project.

However, he then starts to go into things he thinks are "silver bullets", but most of them are tools that, in my opinion, address essential complexity:

* The World Wide Web: in his description, this solves a problem of the complexity of finding how to do things. Can we imagine a solution where finding out how to do things isn't part of the system? No? Under the definition, that's essential complexity.

* Git: in his description this solves the problem of tracking changing source. Can we imagine programming where we don't need to keep track of what source changes happened? I can, maybe, in a distant future where programming is done an entirely different way, but I'd argue that at that point it's not really the same problem. If we're writing code to solve a problem, then tracking changes to that source is essential complexity within that solution.

* Garbage collection: again, maybe there will be a computer that works completely differently (quantum computers?) but under current architecture, the physical machinery of a computer has limited space, so we need to reallocate memory that is no longer being used. That's not accidental complexity, that's essential complexity. There are other solutions to this, but every program solves it in some way, whether it's by reference counting, manual allocation, borrow checking, preallocating everything, or just allocating everything on the stack and copying everything, and each of these has complexity: that complexity is essential.

I think what this all points to is that essential complexity isn't intractable: you can make it someone else's problem. In these cases, we're taking some part of the essential complexity of solving a problem, and letting our ISP and websites solve it, or letting code that we don't maintain solve it. Some of the most powerful tools are ones that solve a form of complexity that is essential to a wide variety of problems.
Beyond OnClick: Handling Events in React
Yes, I'm familiar with the hack that the community is expected to use every time they name the language in a searchable context. No better than prepending Elixir on a search if you ask me.
our brains have to operate nonstop at near max capacity <CITATION NEEDED>

Pretty sure this is egregiously false.
if you put a space between 1 and m your results get better.
One thing that many don't talk about - what about Contacts, presuming we're using the Google Contacts integration? Email for me is kind of useless without being able to manage Contacts right alongside it, which Google integrates extremely well on Android.
> I've thought that part of the reason that all the studies are showing that computers don't seem to help with education are just showing that computers as they are currently used don't help with education. A key element of ... but on a computer! is that if you just take something from the physical world and put it on a computer, you end up with the disadvantages of both compounding.

What's amazing to me is that this is still being discussed, even though a solution to the problem was found decades ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstorms_(book)

I think that you might find Papert's ideas interesting; he based a lot of them on the foundations laid by Piaget:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive...
https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data
> We produce way more energy than we use. [...] So why generate more than we need? Well, we need to have power available to prevent brown outs

That's not how it works. If you generate more than you need, you will have the opposite of a brown out (overvoltage and/or overfrequency). Generation and consumption of power have to always be precisely matched.

> especially right after work when everyone gets home and flips their light switch (so to speak).

When everyone gets home and flips their light switch, the extra demand slightly reduces the system voltage and frequency; feedback loops on the power plants then increase their generation to match the extra demand.

> Second; it is actually more efficient to keep the generators fully spun up.

Keeping the generators running at their maximum means you have no margin for extra demand or sudden loss of generation (for instance, another power plant or a transmission line having an issue and shutting down). It's better to keep the generators running below the maximum to have a reserve for when these things happen.
The table in that article shows how different compilers mange very similarly but not the same! This is something that could be standardized for the benefit of all.
"When you invent the plane, you invent the plane crash."