skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
EVs can be better even if they're powered by coal:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...

There are numerous reasons for this. One is that oil drilling, shipping, and refining is dirty and uses a ton of energy. Another is that large heat engines are often many times more efficient than small ones. A huge 100+ megawatt steam turbine at a coal plant is going to have 2-3X the thermal efficiency of a small ICE in a car, especially if it's a newer or recently upgraded supercritical steam system.

I recall reading that CO2/mile for a coal powered EV is typically similar to driving a high efficiency hybrid gasoline car like a Prius, but I can't find the reference right now.
Conversely, falsely accusing a Muslim of being an apostate is itself considered as grave a sin as apostasy itself. Sadly, that has not proven a deterrent for the Wahhabi takfiris, bankrolled by the oil wealth of the Saudi state.

Excommunication and intolerance is not at all exclusive to Islam, as the blood-drenched history of the Wars of Religion in Europe demonstrates.
Yes, but only because electricity from those sources is cheaper. Green up the grid (pls nuclear) and no problems.
Speaking as a non-doctor, I don't have any lateral flow test supplies or equipment. Do they sell that on Amazon?

But seriously, a test I don't have easy access to is not an alternative. A lateral flow test has no predictive value to me because I'm never going to get one before I'm actually sick.
> we can objectively compare the efficiency and ease with which a monetary system can facilitate transactions.

Ok. How much does ease of use matter for the value of a currency? 50%? 20%? 80%? What about all it's other characteristics?

You can certainly be objective when comparing each characteristic in isolation but the value of the currency depends on how all of them are weighted against each other, and that is completely subjective.

Just like the value of anything else. Even the same person might change the weights they use to value something depending on what's going on in their life.
You could also throw into this calculation: what is the lifespan of a PV panel as compared to a Bitcoin mining ASIC.
Show HN: A better way to host Clubhouse Events
Often a simple bill of sale is sufficient
There are three interesting properties:

* Sugar concentration

* Density

* Refractive index

They are related, but it's not an easy linear relation.

It's important that the sugar initially is at the bottom and the water with a high concentration of sugar has higher density. So the water does not move too much, and the sugar moves slowly by diffusion.

If you try the same experiment hanging a sugar cube or a candy at the top, the water with a high concentration of sugar will go down and make produce something like convection. (Is the official name for this convection too?)

Someone made and posted an experiment with hot and cold water. The colorant is not important, but makes everything easier to see. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23375765

--

You can try to reproduce the experiment in the current video without a laser. A strong flashlight with some cover with a small hole should be enough. (A laser is better because it's usually stronger.)

You can try adding a drop of milk to make the light easier to see. It's nice a transparent liquid, but a few drops of milk may make everything easier.

Remember to stir the water after you put the milk, and wait until all the movement disappears. And no NOT stir after you put the sugar. Don't move the glass. Keep it as quiet as possible.

Another trick that may help is to change the background (a darker background is usually better) and reduce the global illumination.

I'm not sure if he explain the amount of sugar you should put, but you may need to try a few times to get the correct amount of sugar and the time to wait.

If you ever do the experiment, remember to post a few photos here.
Well, if we're going to get all pedantic and stuff, I'm pretty sure those old iPhone chargers came with a non-swappable U. S. 120V plug. But for the life of me I can't find one lying within arm's reach at the moment.
It's not really scientific but if you look at the language benchmark game Rust is generally toe-to-toe with C++ without requiring any unsafe code.

Here's a random example: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Rust is pretty damn close to the fastest C++ version without any unsafe (but using a bunch of generic libraries which may have unsafe code, to be perfectly fair).

Note that the winning C++ entry is also vastly more complex code and I wouldn't want to have to maintain that.

The n-body benchmark is even more in Rust's favour: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Here Rust wins the benchmark without unsafe or non-std dependencies. I also find the code very readable and natural looking.

Disclaimer: I love Rust so much that I wish that I could marry it, I'm obviously thoroughly biased.
The fact that we disagree does not imply "confusion on my part".

> When the time cost of getting it right and _keeping_ it right exceeds the amount of time actually available in a day, the result is equivalent to "the language is not up to the task".

Again, this is referring to the particular approach that the Mozilla team took to the problem. If anything, one of the most valid criticisms of C++ is that the API is too large, and it has too many tools to work with at the expense of clarity. C++ allows you to express just about anything, and I do not think the standard of evidence has been met that the problem of writing a CSS engine could not be expressed in C++ in a way which would be both performant and maintainable.

C++ has been used for many complex, high-profile projects which are widely used. There is nothing magical about CSS which creates problems C++ is incapable of solving.
Arguably, this has nothing to do with AI, but an imbalance of power. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense to do whatever is just good enough to turn a profit with minimal effort.

As long as there is healthy competition, there is enough incentive to do better, and a customer can switch services without experiencing significant hardship. However, with a lot of the big tech companies, that is no longer the case, and once you run into a problem there is neither free-market nor regulatory mechanisms that can help any individual solve their problem.

Currently, the big tech companies can eschew responsibility by claiming the rights of private business -- having very strong autonomy over how and with whom they do business -- and despite them being de-facto public utilities at this point, the claims are made that regulation is not necessary / not allowed / not productive / harmful. Why this is accepted is puzzling to me, as it is very commonly known macro-economic theory that the usually claimed self-regulating free-market mechanisms no longer work for when large imbalances, eg. monopolies, exist. We have the government explicitly for this reason, to create a counter-balance against forces so large that any individual cannot deal with on their own.

And while it is true that we can expect regulatory intervention to be difficult, especially as the political process cannot possibly keep pace with technology, it is indeed very strongly preferable to giving free reign to private entities with explicitly anti-consumer interests (eg. a corporation has to make their shareholders money, not protect their customers or the environment).

So what's the solution? Maybe regulatory agencies need to be given more teeth, including funding and updated charters. Yesterday's Cartel is today's Big Tech.
Hofstadter would be proud.
This seems to be more in the vein of "add soup to ramen noodles" that I get from my local ramen spot rather than a fully blown meal-kit experience. Am I understanding that correctly?

I think "finishing notes" is what throws me off. I'm not sure what that actually means, which leads me to question how much effort I want to put into this vs Doordash.

I'm surprised there's no Valentine's Day promo, either.
That’s assuming that a direct attack on a network is the only option. What I described was much easier: if the government requires payment of taxes or reporting real identities, you’re going to have trouble exchanging into real currency unless you’re paying enough for someone to risk money laundering charges. Similarly, if a commercial exchange is required to refuse transactions traced to an address on a list, it’ll effectively limit their ability to use the network. Most companies aren’t going to risk their business on those transactions even if they’re technically capable of processing them.

Since the blockchain is public all of that can be retroactive, too, so any transaction has the risk that the other party will leak your identity, which similarly disincentivizes other people from taking them.
OP: Invaluable feedback. Thank you :)
Finish the damn fusion reactors already...
This is pretty cold. The alternative take is that he was using a service with such poor UX that it appeared he had lost $750,000, despite the fact that he would have likely lost almost nothing. They also failed to educate users that that was a potential scenario and that it was normal, or to filter out users that were not experienced enough to know that. And, as a result of those, someone died.

> He shouldn't have been playing around with markets he didn't understand. I'm not sure it makes sense to blame RH for this (which will likely result in regulators making it harder for not-rich people to invest).

And children shouldn't play in the street, but we still reduce the speed limit to 20mph because they're going to do it anyways.

I don't want to cut normal people out of these markets (I'm a normal person too after all), I just think there needs to be some kind of guardrails on any financial instrument that is capable of severe financial ruin, or behaves in a way that can make it look like you are financially ruined. It doesn't even have to be crazy.

I'd be pretty happy if they just made like a 15 minute long video you had to sit through, and then there was a quiz at the end. "Under what conditions will your balance go negative and then go back up?", "What are your maximum losses on $1,000 worth of shorts?", maybe some stuff about how the underlying transactions work. They can still have it fully automated.
If you want to argue from a purely tech perspective as "Hacker" news, then Bitcoin by any measure of tech in the blockchain space is indeed already an outdated technology.
TRS-MODEL 100 case for Rpi form factor SBCs
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/15/security/permissio...
It seems this list of features is not exhaustive. It also seems to have support for a file browser to select files, mouse, autowrapping/autofilling, spellchecker, etc.

Quite a lot of things are listed in the info manual.
Save the children, don't buy Bitcoin.
It isn't about writing your own package manager. At least start with not using every package offered by NPM or dependencies that do. If you cannot attest to every package in your dependency tree you have failed dependency management.
It feels like SwiftUI, and other native tools, are embracing the advantages of some of these other cross platform tools: declarative, rapidly-iterable, abstracted.

I feel SwiftUI markedly lowers the 'barrier to entry'.

Crossplatform tools may serve your purpose better, but I think it's unfair to say that, at least for SwiftUI, native development may not be as 'joyful'. A list view in SwiftUi is List {}.
This.
it’s the difference between dirt and soil.
Any renewable or nuclear energy source would make it carbon neutral. It doesn't have to be free, the fuel doesn't cost that much in the first place, so a modest percentage cost increase is fine.

We know that making the methane isn't super-expensive, because we've already used the Sabatier process commercially to make methane from CO2. That used carbon-based fuels to get the CO2; to really go carbon-neutral it'd have to be biofuel, or we'd need to pull CO2 from the air using direct-air-capture machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Creation_of_...
I ditched social media and it did make me happier, at least until the pandemic hit. Now I find myself a bit lonelier, since I don't really have many friends to talk about tech with.

Sometimes I contemplate getting on Twitter, but then I'd hear from my friends about the latest ridiculous controversy and abandon that idea. It's all so silly when you take a step back.
Stats not even needed.

If the enegry used in Argentina <= energy used in bitcoin transactions.

and, if people living in Argentina are doing any of the things listed (watching porn, etc).

Then the energy used to watch all the porn in Argentina must still be included as part of the Energy use of Argentina; thus less than the use of bitcoin. (I guess this would have to assume the porn is also hosted in Argentina; but I would imagine at least 1 porn unit is hosted and viewed internally to Argentina).
Reuters has lied so much in 2020.

They are in the back pocket of the global satan1c ped0phile cabal.
> 150GB of NVMe storage is big

Your age is showing :-)

Every few years, I gotta get used to the 100s MBs is big!! -> 100s GBs is big!! -> 100s TBs is big!!

Seems like we're entering the age of PBs, and then we stopped caring about capacity and more about the speed of our TB+ sized archives.
> without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments

And conversely too! letting corrupt governments and corporations transfer money with ease!
That sounds really nice. Any chance you could share the runner script and other glue you use?

Right now I'm mostly using restclient.el[1] which I like, but it's not quite as universally sharable as it could be.

[1] https://github.com/pashky/restclient.el
> 1. No shared memory.

I'd rather say "no reliable message delivery". The only difference between completely reliable messaging and shared memory is performance.

> Because there's no shared memory it's impossible for any one server to know the global state.

Even _with_ shared memory it's impossible to _know_ the global state. Just after you've loaded some data from memory, it can be immediately changed by another thread.
> there are a number of problems with our current financial systems which are very hard to electrify as easily, whereas BTC is electricity-native

Any examples? To me, current financial systems are very much information management systems and information managament is quite easy to electrify.

One of the main problems with bitcoin is that current financial system (well, whole society) is built on the idea that money is credit and credit is money. and bitcoin is anti-credit. I have not heard anyone ever even try to reconcile that seriously. Like, how do you do mortgage with bitcoin without ending up with fractional reserve banking and uncontrolled money supply? I have no clue. But then, I don't think nowadays anyone even thinks that BTC would be money, but something like gold instead. With the distinction that gold actually has some use cases outside crimnal activites and gambling.
> A Ps4 consume around 100 watt/hour

You need to take in the manufacturing costs, costs to develop software, costs to run servers too, otherwise you're only measuring marginal energy consumption for a new user.

Marginal energy consumption for a new Bitcoin user is probably small too.
Just because Tesla doesn't have the ability to sell cars in Elbonia doesn't mean they don't have some form of commerce requirement with Elbonia. Maybe they are paying devs to work on the UI, or paying a computing company to run simulations.

Bitcoin is already accepted by many for rent and salaries. Bread is not likely to ever happen because transactions are too inefficient, but that doesn't mean you can't viable have an economy based on larger exchanges.
Highly recommend reading someone's applied essentials guide on certs, and the various methods of accomplishing SSL for self-hosted stuff.

This stuff is much more complicated in isolation from the rest - full picture easiest.
This is a good point, and very sad.

I think the DCMA people may want to change their tune on this (pun intended).

Playing music among a small group even if they are disparate, is probably actually legal, or it should be.
OP here: I humbly thank you!
Yes. Saving settings as well as batch processing of images are both on my roadmap.
I hope that we can stop trying to sync noon to the local sun at some point. I think it made sense when communicating over distances was hard and rare. In that case giving local time some meaning (ex: "People tend to wake up around 8") had some value. However now that communicating with people around the word is commonplace I think that benefit is outweighed by the value of knowing what time people are talking about. Because if you try to schedule something before I want to wake up it is incredibly obvious to me. However if we mess up the timezone math by and hour no one will notice unless they think to explicitly check.

The only real downside I see is that if the day number changes during your "day" it could be confusing. However I think we will quickly learn to deal with it (overnight shifts have been a thing forever and doctors seem to manage). Plus we already have a weaker form of this when we are talking about late-night activities so I think we will figure it out.
MicroAcquire, Flippa, Indiemaker, and SideProjectors are worth looking at.
The state protects their printing press. Their printing press funds their wars. The winners and losers both, their children, and grandchildren all pay on the back end, and millions are slaughtered. And I'm supposed to be mad at Bitcoin for some extra computers running. No chance.
At that rate and assuming 4tx per second a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 165kWh. A Tesla battery is bit over 50kWh. So let's round that to 3 full charges of Tesla battery.

This seems like a roundabout way to analyze efficiency. A simpler way is just to look at how much it costs in dollars, rather than trying to convert everything into energy units.

It varies but over the past couple months a Bitcoin transaction has cost from $7-$20.

source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f...

That is more than it costs to power a Tesla driving 400 miles, yes, but the cost of that activity is dwarfed by the cost of the driver. You are missing all the energy it takes to create a human with the skills to drive a car, pay for their opportunity cost, and keep them alive for the time it takes to drive for 400 miles ;-)

It's also more expensive than an electronic funds transfer, but it's comparable in price to wire fees, so it just depends on the details of your financial transfer whether it was efficient.

Overall though that $20 fee is generally going to be dwarfed by the utility that a large financial transfer brings. It would be nice if it was cheaper but this doesn't seem like it's insanely wasteful or anything. It's really just demonstrating that it will be hard for Bitcoin to perform in small-value transactions like making a purchase at a retail store, in a way that people once thought it would.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article doesn't miss out on anything, until proven otherwise. Time will tell.
You mean deflation, incidentally.
Martin Fowler is in the certification for box checkers business.

99% of the people that read them work at places where they must "move to X" to justify some department. They will likely implement a simulacrum of X (usually by importing some java library someone wrote as homework), adding all the pitfalls and future problems of X with zero of the benefits of X.
That's the thing... science is a method. If you have actual evidence, and reproducible results, then they speak for themselves. The problem is the wholesale, willful ignorance of this method.
Your point is true until it's not true, or Bitcoin fails.

You could make the same argument about any nascent technology that hasn't succeeded or failed yet.
Technically, no; my first App Store release lo those many years ago was developed using a Hackintosh. That was like ten years ago, though, so maybe something has changed that requires, say, the Secure Enclave or something.
> They aren't the only no-cost distributor

I couldn't name a second, which means they're probably not getting a huge %.
Due to the amount of bureaucracy and vetting required, each package needed four people to touch the task, it took about an hour each person (four man-hours). Then you throw in their dependencies and it grew to about 50 man-hours per top-level dependency.
It can be overcome and, admittedly, I am new to this so for me that means way more time spent trying to make it work. The odd one that I got stuck on for a while was a presented list where individual record held pertinent details, but the list had, seemingly randomly, items that looked like records on the surface, but were not ( so those had to be identified and ignored ). Small things like that.

Still, I would love to learn more about your approach if you would be willing to share.
Unpacking complexities facing African girls in the technology sector
Unfortunately the statement is not true. One good reason to use short timezone codes like EST, CST, PST is that most people prefer them.

One of the first surprising things you learn after launching a timezone conversion website https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1133613 is that one of the top feature requests is to display short timezone codes.
My partner worked for a bit as a transcriber on Rev, which I believe is the source for a bunch of these— they have a turnkey option for "caption Youtube video X": https://www.rev.com/
Any chance you’ll have aphyr take it out for a spin with Jepsen?
The cost is per transaction, not per amount transferred. A small transaction takes just as much space in the ledger as a large transaction.

A fun thought experiment is to see just how limited the throughput of Bitcoin is. Suppose the Bitcoin enthusiasts were to get their wish and Bitcoin becomes the dominant "currency". If every person on the planet were to make a bitcoin transaction once if their lifetime, that alone would be too many transactions/second for the network to handle.
Nothing.

The problem isn't Facebook. The problem is people. They believe and re-spread disinformation. That isn't going to change by Facebook tweaking their algorithm. The gain might go down a little, but that's all.

Disclaimer: I have never been on Facebook in the first place, so my opinion may not be worth much.
it's a chemical, but of course every reference is conveniently painted over by this
To be fair, lots of languages have been moving closer to ML recently (and new languages tend to look more ML-like than in the past). That includes the adoption of pattern matching, but also things like value objects, first-class functions, sum types, named tuples, algebraic datatypes, type inference, etc.

I don't think that's a bad thing. I do think care should be taken when incorporating features from other languages, to see how it interacts with existing features, what the best form of that feature would be, and perhaps whether some different feature could achieve a similar goal.

(For the latter point, I find it unfortunate that languages which already contain 'try/catch' have been introducing 'yield' and 'async/await' as separate features; rather than generalising to 'shift/reset' and implementing all three as libraries)
I agree that most developers don't need to bother with unsafe code, and will not pay a performance penalty for staying within safe rust. My only point is that it's not necessary to be so dogmatic as to say that no-one should ever write a line of unsafe rust.

For instance, if you read the rust book, they make references to times you might want to use unsafe:

> Borrowing different parts of a slice is fundamentally okay because the two slices aren’t overlapping, but Rust isn’t smart enough to know this. When we know code is okay, but Rust doesn’t, it’s time to reach for unsafe code.
Roast My Software – ABtesting.ai