skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Fukushima is what caused the setback, because it proved that, again, "risk of a fault is neglegible" turns out to be not neglegible enough.

The Fukushima plant was hit by:

1) Magnitude 9 (!) earthquake
2) Devastating tsunami
3) Massive fire
4) Total loss of all power to control circuitry.

Even after that, it still didn't kill anybody from radioactivity (some firefighters were killed fighting the fire, not from radiation).

What do you suppose would happen if a similar series of catastrophes struck a hydroelectric dam? Say, the Three Gorges Dam in China?

Hint: nothing good.
You've already admitted that your argument regarding Trump's power to deploy troops was incorrect. Are you able to elaborate on what parts of my comment you disagree with?
What can you do in Solidworks that does not work in Rhino? Do you have a list of top five points, maybe?
Another one to watch:

https://www.supernova.io
An attack on Taiwan is imminent, it's only a matter of time. The current administration has shown its clear deference to the PRC.
Operator overloading and the Go->C FFI are pretty big hinderances.

Go just wasn’t designed for this kind of work. Which is unfortunate because it brings a lot of great things to the table.

Vlang is probably the closest spiritual successor that would work, or someone just needs to write a new language
Yeah, if the dangerous scenario is what if ww3 happens, wipes out all human knowledge, civilization is rebuilt and accidentally digs a kilometer down and finds some nuclear waste then I mean the whole ww3 is probably a bigger deal.

Also continents can moving in 800.00 years, sure but we can also move the nuclear deposits. It's not like they have to stay in that exact spot for all eternity.

Nuclear is all about buying humanity time to solve the energy problems. I think we might need that time to get to full renewables, if we ever get there.
Actually, they can’t. The judge ruled that saying so represented an illegal threat, and the NLRB concurred. It’s been decided by law.
Nothing is perfectly safe. Hydro dams fail. Wind turbines throw ice. People fall off roofs installing solar.

But 8 million people per year are killed by particulate emissions from normally-operating fossil and biofuel combustion plants. Nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro are all orders of magnitude safer ways, per TWh generated, than the dominant worldwide sources. Therefore we should replace fossil and biofuel with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro.

Conveniently, those 4 are also very low carbon, so they prevent climate change along the way.

[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I would like to do some more reading about this, do you have any links? The wikipedia page is a little light on detail.

I agree that we should have food security for everybody, and I agree that if we don't provide everyday people with power for heating and cooking they will just start burning things again which would create a bigger disaster.

But when I look around me I see massive amounts of waste in every sector because electricity is so cheap.
https://nonuclear.se/files/g100rs_en.pdf if all those costs would be factored into the price, nuclear power wouldn't be so cheap...
What would "simple and explicit" even mean if somehow it includes "Oh, sometimes, maybe, I'll incur the expense of garbage collection in the middle of this other algorithm running and it'll take much longer than usual" ?

I don't care about that in a Python program, but I can't see why I would accept it from something that's supposed to replace C.

I also think you're imagining a lot of hard work during execution in Rust that just isn't there, most of the tricky stuff happens at compile time. If you can prove you really don't need the safety that does have runtime implications, you can choose not to have it, but of course you probably don't have proof, just the same gut instinct that usually gets us into trouble in other languages.
I will explain the connection for you: A bullshit job is a job doing busy work, which is not actually needed. Building 10 homes designed to break instead of just one designed to last and be done with it, to me very much seems like a bullshit thing to do. You will have created more transactions, have grown the GDP and have made future people richer on paper. All you have actually done is to create less quality goods and cause more harm to the environment.

Living your life in 4 different huts made of paper mâché is not the same as living in one properly built home. It's not like the hut will be good for 19 years and then suddenly fail you. It will be worse from day one, while a proper building can hold on to its quality.

I am coming from a standpoint of valueing actual quality of life improvements. I also value nature and realize that there is climate change going on.
Which intentional treaty denied Taiwan being part of China?

BTW, it's totally fine for people living on the Taiwan island to form an independent country, like what Jewish people did. But please, do not annex my home country's sovereign land.
This is why Taiwan should have nuclear weapons.
The IPCC report on climate change mitigation puts nuclear median cost on par with wind power (cheaper than offshore, slightly more expensive than onshore), cheaper than solar, more expensive than hydro. In total, squarely on par with the usual suspects for green energy. And they include fuel and decommissioning in that cost. See page 71 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... (caution, huge pdf).

An objective discussion would be nice, but it can only be objective if it is based on available facts.
I don't think the evidence supports that, and even if it did, we create the same dead-zone conditions using chemical energy and fertilizers, so I'm not sure why it counts against nuclear any more than it would against petrochemicals.
Perhaps there will be more than one, then. There will be different ideologies which will be protected and different ones which will be censored on each one of them. In total there might be more freedom of speech.

A teacher in high school told us: to the question "which newspaper should I read?" the answer is "not one single newspaper".
Some sources: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33591/chinas-biggest-b... ; https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/satellite-imagery-from-china... ; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/24...
Using half a core for 10 mins per hour will likely have a material effect on battery life. Unless someone instruments exactly how much, it’s hard to say, but this doesn’t seem like a hand-wave.
If Capitalism and greed failed here wait 'till you see what centralised control of an economy can do. Free actor based economies need some regulation and fail pretty spectacularly at times. Centralised economies however, they cause death and destruction at a level only war
and plague can rival. The problem is, greed drives people in both systems.
>Crimea and Ukraine are geopolitically not very useful. Taiwan is extremely useful, especially if it allows defense access to e.g. American warships.

A large reason for the annexation of Ukraine was the question of control of Russia's only warm-water seaport at Sevastopol. I doubt Russia would have bothered (given the international consequences, i.e. sanctions and potential military intervention) if their access to the Black Sea wasn't threatened by Ukraine's increasing ties with the West.
For developers – from star performer to star manager
> Do you outright reject "open source" projects ... ?

No! I'm bullish on open source, I just think the current climate is weird. I have a small vc fund, currently 8 portfolio companies and almost half have at least some open source element to their product offering. I'd definitely look at something you're describing, and the fact that you're seeing steady MRR growth is a huge accomplishment, regardless of whether you ever choose to take vc money.

Happy to have a discussion on the topic if helpful, don't feel the need to be in sales mode. You can hit me up if interested: taylor at abstraction.vc
I think what people want is all the great things Go brings to the table but just geared a little more towards data work.

Julia offers a lot in the data world and not much in the engineering world.
I believe there would be strong domestic support in the US for committing the full strength of the US military to Taiwan’s defense. It’s not sending American soldiers to die for for Taiwan, its sending American soldiers to fight for western values and allies that America is legally obligated to defend.
Cool. Never new about Virtual Street Fighter kids.
> SaaS is out sourced IT. Plenty of SaaS could open source their entire code base and it would have little effect on sales; people would gladly still pay for it to be hosted.

The problem is that with open source, anybody can be the SaaS provider and make the money from the open source software. In fact, companies will be more willing to go with either the bigger names or providers they have existing contracts with, than a small open source company.

SaaS inherently favors the larger corporations.
You're not crazy: small creators are getting shafted by big tech
devops is an overloaded term. it’s normally used to pay lip service to bad/unsustainable practices.
Windmills didn't have 2MW power output either.
How is that the assumption? There only needs to be one such place on the whole planet (or, shit, shoot it into space). I'm not saying it's easy (in fact, that was kinda my point), but it's absolutely possible and I didn't assume anything about individual groups needing their own storage.
Agreed. But if Turing left a letter with the motive, or was known depressed or irrational, then I would not question the hypothesis that Turing was driven to suicide. Right now I can not see it as the fact it is presented as. I'd like to see some support from those on stage (not for lack of trying).

If suicide, I doubt there even is a clear motive (of course, forced hormone treatment is going to play a role in suicidal thoughts). It will be multi-faceted and reduction to one thing (be that the treatment, or something else) will not do full justice to the complexity of suicide.

> Sometimes they're trying to protect their families from their feelings of despair.

I think the cyanide apple was there to provide the possibility of an accident, for Turing did not want to hurt his mother with a definitive suicide. Or maybe he took his lonely love for fairy tales way too far and expected to awake to a kiss from a beautiful prince. The latter is no less a speculative invasion of his private life, than taking his sexuality or treatment as defining of his scientific legacy or suicide.
I've been trying to figure this out too. Maybe they have a stern anchor too?

Maybe each needs a stern tug?
the two other useful observations are that they seem not get bigger than 5m, and that they grow by 1cm per year.
Do you have aa source at all please? I would like to see more
Edit: I see it posted above
Maybe a solution is to arm the Taiwanese citizens.
I got a used 2016 Kawasaki Vulcan from craigslist in March of last year, instead of therapy. One of the best decisions I've made.
I too enjoyed the profile and wish there were more about her perspectives on business. Her general success and the tone of her comments [1] [2] suggest that she’s far more business savvy than she likes to admit.

[1]: “Although I don’t have any contact with the folks at General Mills, I have learned that they are committed to converting one million acres of conventional, degraded agricultural land to sustainable, no-till acreage within the next decade. I am hopeful that they will quickly learn that crop yield is greater with no-till practices (plus countless other benefits) and that their conversion timeline will be accelerated.”

[2]: “I do believe that General Mills gets it. There’s no denying that Annie’s is a special brand, and they know it would be detrimental not to keep the mission and culture intact.”

Annie’s story reminds me of Peet’s, whose founder [3] bowed out of the business after a decade or so but inspired two of the largest coffee chains in America today.

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Peet
C64 was my first computer (got it as a first communion gift in 1992) and I remember typing in programs from a German manual which nobody understood watching what they will do.

I also remember that I couldn't make graphic programs do anything, I only played with SID and commodore-ascii graphic. Somehow all the programs from the manual with sprites didn't do anything when I typed them in. I had no internet back then and it was a big deal for me. So big I remember it to this day :)

I remember I thought they misprinted the pokev adress so I did a for loop that put the things they wanted me to poke into any adress in a for loop, but that didn't worked either. I still have that C64 and I WILL at some point find out what was the problem :)
The Crimson Klan
Delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, not much it seems.
I think this article essentially misses the mark. China isn't flirting with taking Taiwan because the leader is willing to take risks; China is flirting with taking Taiwan because it now has overwhelming military superiority over Taiwan.

The United States has bases thousands of miles away while Chinese bases are literally right there. China's capital spending on military capabilities (new + direct research & development) is almost certainly higher than the United States which is burdened by personnel spending and world spanning commitments. China can afford to focus its gigantic military preparations on a single objective; its preparations are literally mind-blowing.

As for when China will seek or threaten a military solution it depends on tradeoffs that only the leadership knows. Does China want a provocation to unify its society in a war? What margin of military superiority does it require to avoid long term economic damage to Taiwan's economic prospects? Will the world become more dependent on Taiwanese semiconductors or less? Most importantly, how does CCP view the benefits of ruling a unified China as opposed to the costs of a war?
No one may formally recognize Taiwan, but lots of major countries have done a lot more to arm and prepare to protect Taiwan from China than anyone ever did Ukraine from Russia pre-Crimea.

Recognition isn't nothing, but concrete support without recognition is more valuable than the reverse.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this could have been an internal actor at the bank. The money wasn’t lost; it was moved to an investment account, apparently under the same name. There’s a big push at Chase to get people to use their investment accounts, to the point that I get flyers promising hundreds of dollars to do so. It could be that someone at Chase saw this as an easy way to bump their numbers.

Normally, I would consider this a far-fetched fantasy, but after seeing similar fraud at Wells Fargo as a result of their incentive programs, nothing would surprise me.
What does this signal?
"The sharks' livers were once used for machine oil, and they were killed in great numbers before a synthetic alternative was found and the demand fell"

Fascinating that the fate of these sharks depended on a completely unrelated technological advance.
Unfortunately this makes sense :/
Yeah Rust is really close to what I want but I agree the borrow checker adds a bit too much overhead when dealing with data science.

It seems like reference counting is probably the move here
> Most of the time they're running at 10-20% capacity.

That's not what I've seen in Amsterdam, Geneva, Stockholm, Barcelona, Istanbul and my hometown. They work at least 30% capacity all day long, and when the demand is low, the bus numbers drop in all lines, but you never wait more than ~15 minutes for a new one, in most lines. They also reduce the number of trains on rail systems when the demand is low.

> Something shuttle bus or van sized. We don't need to put 200 cars worth of people in trains to solve traffic issues.

It's not a traffic issue. In modern Europe, it's not about solving the traffic. The governments focus on providing ways people to reach where they want. When you enable it, people doesn't crave for their cars, they use the cheapest and most practical way. In Barcelona, you're almost always walking distance from a underground station so, you don't need a car most of the time.

In my city, due to its geography, it's not possible to have an underground network that dense (at least where I live) and my office is not on a easy to reach place via public transport. If it was the opposite, I'd happily leave my car at home, but I can't.

OTOH, all the public transit lines are working at least 50% capacity all day long, carrying people around the city, and in some places you can literally go from door-to-door using public transit only.
Intel with their own production facilities seems to manage the shortage better than everyone else. Their product may be worse, but their supply situation has been consistently better since December.
Deep look at near-term risk of military incident:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-next-us-china-military-rel...

>Taiwan’s envoy to the United States called for "high alert" over Beijing's maritime coercion in the wake of the Coast Guard Law.
There are many ways to do recycling and we have 100s of years to figure it out. What we do now is doable, but its the worst possible thing.

Other forms of recycling are very viable and have much less problems and much less side streams.

The problem is of course that anti-nuclear crowed have stopped practically all technology development so they can claim all problems are solvable and nuclear should be abolished.

As everything with nuclear, we as a society barley got to first generation technology and then halted all development.

Canada is doing some create work with recycling of CANDU fuel, Moltex Energy is in development of a reactor to use that fuel and its a much better process then what the french use.
Currently the US is not choosing either of these because they both have downsides. In (1), this may embolden Taiwan to take risky and provocative actions such as declaring themselves an independent country. (2) is obviously not in US interests.

Instead, the current US position is strategic ambiguity. It is clear there is probably a line somewhere after which the US will intervene, but it is not clear to either side where this is. The goal is that this will deter both sides from changing the status quo, but as China becomes increasingly aggressive it may be necessary for the US to make its position more explicit.
Mail service and telephone service are effectively universal, so a job application via the mail or the phone is within reach of basically everyone. Having a handset and a phone line is also much cheaper than owning even a second-hand smartphone (at least a decent cellular plan with data isn't very expensive anymore). A deaf person could handle applying by phone via a relay service (though these days they probably can't because relay services are abused by malicious parties and everyone hangs up on them). Paper applications were probably very tough for blind people though, I'm not sure what the solution was... the internet is likely better there, if you're lucky and the job application website is actually accessible.

I lived in a very rural area for about 50% of my childhood - we had no fire department, we relied on a well for water, our town's official population was in the hundreds, etc. If we wanted to get on the internet we had to do it at around 38400 and random packets would get corrupted because the lines were old and low-quality (I wrote my own parity tool in VB6 so that I could download a file 3-4 times and produce a not-corrupted version). Despite that, if I wanted to call someone up on the phone to speak with them or send a letter, that was just as easy and effective as it was when I lived in the suburbs.

When we eventually managed to get slow DSL years later it was INCREDIBLY expensive because in rural areas if you're lucky enough to have service at all the monopolist who offers it knows they can charge as much as they want.
Seems like you are saying owners of small businesses can get together and collude under a combined business, with shares and voting, but individual workers must be atomized or if they do try to coordinate to bargain against the businesses, they get no similar help to do so as the shareholders get.
Most plastics are very hard if not impossible to recycle. Especially when different plastics are mixed or a product is made of multiple materials, i.e. nearly all products.
Most plastics aren't actually recyclable, which is why they aren't recycled. But we say that we can because it shifts the burden. Companies like Coke have been saying that they'll have 50% recycled material in the next 20 years for the last 60. ~~Fusion~~Full recycled product chain is only 20 years away!

Also, 17% of France's energy comes from recycled nuclear (70% from nuclear)[0]

[0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
This isn't an image display ad; it's straight up browser-hijacker malware, new search tab replacement, URLs-you-enter redirector, entering your bank URL might not go to your bank type of shit.

Unremovable and hidden also.
Call me irrational but storing small amounts of highly radio active material in many locations is, from my point of view, basically asking for a dirty bomb to happen at some point. It only needs an event like the end of the soviet union to happen in a single country on earth and any terrorist organization would be able to buy enough of it. I acknowledge that this may happen anyways with the current situation but your scenario makes it even more likely.
What would reunification offer Taiwan? Hong Kong should put down any illusions that they would be able to maintain any meaningful level of autonomy.
Where I live, at least, mailboxes are a lot more widespread than libraries. To send a form by mail, I just have to walk a couple hundred yards.
Will Americans perceive that or will they see it as more foreign adventurism a la the Middle East to defend people that aren’t Americans in a hopeless forever war quagmire?

And do Americans take that threat seriously enough to put actual lives on the line in a conflict that would incur serious costs to the US? We spent a lot of money in the Middle East, but in terms of lives lost it hasn’t been significant.

And in terms of economic impact, it would be devastating. I don’t know if Americans are prepared to go for years without electronics, or really anything else, to enable a protracted war. The stakes would be far greater for the US. And the cost to China is coming down with their emphasis on internal consumption and building a stable self-reliant economy.

Americans don’t like China, but not enough to not use TikTok, not enough to not buy Chinese, and certainly not enough to send their friends and family to die while they live through a massive economic recession and product shortages that make covid look like a joke. And that’s assuming Americans fully understand the politics in the region and why they should even care about China invading Taiwan, which feels like a big assumption considering (the more hawkish) half of the population will tell you our election was stolen by the party currently in power.
Yes it's a lot less waste, but most waste isn't radioactive!!
But Russia was already leasing it from Ukraine.

Ultimately Crimea is of limited strategic value for anyone other than Russia. The same cannot be said for Taiwan.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a "bunch" of people in Taiwan who want to be under Beijing's rule, or would even consider that a tolerable compromise position. Certainly the country is far from unified on the idea of independence (though that particular movement has gotten stronger over the past couple decades), but culturally and politically, China and Taiwan are quite different and incompatible.
I would argue that's regional.