skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Smaller regular fires burn at lower temperatures and they clean up basic debris. If we fail to let the lower temp fires clean up debris the debris tends to grow. When there is more of that the fires burn at hotter temperatures and cause more damage. To avoid the hotter temperatures the debris needs regular cleaning. The natural method of that is fire.

That's what numerous articles written on the topic from experts have said.
Of course by slowing down the speed of the Mercury it would affect is ability to be stable and it might end up be sucked into the Sun :-(
This is 100% true - but that is their business model. And I cannot call it age discrimination since they are VC not an employer.

Older founders are more likely to make a profitable business (lifestyle business) but less likely to create a unicorn type hot start up. In other words, if one is experienced then one can make profitable business (lifestyle business) even if the idea is bad.
Before I had an 11 I had an SE, and by year 2 or 3 the battery was so weak that I had to carry around an external charging pack for it. This got really awkward (and a little scary) for traveling and was part of the reason I upgraded to a newer model.

Right before I sold that SE to my friend I checked the battery health, and it was in the high 80s. Yet I could not get a full day's use on a single charge. This led me to conclude that that Battery Health measurement was bullshit.
> Doing things like changing the clock from right to left (Android).

I'm not a designer, but I know this. They needed less stuff on the right, so the can have a notch in the center.

This made the UI worse for everybody else.
> while browsers are essentially mini-operating systems. Some folks primarily use GoogleDocs as their text editor.

The mini operating system is written in another language than the browser.

An analogy here would be writing such an operating system within the game engine, and then claiming the game engine that is only used to render the operating system is the operating system.

The real issue with browsers is the load of historical cruft they have to continue to support, as well as many new and duplicated technologies such as in this case C.S.S encroaching more and more upon the domain of browser scripting.

> I don't know if there was ever a time when browsers weren't heavier to write than games - except back in the dark days when the web was but a baby.

Is that really so? I would say that at the time game rendering technology was making vast advances in 3.d. rendering with clever hacks around the turn of the millennium, browsers were probably easier to write than these engines.
This is definitely not cheaper but just wanted to share this link on the Piaget Altiplano Watch so people can see how thin it can be:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/piaget-altiplano-ultimate-...

The degree mechanical watches push the boundary of miniaturization (outside of lithography) is amazing.
>[0] Edit: And Javascript

And SVG!
..and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
The paper was explicitly studying Java. I suspect performing the same exercise against OCaml or any other language would give you a very different list of very real problems.
Isn’t that the n=234 study that’s not an RCT?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28108657

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
After watching this video, how many of us wrote a program to see if we could just randomly find a case which didn't converge? I wrote one, but of course, the program didn't prove the 3x+1 problem wrong.
> announced on the site and the arch-announce mailing list

Perhaps there exists some subculture of folks that delight in having to read a set of articles published in the time between the last update and today before they do so again, but I have never encountered it.
> why would someone decide for others what they want or don't want?

Because economists and others want to assess the state of the economy, which is influenced by whether people have jobs that provide health insurance, savings, security, stability, etc.
One thing that stood out to me is that you've applied 3 or 4 times as a solo founder, while acknowledging that YC prefers teams to solo founders. The reason they give for this preference is that "one-person startups are tough and you're more likely to succeed with a cofounder," which seems reasonable to me.

Have you tried in earnest to find others to apply with you? If not, why not? This may be the single most important thing you can do to improve your odds of being accepted.

If you have tried to find cofounders, but haven't convinced anyone, this may also be worth looking into. It's hard to say without knowing any details, but it's possible that YC may be passing for similar reasons as potential cofounders are.
This.

I think the best way for you to ensure funding is to have revenue traction. One thing that trumps ageism (and all --isms) is greed. If you show revenue growth and traction, these greedy VCs will swallow all their rhetoric and blog posts, get down on all fours and wag their tails like puppies to get a whiff of your term sheet.

Note that Valley VCs are well-documented ageists: "Vinod Khosla told a conference that “people over forty-five basically die in terms of new ideas.” Michael Moritz, of Sequoia Capital, one of the most pedigreed firms in the tech world, once touted himself as “an incredibly enthusiastic fan of very talented twentysomethings starting companies.” His logic was simple: “They have great passion. They don’t have distractions like families and children and other things that get in the way.”" [1]

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/117088/silicons-valleys-brut...
What evidence would convince you?

(It helps to imagine you're asking for evidence of gender discrimination.)
What You Should Know About the Google Play Store Changes
Because comets and asteroids have been zooming around for billions of years, it's clear that the effect would be negligible.
The problem with Organic food is the same with carbon emissions; the cost of is generally too high compared to the perceived individual benefits of the organic/low-emissions alternative.
Flying a Drone with your Mind
What forces of capital are doing anything else? Isn't this what capital wants, isn't accumulating more capital & generating new dependents part of the inherent goal of capitalists?

I don't see VC's as particularly notable or different than anyone else, but I also feel like I could stand to have my perception loosened up a lot. The above is more than Socratic; I am curious what pieces of the economy, what engines of capital drive humanity towards independence rather than dependence.
In fact when uploading a video you can fill in a shitload of metadata users can't filter by.
I cannot strongly enough discourage you from trying to do YC solo (been there, done that, obviously do not regret it - but would do it differently 2x).

> I signed-up for and graduated from Startup School. We applied for YC and were not accepted. I continued with Startup School for a second term. Applied again. Nothing. We likely applied about three times, if not four. I honestly don't remember. This included pivots. I wasn't trying to do the same thing and expect different results

If you've applied with the same company, and that company's trajectory hasn't changed between the applications then that's pretty valuable heuristic that it's likely not right for YC. YC's model requires power law style returns. Massive, mega, huge 1/500 hits. Your company could grow substantially. It could 10x - that's not enough. YC needs 10,000x returns and momentum/trajectory/team is really the only material information available to them.

Once you've been around for a while, all of sudden it's no longer unknown what your trajectory will be - you have one that you have to bend. And that's a super valuable heuristic for any investor. If the company really has hit an inflection point during the period you were applying, well that's YC's loss (of which there are many, and of course there will be many more).
If you've ever listened (from the outside) to an electric car going 50km/hr even, they're not quiet.
How do you tell whether a dependence relation comes from the domain, or exclusively practical (unintentional)?

Is it as simple as "whether the use cases imply the dependence"?

How does this relate to "reasons to change"?
Phones have delivered social networks, cat pictures and mobile games to the masses, that's about it, really.
So you are saying Google can access your device at any time and pull all data from it, even if you didn't upload it to their servers!? No thanks on either. I'm not sure "other companies can do it too," is a great counterpoint either.
New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
Good question. Here's the difference. When you withdraw money from Charles Schwab and there's no cash in your account, it creates a margin debt. You then have to pay that margin debt back manually, and you pay interest until you do. With Financial Choice, we automatically sell your investments to cover your withdraws so you don't build up that margin debt.
I have no primary sources to offer regarding this question.

But here's some pure speculation if you're interested - assuming immunological memory operates in a 'most recently used' fashion, then it would follow that individuals will develop an immune response that trends toward being most effective at neutralizing the viral profile that was last seen. Consequently, the studies and data that evaluate natural immunity vs vaccinated immunity could be fairly applicable. In practice I'm sure you'd see a blending of the two immune responses, but timing of exposure could play a big factor in weighting that balance.
Yup. It's misplaced machismo, with all that implies.
Richard Jewell
I hope this feature will be completely optional. Code signing in every major OS (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS) is pure pain, you cannot distribute your own apps properly without obtaining a signature for 100$ (usually per OS, sometimes per year).
We've known since the 60s that letting forests burn is healthier for forest ecosystems. But we've known about a lot of good environmental practices since the 60s and just ignored them.

All it takes is one person building a cabin in the middle of a forest, and all of a sudden it's a fire that threatens property and can't be allowed to burn. We can let remote areas of the national parks burn, but it's going to take a lot of political and social change before it becomes acceptable to let people's vacation properties burn, Or to prevent development of large regions of forest so it can be allowed to burn.
This is why I think escaping from a ruined Earth is fruitless if the tendency to grow and consume everything in sight is baked into our genes. We'd just ruin Mars, too.

We can't seem to escape from our own deeply ingrained instincts, only transplant them to every inch of untouched soil we can reach. I tend to see the overwhelming evolutionary success of humans as similar to a virus that is too powerful and kills the host.

My belief is that we will have to suffer the consequences first before the death instinct is ingrained politically and socially in every person in power who contributes to the destruction of Earth. We can continue feeling fine doing what we are doing right now because not enough people have died off yet to make the drastic changes worth it. Societies will be forced to become places where optimism is extinguished in favor of pragmatism. They will only become those places because the scale of death and destruction will cross an unwritten threshold that needed to be crossed first before that change in mindset could take place.

I believe this opportunity to save the Earth that's being proposed right now will not happen because no amount of hypotheticals or climate science fiction that warns of this will be heeded, because they have to remain just that by their own nature - hypothetical, instead of actual, lived human history. That includes what I am writing right now. Our imagination is an innovative evolutionary advantage, but it has ultimately failed us. Our instincts for growth have won out against any scenario of global collapse and catastrophe and heartbreak we can think of. That is just our nature as a species, and it is a sad thing to consider, but as a result, pretty soon everyone will have to hope that they're not going to be one of the billions of people that will soon die off from climate-driven warfare or famine or any other catastrophe that's about take place. But after the dust settles, we will gain the one precious, irrevocable thing whose absence is preventing us from taking action right now - history.

At that point, if we still don't have a better way of thinking of the environmental issues figured out, then I would consider our curious experiment in biological fitness finished, once and for all.
My wishlist for embiggening package security:

Signed checksums of binaries baked into the package manager

Reproducible builds made dead-simple stupid-easy

Selinux/sandboxing made more transparent and simple enough to use for mere mortals

Something like tripwire, by default (I think netbsd has this built in, but it's not default)
Automated reporting only works well if you have got good input data. The article gives many examples of problems with input data. Using automated reporting on an important and sensitive subject is probably not a good idea.
Greatly reducing meat production, particularly beef and other ruminants, will have a smaller effect than many people expect. Even if we don't eat them, vast numbers of ruminants will still need to exist because they are a critical part of natural ecosystems.

Humans made space for their preferred ruminants, like beef, by displacing vast populations of other ruminants which have similar climate impact. I don't think most people fully appreciate just how large the natural population was before we started raising beef at scale. Even if we eliminated the beef herds, other ruminant species would immediately start filling the vacuum.
> used the transform property more than 350 times!

Of course.

-webkit-transform, -o-transform, -ms-transform, -moz-transform, -e-transform, -some-other-bullshit-browser-transform, -khtml-transform, -html-transform ... welcome back to the 90's world of brower-specific-internet
Well, it's a nice vision. But we have 7 billion people now. How many of them fit into that vision? Sure, I know, we could fit them all in Texas, but could we also feed them? Provide them with computers? And everything else?

So I think it's being downvoted because it would be anti-human in some concrete ways. I like nature, but how many people are we willing to let starve to preserve nature? How many are we willing to condemn to a life of no economic opportunity?

The proposal sounds good, but the actual practicalities of it are going to cause a lot of human misery, and even death. Fine-sounding "let's do this" proposals that have high human costs tend to get downvotes, since the voters are humans.
No direct democracy existed in known history with 445 million people.
I recently started looking into buying my music again since 90% of my Apple Music listen time goes to the same generic piano playlist. I figure I could have bought the playlist 10 times over by now...
My question is where do you buy music these days? I would like it digitally but I would like to own it (no DRM stuff). Any suggestions on a good store to buy music online? Last time I bought music I did it on itunes...
So like to move a shipping container weighing 40 tons requires what 32x32x32 cubic meter space to be supported that's pretty tiny considering the other advantages. They could travel fast and in basically all weather. Lightening is a worry but if you isolate your hydrogen well it shouldn't be a problem. Not to mention they would be much more fuel efficient. Heck you could probably slap solar on them and get net zero energy discharge for low container ship speeds. The only issue being is I don't know if they would alleviate unloading issues if there was high winds. I don't really know the method for securing an airship but if they just let down a big rope and tie themselves done you can do that anywhere.
It's not really the ahead of time NIMBY complaints but the potential for future liability shifts which existing plants will not be exempt from. A good number of plants constructed in the 60s and 70s hit their EOL (after getting a a bunch of lifetime extensions from governments) and then had their nice glittering warchest of profits eaten away by cleanup expenses (which sometimes exceeded the cash left in those contingency funds with the deficit falling on state & local governments). There have been issues with water contamination due to poor holding pool sealing and due to unforseen natural disasters.

Nuclear power requires millions in its initial investment. It has a not-insignificant profit margin over other power sources, but it also has a significant chance for large liabilities (more often due to changing laws than meltdowns). The result is an investment with an extremely high investment threshold (you don't build small nuke plants) with a decent short term prospect and a poor long term prospect that's extremely hard to get out of. This makes nuclear a really bad option for private investors when held up in comparison to tech and the like.

Meltdowns can happen and they're catastrophic but the bigger impediment is the unpredictable legal and fiscal liabilities involved. And, honestly, it's my personal opinion that a fair amount of these post-de-facto fiscal liabilities are extremely just and fairly applied - they're externalities we were ignoring decades ago.

This is a segment of the market where we need government funding and guarantees to get things done - and we should do so since nuclear is an extremely safe and clean option for power generation.
The funny thing is that you are failing to recognize the value of devices that can render web pages, give navigation instructions that won't get me lost, run games, have long battery life, great screen quality, and a bunch of other things.

I have yet to see a phone with the build quality and value add that I need a mobile phone to have from Free Software endeavors. These are the table stakes for the majority of people. Not the list you just rattled off. You aren't even in the running to compete on the other value adds if you can't do the above.
I'd love to see a future where we build houses with the expectation that wildfires will rage nearby. Put up some huge heat-resistant walls around civilization, let the fires burn next door. Wildfires feel like the last area where we feel entitled to destroy nature's evolved processes, just because humans want cheap land.
Those are arguments that Mozilla should find a different CEO, not that paying a lower salary to their CEO would improve outcomes. The part I don't get is way people are so viscerally appalled by Mozilla allocating a fairly normal level of compensation for their CEO (relative to the size of the company)
Logging is such a different process that I can't imagine this working well. As one example, certain seeds require extremely hot temperatures from forest fires in order to germinate. Forest ecosystems are so complex, trying to micro manage them is probably impossible.
Communities living next to or within forests also tend to prefer we put fires out.
The "ruling class" will be shocked if/when the "servant class" flexes its muscle through a Union.

Imagine a city, state or nation held hostage by a "Fraternity" that uses Signal to stage a delivery shutdown in order to make a demand. The demand? Agree to a Standard Delivery Tax that will go directly to the Fraternity.

VC's may create a monster they cannot control.
My guess would be they're thinking a that running an engine to move the wheels of a car will always be more efficient than running an engine to move the wheel of a generator, transmit the electricity, charge a battery and then move the wheels of a car.

Neglecting that power plants can run at temperatures small car engines can't, getting better carnot efficiencies, or using non-combustion methods of generating electricity.
I'm so curious what the navigation department for a place like NASA/JPL consists of. Each probe/satellites mission is so custom, do they have a software suite that they've refined over the last 50 years, is it a couple physics professors etc, are there two teams working independently to make sure no one messes up?
Even when people propose this type of dividend it still doesn't usually work because the people that live in the cities already vote for the measures to curb climate change while the people that live in the sticks aren't going to see enough of a dividend to make up for the extra cost at the pump. Even allocating it by region (i.e., the taxes of a region go to paying for the dividend of the region, and there are larger dividends per person in a region with higher GHG taxes) don't work because too many people are retired or essentially non-commuting, and there are a host of issues around balancing out incentives. For example, a person may move across the street just to get a higher dividend.
I guess I got into this argument, so to be clear, I am not conceding this (nor do I particularly want to continue this part of the argument, so I won't and ask the others do not take a lack of reply as you conceding the opposite)

> that’s not what is meant by the term burning

Monopropellants may not agree with your use of the term burning, but I deny that they do not agree with the majority of english speakers use of the word burning, or the definition of the word burning that you will find in common dictionaries [1].

[1] For example merriam-webster defines "burning" as "being on fire", "fire" as "the phenomenon of combustion manifested in light, flame, and heat" and "combustion" as "a usually rapid chemical process (such as oxidation) that produces heat and usually light".
The lower income tax actually offsets the premium I pay to live here vs other provinces. Or at least that's how it worked out when I had a job last March. The rent keeps coming, but the money ain't.
> AND THEN THE PERPETRATORS CAN STILL GET AWAY BY JUST TURNING IT OFF??!??!?!

Not trying to defend Apple here, but we should keep in mind that the goal for Apple is to prevent such photos from being uploaded to iCloud and detecting those that do. If someone turns off iCloud sync, then Apple would argue that it's not their concern to scan photos saved on devices (and thank god it doesn't otherwise the repercussions would have been much more significant).
Fair enough, but I mean tiny relative to the purchase of a new car. That is, a new car is disproportionately more expensive than 4 used vans at 3k each. And the vans will collectively provide more mileage than one new car. Why are you making me explain this? I must dispatch George the Rottweiler on a contempt charge. Old Honda vans need love too. There.
> the current fuel density in much of the Sierra, mixed with the hotter, drier conditions already triggered by climate change, has made managing wildfire even riskier than it was when forest managers started allowing fires to burn in Yosemite in 1972.

So if fire fighters and politicians do not want to start a burn policy now that there is so much fuel, why not log an area for a while then start burning? Is there something I am missing about the nature of the problem?
This is literally impossible to tell without more information.

According to Wikipedia Mercury weighs about 3.285 × 10^23 kg, about 10^20 times more than most satellites. You'd need much more than 1000 satellites (or have much heavier satellites) to significantly impact the orbit. OTOH, if you'd have sensitive enough instruments you could measure the effect of even a single gravity assist.