skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm fond of this distinction as well. One could also parse it semantically as `undefined` meaning "unknown unknown" vs `null` being a "known unknown" (or "this value left intentionally blank").

Where I think it falls down in practice, is that JS still treats undefined as a legitimate pseudo-value, as opposed to a read-only return result for a missing key. So for instance, `x=[0,1]` and `x=[0,1,undefined]` will both return undefined for `x[2]`, and it takes jumping through some hoops to know if that value was undefined on purpose, or if the key is simply not found.

If I had my druthers, attempting to set a value as undefined would either throw a fatal error, or be an alternate syntax to unset a value (such that `x.length` would equal 2 in both examples above).
It doesn't to me. What she said it is:

- I won't take it if trump alone tells me to take it

- I will be first to take it if experts give their thumbs up

Some people take the whole thing at face value, some take only the first part and ignore the rest.

In 70s Ford used political pressure to speed up swine flu vaccine development and that had negative consequences.
Your counterfactual explanation makes sense in the helmet example, but I think most people wouldn't be able to figure out that connection without such an explanation. Even if it's correct, it's still confusing. For example, I can't figure out what the relevant counterfactual is in the alcohol example.

That's not to say that these are purely value-neutral facts, it still makes sense for them to be called out by this tool. I wish I had a better term for them though, rather than just complaining about the current label.
I guess. You have to hit the screenshot combo and then tap the screenshot, versus hitting the app-switcher button. Are you doing this often enough for that 1 extra step to be a big deal?
> People distrust masks but trust ivermectin.

source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments.

>but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep.

everyone?

> That's how its supposed to work:

I doubt that the founders intended to build a system only 12% of people supported but maybe...
Apart from anything else, this is pretty much what most health authorities did on most theories about COVID. Lots of people chose to listen to other high profile figures who claimed certainty instead...
I use Dokku and like it a lot, but the automatic ingress complicated things a bit, and I couldn't easily have more elaborate setups like with Docker Compose. However, if you need a Heroku alternative, I wholeheartedly recommend it.
It also limits their exposure to scams and customers trying to do chargebacks using non-reversible payment methods.
>These people claim that it's safe for decades when our computer models can't predict the weather accurately next week.

The models may or may not be accurate but they have nothing to do with predicting the weather. There isn't any weather underground... It's all slow diffusion and buoyancy.

A better starting place might be asking where the model inputs come from.
Coinbase NFT is coming soon
Really setting the bar high. Group A Being every so slightly better than really shitty Group B thing does not make Group A look very good, just ever so slightly less shitty.

"I beat my kids and my spouse" "You're evil, I only beat my kids"

Not a great argument.
> How is fusion different?

It's not but people don't seem to realize this or maybe just don't want to think about it. Spending $100B to produce 1GW of power (made up numbers) is not an economical source of power. So hydrogen being free (deuterium and tritium are essentially free; Helium isotopes are more complicated) is irrelevant until the capital cost of the plane is much, much lower.

And even then you still have to deal with these significant issues:

- Neutron embrittlement of the container;

- Energy loss from the chamber from neutrons; and

- Containment. The plasma is essentially an extremely high temperature turbulent fluid. Because of the turbulence and the super-high temperatures containment is likely to remain a significant issue.

I hope fusion becomes commercially viable and economical but I'm just not convinced (yet) that that will ever be the case. It certainly won't be ITER even with tens of billions spent on it.

People get caught up on the fact that stars do fusion without considering what's different. To summarize:

- Energy loss from neutrons is essentially a non-issue because of gravity and just the size of stars. To put this in context, it's estimated that photons created at the Sun's core take ~30,000 years to escape;

- Stars are relatively inefficient with their fuel. IIRC the Sun converts ~4.5M tons of matter into energy every second. It sounds like a lot but that's a tiny fraction of the Sun's mass (~10^30 kg). That's because hydrogen atoms are so unlikely to fuse and they go through several intermediate states before that happens. Fusion in the lab already produces many more fusion reactions per unit mass than stars do.

I firmly believe that space-based solar power collection is our most likely future.

EDIT: corrected "photons"
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-...
Basically there are radioactive rocks in the deposits that natural gas is stored in. Additionally there is some radioactive gas in the Gas deposits as a result of radioactive decay.
The operating costs of Nuclear are minimal, the problem is planning, building, regulating, decommissioning them.

On that basis, modular nuclear reactors seem to make the most sense. Rolls Royce in the UK looks to be onto a winner with their 470mw SMR:

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

2 years site prep, 2 years building the unit. £1.8 billion per unit. They could be mass produced with the right investment.

Operate them for 60 years each, take out the remaining fuel, and just leave the rest of the power plant in the ground forever.

We should be mass producing these units right now and installing them across the EU, UK, USA, Australia. We could be building 100 a year with the right investment.
I've seen lots of "right wing" people saying that Trump is betraying them by recommending the vaccine constantly. I don't think he's anti-vax.
This is what I've been doing for years, but Heroku Postgres is so bloody expensive, it just doesn't make sense for apps that don't make much money. So I just moved my data to an RDS instance, shared between multiple apps. Cost savings are great, headache savings much less so. I would say if you are going to move off Heroku, do it with the apps/projects where you can f-up, or have downtime without much repercussion. AWS stuff is a deep dark forest, undocumented and confusing. I'd say for anything that is critical, just keep paying Heroku. It isn't worth it.
I think GP meant environmentally sustainable, rather than fiscally sustainable, you need to do something with the old reactor cores.
Disagree. If you’re not using a Framework X or Y, suddenly SO becomes a lot less interesting. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re staying in you comfort zone.

As an aside, totally subjective, but Google’s results have been degrading for a while - it’s not that you won’t find what you’re looking for, but it’ll often take a bit longer. Better resources exist.
I know someone whose iPhone 6 was lost in a snowbank for a month. Worked fine after the snow had melted enough to spot it.
It would be relevant to anyone who wants to listen to what the code does.

Also curious how the organising and finding part works on generated hybrids.
The evidence says that during disasters ppl come together and help each other during disaster while state and business institution act in an at best obstructionist and at worst predatory way. So why do ppl in power believe the exact opposite? The simple explanations are that it's a delusion they actually hold, or a lie they project and either way it serves as a justification for the systems they benefit from.
> What stops you from using the "even tinier piece pellet of hydrogen"[sic] from initiating fusion in a slightly less tiny pellet of hydrogen that it's sitting on top of, which initiates fusion in a slightly less tiny pellet of hydrogen, and so on? Aside from concern for your own survival, of course.

The same thing that stops you from igniting the initial pellet with the hohlraum - you don't have anything creating the kind of confinement necessary to keep the plasma together.

The only thing allowing the plasma to get hot enough for fusion is the initial velocity of the inward-spreading shockwave from the initial explosion of the outer shell of the pellet. As the velocity of this shockwave inevitably decreases, confinement is inevitably lost and the plasma dissipates and cools down.

Probably in principle you could use the energy of the first pellet's plasma to cause similar shockwaves in a second, larger pellet and so on, but that requires an entirely different geometry, its not just a matter of putting the second pellet close to the first one.
We’d only need one place worldwide if people didn’t object to it crossing borders.

Everything nasty from all of them put together is something like one large modern soccer stadium.
It may not be the best way, but hyperbole is an established rhetorical device.
The Mysterious Case of the Covid-19 Lab-Leak Theory
If that's consistent with reality, then what exactly does the CDC exist for if not to study if masks control disease?

SARS-CoV2 isn't the world's first coronavirus by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that seemingly the whole country spent months debating whether masks can stop a virus tells us all we need to know, which is that organizations like the CDC fail. There's zero reason why we had to act like we were starting from scratch other than to trick people into not buying up masks.

In fact, it had nothing to do with changing information because the information straight from the horse's mouth tells the contrary:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm...

^^ See Table 1

That is at best around a 2% reduction in deaths associated with masks. For all intents and purposes, mask mandates can never stop the virus or even do much at all to reduce it. 2% would make me question whether there's even any meaningful causation.

We have this information, but we decided to literally double-down by hilariously telling people to double-mask. This isn't the scientific method in action.
Wow, finally someone showed some balls. Had to be Texas. Never thought someone doing something sensible would receive such hatred from the Ars cesspool. Holy load of twitterbots.
I agree with you that we should be pursuing wind and solar at this point, but this isn't because it's a better solution technologically. Nuclear is still slightly better, IMO. It's just politically a non-starter, mostly due to the incorrect way humans assess risk, and I think this is an example of that:

> If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable.

We've been using nuclear power for over sixty years, and the most catastrophic nuclear plant failure killed ~4,000 people[0]. Worst incident in the US was Three-Mile Island with 0 deaths. Coal has been killing many more than that in the US alone annually for decades, though we may finally be below that count[1]. Of course, this is before considering the effects of climate change.

It's akin to how air crashes get our attention, while we ignore the car accidents that kill 1000 as many people. Air pollution deaths are even less visible.

At this point, wind and solar are still slightly behind nuclear as a technologically-viable solution (in my amateur view), but because they can still iterate, I think they'll probably surpass it soon. That said, a lot of us are still bitter that we could have converted to a clean, carbon-neutral grid in the 1970s (Nixon proposed doing this!) and the politics of bad risk analysis (and incumbent coal interests) killed it.

Solar+wind have the benefit of political support/momentum. I think their biggest political challenge is in building out high-voltage transmission lines across land owned by hundreds of different entities (and that that keep burning down California because maintaining them properly is expensive). So yeah, I'm for us going all-in on them. However, them saving is is a fantasy, and if we're in fantasy land, why not entertain the fantasy of us using nuclear instead? :-)

(Or better yet, why not both?)

[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno...

[1] https://www.catf.us/work/power-plants/coal-pollution/
Hm, interesting. I was initially unconvinced that this could be a problem, but some back-of-the-envelope math says it's at least conceivable:

The sun deposits enormous amounts of energy onto earth every single day: Around 340 W/m² (averaged over the whole earth), or a total of 43 x 10^15 Watts. Essentially all of it is radiated back into space (mostly as infrared). We have a temperature equilibrium because energy intake is largely constant (surface/cloud albedo notwithstanding) while radiation back into space grows with fourth power of (surface/atmospheric) temperature.

Current global energy consumption is on the order of 2 x 10^12 Watts, over four orders of magnitude lower. If we somehow increase energy production by ~two orders of magnitude, to the point of ourselves emitting 1% of the solar energy intake on top, the surface temperature would need to rise by about 0.75 °C to maintain equilibrium. An order of magnitude more (i.e. three orders of magnitude above current consumption, roughly 10% of solar intake) would correspond to a 7.2 °C rise.

(Point of reference: Global power consumption has barely doubled in the past 40 years. No telling what "free" energy would cause though.)

Presumably we'd have geo-engineered a solution by that point, but it's surprisingly not too early to start thinking about the problem!
> Now we've got a huge swath of US citizens that will never take the vaccine

I suspect it's more than just "the vaccine" (assuming "the" refers to the covid vaccines); it's an overall regression in the trust of health officials that will take decades to rebuild.

We had a pretty well built system of trust for health officials. Everything from a standard set of vaccines being a requirement at schools to CDC guidance being taken fairly seriously. There were folks who distrusted this system, but it was (at least I felt like it was) _fringe_.

The COVID response put all of these systems in the spotlight. It made a lot of people who previously trusted the system ask questions they never bothered to ask before. They may have asked these questions about how COVID was handled, but these are _general questions_ about the trustworthiness of the official health channels. The doubt that was sown isn't isolated to COVID. Regardless of where you personally stand on any of this, the way "official" channels handled the pandemic burned trust for a large portion of the population.

Fixing this is going to be a long road.
Far in never. There's no (real) money to be made, manufacturers don't care.

I use GrapheneOS. It's rough but at least it gives me peace of mind.
Yes, removing uranium from water supplies is not much different than removing other heavy metals like lead. This isn't particular hard, debacles like Flint are newsworthy because it's something most water services do successfully.
This was not clear because one of the slices did not mention the span it lasted.
KeyDB is a multithreaded fork of Redis. According to their benchmarks, the performance difference is large: https://docs.keydb.dev/blog/2020/09/29/blog-post/
Post contact information if you're interested in technical sales/consulting work!
This thread is full of bizarre, depressing contradictions. I'm having trouble processing that this many people in this community think this way.
There are circles in which credibility and plausibility is more important than honesty - can we assume the CDC is one? (even "being right" is importantly different from "telling the truth")
Why is that? As far as I can imagine, people using Apple maps, especially those requiring accessibility features, will be using the app on their phone.
That’s generally the definition of free, yes. You might have a different definition, but it’s certainly not a common one.
Here is official press release from Finnish Government, which also links to the statement from the ministers: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410877/lintila-and-other-eu-...

Also the relevant EC page has a section on nuclear energy that has some more information: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-...
Pretty interesting how this huge rash of articles about the same 2 or 3 fusion experiments have appeared just as the Federal government is considering where to spend resources in energy infrastructure for the next ten years. Who’s the publicist?
State of AI Report 2021
Institutional privacy risks in sharing DNS data
What time horizon are NG plants capitalized over? Soon enough, that will be a significant factor in the economic equation...
Profiling Newlib-Nano's Memcpy
Strategies for Data Science Interviews
Data Science Interview Essentials from the perspective of a DS Expert at Microsoft
Azure Functions cold start times also depend on the underlying tech stack. I was using Python on a Linux host for Slack related Azure Functions and they ran into timeouts sometimes (which for the Slack API is 3s I think). After I switched to Nodejs on Windows I never got a timeout again.
There are also things like tidal waves, earthquakes and other unforeseen things that do pop up from time to time and cause big issues. We can say it's rare, statistically very unlikely, etc., but no one wants to be a Fukushima and that image is still pretty fresh and hard to combat logically.

That said, one thing that I think would really help is to have smaller reactors, more of them, and using a standardized and approved design. I remember hearing an interview with an Oregon State University professor some 15+ years ago who was working on a project that did just that. IIRC, he said one major contributing factor to the cost of building a reactor, besides waste, is that basically each one is designed and engineered from scratch. He envisioned more of an assembly line. Universal design, universal parts, etc. I believe they went on to form a company called NuScale and a quick DDG search led to this:

> "Portland company's innovative nuclear reactor OK'd by feds (September 26 2020)" ... The modules — each capable of producing 60 megawatts of energy, which is enough to power 45,000 homes — also allow a plant to scale up as needed, with a maximum capacity of 12 modules for a total of 720 megawatts.

https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/482166-388954-portland-co...
I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what the falsifiable claims are.

If you're saying that creationism is wrong because many creationists are wrong, that sounds like some kind of fallacy.
Musk's trolling shouldn't be missed:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1447426189660880898?s=20
> Two counterpoints:

> - Isn't the current gas shortage just Putin trying to ram through Nordstream 2?

Is "fossil fuels are a geopolitical weakness" really a counterpoint to "fossil fuels are kinda shit"?

And that geopolitical weakness is exactly why france built lots of nukes in the first place, it was not ecological (though that's a nice side-effect), it was for energy and geopolitical independence, and though it fails somewhat in that uranium ore still needs to be procured, it's much easier to stockpile uranium ore than fossil fuels, and the available sources are much more varied: the main known reserves are in Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, South Africa.
> If someone collapses into the street, the driver should be able to stop in time, unless they are going to fast.

Or they collapse mere seconds before the car strikes them making the __accident__ unavoidable.
this is why everytime i post here on HN that i want to make my toolset smaller, and i’m not interested in learning more tools. i catch a lot of flak, but i’ve been in this boat now for more than 15 years and I can say that if you need to manage everything with 1 or 2 people, you need to approach this differently than what a normal startup does especially if you are not able to raise funding.
We hit this (what seems to be a) paradoxon in a research project a few years ago, where we modelled production facilities that needed heat and cold at the same time (industrial bakery producing freezed goods, different pipes).

Since our goal was the optimization of energy flows, being able to use e.g. energy recovery of "waste heat", we could easily get paradoxical results, when counting with "hot" and "cold' energies.

The thing is, any medium can potentially carry energy (and in fact does), but if it is "usable" to you, depends on the difference to the environment you want to use it in/against.

400° hot oil? Net plus J in an oven, but net minus J for a chiller.

Yet, generating a certain amount of that hot oil took x Joule. Same goes for cold water or saline solution.

I think the plaintiff's argument was actually very fitting.

Mine is still not technical though.
Nvidia/Microsoft release 530B parameter transformer model Megatron-Turing NLG
Doist introduced a new version of Twist, the first comms tool for async work
I agree with you pretty much 100%. My anger is that, by not being truthful, I feel like health authorities played right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists and everyone trying to sow doubt that this is some big power grab.
There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site.

Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
The answer to this is for the tax to pay out to everyone as a dividend. Then voters would be in favor because some of the tax is paid by corporations but all of the money goes to individuals, so most people get back more than they pay.

On top of that, the tax would (if enacted by most countries) crush demand for fossil fuels. So then fossil fuel prices go down by, for example, half the amount of the tax, meaning that half the tax get paid by Exxon et al. But all tax money still gets paid out to individuals.
Right, precisely. Its surprising how much people don't want to hear it.

Its like an acknowledgement of reality is seen as an endorsement of that reality.
Facebook has shown they are less interested than they were before in getting close.

So, they may be made redundant.
Me, reading the link at the top of this thread: oh wow, those are really cool.

Me, reading this example: oh no, those all need to be added to our project's lint rules to make sure no-one uses them.
Probably not what you want to hear, but ...

I'd recommend migrating all your important data and code out of that system ASAP. Make (at longest) monthly backups of your code/data, and keep them locally.

I know, this can be impracticable for those with huge infras/data collections. That is, until you assess the risk that with these types of systems, you can, and will, lose access to everything, on a moments notice. With absolutely no help from the vendor.

They really don't care. They rarely put a human in the loop to help solve your issue, as it costs them too much, for the value that provides them. Not you. That is, they don't care about small customer retention. Unless you are writing 1M USD/month or more, you likely don't even have a human you can reach to help you resolve issues.

Every {S,P,I}aaS account you have is a risk surface. If these accounts suddenly went away, what would be the impact upon you?
Impressive. Did the speakers go completely back to normal?