skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
With all due respect, while OPs point is maximally shortened and alarmist, it's not claiming the world will end in 7 years.

What's the case is that we're about 7 years away from the tipping point after which, no matter what we do, the world will stop being a hospitable place for 10-20% (and growing) of the world population starting another 10-20 years from that.

Mankind itself will most probably survive. How the world will look like fending off a billion people from moving to more moderate climates is a different story I'm still not fully ready to mentally prepare.
I can see value in not consistently talking about “btw killing someone with your car is basically a get out of jail card”. Most people probably don’t realize this.

(Or am I misunderstanding your last sentence?)
Hum, We talk about the same Peter Norvig that is an expert in cetaceans?
How to Build Seamless Integration Workflows Using Azure Logic Apps
I think it's basically free to fly -- if you buy a $200 airline ticket, you are using $200 worth of fuel (total fuel / airplane capacity), aircraft depreciation, crew costs, etc. The airline can only make money because they figured out how to sell someone else a $300 ticket for their $200 worth of stuff. It's a precarious model, because if they sell you the $200 ticket but don't ever sell the $300 ticket, then they just lose money. Once the boarding door closes, there is no way to ever gain money on that flight.

The "gouging" is just to appeal to the truly cost sensitive; people with no brand loyalty, time constraints, etc. If you don't want a soda, a checked bag, a seat assignment, and the option to choose from 10 different times of day to leave... but do want $50 in cash... they have you covered. It rubs people the wrong way, but people "sort by lowest price first", not by "lowest hassle first", so they have to account for that somehow. (Tangent: I never really understood this. I feel like air travel would be way smoother if people checked their bags instead of fought each other for overhead bin space. They should charge for the bins, not for the cargo hold. But I guess that's too hard in practice.)

If you had an airline that just charged actual cost + desired profit for a certain load factor, the ticket would be $1000. Then someone else would show up and charge $999 because they can pay for a slightly less well-trained flight attendant. Then someone else comes along and puts the rows of seats 1" closer together. Eventually the price is what we pay today, because all that actually happened. I think the industry is so hyper-optimized that it's basically "free" to fly; you're just paying for transport at cost, or even less than cost if they have done their yield management correctly and you got the lowest fare on the flight. That's why the industry is so sensitive to disruptions -- it's balancing on a razor thin margin, because there are competitors ready to make $1 less to get your butt in their seat.

Anyway, I think your assertion about a silver platter cornered market is simply wrong. Flying is ridiculously inexpensive compared to the costs. As a comparison, get your ATP certification, buy a 737, and fly your friends around in it. Pretty expensive compared to a ticket on Southwest!
Who's the next highest bidder after Apple for a bug in `gamed` that allows you to access GameCenter and download contacts? It's a significant vulnerability, but there's e.g. no price list entry on Zerodium (you can take Zerodium more or less seriously, this is just a data point) for anything but code execution, which this vulnerability isn't.
Maybe he doesn't want dissident journalists and activists to get spied on and chopped to pieces?

That sounds like a good enough reason to report these bugs for someone with morals.
'Not any harm' is quite a cynic formulation. Maybe a couple of hundred deaths seems relatively few, for such an enormous event. But the impact the event had on Japan, their economy and their mental state, was obviosly the worst since WW2.

And Fukushima is still not under control.

https://apnews.com/article/world-news-japan-tsunamis-5a5a70d...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-idUSKCN11D0...
I love Casey.
This is about the pilots, not the union, the FAA, or the CEO.

Why hasn't anyone interviewed the pilots? Seems that would clear things up.
Can you point to any instance in history when a stance of "Suffering for thee, not for me!" has actually worked well?

If the people who claim to be leading the movement aren't even willing to take major steps in their own lives to reduce their impact, how are they likely to lead others in that direction? Humans always have been, and always will, remain quite sensitive to hypocrisy.

I can make the best arguments ever heard for a vegan diet, but if I do so while munching a bacon double cheeseburger on the side, nobody is going to take me even the slightest bit seriously.
> If an environmentalist needs to attend a conference where they can better-influence the movers and shakers of the world, then they should take the most convenient form of transport to get there, not a sailboat.

I never suggested they should. But if a climate scientist can't be bothered to do any of the things that would be required from the rest of society in order to fix the "end of the world" scenario, then they'd be a complete nutter to expect other people to jump on board.

The best way to lead is by example, not saying "ya'll need to do all these things that I'm not willing to do myself". That's a strategy straight out of the narcissists handbook, and has a tendency to completely backfire. If we're dealing with something like an "end of the world" scenario, this has got to be the single most insane thing for someone to do, or suggest should be the case. If you care about swaying minds, don't take the "rules for thee, not for me" approach. It won't work and you'll have just as much blood on your hands for being a nitwit.
Your first point is very hopeful, but not what I've experienced. The bigger the company, the more slack for bad decisions.

Your other points I think relate to scale. No advice can be universal, and if you read the article as absolutist, your take makes sense. If you read it as "hey, your mix is likely wrong", a lot of the criticism fades.

I think we've lost a bit of creativity in marketing. The Lego movie example is a really good one. I think it is probably good this happened, as a lot of creativity was performative (how do I win an ad award/impress my peers) and not about increasing sales, but we've perhaps shifted the balance too far, and there is likely some areas with good ROS that are now better bets.
Spot on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SySZdvsFYt4
Are you implying that a picture of an airplane cockpit window with a Don't Tread on me Flag hanging out of it is evidence of a walkout? Then I have another tweet you might enjoy:

https://twitter.com/DogDuffy/status/1442144257498759169
Kurzgesagt uploaded a video about this recently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc
Agreed, and I second the Looom recommendation.
> Source: Quick Google image search for the power sources over time plots.

Which plot did you use exactly? Another comment written before yours seems to indicate it's not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28856599

> Coal was stable for a long time, and is now decreasing.

Over which time period?

The stats in the article they link indicate a switch from 21 to 27% for coal, from 52 to 44% for renewables, when comparing the first halves of 2020 and 2021. If there's a downward trend, it's less than obvious.
Those people generally aren't the ones trying to shame people into making mostly useless actions that don't move the needle. They know full well that the solution involves change at the highest levels. Individual action isn't solving this. Even a general shift in consumer-led actions isn't solving this. The only thing solving this at this point is coordinated, international action, changing how we produce, which is the only thing that will change how we consume at a level sufficient enough to be meaningful.

Think about the difference between how we individually spend time and effort to sort our recyclables, and how meaningless (and even harmful) that turned out to be, when the real problem was that governments weren't cracking down the unnecessary production of plastics.
First, allow me to say that just because something is a theory, conspiracy, or both, does not automatically make it untrue no matter how much that word association may have been tarnished. Being distrusting is a basic human condition honed by evolution. Only short lived and lucky people trusted lions not to eat them. Naturally, some individuals believe every single theory put forward, which is an issue, but it does not mean it is not valid to ask a simple question along the lines of:

"If it was the weather, why is only SW affected?"
So Fukushima did no harm, because the 100 000 people who had to be evacuated were not harmed?
Kurzgesagt: Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc

Link in response to people asking what everyone is doing, should be doing, and can be doing...
In short, because text is much easier to deal with than bitmaps, and there is much more tooling that "just works" for text than actual graphics, like Expecto's textual diffing in assertations. @MayeulC said it well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28856884
Nuclear energy kills about zero person per annum. Coal itself kills at least 50000 Europeans every year. Even taking into account the worst case scenarios such as Chernobyl, coal (and fossil fuels generally) is several orders of magnitudes more dangerous than nuclear.

I just don't get this mindset. People prefer killing literaly millions of persons right now while there's a safer alternative. That's incredible, really.
Indeed there are many funny things in the Business Services Agreement that may be illegal and unconscionable, and such arguments can only be brought forth in binding arbitration.
> after their "weather events" that came out of nowhere.

Yeah complex systems running on a razor's edge NEVER fail! NOAA and all the other weather forecast/data providers are all in on the conspiracy! /s

But seriously, I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my original comment. Thanks.
> We vote for the one we prefer every time we buy something.

Not really, no. We can probably count on more resilient products being more expensive, but we can't count on more expensive products being more resilient. It doesn't work that way. There is really no way for an average consumer to know which expensive products are expensive because they are sold by resilient companies, and which are expensive for innumerable other reasons. Most purchases are made by people who lack the knowledge, experience or training that would be required to evaluate the resilience of a business.

Voting for something without knowledge about that something is farcical. Ultimately this "voting" is little more than rhetoric used to push the blame onto those with the least insight into how the system works.
Likewise. I'm in the market for a new phone. I want to get something top of the line and then keep it for at least 5 years, so good updates etc. But I have serious issues with both Google and Apple at this point.

For me it isn't really the tech companies that need to buy in to make an alternative phone OS viable, but things like banks. Online mobile banking is one of the main things I use my phone for after web browsing and messaging. The probability that it won't work on some third OS is what puts me off trying some of the alternatives.
Congrats on the launch! I know this has been a long time coming for the team, and I'm looking forward to seeing what people build with Cloud!
This is indeed silly, because the zero-day vulnerabilities that the IC exploits provide full kernel-level access to devices, and this just lets you read contacts from an app you install from the app store (which does local API-level surveillance already) on the device.
Sure maybe someone staged it in another similar cockpit around the same time, or did it preemptively and waited for this event. Or maybe it's a fake rendering.

Interviewing the pilots of that day would help, but the media doesn't seem interested in that.
My objection is with the commonly held position that the solution to climate change is to "Sit back, relax, and Vote Democrat." That seems pretty well likely to end up in the same spot as "Doing nothing."
Thanks :)

It's a mission of mine to make (Post-)Keynesianism an essential part of Engineering from a holistic perspective.

The economy won't run at "full speed" left to its own devices, and new technology will have a harder time making it out of the research phase without full speed. VCs, being strictly supply-side, are not equipped to solve the problem. (Trying to do everything from the supply side is like trying to "push a string".)

And from a more personal angle, the "inventor distraught about being misunderstand by the world" is well-ingrained meme now. Better we have the science to understand what's really going on than not.
The policy in question is what Germany should do about its current fleet.

Building new reactors is another question.

There aren't going to be any LWRs started and finished outside of China.

The LWR is doomed by the same thing that stopped the construction of coal burning plants circa 1980. Even if the heat was free, the capital cost of the steam turbine, heat exchangers and other parts that accept large amounts of low quality heat is too high. (Consider that the steam generators in a PWR are much bigger than the reactor core and have to be inside the reactor vessel, be earthquake-proof, ...)

Reactors that operate at a higher temperature such as the liquid metal fast reactor, molten salt reactor and high-temperature gas cooled reactor could be coupled to something like

https://www.swri.org/supercritical-carbon-dioxide-power-syst...

which fits in the employee break room in the turbine house at a conventional nuclear power plant. So long as water is not involved you can make the heat exchangers small as well, see

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5167622

There are difficult challenges to building any "4th generation" nuclear reactor, but they have a chance of being economically competitive, even without subsidies.
This sounds similar to how the 8088 XT motherboards could be toggled with a turbo button on the front of the case.
I've been listening in and also followed the Slack channel. It's organised by (both?) featurestore.org and Hopsworks. Anyways, the format of answering questions in the Slack (this time it's featurestore.org's) after the talks was appreciated.
Hope to get the recordings afterwards..
Indeed, from a specialized use in psychology of German Angst, just as Semaphor wrote
Google strikes back at Epic Games, filing a countersuit for damages
I've read enough of the columns that no, I'm pretty sure I'm not.
Apple definitely needs to improve its processes in order to ensure he and others gets credit.

But he is over-reacting about the confidential line. When I worked at Apple years ago I added a similar line when dealing with external people. And in every email I have sent whilst working for telcos, banks etc over the last decade a similar line has been included automatically at the footer. It's more a boilerplate polite request not a demand.
That's right, and so does generating the electricity to charge the battery. Which is why I don't have stories written about how no CO2 is released as I use my computer from its charged battery. It'd be fair to scorn me if I did.

BTW, I think it's great that this rocket emits almost nothing but steam at runtime.
This is what I call cherry picking just to prove your point. That's a thread where people are giving suggestions on how to mitigate RSI and I gave the solution what worked for me. Didn't say anything that this is the best solution. And also you forgot about strength training and climbing which I mentioned there.

I am always up for constructive criticism but this is not cool
my friend (chinese-american) has a iOS app company that contracts Chinese devs. he has a small team in the US that does gfx design, sw management and marketing. all the coding is done in china by 5-8 devs on contract who knows some english. since he knows Chinese and has Chinese speaking managers they can make it work. he calls it software development arbitrage and he expects it accelerate in the next decade. they are alot of smart and capable sw devs in 3rd world countries that are willing to code for $5-10/hour
> I mean, if it's true I feel like my coworkers who talk about this kind of stuff all the time would trade in their SUVs and start carpooling... You know, actually try to do something about it.

The problem is that no amount of "personal responsibility" is going to put a dent in the problem. The overwhelming majority of emissions come from industry, and the only way industry is going to change is by fiat, and a carbon price is probably the most efficient class of solution.

And this "personal responsibility" mythology is intentionally cultivated by polluters. They want you to think that we can just change our lifestyles, because the actual solutions will invariably curb their profits.

This means that the most effective thing you or I can do is vote, advocate, write our representatives, and donate to political causes, but 3/4 of those aren't outwardly visible to you and the other looks like "comments on the internet" in many cases.

That said, I doubt 7 is the right number. I'm of the impression that the error margins are so large that we're not sure if we're already in "irreversible runaway global warming" territory or whether that remains decades off. Certainly "7" is too precise. In whichever case, urgency is absolutely warranted.
> we need a global reckoning on the tradeoff between efficiency and resilience

Why?

Southwest operates on a thin operating margin. It passes that cost saving (and risk) on to its customers. If someone needs high certainty, there are other providers (and other fare classes), but you'll be paying up for that service and redundancy.

If we were talking about base utilities, I'd get the argument. But passenger airlines?
No other airliner was affected though.
Like Grinnell Glacier (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/grinnell-glacier...)?

"Between 1966 and 2005, Agassiz Glacier lost a third of its surface area. ... Between 1966 and 2005, Ahern Glacier lost 13 percent of its surface area." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_Na....))

Blackfoot and Jackson Glaciers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Glacier#/media/File:...)?

Chaney Glacier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaney_Glacier)?

Dixon Glacier (45%)? Whitecrow Glacier (47%)?

Anyway, here's the USGS on Glacier National Park: https://web.archive.org/web/20120511154502/http://www.nrmsc....

You may be interested in knowing that work on climate models has progressed significantly since the 1990s. Also that Glacier National Park does not have an eponymous glacier.
Buying one as soon as preorders are available in Australia.
Quoting from your link: "It is found that daily extreme wind speeds at 10 m are most likely in the early afternoon, whereas those at 200 m are most likely in between midnight and sunrise"

Ground is irrelevant; there's a reason why wind turbines are being put on top of tall towers.
Controversial take, but even if we had a Fukushima-level disaster every 10 years, and just dump nuclear waste into the ocean (which sounds cavalier and hand-wavy, but we've been doing that for decades no discernible ill effect) - nuclear would still be a better option than coal for base load
It’s just like Apple’s privacy emphasis and then hashing every image with iOS 15. Privacy is just a slogan for a lot of people, unfortunately
Even if true, I'm happy for Shatner being allowed to experience it. He's a major contributor to 10s of thousands of physicists and engineers choosing their career if not more; and this is an awesome gift most, if not all of us, would want, given the opportunity.
These are all gleaned from mistakes I've made or seen made in my career:

. Don't do a good job; only seek to make sure ppl (managers and co-workers) are happy with the job you do.

. Do what's best for you (not necessarily the organization). Aka Resume Oriented Architecture. Aka ROA for the best ROI.

. View being employed as a business. Would you ever start a business to sell to one client? Always be looking for the next client.

. Never document anything. Sadly, the more obscure language/tech/code/artefact you emit, the harder it is to get rid of you. I inherited a whole team that had all the router/switch/etc passwords in their heads "for security reasons". They could not be fired, even for coming in at 10.30am and leaving at 3.30pm, constantly missing meetings, etc.

. Hire someone to replace you once you've built an inscrutable system. You can't get promoted if you still do everything and you can't do nothing (manage) if there are things to do.

. Save and invest often. If you do, by the time someone competent is in a position to see how bad a job you did and bring the hammer down on you, you'll have enough to take up woodworking and occasionally chuckle to yourself thinking about how anyone would ever right the trail of destruction you've left.

. Never tell anyone these things. ;>

/sarcasm
> Mankind itself will most probably survive. How the world will look like fending off a billion people from moving to more moderate climates is a different story I'm still not fully ready to mentally prepare.

I'm pretty sure avoiding exactly the, uh, violent horror that is likely to result from that, is why New Zealand is such a popular place for billionaires to set up their doomsday retreats, lately. Hard to have a crush of unexpected and unwelcome climate migrants rushing over your border when reaching your country requires ships.
According to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...

The current statistical fatality rate for astronauts and cosmonauts is 3.2 percent. Lets give Blue Origin the benefit of newer tech and learning from previous mistakes and say they're twice as safe as any other spacecraft. That's still a 1.6% chance you'll die taking a flight in it.
Apple holds the keys to encrypted iCloud backups.
Sure they are, but in an evolutionary sense not in a scientific sense. Countless theologians have said countless things and most have gone in to the dustbin of history. But the things that resonated or were useful have remained.

Religion is the result of evolutionary processes and like all evolutionary processes it changes slowly and is not perfect. D.S. Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral is the go-to book for this argument and contains a beautiful section that goes like this:

We look at a bird's wing and marvel that it is so wonderfully adapted for flying. But we do not scorn birds for not being able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Their wings never required that to be successful in their evolutionary niches. Why do we look at religion which is also a marvel of adaptation for helping humans live together and get mad at it that it has not brought about world peace? World peace or perfection were never required for them to be successful in their evolutionary niches.
OK, well now you are getting on a different topic all together. I was talking about a poorly run safety net program...there was no need to pay people more money to not work during the pandemic. Want to pay 100% up to a cap then fine...but don't pay them 30% more than what they were making.

Just because people go to college doesn't mean they get degrees...but they certainly rack up the debt. Apply to enough colleges and you will get into one...I guarantee it. My alma mater, a state school had an 82% acceptance rate in 2020. Another local one...Portland State University had a 95% acceptance rate...95%!!!

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/portland-state-3216