skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> How would you prevent one of these collectives from, say, inventing an iPhone and monetizing it?

You don't.

> aren't you back to square one again?

No, why would that be? We live in a world with a million top down owned capitalist corporations. If by some mass movement we get a few thousand collectives to band together, there will always be churn. Groups that dissolve, or change their aims, or seek profit over the cohesiveness of the group. You would do the same thing with them as would have been done at the beginning. Do you best not to trade with them. If you actually need what they have on offer, clone it. But the whole point of this system is to create some semblance of independence. Either people value that enough to stick with it, or they don't. IMO it's worth trying even if it might fail.
Don't forget to buy a $DEFINITELY_NOT_A_SHADY_VPN subscription and use promo code OMEGAGRINDSET to get a 5% discount!
OK the main discrepancy is from the Data center calculation. The Galaxy PDF lists the top 100 banks as owning $70Tn of deposits. I calculated using the galaxy energy number but divided by total deposits wheras I should have only used the data for the top 100 banks as they did.

I think your calculation of 3.5 Wh/$ is closer to the real number. When I put $70Tn instead of $404Tn in I get 3.71Wh/$
Linux is easily the worst (well, at least Ubuntu and Mint) with respect to Bluetooth pairing and remembering it for me.

I use a multi-device Bluetooth keyboard to switch between a Windows laptop, Ubuntu laptop and a MacBook Pro almost daily. So when I tap the button in the keyboard to switch, it takes 5 seconds to connect (if it connects) on Ubuntu, almost instantly in Windows, and couple of seconds on Mac.

And Ubuntu laptop cannot do wakeup from sleep with Bluetooth keyboard or mouse even with tons of tinkering with the /usb/devices/*/power/wakeup conf and in /etc/rc.local and /etc/init.d.
I spend 6 to 8 hours sitting at the computer thinking about C++. 3-4 hours then sitting in a cafe seems like a sweet deal.
I don't think the applications for nuclear energy were rejected for the reasons being implied by the original article. This article[1] mentions that they weren't accepted because they missed the submission deadline.

> According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, “All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected.” However, it seems some of that may be due to miscommunication regarding application deadlines for the COP26 Green Zone.

I couldn't find the original source for the miscommunication on application deadlines, hopefully someone can find it.

[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3188/controversy-over-nucle...
Nuclear fusion is upcoming for 30 years and we did tiny steps so far.

Except if there is a breakthrough, it will take so much time (if it works at all) that we will need new nuclear plants.

The safety and ecology of nuclear plants has been discussed to death. I much prefer to live near a nuclear plant than anything combustion.
Start with Microservices. Don't Start with Microservices
No, they're not what-about answers. They're cause and effect. Germany's coal sector is growing BECAUSE of shutting down it's nuclear sector.

The other points are simply false (nuclear waste isn't dangerous for nearly as long, and his CO2 comment is actually a "what-about" complaint as a reason to not want nuclear power).
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/

tl;dr it’s a cult based on fantasy and misconceptions and greed, rather than a cult based on superstition and power.
Can you share what is your storage solution that will be needed to make renewables without coal and gas practical? Where can I see storage handling gigawatthours to terawatthours in the real world?

Or are you relying on some magical technology we don't have?
Yeah. Found more application level screenshots at this page: https://lumina-desktop.org/features/
I read my comment again and I'm not sure how you got from my comment to writing what you did. I think we have a communication problem or a comprehension problem.
A suggestion, please do not hide important stuff inside hamburger menu.
One small thing: spell referrer correctly.
> Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide that.

That's true of current nuclear, but it's not an intrinsic property of nuclear power. Proposed plants that use molten salt as a working fluid, for example, give you the option to run the plant all the time, but at any given time either use the heat in the molten salt for power generation immediately, or move the molten salt into a storage tank for later use. Molten salt is already used this way in concentrated solar plants, and works fine for that purpose.
I've lost 30 kg this last two years ( 30 years old -> 32 years old).

I did it counting calories (eating less than 1800 per day), register the calories of everything you eat. It's quite easy. Start with 2100 or so and then go removing, it's incredible to see how much caloric intake we have once we start recording...
No. That might have been where you first saw the concept applied, but a walled garden is a commercial ecosystem that is deliberately closed to foster a sense of value and exclusivity, usually in spite of no technical reason for it.

Walled gardens are inherently anti consumer market plays that make things worse for everyone except the people milking money from the idiots paying into the walled garden.
China can build nuclear power plants and indeed is building a large number of them.

But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.
Reading the "What is OpenSim" page on your link and... it sounds like the "Metaverse" already exists. The term is being sold like it's a new thing that doesn't exist yet, but it seems like Facebook is behind the times.

OpenSim seems pretty cool honestly. Similar draw as Second Life, in my mind. Though I downloaded Second Life and only played it a couple times.
> And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming?

Fusion is great, and we are making good progress. It could plausibly change everything in a couple of decades. But it is not available today, so we cannot rely on it. That’s the thing when you follow the latest r&d developments: we talk about a technology well before it is useable, so all we can use at a given moment are mature technologies that are old news.

Example with fusion: we’ve been talking about ITER for 20 years, but it’s not finished building yet. Other developments like spherical tokamaks and stellarators are nowhere near prototypes at the industrial scale.

If we are serious about climate change, we need to act now, which means putting in place solutions based on technologies that are already mature and useable. Waiting 10 years for the next fancy energy source with blockchain, or the mythical carbon capture solution (which cannot possibly work with anything resembling the current markets) is reckless.

> There have been news on here, for a newly developed technique to "recycle" and/or to "treat" the nuclear waste by utilizing a collider.

There are much better and cheaper ways of doing that, using breeder reactors. We’re further along the readiness path than with fusion, but they still require some engineering before we can build them.
I fail to see how this represents a theft, if the rubes in question sent their bits to the scammer as requested.
Fair point, but are you really suggesting that it would be reasonable for his family to be on call for a potential two-week notice for over a decade? It seems to me to be a very clear power imbalance here between the parties, where one party with only minimal effort (giving maybe two or three months notice) would make matters substantially easier (and humane) for the other party.
I’m not sure what point you mean to make about Christianity. Judaism is also monotheistic, and predates both Christianity and the Romans. The Romans did not think Jews were crazy. Rome didn’t try to suppress Christians because of their belief in one god. They tried to suppress Christians because of violence and not respecting the state religion.
We already have that. It’s called Java
“Game Development in Eight Bits” by Kevin Zurawek
What is your opinion about the Taubman technique ? rotation and all.

Claims to be very RSI resistant and healthy ?
This is sadly true and frequent downvoters need to have their points halved.
Random anecdote: I keep a couple of milkweeds casually on my 4th story apartment balcony in SoCal and I get many monarchs coming thru, sometimes a handful of cocoons at a time. I got a cheap butterfly enclosure and I put the entire plant in it to keep spiders and the like from getting to them either in the cocoon or shortly after. I purchased the plant only incidentally as it looked nice and the monarchs were a pleasant addition.
Are those interviews pulled from actual past interviews? Or are these deepfakes?
That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.
> * nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage.

Wind and solar aren't that much cheaper (or actually usually much more expensive), when you include the batteries that are required for them to operate as the entire grid. Right now they can only displace SOME not ALL of the energy generation of a country (unless you have huge natural resources of hydro or geothermal energy that can act as that base load). Nuclear is needed for that baseload, or tons and tons of batteries. Taken in that respect Nuclear is cheaper than solar and wind, for that purpose. Grids will eventually need to go somewhere around 80% solar/wind and 20% nuclear/geothermal/hydro (+/- 15%).
> Did you consider they made this decision with full knowledge of the trade offs?

Yes, that would be my general assumption. Why wouldn't i think that?

They are still not caring about a large part of the contents of the resume. Whether that's good or bad, whether they thought long and hard or made that decision on a whim, is totally irrelavent to whether they care about the info in question.
I immediately had the same reaction. Granted I am beginner and more on the pop side of things than classical.

But it still surprises me about the amount of effort to master the instrument.
I think its kind of disingenuous to make such statements. If you see how google is still unable to move from python2 to python3 we will know its a technical problem [1]. And remember chromium is a project with huge number of employee paid with very high amount of renumeration. So the barrier is mostly technical. I think such attitude comes from frustration which gets complemented with time.

I personally think python3, ruby etc. are way better than JS in many case but I think world is a bit unfair due to browser language monopoly here.

1. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=942720
Do yourself a favor and write more thought out comments instead of "go google X" before complaining about down votes.
Maybe this could be approached by compiling the servo browser engine to wasm...
Brands Are Dead; Long Live Ghost Brands
Author here. Your interpretation is about correct.
I have several domain names that I am not using but you're right
Coal was already in reasonably widespread use in industrial processes 200 years ago, and produced unpaid-for externalities then just as it does now (actually worse ones, presumably, given that air quality was not yet regulated in any meaningful way).
The text/enriched MIME Content-type (1996)
> A few years ago Apple introduced a new logging framework called the Unified Logging System, which supports logging with variadic arguments from both Swift and Objective-C. It also supports a host of other features that allow you to categorize and prioritize your log message and, well, it sounds great, but it’s also quite a bit more complicated than just invoking NSLog. It’s complicated enough that I can’t offer a one-line fix for the situation I’ve described here, but I encourage you to investigate your options.
Please don’t fall for the villianization that the media adopt to push an agenda.

Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish.

Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around.

We are in a position today to bring change and I’m all for that. Losing sight of the benefits of energy simply because some sources have a negative connotation attached sets us up for failure.
JavaScript would be murdered over and over again..
The best I had was in a chemical plant. The work was highly intellectual but it also required implementation which you couldn’t do in an office chair.

Probably walked 2 miles a day and stood for about 4-5 hours in periods varying from 30 min to 3 hours. Nothing overtly physical. I have done hard manual labor jobs and they kicked my ass when I was in my 20’s. Couldn’t do it now. Not without some damage.
What with the metaverse title?
Wouldn't the moats, scalability, reliable revenues all contribute to increased earnings and thus (perhaps) lower PE ratios?

Anecdotally, many companies have grown their earnings per share by buying back their stock. That causes an interesting feedback effect as these purchased shares become more valuable as the stock price rises (i.e., the company's book value increases as its stock price rises because they own the shares they purchased.)

I didn't realize that Japan had its central bank buying equities and flooding the market with cheap yen, with only minor effect on the Nippon Index.

I had assumed that the main reason for the U.S. stock market rise since 2008 was both due to low interest rates driving investors to higher returns in the stock market (a self-fulfilling effect) and due to the Fed pumping cash into the economy, which also needed to go somewhere better than banks.

But if that didn't work for Japan, then I have no idea what is going on.

Apologies for talking about markets on HN. But this place is a good one for reasoned discourse, so I hope an exception can be made.
Currently Macron is trying to promote 'french nuclear power plants' and 'small nuclear reactors' across the globe. Both geopolitical opponents and activists are agains this.

https://fortune.com/2021/10/12/nuclear-power-insulates-franc...

French problems in China nuclear reactor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/business/china-nuclear-po...

https://weatherboy.com/as-chinese-nuclear-incident-unfolds-e...

There are multiple nuclear reactors being built in China at present.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
China's nuclear power plants come from the US. Westinghouse's bankruptcy set back the targets for many years.

Of course, the big problem is also geopolitical concerns here.

I would say that India is in a better position here (on geopolitics), however the tech transfer from US even to India has been iffy at best.

Here's a bigger problem - India has set a goal to switch to electrical vehicles by 2030. If that happens, all gasoline/petrol/diesel consumption will switch to coal.

Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms.
Unless nuclear power takes over.
Nuclear power can shed energy as heat with a massive radiator. You don't need to shut it off, you can just "waste it" when there's over supply.
But what is so bad about encouraging people to schedule their energy expenditure?

Charging the electric car during the night sounds like a no brainer for me. Same goes for the water heaters.

The only heavy argument agaisnt nuclear is NIMBY.
A good selftest:
“Show a valid game for 1second, and try to place all the pieces”

If you are pro you can do this easily, even for games with a long game play.

A good chess player will not be able to do the same if the pieces is in random order, not connected to the rules of the game.
The original interview is from the Coinbase Speaker Series from 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shEeqqPqF50

(at least that's what's streaming now, it's a 50 minute interview I assume they're looping it.)

In a bizarre twist, I'm watching this interview because I haven't seen it before. So I'm adding a +1 to the 15,000 of streaming users, which adds validity to the scam. Closing now.
It could both be real and at the same time be true that these people don’t care.

They simply want to use to genuine concern around climate to further their own ends.
Heaven forbid we hurt the government's feelings while they murder someone for carrying a small amount of powder
You need at least 501 karma to get the priviledge to downvote other items.

You also can't downvote if the thread is older than 24 hours and you can't downvote any direct response to your comments.

Therefore, even on your MAC you couldn't downvote either since you are below that threshold.

Furthermore, there's not any official Ycom/HN apps on mobile platforms.
235U may have an impressive energy density, but uranium ore contains very little natural uranium and natural uranium contains very little 235U. According to this back-of-the-envelope calculation [1], a typical energy density of uranium ore is only around 1400 MJ/kg, so only 60 times higher than that of coal.

[1] http://www.plux.co.uk/energy-density-of-uranium/
> I think this would result in protocols over walled gardens.

I don't see how it would. I think it would have led to something equivalent to JavaScript, because that's exactly the route we took to get to here. The WWW started as just documents, and there were plenty of protocols for other internet things. Businesses and consumers (and almost everyone else) want more than documents, and avoiding requiring people to install and run a separate client for every purpose (and requiring developers to build said cross-platform clients) led to plug-ins and then capable JavaScript.
> I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved

No you don't from your arguments.

> The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem.[...], we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now.

That's bullshit. Even nuclear reactors designs from the 70s are statistically safer than coal. And kill a lot less than coal.

> * nuclear energy is way to expensive.

France had one of the cheapest electricity in Europe for 3 decades. Cheaper than anything produced by renewable right now. Nuclear is cheap but at the condition of government loans at very low interest rate and for multiple decades. That's has been analysed and reported many times already.

> Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%.

There is today not a single installation world wide existing of power to gas to the scale it would be needed. And that would anhiliate any hypothetical cost of the renewable energy anyway.
What is it Kubrick wants to learn?

How to use a pc for screenwriting?

It sounds more advanced. Did he want to learn to program for fun? Or did he have some projects in mind?
Well… that’s the very strongest interpretation. I think there are other responses too. One might be “yes, there’ll be some genetic mutations, but environmental progress will outweigh that.” For example, people have more years of education than 100 years ago.

Perhaps a key question will be how genes and the environment interact to produce the phenotypes we care about.
> Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand.

Do most fossil fuel power plants currently serve that purpose? Only running when there is excess demand, instead of continuously?

As long as the answer is 'no', there is no reason to prefer them over nuclear (even ignoring the ways nuclear could be made to load-follow).
Right; Agreed 100%!

Other than requiring little more than average persistence and curiosity, there is nothing "superior" about it. Anybody can learn "Programming". We are natural born problem solvers and the only thing there is to learn is how to instruct a machine to do the same in a structured manner.
Pop science articles like that mistake "proven reserves" with "how much is actually in the ground". When geopolitics talks they look at proven reserves as that's how much we know is available and accessible in the short term, but it's not how much is actually available.

Proven reserves expand whenever there is a shortage as effort is made to find additional amounts of the stuff. Additionally, most countries in the world don't even bother to look as they don't have nuclear technology of their own and there is so little demand for it.

This is why for example we keep finding additional coal and oil as known reserves run out.
Nuclear is totally economically viable. It's not viable in the current regulatorily climate. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will return profits for 80 years is an easy financial decision. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will be shut down by moonbats every 4 years when the next batch of princess unicorns is voted into office is not economically viable.
What particular fingering looks odd to you? The only one I see, for the Invention in D, is basically the same as what's given in the Alfred edition of the inventions (and the Henle, and others...).
If you're concerned about cost when faced with an existential crisis then you have lost the plot.
Anecdotes differ. That’s why data is best for comparing these things. For example I would always take Uber or Lyft some weekends from the airport to the office and it would be around $15. One time my phone was dead, I hailed a taxi and they charged me $50. Haven’t taken them much since that’s been my typical experience.
> This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.
list of places that have that old internet feel:
https://alex.flounder.online/tech/bigandsmall.gmi
Right. And indeed, there is already screening for polygenic scores taking place – something I think is a pretty terrible idea given our current level of knowledge, or rather ignorance, about what most genes do.

I suppose the difference is that in the 1930s there were state-driven campaigns to “improve“ the population, and these led to terrible consequences. What’s happening today is decentralised, and the result of consumer choice – which doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t dangerous.