skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not a communist (I'm not an ML(M), to be specific) but I do have a self-destructive compulsion to put up tepid contextual defenses of western adversary states like China, Russia, and Iran. I don't think they're universally wonderful places with perfect benevolent rulers, but the way most people here are completely delusional about these countries, from history to present conditions and motivations, can be frustrating. It's a soft (and sometimes hard) chauvinism which is a little sad coming from a group that likes to think of itself as fair and critical thinkers.

Also the implicit dehumanization ("they have no culture") of the people who live in these places can be really disgusting.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/victory-icann-rejects-...
Keeping the plants operational at minimum capacity mean having to pay for them but not being able to use them for real. I don't think it makes economical sense. Though the German energy mix already doesn't make much sense.
The optimistic take is a good one. Thank you very much for your reply.
Not sure why you put private in front of corporations. You should try watching the political stuff the public networks put out in Canada.
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1433836564.0273/raf,750x1000...
The renewables buildout was always tightly coupled with the nuclear phaseout in the political discourse.

The idea that you could've kept nuclear, still have the renewables buildout and close coal early wasn't a political position anyone in any relevant position was advocating for.
Name me one SaaS company that complied fully with GDPR, including the points we mentioned above?
You repeat the same value multiple times (eg "Re1Ra1"), which also implies you are missing some. The square has to contain 36 different entries.
Here's some information about nuclear in terms of safety and environmental cleanliness in the context of other common energy sources (https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy).

From what I can tell from this data as well as other sources I've seen in the past, it seems to be by far the most environmentally friendly as well as the safest form of reliable i.e. non-intermittent energy.
For asyncio side of things there is also Uvicorn (based on libuv/uvloop) https://www.uvicorn.org/
How does shutting down nuclear power plants help us to use less energy?
Germans have also the stereotype of strong environmental consciousness and there still doesn't exist a location for the permanent disposal site of the nuclear waste.
This combined with the experience of botched constructions like the berlin airport and the problems with intermediate storage locations like Asse does not exactly strengthen confidence.

In theory, nuclear power may be safe, but in practice there is still too much room for corruption and bungling, which can have very long-term consequences.
Also lichess.org publishes yearly reports
Sure. But if we create a community of art collectors for whom this sort of shoutout does mean something, then these things start to have concrete value - because you can sell yours to someone else. This means artists now can earn money by selling such intangible works, which strikes me as unequivocally a good thing.
Saltimus Brine...

"Now, All We Need Is A Little Salt And A Lot Of Luck!"

"There's A Thin Line Between Roads Being A Closed, And Roads Being Open."

"One Day, An Plow Truck Will Rise From Our Ranks And Use The Power Of Salt To Clear Our Worst Roads. Until That Day, Til' All Are One."

"Snow Shall Stand, Salt Shall Fall!"
Wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear. There is no solution yet to the final deposition of nuclear waste.
Yes, let's throw out logic and reason in favor of internet satire. That site can be summarized as "take your sandwich, turn it on its side, and BOOM, not a sandwich anymore, bro!" These are world-is-flat arguments.
The same was thought about japanese nuclear power plants
I had some training on video news production, from a guy that does editing for major channels. You simply can't make engaging video without lots of cutting and splicing. You have to re-order segments to make a coherent storyline. All "live" video news is processed this way, otherwise nobody would watch it.

The scales fell from my eyes; that was the beginning of my awakening to the true nature of video news.
Please get your facts right. Coal is rising in Germany.

https://www.dw.com/en/coal-and-fossil-fuel-share-of-german-e...
Aren't we trying to solve the trustworthiness of street interviews?
On Learning Smalltalk
You read it wrong. It's the nuclear SUPPORTERS that are compared to anti-vaxxers, not opponents.
The power at night and when the wind doesn't blow comes from either:

1. Batteries (insignificant)
2. Hydro
3. Nuclear
4. Fossil Fuels

Germany killed number three, and they did not build sufficient hydro or batteries to compensate. That means that they replaced nuclear with fossil fuels.

Now, they might not have built a new cool power plant for every nuclear power plant that they decommissioned, but had they not decommissioned that nuclear power plant, they could have decommissioned those fossil fuel plants instead. That is just as much a replacement in my mind.
there is no such thing as green energy anyway. solar panels need dirty solar cells manufacturing to work. wind power need turbines which means metallurgy which means fossil fuels to make them.
Pinochet was a free market fascist, so state intervention is not really inherent to fascism, and of course all states intervene in the economy in various ways. If there's an essence of fascism that makes it unique, it's the narrative element. "we" are under threat, we need a national rebirth to purify our culture, that sort of thing.

This is the definition I'm drawing from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalis...
my mother is still talking about Chernobyl today, it definitely left a mark especially when you had kids at the time
It doesn't mention that Schröder became a close friend of Putin, runs Russian energy companies and is most likely a multi-billionaire.
Indeed I did. How embarrassing.
Traditional Chinese characters are still used on the Mainland for stylistic reasons, e.g. 為人民服務 "serve the people" in Mao Zedong's handwriting is popular as decoration: http://image.hnol.net/c/2014-02/28/16/201402281653233461-227... (And Simplified Characters get used in Taiwan for convenience, compare 台湾 vs. 台灣 vs. 臺灣 "Taiwan")

Yayue performed at the closing ceremony of the World Military Games in Wuhan: https://bilibili.com/video/BV19E41187ga

Recreation of Tang dynasty dances: https://bilibili.com/video/BV1Lv411Y75s

Poem recited in Hokkien: https://bilibili.com/video/BV1re411s7Tm

Recital of Daoist classics (warning: loud!) Subtitles are in the bullet comments: https://bilibili.com/video/BV1N7411t7fJ

Okay, I couldn't find anything about Xi Jinping visiting Confucian temples, so have some Buddhist monks instead: https://file.dahe.cn/image/jpeg/20210723/1627048785988322.jp...

And the PRC certainly doesn't have a dedicated Ceremonial Official to Confucius.
Uranium will last long enough by itself (around 90 years given current reserves) and far longer (thousands of years) once enough fast breeder reactors have been built to rework spent fuel into new fuel. This also takes care of the problem of storing spent fuel since the remaining waste is both far less in volume (less than 10%) as well as well as has a far shorter half-life. This means the remaining waste needs to be stored for ~300 years instead of thousands.

> Climate change aside (which will kill us all)

That is a religious viewpoint, not based in fact. Either show the proof or retract it, statements like that add nothing to the discourse. It also makes it hard to take the rest of your question seriously.
Oxford, UK | £33-44k full time | Possible remote/flexible (UK only) | Web development (mostly Vue.js).

This post is for the ongoing development of FAIRsharing (https://fairsharing.org). It's an academic salary, but holidays, pension etc. are good.

Please feel free to make any informal enquiries via contact@fairsharing.org.

https://my.corehr.com/pls/uoxrecruit/erq_jobspec_version_4.d...
There's plenty of irrational fears about nuclear power, but there are also valid significant doubts about it. And this isn't really that much about the technology, but especially about everything around it.

We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste, and all the plans decades in making have been thrown overboard entirely a few years ago. This is more of a political failure, but if we can't manage to fix this part in decades maybe we shouldn't produce even more nuclear waste we have no place to put.

How economical is it, if you include the costs of removing the irradiated plant in the end. It's kinda impossible to get unbiased numbers here as everyone has an agenda, but you can't just ignore that part of the costs and put it on the public.

The safety is a combination of the technology and the people and processes running the entire thing. I personally the technology is probably something we could figure out well enough, but I don't have that much trust in the softer parts here for a technology where you have a very small risk for a very large amount of damage.
4 highly skilled workers. Imagine how much 4096 workers would cost?
Actually, we have been building and using coal and gas firing plants more excessively ever since the decision to shut down nuclear power. Right now, at least 19 gas-firing plants are being planned, most of them new plants[1]. It is true we also increased the amount of renewables, but those cannot provide the base load capacity continuously.

German Greens want you to believe we (Germans) are heading into a "right" direction and go 100% ecological, but they conveniently forget about that.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_und_im_Bau_bef...
Except they built them in a place that's pretty known for earthquakes. An earthquake in Germany sounds like science fiction.
9.0 earthquakes and tsunami's are not that common in Germany.
And if the German way to run a secure nuclear facility is to shut it down, that may also tell you something.
> compared nuclear supporters (ludicrously) to anti-vaxxers

> Both refuse to accept the views of scientists.

Are a lot of mainstream scientists against nuclear?
You've answered several questions I had recently, amazing thank you.
> they are one of the largest exporters of electricity in Europe

any source for that claim?
I will check it out.

Thank you!
If you're willing to do things like extract uranium from seawater (which IIRC is about 10 times more expensive than mining, but the cost of mining uranium is not a significant fraction of the cost of running a nuclear power plant) and reprocess used fuel, there's enough uranium for the next hundred thousand years.
I know you're probably joking, but its not. Those are real quotes from the case.
Thanks! :) I can now better appreciate the tennis game :P
I think you are confused? The quote is about nuclear supporters being ludicrously compared to anti-vaxxers. And from your comment it seems that you agree that nuclear power is safe.
Its control laws were even derived after observing an actual helmsman.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller#Origins
I think Monero is closest to the original cryptocurrency dream. Not perfect but closest. It has ASIC resistant algorithms to make mining with normal CPUs feasible.
Hopefully the few computers needed do not use generalist OSes and aren't connected to the Internet either ?
Thanks for sharing that. One thing in common, there certainly were a lot more hats!
I think this is what you're trying to do:

Y = (X + information) + X diff Y
(This is kind of golden ratio-ish, imo)

It seems to be self referential which doesn't make it impossible, just maybe impossible.

I think the trick here would be calculating the lower bound of a massive block of text that could be encoded somehow to produce a sort of hash collision.

The program would essentially just read from a big chunk of text, and reconstruct the actual source code.

You'd have a separate program to read the previous text, read your program, and find a collision in your encoding scheme that satisfied your changes and also diffed correctly.

What that encoding algorithm is, I don't know, and I'm not sure it can exist. But if it does, I think you'd have to have to have a pretty big chunk of data to collide to even write a hello world program.

This is a pretty interesting problem, but I bet it can be reduced to a simpler computability/information theory deal. I'll be thinking about this all day.
Delivery wagons might be drawn with a team of two or even four horses (or even bullocks). You'd want to be able to turn them around in such streets. Certainly that was the case for Australian country town main streets laid down in the 1800s
Passing around PHP files via email is functionally equivalent to passing out mix-tapes on street corners. Not a good tactic when a record label right around the corner will give you world-wide distribution for free. The only string attached is you'll have to rely on others of which you know very little, if anything.

I do not recommend being consistent with that position in other areas of your life otherwise you might quickly find yourself in a jungle, starving and naked. Given that relying on others for shelter, food, or clothing is clearly out of the question!
You don't get it because you don't know the facts. Nuclear was replaced by renewables and their coal use is way down. They also started the coal phase out which will run on a schedule just like the nuclear phase out.
Here we are, talking about the waste, even though the waste is pretty easy to deal with. That's what it accomplished.
You know that are reactors that burns long life nuclear waste ?
> Vegans don't eat meat eat even though the human body is clearly a machine designed to eat meat. Why deny nature?

It was not designed, and neither did it evolve into a machine designed to eat meat. Those would be cats who are obligate carnivores. We are omnivores (as is pretty much everything — digesting meat is much much easier than digesting plants).
> The EU is now completely dependent on Russian goodwill to power their infrastructure for the next few decades, and have given up all leverage they had to push back on Russian power plays

An important datapoint here is that ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder moved on to the board of Nord Stream AG and of Rosneft, after pushing for building the Nord Stream pipelines.

How this didn't get Germans out into the streets, I have no idea.
As a German I (mostly) welcomed the plan to shut down the nuclear power plants (at least the majority of those) that we have. Not because of fear but because the plants that are/were in operation are in terrible shape and predate back to the 60s and 70s mostly, with some exceptions. This is true for almost all of western Europe, too.

I'd welcome building new modern ones as a substitution, though. Just look at what Asia, specifically India, does right now. Oh, and please shut down all fossil fueled plants with no exceptions forever.
Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.sv... shows 1990–2020. There _is_ a slight uptick of fossil fuels in the immediate short-term of the 2011 phase-out plan, but it's they're now below the levels they were at then.

But, as others have said, if they'd maintained the level of nuclear generation the CO2 emitting fossil fuel plants could've been shut down instead.
I don't think HN influences "public opinion".
Nice source. What I dont understand is: How did nuclear power grow so much last year—and how was there so little growth in renewables?
I was in Minneapolis a few months ago and grabbed a Lyft. I started talking with the driver about crime surges, mainly the dramatic car jackings increase. He said 22 people he personally knew have been victims of car jacking in 2021.

They are organized and setup drop off points to box the cars in. The 'passanger' then holds them at gun point and another person gets in the driver seat.

Stolen phones and credit cards are also being used for this.

Its out of control. Multiple Amber alerts issued with infants or toddlers in the back seat from separate car jackings are increasingly common. A few days ago another happened.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/01/07/1yearold-missing-in...
I think the crab bucket of cynicism that is HN often forgets just how successful the internet has been, in terms of increasing productivity, educating people, inspiring them and bringing them together.

I also think humanity still at the beginning of that process, not the end. The internet has just gotten big enough and popular enough to be truly dangerous, that's what's required for it to be truly revolutionary in the way the printing press and radio once were.
I don't get the positivity surrounding nuclear power and the claim that antipathy is akin to antivax idiocy.

* It's eye wateringly expensive both to build and to decommission. Solar, wind and batteries are cheaper. Hornsea 2 produces the same power as a nuclear plant at half the price and with surprisingly low intermittency.

* Even if it were the same price, nuclear takes decades to build rather than years.

* Despite constant claims of its safety you wont find an insurance company in the world that will insure one without 99% of the cleanup cost being borne by taxpayer. Nuclear plants simply dont get built without taxpayer insurance and the nuclear industry refuses to take that risk themselves.

* If current history is anything to go by the risk of disaster is about 1 in 4000 per reactor year and the cleanup cost in Japan is around the $600-800 billion mark.

* It is possible to supplant it with green energy and Germany has done exactly that, which is why emissions have gone down.

* The idea that spending more money on a more expensive and slower to build form of green energy will help speed up the green transition is dubious at best.

Why is it so popular in spite of this? It helps offset some of the costs of having a nuclear arsenal (or puts you on the road to having one). This is a large part of why the US, China, UK and France are happy to pay up and take the risks while Germany and Japan threw in the towel.
The slower phaseout of coal is about employment and, to a lesser degree, regional "identity" issues far more than energy.

The coal industry was at some point the country's largest. It's also older than all other in the industrial sector, since coal was the raw material fueling the industrial revolution.

As such, it became the raison d'etre for whole regions. The Ruhr area in west Germany grew from Iowa-level population density to New York State levels on coal. Unions, as a concept, got started in the coal mines. I recently saw a bunch of news broadcasts from the late 80s/early 90s and among 10 of them, eight or so featured labor issues in the sector. Until reunification, it was the most salient issue in politics.
Yes, I misread it. My bad.
There may be a reduced need for final deposition, if the successive generations of reactors are good enough at recycling the fuel used by the earlier generations. I'm not sure what the limit for that is, but it might be possible to cut down on waste by a huge amount.
The same website has the price for Natural gas for 30 years. https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=natural-ga...

Natural gas prices were a lot higher multiple times in the past, with no corresponding peaks in Urea prices. Just wondering if Natrual gas is the sole reason or if something else also is at play.
They are, it’s a fact.
The problem with nuclear energy in Germany is, that "the big four" (energy companies) have filled their pockets with sweet, sweet nuclear-power-money and have externalized all the other costs since the beginning.

Insuring a nuclear power plant would cost 72 billion Euro/year [0] which gives a hint about how costly (and impactful) nuclear energy really is.

Also there's not really a lot of Uranium on earth. Take [1] for example and this impressive quote: "Given these projections, the uranium resource base [...] is more than adequate to meet low and high case uranium demand through 2040 and beyond. Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base"

So, 2040 is not that far, and if we build more nuclear power plants we get into that "high demand" area where we'll use 28% of all found Uranium by 2040.

Ok, maybe we find more, but maybe we won't. Water, sunlight and wind on the other hand... Not sure if we can run out of those easily.

Renewable energies are the one and only way to go. What's missing is smart(er) grids and sustainable, efficient and powerful solutions to save power once we create more than we use.

Why are those missing? Because nobody (as in the "the big four") needed those, when you could just burn more coal or build another "money printer" aka nuclear power plant.

So, nuclear energy in Germany is also always a long story of corruption and lobbyism par excellence.

[0] https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761...
[1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium...
Why do you need oil if you have electicity for dirt cheap? Expand the power lines and push for electic motors everywhere. Also I'm pretty sure running current through a big transistor dissipates plenty of heat, I mean, you know about electric stoves right?
This is a short-term development over a couple of months. You will always have ups and downs of all sources of energy and if you look into a short amount of time you can find any energy source growing or declining to support your argument. But the relevant question is what development is happening in the long run.

The third graph here gives you a good idea of the longterm developments of electricity generation in Germany:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
And why you need any electric central connected to internet ?
There are some great recent counterexamples to this. Here are two: when Steve Jobs took the helm of Apple in the early 2000s, and Elon Musk with reusable rockets and rebooting space in general.

We seem wired to rally around leaders to get things done. Most people seem to wait around to be told what to do. This makes modern people very uncomfortable (for some very rational reasons) to the point that we engage in denialism about it.

In ancient tribal societies with group sizes close to Dunbar's number, this probably worked out much better than it does now. People had direct relationships with the leader and could see clearly what was happening, and if a leader lost favor they had to face people directly. Sometimes the results were brutal.

In modern society we have systems so large with so many layers of social and economic abstraction that it's very easy for leaders to abuse their power and to hide that abuse for a long time. It's also very easy for leaders to lose sight of the "ground truth" and/or for the people to lose sight of what the leader is doing. I'm sure sometimes leaders don't set out to abuse their power but kind of "back into it" for various reasons. It gets pretty dysfunctional but when you think about it it's kind of astounding that we are able to scale at all to societies this large given our species' background.

Edit:

I also wonder if there's an ego protecting mechanism at work. When Elon Musk says he's going to build a reusable rocket, we can get behind him and work for him... but if the effort fails we can blame the whole thing on him. If we succeed the leader gets the credit, which is the part we hate, but if we fail the leader also gets the blame.
Yeah, you just build peaker plants to help renewables. What are peaker plants? Fossil fuels (natural gas)
Heating water with electricity and with it homes is a solved problem.
Its the same in Python (at least with standard virtual envs)- you can pin libraries, but dependencies of the libs are not pinned, and you can get different versions based on which lib is installed first.

Im told poetry fixes this, but havent checked it myself