skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
it kinda has - we use gunicorn with fastapi using the uvicorn asgi workers

https://fastapi.tiangolo.com/deployment/server-workers/
Most sources I found on the topic seem to be as diverse as this one: [1]

The estimates range from 80 years to hundreds of thousands of years, depending on the assumptions made, including: Possible sources (land mining, sea refining), current consumption level, efficiency of reactors. Where it is approximately this:

Mining land uranium at current consumption (i.e., no new nuclear): 80-250 years.

Refining uranium from sea: 5000-500.000 years.

Overall, it seems to me that just assuring that we have resources for hundreds of thousands of years is a bit misleading or at least undisclosed strong optimism.

I'd be happy to have a more scientific source with reliable information.

[1] https://bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-uranium-is-left-in-t...
There have been fairly large (VEI 6) volcanic eruptions in Germany fairly recently (at least by geological standards):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See
I have been using the async/await syntax in C# for more than ten years and never had a problem with it.

What is your point?
Ah yes, I missed that, sorry

Also, my 230 is better ;p
Here's a radical idea: Maybe your potentially dangerous industrial machinery does not need to be directly connected to the internet?
Chernobyl right now is biggest/safest wildlife preserve in Europe.
It was right after the Fukushima disaster which was a last straw. Press coverage of nuclear energy by then was mostly negative thanks to Greenpeace and their campaigns against disposal of nuclear waste, history of Chernobyl explosion was still fresh, so politically keeping nuclear afloat was a risk.
And of course, when calculating the real costs (i.e. including long-term nuclear waste storage and monitoring) it appeared not so attractive option to keep it.
That propaganda hit piece was already posted elsewhere and I commented:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29881075

Please be specific which statement you disagree with.
This is not even a question, being born into a life of slavery and ultimately being slaughtered is worse than not being born. Think about it, you are born into a prison and given no chance to even develop a proper consciousness. This is very different than a fully aware human getting locked up in a prison.
Do we – if we build up Nuclear ten-fold? Looks like we've used ~3Mt up to now over 60 years. IAEA says there's 60Mt out when including 'unconventional' resources: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE1843_web.pd....

Now, if we use 30Mt for the next 60 years, it doesn't look like enough Uranium for the next 1000 years... (even without considering the fact that those 50Mt of uncovential resources are probably not usable)
Github uses harddrives, and I believe SQL servers do as well, and you will (should) worry about them by proxy instead of directly.
If you believe someone else (github, or whatevercloud) is going to care more about your data on their drives, than you about your data on your drives, well, best of luck :)

Still, it might make sense to use a database to store your documents, depending on your situations, like, is a receipt a text document or an image?

What are the access patterns you expect? Is it write and forget, or will you access it once a year, or once each hour? how searchable do you need it?
What is large amounts? Terabytes? Petabytes?

A nice directory structure could still get you very far, depending on your needs, maybe even one with accompanying database for use as a searchable index to find the document (file) you need.
> We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste

https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
> Can you cite some examples?

Alongside the other examples in this thread, Donald Trump lost at least $1b during the first two years of his term.

> If it were easy, presumably a lot of people have done it.

The easiest way to lose a billion is to start with more than a billion, and there aren't really a lot of people in that position.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...
What's the obsession of the Economist with nuclear power? At this point it's legacy technology; no one is building a nuclear plant with a 50 year lifecycle for many many billions if you have to expect that it is going to be entirely supplanted by regenerative power within half of that. To produce power at a price point that is already not viable today.
You have to remember that Germany is no longer a country. It is a state in the European Union and a member of the Eurozone.

The French do nuclear power so the Germans don't have to. Except the French are not doing enough - despite being the biggest exporter of electricity in the region.

Similarly California could be 'nuclear free' and put all the nuclear power stations in Oregon.

Germany is still the second largest net exporter of power - primarily to Poland.
“Weve never had a vaccine that was 100% effective at doing either of those things” is a huge cop out.

It’s true, but we’ve had plenty of vaccinated that were 90%+ effective compared to the Covid vaccines at 30% for infection risk.
> ps apach* | kill

Not in Linux, because it calls native binaries there.

> gci -rec | ? name -like zabb*.deb | % name

Yep, even simpler. Just the original example was with regex, so I made a comparable regex example.

> $ env | grep -w PATH | tr ':' '\n'

Today it occurred to me what you can just use split:

( env ) -match '^PATH' -split ':'
Euler was so successful and prolific that the list of discoveries named after him is huge.

So big, in fact, that a great many things are named after the second person to discover them.

He's one of - if not the - greatest mathematicians in history.
Why «irrational»? It just to add color to your message, or you truly believe that radiation contamination is harmless?
I always found it (vaguely) interesting that people from both Taiwan and Hong Kong refer to PRC China as ‘mainlander’. But I see how it makes sense.

> At the end of the day, Taiwan culturally has more in common with the mainland than, say, Hong Kong does

As a western for some reason I thought this would be the opposite.
It's not impossible to purpose-build hardened, incompatible, read only systems that can submit telemetry to the outside world while only providing actual control on-site (or via restricted channels). Stuxnet wouldn't have happened (or would have been a very rare event) if they built their system this way.
What I'm seeing in those graphs is the same. Coal use rising from 2019 to now.
My pet theory: Moxie is a CIA plant.
I see this as a combination of Germans valuing risk aversion more than progress on just about any topic, including reducing carbon emissions combined with an extreme NIMBY / not-invented-here mindset.

The Greens will tell you they can run the country on renewables but will then sacrifice energy independence when the can't make up the difference between supply and demand.

This is why Germany has the most expensive energy costs in Europe. This is why Germany can do exactly nothing to keep Russian interference in-check. And it is also why they continue to prop up coal-produced energy production while still thinking they can lecture other countries on how to achieve sustainable and renewable energy independence.

The stereotype of Germans being driven by science is simply not true (anymore). It has been replaced by complacency and the inability to be optimistic about the future.
There was a HN discussion[0] on this back in 2020.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25226513
meh. green != free lunch
Not only cyber. A nuclear power plant makes an excellent target for terrorism or war.

Even if the attack is completely unsuccessful it would cause panic.

Furthermore, highly centralized electricity generation makes the distribution network very vulnerable as well.
The cost of renewables increase as their fraction of the overall mix increases, i.e. When the fluctuations become harder to be balanced by other sources, and more and more energy storage is needed to handle the fluctuations. Energy storage in that large of a scale is very costly and impractical. In reality what will happen is more and more natural gas usage, which is a bad thing.
> 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.

Some sources on that:

For example, the Biblis NPP does not have any spatial separation of the power supply and control cables. A scenario like the one that actually occurred at the U.S. nuclear power plant at Browns Ferry on March 22, 1975, would therefore also be possible at Biblis: When searching for an air leak, the controller used a burning candle. The cables were surrounded by foam, which ignited on the candle flame. This was not detected until the foam was already burning and significant damage had already occurred to the power supply and control cables. As a result, the power failed and almost all of the plant's emergency cooling systems of the reactor were no longer functional. Only one emergency cooling system was still available in Unit 2. Without adequate cooling, a meltdown can occur because radioactive decays in the reactors continue to generate such high heat after shutdown that reactor vessels could not withstand it. In the case of Browns Ferry, a meltdown was prevented because two condensate pumps that were present but actually intended for normal operating for the normal operating system were switched on.

It's translated from a study on nuclear power plant insurances [0]. The section section about the security dangers of nuclear power plants was really interesting to read. The study also talks about things like rocket launchers aimed at nuclear power plants, the damage airplanes can inflict on them, risks of insider attacks, as well as the costs of a nuclear catastrophy. It's a good read if you know German.

[0]: https://www.bee-ev.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Studien/110511...
I assume you never worked in security.
It's even more fun when you upload your code directly to an FTP server and some of the customers load their page to see hundreds of lines of stack traces because when the script was executed it only saw half of the uploaded files at the same time.
Neal Stephenson Thinks Greed Might Be the Thing That Saves Us
What is the alternative to nuclear power for Germans?

People want to control carbon emissions, people want clean power, people want cheap power, people don't want to take any potential (small) risk.

That is really hard.
Boulder Valley faced lowest home inventory, highest pricing in Dec
IIRC, some nuclear readout panels were accessible over the public internet using badly secured VNC, so I think that's not the case.
> And how we heat our homes with nuclear?

Resistors and/or heat pumps.
https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac... if I interprete this correctly, it doesn't work.
Actually the full "product life cycle" of Nuclear apart from mining is fully publicly discussed in Germany. I think the most interesting parts are recycling stages - if done - and (tentative) final storage. Both are a disaster especially the latter one. The infamous Asse II salt storage has severe problems with water influx which was up to 12 m^3 per day and 30 leaks at some point. Even the proponents of Nuclear don't want a final storage in their Bundesland.

Also there have been several accidents independently in Fukushima, 3 mile Island and of course Chernobyl. Even more modern reactor designs solve some failure cases but really not all.

Germany is already at almost 50% renewables. That's practically risk-free and the technology is there. I mean just look at all the battery tech craze. That said, Nuclear is heavily subsidized and no insurance in the world insures a Nuclear reactor.
Sure, but emergent bad actors exploiting features of a system that pay them are kind of inevitable, faceless, and there's an endless supply of them. The internet would be a very different place if it wasn't for this phenomenon of human behavior.

Google are just the most powerful and most visible actor in this, and replacing the early less profit orientated web with a dark forest of advertising and tracking is to a great extent on them.

(I don't think the web3 people have realised how important it is that the cost/benefit ratio of "ham" (good content) needs to be above the cost/benefit ratio of spam, by quite a large margin, or spam drives out ham)
That's just Q3 2021 compared to Q3 2020.

https://energypost.eu/germany-2021-coal-generation-is-rising...

The money quote:

Similarly, by the end of June 2021, generation from coal-fired power plants was 39 percent higher than in the first six months of 2020. However, generation from coal-fired power in the first half of 2021 was still below the levels seen in 2019.
One of the relevant insurance... well, not companies. A company that acts for insurance agencies and others, doing actuary computations and such. Anyway, one of those was contracted to compute new insurance costs for nuclear power plants in Germany.

If the state no longer limits their liability, but instead applies the same rules to nuclear power plants as it does to other industry, then the average German plants would need to pay €2×10⁹ per year for liability insurance and would have no chance to sell power at anything close to market price.

They can't pay that much because no insurance agency has that scale, so that's out of the question. But even paying the maximum that an insurance agency will accept is out of the question, because even that would make the power too expensive.

My guess is that there'll never be built any, because the renewable fans will make enough noise about this subsidy that the no-subsidies part of the public will be against, and together that's a solid majority.

If the nuclear fans want to build, they have to find safer ways to build and operate, which IMO is an excellent state of affairs, ie. if new plants are built because they're safe enough to insure that's good, and if they're not because they're not, that also good. (I personally suspect that doing it with lower risk requires much research into much more safety-minded organisations than e.g. Tepco was, and if the nuclear businesses have focused on that in the past decade, I haven't noticed.)
There are other means to buffer energy.
> 1) coal use went way down since they decided to switch off the nuclear plants. people assume it was replaced by coal, but this is false

How is this relevant? There is still a lot of coal used and it could be much less if the nuclear was in use.

> 3) phase out of coal was started last year and is on schedule to last until 2038

It's definitely too late for the climate.
Oh, that's easy: Many Germans do/did not see Russia as the big bogey the Americans are - especially in times when the US is a less than reliable partner. Those Germans do think that a mutually beneficial partnership can be formed with Russia.

Not using the chance of a German-friendly Russian president (Putin served in East Germany) to deepen that relationship is often considered a blunder of the Merkel years.
I'm German and I don't know what we're doing. Prices are insane right now. New electricity contracts cost 45 cents per kilowatt-hour. Heating my home (82 sqm) with electricity costs about 400 euros a month right now alone. This will obviously get better in spring, but I don't know how citizens with lower incomes handle it.
Blow up the planet? This was never a possibility.
Nice find. Are those the same trees?
it's not only that. It's that the radioactive cloud doesn't care about borders
Not sure I would describe a fear of nuclear holocaust as "irrational" - had the Cold War gone hot Germany would have been very heavily targetted.

Mind you, I'm not saying that justifies the current fear of nuclear power but then again it doesn't really surprise me. Maybe it's just a lingering fear of anything with "nuclear" in the name.
Ah, here's the circuit design equivalent of that story: https://twitter.com/dave_universetf/status/14734753486542684...
Without any remainders? No? What would you call these?
Isn’t that mostly a middle ages creation? The whole Dante’s Inferno and related imaginary is not based on canon as far as I know.

Jesus was much more practical in my view and placed much more emphasis on helping others through real means.
Tell that to the victims of that catastrophe.
Fair Trade Software License
Most of Pythons standard library is sync, the minute you want to use a sync api from within async/await code it becomes a nightmare to manage.

If you are only using async library’s then async/await works perfectly.
Coal might not be rising as an industry but last year i'm pretty sure they had to spin up previously-closed coal plants because wind/solar wouldn't produce the required energy.Now in what universe is permanently shutting down all fossil fuel based energy sources a good strategy?It just becomes a national security risk.

And by the way for the climate-caring crowd: why haven't germans stopped N.S 2 with russia if they care so much about the climate?This is both an environmental and geopolitical hypocrisy: let's stop the entire continent more or less consume fossil fuels while we ourselves get it;oh yeah: and also becoming more reliant on russia while criticizing them at every step because that riles up our citizens and we earn easy poltical capital.
I don't think ICU's are 100% full. There's also a double whammy where hospitals are reducing beds because of staffing shortages directly caused by Omicron infections.
Why would you need (that much) oil when you can run passenger cars, trains, industrial processes, and house heating using electricity? The remaining fuel will be required for only a handful of things, with main consumers being aviation and other transportation where Li-ion is insufficiently energy dense.
No - anonymous accounts are good for privacy. If you're contributing information about something, having that information index-able is just common sense.
"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."

Presumably the government entered those contracts willingly, though. I don't understand this framing of "have filled their pockets". If you really believe the money was squandered, blame the politicians giving it away, not the energy companies.

"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."

Just like peak oil that never happened? But even if we run out, they keep saying we have 10 years to prevent a climate catastrophe, so 20 years would buy us a lot of time in comparison.

"a long story of corruption and lobbyism"

Corruption in what sense? Lobbyism is not illegal, and in fact presumably necessary. The greens are also "lobbying" for solar power and wind power.
i think the argument goes that all human culture is remixed from human culture. if you write a book it's safe to say you have borrowed from other works of culture. you might have put a new spin on it but that isn't to say you have created something wholly new. how could you possibly claim to have crated a new artistic work uninfluenced by previously created artistic works? thus how much of this work do you truly own?

when you look at the Disney animation classic's back catalogue you see an awful lot of work from the commons. does this not display the value of having these works in the commons?
Anti-nuclear sentiment predates the Simpsons by at least two decades.
Heating a home with electricity is simply immoral. It's all the emissions of burning coal, multiplied by 3 due to generator and transmission losses.

Besides, energy prices saw a steep rise in all of Europe, so it doesn't make much sense to blame the end of nuclear energy for it.

Also, just a single reactor has shut down so far, 11 days ago. A single plant shutting down isn't enough to influence prices to such a degree. Besides, prices were at current levels well before that.
Fukushima weathered both a record breaking earthquake AND a record breaking tsunami simultaneously.

And still there were only a handful of deaths directly caused by it.

More people die because of wind turbines every year.
His point seems to be that mixing async and sync code in Python is a nightmare. I'm not sure how the fact that you do not observe the same issue in C# (a totally different language and runtime) is relevant?
german here. i’ve been to some anti-nuclear protests in my time, and i still think it’s dangerous technology. i still think it should not be termed “sustainable”, mainly because of the unsolved waste question, but also in a small part because of the large possible damage from, admittedly unlikely, accidents.

however, i do recognize the dilemma of having to go emission-neutral, like, you know, yesterday, and not having the technology to power everything from truly renewable sources right now. from what i hear it would be possible for germany to do without nuclear (unlike, e.g. france, who are highly dependent on it), with feasible effort. a problem with nuclear power plants is the timescales involved for building, running to break-even and deconstructing such a plant. almost all other power sources have less “inertia” — you can put them up and tear them down and clean them up much quicker. that’s my main worry, that continuing with (and re-investing in) nuclear will carry us on a trajectory that makes us stay with it out of laziness and investment/revenue interests longer than strictly necessary.

i also do realize that my opinions are also a product of the culture that i come from, and that i might be rationalizing, but i am confident that people do underestimate the nuclear waste issues because of the timescales involved.
That's low risk but inefficient because it fails to exploit market movements. People say the markets are unpredictable but somehow people managed to automate trading. There must be some method to it.
nuclear is far from dirt-cheap. And we don't currently do it in Germany (France does and its grid nearly goes down every other winter). So, where will we get all this fresh uranium from (and the reactors to stick it into)?
More often it is because both inputs apply some speed. Like in doom.

https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Straferunning
We do get alone quite well at least in my circle. In my opinion people from Taiwan are actually more tolerate and warm than us. But increasingly young people from mainland are catching up and becoming more international.

I can't imagine how anyone from taiwan could naturally be 'Pro' chinese gov (given the media portrait and long history of rivalry), they would more likely support either 'green' or 'blue' camp, who will act on behave of people to interface with mainland policies.

The difference is some of my close Taiwanese friends are very weary of the political shows as they believe it is highly industrialised consumable entertainment while in the mainland people are quite innocent and audience are not mature enough and easily stirred up emotionally.
My reply is essentially the same as to your sibling comment—yes, the situation does improve moving forward, and yes that's great; I'm not arguing it's bad. I'm just saying I have yet to see much evidence of retroactive corrections like deletion of existing data.
Is there no way to serve a legal notice to Google in this case? I reckon they are bound to respond once their lawyers get involved..
Extracting Uranium from sea water might solve the fuel problem but it does not deal with the waste problem. Breeder reactors can deal with both by reworking spent fuel into new fuel and a bit of waste. The resulting waste has a far smaller volume and shorter half-life which means it needs to be stored for hundreds, not thousands of years. Combining the two - Uranium from the sea plus breeder reactors to rework spent fuel - should last until either nuclear fusion has become practical or our species has left this planet.
"I think Coolsville sucks!": https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-think-coolsville-sucks