skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If nukes prevented that many deaths, imagine how many solar + wind will prevent.

The point here is that each $10B spent on new generating capacity displaces some amount of coal generation. If you spend your $10B building nukes, it displaces A million tons / year of coal output, if you spend $10B building renewables, it instead displaces B million tons.

And B is much larger than A, because a GW of solar + storage is much cheaper than a GW of nuke.

The corollary is that each $ diverted from renewables to nukes is not just harmful, but brings climate disaster nearer. Best, of course, would be to stop diverting money to fossils, but all we can do about that is build out renewables + storage as fast as we can. Renewables will be running at 100% at all times, and each kWh produced displaces a kWh of fossil generation.

Displaced fossil generation in most markets is methane gas, because methane gas is cheaper and therefore preferred. But! anywhere coal is being used at all, they will prefer to cut coal output because cutting coal saves more money than cutting gas.

A particularly good example is Germany, where they cannot get enough natural gas to meet their needs, and are burning coal like nobody's business. Every last kWh of renewables + storage that can be put on the German grid, provided it is steady-enough output, displaces exactly that much coal.

The cost of storage is plummeting even faster than of solar or wind ever did, so there is some short-term sense in delaying storage build-out until it is cheaper, so you can buy more of it. But in the big picture, building out storage at any price is much, much better than waiting.
But who knows whether a Covid infectee or carrier used that same shopping cart before you!8-)
And how many times have you seen a shopper finger goods and put them back on the shelf for you or another to unsuspectingly pick up?!

Bwahahahaaaaaaah! Covid strikes again! You cannot get away!
> one for the product and one for something irrelevant like a charity.

Those are extremely different, how does that prove anything?
> the downsides are already widely discussed.

Does anyone have any useful pointers? I'm in such total agreement with the article that I actually don't know the counterarguments.
It's not "lived" so much as "did business" and I think the broad answer has been "stopped being able to renew them".

I know a couple of my clients have basically abandoned domain names, but most British businesses were only holding onto .eu domains for completeness anyway.
>Take the BBC for example, they're as close as I can get to a neutral source but even they have a somewhat left wing bias. It's pretty mild though and they do have some somewhat right wing voices. As a moderate right winger I find it absolutely fine and easy to take into account. The Economist is great, and even the Guardian is worth reading from time to time. It's good to know what people with different opinions are thinking and why.

Actually I would say the BBC is everything but neutral. My partner reads the BBC while I consume more German news and the Guardian. It is often very obvious that the BBC often ignores news that reflect negatively on the UK government, even if they are very prominent in sources from mainland Europe and e.g. the Guardian.
You're describing generally positive traits, not specific to science. Science was pushed forward by many kinds of people, many of them obnoxious, arrogant, racists, etc. You can't disqualify Wolfram as scientist by pointing to his bad personality characteristics.
The other problem is the insane attrition and low tenure rates that directly disincentivizes any investment in individuals.
yeaaaaaaaaah buddy i haven't been in an office since before covid

If you're good enough that they need you, they'll hire you anywhere with a net connection.
I don't like the valorization of marketing over execution. Marketing is essential, but without execution is just brings disaster sooner rather than later.
> why not corner the market by providing non-insulting services to get them the results they need?

That market doesn't exist because it requires buy in from the business, businesses that see the value in targeted and performance driven advertising do it in house because its so valuable, other businesses just don't do it because they see no value in it and they see no value in it because they don't do it.

Advertising works when its targeted but most businesses see advertising as just trying to shout as loud as possible. They take this theory and shout at every one they meet hoping this will convert them to a customer and are amazed when shouting at people has the effect of driving them away rather than pulling them in.

They come to the conclusion that advertising doesn't work not that its there technique, they shouted so loud and at every one how could anyone possibly shout louder or at more people? and when they stopped shouting sales went up! obviously advertising doesn't work.
Very civilisation has its own poison. Romans were eating from lead plates, we used to use lead in car fuel that made us dumb (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220307162011.h...) and now this. If humanity survives we are going to be those crazy dumb people who used plastic.
Recruiting is like fishing. They're not lies, they're lures. I doubt that will ever change. The lesson is don't be a fish.

Hell, I had a recruiter steal contacts from the company we were both working for, and try to recruit me when she had left for another company.
This works if they try to get you to come in right away, but things change and the company is allowed to change a remote position to an in-office position. It can even happen soon after hiring (but is obviously much more suspect). The company changing its mind !== wrongful termination.
I don't think it's lower CO2 emissions that saves lives. It's likely reduced air pollution.

Gas power plants probably have similar properties.
(Not that I would advocate for gas)

In any case, most the problems around nuclear are lack of political will and economies of scale.
ASK HN: does anyone familiar with the matter have access to robust predictive models wrt the impact on health of the expected problems with long-term storage of nuclear waste?

For the german/french speaking part of the audience, ARTE recently uploaded an insightful documentation on the state of nuclear facilities in France (which I found very sobering, to say the least): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXrL4tPMoM -- while that is surely not ARTEs best piece and you get an idea of the redactions opinion through editorialization, it's definitely a recommended watch. The link points to the german version.

Bottom lines:

- nuclear power is not as transparent about the existing impact on the environment as one would think. for example, rivers even in the middle of europe are regularly contaminated with "negligible" contaminants, where what is defined as "negligible" is _not only intransparent, but not publicly known and censored in cases of information-requests, with the given reason being raison d'être of the state (!)_

- the storage-situation is not only not robust (not a single long term storage concept actually proved viable, globally), but much worse than I'd have anticipated

[...] those are the points that immediately come to mind.

My point here is: yes, great, we need to reduce the burden on the environment as much as possible, and _if_ nuclear is the way to go, then please, let's do that. But the unwillingness and lack of competence with regards to the long-term potentials for problems will bite us, and it will do so in more than one way, and I'm very concerned because of it. If the situation in central europe is as questionable as ARTE illuminates, I'm not sure I want to know how bad it is in regions with less political transparency. Hence the initial questions, primarily: who has access to such models?
Chernobyl Was a Wildlife Haven. Then Russian Troops Arrived
You are right of course. Maybe a narrower selection would work, instead of zero access now.
Humanitarian Aid Logistics in Ukraine
We've had three major incidents that come to everyone's mind:

- Chernobyl, involving a reactor that didn't even have a containment dome, and in which the reaction rate sped up as the fuel got hotter. (The opposite is true of all modern reactors.)

- Fukushima, which failed due to a major earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people, while the radiation release didn't kill anyone. The exclusion zone there is only 20 square kilometers. And this was with a reactor design from the 1970s; a nearby plant ten years newer faced the same challenges and did fine.

- Three Mile Island, in which containment worked very well and radiation never went above background levels.

Aside from Chernobyl that seems like a pretty decent safety record to me. By comparison, nobody worries about hydropower, despite hydro having the worst accident of any power plant ever: Banqaio Dam, which killed 26,000 people immediately and another 150,000 or so in the aftermath.

The reason we didn't go all in on renewables earlier was that they were too expensive in the 20th century. Nuclear was not, as proven by France, which converted to 80% nuclear over the course of a couple decades.
Also at Google, and my impression is that during the role posting exercise when the hiring manager is first talking with their recruiter, the recruiter asks which locations are acceptable, and "remote" is an option. Often the hiring manager will say, essentially, "I don't care" because they don't want to artificially restrict their candidate pipeline due to location preference.

Then, once finalist candidates are in/through interviews, the rubber hits the road and the hiring manager realizes they probably actually do have location preference, and pulls the rug out from beneath the candidate(s). What seems like a small detail on the Google side is likely not appreciated for its enormity on the candidate's side, imho.

As a hiring manager and frequent interviewer for other teams, this is my somewhat informed opinion of at least one likely root cause.
OKD is slightly different than the OpenShift (OCP) provided on IBM Cloud. OpenShift is on all clouds but IIRC OpenShift on IBM Cloud receives OCP updates first.
To respond to your edit, I still don't understand this reply. "High information density" is also terrible for usability, that's a great way to make a confusing and cluttered GUI. I would describe most complex Xt programs as being that way.

If you want to reply to deeper comments you can click the "X hours/minutes ago" title on the reply.
Opal | SFO, NYC, or Remote | Onsite or Remote | https://opal.dev

What we do:

At Opal, we’re passionate about helping teams improve their security without sacrificing productivity and speed. We’re focused on building a streamlined access management tool that makes it easy for employees to discover and request access while tracking everything neatly for compliance needs. With one-button approvals in Slack, automated access reviews, and a comprehensive view of resources at your org, Opal is made for modern engineering, DevOps, compliance, and IT teams who want to move fast while checking all the boxes.

Our culture:

We’re a passionate, diverse group excited to be on the cutting edge of access management. We like in-person face time, but we want our team members to work in a way that’s best for them. Some of us are fully remote or working in-person from our SFO/NYC headquarters. Our team is energetic, world class, and excited to come to work every day! If this sounds like you, check out our current openings.

Who we’re hiring for:

Engineering: DevOps Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Software Engineer

Tech stack:

FE: TypeScript/React/GraphQL
BE: Go
Infra: AWS/Kubernetes/Terraform

Job openings: https://opal.dev/careers
I don’t know the specifics on Canadian real estate market and the specifics of the problems there, but based on my understanding of the problems facing your neighbors to the south - I feel like it’s almost an attempt to appease citizens by blaming the issue on “foreigners” (always a move that is popular with politicians) to redirect attention from the much more likely cause - massive investments made by hedge funds, private capital, REITs which does not appear to be addressed at all?

Thought I do agree that a non-primary-resident investment, whether from citizens, foreigners, or capital should be greatly limited overall and these rules should only loosen to direct investment towards areas that are in dire need of an influx of capital for redevelopment. That is - if it’s not distressed, and it’s not going to be your primary residence - GTFO, you should be last in line to buy.

And I say that as former landlord. I just believe that if I was looking to make some money - I could probably do just fine under these conditions. I don’t see an issue of buying a distressed property needing a rehab, and I think doing so benefits everyone.

I am getting real tired of society getting ever more dystopian just so that someone can make a buck.

https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/r...
Be open to having to merge the terse non-academic resume and not-terse academic CV. When a company looks for a scientific developer, particularly if an advanced degree is required, they want to see proof of “science”. In these positions, there’s usually an hour seminar on a research topic similar to a scientific conference (along with the other, more typical interview stuff). In these areas, terse can be read as nothing to say.

I never tried to write a resume. I had a main part of the CV that I tried to keep to 3 pages. I also had a secondary part that collected presentations and publications and the like. This grew over the years and I think it stabilized at 7 or more pages but the time I stopped updating it. But then, I never applied for a non scientific programming position as they saw PhD as a big negative.
I doubt anything I say could convince you otherwise, but I've had no experience at all in 8 years at being "stabbed" in the back. Nor have I any way to prove I am not an evil one. Amazon is large, you may be judging on a small sample size.
Sure but if you're working on a custom softcore processor, there's a lot to do, and a lot to learn, and it's very easy to stall out on boring parts, because in a production setting there is a lot of boring stuff. A C compiler is "boring stuff." Unless your ISA design is non-traditional, for sequential scalar machines I feel you're mostly just doing tedium to emit slightly different instructions from an existing codebase. It's not that it isn't valuable to have a C compiler, it's that for the purposes of learning and absorbing information and new things, someone else has done most of the "learning" parts for you. So you could probably just... do something else.

My opinion here is broadly informed by two things, which is that 1) if you want to write a compiler, you should write a compiler, not just tweak an instruction emitter (yes I know that's actually a very common part of the job for working compiler devs, but that's not what you're doing.) And 2) people are far too eager to fall into their old ways even when it isn't productive. A C compiler is comfortable. For someone experienced, it would be easy to port an existing one -- but they probably wouldn't have been asking about it in the first place. For those other people, it's boring and a lot of work when a macro assembler like Forth or Lisp can get you going and writing higher-level code in a few hours. When you're doing things like bringing up silicon you wrote, that's way more important and much more valuable.

You shouldn't eschew things like a C compiler forever if you plan to really get serious. Sometimes you can get one for free (MIPS, RISC-V) and that's super valuable. For a production toolset, it would be absolutely essential. But when you're learning it's easy to sink a lot of time into things like that, when that's not where the real meat and potatoes are.
https://madduci.netlify.app

Powered by Hugo, I don't update it regularly and unfortunately didn't had time to start blogging regularly.

Very easy theme and settings, using Netlify to do automatic deployment on git push
I used to use GNU/Linux on the desktop for many years, now I mostly use macOS. I became the same kind of person I used to argue with online.
> Masks in general provide very little protection. I recommend you listen to the explanations by infectious disease experts Dr. Monica Gandhi and Dr. Michael Osterholm. (...)

It literally takes less than 5min in Google to realize your criticism is utter bullshit, and even come across statements by Dr Monica Gandhi complaining that her comments were misrepresented and distorted to come across as authoritative anti-mask assertions.

Please be more responsible and stop contributing to spread blatant misinformation.
credits

and sometimes service reliability
> as everyone these days associates it with Open Source development

Seen many weird uses of Github. Some use it as a sort of public Dropbox, others do nothing but blogging. Others just have a repo with a single README that contains curated link dumps. There's so much more besides open source as a use-case, albeit link dumps and blogs would still constitute open source, just they're not 'software' in the typical sense.
I've always been curious about what the bureaucracy is actually doing that takes all this time. I would love to see an hour-by-hour breakdown. When my county says I need a permit to install a water heater or whatever, and that permit (a piece of paper, just to remind everyone) is going to take 6 months to make, I would LOVE to have a full work breakdown showing why this takes 6 months. What people are doing what actions at what times, where the critical path of typing this piece of paper ends in 6 months? I would love to know why it takes decades to build 5 miles of train tracks. What people are doing what actual activities in what order that adds up to 10+ years?

When the execs at your software company asks you to explain a 3 week estimate to build a feature, you can sit down with your project manager, and build a GANNT chart or whatever, showing engineer A and engineer B doing design work for 1 week, implementation for another week, and testing the third week. In more detail, you could break down every team member's time spent by the hour actually writing docs, typing in code, waiting for it to compile, organizing field testing, and so on, and you can show exactly what physical activities result in the 3 week estimate.

I suspect if government agencies (or big companies) were required to produce an hour-by-hour breakdown of what individual people physically did through a project, you'd see a lot of "blocked on other team A finishing project B" or "waiting for executive Y to sign document Z" and also a lot of "picking my nose or playing golf, not doing my job."
You can truncate and generalize this to : "Recruiters are lying".
I am still flabbergasted that more companies have not gotten it through their skulls yet. Even if you keep an office, all-remote is simply a better model. Not only do you have access to a global labor pool (including the best candidates), the communication is better and work is more flexible (which literally everyone appreciates), you can lower overhead or even hire people for less based on location. The only major downside to going all-remote is the initial pain of the culture shift. You can keep an office for those that need in-person coworkers. It's all been figured out already so it's not a mystery.
> computation systems seem to have hit a fevered pitch in the 2010s

What do you mean?
That feel when jedberg is now an old guy.

I agree with you, but in my experience that’s also a recipe for misery. If management is determined to get rid of you, they will find a way. And you’ll be stuck on awful do-nothing projects in the meantime.

Admittedly it’s much nicer to do that while being remote though. Just saying that it feels better to work at a place where management has your back.
I strongly suspect they sometimes show the ad and credit it for the conversion after the user shows initial interest in some specific product, i.e. when the user was already highly likely to buy before seeing the ad. This would explain why you're often flooded with ads for something after you search for it, go to its website, or purchase something there. (We've all had that experience of buying something and then being tailed by ads for that thing for weeks afterwards, even though no sane person would think we were going to buy that thing again in such a short time frame.)

A story to illustrate: there was once a pizza store that had two guys go out into the city to distribute promotional coupons. The coupons had codes on them so the business could attribute sales to each coupon distributor. John went out into the city and tried his best to drum up new business. Chad stood next to the door of the pizza place and handed a coupon to anyone who was walking in. After a month, 98% of the coupons used were from Chad. Chad got a big bonus and John was let go.
"Why Did Almost Nobody See Inflation Coming?" [https://tinyurl.com/marfwtsm]

> "Forecasting inflation is a staple of macroeconomic modeling, yet virtually all economists’ predictions for the United States in 2021 were way off the mark."

I recall reading this headline and laughing, because virtually everyone in the circles I associate with was warning very vocally about what would happen when it was announced in early 2020 that governments and central banks would be greatly increasing the money supply to pay for people to stay at home (and pay for "other" things), with no obvious sign of how productivity would be increasing. All signs were that productivity would also decrease (and it did), due to draconian lockdowns which prevented people from producing.

So why was the Austrian school exactly right about the inflation, and the Keynesians wrong again?

The reason is quite simple. Those who are the beneficiaries of new money have a motive to continue gaslighting you about the causes of price inflation.
Principle of least privilege springs to mind but I'm not familiar with the other issues.
> Waste : we don't really know what to do with them. We pile them up and try to protect humans from them, but really we don't know what to do more than that.

We know exactly what to do with it: bury it underground, in bedrock, like what Finland is doing [1]. For countries like the USA that don't reprocess nuclear waste, it represents a future source of fuel so burying it is wasteful. There's also an incredibly small amount of waste: all nuclear waste from electricity generation in the USA fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [2].

> War risk : if a plant is a military target, it might cause big trouble to the population around, and to the nature…

The risk posed by nuclear power plants in wartime is drastically lower than the actual war itself. The vulnerability of power plants are also overstated: reactors are essentially inside of bunkers, protected by meters of reinforced concrete. The Ukraine war has demonstrated the resilience of nuclear plants: none have been breached.

> We don't have sufficient sources of uranium : it seems that we lack some uranium in order to produce enough energy in a sustainable way.

Existing terrestrial reserves are more than enough for centuries, or longer with reprocessing. Uranium seawater extraction affords an effectively unlimited supply [3].

Nuclear power represents the only non-intermittent source of carbon-free energy besides geographically limited sources like geothermal or hydroelectric power. For that reason, it's going to be the backbone of most countries' decarbonization efforts unless a massive breakthrough in storage is made.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

2. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
"Promissory estoppel" is the term here as it's unlikely there was any actual breach of contract.