skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First, they are also adding far more generation to get rid of gas, that's part of the IRP process that's happening right now, and the law SB 100 mandated a fast changeover.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant does not meet old laws on the use of once-through-cooling, laws that grandfathered in existing licenses, but required new operating licenses to meet the environmental rules. 15 years ago, the utility started evaluating the cost of fixing the cooling situation, and found that it was not economical. Which led to the 2015 decision to not extend the license, and replace DC with renewables, geothermal, storage, and hydro.

Even if it were cheaper to retrofit the cooling, there's a strong technological argument to instead invest in new technologies. Every bill on dollars invested in these new technologies makes them cheaper and drives down prices for future installs. However spending billions on cooling does nothing to improve future construction efficiency. Nuclear power is less a technology than it is a construction project. We do not gain efficiency in construction when we build more nuclear infrastructure.
This is a low quality comment, but it reminds me of the signage purportedly spotted at a BP Gas Station that said "You are responsible for your spills" https://thebasispoint.com/bp-gas-station-sign-you-are-respon...
Aging gratefully: Will you be happier in old age?
I think interview processes are just a game. Interviewers are hoping to win the best candidate and interviewees (job seekers) are just trying to win a good job. Both sides try to exploit the process and find the best fit - and often loose due to the rules of the game.

Perhaps if you look at it as an imperfect game, that might give you the mindset of doing the best at the game to get the job you want.

As a consequence of hiring being an imperfect game, in my experience many questions in an interview don't relate to the actual job or qualifications needed to perform the job. It seems that often questions are based on "Company X (or HR guru, etc.) did this in their hiring process, so lets do the same!" or "We don't really know what the candidate will do, so lets ask questions about X instead." The end result is that hiring people think they're doing a great job weeding out poor candidates when really their biasing the hiring pool for candidates that don't fit the intended job.
Dont give them any ideas. The RomanceSmartChain is only a few months out at this rate.
Pleasantly surprised they are still around since the whole MagicLeap fiasco
you're the real hero, thank you!
Wouldn't use this analogy - it might be an emulation of some sort.
In my previous state it wasn't banned and I saw it on every application I ever filled out, but that was quite some years ago and my current state doesn't allow it. I've heard stories of people being fired for other reasons, but officially because the company did a background check later and the person had lied on their application.
I think you just described the problem with rational arguments in general. Great until evidence points out otherwise.
> Fructose does not stimulate the release of insulin.

It does, but less so than glucose. That may help on the insulin response curve but will only help weight if you keep calories down. Energy is energy.

It's not a panacea either. Can be harmful. Eg.

https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics/fructose-is-harder-t...
My experience is that all of SPF, DKIM and DMARC are almost completely ignored by Gmail -- one day I simply stopped DKIM and DMARC and Google keep happily accepting emails (and to this day I still send emails without). In fact they will happily accept emails even when the SPF check didn't pass and the policy clearly says strict reject aka -all .

While on the other hand I fully agree with TFA: I have _never_ been able to send an email to Gmail from a IPv6 address and have it not end up as spam, not even to accounts where I already whitelisted previous attempts.

I don't think it's a reputation issue, since my IPv4 addresses likely have much worse reputation. It's as if they just handicap all IPv6 addresses.
Thinking about this further, a pragmatic enhancement to Thread::yield might look like this:

enum Hint {
ALWAYS,
FREQUENT,
SOMETIMES,
INFREQUENT,
NEVER
}

Thread::yield(Hint);

The method could be intrinsic to the compiler+runtime to provide runtime optimization (loop unrolling, tuning, etc.) of the 2nd - 4th cases. This would neatly avoid the need to:

long n = 0;
while (true) {
// stuff
if (++n > SOME_LIMIT) {
n = 0;
// yield here
}
}

... or similar.
For now, that's true, since miners are mostly paid with newly minted BTC. The payout for the job of mining is currently based on BTC's valuation, but the reason for the mining is to secure the transactions. That also aligns with its design.

Why else would Satoshi design Bitcoin's block reward to slowly dwindle towards zero? Apparently in his vision, the eventual steady state for Bitcoin is to be supported entirely by demand for block space (aka, transaction volume), with no correlation to "value in network".

Edit: to put a finer point on my question...

Does the transaction-fee-only mining model work?

If it does work, isn't the current block reward wasteful, funding tens of millions of dollars a day worth of mining, when the fees set by competitive demand for block space are a fraction of that? If fees alone are going to be enough to secure the network adequately, why can't Bitcoin adopt a more aggressive halving cycle and move to fee-only by, say, 2040 instead of 2140?

If it doesn't work, that means there will eventually be a problem with Bitcoin as it slowly moves toward that model. How can Bitcoin change its design to fix this, without compromising the "only 21M coins ever" promise that many of its stakeholders consider a fundamental strength?
My experience is many e-bike owners run around with almost deflated tires, worn out chain, rubbing brakes etc., since they themselves don't feel the added resistance, hehe.
In life, do we behave in every way like the worst person we know? If my neighbor doesn't take out their trash, that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. In fact, it works the opposite way: We each influence others; if we don't do it, fewer around us will; if we do something good, more people around us will - we set the standards. I try to act like the best person I know (and fail often!).

Consumer do emit significant amounts of carbon, and whatever someone else does, we need to reduce it. Pointing the finger at someone else and saying, 'well they do it', doesn't help climate change; it just throws around blame - generally a useless distraction in life - and adjusts our standards to the lowest denominator.
An order of magnitude? Not true at all. Look at this benchmarks:

https://web-frameworks-benchmark.netlify.app/result?f=axum,g...

I've done some benchmarking with Actic, Axum and Go (std lib). Actix was top, Axum about 85 % of Actix and Go about 75 % of Actix.
> Until we have a national conversation about this, I suspect self-driving will be an intractable problem.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I'm not sure "national conversations" are all that useful in the U.S.

Consider the "national conversation" leading up to Obamacare. NPR (at least) reported on the known pros/cons of various national healthcare systems around the world. AFAIK some of them were simply better than what we had, regardless of whether one looked at them through a conservative or liberal lens. And yet we still ended up with a system that was only marginally better IMHO.
> Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas?

You have to shift the demand side while you are shifting supply, in order to keep the incentive for investment going.
Beating the national average never should have been seen as the finish line. The average is dragged down into the gutter by a minority of drivers who choose to engage in very poor behavior, like driving drunk, speeding, making unnecessary trips at night and bad weather, street racing, etc. By simply avoiding these few behaviors, it's easy to put yourself well above the average. (inb4 "everybody thinks they're better than the average"; most people who think this are correct. Bad driving doesn't have a normal distribution.)

If you want to impose self-driving on everybody, it should be at least as good as the best drivers. It would be a grave injustice to force it on the best drivers if it can't match their performance.

As for the bar to pass for simply allowing, not mandating, self driving: I think they should first exceed the skill of a student driver. If they can't then they don't belong on the road without supervision, just like a student driver.
The “big money” only comes from “equity comp” if the stock market is going up - which it isn’t doing now.

Both companies are increasing their base pay precisely because employees like the assurance that their pay isn’t based on stock price.

For me personally, it would have taken a lot less work dealing with real estate if I could just have handed the bank my W2s with all cash compensation than having to deal with a 2 year prorated signing bonus and a 4 year vesting schedule.

Don’t you think that Netflix’s employees are kind of happy that their compensation is all cash right now?

Except for the few who foolishly chose to take their pay in cash + future RSUs instead of cash.

Both MS and Amazon announced they were increasing total compensation. Amazon specifically is slowly starting to weight cash comp over stock.
Localized linear pcb motors that push/pull on threads built into the suit
I think we've recently had two "bloodless" coups, one in 2000 and one in 2016. In both cases, the loser, the one that did not receive the most votes, was made President. The result seems to be deregulation leading to global financial crisis.
I'm pretty sure the top five finishers in last year's Trans Am Bike Race were all running Di2. The elites in the ultra-endurance self-support races are probably the hybrid rider type of the two groups of cyclists you are talking about here.
I told her I have zero knowledge of any of this
John Regehr does excellent work in general.
This attitude does a lot to explain the quality of pedagogy to me. Why waste everyone's time and money with the course if students won't engage with the material? Plagiarism (or outright fabrication) in academia is a serious problem and can bubble up into things like the "modern" anti-vaxxer movement.

If it's low stakes all the more embarrassing to the students for risking their personal and professional reputation so trivially
Regardless of legal e-bike classes, those cheap conversion kits were never going to go beyond a tiny niche market. The kits are only compatible with a limited set of bikes and most casual cyclists don't have the skill or desire to install one. They just want to buy a bike that works and go ride around.

As a practical matter, the laws on e-bike classes are almost never actually enforced in the USA. I see people riding "bikes" which are really more like electric motorcycles on bike paths and no one does anything to stop them. (Park rangers will occasionally ticket e-MTB riders in areas where they're totally banned due to trail damage and safety risks.)

The US bike industry doesn't even have "buckets of cash" to spend on lobbying. Total industry annual revenue is only about $6B (a fraction of any of the big tech companies) and profit margins are low.

https://www.statista.com/topics/1448/bicycle-industry-in-the...
Show HN: How to connect ESP32s using MicroPython and MQTT
In his netcasts James Lindsay has lately been going a bit heavy on the XXX is communism as well which probably does not help him in getting his message across. While there is truth to the origins of the movement he is criticising being found in and/or influenced by radical socialist and communist spheres his constant claims of 'Marxism' or ´Communism' make it (too) easy to dismiss him as 'yet another extreme-right crackpot' or one of the other epithets bandied around so often nowadays. He is a better writer than he is a verbal communicator so I'd advice you to read before you listen. It also saves you from having to endure him trying to pronounce German words, a language which he does not master but which plays a large role in the history of the ideas which have led to the current ideological witches' brew.
> discovered in a group of primordial precursor life forms so therefore that's when it originated.

It's a shorthand way of working with incomplete information. In many cases it's not possible to directly point to a concrete organism as a point of origin for a certain molecule. That's why we point to the earliest known implementation and shrug.

> Just to be contrary, is it not at all possible that such and such a feature "evolved" in all the relevant life forms at the same (more recent) time in response to changing external stimuli?

When a molecule is sufficiently complex and all other factors being equal, we tend to assume there was one common ancestor who first developed it.

It seems to me that Quanta is sometimes a bit biased towards the cosmic inevitability of intelligence, while carefully avoiding full-on Penrose mysticism. That's why the title is phrased as it is when in fact this discovery is congruous with current models.

Signal proteins evolving before the majority of systems they're currently used in is in fact well aligned with prior expectations. Once a way to synthesize a molecule has evolved, it can get re-used quite a lot for similar purposes. That's because evolution is a hill-climbing algorithm which is bad at coming up with complexity from the ground up but has no problem with complexity that has developed over extended periods.

> humans are not more "evolved" than single-celled organisms

Well, there is a directionality to evolution, and humans are way more complex than single-celled organisms. Biologists tend to avoid labels such as "more evolved" because they can be misleading and because obviously every organism around today is evolved to the same extent, namely to survive in current conditions.
Interesting work.

Robotic factories, Fool Self Driving, Machine Learning on huge real-world dataset, etc, etc.
They could also have done speech recognition server side.
People already have. The hash lives on the blockchain, not the thing itself, so it’s a non issue.
Blaming the victim, eh… Any other profound ideas you'd like enlighten us with?
Dynamo powered components are an exception. Great interoperability, repairability and product life.
Looks very promising. I'm wondering about the current state of cross-browser compatibility.

How close are we to being able to write MV3 extensions that run on Chrome/Firefox/Safari without code adaptations?
I'd argue that someone phoning in such an over-the-top movie scenario threat from an anonymous phone number is also not a "credible and imminent threat of violence". Definitely something that warrants investigation of course, but not something to start pulling out all the guns and start shooting people when they open the front door to see what all the ruckus is about.
Defund the police was a stupid idea. Nobody wants to do a job where they could get shot in the face during a traffic stop and still be demonized by society for it. So you're stuck with only the bad cops until they retire. After those cops retire, you're screwed and only have yourselves to blame. People warned about this happening and were dismissed.
You mean a constitutional coup? We had that in 2000. Higher volatility. That’s about it.
That's... appalling. My 2019 Leaf has absolutely zero problems maintaining distance with adaptive cruise control, using the ancient technology formerly known as radar. It can somehow even see stationary vehicles, something I thought wasn't feasible.
The thing is that Shimano doesn't have to do anything to support the competing product. They're just broadcasting signals on Ant+. It's Hammerhead doing the integration, and now shimano actively blocking that.
To stop my friends from using this to guess who my crush is, a fun iteration could be instead of entering the person’s name, you enter the last text you sent, place you met, etc. Something only the two of you would know … and maybe even something romantic :)
That’s a surprising pair of crimes to equate, as to me they warrant very different police responses. Police violence ought to be a last-resort tool to e.g. prevent further crime or injury to innocents. Not as a punishment that scales with the abhorrence (or moral panic) of the crime.

There’s no need to send the swat team for a non-violent non-organised criminal, monster though they may be.

> I highly doubt

At least on paper UK police aim to take a more evidence-based light-touch community-building approach to policing, so I'd be curious what reasons you have to doubt this claim?

The assumption that US morality and culture applies globally is tiring and misses out on an opportunity for learning through comparison.
My opinion is that Angular is the worst of all the current frontend stacks. It's acceptably bad to a lot of people because "no one ever went wrong using something from Google", but it's just bad, especially for something associated with Google. It's "a horse designed by a committee of people with huge egos" that doesn't do anything it sets out to do well and has a ton of "best practices" and "defaults" that lead directly to "pits of failure" rather than anything resembling success. I've blogged more detailed technical analysis about that if you are interested.

React tries not to be awful and generally seems to have a good idea of the direction it is going. It's not perfect, no tech stack is ever perfect, but as an "expert" at this point on both stacks, I'd wholeheartedly recommend React over Angular.
I'm a long term openwrt user, finally even set up DAWN[1] to orchestrate multiple APs (sometimes a win, sometimes worse than manually picking among each AP & each band (2.4/5) having it's own specific ssid/name).

I really hate to say it, but even for the geeks, I'd generally recommend some kind of mesh product. A roommate installed a parallel Google mesh product & it worked so well, had such great coverage. Google spent hella time making this product good, thanks in part to Google Fiber. There's a great talk on their finding from Avery Penarunn back at the first netdevconf[2]. I'm sure many of the competing products are also very very capable. They have a level of reliable, just works intelligence, even over wifi mesh, that makes me envious.

There's sadly little new news in the OpenWRT space. There's some on-the-cusp work with some new Qualcomm chips that might start working in mere weeks or months. But we've been running the same wifi4 & wifi5 hardware for half a decade now, basically, with no real options. The Netgear X4S R7800 is still the go-to openwrt router. MediaTek has some wifi6 capable routers[3] targeted to the low end, which are nice & available & cheap & modern, which is great, but decidedly low end.

Mesh just makes sense. Most devices have terrible wifi performance. Making them chat across weak or noisy links will hurt everyone. For most users, mesh products are quite affordable & imo a good improvement.

[1] https://github.com/berlin-open-wireless-lab/DAWN

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZcHbD84j5Y

[3] https://openwrt.org/toh/views/toh_available_16128_ax-wifi
> But most does not. So, this seems like putting the cart before the horse. Why not focus on improving how we generate electricity before we tear out all the gas?

What percentage should be from renewables before we start switching? What if it takes 10 years to get 90% of stoves replaced? It's surely not a "wait until the grid is 100% clean" situation.

Then add in the fact that induction stoves (and I believe electric stoves) are significantly more efficient than gas. With gas stoves, a ton of the heat just goes out into the kitchen, whereas induction gets much more directly into what you're cooking.

There's also the climate impact of unburned gas leaking into the atmosphere, though I don't know how significant this is. Ideally, we want to get to a place where we don't have to build gas transmission infrastructure to every building. This will take ages, so if it's important, we should start now, not after everything else is in place at the generation side of things.

Outside of climate concerns, there are also some significant negative health effects of gas stoves. e.g., much higher rates of asthma in households with gas stoves[0]

I have a strong preference for cooking with gas, mostly due to familiarity, but there are major downsides to the technology.

[0] https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/gas-stoves-hazardous-as...
What does this achieve that posting "text me and I'll tell you if I have a crush on you" doesn't?

Or texting your crush directly?

I suppose it's a useful commitment mechanism for proving you aren't telling everyone they're your only crush, but that seems a bit of a niche use case.
My 2019 Subaru Crosstrek has adaptive cruise control, and i've had it hit the brakes pretty hard when there's nothing in the way. Luckily it doesn't happen often.
If I heard that on the first day I would have left the classroom before the professor had time to correct the statement.
> Give me a precise definition for what you mean by "understanding" and I'll dismantle the Chinese Room for you.

You probably can't define "chair" in an exact enough sense. It would merely show the shortcoming of the definition rather than refuting the Chinese Room.

> a system not capable of intent

If I now would require a definition of "intent" I would be just as childish.

> That does not hold.

First, the system isn't stateless. It has the operator who has to remember what has happened before in order to come up with a correct translation.

Second, your argument implies that understanding requires intent. That alone is a tall order to prove. But it's the point of the Chinese Room: the mechanism doesn't understand, doesn't have intent, nothing. Yet it performs exactly as an intelligent, understanding, intentional translator. So would you not agree with the conclusion: you can't judge intent by only looking at I/O behavior?

Note that Searle (probably, this is just my understanding) doesn't mean that the Room is useless or "dumb" (in most senses of the word).