skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/12550/1/Foresta%...

Between the stone and metal ages, the volcanic glass obsidian was a favored material for all manner of sharps, and an object of trade.

Ustica is noteworthy for being the flattest (and least interesting) Sicilian island, where all obsidian artifacts came from trade. Pantelleria was a major source, and suffered an economic collapse at the onset of the bronze age. Now, Sicilian islands source the best capers.

My favorite islands to visit are Pantelleria, Favignana, and the four outer Aeolian islands Stromboli, Panarea, Filicudi, and Alicudi. Dunno if the communal fisherman's table on Alicudi is still a thing, but I'd call it my favorite restaurant in the world.
Don't know how germans thought that closing down nuclear plants in favor of natural gas was a good idea, both politically and environmentally
If you have some time between two cocktails while celebrating, do your visitors a favour and add this meta tag to your <head>:

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/ie_standards/ms-i...

This will make IE very insisting to upgrade to Edge if possible.
Computer Science degrees aren't intended to produce people who can code. The CS field is literally the science of computation, a branch of applied mathematics. Complaining about lack of coding skills in CS graduates is sort of like complaining that Chemistry graduates aren't good at washing test tubes.
I support an EMR running on AIX that is accessed through a Java Web applet that only works with Internet Explorer. Since you cannot install Java in any other modern browser, IE mode works on Windows 10 but not 11. The menus and setting you need to configure just do not exist in Edge and without the full Internet Options menu from IE, the site cannot load.

The vendor allegedly has an update coming soon to allow other browsers to work.
Good thing electricity is cheap to transmit.
I get coffee with friends and coworkers too.
There are some forms of control flow which are difficult or impossible to represent in an iterative manner. The big example is VMs, where tail calls or goto provide noticable performance improvements over a large switch statement in a loop. Compilers have trouble optimizing such a large function, just as people have more issues maintaining one.

For what it's worth, syntactic tail calls seem to be the way to go when adding this to imperative languages, as it gives more control over stack usage. The WebAssembly VM has a proposal for a 'return_call' instruction, and rust has a reserved 'becomes' keyword.
IE6 also had the infamous ActiveX plugin architecture, which was a security hell, but were way better than Java Applets. Several pages with the "Works in IE" used ActiveX plugins
'handwave the unsolved-at-scale' ? All you have to do is look at Australia:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/10/worlds-largest-grid-f...

> Battery rollout: "AGL Energy has committed to build 850 MW of battery-based assets by 2024. To that end, Torrens Island marks the first project to be constructed at the site of a fossil-fuel power plant. It won’t be the last, however, as big batteries are planned for New South Wale’s Liddell coal plant and Victoria’s Loy Yang facility. In January, AGL Energy revealed that it had secured both Wärtsilä and Fluence under non-exclusive framework agreements to supply up to 1 GW of large-scale battery storage."

So, would it make more economic sense for this 1GW battery-storage system to be replaced by a nuclear power plant? Australia after all is one of the places with the most high-grade uranium ore, being among the top three exporters.

Here's an example of more reliable analysis:

> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant."

https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...
> For others it is simply too late.

Yup... you need to start very young to have a high chance of having more than two kids.
> There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power.

This is either stupidly wrong or stupidly right.

Stupidly right, there's fairly new nuclear plants in operation that there's no real reason to shut down, so will probably be running in 2050.

Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit.

IEA's net zero roadmap:

> In the net zero pathway, global energy demand in 2050 is around 8% smaller than today,
but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more
people. More efficient use of energy, resource efficiency and behavioural changes combine
to offset increases in demand for energy services as the world economy grows and access
to energy is extended to all.

> Instead of fossil fuels, the energy sector is based largely on renewable energy. Two-thirds
of total energy supply in 2050 is from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy.
Solar becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of energy supplies. Solar PV
capacity increases 20-fold between now and 2050, and wind power 11-fold.

> Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. They fall from almost four-fifths of
total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth by 2050. Fossil fuels that remain in 2050
are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities
fitted with CCUS, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce.

> Electricity accounts for almost 50% of total energy consumption in 2050. It plays a key
role across all sectors – from transport and buildings to industry – and is essential to produce
low-emissions fuels such as hydrogen. To achieve this, total electricity generation increases
over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050. At the same time, no additional new final
investment decisions should be taken for new unabated coal plants, the least efficient coal
plants are phased out by 2030, and the remaining coal plants still in use by 2040 are retrofitted.
By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and
solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
As a Muslim, I would like to add my 2 cents.

Historically, religion has made pre marriage interaction between a man and a woman essentially banned. You "should not" meet or talk to a girl /boy who is not your relative a term( mahram, which is a male relative who by consanguinity cannot have sex with) is often used so society is built around that concept.

A college going guy/girl is not supposed to talk let alone be friendly because religion. That, over time has engrained into the entire society so for one, there is no concept of teen pregnancy because situation does not evolve to a point two people can have sex before getting married.

Years ago, I saw a 13 Yo couple "kissing" on the street like 7 years ago. That's literally the only time I've seen PDA of sorts.

Marriage is also weird because you are supposed to be a celibate before marriage, then your "parents" arrange a marriage and you are expected to sign off on it either on a photo of the other person or a brief interaction.

The quirk of arrange marriage, you need to be "saleable" by way of a degree/job/business.

What happens is, a 25-27 yo guy is either studying or unemployed. Girls? They either get a low paying job to get a tag of "employed" or just stay at home.

Guys? Unless they start working, they are not considered ready till 28-29. Then it usually takes 2-4 years to "arrange a marriage".

Now, its common to have 35-40 year olds getting married because the guy "wasn't earning enough" and because of religious compulsions, are always virgins.

Over the last decade, instances of divorce have increased manifold because now people are starting to not put up with a bad relationship which was the societal norm and suddenly older generation is waking up to people getting divorced because the couple don't know how to handle a relationship
Chance, Luck, and Risk
AI detects autism speech patterns across different languages
We don't have to go by the English translation of what the question was. We can see it in their demographic statistics that they are delaying marriage and are having fewer children. So, your argument becomes academic.
Are the sources available for the approximate number of each manufactures cars on the road with level 2 features overnthe last few years? I don't understand why the NTSB would not at least normalize by the number of cars? Surely they have good estimates for those numbers no? Aren't all vehicle Vin numbers in a government database some where?
It’s also security. If you are born middle class and get middle class income but are worse off than your parents were, and have no housing or job security, you won’t start a family unless you’re irresponsible. You are falling behind relative your status quo. People want to provide at least as much for their children as their own parents could provide: stable housing situation, safe neighborhoods, etc.
Publishers and Internet Archive Both Seek Piracy Lawsuit Win Without Full Trial
Or perhaps the reasons are economical. Recently nuclear construction projects became a lot more expensive and took a lot longer than initially planned.
The ascendancy of wind and cheap natural gas probably had a greater effect, considering the miniseries is only a couple years old.
I'm a born American of Slavic extraction, and my wife is Scotch-Irish.
Supposing that a company could always exactly offset rising costs by raising prices assumes that such a company was not setting an optimal price in the first place. If they could increase profits by raising prices, they would have done so already. Low labor costs aren't what's keeping McDonalds from charging $15 for a cheeseburger, it's the fact that nobody would buy a cheeseburger for $15.
I don't understand what this means. This was not a defence of MPLS, but rather an observation that says that the fundamental domains and business logic around externally-selected TE paths do not change because we change what header instructs the network to steer packets. It's still not going to make sense to have external users try and use the "premium" paths in the network without some recompense to keep scaling them, equally, there needs to be some incentive for users to choose a "less than best" path.

Quite honestly -- this kind of marketing hype and hyperbole is what is wrong with the whole area of SR today (and I say this as someone that was _very_ involved). We've completely lost the ability to say what it is we're solving, and why we're doing it. We're driving disparate architectures into silicon where there's opportunity cost for the functionality. We're having political disagreements within the IETF based on folks trying to keep political control of technologies, not worrying about the efficacy for the industry. It's all pretty broken. YMMV.
They are happy to support it when it is done outside their own country (speaking as an American)
Small reactors are not expected to be any cheaper than traditional reactors. They are a better bet right now because the traditional reactors keep getting mothballed in developed nations, and they have some clever technical innovations, but these are not complete game changers.

Each decade, nuclear builds also trend towards getting more expensive. Like it or not, it at least partially Fukushima Daiichi that killed the nuclear expansion US. The AP1000 had new missile shield requirements that was slowing it down before that happened, and then the Japan accident added even more regulation. There was an anti-nuclear chair of the regulatory commission at the time, and yes, this is fundamentally political, but it's hard to push back on these specifics.
As someone who did get older and went through this - it does not get better. Your hair doesn’t suddenly get thicker. The pounds don’t suddenly become easier to keep off. Your skin doesn’t tighten. Your complexion doesn’t smoothen out.

It gets worse. This is just copium we give to men to make them think it gets better. The stats show that it doesn’t get better. If you’re single now and have never been on a date - the only thing that increases is your time on the market. Your value though - it will continue to plummet unless you do something about it.

Often the stories about men who didn’t do well in their early 20s but managed well later are due to weight loss, fashion sense, not being poor, etc. If you didn’t catch on already - none of these are unsolvable at 22. You can fix them at 22 and be much better off than a 28 year old.

The quality of people you’ll be able to date will also vary even more wildly. You’re going to get far more jaded people who used their 20s to burn every emotionally healthy neuron they had in their brain, people who are desperate to settle down but are bad at making long term choices with it (thus high risk of divorce), and many single parents. (40% of children are born out of wedlock today)

It does not get better as you age. This is a myth. If you’re a shit candidate at 22 - you will be a shit candidate at 28 unless something markedly changes about yourself. (Which - again - can happen at 22 - there’s no reason to wait)
Windows Server provides a cleaner, more enjoyable desktop experience that the desktop version.
Indeed, the concept is very attractive, in theory. I wish it were true.

However, the execution is, um, leaving a lot to be desired.

A key big promise of cryptocurrency is as a hedge against inflation. Yet, as anyone can see since April or so, this promise is not merely false, but cryptocurrencies fall far faster than inflation and actually loses value far faster than any fiat currency.

Another big promise was egalitarianism - making financial freedom and banking services available to all. Yet the distribution and control is highly unequal, and getting access requires technology, learning arcane user interfaces, and the security situation is worse than hiding cash in your mattress.

Bitcion will help us "break free of tyranny" - is that a joke? The core is an immutable ledger that can be used to track anyone's transactions back in all time down to the last Satoshi (currently at $0.000208, just over 200 to the US penny). Cash is way more anonymous. The control of all of these is in the hands of a bunch of quasi-associated anons and miners 'voting. Sure, it's more anarchic and we can't point fingers at specific people for specific actions, but that doesn't mean that it grants more freedom to anyone, and arguably less.

Sadly, after a decade and a half of development, the promise remains just that, a promise.

Maybe there is some bunch of honest coders who could make this work as promised.

But, when every effort is made to prove Premise-A, and they all fail, then at some point one must conclude that what has been proved is Premise-NOT-A. We may be at that point.
If it only happened to bread, sure. But at some point it has to be inflation if it ends up being across the board. So its not just bread, its bread, soda, car, houses, a computer, toilet paper, meat, etc.

Sure, it may or may not fit the classical definition of inflation, but if it happens across the board, then functionally it is the same.
The government could grow a spine and start enforcing 40 hour work weeks.

In fact, they could go further: 3 day work week. "What? 3? 4 was nuts, 3 is insane!" Before you balk, note that before bringing women into the workforce a typical couple contributed 5 out of 14 days to the workforce. 3*2 is 6, and 6/14 is more than 5/14. Also, 6/14 is less than 7/14 meaning parents are allowed to raise their children again. Wouldn't that be nice? Perhaps even nice enough to fix this stupid problem we made for ourselves?

Obviously it's not the 50s, and there is the matter of international competition to consider. Just remember: China has the same problem, but worse. Cooperation may be possible.

I don't have high hopes. Capital controls the world. Policy will continue to be "labor get rekt" for the foreseeable future, and in the most shortsighted and cynical way possible, with no allowance for the possibility that healthy balances might wind up being a win for everyone. With AI... it's going to get worse before it gets better. A lot worse.
Sadly not an expert in that area. I only took a course of Nuclear Physics for a Major in Physics [1]. So I can read and understand that stuff, but the fine details pass over my head.

Looking at a recent page of that course, the recomended books are

* F. Halzen, A. Martin, “Quarks and Leptons: An introductory course in modern particle physics” (Wiley 1984)

* D. Griffiths, “Introduction to elementary particles” (Wiley 1987)

(and a few more)

The calculation for g=2 is quite easy (for an advanced Physics student). I remember the general idea, but not the details. I think I can reconstruct the details if necessary. It may be explainable in a blog post skipping some details.

The first correction g=2+1/137.036 is also humanly compresible, and can also be explained with some graphics. It would be very hard for me, but if I have a week to seach and rehearsal it is possible.

As the sibling comment says, the following corrections g=2+1/137.036+g=2+?/137.036^2 get harder and harder. And there are too many technical details and problems. I can only see the graphics and get a shallow understanding, but how they are transformed to integral and how to calculate all of them efficiently is too much for my knowledge.

[1] I never finished my Major in Physics, but I finished the one in Math.
Of course there are a lot of big FAANG type companies, and there are a lot of startups with VC funding. I used to work for Google and now I’ve run my own company for the last 10 years without VC funding. I imagine there are many many countless companies similar to mine. I focus on growth and we never have a ton of money. If we get more money we put it into our current and expanding workforce. We do keep some money in the bank but only so we can make sure our company doesn’t fail at some point. But companies are fragile things, if we lose enough employees and can’t get new employees and train them fast enough we probably fail. If we raise our salaries too high and can’t get enough revenue in return we fail. If we have a sales guy who we pay $70k base with $150k commission, then he leaves for $140k base job and we have to in turn hire a $130k base salary guy with $200k commission - what do we do? (This is a real world example) - well we now have one sales guy for almost the same price as we were paying two before. Basically we need to make more money or let people go. A single sales guy can only have so many conversations so we probably need to raise our cost of our product. Which assuming our customers even accept it, will increase their costs and it just keeps repeating down the line.

The current type environment is not kind to my type of company and it definitely will cause a lot of companies to fail. We have an amazing product with great demand and i think that’s what has saved us, but please imagine a company that is similar to mine. We try everything we can do to retain our employees, pretty much every dollar we make goes into employees since our product is software. When we had bad years I set my salary at $40k since i wanted the company to survive and we were still small and it made a difference. A ‘normal’ company like mine is totally restrained by cash flow, its a pretty simple equation. When you start having costs increase (i.e. salary) you have to balance it out somehow with more revenue somehow or reduced costs. A gradual increase is always better so we can start planning for it, get loans, get investment, gradually increase our price. Price shocks and huge changes are never easy to handle. I believe companies like mine are doing something good - innovating and creating good products and providing a much better service to our customers than Google and others can do by the virtue of us still being small and nimble and customer focused.
One thing that's strange about the US is because of national chains and their advertising, prices are basically the same across the entire country.

Dominos in podunk town X where there's the franchise owner and his wife running the whole show sells two pizzas for $5.99 each, and Dominos in New York sells the same.

Sometimes you have "at participating locations" but rarely have I seen that actually used.
Absolute numbers mean nothing in a country of 330,000,000 in such low values. What is the crash rate vs your average driver per mile driven having crashes? We know that autopilot isn't perfect.
There are more fundamental considerations to be made. For example, the small scale structures of the universe might just be too small to be observable by experimental means. As in, not just practically too small (too difficult to build experiments for it), but fundamentally not possible to observe due to their mathematical structure.

There are already a lot of things in quantum physics particularly that we can't observe directly. For example, there's no such thing as observing separate quarks - if you separate two quarks too much the binding energy between them pops another set of quarks into existence. But you can infer their existence indirectly "via math" basically.

However it's easily possible that the more fundamental structures of the universe are bound in such a way that you can't even observe them indirectly, even if you had access to machines that could produce the energies required.
I'm not part of the 'man-o-sphere' (got married at 22, so no time for 'dating'), but I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. No one marries another for 'inherent value' You marry for looks, money, reproductive capacity, etc. By its nature monogamy means looking for more than the inherent value, because if we just considered inherent value, all prospects would be equal, and clearly they are not.
Britain pulls the plug on its UFO hotline (2009)
I have a OnePlus 5 (a device from 2017) that's suffering the same fate. The hardware itself is fine. It has 6 gigabytes of RAM and a SoC that's fast enough that I don't notice any slowdowns in day to day usage. Yet the officially supported software by the manufacturer has been abandoned two years ago. I'm currently running LineageOS, and the phone is working as good as ever. Running a modern version of Android with monthly security patches.

It's a shame that expensive devices nowadays are made to be disposable. After getting a battery replacement, this phone is ready to go for a few more years at least. SoCs have gotten so good that even a half a decade old chip will perform well for the vast majority of users that don't play big games on their phones. It's not like you need a supercomputer to browse social media, websites and use maps for navigation.
Maybe there's something that you don't make you look as an attractive partner? Lack of self confidence when it comes to interactions with the other sex? Social awkwardness? Lack of self care?

Anyway, your first line is just sad. Yeah, they are having sex with other men, but is your ego so fragile that the idea of a woman having one or more comparison points scares you?
The same is true within US, where earnings and wealth varies a lot between the states and prices for digital goods are the same.