skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The idea for future designs is to breed Tritium in the blanket surrounding the vessel. This obviates the need for external sources.

The problem is that, at best, you can create as much Tritium in the blanket as you put in as fuel (since every emitted neutron is coming from a Tritium atom). So, to be self-sustaining, every emitted neutron would have to be caught by the blanket to form a Tritium atom, and you would have to be able to extract every single atom of Tritium from the blanket back as usable fuel - and this is assuming 100% of the tritium you put in actually fuses, which is unlikely given how hard tritium is to contain (essentially every material is porous to Tritium). So, since there are losses at each of these levels, you need to inject new tritium into the cycle.

Also note that this entire blanket design is entirely theoretical at the moment: no fusion experiment has ever attempted to do anything with the fusion products other then measure the amount of heat generated.

> I'm no expert on solid state physics, but that seems a little short? JET is more than ten times as old, and as we speak it's in its second run of D-T experiments.

I'm no expert either, but these are the estimates I have read everywhere. JET is not in any way representative, as they do a handful of fusion events per year, for a few seconds - while a DEMO plant would be running continuously, 24/7. The amount of irradiation is incomparable.

> To be clear these are limitations of a specific kinds of fusion reaction and/or reactor design, primarily that of Deuterium-Tritium in a solid-walled tokamak.

These are all limitations of the only fusion electrical power-producing technology that is anywhere close to realistic.

All other fusion reactions require much, much higher temperatures and pressures to ignite, so they are many more decades away (regardless of what some snake oil start-ups are claiming).

All other magnetic confinement D-T fusion reactions have the same problems I discussed.

And inertial-confinement fusion approaches are much less likely to ever be economical given the huge costs of the actual fuel.
Engineering Explained does a lot of real math on car related topics while also being interesting. https://youtube.com/user/EngineeringExplained

Michel Van Bizen has hundreds (thousands?6 of university level lectures on many topics science and math: https://youtube.com/c/MichelvanBiez

Discovered that channel trying to understand all modes of heat transfer through windows. Covered under thermodynamics. https://youtu.be/r3tC-ocdVoQ
And for example scientific foundations for Big Bang were put by Belgian priest and treated with suspicion as too consistent with world as created at some point.

> Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

World is not some simple.

Also, do you really need throwaway account for THAT?
No, it's the omnibus grouping of transit focused cities combined with 'look the other way' drug and crime enforcement in those same zones. You literally cannot have both, yet one party has grouped them inseperably
Calling an ideological opinion a "fact" drains that word of all meaning.
I always though a lot of human arrogance would melt down if we had to regularly spend a few days in the desert. It resets your internal scale: nature is big, you are small, cities are amazing oversized camp fires that help us forget that fact for the night.

The first time you look up and you feel all alone, like you could fall in the infinite cosmos and nobody can do anything about it, is really special.
Of course Swiss people will always complain stuff like that. But the numbers speak pretty clearly and my personal experience is the same.

Nobody claims Switzerland is magical, but that doesn't mean its wrong to make a video to give some props. Its not hype.
> the main issue is the folly of arguing on social media

This approach could be used in meatspace, too. And, like it or not, our lives are increasingly being spent online.
Economics, sociology and psychology all tend to say very little with very many words to the extent that the message gets lost and people don't even know what they are discussing.

You see it to a lesser extent in software and math too though - just look at any mathematical article on wikipedia. The "dynamic programming" article is a good one for this.

I'm not sure this is a new problem.
It is also a rookie mistake to think that just because some tasks might blow up, you can't accurately estimate a large class of them to within a reasonable confidence window (say, within one day 99% of the time), and likewise identify those tasks with a large chance of blowing up. Breaking down tasks into smaller tasks seems to help build this skill faster in some people.

If you don't want to be a mindless drone, you should also see the need to practice skills beyond just cranking out code.
> If you're working on rare things where you are the only expert on the team then yes,

You dont need to be ONLY expert on the team for the above. Other people knowing the same thing dont prevent your knowledge of the system. For the above, you need to have passing knowledge of the thing you work on. And you should have build that knowledge while doing previous taks.

The situation in which majority if tasks is assigned to developer who has no clue about that area of the system, again and again, is unreasonable.
In this model people would still need cars. If people have a car they will prefer to use it. This hub and spoke would only work if you forced people to use it.
Certificate Authority Failures
All of your alternatives make it even more expensive to build and to operate, and so even less competitive. Regardless, extracting the few grams of 3H or 3He bred for fuel in the thousand tons of molten, radioactive lithium jacket, every day, is a problem no one has solved. Good luck with that.

It is conceivable that fusion could be made to work in outer solar system spaceship propulsion, where the constraints are very different. It will never generate commercial power on Earth. The billionaires pumping cash into fusion startups are being taken for a ride. They can afford it.

By contrast, Bill Gates got US taxpayers to pony up fully half of the scratch on his pet SMR project, without giving up any ownership. So, we are the ones taken for a ride, instead.
I believe there was an issue with earlier software but current models meet or exceed the NCA batteries in charge rate with a 80kw average. Also 73kw is not 50% slower.

https://insideevs.com/news/514857/mic-tesla-model3-srp-charg...
I never understand how these terminals get past hygiene regs.

They’re touch screen and right next to toilets where the previous customer may …or may not have just washed their hands.

Then customers go right ahead and eat their food with their hands.

It’s like the perfect recipe for worms. Gross.
All self respecting industry operations in Sweden (steel, wood, papermills, weapons) had their own seaside resorts for workers from about 1920 to the late 1980-ies. Most had housing and company clinics too. Some of these companies were state owned, some in private hands. It all ended when the world went stock-market crazy and the maximize profit guys started to "core-business" the industries, and colsolidation started.

I think that capitalism was kind of hi-jacked by the money guys at that point. Lots of company towns where, if not thriving, getting along, working. Not super profitable but doing ok.
Then practically overnight they turned to wasteland when the mills closed.
I think it's meant sarcastically.
> I assume many of those cars

I earlier estimated that a 5% shift more than makes up for the additional CO2 emissions caused by replacing the damage.

Are you arguing that >95% of the population who bought an SUV did so because of seating or room or other essential feature that isn't possible in another car?

If not, then my hand-waving response to your earlier objection at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32217386 stands.

> I kind of doubt the red paint thing made much if an impact- it wasn't that common.

Things don't need to be common to have an impact. Look at the widespread worries about "stranger danger" when abductions of children by strangers is extremely uncommon.

And the Grey Lady appears to disagree with you: "For years, we’ve watched videos of screaming animals and seen red paint splatter fur coats. With these in-your-face and highly visual tactics, the activists helped win the culture war over fur." - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/style/peta-fashion.html

But really, I think you're missing my point.

I pointed to a half-dozen or more political movements with a militant component. (I'll add unionization, and anti-unionization, to the list. And Irish independence.). These are people who deliberately broke the law to advance their cause.

The use of militant activism does not negate the validity of the political goals of the movement. There's wide agreement that women suffrage is correct, even though the suffragettes carried out illegal acts of violence - and expected extreme opposition.

My point is to highlight these questions:

1) where is the equivalent militant arm among climate activists?

2) why are their actions so mild compared to the other movements I pointed out?

3) is there a point where militant activism (King's "a riot is the language of the unheard") would justified?

4) your observations (eg, "Extreme tactics beget extreme opposition") also apply to other militants - why didn't it didn't stop the suffragettes or others?

Now that I think about your phrase, ExxonMobil deliberately used extreme tactics to promote fossil fuel use even though their scientists knew about global warming back in the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont... . If "Extreme tactics beget extreme opposition" then where is the extreme opposition to ExxonMobil?

(Or do you want to argue that a multi-decade multi-national conspiracy to delay acceptance and action on global warming is not an extreme tactic?)
A real world example of the waiting to cook metaphor is PR review and client/QA validation.

Imagine you’re working on an integration project where you use an API provided to you by a third party, there will be a point where you coded a client, you made the calls, and you’ll need their validation before moving that specific task further. And when they green light your implementation, you send that to QA which will review your feature in their next batch.

If you consider your task completion to be “have the service integrated in production”, you have least two stopping points where focusing more on your task won’t help you go faster.

The optimal move is to plan for those and fill the gap. It becomes trickier when it’s unplanned: you were expecting for something to work, but you’ll need to wait for a bugfix that will only comes in X weeks, for instance.
I'd say it depends. Which "CIA fabrications of today" are you referring to?

Many people likely have something that springs to mind, based on their own existing biases, but that differs between people. When naming a particular "fabrication" you'll probably encounter much more resistance. (Russiagate? HIV/AIDS? The moon landing?)
I don't see how the lithium itself becomes radioactive. It will be contaminated with tritium, but presumably it's designed so that can be stripped out. Otherwise... maybe atoms of higher Z elements knocked into the lithium from the first micro of pipe surfaces by recoil after neutron collisions?
I hope to see xanadu succeed, even if it is only on some specialized niches. By seeing value on those niches more and more projects and people would understand the benefits of such system and would like to implement it.

But I also believe there will be always a space for current webapps, treating links as RPCs against external systems.

EDIT: For anyone interested here is Ted Nelson explaining the system in 2008 on an example system implementation of his original idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_2T7KH6RA
Climate change deniers rarely argue about the details, or even know about them. The way science works is that there is a big picture, and the details are slowly filled in. Like Newton's law, which is an approximation to general relativity, which itself is an approximation to something we don't yet understand, possibly quantum gravity. At the forefront of such research there are uncertainties, mistakes, hype, fraud even, because that's how humans are, and yet there is progress.

At this point however there is no reason to wait for climate change research to discover additional details no matter how important they might be, because it is already clear that action is needed. The risks are dire and constantly underestimated.

Climate change deniers usually maliciously deny the big picture, or sometimes use new developments that are in the flux as an example of how science can't be trusted. They do this without ever engaging the science and publishing papers. It's all about the social media for them.
> I don't care if you cure cancer and invent intergalactic space travel

I mean, at some point I do care.

I'd much prefer a world in which society would do the things SpaceX is doing without needing some centibillionaire manchild to be the face of it. I'm also cognizant of perfect being the enemy of good. You can praise the ways Musk is influencing the world for the better while simultaneously condemning the ways Musk is influencing the world for the worse; those are not mutually exclusive, despite the insistence otherwise by Elon "fanboys" and "haters" alike.
And as I said: that's fine - let them publish in scientific journals, let them give lectures at universities, let them participate in scientific debates.

But as long as their opinion is out of the mainstream of their field, keep them away from discussions of that field with the general public - especially when the general public has to make policy decisions based on that field.

If their scientific arguments are not convincing to their scientific peers, then they shouldn't be given a podium to try to convince the public through rhetoric and charisma.
Italy is often mocked as incompetent, but wow, their HSR is nice! DB is such a joke by comparison. If Austria increases their train speeds, it will be the worst railway around.
Luxembourg traditionally had very low farebox recovery ratios (something around 14 %, and definitively much lower than Germany, even if you account for things like reduced fares for students), plus it's a small state that still is somewhat of a tax haven.
This thing is absolutely amazing. I love the look, and I love the technology that drives it. My only complaint is that while it looks marvelous, that keyboard would be absolutely terrible to use, but I do understand that the maker had to work within the limitations of the materials available.
> survive the big bang into the next universe to be born

That's also in Poul Anderson's Tau Zero. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/240617.Tau_Zero) I vaguely remember that theme in a few other stories.
I think this is the ARM port of Windows 11 so it's running natively rather than emulating x86(_64) on ARM.

I assume it's running under a VM rather than directly on hardware. Running bare metal would require someone writing non-mac drivers for the hardware, which seems to be something only the Asahi folk seem to be have attempting.

It would be interesting to see how x86/x86_64 windows apps run under hosted win. I don't know what the performance characteristics of the windows x86->ARM translator, but I'd hope for being within cooie of Rosetta performance.
No language has been tied to an IDE since at least early 2000s. Microsofts own compilers are free to use.

So no idea what you're talking about when you talk about "a language that doesn't rely on paying for an IDE".

And the tools for most of the languages supported by the open community? The top, best-of-breed of these tools can barely do the bare minimum of refactoring and maybe symbol lookups. Even to this day you can read things like "X is amazing for refactoring because you change something, and the compiler will tell you all the places where it can't compile".

Good tools are expensive. And, surprisingly, Jetbrains' IDEs are not expensive at all. And are several orders of magnitude more powerful than anything the "open community" has come up with.

And, to re-iterate, no language is dependent on an IDE these days. Go grab Kotlin's CLI compiler, https://kotlinlang.org/docs/command-line.html fire up your vi/emacs/gedit and code to your heart's content if you're so set against commercial IDEs.
In the article he points out the PC is responsible for updating firmware in the card reader. So while it's a more sophisticated hack, change the firmware to record the pin and send it back to the PC etc etc.
Application-level protocols should not be attempting to secure their own consensus mechanisms - it ties the security of the application to the base token.

If you are seeking decentralized naming and certificate authorities you can look at Ethereum and ENS. Besides the eventual transition to Proof-of-Stake, building an application on top of an existing consensus mechanism means that your application will inherit the security of that blockchain.
To just convey ideas? Of course it's not necessary.
To convince someone to change their world view? This is nowhere near _enough_, just a small start.

They were not talking about couching every fact or snippet taught in physics class getting couched in all this extra "sugarcoating". They were talking about the kind of conversations that almost never go well at all - they're trying to improve the odds of an interaction convincing someone to change their polarized viewpoint from 0.01% to 0.03%.

For that use-case, obviously there's value in exploring different techniques, given the typical technique (scream at them and then block them) doesn't work well at all at actually changing their mind.
Find me a comparable Amtrak to a plane going to Florida from Pennsylvania.

The one tiny route you have is effectively the only place Amtrak works well in.

For the vast majority of other cases it’s awful.
Birth rates for humans are self-regulating, like with any other animal population. We are nearing the point of saturation of how many people the current environment can bear. Good. If there will be some mass extinction, or new resources available, birth rates will increase accordingly. No need for intervention here.
I don't understand how this adds anything different really than assuming the opponent is the worst.

I would expect the advice to be 'make no assumptions about the character of the person arguing and instead try to argue purely the content presented.'

Star-man seems like some inverse ad-hominem.
In a isolated VM? No way. Most people don’t know what a VM is. Hopefully most people wouldn’t plug a random USB into their computer, but I suspect that (# of people who would plug in a random USB) > (# of people who know about VMs)
Code Review at the Speed of Email
Well, no, that's putting the cart before the horse.

Git was not designed for remote fetching from every menial contributor. Nothing was—it didn't make sense to.* The idea with git-pull is that it's for use among a set of frequent collaborators—so for a given repo you have a handful of remotes, if any. It was not intended that everyone would need "infrastructure to let others pull directly from their repositories". That didn't arise until GitHub decided to eschew with the traditional currency of open source (i.e. patches) and use branch merges for everything. By doing so they created the demand that is responsible for the current popularity of centralized hosts—which they just so happen to be. It's one big dark pattern, not very different from the way Facebook nursed the growth of their userbase by erecting barriers around their walled garden.

* And still really doesn't. Encapsulating everything with a new branch that lives on a public fork + a proposed merge isn't terribly efficient, being the wrong tool for the job and all... People convince themselves, though, to overlook the time/effort costs of that arrangement because it's what they're used to.
If you understand German, there is a great explanation how the energy market in Europe works here: https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/plusminus/teurer-strom-wie...

It explains why currently, even though gas is so prohibitively expensive, we still run gas powered plants at the moment, and also why even with relatively low transmission capacity between countries there is still big impact on energy prices.

The tl;dr is: Energy prices are determined by taking the most expensive auction price that is required to cover the load at any given moment. Everyone who offered a cheaper rate may sell the energy, but receives the highest price that was accepted. This means that prices are highly non-linear and susceptible to supply shocks. Even though the changes from import to export with respect to France are small, a rather small reduction in cheap nuclear power immediately makes it a lot more profitable to produce energy, also making coal and gas viable again.

Also note that this model explains the cheap price of nuclear and solar: You "only" need to ROI your initial capital eventually to turn a profit. When push comes to shove you would rather sell at any price above 0 (or at least a very low bottom) rather than turning off your plant and getting no income at all. You cannot do that when you still have significant operational expenses for fuel (coal, gas, stored water).

On electricitymap you can see this behaviour in action as well. Even with something like 50% solar production, prices remain high, when suddenly, the prices collapse below zero after a certain threshold was reached.
Also note that in these cases, the prices in France and Germany decouple. Customers on the German energy exchange might get paid to use energy while in France spot price still is upward of 10-20 ct/kWh.

Also:

> Under European market law, you are obliged to buy renewable energy if it is available.

Do you have a source for that? I think that guarantee only applies to Germany. And then it only says that the suppliers always get paid for the energy they could produce, wind and solar can and will still get turned off physically.

And from what I have written above it pretty much follows that renewables will always be bought if possible, because they have no fuel costs and letting them run is during positive prices always more profitable than shutting them off.
Note though that many renewables are not even sold on the energy exchange and rather influence the market indirectly as most energy utilities have fixed delivery contracts with the producers and only buy/sell the excess on the spot market.
Kinda. But physical access is a big barrier.

I am really surprised they don't do much against Pegasus though. I'm sure the agencies involved know what exploits it uses by now.

I guess because western powers use these tools too is why they don't lock them out.
That's a lot of people to have no sewer system for, but I'm sure they'll remember to factor it in this time. Maybe they'll build a ring-road around it so the honey-wagons have somewhere to queue up.
How is that different than any other surface in the restaurant, doors or card terminals where you sometimes have to type the pin code?
Do you have the scripts or a demo somewhere? sounds cool