skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As France shut down a lot of their nuclear power plants due to safety reason (a lot of corrosion) people in Germany are really concerned. It is said that due to the price cap on energy from nuclear power plants there was never enough money for enough maintenance.

And France is still building their nuclear waste dump site not that far from the border. Many also have a problem with this.
It’s because self driving doesn’t provide much value until you can remove the human. If you can remove the human, last mile package delivery is suddenly super cheap; taxis are cheap; trucking is much cheaper; share car services are transformed as a business model.

With the human still required you get nothing, so why invest at all?
This is a very good point. There are definitely "risky novel" choices that could make your company a success. But I've also seen many teams drowning in a soup of random tech choices.

I'd love to be able to write some more specific advice on this topic but mostly I just want people to be mindful of the impacts of their choices and actively choose risk rather than having it sneak up on them.
The question is what value would a city get after, what seems to be, a very expensive process? What value do they get from unlocking semi competent AI cars that's worth the time, effort, and requires dedicated street space and an inconvenience to everyone else who travels a different way? It doesn't seem like it's replacing public transit and if someone needs a private vehicle to go beyond the area that's optimized they'll need a different transportation solution. It seems like a lot of cost for a very small benefit.
Well solar is pretty much useless at these high latitudes. I believe the sun doesn't rise above 7 degrees in the winter in Stockholm. Though Sweden is blessed with mountains, so they can get significant energy from hydro. Here in Finland, Nuclear is the only real answer going forward.
> Therefore private entities are less likely to make bad purchases.

This claim gets thrown around so much, I can't stand it. The bigger a company gets, the more bureaucracy you have to deal it. Many big companies/market leaders are basically no better than government agencies when it comes to efficiency.

Also, I hate this idea of privatization for the sake of "efficiency". Imho some things (like healthcare) have so positive external effects on the whole economy, the should not be trimmed for profit, but for the best results instead. And, as it turns out, letting companies compete for this kinds of public infrastructure with a "winner takes it all" principle often does not quite turn out to be the most efficient choice
Erm no. I'm not advocating morality driven by "duty". I'm pointing out the pragmatic issue that we don't know where we're heading, so perhaps we should pause and have a good hard think about the possibilities :)

Utilitarianism also comes with its own issues, of course. Exploitation of minorities and the disempowered, for example (including manufactured brains-in-vats, it seems).
Why wouldn't Musk want to profit from the war. While tax payers from countries that have supplied equipment and personal to aid Ukraine may do so for "free" the companies that built the equipment or supplying the training contractors are still getting paid. So what's the difference here?

It's all war profiteering on the lives of dead people because NATO wants to fight a proxy war with Russia in order to put the squeeze on China.
Show HN: Ping your sitemap file and let Google know about your new content
Google only crawls the sitemap when submitted so ping after you add new content is a important.

Recently google release an api to ping so,

I made a ui just 1. Enter the sitemap url and 2. Click the button to Ping your sitemap to Google
I agree that you can't run on PV alone without storage, without a grid that circles the world. But that's not the situation we face. There are PV, wind, and hydro for generation, and a huge variety of storage options from pumped hydro and compressed air through thermal and batteries to electrolyzed hydrogen and derivatives.

Gas (methane) doesn't have to come from the ground. The price of electrolysed hydrogen is dropping. It's early days; there's a lot of learning curve ahead, so we can expect further falls in price. Once you have hydrogen you can use it as-is or combine it with air-captured carbon for synthetic methane and re-use existing infrastructure.

Electrolysis is quite complementary to solar. It uses DC voltage (direct from the panels); and PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane) electrolysers start in a second or so, so passing clouds and such are not a problem. Solid oxide and alkaline methods have slightly longer startup times so may require an hour or so of battery storage alongside the panels. Carbon capture is similar to these latter two as I understand it.
Another SEG here (our title is Incubation Engineer now, my area is MLOps). It is true that we build on top of what others did. What we mean by single engineer group is that is a one-person-team: we are responsible from the end-to-end project, from defining the vision, to talking to customers, to implementing the solution, and delivering a product. This is a relative new team (a bit more that one year). https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/incubation/
It depends on your interests, mine are tech-related. Hashtags are good discovery tools on Mastodon, for example I monitor #retrocomputing for retrocomputing and homebrew computer projects. This and further exploration led me to these accounts I follow:

- @chronrevisited@mastodon.social
- @elb@mastodon.sdf.org
- @ZephyrZ80@mastodon.technology
- @robert588@mastodon.sdf.org
- @EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
I hope you’re joking because that actually sounds like a terribly impoverished life for a human consciousness.
Why downvote this valid comment?
Could you keep them permanently online if you circularly create another server, that logs back into the first server? Just wondering
Guggenheim’s Minerd Says Arctic Needs $1T for Projects
The problem with nuclear liability is that there are potential accidents that are both extremely rare and extremely expensive. Such accidents have only happened twice. This creates some difficulty for calculating insurance premiums.

The article you linked says that TEPCO paid out USD ~65 billion after Fukushima, but it was insured only for USD ~804 million.

Naturally what happened is that the government didn't want to be without electricity, so to prevent bankruptcy TEPCO was nationalized. This is the typical scenario for nuclear power: profits are privatized while losses are socialized.
Yeah I think this is why I liked "novelty budget" as a term. To me it implies a limit, but it also implies something which you should spend. Doing something a little bit different can be immensely valuable as you've highlighted. Also everything was new at one time.
It seems like it would be cheaper and easier to get rid of cars entirely
Tell that to Germans https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suedlink (started planning in 2011, the construction should have taken place 2016-2022, now they are hoping it will be done by 2028, lots on NIMBY court challenges along the route of the cabling).
In uni we had classes about systems modeling and fishing population was one of the examples studied. Overfishing can cause these phenomenons not so muche because you actually fish 1bln unit and are 1bln down, but because even a modest amount of overfishing past a critical point puts your population on a crashing decrease due to reduced reprodution. So if under normal circumstances your next generation would be lets say 5bln crabs, because the reduced population makes it much (non linearly) harder to repro now you only have 0.5bln. And over a couple years everything is dried up even thought you maybe "only" overfished 200mln units.
With self-driving cars, you don't have to own cars anymore.
That $1 per day frees your $5.000 per year budget for owning a car.
Those infrastructure requirements are already satisfied - and ~3000 people died on US roads last year.
We already have self driving cars. We call it public transport.
Don’t vote for the most egregious offenders. I’d say on a party base that’s CDU and AfD, followed by SPD (with our CumEx-"I can’t remember"-chancellor Scholz). Short term, nothing would happen. But if people en large refused to allow corruption, party politics would change.
Not to mention that the upside of self-driving cars is capped at the cost of an uber driver, and even in a world with ubiquitous fully autonomous cars you still want public transportation.

Driver assistance on highways is probably the right 80/20 solution, at least for the foreseeable future.
If they want stability, why do they keep doing the opposite? In Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Syria, Libya, etc. This time it just happens to be in Europe again.
Why? If it’s not dynamic, why make your life harder and slower? Nothing beats a compare and jump compiled into your binary.
Are Solr and Lucene still a thing? I had very good experience with them many years ago.
Automatic public transportation will solve a lot of issues.
> So far, that $100BN is a VC scam until proven otherwise.

A lot of the self driving tech has already made its way into safety systems in cars. Things like automatic breaking seem generally useful. There's a question about if it's worth $100B for research into partially autonomous safety solutions, but I don't think it's useful to attribute zero value to self driving research until we get full self driving (certainly some value is being realized already).
The endpoint could redirect back to the same page.
I think what looks interesting on the surface for self-driving cars is that "it is just a software problem". The other projects you describe require actual "stuff".

Still, that argument doesn't count if the software problem is "impossible" to implement, or if it turns out that you also need "stuff" for it.

Edit: typo
This has to be the most obtuse thing I've read today. First, you bait us in with the bold claim "tragedy of the commons is a fallacy", but then it turns out you're not actually going to show a flaw in the idea that the tragedy of the commons is real. Instead you're just playing a word game which leads to some vaguely socialist talking points.

Its particularly tedious as the phrase "tragedy of the commons" has nothing to do with assigning "blame" to the commons (or to the private interests). The phrase itself is not an prescription, merely a diagnosis. Literally no one uses "tragedy of the commons" as capitalism apologia. What an absurd straw man.

No actually, lets not rename all the well established concepts in economics just to give them a certain political lean. That's not actually helpful to understanding anything.
>>Plus all the evidence I see suggests that whatever the current state, sooner rather than later computers are going to be superhuman at driving (like they are at most other discrete tasks) and save a lot of lives.

What is that evidence, exactly? I agree that we might eventually get there, but the scale seems to be 50-100 years at this point. We are as arrogant as the researchers in the 60s who famously announced that absolutely perfect image recognition is only 1-2 years away - except the problem is several orders of magnitude harder.
Maybe the problem is requiring insanely high levels of safety from the nuclear industry, way higher than realistic in the current world that can and does kill people in myriad non-nuclear ways.

For example, I am willing to bet that nuclear-related deaths in the Ukrainian war will be a minuscule percentage of the total loss of life caused by said war.
aren’t we talking about root servers here?

or just me…
This sounded off to me, and according to Google it is. You are too low by an order of magnitude.
A related question: I very much enjoy the keyboard of my T550 and would like to have some similar USB or wireless Keyboard with German layout, numpad and backlight for my PC as well. Lenovo does not offer anything that matches all these criteria. Any recommendations from other brands?
Has the Internet Reached Peak Clickability?
As someone completely independent of the author with a long history on HN (the latter of which you can check) I just want to chime in to say that Arnade’s book is incredible and one of the most affecting books I’ve read in years.

It is in fact one of the most thoughtful and nuanced reads on what it means to be marginalized in the United States, and shines a light on voices and communities that are almost completely ignored, or fetishized, by mainstream media.

He’s being graceful, because anything else would sound silly or like self promotion without that context. But your criticism really is misplaced.

If you care about these issues you should definitely dig in a little and read his book, it’s worth it.
That stops working when the internal bureaucracy of the company reaches a certain size and internal politics become too isolated from the realities of external competition. (Other reasons for isolation are also possible, such as when the competition on the merits of the product is secondary to competition on the ability to navigate regulation or the social circles of the few prospective customers.)

As far as I’ve seen, the general dynamic of having to spend the budget you’ve been given, even in the most wasteful way possible, or facing a budget reduction next term is universal whether you’re a bureaucrat in a socialist government, a bureaucrat in a large department of a democratic government, or a manager in a large company like IBM or Oracle.
If that's the case, could we develop methods to ensure that communities we build have inclusion mechanisms to ensure all people (including mentally ill) participate and are valued?

Sometimes I wonder if hyper-individualism in western society plays a big part in mental issues, since it is so easy to isolate oneself from any community. It is left up to the individual to find communities, there is no mechanism to stop people 'falling through the cracks' like there would be in a tribal community or even modern close-knit villages / country towns.

I don't see how social life is a zero-sum game. Sure, some people gain status and popularity above others, but that does not preclude inclusion of all people. I.e just because Bob has 10 friends and Alice only has 2, doesn't mean that Alice can't be part of Bob's community.
>what matters is hitting a bunch of feature checkboxes on a list, with zero regard for the actual quality of the product.

This is true for most government contracts in most countries.

It gets worse with government contracts involving tech products and services as most governments don't have any skilled and knowledgeable tech people working for them, even in Germany, because why would they work for the toxic and underpaying public sector when they could earn more and get more respect in the private sector. This way, you only retain clueless people who only heard about the internet from a book, don't care about learning or improving things and are just there for a cushy job, ticking boxes and filing paperwork till retirement. If you want to hire skilled tech workers you gotta pay them well and give them freedom, which is not usually what government jobs are all about.

From what I've heard, Denmark is a great example of a well run, transparent government, which also employs skilled tech workers to develop high quality government software in house, instead of farming it all off to slimy companies who are gonna ship low quality trash at insane markups.
I dunno, being able to easily get places (to visit or work or have fun) is pretty important. Time is finite and valuable, so things that less us spend time in more satisfying ways are valuable.
No one is going to rent you a car for $1/ride, self driving or not in fact I doubt you could rent a bike for that much. Even if you eliminate the driver from the equation, you still have to pay for the value of the car, wear and tear, and fuel/electricity to run it. The $1 on top is an extremely optimistic cost of a self driving software only.

Let me put it this way - it would already be cheaper for me to just take an Uber to work than own my car. And yet, I(and I imagine most people will too) prefer to own my car.
It's not a complete brick; if you give up iCloud and all associated Apple services, you can get a root shell (assuming checkra1n is unpatched on your device & iOS version) and delete the locks and end up with a phone that works fine if you can get an alternative app store on it (which you can if you're able to get a root shell in the first place)[0][1]

[0] https://github.com/FlymeDllVa/iCloud-bypass-via-USB

[1] https://github.com/Toni-d-e-v/Aurora-Icloud-bypass
This (and a few other similar articles) make me feel that there ought to be more emphasis on recognizing "good novelty" vs "bad novelty" rather than "more novelty" vs "less novelty".

The word "budget" frames the question wrongly, I think.

If there are 4 new technologies on a project and the team were insistent that they each solved a lot of pain I'd be less averse than I would to 1 new technology that they adopted because it was "cool", "made by google" and "everybody [cool] is using it".
- 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error)

- existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything)

- reduced traffic congestion (autonomous vehicles can better react/drive)

- improved supply chains (autonomous trucks) (can work 0-24)

just to name a few off top of my head
This is only half the story. What is actually happening is that Sweden is importing expensive electricity from the baltics and exporting it to Germany. So even though the electricity is only in "transit" through Sweden, the prices go up in southern Sweden. Obviously everything is working as designed, but it does feel a bit unfair.

To lower the prices in southern Sweden either southern Sweden or northern Germany must increase "plannable" electricity production to avoid expensive imports from the baltics.
Except the lab doing this make no mention of treating disease. They want to "shortcut machine learning" by using living tissue to perform tasks: https://corticallabs.com/
Was also discussed yesterday under different link:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33201805 (83 points | 11 comments)
Something I keep observing that seems to be passed over, coming from a Rails background, is that by using a known framework, the company is also accepting the "population" that comes with it, as well as the known problems.

I observed many Rails developers and many apps (purely anecdotal, I wish I could run a real study), but the problems are the usual, the ones on top of my mind right now:

- database changes affect directly UI code, so a change in the DB requires changing code in a million places
- Rails devs don't know SQL as much as they should (often just don't know it), for a framework that so SQL-centered, it's weird
- hidden logic (callbacks)

These are very common problems with this framework and are well known to hinder company growth and ability to iterate.

Would a home-grown framework be better? I cannot tell, but surely if the list of downsides when choosing a framework was written in the splash page, I would be way more scared.
"If you use this framework, your db will 100% be coupled with your frontend" is a terrifying statement.

Given that, framework should be evaluated for their downsides too, but there isn't even a list of known issues.
What does "root server" even means? The only context where I saw servers being mentionned as root is in the domain name system. These aren't.
The idea is to have private transportation, some of us like the peace and quiet.
If I understand it correctly the idea of worker mode is to have a persistent application running where you can have the same objects in memory from one request to another rather than relaunching the app from scratch (requiring files, constructing objects, fetching data from some database) again for each request.

Is that it?
I see your point, and that is indeed the case in some companies (or even roles within companies). I also advocate for keeping a separate work/personal phone.

However, being a background checking company, making phone calls is absolutely in their BAU remit. Upon submission of documents, they even state in their automated email response that they may call you for further information. Plus, they regularly call companies to verify employment information.

I got the distinct impression that they have a certain process, and they pay certain ranks not very much to simply follow that process. Any minor deviation from that playbook needs to be handled by a "senior", who is "empowered" to think and handle things like a regular human.
I’ve got a few beefy servers that are under fixed fee contracts and are underutilized at the moment.

Anyone got an ideas on how I can support the cause?
On Bias:

Everyone has biases, that includes companies since they are composed of and controlled by people It's difficult to determine if a person or companies biases affected the information they provide with certainty. Further I'll state that since everyone has these biases it's basically a wash and pointless to discuss on an individual level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Higher probability of being truthful is actually too low a low bar"

We can't set some minimum level of reliability that needs to be passed because we are ranking sources against each other not against an undefined value. Even figuring out what that value is seems extremely difficult. This reminds me of the corruption discussion a few weeks ago, people were comparing the US to nothing, just making statements like "There's alot of corruption".

Since we need to get information about what's going on around us we have to use one or more sources of information. Therefore if there is a contradiction between sources we use reputation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"You should simply believe what I say due to my strong reputation on social networks"

I don't know your reputation nor has anyone else told me about you. However let's talk about why, in general, individuals on the internet are more likely to be less trust worthy than dedicated news outlets. This is assuming you are only using reputation and there's no other variables.

1. People on the internet can and normally do use a pseudonym. Having to create a new account with a new name isn't that painful if your reputation is destroyed for some reason. This is much more difficult for a business.
Since the consequences of starting over are less for a person it increases the probability of they are lying because it reduces the effect of a punishment

2. An individuals primary function isn't the distribution of information nor are they funded by it. CNN is a news network, that's their main function. If people stop watching them they can go out of business whereas a person on the internet just continue living even if their reputation is ruined.

Since the stakes are so low for a person that increases the probability they'll lie (This is similar to 1)

3. Due to anonymity it would be difficult to sue individuals on the internet for defamation or to hold them accountable in. CNN is a company that is registered as a corporation.

It's difficult to enact punishments for a person on the internet vs companies and the less likely a punishment will occur or the less painful the punishment the higher the probability a person will commit the crime
Let’s say I have 10TB of data that I want to make searchable, and want to self host, what are my options with Meilisearch?
Also most of the wind power is in northern Sweden.
"Funding secured" it not exactly the same as "will negotiate with investors", is it?
In the globalisation/market liberalism mindset it's traditionally considered good if places with high supply and low demand export to areas where products fetch higher prices.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/65,535
Doesn't allow point to point. I lose about 5 hours a week due to cycling and using public transport.