skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
AI or Human?
So because alternative technology didn't exist there was no case to have the discussion and invest more heavily in alternative green tech research, shortening the time frame to action and reducing dependence on fossil fuels earlier?

This isn't about what occurred then, it's about the time and opportunity cost of inaction that was fostered by rubbishing climate science and hiding the research.
Sure, for physical goods that may be somewhat true, but LTV presupposes that labor itself has a value beyond what the market would pay, which does not seem to be the case, in capitalism or in other previous systems of mercantile trade.
Very impressive. But frustrating having to read this great blog post over a tiled background which obscured the text.
I'm assuming what you mean by capitalism here is free trade. I'd actually say SA has become more "liberal" over the years and a lot of that is due to trade. When Mohammed Bin Salman becomes king I think a lot of reforms will happen. Also consider that Japan was at it's most horrofic when it was a closed economy. Although that of course isn't such a great example because war economies are generally more controlled. That said, Japan's economy remained closed after the war largley due to the same people who started it in the first place. But coming back to the main point I think excluding people from your economy, especcialy in non essential things like entertainment, casues more harm than otherwise.
Does this mean that big bang either didn't happen or happened in a different way that we think of it? Or happened far earlier than we think it did? Complete layman here.
if time is a dimension, and we can only see the past and the present, could it not be that, if one's gaze were shifted, one could see the future? effectively looking at the "other side" of the dimension of time? looking straight at one "side" of time, you can only see the past and present. but if you had a galactic set of mirrors set up around "time", couldn't you "see" the other side where the future lies? effectively you'd be looking at a reflection of the future.

or, time being malleable (relative to things like mass and movement), wouldn't it be possible to refract or bend time the way light is, such that you could see things (that already happened in the past) sooner, even if they are really far away? maybe like how bending a race track can allow a vehicle to exert more force or go faster, but with light?
I want to skip over the static typing benefits argument, because I think it
is well understood that static typing is a good thing and if we could bless
JavaScript with a built-in and robust typing system then I don't think many
people would be against that.

Well, yes. That's what Typescript is. If a built-in and robust typing system were added to Javascript, it would be the same thing as integrating Typescript into the ECMA spec. for Javascript.

EDIT (some more thoughts):

For example, a new package you install can require a new TypesScript
version. Once installed, you then may need to update your source code. This
can place quite a high tax on the developer, where perhaps a 10 minute
change becomes hours long.

Yes, that's not very different than upgrading to a new version of e.g. Python or Ruby on the back end. The problem is that you're seeing Typescript as "just a framework", rather than a compiler/interpreter. If you view upgrading Typescript versions the same as e.g. upgrading Python or Ruby versions, and plan for it accordingly, then you'll at least have the correct expectations regarding the scope of work, even if the actual work to do isn't any less.

Most libraries do not document their types, or have no examples using
TypeScript.

If a type system were integrated into Javascript itself, it would have to be optional, in order to maintain backwards compatibility with the vast untold billions of lines of Javascript that are out there. Thus, you'd have exactly the same problem. It's very difficult to add a typesystem to a language after the fact.

Errors are long and don't provide enough detail. They will explain a type
mismatch referencing many types you may not have ever seen, and are not
documented anywhere. Except for simple errors, many of them are very hard to
follow to a remedy.

Poor error messages are an issue with any type system that allows generics. Typescript's error messages are, at least in my experience, better than C++'s error messages. I find this remarkable, given that C++ was designed as a typed language from the beginning, and Typescript has, as one of its design constraints, strict backwards compatibility with Javascript.

I referred to TypeScript as a framework which it isn't. However it feels
similar to me in that you are at the whim of TypeScript developers and how
they decide to progress with the language.

That's true of any programming language, Javascript included. If you're writing Java, you're at the whim of Oracle. If you're writing C#, you're at the whim of Microsoft. If you're writing C++, you're at the whim of the C++ standards committee. If you're writing Python, you're at the whim of the Python Steering Council (and you used to be at the whim of Guido Van Rossum). Every programming language has some person or committee that's in charge of it, and if you're choosing to use that language, you're implicitly accepting the decisions made by that person or committee.
The construction of Moscow's Big Circle subway line is completed
Not sure how this squares with them being open?
Did you upgrade Typescript (and if so, why), or did you upgrade some project dependencies, or type definitions?

> No documentation of types means going into source code to see what is there. Sometimes there could be multiple types that could be used for something, and it's not clear which should be used.

I haven't had this experience, and I'm not super experienced with Typescript. Are you using VS Code? It typically makes it trivial to find the definitions of things I'm interacting with in the editor.
Knex (with MySQL) had a scary SQL injection
An interesting complicating factor here is that much of the UK's installed base of CCTG stations were built during the 90s with the intention of replacing many of the smaller coal-fired stations, which would typically be doing 2-shift operations (i.e., day and evening). Now, those CCGT stations are increasingly used to counterbalance renewables, and (as you point out) are now running on much shorter cycles than they were designed for.

A report from a few years back (which I'm afraid I've utterly forgotten the source) examined the data on this, and argued that as a result of this changed pattern of use, these CCGT stations were now not achieving nearly the kind of efficiency figures they were designed for, which from a carbon point of view is not good news - we might still be emitting lots of the stuff, but just not getting as much practical benefit from it as we used to.

Now, I'm not meaning to suggest that this is a disaster, or that is somehow invalidates the entire of concept of renewables, but it does point to the need to be careful about what we take to be a useful measure of progress - and that merely the quantity of supply to the grid in GWH isn't necessarily it.

And the article under discussion here is of course picking away at another strand of this same idea - when we connect these generators together, it gives rise to system-level effects, and we need to be thinking about the outcomes, both beneficial and harmful, in system-level terms as well.

(Edited for spelling.)
Kinda relevant xkcd that was published today https://xkcd.com/2723/
I think you need to be very careful there. Only because something is, e.g., a number, does not mean you know what it represents. I think Typescript might actually create a false sense of safety.
It's "feasible" to use dynamic current sources per pixel, and many LED pixel drivers do offer this for dot correction / colour balance / global brightness, but PWM is almost always used for pixel values; it's much easier to achieve the necessary resolution staying in the digital domain, and there's not really any downside. The other big issue with current control is that the simple ways to do dynamic current are linear, so effectively use constant power regardless of pixel state, and also burn a lot of silicon area and might start creating thermal issues in the driver. At high power levels, current regulated switch mode DC-DC drivers start to make sense, but doing that per pixel is definitely not feasible.
To be honest, I find SnapMap, Twitter & a Facebook account made only to follow {neighborhood} Facebook pages much better for conveying information than a 3rd party app trying to break into the space those fill already.

Those services have much broader market capture than Citizen will probably be able to achieve so I find the information exchange on them much better equipped to handle population dense areas of the city with an overall younger demographic that is more likely to use them as the preferred method.

In my case, it's Milwaukee's East Side; some would call it "dangerous" because of gun violence, car theft, robberies in the areas surrounding it but my personal anecdote is that those are isolated enough where I'm not going to avoid going around and getting things done as they happen.

I guess I could add another anecdote; when I lived on the deeper south side of Milwaukee off of Cleveland avenue and 15th street there was much more "danger" happening around the house with my neighbors being drug dealers and one such incident had a man in the bed of the truck shooting his rifle between the houses on the block in the neighborhood when intoxicated around 11pm as examples; but I genuinely mean it when I say I never felt safer in that neighborhood when walking around.

It could be (and probably is) hubris; but this all goes to say that the community surrounding an area is much more powerful than people reporting incidents to an app. Not that it doesn't meet some specific need in the market and isn't valuable to some; but I digress.
> you’re better off just starting with typescript

It depends. The tooling is still a barrier (even though it's gotten smaller); the cost is small for a real project, but for someone who's learning and knows nothing about the ecosystem, it could be a real obstacle to dive all the way in at once. The exception would be if you're starting with something like Deno that integrates TypeScript seamlessly. Outside of that, tools like esbuild have significantly lowered the bar vs a few years ago when you had no choice but to configure webpack + babel. But even esbuild isn't quite zero-configuration
How easy would it be for researchers to differentiate deliberately fabricated abstracts written by humans from abstracts of peer-reviewed scientific papers from respected publications? I think the answer to that question might give more context to this result.
Sounds like Jira to me
> 2023 Minimum Wage

>For Large Employers (501 or more employees)

> $18.69/hour

- https://www.seattle.gov/laborstandards/ordinances/minimum-wa...

(I have no idea where the specific Starbucks upthread is supposed to be, so I don't know how relevant Seattle even is).
> Rather it's that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that we're moving away from parts of it faster than its light can cover the distance to us.

From my understanding, it's not that we're moving away from parts of the universe, but that the distance between us is growing so fast that light sent from one part will find that after traveling toward us for some amount of time, the remaining distance to travel is actually more than than when it started.

One way for the distance between two objects to increase is indeed for those objects to literally be moving in opposite directions through space. But the expansion of the universe itself causes the distance between two otherwise-stationary points to nonetheless increase. Put differently, it's the cosmic yardstick that's shrinking, not the entities that must necessarily be moving.

(This is also why two points can be "moving apart" faster than light speed, the cosmic speed limit.)
I've also burned through the backlog of stuff I 100% wanted to watch, but considering how cheap it is, and how often they add/I discover something nice, I just let it roll. I probably do at least 60% of my movie streaming with Shudder.

I also legit appreciate the 'channels' on their home screen. While I rarely watch them, they surface some things that I enjoy later on.
This reminded me of https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/mining-for-cryptocurr...

(I know this isn’t storage, jk)
Meh, I’ll go with what Steve Jobs said - hot water on the back of your neck increasing the blood flow to your brain.
> In a socialist regime, job assignments are made by the state.

In a socialist system, the workers exercise control of the means of production, and, as a consequence, of industry.

There are models of socialism where this control is exercised centrally through the state, but it is controversial within socialism. It is widely known because a branch of socialist theory that attempted to adapt Marxist theory (itself one particular corner of socialism) to avoid capitalist development as a prerequisite was influential with groups that haf some success establishing control of various states and implemented it, but it is not the only model of socialism.

So, yes, in the USSR this is a (gross simplification of) the system, but it is not general to “socialism”.
I may be stupid, but considering that the models of galaxy stability are based on a universe where we are made from star stuff and not energy stuff, is it not possible that they formed way quicker with less complication because it was basically only hydrogen and empty space?
The US runs three major grids: East, West, and Texas. There's interconnections, but capacity is limited. Sounds like the UK is similar here with the bottleneck between Scotland and southern England.

Within the US grids, there's really subgrids with interconnection and bottlenecks, too, but those interior bottlenecks aren't brought up as often as say overnight wind production in Texas being over local demand as well as interconnect capacity.
The question of whether it's "worth it" really boils down to you and your specific requirements.

Even within the same project, there are times when I don't want typechecking - when I am prototyping something out and want to move fast.

And there are other times, when I want typechecking - when I am finalizing a feature implementation or doing integration with existing logic etc.

It's not a framework. It definitely is a language in its own right.

But from personal experience, the group productivity goes way up with larger codebases with many ICs working on it. Unit tests become type checks. It opens up a lot of extra bandwidth for more sophisticated functionality or better tests.

Solo IC, working on a small project, with no intention of ever writing tests - you might see TS be an overhead.

To sum up, your requirements decide whether it's worth it.
I am convinced the Tesla apologists in this thread are more concerned about the value of their TSLA stock than they are about human life. Clearly, the public has the right to expect that other vehicles on the road will be driving in a reasonable manner. There was no reasonable necessity for the Tesla in that video to maneuver as it did. If a human driver did the same thing for no justifiable reason, the same Tesla apologists would be singing a different tune.
The U.S. May Finally Breach the Debt Ceiling. Here’s Why That Would Be Bad
Life hack: weigh cartons of eggs (Jumbo and any other sizes), then calculate the cost per ounce (or whatever). Jumbo eggs are often a real bargain (but you may need to adjust recipes).
Do you game? Asus Zephyrus G14 is also AMD-only(mobile 6700 or 6800 graphics), premium build quality, and is available with a QHD display.
We are not looking back into the past cycle, but we see mature galaxies that date from the previous cycle.
So Tailscale is cool, but I stopped using it at home because I didn't like relying on a service that I couldn't self-host and required me to log in with Github. I haven't replaced it yet, but am looking at Zerotier which seems to allow self-hosting everything.
Our system favours England over scotland, with the national grid charging Scotland much more to move energy around.

With all the electricity generated there it should be cheaper - this could incentivise accelerating the electrification of trains in Scotland, currently only 25% of the network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_in_Sco...
Could be a double entendre? Great film.
Again, that's not what the article is about. If more wind power gets built in Scotland to serve needs in England, then increasingly more of that output will have to be curtailed because we simply can't move the energy to where it needs to be, to the point where the only thing adding more wind farms would do is to provide a tad bit more energy when there's hardly any wind to distribute. In all other scenarios, having more capacity will not translate into not burning gas!

The article describes an entirely different problem than "oh no, it's very windy/sunny and we don't know how to use all of this energy" which is not solved with better distribution, but with storage and demand regulation.

And actually, the article is in complete agreement with you that we needn't be overly worried: curtailment isn't the end of the world, but we can solve it and it turns out that some of those solutions are cheaper than just building more farms, or would incentivize building those farms closer to where the energy is needed.
Unfortunately, Apple has decided that Backspace IS "more correct." Everyone else has been providing both keys for decades.

If you do a lot of editing, and certainly programming, you quickly chafe at the lack of a Delete key. I've been using Karabiner on the Mac to remap F12 to be Delete, losing the Volume-up control in the process. Annoying, but worth it.
curious if they will reach you 3 months after you quit.
Lol author reads like a bad cook who's blaming his tools. Gas is pretty AVG in terms of cooking. Temp control is far from the best (induction wins hands down there), it doesn't add pleasurable scent to food like cooking over coals or timber. Tbh only place gas excels is for wok burners imho. Residential could certainly live without gas as could the vast majority of commercial operations that use it too I'd argue.
In partnership with the murder-ball of burning hate that bakes the day.
Ha ha, I don't think you did!
They already have infrastructure for moving the bulk material from the mines, but certainly not for extracting rare earth elements.

It's an iron mine dating to pre-WWII so if they process the ore on site they're probably using either direct reduction or the newer electrolytic process. Neither of which have much in common with the liquid-liquid extraction process used for rare earth elements. It requires mixing the ore with an extractant (see D2EHPA or PC88A) into a nasty acidic slurry which is then separated into a aqueous layer containing the waste and a nonpolar solvent that strips the rare earth elements bound up with the extractant. All the different rare earth elements then have to be separated out of the nonpolar solvent.

The process resembles uranium mining far more than iron mining.
> And you're still able to run your own instance, just like you've been able to run your own RSS reader.

Not comparable, and honestly I find it dishonest that you even try.

RSS can be just a client on your machine, no need for server running in the cloud. That's far less effort involved. Also I wouldn't be surprised if some instances start to close down traffic from "random one man instances" at some point.
Ask HN: Why my submissions are getting flagged?
I've noticed recently that my submissions are being flagged by admins, whenever I post a URL. Is there any reason why it may happen?
That entire site reads like "what if Elizabeth Holmes set up a power generation company?"

Reading up on the company on Wikipedia, it seems to be pretty much exactly that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power
> ii) Lots of libraries are extremely well documented and typed. This is the same in any language not just for types but also for docs, capability, perf etc. This argument applies to all software everywhere so it doesn't make sense to single out TS

I am singling out TS because although most good libraries have documentation for all of their methods, along with examples, many useful and popular libraries do not include full documentation of their types. Some hardly any at all.

Usage examples are some of the most useful piece of documentation you can have in a library, but many authors choose to show their examples in JS, in order not to be too opinionated. It is the fact that TS is not actually part of the language, and simply an add on, that I believe is the cause of many of these issues.

> What benefits does it bring (ignoring the biggest one of them all)?

I do believe it brings benefits and agree with what you have written, of course my view is that those benefits just aren't worth the effort. In my experience some of the best codebases I interacted with were neatly written and well documented JavaScript codebases - no TypeScript, whereas many of the TypeScript codebases have been very hard to understand and work with. This is by no means due to TypeScript, however it doesn't make me think that it helps in terms of making anything that much better.

I can't even remember many times TypeScript has actually prevented a bug, it's been more useful for documentation. But then I would prefer JSDoc which isn't so difficult to maintain and can still provide autocompletion for you.
assuming light from a big bang travels in all directions, then another big bang's light could be heading in our direction and potentially observable — the reason we can't observe the entirety of our universe is that spacetime is expanding in a way where light at the beginning isn't traveling fast enough to outpace expansion
My use case is a bit odd, but I've been using it for small personal web projects — so small that no dependencies are being pulled in and bare tsc is being used in place of a bundler — and as someone who doesn't have all of the ins/outs and do's/don'ts of JavaScript committed to memory (the vast majority of code I write is Swift or Kotlin) it's wonderful to have something catching errors before I save and reload the browser window as well as preventing "silent" bugs JS is notorious for.
These sound like things that can be done by someone who has resources when and where they need them.

They do not sound like something that can be done consistently by someone without regular transportation or pay.
> Not everyone is as diligent and not everyone will have thought through/remembered all those edge cases when they happen to end up maintaining/adding to your code.

Edge cases could be due to accidental complexity. In this case, the solution is to remove accidental complexity, not to freeze it forever in tests.

Edge cases could be due to essential complexity. In this case, if people are making changes without remembering them, it means they are changing code they don't understand. Sure, tests are making it easier. I don't want it to be easier.

> tests are a great way to ensure all that hard work you did thinking about those edge cases isn’t wasted

It is also a great way to ensure that your best talent is wasted on building guard rails.

Think about it: your best engineers are spending time making worst engineers more productive. And they are not even doing it through mentoring, so your worst engineers will remain where they are.
I pretty much deplore using Typescript for fast paced UI development.

I will be using vanilla Javascript in my own projects for the foreseeable future.
> But RISC did change everything, didn't it?

Iirc it's not such a meaningful distinction anymore. "CISC" x86 uses micro-operations internally. "RISC" ARM has several different instruction encodings (ARM, Thumb, Thumb-2, A64). Increasing numbers of people are working in high level languages anyway.