skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A grid-scale Vanadium-based flow battery was recently installed in Australia.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-23/vanadium-flow-battery...

IIRC, this particular chemistry is an Australian development, as well.
I'm sure their intentions are very different but it's dehumanising to say it's apples and oranges. Seeing your family members killed is the same, regardless of who you are, and being collateral does not abdicate responsibility, and does not reduce the resulting anger. IDF does have a choice of tactics and they do appear to be using shelling on a dense civilian location while providing unrealistic opportunity to evacuate.
Ext4 has changed their binary format twice with only forward compatibility. Mounting a new, large ext4 partition often won't work on old machines.

Source: had to patch yaboot(PowerPC Mac bootloader) to update ext4 to boot with /boot on ext4.
I see people saying to can low-acid foods in water bath canners for a really long time. There's no amount of time at 100C that kills botulism in low-acid foods.

Tomatoes are high acid. It's things like carrots or green beans and such that hard require a pressure canner.

Also you should answer this question by consulting a canning guide and not by asking a forum for technology & entrepreneurship.
That describes the first one my parents got in the early 80s - except I seem to remember a power slider as well. Best microwave UI ever.
> Cancel culture is cancel culture. But what's the idea that makes it bad? It's not over a protected class which we do deem worthy generally but over political views which are not uniformly considered protected.

I think it's important to parse out the difference between bad and illegal. Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal, and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's bad.

Cancel Culture is a bad thing, but I don't think it should be illegal to fire someone because he's controversial. That being said, I don't think our culture should tolerate it.

Cancel Culture creates a chilling effect on speech; it's hard to have a candid conversation when you know that expressing the "wrong" opinion could mean losing your job and being publicly humiliated.

It can also create a mob rule, which has no interest in the truth, but rather seeks to demonize anyone who challenges its worldview. I'll give you an example of this that happened in San Francisco recently. A school board member was accused of being a "racist" after she remarked that "black and brown students" lack family support. Despite the fact that this is objectively true in her school district, she was forced to publicly apologize and resign, Chinese Cultural Revolution style. This kind of publicly humiliation creates a toxic environment, where instead of identifying and addressing the root cause of problems, school boards will plug their ears and hum while doing things that actually make things worse [1]. Or, people will say one thing, but actually think another. San Francisco is notorious for this; people virtue signal left and right, but when it comes to actual policy, they vote very differently.

The fact of the matter is that people have a wide range of opinions. I work with people who are all over the political spectrum, none of whom should be publicly humiliated and forced to resign, apologize, and flagellate themselves just because their opinions are controversial. This is definitely not how you win hearts and minds for a cause, at least not among rational people. Sooner or later, the things you use against other people will be turned against you.

[1] Different school board, but undoubtedly the same type of people who called Ann Hsu a racist: https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-sa...
Fatal overdose suspect fits definition of serial killer
I did a lot of the Pentesterlab Pro exercises:

https://www.pentesterlab.com/exercises

And was astounded by how many of them came in the class of "OAuth Exploits". And far from a list of specific CVEs in some random app, you seemed to be able to go from one common implementation bug to the next. You walk away wondering how anyone ever gets it right.
Also it need be said that one’s initial shock at the state of numpy/pandas will probably increase with their ‘general’ programming proficiency.

The degree to which the ‘Python data science’ scene has their own separate set of conventions, and the degree to which there’s a lot of weird meta-programming going on in these packages, is quite jarring.
That inclusion statement seems very badly thought out and quite Western-centric. For many people in oppressive states who rely on censorship-resistant and privacy-guaranteeing software, being a dissident isn’t necessarily about defending minorities or trying to make the world a better place. It’s often about retreating into a private world with your fellows and trying to live your life as best you can under the circumstances. So, IMO it’s better not to specify any specific social-justice goals for projects like these.
How does developing another engine help at all? It is very likely its graphics are so under-optimized because they spent most of their time on the simulation aspect, which is more than challenging enough. Dyson Sphere Program is a game with lots of stuff going on at a time, the engine isn't the issue. Cities Skylines 2 is just a very complex game.

As a city builder it has not just dynamic geometry (which makes graphics optimization more challenging) and lots going on on screen like DSP, but also a complex agent based simulation of a city, its transportation, its economy, and individual agent AIs. It is far more complex than most games despite not being graphically intensive. And do note that as far as cities builders go, it's also one of the most ambitious graphically. My personal opinion is they deserve some slack as long as the game continues to improve.
"But for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it"

(Casca in Julius Caesar, however the play is in this case describing an event actually mentioned in Plutarch)
Especially when we really, really don't want to.
I don't know what is rentier capitalism about owning compute that your organization uses? Could you walk me through that?
I switched away from Android in part because I wanted a phone that was just an appliance that always worked. I enjoyed fiddling with alternative ROMs and such but I eventually realized that, as a tinkerer, the only way to make sure my phone always worked when I needed it was to pick a device I couldn’t root and tinker with. I think the market is big enough for both models and we’re all worse off if the users that want the Apple experience are unable to pick it.
FWIW I don't think that was the implication. Even when the simulation and rendering are asynchronous having a busy CPU will result in lower rendering performance, regardless of how busy the GPU is.
Congrats on finishing this. I love the domain name!
The thing about storms is that the wind changes abruptly all the time. Maybe the bird knows how to navigate it, but it's not a safe environment for balloons like people used as example downthread.
The sim performs OK, but it's still based on Game Objects to my knowledge (eg. All entities are a class type interacting OOP style)

A city sim could be made massively more performant using a data oriented architecture like Unity DOTS or any other ECS style engine
Sun certainly sold computers, yes.

I'm not sure what "weeks of overhead" you're referring to, specifically, as it could mean a few different things. Happy to elaborate if you will :)
> My cynical take is that everybody noticed, but did not fix.

Before it was released, they told everyone that the game was not optimized graphically, and the minimum specs were already high. It was quite clear that there is still more work to be done to get it in a better state. So, not sure why you have this "cynical" take. This isn't something they are trying to deceive people with. I'm not even in the market to buy the game, and I know this.
He really does do movies like that, doesn't he? Stuck in the airport in the terminal, stuck on a remote island in castaway, even chasing decaprio in catch me if you can...
I had a brief moment of panic when I read the title as "discontinued" instead of "discounted"
think of it from a subjective experience of somebody who was "from the internet" in the early 2000s (because that's when Danny coined the term):

mIRC made irc easy, jabber was already a thing, you're have a bunch of bookmarks (in non-monetized, non-ad supported online services) to high quality content, you're posting on forums, you get your news from blogs of intelligent people, etc. etc. the internet you're interacting with is great!

alas you have technologically unsophisticated users joining in and what they are experiencing is "hinternet": banners everywhere (we had adblockers), spam all the time (we had spamassassin, and our host Paul graham just invented naive bayesian spam filtering, which at least early on worked spectacularly), phishing and trickery (the computer told me to put my credit card, or similar). it's a miserable broken experience, that potentially results in your information or money being stolen, and all kinds of other indignities.

I'm saying that modern internet is more like a hinternet of old than it is anything else, but we are all forced do t use it.
Let's focus on the last part, I think it's more interesting.

> As I understand it, the disadvantages start once you want to put large payloads beyond orbit. Starship's main goal is to put a payload on the moon (this is what the NASA funding is for) and for this purpose it is much worse than a traditional single use rocket: instead of a simple trip to the moon, the design is to launch to orbit, then do an additional 6 or so launches to refuel it while in orbit, and only then will it have enough power to fly to the moon.

American plans to go to the Moon in 1960-s included a variant with LEO docking. That would allow using a smaller rocket, as the payload needed to go to the Moon could be assembled on low Earth orbit in several launches. NASA decided to go with one rocket of the size which was very ambitious at the time - about an order of magnitude bigger than the biggest existing one.

The Starship goal is to bring even bigger payload to the Moon. Sure, it could be done by scaling up the Starship. But the fate of big rockets so far - Saturn-V, N-1, Energiya, even Space Shuttle to an extent - is that they suffer from the lack of use. The more they are used, the better and cheaper they get. So, no, the SpaceX goal isn't actually to bring even bigger payload to the Moon - it just happens that this scale, which Starship has, is good to land on the Moon a lot of payload in one launch. So, given that you want to use the Starship which is being created for many different missions, how would you use Starship to fly to the Moon? You'd refuel it on LEO. Noe we can remember the actual SpaceX goal - it's flying a lot of people and cargo to Mars, and SpaceX decided to create the biggest rocket they could reasonably plan, which is still not that large given that Mars wants thousands and thousands tons of stuff, so even this big rocket should be used with refueling on LEO.

Once again - Starship is the biggest rocket SpaceX can build, from technical and economical standpoint (this reminds me the Soviet engineers chain of thoughts when they were planning N-1). It's still small enough for the task (flying to Mars), so LEO refueling is still needed. If it's still needed, it's logical to use it for Moon flights as well.

Yes, instead of one flight (like Saturn-V) Starship needs several, for refueling. In exchange it brings larger payload to the Moon, so since we're planning to go there and stay, it could be justified. So, we're using a universal reusable super-heavy rocket for many different tasks instead of building a system for each task separately. We're losing in time - since we need multiple launches from Earth for single flight to the Moon - but gaining and payload and - crucially - in developing bespoke solutions for different tasks.

I think overall it's an advantageous approach.
Take a look at gnuradio.
they have that design on purpose, have no doubt about it...its your opinion they have a bad design...bad design considering what?...they have an excellent design considering optimising sales, which means it is a design appropriate for the web site publishers, not necessarily for the web site users
> Adding energy to the system

Best estimates I've found to date: [ EDIT: 0.6-0.8 ] * Petawatts * of extra energy circulating in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic changes to radiative forcing.

EDIT: For the people downvoting this because "watts are units of power not energy", please read the Wikipedia page on radiative forcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

For the people downvoting because they can't believe the number, here's where i took the value from: https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/01/how-much-extra-ener... ... I did quote it incorrectly, by 1 order of magnitude (out of 16!)

For the people who still argue with the use of watts, despite that being a standard for this, here's the author of the above link on this point:

> Note: Before anyone complains, I’ve deliberately conflated energy and power above, because the difference doesn’t really matter for my main point. Power is work per unit of time, and is measured in watts; Energy is better expressed in joules, calories, or kilowatt hours (kWh). To be technically correct, I should say that the earth is getting about 300 terawatt hours of energy per hour due to anthropogenic climate change, and humans use about 16 terawatt hours of energy per hour. The ratio is still approximately 18.

Out of interest, you can also convert it to calories. 1kWh is about 0.8 million calories. So, we’re force-feeding the earth about 2 x 1017 (200,000,000,000,000,000) calories every hour. Yikes.
There is an API, on which we have also built a console, so you can use the API directly, use various CLI clients we've provided, or the console. Or you can sling JSON via curl, if you prefer.

If you want kubernetes, you'd run it yourself on top of what we offer, think EC2, conceptually.

Here's our API docs if you'd like to check them out: https://docs.oxide.computer/api/disk_list
if it was cpu bound because of world sim, changing the resolution would not improve the performance. also, there's no reason for the world to be that much more complicated than the first game.
All of those features are over 10 years old. Time moves fast. Windows 7 was 14 years ago.
From their 1.0.11f1 patch notes:

> Fixed crash when car crashes into still hidden car with trailer

Incredible realism from this simulator. The app crashes when a car crashes!
Spot on.

Front end is how I got started programming, both as a hobby and professionally. It has a certain tangible quality to it that makes it both approachable and satisfying, but that often gets misconstrued as "easy". It's not easy!

I spent several years doing mostly-FE work and all the bikeshedding and meddling and "just make it do X why is it so hard?" burned that appreciation right out of me. It's also the first thing to get blamed for every bug and error, because it's what you see and interact with, which is just exhausting.

I took the technical skills I learned and transitioned to mostly backend where there's more "trust" (i.e., I don't understand what you do so I'll just let you do it) and autonomy. A small part of me misses the visually demonstrable part of front end, but the work culture around it I don't miss one iota.
Also, if we're getting into trivia, Donkey Kong (1981) was the first game to feature Mario, called Jumpman at the time, because he was a man who could jump.

Also also, Mario is supposedly based on someone who rented property to Nintendo.
Go lets you run arbitrary shell commands. Even if you couldn't, you can do virtually anything with IO. Even if it had some way to guess the file you're trying to open is a socket, you don't necessarily need a socket. You can be writing to a named pipe or even a tty that serves as the input to ncat which keeps an active tcp session with some C&C server always running as a system daemon. That might sound ridiculous, but real-world malware often works in pairs like that where one process will simply see if another exists, do bad stuff if so, and forget about it if not. They're attacking millions if not billions of hosts, so don't need them all to join the botnet. Only the kernel at runtime knows what you're doing at the level of detail needed to prevent something like this.
The Beatles to release emotional 'final song', Now and Then, next week
before you bark - have you tried using it for any meaningful amount of time?
> These small businesses suddenly have a problem... in that these same organized criminal gangs that were previously stealing whole phones, would suddenly have a large incentive to instead break into their repair shops to steal their stocks of "unlocked" parts

Alright, you had me doubled over in laughter for a second there. I hope to see John Deere argue the same when their anti-repair reckoning comes, the testimony would be legendary.

> But ignoring that, this "releasing of parts" still harms the end-user — because it gives the grey-market buyers of repair parts — the same ones buying from chop-shops — a channel by which to acquire a stock of the critical missing parts (logic boards!) required to build full new phones out of mostly-otherwise-stolen parts.

Two refutations:

- If this was Apple's end-goal, then they wouldn't stop users from replacing piecemeal components themselves and only use the DRM to prevent complete "ship of Theseus" situations as you are presenting. Even in that scenario, those iPhones are technically refurbished (like it or not) because their processors are OEM.

- By characterizing the secondhand market as gray, you are both acknowledging it has legitimate demand and is a market. If Apple is using their power as an original manufacturer to stop people beyond "minting" new iPhones, it should be stopped. I'm not saying this as a whistleblower, I'm saying this as a genuine regulatory and legislative suggestion.

> But now, by buying 90% chop-shop parts and 10% legitimate released-to-secondary-market logic boards

Then, as I said, force the end-user to authorize the release of the components. Make it some absolutely stupid security theater stuff, to really give people like you something to yap about. Make it a 48 hour process that involves 2 Genius Bar assistants and a remote expert who ensure that you aren't being held at gunpoint by using your Apple Watch to track your blood pressure. Then you both fix the market, give people a nice customer story to help them sleep at night, and let people repair their phones. I'm not asking for the world, it's a trillion-dollar business. Of course I'm going to expect the base-level benevolent conduct from them when regulators don't babysit their every move.

Alternatively, Apple could acknowledge that this is "not their problem" and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way of getting their anticompetitive clock cleaned.
Sure! That's totally a thing, and lots of people do that.

But I've done tons of stuff in Flask. I wouldn't say you need to "Have a good understanding of Blueprints" to be a Python expert. Or "proficiency subclassing yaml.YAMLObject". Or "encyclopedic knowledge of Requests verbs". Or "strong opinions on Poetry vs Pipenv". Or "can use Ansible to configure a fleet of servers".

Those are all common Python subjects in the areas I poke around a lot. You can be an expert data engineer without knowing any of those things. Just like you can be an expert backend engineer without having used Pandas a lot.
And yet they keep stopping...don't know what to say
User friendliness is just one of many design aspects. It’s important but it doesn't define good design. Moreover, a big apprentice mark is trying to make things easy to learn at the expense of usability.

Engelbart said:

"…if we were focused on making everything easy to learn, rather than easy to use, we would all be riding tricycles. The bicycle is harder to learn to ride, but much more powerful."
The post is written in the context of weather models, not just the idea of climate and weather and what is possible. It is expected that this is possible - but none of the models currently in use for short term forecasting showed anything close to what actually happened.
didn't editorialize, this is what auto-populated when I submitted via the HN bookmarklet

but point taken, will edit
A lot of those undocumented immigrants are coming from places like Venezuela. No amount of foreign investment can fix Venezuela because it would all be stolen by the corrupt and incompetent government currently in charge there. Unfortunately, the only real solution would be a violent revolution by the Venezuelan people to overthrow their oppressors and institute a multiparty democracy with a free market economy.
> So how did every reliable model we use miss this? That’s for graduate students and researchers to answer in the coming years, because I have no formal idea.

Would love to see followup on this. Wish there were some way to like bookmark or something and come back in a few years.
Apple doesn't make their money by collecting your information. they make their money mostly by selling you expensive stuff and by selling you streaming services.
Watts aren’t energy, so no idea what this means.
Almost no games support this nowadays.

It creates more problems than it solves, because the performance issue isn't raw FLOPs now (it's stuff like memory bandwidth)
While I admire your ardor, and agree with you that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem, your explanation lacks a specific mechanism, and the disrespect you show towards the experts is reprehensible.

I found these facts in the article interesting:

- This is not actually unprecedented -- hurricane Patricia in 2015 did the same thing, more intensely.

- "Sea surface temperatures were close to 31°C over Otis’s path, which is a few degrees above normal. While not the primary cause of Otis’s rapid intensification, they did not hurt."

- Unusual placement of the hurricane relative to the jet stream seems to be the main cause

(Geography BA, Earth science PhD)
The C++ standard requires:

1. Both std::vector<T> and std::basic_string<T> support push_back(T) with amortized constant performance.
2. Additionally, std::basic_string<T> has an operator+=(T) that behaves semantically identical to push_back(T), but does not have a complexity requirement imposed by the standard.

Logically that leads to every reasonable standard library implementation to simply dispatch std::basic_string<T>::operator+=(T) to std::basic_string<T>::push_back(T) (or vice versa, of course) and have both operations run in amortized constant time.

You're technically correct that the standard theoretically allows push_back(T) and operator+=(T) to have different time complexities, so you could make operator+=(T) run in linear time if you're trolling (but in that case, why stop at O(N) and not make it O(2^N) or something?), but since push_back(T) and +=(T) need to be equivalent and the former needs to run in O(1) amortized time, there is no reason to make the latter perform worse than the former.
Buyers doesn't seem to complain. In fact they seem to be call everyone else a luddite. Wonder why?
Although ardour.org is not technically a non-profit, we're an organization that does not make or distribute a profit. Our approach, for about 14 years now, has been that continuing to refine and improve the software tool we offer our supporters keeps the revenue flowing.