skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not even the right answer much of the time, just information that sorta matches the right patterns as requested by the user. But LLMs say things in such an authorative, intelligent seeming way that it's indeed easy to forget they have no idea what they're actually saying or how accurate it is at all...
Did the founder and initial investors make money? This article says they didn't but usually that is the only real goal and rest is all a story sold to the next dummy. He does have properties in the 20 millions in Miami though.

https://news.crunchbase.com/real-estate-property-tech/bird-f...
> Where is the land going to come from to support $4B of solar panels?

The desert. https://www.kqed.org/news/11935070/solar-energy-farms-are-bo...

Doesn't take as much as you'd think.

https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/5535

> The land area required to supply 100% of projected U.S. electricity demand in 2050 with PV installations is roughly half the area of cropland currently devoted to growing corn for ethanol production, an important consideration given the neutral or negative energy payback of corn ethanol and other complications associated with this fuel source. That same land area - i.e., 33,000 km2 to supply 100% of U.S. electricity demand with PV -is less than the land area occupied by major roads. The currently existing rooftop area within the United States provides enough surface area to supply roughly 60% of the nation’s projected 2050 electricity needs with PV...

You could power California off a solar field roughly the size of Andrews Air Force Base.
What steps are being taken to transition to other forms of sustainable power generation beyond 2030? Solar and wind are pricing coal out of the market and modern nuclear options seem viable, yet we keep hearing “five more years.”
They could also.. just have followed CCS in the first place and you people wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
That's very dependent on how much the plant contributes to grid stability and what it costs to produce electricity.
> the biggest hurdle will be public acceptance. The AI will not make the same kind of mistakes humans make. So while the aggregate number of accidents will be (likely much) lower without a human at the wheel, the AI will make deadly mistakes that no human would make, and this will terrify the public.

I'd argue safety is not a concern. There are a lot of "safe" things we could do, but don't. A significant percentage of the country doesn't even vaccinate its children. Self-driving cars aren't suddenly going to make us aware of our own mortality in ways that life itself hasn't already.

The real fear is lack of accountability. If a drunk plows into a crowd of pedestrians, he will be dragged out of it and (metaphorically) lynched. Justice makes us feel better about circumstances beyond our control. If North Korea test-launched an ICBM that erroneously hit Japan, we'd declare war over their typo. But when a self-driving car erroneously mows down pedestrians, we're told to just accept it, nothing we could do, mumble-mumble-training-data, and tragedies like this happen so we can be safer.

Nothing is going to condition us to resent the idea of Safety more than having our personal agency and sense of justice taken away from us in its name.
Hey, at least you see the waste... think about how much ewaste is invisible. :(
It doesn't even have to be malicious.
This is a “when you think about it” argument.
As in “humans are just tubes, when you think about it”.

Technical debt is a thorny issue already. Arguments like this don’t help.
Wikipedia claims the plant generated 16 TW h of energy in 2019. At $6 billion for five years of generation, that corresponds to about 8 cents per kilowatt hour. That's not great, but it doesn't seem like highway robbery to me. Seems reasonable to keep using the plant while building up solar and storage capacity.
Probably not for internal custom tools.
Now it does. Not 20-30 years ago. And then building more gas would have been cheaper, specially in the early 2000s.

The government has used many mechanism to push those things, not sure how that's questionable. Including to force Utilities to adopt renewable energy (even those that already had carbon free nuclear). Other laws that prevent pricing on intermittence. Support and tax-breaks for rooftop solar. And lots of other policies.
If this is self-serve, how would we go about asking questions to the system directly?

FWIW, I'd ask:

- 1) Who are the top posters and commenters by average score on posts and comments?

- 2) Which users instigate the most positive discussions in reply to their comments. (Not longest or more... but highest quality, without arguments, flamewars, etc.)

It is that 2nd question I'm really interested in because it really might need analysis of the substance of content, not just stats.
SiriusXM sued for allegedly trapping customers in unwanted subscriptions
why not use boats, on the surface of the water?
I should have meant, have you already found customers?
I am also working on a project on genomics, which is very orthogonal to yours, and finding customers in this field the difficult part
> A mathlete is someone who participates in math competitions. He (almost always he)

That wasn't my experience. But FWIW I went to a public high school.

My friend (her) and I (he) both got accepted into an elite school, but we both had to go state colleges, because our families couldn't afford to send us. This was decades ago, when they didn't give out as many need-based grants.
This post is for subscribers only
Diablo Canyon delivered 17,593 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2022 [1]. If California had continued to install solar power at the same rate it did 10 years ago, that much solar output would have been added in the last 3 years alone. Coupled with battery storage like you suggest, that would also cover the early evening demand peak in California.

However, California's rate of solar addition slowed down considerably since 2014. It went from 3,813 GWh of utility scale solar generation in 2013 to 9,932 GWh in 2014 for an annual growth of 6,119 GWh. But from 2017 to 2022 it grew by an average of only 2,994 GWh annually [2]. This happened at the same time that solar hardware costs continued to decline rapidly. California was more aggressive about building large scale solar projects when it was more expensive, and has oddly slowed down compared to other states in recent years. That's a reason that Diablo Canyon is still needed.

If California picks up the pace again on decarbonization with renewables, then Diablo Canyon can shut down. It shouldn't shut down while natural gas is still California's top electricity source [3].

[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/6099?fr...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California#Gene...

[3] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
Never herd of a Potemkin village, had to look it up
Thank you for the metaphor
There was a similar project with Sandhill cranes in the US, starting in the 90s. It looks like there are questions about making the parenting too easy and not preparing the young for life on their own, so that specific program ended.

It seems like a useful tool for keeping a population alive and getting them to good places, but there are limits to using it long term. Still, as a way to get captive raised birds into the wild it seems like about the only good option.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/oct/10/pilot-to-crane...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Migration
This is great feedback, thanks! Probably the first step tutorial should just be on something very straightforward, like an hour clock or a counter. I'll file an issue to introduce something more focused.

Thanks again :)

edit: https://github.com/informalsystems/quint/issues/1319
There’s also a company in China that does EV swaps for cars. It’s a very cumbersome process, the battery can be thousands of pounds, and there are also cooling connectors to worry about. On top of that, it would require every car to have a standardized battery, or else we’d be back to we are today.

It would require a large increase in battery energy density combined with a large improvement in thermal efficiency to be successful on a large scale. Plug in chargers make way more sense. Solid state batteries are on the horizon that will charge as quickly as filling a gas tank.
I think the problem the author is referring to is it stopped being about Math and much more about impressing random strangers for the chance to gain an opportunity.

My experience is similar to you - I too really enjoyed my time doing these activities but once everything I ever enjoyed started becoming brownie points for my college applications, the competition started becoming "Grind X tasks and Y patterns so you can make the grade! Cause if you don't solve this in 14 minutes, then that kid will and he'll get your position!"
I think that's the point though, isn't it? Some people will like the speeches, some won't, but they had all heard the same speech and were all more or less on the same page about what was being discussed.
Not needing to use a transpiler is genuinely the thing that excites me most about VanJS.

If you're not a daily JavaScript developer, any form of transpiler / build mechanism seems almost guaranteed to break in the gaps between when you are working on a specific project.

The projects I have that are transpiler/build free are SO MUCH more pleasant for me to intermittently hack on!
> Tesla got to market early by not producing a quality product

I'd argue Tesla min/maxed aspects of their product that gave them a initial strong lead in product space. Quintessentially performance/distance/charger-availability, but also some aspects of their tech really stood out like the touchscreen performance and mobile integration (relative to what other cars had in the mid 2010s.

IMO that initial lead has diminished. Other brands are catching up and do better in terms of some aspects of quality control and now reputation. If this trend continues I think we could see Tesla losing in most metrics, although we still probably have a good chunk of time until that happens.

If I had to buy an electric car today Tesla would still be one of the first cars I researched. Maybe Tesla would win. But in a few years I wholly expect another brand would win out.
> anyone who thinks replacing the indicator/turn signal stalk with capacitive buttons is sensible has clearly never driven in the UK—my 15 minute drive into the office crosses 11 roundabouts

Is there a car that currently actually does it? Asking because I am yet to see one. And every single tesla model I’ve ever seen in real life uses normal turn signal stalks, so that wasn’t the car you were referencing either.
I've come to realize there are a percentage of people who are unable to visualize risk unless they have personally observed the issue. While others can visualize risk that has not yet happened.

I'm general those in the first group, while it comes in many forms, it seems to boil down to "What are you worried about, X hasn't happened". Trying to present it as neutrally as I can the two side seen to be "Hey you're playing Russian roulette, the bullet is going to hit you if you keep pulling the trigger, stop before it does and their response is. 'Nothing has happened so far why are you worrying about nothing?'"

The opposite perspective is "You worry about every possible thing that could ever happen. There are a billion things that could happen it's useless worrying about them all so just worry about the ones we've seen happen and are likely to occur."

Both have their merits and their downfalls. And I think these views have become more visible recently.

I feel more strongly towards one approach than the other, but I feel that often times people talk past each other because they're using fundamentally different frameworks.

So not weighing in one way or the other here. More just observing that this seems to be an instance of it between OP and you.
Anything I enjoy doing is worth my time. I enjoy reading non-fiction when the topic is interesting and the writing isn't terrible. It's usually such a small investment that if I'm interested in the topic I can take the risk in picking up a book about it even if I later discover that the writing is horrible and don't finish it. For books that are obnoxiously/unreasonably expensive I'll find a digital copy or make sure it's recommended. It is sometimes useful to be able to flip through the book first though just to make sure that it actually covers what I want to know and to get a feel for the depth/level of experience it's written for.
Japan has automatic shutdown systems during earthquakes.

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

> The proximate cause of the accident was the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in electrical grid failure and damaged nearly all of the power plant's backup energy sources. The subsequent inability to sufficiently cool reactors after shutdown compromised containment and resulted in the release of radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environment.

Yawn?
Hyundai tells me there are dozens of Ioniqs available within 25 miles of me at a couple different dealers, and my local VW dealer appears to have several ID4s in stock.
I don't think that's enough to get over the bar. Need to add some application to cold fusion and you've got it.
As someone who has worked closely with those running the Interconnection studies, this sounds overly rosey.

The ISO (in this case CAISO) runs those studies for a reason to maintain grid reliability. The reason they're slow is that it involves a crazy amount of simulations to determine grid upgrades and it is difficult when things must be done recursively and when the renewables developers speculate so much.

If the state regulator could snap their fingers, they would have done so in California, New York, the Midwest... everywhere. They made some changes to speed things up in Texas, but honestly they're kicking the can down the road.
Why should internal tools not have these things? That kind of argument smells of, internal tools can be slow. No.

Seems we should lift up Dear ImGui -- contribute, donate, feedback (document, gather requirements, etc), etc -- as opposed to suggest we not use it.
I'm so tired of all these people that seem to be firmly convinced that we can't do nuclear and any other option.

Why can't we do both? We run nuclear for the base load that will always be there and then supplement it with wind and solar and what not. We know nuclear works we know it is stable. My understanding is that a lot of the battery and solar technology needs to be replace every few decades or so and generally involves mining operations that are highly toxic and produce many emissions.

Not too mention that we have to construct elaborate massive sprawling battery infrastructure to supplement a grid that depends heavily on wind and solar in order to answer the simple questions of "what about when it is nighttime or cloudy, or the wind isn't blowing?"

I don't get why so many people are fighting against nuclear. Either we need to do everything possible to reduce carbon emissions or not. Nuclear does not rely on some battery technology that is "almost there", and that is "showing promise". It is a proven technology that works and has a reliable answer.

So in short nuclear for the base, solar and wind for the supplement. There is no reason we can't do both.

P.S. Given the massive amount of government money being handed out for "green technologies" there's part of me that wonders about how honest this objection to nuclear and pushing of solar and wind is.
That sounds like the right way to handle it. What about the Python code that is run? That seems harder to lock down than the read-only data permissions.
Costs have shrunk dramatically just in the last 12 months.

Solar is down to around 0.25 / watt at bulk.
Battery, LiFePo4 is $200/kWh.

Those are retail bulk prices. Commercial/Industrial prices are similar or sometimes better on commercial-sized equipment.

Granted, as you noted interconnection and permitting costs are high and going up and labor costs have risen and those are the main costs now.
I did not realize a Flatpak exists (apparently for several years):
https://flathub.org/apps/io.podman_desktop.PodmanDesktop

It's an electron app, so if you're on Wayland executing like this will make it look decent:
flatpak run io.podman_desktop.PodmanDesktop --enable-features=UseOzonePlatform --ozone-platform=wayland (after also enabling the wayland socket permission).
That would be the CPUC, which is apparently siding with PG&E. I can actually see CPUC's side here, there really aren't any good alternatives that are ready to go in any reasonable timeframe, but I do hope they're actually doing some independent verification of PG&E's claims.
>the lack of propellant

The molybdenum rod IS the propellant. It eventually ends up out in space.

I'm only aware of one propellantless thruster, and I'm waiting to see if it works aboard Barry-1[1] It uses electric power in an entirely closed drive, generating 1 milli-newton of thrust. It should be switched on in a month or two.

[1] https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/graph-orbit-data.php?CA...
There was a moment when the cultural equivalent to genes was called memes
Like i said, credit card terminals seem the best way to fix this problem, Rather than done complicated plug-and-charge mechanism
Of course. Because Elwood Blues showed us the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wfwpHAwaME
This is troubling. Considering the history of crypto currency it is a mystery to me why would anyone take an issue with an ETF operating in a way that’s identical to a normal Bitcoin exchange website
This is basically how USB C became a thing. A group of engineers at Google created the connector design and then gave it to the USB standards body to use as the next gen.
> adults of sound mind and body in America are capable of success.

You are in a minority because of those caveats. 'Sound mind and body' and 'success' are vague enough to lend themselves to many interpretations and act as an escape hatch you can jump out of when someone points out any one of numerous exceptions to that statement.
You'd have more cars constantly on the road because the smaller pool of cars has to also travel to where the people are. If I go from A to B and later from B to A, a robotaxi would also need to get to A and B when I need them. It really won't matter if they're in use or drove off to a parking lot somewhere else, that is extra traffic.
Diablo Canyon produces ~2 gigawatts of power rain or shine.

Let's say you need 12 hours of battery capacity, so 24 gWh.

A casual google search says grid-scale storage is $300-600 per kWh. Even generously assuming $300/kWh, that's $7.2 billion just for the batteries. How long do the batteries last?
He's the largest shareholder in both so idk what you mean by "small minority"
What about its management?
> Long term it seems like it would be much cheaper than current last mile delivery

yes, long term it might be cheaper, but to get to that long term you need to fund the huge upfront cost.

Why as a consumer would you want a pipe to your door, as you are now reliant on a single company for all deliveries. if they suddenly turn shit, thats it, you're stuck with them.

Its only really makes sense as a way for an uber dense city to reduce van traffic. but even then its probably cheaper and more efficient to use cargo bikes.
am i reading this correctly that it could be used as an adblock?

is the PAC format powerful enough to handle everything that current adblockers do?
Note to self: do not install coastal auxiliary generators below sea-level.
... and by espousing that they knew better than legacy auto how to build the lines, and ignoring a century of learned study.
Hhe inventor is not the owner. Companies can't be inventors either, so they list the employee as the inventor and the company as the owner
> $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery

The average price of electricity in California is 27 cents/kWh, or $270/MWh [1]. Some of this go to middlemen, but some to producers. I don't know the split, but let's say it's half and half.

Diablo produces about 16000 GWh of electricity per year [2]. At $135 per MWh it comes to $2.2 BN/year, or $11 BN for 5 years.

So $6 BN is not quite highway robbery.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
Tom and Ray, the Car Talk guys:

"There are three kinds of problems with cars. First, things that don't really matter, like the radio. Second, things that will leave you stranded, like the engine. And third, things that will leave you dead, like the brakes and suspension."
The EV pollution component of this is 100% propaganda spread by legacy auto makers and fossil fuel companies and is blatantly false. They are substantially better for the environment and the delta is growing too. Even in an area where energy is generated by fossil fuels, EVs emit significantly less CO2 per mile driven. Like 2-4x depending on a wide range of factors. And most new power generation being built in the US is now renewables and if anything, we lag much of the world. It's over 80%. (Luckily it's easy to tell the near future in this regard because utility info is all public and planned out years in advance due to permitting, purchasing, etc. so there are functionally no currently unplanned power plants being built in 2024 or even until 2027 or 2028 or so.) This is because it's just cheaper now, and the economics of wind/solar get better every year as generation costs fall and fossil fuel prices rise. Technology usually gets cheaper, fossil fuels usually get more expensive, and both of these seem to be true in this case. You are correct about particulates, but it's basically insigificant compared to carbon emissions, and probably even offset by lack of motor oil or various other fluids that spill and need produced and then to be disposed of, time the car has to drive in for service, etc. Any sane person would happily trade a 50-80% reduction in lifecycle CO2 emissions per car for a 25% increase in tire particulate matter in the environment. It's only propaganda that makes people mention this, even if it's true, because it's just a non-factor.

I had half a mind to write a long treatise on why I think we'll only see significant EV adoption if/when cars become driverless, but I'll save it and just go with this. Someone I know was killed last week in a hit and run. She got in a minor car accident, got out to check on it, and a third driver hit her and took off.

When it comes to affordability, economists generally set the economic value of an average American life at ~$10 million, and 40,000 people die from traffic deaths every year. Even if we just look at the numbers, Americans buy about 3 million cars a year. So 40,000 * $10 million divided by 3 million is a savings of over $133k per car, which is far in excess of the average car's lifetime cost. Even a 50% reduction in deaths, which for all I know currently existing driverless cars could achieve, would be the same as making all cars free in terms of average cost.

And even if driverless cars are a total push in every other respect (and I think they'll be much better) 40,000 families a year (and I assume globally, at least 5x that) not losing a wife and mother that way is more than worth whatever we have to do to make it happen.

Stay safe.
Hello everyone, I'm Ivoine! I have some great news and a favor to ask of you.
I'm an 18-year-old from the Bahamas, where life has been quite an adventure. Raised by my grandmother, I discovered my obsession for chess and technology early on by competing in chess tournaments in Jamaica and the Bahamas, and exploring game development on Roblox. Despite losing my mother at 16 and learning to code using nothing but my smartphone, I've never given up on my dream to create and build amazing projects. Growing up without electricity, Wi-Fi, and running water, I faced significant disadvantages, yet these challenges only fueled my determination to succeed against all odds.