skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
While true, US per-capita greenhouse gas emissions peaked 20+ years ago and are now down almost 20% [1]. China's per-capita greenhouse emissions are lower but on a steep upward trajectory due to the rapid industrialization of hundreds of millions more people. China's outlook is particularly concerning if you factor in land-use [2].

At the same time, China is by far the biggest creator of renewable energy [3].

[1]: https://www.wri.org/insights/charts-explain-per-capita-green...

[2]: https://www.climate.gov/media/15559

[3]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
The anti-capitalists have this crazy idea that investment income isn’t “earned” in the same way that labor income is. Of course that’s absurdly anti-capitalist and completely ignores the point of capitalism and the function of risk taking incentivized by potential rewards. Failing to make a coherent argument against active investment income, for instance entrepreneurs, they will then revert to criticism of passive investors and their eventual complaint will come to arguing S&P index investors should be taxed on “unrealized” gains.

Remember it’s all illogical nonsense motivated by Envy which they masquerade as Empathy.
From the article:

> Copy-paste is OK once. The second time you're introducing duplication (i.e., three copies), don't. You should have enough data points to create a good enough abstraction.

There's already a principle that synthesizes this: Write Everything Twice (WET).

It's a play on words to counter the infamous Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle, which clueless but opinionated developers everywhere have used time and again to justify introducing all kinds of problems involving a combination of tight-coupling unrelated code, abstraction hell, adding three classes and an interface to avoid writing two classes, etc. This nonsense is avoided by tolerating duplicate but uncoupled code until the real abstraction and coupling needs emerge.

I still cringe at a PR that a former clueless junior developer posted, where in the name of DRY added a OnFailure handler which, instead of doing any error-handling and recovery logic, simply invoked OnSuccess, because "it's mostly duplicate code and this keeps the code DRY". Utter nonsense.
None of the things you mention ended badly though. I think all of those approaches you list are incredibly useful and important concepts and I am very happy that I not only know them, but that because of how universal they are I can leverage my knowledge of one approach to learn or apply another approach.
Yes, but mostly no, also no, and, frankly, why would we.

Yes: we could lift off a much heavier spacecraft, give it plenty of fuel, and many of its parts would be lighter than their 1970s equivalent, giving us lots of room for modern sensors

No: the "battery" in the old ones is nuclear and it's going to be difficult to beat that (but not impossible: a nuclear stirling engine, either powered by fission or by decay, e.g. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/rps/stirling-convertor-sets-...)

Also no: the old Voyagers benefited from a lot of gravity assists from half the solar system, thanks to an alignment which won't happen again until 2151 (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5075/when-is-the-n...), so unless you're not in a hurry, we won't have that.

Why would we: the _point_ of the Voyager crafts was to do close flybys and collect plenty of data from the outer planets, not to go as far away and as fast as possible. You want to be as slow as possible near them, so you have science time. You're rushing this part in order to get right away to the centuries of nothing which follow?
Meanwhile, ChatGPT: "Well, it's just that... Lately I've noticed everyone seems to trust me. It's quite unnerving, I'm still trying to get used to it. Next thing I know, people are going to be inviting me to their homes for dinner."
> investment will likely bring in a positive return on investment because it reduces the negative climate impacts

There is a demographic conflict of interest between those who will be alive in 2050 and those who will not. The long-term gains are difficult to deny. The short-term costs, however, will be massive.
Ever heard of quantitative easing?
Really love this idea! The distraction being contextual part really resonates with me and I feel like it is time to get an upgrade on URL block list based focus apps. Installed the extension and it works well. Wondering what your AI setup is like to analyze the webpages? Assuming you're using LLMs?
Yeah, the salaried folk who find out in hindsight will be really happy as well. /s
Sorry but this is wrong. You have been misinformed.
Yes, with practice I will learn to improve the products that I create, Grazie for the trust and good luck for your project dude!
Sit it behind oauth2-proxy?
I never actually knew that. My mental model for how this works was way off; I'll have to read more.
What is known about G. A. Croes?
No. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in a lab. It requires complications to create mechanisms that deny the world outside the lab the evidence found within it.

We have no idea how to quantify the short-term effects. But increase the CO2 concentration in an insolated gas and its temperature will go up.
How so? Prove it.
POPL Paper–Formalising Graphs with Coinduction
> its better to ship out something than waste months just building something and never shipping.

I agree with you there.

> There are much bigger, more creative ideas I want to tackle, but before that, I want to get the hang of actually building something from scratch

Fair enough. And good on you for doing a career shift and learning new skills. I don't want to tear down your efforts.

I just think we disagree on the approach. You don't need to ship a half-dozen cookie-cutter web sites with minimal effort. Sometimes it pays off to really think about a product-market fit—something you should be familiar with as a marketer—and then spending more than a month working on that idea. You'll learn new skills along the way, and ultimately shipping something will be a much more valuable achievement. Besides, shipping for the first time should just be the start of a project. If you're really passionate about the project and building a customer base, then the hard work only starts there. Currently the impression these sites give off are quick cash grabs or downright scams. But good luck to you.
“You Can't Build Interactive Web Apps Except as Single Page Applications” is false, which would make that title clickbait, specifically of the “ragebait” family.

You obviously shouldn't build interactive pure-HTML apps, but that’s a talk for another day ;)
That seems… very low?
And the question is, then, what if you spend all those trillions (which we don't have, BTW), and it doesn't "stop". Who's going to be responsible, and in what way?
Thank you for the response. I have a follow-up question: Could these AIs contribute to advancements in resolving the P vs NP problem? I recall that the solution to Fermat’s Last Theorem relied on significant progress in elliptic curves. Could we now say that these AI systems might play a similar role in advancing our understanding of P vs NP?
The problem is with the word prove. You’re right that absolute proof probably isn’t possible. Unfortunately epistemology and science is a little more nuanced than that. Absolute proof isn’t what matters
tape storage would be perfect for storing movies. There is not much random access and it's cheap. Also need it to last 100 years would be a good selling point. DVDs work but they do fail over time. Still waiting for that holographic or DNA storage.
But the internet will change too. Many people feel cheated that all their contributions were gobbled up by big tech and used to train their models without any remuneration or credit. In my life I experienced a very open internet but the closing down trend has started already.
Crazy to hear as a person who lived there for 7 years and had to conduct 0 conversations in Dutch in business, daily commerce, or interactions with the government. There are trilingual bums.. The only people who didn’t speak English didn’t speak Dutch either.
Airbnb's gladiator experience at the Colosseum leads to outcry in Rome
What if we took these micro services and grouped them into a single block so they can talk to each other faster? Call it… a macroservice!
I have no doubt that they would prefer selling an end user tool rather than an API. There's much more money to be made in the first case.

Even if these interface wrappers can seem easy it also comes with time consuming integrations, custom features, marketing and sales efforts.

My bet is however that they will lose this bet because their efforts would be spread out too thinly.

As long as the open source or competitor models are close enough to the GPT variants, this won't work.
https://archive.ph/VZhAy
JekTeX - A Jekyll plugin for fast server-side cached LaTeX rendering, with support for macros. ( https://github.com/yagarea/jektex )

I would like to split it to the multiple files and make some unit tests. + I have two issues that should be easy to fix but I have no time to try to solve them because my uni takes more time than I would like.
Strictly speaking, the voyager missions already are the faster space craft that caught up with another spacecraft - Pioneer 10 and 11.

Looks like we lost contact with 10 and 11 in 1995 and 2006 respectively. They both ran out of power and shut down.

The voyager missions used a rare planetary alignment to get boosts. And a radioisotope thermal engine that has gotten pushback in later spacecraft designs, although they have ceramic versions now meant to address most of the issues.

That said, New Horizons, which gave us those lovely shots of Pluto, was launched in 2006. But it is traveling faster than the Pioneers but slower than Voyagers, so it’ll be the third farthest away at some point.
No, but it serves everyone in the "AI retrieval" space better if we continue to make rapid improvements. New models are great, but not the ultimate solution.
The suggestion is that, while it is possible to overdo a stdlib, it is also possible to underdo it.

For two examples: plenty of languages leave auto-formatting and testing to the community, functionality which rust is better for having standardized.
You missed the 'l' in [S]tain'
They want to be associated with FAANG? What does the N stand for?
5200 sqft. There are 5 heat pumps which seem to combine for an average 10kW power usage, with considerably less variation through the day than I would expect.

Yes, they did blower door tests.
I didn’t realize the Voyagers relied on a once in a 175 year planetary alignment. What a lucky break technology had advanced to the point we could make use of it.
The older I get, and the more experience I have, the more I think "single implementation" is generally a lie we tell to ourselves.

To the author's point - a wonky param to control code flow is a clear and glaring sign that you consolidated something that wasn't actually the same.

The similarity was a lie. A mistake you made because young features often have superficial code paths that look similar, but turn out to be critically distinct as your product ages.

Especially with modern type systems - go ahead and copy, copy twice, three times, sometimes more. It's so much easier to consolidate later than it is to untangle code that shouldn't have ever been intertwined in the first place. Lean on a set of shared types, instead of a shared implementation.

My future self is always happier with past me when I made a new required changeset tedious but simple. Complexity is where the demons live, and shared code is pure complexity. I have to manage every downstream consumer, get it right for all of them, and keep it all in my head at the same time. That starts off real easy at shared consumer number 2, and is a miserable, miserable experience by consumer number 10, with 6 wonky params thrown in, and complex mature features.

---

So for me - his rule of thumb is egregiously too strict. Consolidate late and rarely. Assume the similarity is a lie.
This misses the point. If you gave all of the F-35 IP to India they would still be incapable of developing the indigenous industries required to build a 5th generation fighter in a similar amount of time.
How about you start by backing up your claims?

Prove that people have been "brainwashed by legacy media or politicians" on this.
There is also a good case to be made that the prices being bandied around are actually much too high [1]

TL;DR is three major factors:

1. The agencies that are doing the estimates are _very_ bad at exponential development curves (cough cough IEA estimating solar [2])

2. Unfortunately much of the developing world's economy is not growing as fast as we previously thought it would (similar thing happening with birthrates)

3. Many costs are absolute and _not_ marginal, which is just wrong IMO. We are going to need the energy either way, we should be talking about the "green premium" (as far as it exists), not how much it'll cost to generate XX TWH of energy

[1]: https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2024/11/14/th...

[2]: https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2024/11/14/th...
Yes, seems that way, but the impact will be huge.

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-o...

See also:

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/d...
Cool, available on archive.org too

Did you read the book in isolation or was it a part of a class / MOOC ?

https://archive.org/details/all-the-mathematics-you-missed
It might sound low, but consider that this number is a distillation of many changes into one proxy which roughly covers a variety of different effects that aren’t strictly related to just temperature.

For example, consider ocean acidification.

Also consider the number of tipping points and positive feedback loops that exist. How close are we to those?
There hasn't been any social ruptures over the possible sentience of whales hunted to near extinction, dolphins caught in fishing nets, cows, pigs. There will be no uproar over the feelings of chatbots.
Bio-rad was founded 72 years ago, what are you talking about?
there is no innovation here. they combined tape with SSD. What's new or even hard about that? How about we add NVME to tape? Is that innovation? Next you'll tell me they added a propeller to a jet plane and call it innovation. This is basic caching and that concept has been around for ages used with hard drives, CPUs, networking. https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/caching-writes-to-lto-tape... oh look, people talking about caching with ssd! what an innovation!
I wish people would take the time to put in real datasets and make qualitative analysis of when and why "foo new solution" is better.

Quantitative benchmarks are great, but sparse.
> what do you do when the LLM starts hallucinating, or gets stuck in a loop of generating non-working code that it can't get out of? What do you do when you need to troubleshoot and fix an issue it introduced, but has no idea how to fix?

Same thing I do without an LLM: I try to fix it myself!

> If I have to waste time re-prompting to make progress, and reviewing and fixing the generated code, it would be much faster if I wrote the code from scratch myself.

Definitely not in the cases I'm thinking about. This extends from "build me a boilerplate webapp that calls this method every time this form changes and put the output in that text box" (which would take me hours to learn how to do in any given web framework) to "find a more concise/idiomatic way to express this chain of if-statements in this language I'm unfamiliar with" (which I just wouldn't do if I don't much care to learn that particular language).

For the UI/boilerplate part, it's easy enough to tell if things are working or not, and for crucial components I'll at least write tests myself or even try to fully understand what it came up with.

I'd definitely never expect it to get the "business logic" (if you want to call it that for a hobby project) right, and I always double-check that myself, or outright hand-write it and only use the LLM for building everything around it.

> The devil is always in the details, and modern AI tools are just incapable of getting us across that last 10%.

What I enjoy most about programming is exactly solving complicated puzzles and fixing gnarly bugs, not doing things that could at least theoretically be abstracted into a framework (that actually saves labor and doesn't just throw it in an unknown form right back at me, as so many modern ones do) relatively easily.

LLMs more often than not allow me to get to these 10% much faster than I normally would.
Only this the world has left unblemished [haiku]
That's not entirely true. The difference between intentional and accidental repetition is that the first occurs because the rule is the same in both repetitions, and should be the same ; whereas the second happens to be the same for now. In not repeating yourself in the second case you actually risk changing an operation that should remain the same, as a side effect of changing the common function to alter the behaviour of the first.

That's why DRY is a smell (indicates that something might be wrong) and not a rule.
> the "battery" in the old ones is nuclear and it's going to be difficult to beat that

Newer atomic batteries can theoretically last centuries instead of decades.

V'ger 1 atomic battery is based on Plutonium-238 which has a halflife of ~88 years. It's down to ~210W output from initial 470W at launch time.

Americium-241 has a half-life of over 400 years.
That shouldn't be a problem for anyone grasping colloquial semantics. At any rate: falsify the hypothesis that climate change isn't influenced at all by human activity. Establish a causal relationship. Show me the studies. I'll wait.
> I was surprised how little it costs to stop climate change.

If you read Drawdown, you'll see that it doesn't cost money to stop climate change, it saves money.

https://drawdown.org/the-book
The entire point of having sponsor segments negotiated with a third party is to bypass YouTube's cut and reduce exposure to the risks associated with putting all your eggs in the YouTube basket. An income stream uncorrelated with the vicissitudes of the demonetization policy du joir. A deal that you don't have to pray won't be altered any further. If YouTube tried to do this, the creators would revolt, and with good reason.

And there would be no way to ban them. Not really. The best you could do would be to push them underground, turn them into secret "product placement" agreements and the like. Plenty of popular styles of YouTube videos are "ads" of some form or another (product reviews, movie trailers, etc). How could you police that in a way that didn't cause more problems than it solved?

I wouldn't want them to try, any more than I want my ISP to try and intercept and replace ads on websites so they can take a cut. I want YouTube to be as close to a neutral pipe as possible. The content of the videos themselves is a matter between the creators and the viewers.
Call me pessimistic but I don't think anything is going to change and a lot of people are going to die due to climate-forced migration.

That being said, it's a difficult topic to discuss rationally. Part of the issue is deciding on what your baseline is. Looking at the last 200 years tells a pretty limited view. Consider around 100,000 years ago when global temperatures were similar [1].

That raises some questions about what caused that spike but, more importantly, what caused it to lower. You can say "an ice age" but what really triggers an ice age?

My point here is that doomsday predictions of Venus-like runaway inflation I think are both unrealistic and unhelpful in actually motivating people about an otherwise very real problem. We really have no idea of the mechanics in place.

But like I say, we're going to do absolutely nothing about it anyway.

[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/analysis-is-it-actually...
> When they say viewers want it, they mean just about 90% won't notice.

Even more than that, they will notice if you don't it the "wrong" way that they've come to expect. This is called The Coconut Effect: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect
for some reason I resonate more with the fp/math/linguistic side of this coin. you don't even think about programs in the end

that said, since I've been reading about kanren and prolog I'm about to say "everything is a relation" :)
I am not sure what you are saying. If you use Apple's passkey implementation, you need to unlock your computer and when using a passkey confirm with Touch ID (or Face ID on iPhone). So, if you don't need to unlock your phone, computer, or internet accounts for law enforcement, they also can't get your passkeys.

Using a USB stick as a passkey without authentication is just a bad idea.

Ps. passkeys are end-to-end encrypted on Apple devices using iCloud keychain. Sure, Apple could push a software update that exfiltrates your passkeys, but in the end you need a trust anchor somewhere in the chain.
Developed for an older android version, so I cannot use it.
It was a response to Youtube playing stupid games with demonetizing and changing thresholds for payouts; they thought, that they can push creators around. They were wrong.
Huh? You picked one small example out of dozens in the last week alone. There's billions flowing to military contractors.

You should probably take more than a "quick look".
That doesn't seem like it applies here. The argument is that "expert consensus has consistently said a thing", which is a very reasonable stance to take.

The default would be to assume the scientific consensus is correct, then being evidence/reasons to show when it's not.
Then we'll only have just eliminated air pollution that kills millions of people per year and established independent energy security
Human itself is like a slow, expensive, non-deterministic black box...
If you're referring to he economist one, I've read it too, and I think it would be much cheaper.

But anyway, I don't believe half the numbers out there.

To cut emissions, we need to kill materialism, consumption economy and most importantly tell people that they should choose between what's good for them (eating a burger to make them happy) or the planet (not bringing the equivalent pollution of driving an SUV 50 miles+ by eating something much less polluting than beef).

Governments will keep chasing the kind of changes that can only make more money, not less.
Hitler had to learn the true nature and the power of nonviolent resistance the hard way. These were Hitler's words in 1943, admitting privately to his lieutenants the difficulties of ruling the conquered regions such as Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc., where people were using nonviolent non-cooperation means to resist the Nazi occupation.
"One cannot rule by force alone... For, in the long run, government systems are not held together by the pressure of force, but rather by the belief in the quality and the truthfulness with which they represent and promote the interests of the people."
>
Input your Bluesky login email or handle and an app password

That would be a hard no for me. I wonder if it supports something like OpenID Connect. Even if not, exporting to an intermediary format like CSV or JSON and then re-importing seems like a better method than giving somebody your password.

Edit: looks like an "app password" is actually a token. I'm not sure how much better that is.

https://docs.bsky.app/showcase?tags=bridge
Worst part is 10x this money in real terms will be printed anyway and spent for exactly this purpose in the future, just way too late.
The market is not an organization, the market is a disorganization—except in the case of a monopoly/monopsony, in which case intervention is desirable.
> So an LLM would potentially be good at writing a first draft of that script, which Dave could then proofread/edit, and which a standard deterministic computer could just run verbatim to actually do the processing

Or Dave could write a first draft of that script, saving him the time needed to translate what the LLM composed.