skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're glossing over quite a bit. The article says the temp increases will occur mostly in winter and at night, which could save many lives. Increased vegetation (not just more north farming) means more food for more people. The IPCC agrees that sea levels will only rise 1 to 3 feet; do you have a source for your claim that "millions" will die from this? (What I can find just talks about 1+ meters of increase.)

The article also claims the data shows that not only were our previous predictions too high, but they might still be too high.

I don't want to sound argumentative but since this issue is so politicized, I'd rather see data and sources than accusations of "stupidity and cruelty".
It's worth noting that the IPCC is considered by some to be too conservative in its estimates [1].

Just before they released their 2007 report, a paper was published in Science comparing the predictions from the 2001 report with actual changes in global temperature and sea level. [2] While the 2001 report had forecasted a rise in temperature of 0.15C - 0.35C, the actual rise over that period was 0.33C. Meanwhile the rise in sea level over that period exceeded the IPCC's predicted maximums.

So while the IPCC may be "dialing back" their predictions, they do have a known tendency to err on the side of conservatism.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Clim...

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
Matt Ridley should stick to blowing up banks and leave the climate alone.

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-north...
If you really want to eat cheaply, I suspect the trick is to go to "ethnic" groceries. I remember a reddit post about Paraguyuan meals that cost very little, I would suspect Indian-style veggie meals would also be reasonably cheap.
Because millions are dying today as a result of preventable malnutrition or disease. What makes you think the world is going to act to save poor people in SE Asia or Africa ?

And slow changes to climate don't instantly cause millions of deaths it is gradual as well.
Django Security Release - 1.5.4
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley

If you want to have an idea as to his economic credentials, he's, in a nutshell, responsible for the first bank run in the UK in about 130 years.

Here are just the effects of the state I live in: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-scien...
Because nuclear power comes with plenty of short/medium term problems as we are seeing today in Fukushima.

Much better to exhaust every ounce of potential out of safe, clean renewable sources first.
"Wild Crap Coffee" - as a descriptor of the Civet industry's marketing, the broader fecal caffeine industry instigated by the author (Tony Wild), and the brand name for his suggested loop-closing product in the final sentence - has a ring to it.
^ Its worth pointing out that these "Non-profits" show financial returns on capital far in excess of "profitable" companies. corrected for inflation, school's capital is out-performing GDP growth by ~600 basis points, over a sustained period (multi-cyclic, etc).
Report: Odom formally charged after DUI arrest
Politicians like Matt Ridley can say what they like. I'll believe that things have changed when experts in the field begin to say so, and not a moment sooner.
What sounds pseudo-science about the first main paragraph, "It turns out that...electrode."? I don't understand your reaction to some complaints about non-tested models.
Publishers routinely reject things simply based on presentation for the simple fact that most authors are willing to do a significant amount of the work (that would otherwise be done by typesetters and editors) just to ensure they get published, and it's rarely going to hurt the publisher if the author takes their work somewhere else, instead.

My theory for the mass use of the double space is that it was such a common requirement from publishers at one time (and in some areas probably still is) simply because it distributed a massive amount of menial work and most people can simply make a habit of it and never bother to question or complain about it. Another is that, once taught this particular practice, many people confuse it with the requirement that a document is double-spaced.
Viva la free market!
Entrepreneurial Advice in Rap Music
It means more food for more people IF you are able to relocate to those areas. But since the poorest in the world are generally less able to relocate I fail to see how it will benefit them in any way. And if they are able to relocate what makes you think countries will let them. Look at the issue of "boat people" in Australia or immigration in general in Europe.

This is the sort of problems that directly affect the poorest:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/06/19/wa...

And it's not millions dying instantly it's over an extended period of time as well.
DARPA’s Plan to Flood the Sea With Drones, Carrying More Drones
Read the article. The Archeological record is there for your interest.
> The people who are the most affected by climate change are the poorest and least able to relocate.

The people who will be the most affected by climate change will be the folks living decades if not centuries from now. And those people will be, on average, orders of magnitude more wealthy than the people of Earth today.

This is even more striking when you consider that the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century will not be from the wealthy folks living in the current G8 countries but from what are now developing countries (China, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Brazil, etc.)

The moral calculus becomes a hell of a lot more complex when you take this into account. In 50 years the people of Bangladesh are likely to have developed world levels of per capita GDP, and by 2100 they are likely to be richer than Americans living today. Does it make sense to hold back the current development of not just the US but also places such as Bangladesh and China in order to benefit the incredibly wealthy citizens of the future Earth? Moreover, the case for severity of damages to the future Earth due to man made climate change are rather weak. The current best estimate of sea level rise by the year 2100 is rather moderate, much less than a meter and at present being revised downward due to more accurate estimates. Does it make sense to spend even billions of dollars today to save a future world that will have a global world product of literally quadrillions of dollars (adjusted for inflation)? And will have vastly more advanced technology than we do today?

As to what will happen next, I think the people of the future who will have the benefit of: vastly greater wealth, vastly more advanced technology, and hopefully much more accurate climate models borne out by being able to compare models against nearly two centuries of data. And for those reasons they will be unimaginably more capable of both figuring out what changes would be warranted as well as having the ability and wealth to make such changes without incurring a huge amount of personal misery.
True. Food can be managed by rationing and not indulging in pleasures, the problem exists beyond food. Unexpected illness, getting from one place to another by public transport, not tending to an illness, thinking about passing out on a bar of mars etc. Poverty makes you helpless.
How Detroit Went Broke
> criticize them over organizations they may be a part of

It is the classic HN desire to be contrarian reaching new lows.
Greetings from Beautiful Lake Baikal - new art in the Indiegogo gallery
Ah, pascal's wager. So, which god do you believe in then?
If you can't tell someone why they're wrong, you can't win, right? That seems to be the rule here, even when someone is doing something eminently sensible and helpful like trying to see things from a different perspective (in whatever limited way that might be possible).
You don't understand, dizzystar felt it.
Shameless plug: Solving high-quality web site production (for a multi-person dev team, including non-developer personas such as designers, content writers, reviewers, translators, etc.) is actually part of a new project I'm working on (http://grow.io). If you (or any other reader) has an immediate need for this type of product/app, I'd love to talk to you to learn more about your requirements (and share more about my project).
One story, Two sides - Indian and Pakistani histories
Eh, I prefer cereal dry, particularly grapenuts. All cereal with milk tastes the same to me. A glass of water on the side takes care of dryness.
How long is the taxi ride? And does the bus pass by any properly-maintained grocery stores? I'm really interested in this because the bus near me goes from suburbs to the middle of downtown in about half an hour, going by quite a few groceries. I didn't know it was possible to be that far from anywhere to buy food in a non-rural area.
Why bother with Nuclear power when renewable energy is already capable of providing many of our energy needs (and efficiency will only improve in the future).

I know tech heads love Nuclear and love to go on about how safe it is in this day and age but it still leaves us with significant and dangerous waste which our great great great grand children will inherit.
Sometimes we do releases that fix things that are kinda hard to exploit, or mostly are just hardening existing stuff to make it even better.

Sometimes we do releases because there's a serious exploitable thing in the wild.

This is the latter: it's a DoS vector, and it got out via a posting to a public mailing list. Please do not hold off on upgrading.
After reading too many blogs trying to substantiate their claims by quoting science out of context, I never consider the first paragraph as proof of anything. The second paragraph turned from promoting an idea to almost accusing others of bias or misconduct, in a way that almost mimicked a conspiracy theory. I can understand the complaints about inadequately tested models, because that happens. (And, as there are a lot of russian language posts in the blog, perhaps it is a cultural language style I am unfamiliar with.) But, if it wasn't for the username looking similar to the name on the paper, I would have written it off.
In spite of the amount of hate I'll be getting for this:

While the loss of life is saddening the world population is continuing to grow, global warming (as well as disease) can be construed as the Earth correcting for too many humans. Our technological advancements have saved a lot of lives and vastly increased life expectancy, while contributing to global warming. You assume it is our responsibility to ensure no humans die, which under normal circumstances makes sense as according to evolution our purpose is to ensure the survival of our species. However, we will eventually reach the point where a decreased population is more likely to help humanity prosper.

N.B. this is spoken from the view of a detached observer and once anything becomes personal obviously the arguments are different and feelings and emotions come into play.
The problem is that the argument for using 2 spaces was never originally about parsing the text with a computer. Further, even the justification for using 2 spaces in the article is not doing so, either, it's an attempt at justifying using 2 spaces to emulate a typesetting practice (using a single space that was 2 or 3 times as wide as the space between words) which you still would not have expected someone to blindly apply to all text (you might have someone do it to all of the text just so a more experienced typesetter could come along behind them and make the adjustments that required a good eye for the work). Eventually publishers just found it easier to turn authors into apprentice typesetters, and probably found that most of the work they produce isn't worth paying an experienced typesetter to finish with that level of detail (and this attitude also shows in the editing of mass-market material, too). Of course, most mass-market publications use spaces of the same size after the end of a sentence as between words, now, and probably don't do much manual adjustment of the alignment of the text, either.

Additionally, if you assume that "period space space" indicates the end of a sentence, eventually you're going to run into some case where that's wrong, too. It's bound to happen in a world where we routinely teach people to blindly hit "period space space." You may be better off incrementally improving your lexer/parser (or using and contributing to an open source project) and throwing out the excess spaces.
Your stubborn stance on the issue sounds like the type of response a religious fundamentalist would give when questioned about their beliefs. The "experts in the field" have been shown to make excessive predictions in recent years, perhaps we should keep an open mind about who to trust?
The USE Method: Linux Performance Checklist
I read some more about Docker since posting the parent. The deal-killer for me is that Docker doesn't work on btrfs, and I've been running on btrfs for a while now. Apparently it's actually bugs in the aufs kernel code when using it with a btrfs filesystem.

I found a closed issue [1], apparently Docker is currently focusing on refactoring the existing code to have a more extensible plugin-style architecture, and will eventually make a btrfs plugin. That's probably better in the long-run for the project, since it means they won't duplicate work twice, but for right now, it means that my setup isn't supported.

Also, support for non-amd64 hosts or guests is highly unsupported and somewhat not-working right now, and networking configuration leaves something to be desired.

So I'd say Docker's still really, really immature.

[1] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/443?source=cc
This page:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269
outlines SNAP benefits which currently are $200 for single person, or $6.45 per day, or $45 a week. Why does it say $31.50 in the article?

Also, there are other food programs where he lives (assuming it's indeed Boston): http://www.massresources.org/food.html
Benchmark: Taking full advantage from Amazon RDS/mysql
Author: because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is.

Note how unmathematical this approach is. The whole premse of the article and the content are: "There are different numbers, some strange qualifiers in front of them which changed but which I'll ignore, but because I compare just the numbers, they are smaller than before so we can happily continue with global warming."

The facts are different.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-clim...

To hold the temperature increase to about 1.5 degrees, the globe would need to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, and then have negative emissions.

The author's article ignores the timeframes too, like it doesn't matter at all.
Still, I think pseudo-science would use a quote as a springboard into something nonsensical, it wouldn't just say "these guys didn't do their job properly", it would do something like accuse them of actual conspiracy, or say that the answer was obvious because [inane blather].
Ask HN: Why MariaDB and not Percona
I see on readwrite that Google is moving from mySQL to MariaDB. Now I know that Percona exists and has some good tooling.

why MariaDB and not Percona?
I thought the point was to reduce carbon emissions ?("renewable" sources, due to the fact that the equipment must be made and transported and maintained, are still using more fossil fuels than they save)

And please skip the "but this one version now in the lab ..." speech.
Risk-management of a risk for which there is evidence is not the same as picking among imaginary entities for which there is effectively no evidence. Plus, Pascal's wager suffers from the issue that for every god X, there is a possible opposite god who really hates people who mistakenly believe in X. This offsets the value of believing in X. Evaluating the wager under that observation leaves you with a net belief change of nil. Contrariwise, there's no evidence of a countervailing benefit to global warming that offsets the possible risk of doing nothing about it.

That said, I do have one issue with the argument in that one possible outcome of global warming has effectively infinite cost. That is when everyone dies. I do not know how to multiply (low probability) x (infinity). Maybe someone can explain how a rationalist would handle this case. (Actually, I don't think it's right to call this an "issue." Point of confusion is more accurate.)
I actually just read a slide about why. Because Percona is still downstream of Oracle

https://conf-slac.stanford.edu/sites/conf-slac.stanford.edu....

I love answering my own questions.
Did you read the article? Quoting from it:

> My goal is merely to help bring awareness to the issue

He's not trying to do some kind of "poor simulation," and to accomplish his goal, he doesn't have to. Even by just doing a simple exercise like strictly limiting his food budget for a week, he has brought some light upon the difficulty that many people face.
No non-CO2 emitting energy system is currently a credible source for base load electrical power except for nuclear. Everything else, even hydroelectric, is not capable of providing the amount of power needed everywhere and everytime it's needed. Solar and wind could be, but it would require building new power storage facilities, and so many of them that it would match or exceed the cost of building out the solar/wind capacity to start with.

That's the reality. If it were different it wouldn't require subsidies to encourage people to build solar or wind power, they would do so spontaneously.
Beware of Feitian, SafeNet, RSA etc. G&D seems marginally better -- but ultimately, you would need to trust vendors (which you wouldn't want to).

http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/70/47/90/PDF/RR-7944.pdf
Compared to nuclear, far more people die because of renewable energy per megawatt. It is not better to exhaust the potential of renewable sources, since they lead to more excess deaths. There are a lot of sources that demonstrate this, so I just searched for one: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/...
> ..with all functionality included

Well, except for the modularity. And 'more expensive' is debatable over time, since the user should get away with replacing only parts for a while and competition, standardization and partial reuse of components could result in lower prices over time.

Functionality is also debatable, over time. Since bloks users can (ideally) replace a small part to upgrade to NFC, while regular phone users need a complete new phone.
You're overlooking the opportunity cost that comes with spending effort and money on "forestalling climate change" today. Read my other post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6388344) for why this is likely an extremely bad idea.
I'm not really a scientist, so I can't take any sides here, but I would like to point out a few things (make your own rational judgments). I do know the true principles of science, if little about its practice. Real science is unbiased. Everyone in these threads seems to get so heated that their "side" is right (I've been guilty of it as well, its an easy trap to fall into). Well, real science does not care about sides, it cares about boiling down a system of variables into a probable hypothesis. Even the most likely hypotheses have been shattered - I'm not saying that is the case, but sometimes climatology feels more like faith than science. Real science aims to prove its results wrong, not to prove them right.

Climatology/meteorology/etc are actually very difficult types of science because you cannot simple put the earth in a confined test area where you can tweak the variables on a small level. Yes, we all know that increase in CO2 = increase in greenhouse effect, that is child's science and not a real question. The real question is how much impact do human beings really have on the atmosphere, and to what degree should we change our behavior (if at all) based on that? There are so many variables that are difficult to predict (or even determine in realtime) - the sun's energy output, how much CO2 gets processed by trees, how much CO2 gets trapped in the upper atmosphere (it happens, despite it being heavier than other types of atmosphere), underwater volcanic activity, and so forth. That, and try doing a thermodynamic simulation at earth's scale - the best we can do is very crudely rough it. That said, there is no reason we should trash our environment just because we don't know what is going on - there are a million reasons to gravitate towards clean energy (in particular, sustainable energy).

All I can say is, if you are a real scientist, constantly question your own beliefs, don't fight for them.
> ("renewable" sources, due to the fact that the equipment must be made and transported and maintained, are still using more fossil fuels than they save)

I don't think that's true. Do you have anything to substantiate that claim?
[1]:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-varian...
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-fonts/#font-kerning-prop
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/word-spacin...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/letter-spac...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/text-align
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#text-justify0

It's not that HTML/CSS was created with a disregard for typography, it's simply that typography was not the intended purpose of HTML. CSS (and HTML 4 & 5) is largely an attempt to allow principles of typography to be applied to HTML without breaking the original use (after all, LaTeX and typography in general requires a very rigid definition of the output for it to work properly, which you can never have with the browser as your target platform; in itself something very different from what was available when HTML was originally designed).
Good point, I did overlook that. Pascal's wager is still way too dismissive of a weighing of evidenced costs and benefits.
Start recruiting top talent in your network
He's not living by the same constraints. For a short period of time, he's limiting ONE constraint out of dozens that a poor person faces.

Reeks of "Hey, look at me (and my company)!!!"
Nineteen per cent of teens have posted updates, photos, or other content that they later regret sharing, and seventy-four per cent have deleted people from their network.

I don't really know what these numbers are supposed to show. I've shared content that I've later regretted sharing, but it wasn't a lot of regret. If someone had asked me that question in a survey I would have probably answered yes, but it wouldn't really mean anything.

I've also deleted people from my network, but that was because I didn't really care about them. I can't really find any important information in these numbers
Yes and clearly they are not the same constraints.

It's ridiculous to think this raises any sort of awareness to the real issues that poverty presents. It's trite and ignorant to think anything otherwise.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with experiments like that, there should be no mistake that "taking the SNAP challenge" does not give you a deep understanding about the condition of being poor. Living by $4.50 a day for a week with a seven figure bank account, a nice car and a house in an upscale neighborhood makes you a tourist.

I just don't understand the rationale behind this. It's not like there is a big misunderstanding about the poor living an awesome life. What's missing is the slightest shred of empathy for them.

But she didn't understand,
she just smiled and held my hand.
Rent a flat above a shop,
cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool,
pretend you never went to school.
But still you'll never get it right,
cos when you're laid in bed at night,
watching roaches climb the wall,
if you call your Dad he could stop it all.
-- Pulp, Common People