skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Solar power is improving fast enough that by the time nuclear power plants are built, let alone pay themselves off, it may no longer matter. However it was arguably the correct decision years ago.
> And when Boeing spends billions of dollars on a new plane, they have on ready and on budget, right?

Well, no, they don't.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/08/07/boeing.dreamliner/
Elon Musk's letter to Valleywag (2007)
In reality you find that the German industry is in much better shape, even though we pay more for electricity - much of that is tax, btw..

France's electricity is all state-run and the price of electricity is a political one. No French president survives raising electricity prices, even though the companies would need that money...

> Der Energiewende is both expensive and inefficient.

Expensive is not a problem for us on that level. Nuclear is as expensive as renewable and more. We have a lot of money. Let's say the Energiewende will cost us around a trillion dollar over 50 years. Maybe more? So what? The positive effects will be much larger. We actually have the money.

> inefficient

If you look at nuclear power plants, they use around 30% of the energy for electricity. With the rest they heat the rivers in France. That's inefficient.
What, this chestnut again?

I'll say what I said the last time something like this came up, which was something like last week: It is impossible for you to prove that you've destroyed the data. That requires a Trent, a trusted party; it is unverifiable.

Especially in the US, Trent is one NSL away from being falsely trusted (see Lavabit). In fact, as far as I can see, you're not even positively claiming you are destroying the messages: "We may retain personal information indefinitely." Are you able to explain that item in the privacy policy?

In general, please try not to design cryptosystems which require Trent in the post-Snowden era. That is a sign you've either failed in your design, are trying to solve the wrong problem, or aren't being creative enough.
> how rich he needed to be to get all that hardware to review

I believe manufacturers at some point just send them free hardware pieces to get reviewed.
What they do right?

They dump toxic waste from the rod processing into the sea. They pollute entire regions from mining operations (Niger, Canada). They operate plants at limits (age, cooling, costs) - not a week without an incident.
No, the correct answer is zero. The impact of Fukushima on someone living on the west cost of the US is negligible; as near to zero as makes no difference. There are many, many, many other things you don't worry about which has a much larger impact on your life: most dangerous of which is probably your diet and your commute to work.
If someone told me that they used a tool like this to generate a startup pitch and got seed funding, I'd find it hard to dismiss it as a joke.
Of course we haven't mentioned Bayesianism or Frequentism yet... you haven't said anything about estimating aspects of the probability space from observed data.
Why isn't there random news on news.ykombinator.com? :(
> Solar cells need ultra pure silicon which is very very expensive to make.

So sayeth the poster, sitting at a computer filed with the same kind of silicon out of which panels are made. The reason solar panels are so cheap to buy, is because they're cheap to build.

> What would be the point if the energy return is not there?

Everything except evidence that this is so. If solar panels didn't pay for themselves, people wouldn't buy them.
You can't compare an urban city with a whole country. Japan's landmass includes farm land, mountains and shit.

Washington, DC isn't very dense for the core of a city. There aren't any high rises. Most of the city is single family homes and 3 story walk up apartments.

I live in Arlington, VA which used to be part of DC. I get Verizon Fios. I get 75/75 and cable tv for 80 a month. It's not the dark ages.
Watch what a 6-magnitude earthquake does in China vs. the US
Not really. Every human being can survive with the same minimal allotment of food and housing, but that's not true of health care. Some people will use very little while some will use a lot more through no fault of their own.
Given some of the issue threads I've seen around the topic, it's not always obvious to me when people are making satire and when they're serious. D:
Well nobody counts them because there is no direct link.
Chording keyboards are mentioned in the first sentence of the post.
This American Life did a fantastic piece on acetaminophen, how easy it is to overdose on it, and the story behind why it's still thought of as so safe. Interesting listening on this topic!

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/505/u...
While 3D printers and great and there's fantastic possibilities for their use ahead, I have a hard time seeing the printing of entire houses as one.

We already have great modular, mass-producable and cheap elements for assembling houses: Bricks and concrete slabs.

It's possible to assemble the basic structure of a house in days with prefabricated elements.

Where I do see a need for 3D printers are in products that aren't mass producable, items that need special fitting, items with a unique design.
It most probably isn't. Basic text spinning IMO.
Here's proof that the last two parts are isomorphic:

to :: (a -> [b]) -> (a -> (forall r . (b -> r -> r) -> r -> r))
to f a =
h (f a)
where
h :: [b] -> (forall r . (b -> r -> r) -> r -> r)
h b cons nil =
case b of
(x:xs) -> cons x (h xs cons nil)
[] -> nil

from :: (a -> (forall r . (b -> r -> r) -> r -> r)) -> (a -> [b])
from f a = f a (:) []
Complex.
> PV arrays don't grow on tree, they involve a lot of carbon emissions and highly toxic processing,

I did not claim that otherwise.
RamNode is the best I've used so far.
OT but I'm looking for a comparison between Angular and React/Flux, preferably with a real case study. Working with templates that update themselves without having to bother with anything else just seems to much easier...
Show HN: GitHub Treemaps
The parodox of privacy: Who will own and control the data from your body?
The article says:

"A tendency toward underestimation of effort is particularly present in price-competitive situations, such as bidding rounds. In less price-competitive contexts, such as inhouse software development, there are no such tendencies - in fact, you might even see the opposite. This suggests that a main reason for effort overruns is that clients tend to focus on low price when selecting software providers - that is, the project proposals that underestimate effort are more likely to be started. "

Is that really correct? Are there studies that shows that inhouse projects (or not fixed-price projects) do not underestimate systematically as opposed to fixed-price client projects?
Sometimes people get confused when they meant to say electricity instead of energy. Rather than correcting it, they get embarrassed and downvote. It really is a huge difference that needs to be acknowledged with people switch to electric forms of transportation.
I don't believe GHC actually does implement stream fusion. I think stream fusion happens with rewrite rules.
Reducing the accuracy of the location might be helpful. I would never put my address / exact location into CL. Don't really need people casing my joint for laptops, etc.

Other than that it looks awesome...

Also, ditch the twitter stuff, my twitter contacts are worldwide, and probably not interested in what I have to sell on CL. Or at least explain why you need twitter, I clicked Don't Allow and then had to login manually anyway...

Works well on iOS 8,crashes when I tap the ... on my listing. (I know, it's a pain to support betas)
This is the very best thing I've ever seen on this site. :-)
German industry may indeed be in better shape, but that is inspite of German energy policies, not because of them. What you're really arguing for here is a poorer, less prosperous, Germany because of anti-nuclear-ideology. There's an opportunity cost of that trillion dollars, it could have been spent on health care, research, fighting climate change and thousands of hings other that actually improve people's lives instead. I mean, if you accept that - that's fine - there's no mandate that people must choose the most efficient solutions at all times. But the reality of technical merits doesn't change based on your ideology.
Did you hit the car? Would the car have hit someone else if it accelerated or braked? Perhaps the AI made the right decision.
Show HN: Preview OGG Files in Atom Editor
Xenon Gas Could Erase Traumatic Memories
As you have invited personal criticism: You are naive and your thinking is simplistic. You have managed to get away from complete naivete, you think using abstract concepts, which allows you to look through the superficial appearance of things, and thus cut through a lot of bullshit. But you haven't noticed yet that your abstractions are way too abstract to give a reliable representation of the real world by themselves, that abstractions are just helpful thinking tools, but not the full truth - and that because of that your way of thinking produces about as much bullshit as it cuts through, just of a different kind.

In particular, it's seldom helpful to cling to specific terms and their supposed definitions rather than look at the actual facts. Who cares whether doctors are slaves? Is there anyone who has any actual disadvantages due to how the system works or not? If everyone, including the doctors, is better off with how the system works, who cares whether they are slaves by some definition? If they have some disadvantages, then that should be addressed, who cares whether it fulfills the criteria for being a slave?

Also, you always have to consider the wider societal context. There might be indirect benefits outside the immediate transactions that arise from how a society is constructed. Where I live, for example, if you see someone in distress and there is no significant danger to you if you were to rescue them, and you are able to, it is a criminal offense not to help. I guess by your standards that would mean we are all slaves - but I think the democracy that created the law is perfectly sufficient to justify this obligation, which as a side effect presumably generates higher safety and a higher sense of safety for everyone.
I have solar panels. The A/C conversion efficiency is about 85%. The sunlight doesn't have to be directly incident to generate power, and 10 hours is a perfectly fine estimate, thank you. If anything, it's conservative, like every number I used.

You are pulling the 10 years number right out of your rear end. Many people on old-generation panels are doing 75-80% (above projection) on 25 year old panels. In fact, most panels today are warrantied to 60-80% of nameplate capacity in straight line degradation to 25 years.

Your $.15 power is retail, not wholesale which would be $.02. The $500 installed is also retail, not wholesale. And it is a ROI calculation at that point, not EROEI. I seriously doubt the $500/panel price has any relation whatsoever to the energy requirements to produce a single panel. And I seriously doubt the financial ROE of current panels has any relation to the scaled out EROEI of solar PV infra in the future.

I would spitball the material costs as effective proxies of input energy costs:
Plastic, glass: effectively free
Copper 1 kg: $7.00
Aluminum 3 kg: $5.00
Silicon 1 kg: $40.00

Now, just randomly cutting my original estimate to 10mWh to humor you and the correct wholesale electricity price of $.02/kWh, the wholesale value of the power is $200. So closer to 300%. I would guess one tenth to one twentieth of the input energy costs of a typical inverter would be less than $10, and even then it's over 250%.

You completely ignore grid transmission losses on your side of the argument, which are 70% or so.

I'm surprised you don't bring up grid level storage, which is solar PVs weakest point, currently.
I don't have downvoting permissions.
Exactly this. At CERN (and all of HEP elsewhere) the Bayes vs Freq wars were fought many years ago and are long over. The conclusion: when you have lots of data they converge (as they should!).

In the case that they differ you almost always find that you have very few observations. I would argue that this 'difference' is not that exciting because it must be dominated by your assumptions, not your observations. After all once you accumulate enough observations the two methods tend to converge.

Personal conclusion: if the methods disagree work on getting more data instead of fighting over which method is better.
Germany has been a net exporter of electricity since 2003. It exported more electricity than ever in 2013 and has a positive balance of trade with France.

Granted, that's just economics at work as both countries are net exporters - but keep in mind that France periodically has troubles when it gets too hot to use river water for efficient cooling.

The proportion of renewable energy sources in Germany has risen to 23.4%.

Source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fil... (PDF)

edit: Germany has been a net exporter since 2003 - 2008 was a typo.
How to handle html5 based routing in a mixed angularjs/legacy web application
Actors in Jaipur
it's amazing how JavaScript is becoming the new java.

everyone thinks that adding a ton of extra complexity in the guise of a simpler api will make it more maintainable.

in this example you now have 4 events under the hood and two event dispatchers. but it seem simpler because you only "see" two and one dispatcher.

while it may make things just a little bit simpler to maintain you may enter debug hell when there's bugs on that added under the hood complexity... which will often be a code you're unfamiliar. making the article main argument (helping on debugging edge case bugs) kind of two edged
Nonsense. The prices at the energy exchanges for energy have been fallen while the prices for consumers have risen. The divident goes to the companies and the Energiewende is blamed as the reason for the higher prices. It is a shame, really.

Btw the billions poured into nuclear energy as direct and indirect subsidizes could have been and could be spend better.
True but the paper is by Wadler
Although not primarily a review site, Lens Rentals has a very detailed blog about all things DSLR and mirrorless camera related (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog). Lens Rentals and its blog was also started by a doctor (Roger Cicala) and he remains the main contributor to the blog.
Another interesting custom keyboard is Tim Tyler's: http://youtu.be/9yg3s77nAMQ

He has a lot of technical information on his website. He's kind of gone in the opposite direction re: complexity.
No way. There are tons of transaction costs and inefficiencies that come into play.

Lets say you catch Micron stealing Kingston DRAM technology. SEND THEM TO JAIL! Guess what? Nobody can just kick up DRAM production instantly. Fabs have to be build or converted.

Do you expect Micro workers in Manasas, Virginia to move to Taiwain to work for Winbond?

Monetary penalties, if properly calculated, absolutely would incentivize legit business activity. Even if the amount is enough to force bankruptcy, that is way better than just shutting down.
It shows that idea is just the top cream layer, and without the cake made with human hard work and sacrifices, its nothing special.
Anything that is that heavily subsidized with tax money is cheaper than Solar and Wind. We see sinking Energy prices since the Energiewende at the european energy exchange and other trade platforms. The difference just does not reach the consumers.
There were 2 issues, one copying the script onto every machine and the second one related to login credentials. Some scripts needed an authentication file and others need it on prompt. Unfortunately keys(both S3 and dropbox) are not handy all the times.
Solar, Wind and Demand side management work in tandem, really.
This article stands in contrast to the thoughts expressed in a recent interview with George Ellis[1]. The question of Bayesian vs. frequentist is fundamentally a philosophical question, and it's often discussed in these terms in the articles about the debate, including the recent one which caused this post. The philosophy that we accept affects the tools that we use to solve problems, and the way we think about problems, so you can't simply ignore the debate. Ellis' argument even extends to his example, about ψ (the quantum wave function), about which there is extensive philosophical debate.

When people identify as supporting Bayesian methods over frequentist methods, that actually changes the way they perform science. It's an argument against bad statistical interpretations that frequently arise in the social sciences and medicine[2] and elsewhere because p-values have become the altar at which all publishing researchers must prostrate themselves. It's not a case of a debate without substance, which would have no observable effects.

I can understand the frustrations of the author. Every tool has its use, and frequentist statistical methods are frequently useful. They help you get published, they are broadly supported by software packages, they are often faster and easier to perform, etc., so there are many situations in which they are the right choice. But I feel like in attempting to be agnostic about methods, the author is losing nuance in their argument. Bayesian reasoning really does represent the ground truth (assuming imperfect knowledge), and even when we are using frequentist methods, we are only doing so because the benefits outweigh the costs.

1: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/08/21/q...

2: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/prior-probability-the-di...
> I have solar panels.

Did you pay for them yourself, or did you get subsidies?

> I seriously doubt the $500/panel price has any relation whatsoever to the energy requirements to produce a single panel.

It's actually pretty much dead on. Just about every single expense, at the end of the day goes to energy. At the most basic, most fundamental, what else is there to spend money on? Minerals are free - they are just sitting in the ground. The costs is the energy costs of getting them out, not the cost of the mineral itself.

Any costs of making something are the costs of the parts, or the machine, or the transportation, etc. Labor costs at the end of the day go to someone buying those items which fundamentally boil down to energy costs.

> I would spitball the material costs as effective proxies of input energy costs: Plastic, glass: effectively free Copper 1 kg: $7.00 Aluminum 3 kg: $5.00 Silicon 1 kg: $40.00

So where does the rest of the money go? It goes to pay for other energy uses you have not included, that's where.

> the wholesale value of the power is $200.

That's worse for you you know. You are telling me that a panel costing $500 only makes $200 worth of electricity over its entire lifetime?

> You completely ignore grid transmission losses on your side of the argument, which are 70% or so.

That's one of the reasons I used retail prices.

From your reply I think you did not in the slightest understand what I wrote, since your arguments are not helping your case.
No installation step should take over 1 minute. If it's more than that, there is probably an error.
وظائف موانئ دبي العالمية
Being forced to have a technology that destroys your neighbourhood for nearly eternity if it blows in your backyard is a social problem.
One difference is that Vagrant is a full stand-alone server VM rather than a shared container like Docker, so Vagrant is better for housing multiple services in a single Vagrant instance, while Docker is better off housing a single-use application/service.

Example: If you wanted to run a complex local dev environment with apache, mysql, memcache, varnish, etc... You could run that all in a single large VM (provisioned and booted by Vagrant) or by multiple Docker containers (one for each service).
You don't understand the difference between EROEI or ROI if you believe this. This is a really fundamental problem with your point, and it's like not grasping big-O notation in algorithmic analysis.

Edit: I take it back. Based on your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248722 you are either dense as a rock or spreading FUD like the preceding comment suggested. I suspect I am not engaging in a good faith discussion.

Edit 2: Just something to leave you with. Nuclear disposal costs are externalized (deferred), educating the workforce is externalized (navy), risk is externalized (indemnified), fuel is currently underpriced (megatons to megawatts), construction (highest single input cost) is massively subsidized, and in the end it's still burning unrenewable fuel so even assuming it's cheap and we never have an accident we're just kicking the can down the road a couple of hundred years.
> So sayeth the poster, sitting at a computer filed with the same kind of silicon out of which panels are made.

And very expensive it is indeed. A piece about 1cm square costs $200 or more. Solar panels need square meters of the stuff.

> If solar panels didn't pay for themselves, people wouldn't buy them.

Exactly my argument. Thank you. People in fact don't buy them - except when they get subsidies that artificially reduce the price.
I have had lots of problems trying to understand and use Angular. Most people don't. The TODO MVC site has comparisons for a simple app:

http://todomvc.com/

The main problem is that a TODO app is too simple. But if the app were more complicated it would be much harder to prepare and read the examples.
Yeah, well they don't get massive government subsidies.
The thing is that the hidden complexity will not appear, as rendering and state management are now separate. Both can be unit tested in separation. Components are modular and composable.
http://www.amazon.com/APPLIANCE-LIGHT-FROSTED-INCANDESCENT-V...
DSL seems to somewhat taper off at 100 MBit/s over here in Germany, but that's actually quite reasonable speed for non-business customers, with 1080p taking 27 MBit/s.

I once had cable in a crowded neighbourhood, it was pretty terrible at peak times.
Try elpy:

https://github.com/jorgenschaefer/elpy
As a pianist of several years, I don't tend to think that chording is a very good idea for fast typing. Certain chord combinations are never very graceful and are a good recipe for tendon strain. We learn to avoid certain fingering because of these hand limitations, and part of the reason we can do that easily is because we are generally moving our hands all over the keyboard. The secret to effective piano playing (to limit strain and tiredness and harm) is honestly the complete opposite of what a lot of computer-keyboard-minimalists seem to be striving for - pianists are supposed to minimize finger movement, and send as much of that movement upstream as possible. Transfer finger to hand, hand to wrist, wrist to arm, arm to body - limit individual finger activity as much as possible for relaxed playing. The idea of minimizing computer keyboard keys for having less keys, and putting more responsibility on agile fingers while freezing the hand in one location, seems exactly backward if the goal is for fast, efficient, fluid strain-free typing.
...and yet another ignoramus who doesn't understand the debate and so blankets it with the predictably safe "you're both wrong".

Almost stopped reading at the hilariously rubbish statement "All the models have limitations which make them of useless in practice." but it's Sunday, and I'm being entertained.
Keep in mind that not everything is golden in the promised land of nuclear energy production that is France: If it gets too hot to use river water for cooling, they have to shut down their nuclear reactors and import electricity from their european neighbours.

For that matter, they also have problems when it gets too cold: The French generally use electricity for heating and they cannot meet demand on their own.