BaseballPhysics

If you think that's a good idea, you don't understand why tools like awk/perl/sed/etc exist and are popular. They are, by design, optimized toward specific kinds of use cases.

In fact, their dynamically typed nature is a perfect example of that since it's much easier to quickly manipulate strings in a language that isn't so strict, as they'll do more heavy lifting for you via automatic coercion while limiting extra syntax/boilerplate (which, granted, is less of a problem with modern type inference). That makes it a lot easier to toss together quick one-liners and glue code, which is where these tools shine in the first place.

Hell, even something like python or ruby is just a little too structured for my taste when doing something quick and dirty, which is why I love perl as it can be unstructured if that's all I need, or I can create a more structured program if that's what the problem requires.

Weird, I feel the same way about Perl.

Just gonna say: my god I hate productivity hacking culture.

No, I am not going to optimize in additional professional learning in my off hours.

I have a life. And I'm allowed to have idle time where I spend it just being instead of doing. My existence isn't to be maximally productive at all times, and this type of hyper optimization isn't going to make me wealthier or happier.

If you're learning for work, learn during work hours. Anything else is just free labour.

Edit: as a random ranty example, I recently discovered sites specifically for music that supposedly increases productivity. We can't even enjoy art anymore. It's gotta be art that makes us better little cogs.

Totally agreed.

This was my policy with my staff. I straight up told them they can and should take a couple hours a week (tried to start small to make it achievable) on personal development, whether that's reading books, taking courses, etc. I'd even try and brainstorm with them on ways to spend the time.

Funny thing is, with one or two exceptions, few did it because they always felt something else was more urgent during the day...

Apparently Elon was more serious with that kitchen sink gag than we realized...

Breaks? How?

Jekyll doesn't enforce or validate links between posts. I know this because I build my site with --limit_posts all the time (it's literally part of my build pipeline due to the way I handle webmentions).

Is there some plugin you were using that was blowing up?

> And if it's just a web site, why do you need to "install" it? A link is surely sufficient?

Really? You don't understand the value in having the PWA appear as a native app icon alongside everything else on the device?

On Android you have to pop open a menu and find the install option. That's not inherently discoverable as you need to know it's even possible, and most people don't.

It would be trivial to present the user with a more proactive notification that a site can be installed as an app, or even include such a notice in their search results on Google, but they choose not to do so.

Good ol' Daily Mail, always living down to my expectations:

> 'Exposure can be significantly reduced if a mask is opened and left to sit for at least 30 min,' the researchers wrote.

> This suggests that the packaging of these masks could play a role in the amount of chemicals they have.

Okay, so maybe it's not the masks?

> However, the study did not measure the effect of people actually wearing the masks.

Okay, so might not be the masks and we don't know if it'd even affect anyone?

> The team acknowledged that the sample size was small and that they did not test several other popular disposable masks like KN95s.

Oh ffs.

Meanwhile they made sure to stir in lots of "masks don't work and are bad, but, umm, okay some people don't agree, but no really they're bad" language for their target audience.

Flag it.

I used to think that, and then I started using Phanpy and Voyager. PWAs can be surprisingly good if they're done well. The problem is the mobile platforms have done nothing to optimize the experience or encourage their development and so the good examples are few and far between.

> Truthfully, I'd prefer to get rid of the app and just have users go to the website and install the PWA, but the average user still doesn't know how to do this.

Let's be clear: that's not because users don't know how to do it. It's because Google and Apple haven't made it as easy as installing an app from their app store. That's a choice, and it's a deliberate one.

You mean links to other posts? So what? Check those in one final full build pass before publishing if it's a concern.

I think you're underestimating the effort involved in writing something to poll an IMAP folder, checking for new emails, pull the right mime attachments, etc, etc, and then turning around and post them to the right place.

Yeah I could write some Ruby or Python or Perl to do the job but I can also spend way less time and use something like Huginn to do it for me.

Honestly, your argument could apply to virtually anything you might do with something like Zapier or equivalent. Nothing they do can't be done via scripting. The point is these tools simplify the grunt work so you can go from idea to implementation much faster, with proven code that you don't have to write and maintain yourself.

> The only thing that you will need to do is "bundle install" once your Ruby version is updated, which can be prevented by not updating Ruby. I just locked the ruby version in my package manager as I only use Ruby for Jekyll.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. While you might avoid unexpected updates to Ruby, you'll also avoid security patches for CVEs.

Yeah, but... surely, when you were iterating on a post, you were running Jekyll with --limit_posts or doing an incremental build?

I agree, it's a nuisance that a full build can take a while (my own site, which has almost 600 posts plus a bunch of other random pages, takes at least 30 seconds for a full build, if memory serves), but it's hardly a dealbreaker.

Wikipedia has a pretty extensive article on the topic, as usual:

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

Short version: Probably aircraft, but anything that can get aloft and dump aerosols (e.g. SO2) into the upper atmosphere.

The scary thing is it's all quite achievable and isn't even that expensive or complex.

Regarding the issue of speed, the wikipedia article even notes one of the benefits as:

> Speed: A common argument is that stratospheric aerosol injection can take place quickly, and would be able to buy time for carbon sequestration projects such as carbon dioxide air capture to be implemented and start acting over decades and centuries.

And ironically, we don't even have to worry that much about side-effects since the effects of atmospheric aerosols are relatively temporary.

But, again: a) doesn't help with ocean acidification, which threatens entire foodchains, and b) gives an easy out to not do the hard and necessary work of cutting down on CO2 emissions.

That said, at this point, I would make a very sizable bet that a major country or countries will engage in some type of geoengineering within the next, oh... 10 years at the outside? The dangers of allowing global warming to continue to run away are just too high for some nation to not do it, prove it, and pave the way for others to follow.

A few things.

My favourite is a flow to pull HTML-formatted newsletters out of my email and push them to Wallabag. I then use Wallabag's RSS feature with Calibre to turn them into an ebook I can read on my Kindle.

My other major use case is centralized notifications. For a lot of things (e.g. backups), I have a webhooks in Huginn that then push out a notification via Gotify to my phone.

I've also used Huginn to scrub/clean up RSS feeds, since it can pull the feed, apply transforms to it, and then republish it.

Anyone know how this compares to Huginn? I've built out some self hosted automation on Huginn and it works great once it's set up, but it's just a bit janky and difficult to use. And getting initial flows set up can be frustrating as the diagnostics aren't always great.

I wish I could talk you out of it but I love mine. Now whenever I bust out an old notepad I get frustrated I can't pick up and move around the text to reorganize my notes as I'm writing them...

I'd say they're comparable to newsprint. It's clearly not as good as ink on paper but it's still pretty darn good.

> An anomaly of this size warrants alarm.

Yes, it does.

> If not proof of imminent ecosystem collapse, it seems foolish to 'wait and see'.

Jesus Christ. I never said that.

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

> Though I take your point that defeatism is worse, but I doubt OP is defeatist.

You should also try re-reading what they wrote.

> That's an even more sensationalist spin than what the OP wrote

Fair point. The OP didn't say we'd all die by 2030. Just that the climate would collapse. My bad.

How is that point relevant?

The goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, not eliminate the use of oil generally.

For plastics production, that goal could be achieved by migrating extraction, refining, manufacturing, and transport to carbon neutral energy sources.

Of course, moving away from non-biodegradable plastics, in general, is also a good idea for a host of other reasons.

But given oil is also used in, for example, the production of fertilizer, we're probably gonna need to be able to extract it and use it sustainably for a while yet.

To be clear, there absolutely is evidence climate engineering can be done quickly: we may have ready done it by moving to and then from sulphur bearing marine fuels over the course of a couple decades:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...

Did you really cite turning oil into plastic as evidence that we can't move away from fossil fuels for large scale energy production?

> Everywhere its easy to see evidence of the tipping point accelerating.

Cool, let's start here, then: what tipping points are you referring to, specifically, and what is the evidence that they're accelerating?

To be clear: ocean temperatures are unusually high this year relative to historic trends, but with just this one year as a major outlier, there's no basis to conclude a tipping point has been reached, especially given El Nino muddies the data.

As for atmospheric temperature, 2023 is likely to be a warmest year on record, but January to July 2016 was hotter, so there no reason to believe 2023 will be wildly outside the current trendline (which, to be clear, is up and to the right):

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/g...

> Why do you need it to not be at catastrophe level right now?

Why do I dispute unsupported claims that the earth is now on an irreversible course to climate disaster that will destroy the human race?

The answer is literally in the first paragraph of my first reply. Go read it again. It seems silly to repeat myself.

And that doesn't change my point, does it?

This one year, or the year previous, is not evidence that the ecosystem of the planet is going to collapse in 10 years.

It's one year in a long and alarming trendline, but to extrapolate that to such an extreme conclusion is completely unwarranted.

> Rhetoric of restrained caution hasn't really served us well.

First, I didn't suggest "restrained caution". I can only speculate as to how you came to that conclusion.

Second, rhetoric that we're all gonna die by 2030 and nothing can be done is far more harmful.

That phrase is used when someone is delivering someone else's message.

That comment, both it's content and it's implications, are yours. If you're gonna run away from it now, you shouldn't have written it in the first place.

This kind of rhetoric is alarmist and counterproductive. It effectively gives one a free pass to do nothing. After all, if you already believe the earth is doomed, what's the point in trying?

Bluntly, your little prognostication, here, is based on nothing. Is 2023 a wicked outlier in the global climate? Absolutely. Is global warming continuing to progress as humanity fails to move quickly enough to change our ways? Absolutely.

But this is one year. A single data point. It's absurd to come to such an extreme conclusion based on a single year of (admittedly very scary) data.

If anything, I'm hoping this year will serve as a wake-up call for more people who might've previously been on the fence about the nature and severity of climate change, and will thus accelerate moves by people and their governments to do more about it.

Unfortunately the practical answer is probably both. We've collectively f*cked up by failing to curtail emissions more quickly. The only path forward now is to continue to move to carbon neutral fuel sources as quickly as possible while using geoengineering to buy ourselves time.

Unfortunately, if we successfully pause global warming via geoengineering, my bet is that'll give us the excuse to slow down or stop CO2 emission curtailment, and that way lies disaster as oceans acidify and food chains fall apart.

Edit: I don't know who's downvoting this comment, but the parent is a climate change denier and I was responding to their (now flagged) claim that HN doesn't allow for "critical" comments about CC.

I agreed: HN users flag disinformation, specifically false claims that CC isn't happening or isn't anthropogenic.

The reply is rebutting that same user's reply to this comment (which is now also flagged).

----

Critical about what? Like, denying the basic fact that CC is happening and carbon dioxide emitted by humans is driving it?

If so, yeah, I'm all for flagging disinformation on HN as a general rule.

Critical of the nature or conclusions of this specific study? Well, now, that depends.

One thing I didn't find in the abstract that bugged me was the total number of known penguin colonies. Four of five failed, here, but is that four of twenty? Or four of a thousand?

The article does mention that the penguins aren't projected to go extinct from the effects of climate change until the end of the century, which suggests there's still time to save the species.