We all paid for the roads too ("we" includes cyclists), and we paid for them to accommodate any vehicles that are legal to operate on them, which in most jurisdictions includes bikes.
I think the space-elevator concept is sort of silly, but this doesn't seem like the most pertinent criticism to me. Presumably in a hypothetical future in which a space elevator is under serious consideration, vastly greater resources are being devoted to space technology, launch costs are much less than now, and are about to get cheaper still due to the elevator in question. It seems like if we were on the cusp of being able to 100x the number of satellites or whatever, sacrificing the existing fleet for new ones in different orbits that avoided the elevator wouldn't be too big a sacrifice.
All the more reason to shift to a pay-per-use model rather than the high-fixed-cost model of car ownership, which incentivizes uses your car for as many trips as possible once you've made the initial expenditure to buy the thing. If these get good enough and cheap enough that significant numbers of people can get away with ditching their cars, those people will probably end up in a situation where transit (including kinds with no tires) will be cheaper on a per-trip basis where it's practical, and robocars will make sense for the remainder.
Depends on the reaction. Most efforts are around deuterium-tritium fusion (that's the pair that's easiest to make fuse), which emits most of its energy as high-energy neutrons. So for these, yes, like the peer comment said, the neutrons are hitting something that heats up (that's the "blanket," which might be made of molten salt or metal), and then you can get the heat out of that with a heat exchanger. The company described in this article is aiming for D-T fusion.
There are other reactions one can pursue that produce charged particles instead of neutrons. With these reactions, there are alternative energy conversion pathways that turn the kinetic energy of these charged particles directly into voltage, and you can skip the turbine. Of the fusion startups, Helion is probably the most prominent pursuing this kind of approach, with a D-He3 reaction. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion for more info on this general approach.
There probably _is_ a similar, relevant distinction between mass-manufactured cars like Ford's and hand-built high-end cars like, I dunno, a McLaren F1, though. We don't use this exact terminology, but I think SpaceX is trying to be Ford in contrast to the legacy players, which are McLaren.
No, you definitely can. You generally can't mutate things that would cause the iterator itself to be invalidated (like, you can't delete items from a vector while you're iterating over it), but you can get an iterator over a vector that gives you a mutable reference to each of its members, which would be sufficient to do what you're suggesting here.
I think what they were pointing out (and I agree with) is that the mixing of combinators and imperative-style for loops that's going on in the post doesn't feel very natural. Typically if you would _either_ do
Metrics-driven policing often gets the blame here: shifts in policing policy that hold individual precincts, officers, etc., directly responsible for crime statistics under their watch were initially successful in more efficiently allocating police resources, but have now created a set of perverse incentives that encourage officers to either not file reports or to down-classify reports into less-grave categories (reporting armed robbery as theft, etc.). These kinds of programs originated in NYC, as the "CompStat" program under Jack Maple and Bill Bratton, largely during the administration of Rudy Giuliani as mayor, but similar programs have since been adopted by (particularly urban) police departments across the country, to arguably similar both positive and negative effects. This kind of stats manipulation ("juking the stats") featured heavily in the TV show The Wire, for example, which is set in Baltimore.
So, to more directly answer your second question: other cities absolutely also suffer here, but New York has been at it the longest, and so is perhaps best known for this issue.
As I understand it, it's not a copyright issue, it's a terms-of-service issue. You're only authorized to use GPT in accordance with their terms, which prohibit using the service to develop a competitor. Doing so anyway is unauthorized use of the service, which is a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation, independent of what is and isn't copyrightable.
I dunno, I live in Washington, DC, which has many of those properties (snow, freezing temperatures, heavy thunderstorms in the summer), and knowing which ten-minute window in the next hour was the least likely to get me soaked if I wanted to pop out for coffee was still incredibly useful, and I have yet to find a satisfactory replacement. Certainly there were some days when the weather was shit regardless and there wasn't a good opening, but no app is going to remedy that.
> if you think this is an objective standard for reliable evidence, you're in over your head
I don't, and I'm well aware of Gell-Mann amnesia, but I'm also not going to personally interview every witness of every event, or personally become an expert in every subject so as to be able to independently have a well-informed opinion about all of them. I accept that this means that sometimes I will not be perfectly informed, but even if it were possible to do all those things (and it isn't), it's not the way I would choose to spend my life. There are other ways to spend my time that I find more fulfilling, and I accept that that means outsourcing the work fact-finding to people who do it for a living, even if I know they're imperfect, and even if I know that at least in certain domains, I might be able to do it better if I tried.
> Danger, Will Robinson
To you, the danger is not knowing that there are, in fact, lizard people controlling the government. To me, the danger is in ending up spending my free time poring over fringe lizard-people Twitter. Personally I'm perfectly willing to accept the former danger to avoid the latter. I think we just have different priorities.
The vast, vast majority of yesterday's conspiracy theories remain just conspiracy theories, and the vast majority of today's likely will as well. I'd be perfectly comfortable having anything that looks like a conspiracy theory hidden, and if tomorrow it becomes a verified fact (with enough evidence having accumulated for it to get covered in a non-mocking way by NYT or NPR or whatever), to see it then. Occasionally it's possible I'd find out about a few true things later than everybody else, but it's not like the course of human events depends on my knowing things the moment they're knowable. I think I'd be fine.
Who are the kids in this analogy? It seems like what's at issue is whether or not depositors are protected (executives, shareholders, and creditors are all getting the shaft). Do you think depositors should have made different choices, and if so, which?
I often do too! But I certainly also had some professors in college who were frankly just really bad at conveying their expertise in a way that was accessible to people who were not also already experts. Some SMEs happen to have good communication skills and can be really fun to talk to, but the systems that produce experts don't, in my experience, select for these attributes, so whether or not you get them is pretty luck-of-the-draw.
With respect, you and your company of people who are already subject matter experts are not his audience; his audience is people who are not experts and want to learn about this subject matter. Most people on HN are also not subject matter experts with respect to rockets, so in that respect, are probably much closer to his target audience on average than you are.
> He is not a rocket scientist.
That might well be a pro, not a con. Rocket scientists' core competency is designing rockets, not teaching, and subject matter experts often make poor teachers. If this were a case of some kind of hucksterism, where he's an ignorant layperson making shit up and passing it off as true in his educational content, I'd say there was some concern, but while he's apparently said some dumb shit on Twitter, it doesn't seem like you or most other commenters are pointing to anything factually inaccurate _in this article_, nor indeed do people tend to on his researched, long-form stuff generally (vs. some off-the-cuff tweet). In that sense, it seems like this content is as good a place as any for laypeople to learn about this topic, that it doesn't obviously suffer from his lack of formal training, and maybe benefits if it means his better able to translate technical content to non-technical audiences.
I experimented with them (also with capnproto) at my last job for a usecase involving dense numerical data where being able to randomly seek within a dataset would have been really helpful for speed reasons, but found that as compared to protobuf, these formats were unacceptably bulky (lots of extra padding for word alignment, etc.), and the added cost even just to read the extra data from disk mostly negated the savings from avoiding the explicit decode step, plus would have had significant implications in terms of storage cost, etc. I ended up writing a custom wire format that allowed for seeking with less wasted space.
Seems like a neat idea, but as another commenter said, the usecases where it's the best choice seem pretty narrow.
Seems to be matching against one particular typeface, and is very sensitive to how similar what you write is to that typeface. The first thing I tried was a lowercase "a," which, in my handwriting, is a one-story "a," and it had no idea what it was. Likewise it guessed poorly at my lowercase "f" because the top of my "f" curves back down, and its doesn't, etc. Seems like it would benefit from a dataset with more variations on how various characters are written in practice.
Roosevelt Island (which is a part of the Manhattan borough) actually has an underground, pneumatic trash collection system: https://untappedcities.com/2020/04/09/inside-roosevelt-islan... . I think it would be hard to retrofit such a thing onto the already-built-up parts of the city though.
A lot of these properties apparently are bought by wealthy foreigners purely speculatively, and sit vacant. If they were buying them to rent them out, I'd agree with you, but as it is, they end up reducing the housing stock that's available to be lived in while the number of people stays the same, so they do drive up price.
The injunction against removing it wouldn't compel them to update it, though, right? In this one they promise to post a new one every month, so even if you're forbidden from removing the current one, unless they force you to create new updates, people would still notice when the current one "expires" without having been updated (and if that turns out to hold legal water, no reason you couldn't post new ones arbitrarily often -- daily, say).
Probably worth stating the obvious that this only includes shows that originate on linear TV, though. Their estimate for linear-TV entertainment shows is that 30-40% of them watch via streaming, but when you add that to all the shows that get watched 100% via streaming (because that's the only way to get them), streaming ends up trouncing broadcast or DVR as a source of most entertainment content, to an extent I don't think I realized.
There are variants of this approach where, rather than having the needles be coated, they're made of a dissolvable sugar with the vaccine incorporated into them (so they are the vaccine in some sense). You'd apply them like a bandaid, wait a bit for it to dissolve, then take them off, and the whole process could be done at home with no supervision at all.
Per unit of panel surface area, not per unit of land area. If the sun is coming in at an angle, you'd be able to collect all that's available with less panel area than total land area by angling them (or equivalently, in this new configuration you need more panel area than you otherwise would), but in their estimation, it's cheaper to just get more panels than it is to buy and install racks.
I think we're suffering from some fuzziness about what bounds checks we're referring to. Even in your example, you only need to check the size of the Vec<T> when you instantiate the iterator, not each time the iterator accesses an element, because at the time the iterator over the Vec<T>'s contents is instantiated, the Vec<T>'s size is known, and it can't change over the life of the iterator (because mutation is disallowed when there's an outstanding borrow). With a regular for-loop:
for i in 0..v.len() {
println!("{:?}", v[i]);
}
you check the length at the top (the `v.len()`) and also for each `v[i]`. The first is unavoidable, but the second can be skipped when using an iterator instead, because it can be statically guaranteed that, even if you don't know at compile time what concretely the length is, whatever it ends up being, the index will never exceed it. Rust specifically differs from C++ in this respect, because nothing in that language prevents the underlying vector's length from changing while the iterator exists, so without per-access bounds checks it's still possible for an iterator to walk past the end.
In Rust at least, once you instantiate the iterator, the array it's iterating over can't be mutated until the iterator is dropped, and that can be statically guaranteed at compile time. So you don't need to bounds-check at every access; you can decide at the outset how many iterations there are going to be, and doing that number of iterations will be known not to walk past the end.
I don't think what he's proposing is to replace any ad revenue -- he's trying to grow revenue and take a company currently in the red into the black. I think he means to keep all the ad revenue, and then add that much again in subscription revenue. So: 20%, I guess? Or even more to make up for advertiser attrition? Which seems like... a ton.