lukealization

A wholly reductionist comment that misstates my opinions. Believe it or not I think there’s an optimal space between the environmental conservatism I’m espousing and charging forward into an unregulated and environmentally destructive bliss that doesn’t result in being opposed to any form of new development ever.

Yes, because the "charge forward and worry about the consequences later" mantra has proven so historically successful over the past 100 years when it comes to environmental stewardship. CFC's, HFC's, PFAS, leaded fuel, and abundant plastic waste are proof we definitely know what we're doing when it comes to ensuring we don't pollute our planet or ourselves, right? The science on this remains novel precisely because the idea of launching hundreds of rockets a day was inconceivable even 10 years ago.

You want more specifics, I take it?

* It's been well known for decades that high-altitude supersonic flight damages the ozone layer significantly faster than conventional aircraft. New Scientist, 1997 [1]

* More recently, concerning reentries of spacecraft: Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight, Nature, 2022 [2]

Our upper atmosphere is fragile and contains the bulk of the ozone layer that protects us all from skin cancer and being bathed in brutal ultraviolet radiation. You willing to risk it because "space is cool"?

[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320692-500-science-...

[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01001-5

Aircraft use hydrocarbons which require similarly intensive chemical processes to create the fuels from the same constituent ingredients as the Sabatier reaction.

I agree space is cool. But why do you think the "space is cool" mantra is more important than ensuring that for the 8 billion humans that call this planet home—we have somewhere sustainable and safe to live?

Your asteroid mining for profit is arguably meaningless if we have no ozone layer.

Why isn't SpaceX doing that then? Why isn't any airline doing that then? Oh look, it's cheaper to use refined natural gas from a well. That's why. In the absence of either properly priced externalities, the market will always choose the cheapest option—Sabatier-generated Methane is not remotely comparable in price to fossil nat gas.

Mentioning theoretical solutions doesn't help if they will never be used practically.

Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about thousands of starships launching from Earth and emitting multiple megatons of Carbon Dioxide in the fragile upper atmosphere? Some studies indicate emissions here are significantly more impactful, and can also damage the Ozone layer as well.

Any answers shouldn't consist of "well it's a fraction of what the aviation industry emits" because _the entire point_ of Starship is to scale-up to aviation-like operations.

Hi there. Where did you purchase those from?

And botulinum toxin only needs to exist in microscopic quantities to cause injury and death—would you eat a jar contaminated with it?

Satellites are significantly more metal-rich than meteors—also it's clear with Starship and multiple large (10,000+) satellite constellations that the total deorbited mass annually is only going to grow.

You sound exactly like the type who would defend ULA and other rocketry incumbents when SpaceX was a tiny startup.

Why are we so intent on dismissing the little players here?

The OP nor the study made no indication that the two were related — merely that they correlate.

> Apps can host code.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Possibly inadvisable, but you can disable SIP in High Sierra by using `csrutil` from the recovery OS (kind of moot, admittedly, as you'll need to be in recovery to trash the files that the author has mentioned, but you can at least make this setting permanent if you're willing to live with SIP disabled).

> And with Clover bootloader, it's even easier than it's ever been

And it's about to start getting far more difficult too. In my opinion, we've reached "peak hackintosh". Now with additional features which run on ARM chips and custom hardware complementing macOS more and more, it's going to become increasingly untenable to replicate the full experience going forward.

TouchID & TouchBar with BridgeOS on the MacBooks was the first step. Hey Siri on the iMac Pro is the next rung up. How long until we see FaceID on the Mac, or much further down the road, macOS running on ARM?

There's two JS libraries using the term "ristretto", we've all heard of mocha. "espresso" seems to be a disused node.js tooling library, similarly, "flat white" is a disused CMS, "latte" is a failed CoffeeScript competitor. "Americano" seems to be a slightly more used tooling repository.

I guess the less than inspiring names "short black" and "long black" are available? :)

Is there a possibility this could fall afoul of antitrust laws or be deemed monopolistic behaviour? What are the legal considerations here?

> If another company rolled a 200kwh car out of the back of a truck ...

That's the thing. They didn't. The roadster concept didn't have 200kWh in it at all.

Presumably you live either up Kapiti Coast or Upper Hutt/Wairarapa? The latter has tables which make things much easier.

Agreed. This plus a number of plugins disappearing in FF57 with the new WebExtensions have forced me to switch to Safari.

On the plus side now, I get my tabs across all my devices.

I'm in a similar position to yourself here. Would love to apply as I think working on something essentially similar to a space program would be incredible, but as someone who values days off and a work-life balance, I cannot commit to that level of employment.

It's a shame RocketLab have adopted such a SpaceX-esque policy of employment. Surely it must be possible to build a rocketry company where employees work only 40 hour weeks...

It's an interesting conundrum. One could argue this is a precedent. Then it becomes a question of "for what levels of severity do they patch vulnerability for?".

This is genuinely applicable to me. I don't remember any of my passwords since I'm logged in at most places via cookies, and my passwords are completely randomized strings two dozen or more characters long, stored in a password manager.

Do border security understand how password managers work, or would I have to tell them how to access my own data?

Showerthought: If I delete my password manager from my phone, maybe the password manager should perform geolocation and detect if the application is trying to be installed at an airport (possibly indicating installation against my will). That's a very nuanced situation.

> I'm going to go out on a limb and venture that you will find less coal and solar powered submarines than that.

To be fair, submarines are an entirely different use case compared to public energy grid generation. The former requires high power density with low weight. Coal and solar don't tend to deliver that underwater. Nuclear is indeed one of the top choices for a submarine. The economic point I'm making isn't applicable twenty thousand leagues under the sea.

But it is applicable for conventional energy grid generation, and it performs poorly compared to solar and battery storage, so much so that the world is currently building several large nuclear power plant's worth of capacity annually with solar alone.

> And why is all that? Red tape and bureaucracy, while the world literally burns.

Can I ask what specific requirements surrounding the development and operation around nuclear plants constitutes red tape in your opinion? My understanding is that most of the regulations concerning operation are in place to ensure the possibility of a disaster is minimized to nil.

> These issues are not technical, they are political

As expressed in my above comment, I would argue that nuclear power's problems are neither technical nor political, but nearly totally economic in nature. It's on the losing side of current trends.

Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one that will be operational 20 years from now.

> The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal.

Sure, but... will this be the same in 10 years? 20? 50? Within merely the past 3 years, the amount of battery energy storage has expanded by a few orders of magnitude.

Because when you build a nuclear power plant, it takes a minimum of a decade to go from on paper to operation, and the operational life, which pays off the capex at the beginning, is hopefully, at least 50.

Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission it in 100MW increments. A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a few dozen nuclear engineers. Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized decommissioning or waste storage costs.

I'm not trying to tell you nuclear doesn't have a future. What I am saying, with the likes of Tesla Energy and the rise in solar + battery storage, is that the energy grid is in for turbulent times in the next few decades. This makes the economics of nuclear questionable - we don't know if it is going to be economically viable in a few decades.

If I had $10b? I wouldn't touch the nuclear energy sector, personally.

Hackintosh?

What's the general consensus on Angular 2? I've built a few apps with it, and generally like it, although it's quite opinionated.

Most of the time I've seen something Angular-related appear on HN, there's generally a facet of the community lambasting it as too big/too enterprisey.

I live in New Zealand (at last check, that was outside North America). I see Macs all the time.

Many great companies are started overseas. Many great companies are also started in America. To suggest there is a correlation between startup success rate and at will employment would require, by golly, empirical data.

Do you have any on hand?