2 ms·
I love the idea. The implementation did not produce the expected results ( article shown on HN - https://amp-economist-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.economist.
by A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I love the idea. The implementation did not produce the expected results ( article shown on HN - https://amp-economist-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/03/12/nuclear-power-plants-are-coming-to-the-battlefield https://amp-economist-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.economi... ).
That said. Keep at it. It seems like a viable and valuable service.
- radhakrsna 7y agoGlad that you liked it. Have you tested it out with the advanced summarizer? Thank you very much for your encouragement. I will try to keep improving it.
- thunderbong 7y agoUsing the advanced summarizer, I got this - On March 9th America’s government awarded a trio of firms $39.7m to design “microreactors” that can supply a few megawatts of power to remote military bases, and be moved quickly by road, rail, sea and air. The idea of small reactors is as old as nuclear power itself. In July 1951, five months before a reactor in Idaho became the first in the world to produce usable electricity through fission, America began building USS Nautilus, a nuclear-powered submarine. A report by the army in 2018 said that Holos, a prototype mobile nuclear reactor, would be 62% cheaper than using liquid fuel. NASA is developing smaller “Kilopower” reactors for space missions, designed to power small lunar outposts.