jnxx

49 ms·

391.
by jnxx 6y ago
Based on Lisp, Emacs has also very good support for REPL, or read-eval-print-loop programming. My impression is this is becoming more important. Anyway this is an extremely valuable feature if one programs Common Lisp, Racket, Clojure, Fort
392.
by jnxx 6y ago
The extensibility of Emacs is a major boon. Here an example: I never did real Emacs hacking, but I learned some Lisp stuff over the years, a bit of Clojure, Racket, and Common Lisp each. Now, I have a very experienced senior coworker which
393.
by jnxx 6y ago
Another advantage of Emacs compared to IDE is that it is resource-friendly, on multiple levels. Foremost, it is friendly to the resource which has become the most precious one, which is attention. It has a sparse interface which shows exact
394.
by jnxx 6y ago
The most important advantage of Emacs and vi are, these are open systems, which come out of an open culture, not just "open source" but really free software, with no strings attached. Granted, open source is having its successes,
395.
by jnxx 6y ago
I think it is the combination of consistency and adaptability. There are a huge number of interesting features and tweaks out there, and every once in a while one encounters a useful gem. For example, I have started to use Unicode more heav
396.
by jnxx 6y ago
Any kind of set-up is done in textual configuration. And this is a major plus. That means you get quickly to see what you have configured, you can put it into version control and check it out on a different machine, and so on. This is a bi
397.
by jnxx 6y ago
As the parent says, this sounds like a loaded question. In fact, it sounds just like som marketing departmetn which wants to promote some IDE is trying to gather reasons and possibly features which need to be added to some "competitor&
398.
by jnxx 6y ago
Brilliant business model. Let's hope that Google never needs more money.
399.
by jnxx 6y ago
Breeders are not established technology, and they have their own risks; they are much harder to control and cool.
400.
by jnxx 6y ago
Can confirm that Germany is totally covered by solar panels by now. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-gree... https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-renewables-
401.
by jnxx 6y ago
In fact, in the 1950 and 1960s it was attempted to make more use of nuclear by using electrical night storage heaters with cheaper tariffs over the night. If you remember the pro-nuclear argument at that time, hold on, it was "electric
402.
by jnxx 6y ago
You can also exchange energy using high-voltage DC lines across the whole continent. Also, wave energy converters like Pelamis are an exciting technology, precisely because they harvest wind energy decoupled in space and time. It is a great
403.
by jnxx 6y ago
Rooftop solar is cost-effective. It is already starting to get below the price people pay for getting electricity from the grid.
404.
by jnxx 6y ago
Five years is extremely optimistic. The Finnish Olkiluoto plant might go on line in 2022 and then it would have had a 22-year development time. Starting such a project today this would mean it finishes around 2040. And this was planned with
405.
by jnxx 6y ago
There are a lot of things which are already employed, like generating hydrogen by electrolysis and feeding it into natural gas storage and gas distribution networks. This is not a full solution but works and is being used in Germany now. Al
406.
by jnxx 6y ago
Reliable cooling is also a big problem for the nuclear plants in the US East coast. They are away from the shore but well in reach of different types of disasters, like hurricanes, winter storms and flooding. They need reliable cooling and
407.
by jnxx 6y ago
> and other natural disasters. Like Tsunamis. Do you know where Flamanville is situated? Right next to the Atlantic ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
408.
by jnxx 6y ago
> I think there are good reasons to be bullish about battery storage. I only need to look at how long my laptop lasts compared to 15 years ago.
409.
by jnxx 6y ago
> The point is that nuclear is the only known geographically independent way of generating carbon free energy that isn't subject to intermittency. For one, it needs a cool river with lots of water available for cooling. Which with c
410.
by jnxx 6y ago
So, nuclear plants are economical if and only if you happen to need some nuclear weapons? Isn't it?
411.
by jnxx 6y ago
It must be the environmentalists! You must have heard that the US, the UK, and France has been run by environmentalists for the last 40 years!! /s
412.
by jnxx 6y ago
But nuclear plants are not insured against major accidents. Nobody insures that, for some reason.
413.
by jnxx 6y ago
So, these things are not viable in a market economy? Why should they be pursued then?
414.
by jnxx 6y ago
So how do you turn a whole unsafe industry into a safe one? That's a lot of organizational DNA to change. Might as well convert a dinosaur into a gazelle.
415.
by jnxx 6y ago
Using gas backup is a transition technology which is the most effective and available thing we have right now, and it won't stay that way. Demanding zero emissions right now is like to maliciously demand perfection in order to kill of
416.
by jnxx 6y ago
Not entirely unrelated, China is also building a system of high-speed long-distance trains like few countries have. There will be a time after the individual gas-powered car. I guess it will be propelled electrically, but it's quite li
417.
by jnxx 6y ago
> I don’t think the Europe Union really wants a trade war with the US. Who bothers, the US already wants one. Why should the EU let determine the future of the planet by some political backwater?
418.
by jnxx 6y ago
Each country can do this on their own and tax fossil energy imports at the border. This should include embodied energy, or "gray energy", in materials like steel, aluminum and cement.
419.
by jnxx 6y ago
Emissions trading is a single gigantic failure. What we need is a stiff carbon tax.
420.
by jnxx 6y ago
The combination of a carbon tax and universal basic income is the solution here. It would also push adoption of non-fossil energy sources, since poor people have more than enough incentives to chose the economically best solution for them.

More ›