mpweiher

24 ms·

301.
Designing Microkernel IPC(seiya.me)
3 points by mpweiher 5mo ago|0 comments
302.
Swamp Club – Your Agent Builds the Tools, Then Runs Them(swamp.club)
2 points by mpweiher 6mo ago|0 comments
303.
Progressive Web Components(arielsalminen.com)
4 points by mpweiher 6mo ago|0 comments
304.
Agentic Coding Is Burning Me Out(0xsid.com)
4 points by mpweiher 6mo ago|2 comments
305.
Richard Sutton – Father of RL thinks LLMs are a dead end [video](youtube.com)
3 points by mpweiher 6mo ago|1 comments
306.
Company says nuclear fusion could power the grid – and soon(cnn.com)
4 points by mpweiher 6mo ago|0 comments
307.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Next year for first Plasma in the SPARC reactor, which is supposed to yield net positive fusion energy. Early 2030s for the commercial reactor feeding fusion-powered electricity into the grid. For which they (a) have an electricity purchas
308.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
The subject was modifications made to reactor types that had major accidents, and specifically the RBMK-1000. Last I checked, the VVER-440 is not an RBMK-1000, did not explode at Chernobyl, and has not had a major accident. "The two VV
309.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
The opposite is true. - the current system based on intermittent renewables is the madness - it is the intermittent renewables that are difficult to control, not thermal generation - LCOE, not LOCE. - Giving priority to intermittent renewab
310.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Actually the way China builds nuclear reactors is very typical of the way western countries built reactors back when we still did it well: standardize, build a bunch in overlapping batches. Keep building. That shouldn't be surprising
311.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
The madness is not the nuclear power but the catastrophic energy "system" that has produced these results. Nuclear power would help to solve these problems, because it isn't intermittent.
312.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
I think it's the other way around: Rejecting nuclear waste site is an easy and almost cost-free way of garnering browny points with the part of your electorate that has been indoctrinated into massive radiophobia. https://en
313.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Yeah, but solar is "whenever I want to deliver" electricity, not "when I need electricity". Not the same product.
314.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Well yes, Russia is Russia. The RBMK with its well-known design flaws could never have been certified/built in the West. Yes, these design flaws were well-known long before the Chernobyl accident. In his posthumously published memoi
315.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Nothing man-made is "completely safe". No such thing. However, nuclear energy is the safest form of energy production we have. By far. And that includes Chernobyl and Fukushima. People overestimate the danger from nuclear energy
316.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
1. LCOE is not the appropriate metric, especially when you have intermittent renewables in the mix. 2. Lazard themselves say that their LCOE numbers for nuclear are not indicative. https://x.com/mpweiher/status/181
317.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
> I've yet to see a nuclear safety argument that doesn't reduce to 'nuclear energy provokes emotional fear' Yep. It's called radiophobia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia And it i
318.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
> France talks about building more nuclear, but what's actually getting put on the grid is renewables, not nuclear. As always this is a political problem, not a technical or economic one. The Hollande government put a law on the b
319.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
At this point, nuclear fusion is a safer bet than grid scale battery backup.
320.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Actually, nuclear is not way more expensive. And already-built nuclear is pretty much the cheapest power you can get.
321.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
They didn't. It's a research mine and never stored any spent fuel.
322.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
1. Asse does not house spent reactor fuel 2. It was an old mine turned into a research mine. It was never intended for actual use. 3. The waste there is mostly medical and low-level other waste like gloves. 4. It is actually safe where it
323.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
> a thread about how we treat and handle nuclear reactors This is actually an article about Belgium taking over nuclear plants for restart. > should suddenly be about people that die from natural disasters How did we get to natural d
324.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Contrary to your claim Japan is not shutting down its nuclear reactors. It is restarting them.
325.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
No it's not. You actually have to build out intermittent renewables much faster than nuclear even for comparable generating capacity due to the much shorter lifetime of the equipment. See Little's Law https://en.wikipe
326.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
That's what we are currently doing. We are using the state to force people to pay for expensive intermittent renewables.
327.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Citation needed. (Narrator: yes it will, and no it's not).
328.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
There is a lot of disinformation about nuclear power that has been so widely and consistently disseminated that it has basically diffused into the background.
329.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Yes. Or not having your plant destroyed by the biggest Tsunami in recorded Japanese history, much larger than the size they planned for when they built the plant. Or upgrading the seawall to the size mandated after scientists found out that
330.
by mpweiher 6mo ago
Yes we actually are talking about deaths from natural disasters. The Fukushima nuclear power plant was destroyed by the Tsunami. It didn't spontaneously combust. A lot of other infrastructure that was impacted/destroyed by the T

More ›