I also think app development requirements are too high. Just to compile your app and run the build process you need a very high end computer. I could never do it with my modest laptop and therefore gravitated towards web programming and more backend work. Thankfully I avoided all the pain of building apps and getting them approved by store owners. But I do have respect for people who have to deal with this bs.

It may sound too opinionated and may hurt some feeling but I don't like android at all. I think it sucks. But I have little choice. So I grin and bear.

With responsive design becoming mainstream I'm fine with using my browser for 90% of my internet work. In some cases like Google docs it's painful to use the web version so I just use the app.

EDIT: I wish they'd add a console to mobile web browsers though.

Lua's small footprint is it's one big advantage in addition to its pleasent syntax but with tiny cc (which raylib supports when I last checked a few years ago) you can get a compact c runtime as well.

I haven't worked on a project with either of these frameworks but a couple of years back I was researching into some frameworks and was surprised to learn that I can use raylib on my phone with termux!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47658507

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47452377

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47384583

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47305092

Points: 4

# Comments: 3

For a moment though I thought that this story was about the launch of a new plasma TV 'big screen' and it got me really excited.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47218521

Points: 60

# Comments: 15

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46943874

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46674725

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46671982

Points: 34

# Comments: 14

Only requirement is energy and there too it isn't all that expensive to pull air in from the atmosphere or to seperate CO2 from adsorbent via low grade heat (70-100c)

So far into the future this method could allow us to continue produce critical hydrocarbon materials (used everywhere from plastics to pharamaceuticals) without having to depend upon concentrated and contested oil supplies.

More than energy efficiency its volumetric efficiency that's the issue. At the moment (to the best of my knowledge) kg of capturing materials capture tens of grams of CO2. Pulling it from air is not that energy intensive but finding materials that can actually filter out CO2 from that air is difficult. If breakthroughs are made in this area it will have industrial applications. Then it won't be just sequestering.

Of course the easier solution is to plant more trees and grasses but they grow very slowly and require valuable land. Still this approach is feasible in some uncultivable lands. Crops like cottongrass[1] can grow even in tundra climate and can be valuable source of both technically imp carbon via cellulose and a means to capture CO2. We don't have to make a choice. We can do both simultaneously.

[1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/graminoid/eriva...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46432640

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Malone(and others apparently) took Stirling engines and filled it with compressed water as a working fluid with some decent efficiency!

The advantage, based on what I could gather from limited info available, was that these liquid engines could be run at lower temp differential making them great for low grade heat recovery.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46382701

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46377081

Points: 26

# Comments: 5

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46351317

Points: 1

# Comments: 0