I've just written those smaller PRs at once, or in quick enough succession that the previous PRs weren't merged before the later ones were ready. And the later ones relied on the previous ones because that's how working on a feature works.

The earlier PRs are absolutely reviewable and testable without relying on the later ones. The later ones are just treating the earlier ones as part of the codebase. I.e. everything here looks like two different PRs except the timing.

An obvious example would be "implement API for a feature" and then "implement UI that uses that API". Two different PRs. The second fundamentally relies on the first.

Nope, it isn't. Solar is cheap and the costs are continuing to fall quickly. Generating 5x more power in the summer than needed is perfectly fine and just a nice added bonus.

Wires are probably a good idea to reduce that number, but with how solar panels are dropping in price traditional forms of electricity generation (nuclear, fossil fuels, etc) just won't be competitive at that multiplier even without them.

> Places that need more electricity in the winter because they're cold are cold in the winter because they're further away from the equator.

Temperature has a lot to do with ocean currents. NY and Sweden overlap in how cold they are (taking the right parts of both). The southernmost point of Sweden is at 55.3 degrees north, the northermost point of NY is at 45.0 degrees north. They aren't even close to overlapping in how far north they are.

No it isn't.

Wires still might be worth it, but these are all close enough to the equator that you can just over provision locally without issue if you prefer.

> It's more than 1000km from the places that get cold

Solar panels work better in the cold. The issue is with how far from the equator Sweden is, not how cold it is.

1. Sweden is just about the worst case, there's very few countries/people that far north.

2. There's this genius invention called "wires". HVDC has transmission losses on the order of 3.5% per 1,000km. You don't have to colocate the solar.

I've seen a lot of people interact with LLMs like this and I'm skeptical.

It's not how you'd "teach" a human (effectively). Teaching (humans) with positive examples is generally much more effective than with negative examples. You'd show them examples of good tests to write, discuss the properties you want, etc...

I try to interact with LLMs the same way. I certainly wouldn't say I've solved "how to interact with LLMs" but it seems to at least mostly work - though I haven't done any (pseudo-)scientific comparison testing or anything.

I'm curious if anyone else has opinions on what the best approach is here? Especially if backed up by actual data.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47743628

Points: 464

# Comments: 142

A pattern I've definitely both seen and used is

    let guard1 = datastructure_containing_the_whole_world.lock();
    let guard2 = guard1.subset_of_that_datastructure.lock();
    guard1.unlock();
    // Do expensive work
    guard2.unlock();

Sure... I think minimizing the number of entities who have this sort of impunity is a good thing even if we can't eliminate all of them.

The rest of the drone is all stuff that can be fabricated in small batches in a garage... of course bigs factories are more efficient at fabricating just about anything so to the extent that's possible it's done, but bombing all the big factories won't stop it.

That said North Korea routinely acts against the rest of the world in ways that are only possible because the rest of the world is unable to retaliate, with the government sponsoring everything from extorting hospitals with ransomware, to dealing drugs, to counterfeiting currency, to abducting film makers (from Hong Kong).

> As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge?

Generally speaking I read this as not, because they aren't being "used to" render those points immune from attack, they just happen to be doing so. Hypothetically if you were to rush civilians back to their homes in an evacuated town to protect it from an attack - or as you suggest organize parades on bridges that are threatened - that would seem to meet the "used to" requirement.

(Good discussion though)

[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

> Article 28 - Prohibition of using human shields

> The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

> 6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran

> 7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

These seem remarkably outside the USes power to unilaterally agree to.

The first violates international treaties and while I'd be thrilled with the precedent as a Canadian eyeing my countries future revenue streams I doubt the rest of the world's countries are going to be happy to give up freedom of navigation through international waterways.

The second is something that can only be done by the UN security council with a majority vote and none of the permanent members vetoing the termination.

I don't actually know how the IAEA works, but it seems all but certain that that's up to their board of governors not the US.

The cheapest per kwh way I could find to buy a home battery (that didn't involve diy stuff) was to literally buy an EV car with an inverter... by a factor of at least two... I ended up not buying one.

Unfortunately cheap batteries doesn't translate to reputable companies packaging them in cheap high quality packages for consumers instantly.