> close HN, reach out to people, get help

that seems like perfectly compatible advice. I'm not sure why you're inferring a "professional" in there and then quibbling about it.

You have at least two comments in this thread lauding the GPL and its effects. So aren't you advocating for the intellectual prison as well?

So...the worse things are the better because we have more things to improve? Wouldn't it just be better if things weren't worse?

Can't entirely tell if this is supposed to be inspirational or contrarian (I think maybe the first one?), but every bit of shit in a situation being something we can look forward to overcoming by crawling through it isn't the most heart stirring way to look at it and also seems a bit dismissive without engaging with the actual subject.

Yes, it's always been accepted that someone has to support it, but someone else, not me. But these are important dependencies so I'm sure someone will support them.

It's such a common situation that there's a six year old xkcd about it that felt about ten years late at the time.

But that's not what they said?

>> I didn't get to participate in much of that

Part of it did!

> Was it not the most extensive library of human writing at that time?

No.

More importantly, the original assertion:

> the world certainly turned its back on the only collection of written knowledge and let it turn to ash

is definitely not true.

isn't the post of someone who just implemented a js engine (it reads like someone who asked an LLM to write a blog post about the git log of a different LLM which was apparently lifting code from a different js engine...)

It's a bit hard to understand what's going on here, but definitely hard to trust the project.

I mean it's a detail free second hand anecdote about someone's informal discussion of their bachelor's thesis. Which part of that is the basis of a good scientific conversation?

Her "result" of what? Was there an actual experiment and what was its scope or was this by surveying literature?

Microplastics are of a pretty large range of size, and then there are nanoplastics below that.

I'm also not an expert, but a quick search shows a number of results of microplastics affecting T cells, some directly and some in terms of immune signaling, so this negative result doesn't seem that definitive.

(as usual, the difficulty is in teasing out in vivo effects)

Actually it says it _can_ delegate to the latest models. Seems reasonable to ask how the voice model does when it doesn't delegate (or while waiting for the delegated answer).

Unclear what you're referring to here. Was it "misrepresented what they would be releasing"?

If that's the case, I disagree that the repo still existing is on its face evidence against that theory. It could be a perfectly fine tool, but if you lie on a release checklist, depending on what you lie about, it's easy enough to imagine a fireable offense. There are multiple ways that "it's easier to ask forgiveness" can backfire if there are legal things or organizational things you are knowingly avoiding.

Again, this is just speculation. I wouldn't personally fire someone for releasing a library that got popular, but its also speculation to suggest that's the only reason he was fired.

It was just speculation about what could be bad enough if they really did have permission to release it, but the OP is being so cagey below now I'm just wondering if they got release permission but misrepresented what they would be releasing or something.

> and is official [1]

FWIW no idea what you're trying to point out on that page unless you mean the one link to a different project in the same github org indicates the org is official, but that never seemed in doubt in this thread of comments.

[1] https://github.com/googleworkspace/cli/issues/780

Agreed it's gross if the big problem with execs was that it got social media buzz and it embarrassed official products or something.

That's not what it says. It says that would be the cost assuming the current grid and power came from only solar or only nuclear. The majority of the cost then is for overprovisioning and storage, especially to handle the lack of sun in the winter.

The actual low cost power comes from mixes of renewables, that they note nuclear can't compete with (especially in their hypothetical future energy system with things like scheduled EV charging). They give an example of offshore wind (66%), solar (8%), CCGT (26%) (primarily natural gas) for 66 EUR/MWh, or, restricting to biomass for the gas plant: offshore wind (84%), solar (13%), CCGT (3%) at 99 EUR/MWh.

(it's also worth noting that this is for Denmark. Something like 98% of Canadians live south of Denmark's southernmost line of latitude).