<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: sehansen</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=sehansen</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:10:16 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=sehansen" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Pentagon raised threat of Israeli spying on U.S. to highest level, sources say"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Why would an article from 2019 be a counterargument to criticisms from 2022? Especially when the first sentence of that article is a prime example of Mearsheimers blind spot: that the Russians aren't actually realists, but instead are a kind of idealist focused on Russias dignity as a (percieved) great power. Almost like virtue ethics as opposed to the consequentionalist ethics of realism.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 11:47:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48502895</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48502895</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48502895</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Increasing taxes is a textbook method of balancing government budgets.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:20:08 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48369927</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48369927</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48369927</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>European truck manufacturers like MAN and Scania have already had electric semi-trucks on the market for years. And they are selling, the Danish transport giant DSV alone has 400 driving around Europe.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 11:37:08 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48368888</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48368888</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48368888</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>AFAIK only pension contributions mentioned in a collective bargaining agreement is mandatory. If you get offered a regular contract offering a salary plus 10% pension you can accept the job, write an email to HR stating that you opt out and get the extra 10% as take home pay. You can the make voluntary pension contributions to whatever pension fund you have a private agreement with. And all the private pension companies are very happy to make such an agreement, though the terms will be worse than an employer plan from the same company. Or you could do a completely self-administered one, e.g. through Nordnet.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:40:59 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48368425</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48368425</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48368425</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The NATO 2% goal is quite a bit older than the Russian invasion of Crimea, dating back to at least the NATO summit in Riga in 2006. In any case ramping up our production of artillery shells and other munitions needed by Ukraine would definitely be beneficial to us in the rest of Europe. Both in order to end the war faster and get going rebuilding Ukraine, but also to stimulate the somewhat struggling EU economy.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 09:33:08 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367898</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367898</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367898</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>By increasing the return for other investors I'm increasing the cost of capital for the oil exploration companies. So: Yes, not buying shares in existing oil companies will (ever so marginally) decrease oil exploration.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 07:48:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367235</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367235</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367235</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Can the stockmarket swallow Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Index funds are largely synonymous with passive, long term, buy-and-hold investors. That kind of investors are best served by slower changes to the index, especially since index funds are intended to piggy back on the price discovery that happens in public trading. An IPO price, which is the result of a private negotiation, is exactly what you don't want to buy stocks at if you're a passive, long term investor.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 07:28:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367108</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367108</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367108</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>What if you try to go with the second option but the vendor barely puts any effort into getting the fix out to user and then it's a year later and the vulnerability is still under embargo? Maybe you decide that the next time you find a vulnerability you want to light a fire under the vendor by giving them a fixed deadline to get the fix out to users. A month seems like a reasonable deadline for that sort of thing.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 15:15:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009751</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009751</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009751</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "For Linux kernel vulnerabilities, there is no heads-up to distributions"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Unfortunately not all of the LTS kernels were updated with this patch before the public disclosure.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 15:06:07 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009651</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009651</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48009651</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Grandparent's report uses a nuclear LCOE of 110 USD/MWh which is pretty close to the Korean nuclear plant in Abu Dhabi. The (AFAIK) only plant they've built outside Korea.<p>The French nuclear plants have an average capacity factor of ~70%, the Swedish plants around 80%. It seems most prudent to assume a nuclear plant in Denmark would be at a similar level.<p>And if you want to use the plant in a dispatchable pattern, you'll be turning it off a lot when the sun is out and the wind is blowing, further decreasing capacity factor and increasing the LCOE.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 10:32:19 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48006851</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48006851</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48006851</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Will you heed my warnings now?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>My point was that the comparison with nuclear explosions is wonky, since we (in the world of that analogy) already have seen a tiny nuclear explosion 15 years ago. And we kept being told that explosions 100 times larger are just around the corner, but explosions 25% larger are way too hard to expect.<p>I get that there's a lot of R&D going on to make larger quantum computers a thing and that there's been very definite progress, but factoring 21 is just too hard to expect for now. But that also pushes the date where pre-quantum cryptography is broken further into the future. If we still struggle to factor one of the smaller 5 bit numbers, factoring the 128 bit numbers necessary to break elliptic curve cryptography seems quite far away.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:43:01 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47961028</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47961028</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47961028</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Will you heed my warnings now?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Given that 15 has already been factored using Shor's algorithm on a real quantum computer, I think we can.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:50:11 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960648</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960648</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960648</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Joby kicks off NYC electric air taxi demos with historic JFK flight"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Hydrogen has a volume problem, though. A 1st generation Toyota Mirai contains 5 kg of H2, equivalent to 197 kWh. That would take up 55 m3 at atmospheric pressure which is why the Mirai stores it at ~700 atmospheres. That's still a 78 liter tank. AFAICT 200 kWh of petrol takes up 25 liters, i.e. a third. On top of that the high-pressure tank in the Mirai weighs 87 kg.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:39:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960573</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960573</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960573</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Why I still reach for Lisp and Scheme instead of Haskell"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>In Haskell it's only ever one of (A(B)(C) or (B(A)(C), and you can tell which based on which characters B is made up of. If B starts with one of !#$%&*+./<=>?@\^|-~` it's the second situation, otherwise it's the first.[0] All functions are unary in Haskell so A(B, C), B(A, C) and C(A, B) can never actually happen. The cases where it looks like A(B(C)), etc. are happening are actually cases of (B(A)(C), e.g. f $ g is a (B(A)(C) case where B=$. So the basic syntax of Haskell is actually very simple and consistent, but due to lazy evaluation the functions can affect control flow much more than in other languages.<p>0: OK, there are some additional non-ASCII Unicode symbols, but everything but string literals should be kept ASCII IMO.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:23:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960466</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960466</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47960466</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Will you heed my warnings now?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>As a software engineer with a good amount of freedom to choose what tools I want to use, what can I do presently to move towards post-quantum cryptography? AFAIK the hashes and symmetric cyphers that are in wide use are already resistant, leaving mainly public-key cryptography as the problem. Is there, for instance, a drop in replacement for `ssh-keygen -t ed25519`?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:58:10 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47959553</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47959553</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47959553</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "ASML became the chokepoint for cutting-edge chips"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>An AG corporation has stocks in order to track who owns how much and also attach different economic and voting rights to different classes of stock. The other way to incorporate a limited-liability company in Germany is the GmbH, which tracks ownership directly in the articles of incorporation, but are in other ways subject to way lower management, disclosure and accounting requirements. So the AG is mostly useful if you want it to be easy to change your ownership structure, if you for instance raise capital from new investors, issue employee shares, change cross-ownership within a conglomerate or go public some day.<p>Why Carl Zeiss is an AG I don't know. The West German Carl Zeiss was re-formed as a GmbH in 1946, but had changed to an AG by 1973. The East German Carl Zeiss was turned into a GmbH during reunification and then split in two. One part merged into the West German Carl Zeiss AG and the other is now called Jenoptik. Jenoptik was converted into an AG in 1996 and went public in 1998. AFAICT Carl Zeiss has been privately owned by the Carl Zeiss-Stiftung since 1889, except of course for the temporary East German part.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 14:18:29 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47948832</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47948832</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47948832</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Chernobyl wildlife forty years on"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Can you point to anywhere in INSAG-7 where they talk explicitly about that? Because if not your point about the show ignoring INSAG-7 falls a bit flat.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:01:59 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47933292</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47933292</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47933292</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Chernobyl wildlife forty years on"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I can't find any description of the test across the three reports mentioning that that emergency stop button is supposed to be pressed as part of the test. AFAICT the test wasn't even completed when the button was pressed as the purpose of the test was to demonstrate that the emergency core cooling system could run for at least 40 s (INSAG-1 page 17) after closing the turbine emergency stop valve. That valve was closed at 01:23:04 and AZ-5 was pressed at 01:23:40.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 13:16:57 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921190</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921190</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921190</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Chernobyl wildlife forty years on"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Sure, I'm just saying the power increase did happen, according to both INSAG-1 and INSAG-7. Neither INSAG-1, INSAG-7 nor Legasovs report claims there is a rapid increase in power before AZ-5 is pushed. The claim in INSAG-1 is that this power increase was the start of a positive-feedback loop that caused the explosion. The claim in INSAG-7 was that the power increase was not a safety problem, except to the extent it caused the operator to push AZ-5.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:09:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920523</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920523</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920523</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by sehansen in "Chernobyl wildlife forty years on"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>How does it make sense that the show ignores INSAG-7 when the whole plot point about the design of the control rods increasing the reactivity isn't from INSAG-1 but from INSAG-7? The same with the plotline about this defect being known, but kept from the operators. And Legasov lying about all this at the IAEA meeting? All-in-all INSAG-1 paints a picture of operator failure, INSAG-7 paints a picture of systemic failure and the show paints a picture of systemic failure.<p>And to nitpick: INSAG-7 doesn't disagree with INSAG-1 about the power rising just before AZ-5. From page 8 of  INSAG-7: "When the turbine was tripped, the four pumps it was powering began to slow
down as the turbine speed was reduced and the associated generator voltage fell. This
reduced rate of core flow caused the void content of the core to rise and caused an
initial positive feedback of reactivity which was at least in part the cause of the acci-
dent." (page 8) This happens ~30 seconds before AZ-5 is pushed.<p>The same event described in Table I on page 21-22 of INSAG-1, with the part deprecated by INSAG-7 marked with {}:<p>01:23:04 {The personnel blocked the two-TG trip signal.} Emergency stop valve to the turbine was closed. The reactor continues operating at a power of 200 MW(th).<p>01:23:10 One group of automatic control rods start driving out<p>01:23:21 Two groups of automatic control rods begin reinsertion.<p>01:23:31 Net reactivity increasing with subsequent slow increase in reactor power.<p>01:23:40 Operator pushes AZ-5 button (reactor trip).<p>The textual description on page 25 of INSAG-1 isn't much different: "When the emergency stop valve to the turbine was closed, the steam pressure began to rise. The flow through the core started to drop because four of the main cooling pumps were running down with the generator. Increasing pressure, reduced feedwater flow and reduced flow through the reactor are competing factors which determine the volumetric steam quality and hence the power of the reactor. It should be emphasized that the reactor was then in such a state that small changes in power would have led to much larger changes in steam void, with consequent power increases. The combination of these factors ultimately led to a power increase begninning at about 01:23:30."<p>A scanned copy of INSAG-1: <a href="https://ilankelman.org/miscellany/chernobyl.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ilankelman.org/miscellany/chernobyl.pdf</a><p>The Soviet report to IAEA in 1986: <a href="https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/18/001/18001971.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 11:01:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920031</link><dc:creator>sehansen</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920031</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920031</guid></item></channel></rss>