Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tcfhgj's commentslogin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZlAbCOjd8

doesn't appear indifferent or hostile


TL;DW: there is interest in supporting Typst, but there are roadblocks:

* Higher priority work currently being done on ArXiV (moving from Perl to Python/cloud)

* No "standard" Typst distro

* Support team needs to be re-trained for a new language

* Persistency: TeX has 30+ years of history; will Typst be around in 30 years? Will current code compile? Will existing documents be supported?


haven't watched it but my only data point for that claim is this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/typst/comments/1dcu3p8/i_contacted_...

idk, maybe you can do it, but your TypeScript project compiles to machine code?

The 10% richest people create the jobs for you by cleverly investing you know

in what way is it incentivized by Rust?

imo it's just so much easier


Well, ease is one incentive, yes :)

Another is the complexity of the language when it comes to low-level programming. E.g. bytemuck I've mentioned before solves a problem that is hard to even explain to a C developer.


I think a big difference is that the less unsafe you want in your own code, the more you rely on crates to provide a safe abstraction for unsafe code in a centralized place where soundness holes are likely to be found.

Of course it was always understood that you could have bugs in C libraries and some of them may include memory unsafety, but the culture is very different when there's no explicit way to demarcate the parts of the code most deserving of scrutiny.


> performance

or less ressource hungry software


Definitely cheaper than using Electron I would say

*if everything works as planned

If everything works as planned fossil fuel power plant emmits CO2 and pollutants.

Gladly, you don't need to use them

not if you read fraunhofer ise decarbonization pathways report. If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils

I don't know how you read this out of the report

When we already talk about Fraunhofer, they with a few other institutes, have been sketching out various pathways over the years for Germany for transitioning to a renewable energy system multiple times, see https://langfristszenarien.de/enertile-explorer-wAssets/docs...

While Germany has some hydro, it's just a tiny amount


I'm talking about this one https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/paths-...

In pessimistic economy growth scenario about 80GW of gas are needed or more otherwise. The hope is to sometime replace it with hydrogen which looks like a gamble https://ieefa.org/resources/germanys-gas-and-hydrogen-gamble


> I'm talking about this one https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/paths-...

again my remark: I don't know how you read this out of the report:

> If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils

The report doesn't even aim to make claims about feasibility of energy systems without nuclear, natural gas and hydro power.

> In pessimistic economy growth scenario about 80GW of gas are needed or more otherwise.

1) during the specific paths of which there are infinitely many ... (including the ones I linked)

2) seldom usage

3) replaced over time (when extrapolating there would be no natural gas usage )


The ones you linked too do use gas firming... And the goal there too is to sometimes replace it with hydrogen if ever possible which is more a pipedream than doing a messmer plan over entire EU today

natural gas usage is or is almost (used for a tiny amount of heating) non-existent in the scenarios

ideally power rationing is not needed thanks to the electricity market - and you could still perform an intentional brown out to avoid a black out

> Without nuclear wind and solar will ALWAYS require gas turbines for backup.

So this myth is what you need to tell yourself we need nuclear?


What else would we use for backup when wind and solar aren't producing enough power? Gas, coal, and nuclear are the only real options.

Are you pretending batteries don't exist? And long distance interconnects? And not even talking about hydro, geothermal, wave, and who knows what else.

grid scale batteries longer than 4 hours don't exist. You can't design a reliable electrical grid based on vibes. You have to design it on what cost effective technologies actually exist where you need them.

Of course! Are you a grid designer? What does your model of solar and wind look like for your location?

I'm just a reasonably intelligent person who understands thermodynamics and can quantify electricity production and consumption.

Id say this is plainly wrong.

Additionally, there are more storage technologies than batteries in the classical sense.


The only other grid scale tech I'm aware of is pumped hydro which is very effective BUT severely limited to areas with existing good topography where you have two large enough basins separated by substantial height.

well, there are batteries of all kinds, there is green gas, and many other systems which can in one way or another support the grid - each with their respective advantages and disadvantages, such as capacity, controllability, cost, space requirements, topography requirements, ...

ALL BES currently installed have 4 hour capacity or less. It is far too expensive to have multiple day grid scale BES. I'm so tired of having to repeat this basic fact. WTF is green gas?

I live in Germany and dead wild animals are still burned instead of eaten because of radioactive contamination

While your statement is true, it leaves out relevant details:

There is a certain threshold for radiation exposure where if exceeded the animal isn't deemed safe for consumption anymore. The vast majority of these cases are from boars in certain areas of Germany nowadays and affect less than 1% of all killed boars [1] [2].

[1]: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/fast-3000-verstrahlte-wildsch...

[2]: https://www.wildtierschutz-deutschland.de/_files/ugd/173a38_...


ironically if you talk about boars, it's not because of chernobyl but nuclear weapons tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66665646

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: