What to know about blue supermoons:

1. They literally mean nothing.
2. The change is imperceptible to everyone.
3. Expect useless clickbait slop about it until it passes.

stdlib.io is a data process/vis library, not a standard library.

jQuery was a DOM/Utility DX library (and also a compatibility layer before all browsers finally focussed on standards), not a standard library.

Deno people are trying so fucking hard to be relevant. It’s embarrassing. Bringing nothing to the table has been their MO from day 1.

Let’s examine that.

Deno has always been:

(parapharing) “Hi, I’m the creator of Node and want to make it better but can’t get everyone on board with the changes. So I’m going to create a new JS runtime. Node will need to implement these improvements to keep up or everyone will switch away from node. Either way, developers win.”

We know it’s been that way since he was a month into Deno’s development in his famous talk: 10 Things I Regret About Node.js

Deno […] Bringing nothing to the table […]

Have a look through each of those 10 points he brought up, then compare that to node before, and node now. It’s pretty clear he gave them the swift kick in the ass to start making those changes. We win. That’s clearly a success.

What standard library?

JS has only had package/library hell

Who is this article for?

Firstly, it’s basically just a repost of existing info from the mozilla article but now with ads.

Secondly, the puppeteer team left years ago to work on playwright which is now the better product, which also supports firefox through the webdriver-bidi standard…

So now I’m wondering… just who was this article for?

I use git log --graph --all --remotes --oneline whenever I need to shell into another computer, but it’s still too barebones for regular use.

What specifically do you think is legacy in that comparison? The coloring? The horizontal layout? The whitespace?

Note: I’ve changed the first link from https://github.com/cxli233/FriendsDontLetFriends/network to https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/network. Still the same view, but just a different repo to highlight the problems

1. It’s in a small non-responsive box
2. Ridiculous spacing

• If you want to see the commit messages, you either need to hover over a dot which increases visual scanning durations or you need to go to the commits view which only shows the commits on a single branch

3. It doesn’t show commit messages
4. It’s scrolling horizontally
5. Branches cannot be collapsed
6. Branches cannot be hidden/ignored
7. No way to search for commits
8. No way to select multiple commits

• Which also means no way to diff any specific commits together
• And there’s also no way to perform an action over a range of commits
• And there’s also no way to start a merge/merge-request/pull-request/etc… between two commits

9. No way to sort by date/topologically
10. Keyboard controls only moves view instead of selecting commits

I’ll stop here at 10 reasons (or more if you count the dot points), otherwise I’ll be here all day.

The network view lays out forks and their branches, not only [local]/[local+1-remote] branches.

Yes, but the others can do that while still being usable.

I don’t know what IDE that miro screenshot is from. […]

It’s gitkraken

[…] But I see it as wasteful and confusing. The author initials are useless and wasteful, picking away focus. The branch labels are far off from the branch heads. […]

The picture doesn’t do it justice, it’s not a picture, it’s an interactive view.

You can resize things, show/hide columns, filter values in columns to only show commits with certain info (e.g. Ignore all dependabot commits), etc… Here’s an example video.

[…]The coloring seems confusing.

You can customise all that if you want.

The first link is a totally different purpose than the second two.

The first link is going to there because that’s the only graph view that github has.

I’ve got to say, seeing this:

https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/network

instead of something like this:

https://fork.dev/blog/posts/collapsible-graph/

or this:

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/0*60NIVdYj2f5vETt2.png

feels pretty damn legacy to me.

I’d recommend removing as many variables as possible.

Try getting a single html page to work (no mongoose, no preact, no vite, no tailwind).

If you can’t get that to work, then no amount of tinking in preact/vite/tailwind/mongoose will help you.

Once you have a single page running, you can look at the next steps:

For scripting: try plain js, then js + mongoose, then preact + mongoose. If a step fails, rely on the step before it.

For styling: try plain css, then a micro css framework that doesn’t require a build step (e.g. https://purecss.io/, https://picocss.com/), then tailwind if you really want to try messing around with vite again.

There are some tools/libraries that act as a front-layer over regex.

They basically follow the same logic as ORMs for databases:

1. Get rid of the bottom layer to make some hidden footguns harder to trigger
2. Make the used layer closer to the way the surrounding language is used.

But there’s no common standard, and it’s always language specific.

Personally I think using linters is the best option since it will highlight the footguns and recommend simpler regexes. (e.g. Swapping [0-9] for \d)

At least once every few days while coding, usually to do one of the following:

1. Select multiple things in the same file at the same time without needing to click all over the place

   Normally I use multicursor keyboard shortcuts to select what I want and for the trickier scenarios there are also commands to go through selections one at a time so you can skip certain matches to end up with only what you want.

   But sometimes there are too many false matches that you don’t want to select by hand and that’s where regex comes in handy.

   For instance, finding:

   • parent but not apparent, transparent, parentheses, apparently, transparently
   • test but not latest, fastest, testing, greatest, shortest
   • trie but not entries, retries, countries, retrieve
   • http but not https

   … which can be easily done by searching for a word that doesn’t include a letter immediately before or immediately after: e.g. \Wtest\W.

2. Search for things across all files that come back with too many results that aren’t relevant

   Basically using the same things above.

3. Finding something I already know makes a pattern. Like finding all years: \d{4}, finding all versions: \d+\.\d+\.\d+, finding random things that a linter may have missed such as two empty lines touching each other: \n\s*\n\s*\n, etc…

Oh cool, yeah and you’re also using multiple repeating-radial-gradients to generate textured noise.

That’s exactly what I was doing while working on a new button style.

Some gradients and some noise sprinkled on top to remove some of the flatness, but while I was experimenting with the noise I happened upon that really cool pattern and thought I’d share it by itself.

There’s a whole bunch of pull requests and issues sitting there for a start.

Personally I’d also update the example in the readme and set an engine value in the package.json file.

Looking back at history, it would lead to more propaganda and more support for going to war.

A population getting attacked only leads to that population wanting to an us vs them mentality and emotional knee-jerk reactions over rational responses.

Okay that’s good, spaces for hydro storage isn’t an issue.

The only problems/questions left are:

• Are the spaces spread out in the right areas, and can they be chosen in the right combination that won’t lead to problems down the line? (I think that’s beyond the scope of that document, but we’ll assume it is all good for now)
• Time (let’s just assume it’s faster to get it all built than nuclear so we can examine hydro storage more)
• Cost. Looking at the link I find:

Thus, the expected cost of a 1,000 megawatt pumped hydro energy storage system with a head of 600 m and 14 hours of storage is about $1.8 billion.

1000 MW = 1GW : $1.8B

And your quote says we need 450 GWh of storage.

So 450 x 1.8 = $810B

(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).

Our current GDP is 1.6 trillion.

So we could do it, but it would cost us half of our GDP for one year (but we’d be spreading it out over multiple years).

I’m assuming economies of scale would come into effect, but how much more efficient can you be at making and pouring concrete.

I haven’t found any source on the fiscal cost of the Coalition’s plan (I doubt they even know, and I suspect that they’re just trying to extend the life of coal by relying on delays), but it begs the question:

Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?

Nuclear plants have really really long spin up/down cycles so when it’s on, it’s on for a while. It’s not like solar, gas, wind where you can just stop it on a whim. So if you go nuclear, it’s already running for a long time, and if they’re running for a really long time they’re also essentially running as baseload production.

As for the cost for emergency power, yeah it’d be great if it’s cheaper. But the worse the emergency becomes, the less the cost matters. If I had to choose between coal or nuclear for emergency power, I’d probably choose both. Coal (which can be started and stopped quickly) just to cover the spin up time for the nuclear power, then nuclear for the rest of the emergency (and during spin down as whatever the emergency was is in the process of being resolved).

The cost of nuclear is only at the commissioning and decommissioning of the plant. But during the runtime of the plant is remarkably cheap. People just balk at the initial price because so much of the cost is up front.

Another thing to remember about recycling is that we as a species were producing nuclear waste before we had reactors that could use recycled waste so globally speaking we currently have a surplus of waste. Recently the US had to restart a reactor because they didn’t have enough materials to use for powering deep space probes. It’s not implausible that we could run out of waste to use and have to produce more fresh fuel.

On the topic of safety though, modern reactor designs require power coming in to keep the fissile material frozen to continue the reaction.

As soon as the power is cut, the coolant is cut, part of the plant is destroyed, or something else goes wrong, the plant stops working. If the plant stops working, there’s nothing to cool down the fissile material.

The fissile material’s own radioactivity heats it up to the point that it melts and pours away over what’s essentially a pyramid plinko drain splitting up the liquid into many separate pools. (If it helps, think of your bath’s drain if the pipe splits into two, which split into four, which split into eight, and on and on until a bath tub’s water has been separated into an ice cube tray the size of a tennis court.)

Fissile material only reacts when it’s next to enough fissile material.

And since it’s separated and spread out, there’s more reaction.

If you cut the power for the coolant pumps, the fuel melts, separates (by the power of gravity) and the reaction stops.

If the coolant leaks, the fuel melts, separates and stops reacting.

If you crash a plane into the reactor itself, the cooling mechanisms don’t exist anymore and the fuel melts and pours out the nearest holes (either the drain or spilling outside the reactor into the containment structure, or even outside if need be), spreading out, separating, and reacting no more.

Modern reactors have more in common with an ice-cube hoisted above the great pyramid of giza than they do the fukushima or chernobyl plants. Both of those were designed to require power to prevent a dangerous meltdown which turn into a runaway reactions, whereas modern reactors make it so a meltdown prevents reactions.

That source doesn’t have a link to their paper that works.

But based on what was stated just in your link, they say if we build enough storage then we wouldn’t need any baseload generation, which is technically correct.

In particular, they’re relying on hydro and gas storage.

(specifically renewable gas and not natural gas, because natural gas is still bad)

But as far as I know we can’t build anywhere near enough hydro in Australia. Gas storage could technically work, but you’d have to build a ludicrous and economically infeasible amount of gas storage, or pump it into empty spaces underground (but I don’t think we have enough of those in Australia either).

I’m under the impression that modern nuclear plants as baseload production would still be cheaper than the renewable gas storage we would need to maintain power.

Do you have a working link to the original paper or a study into how much renewable gas storage we’d require and the costs associated with it?

Energy generation is not an issue at all. It’s a completely solved problem.

It’s energy storage that is the problem, and that’s why we need nuclear.

But Dutton isn’t pushing nuclear because he’s being responsible. He’s not actually pushing nuclear, he’s just pushing a pipedream doomed project designed to take time/money/effort away from renewables, storage, and actual nuclear, all to keep money flowing to the coal industry shareholders.

The problem of nuclear waste isn’t actually a problem, and the 1000 year thing is a bit of an outdated myth. I wrote more about it here: https://aussie.zone/post/10867702/9731416

Energy storage is actually the biggest problem in energy right now (save for a crazy discovery like perpetual energy, or cheap mass produced super conductors that could optimize the absolute shit out of our energy transmission infrastructure and reduce the amount of energy that we need to produce in the first place).

The energy storage problem is actually the biggest reason why we need nuclear with our renewables.

Nuclear can run our baseloads, renewables plus storage can run our peakloads.

It’s renewables AND nuclear, not renewables vs nuclear.