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

Yea na, Fortran is pretty compiler dependent and there are a lot of compilers. Already old Fortran code used all sorts of now-dead proprietary compilers and can take a huge effort to get it to compile on modern compilers or even modern computers. Modern code might use Gfortran which sometimes makes breaking changes so that's not an option. Perhaps if everyone uses the latest shiny new Flang or whatever, then it'll finally last 50 years? Not likely, given the history.

MKL used to not be free. You had to buy it from a local reseller for a few hundred dollars per developer.

Sounds like a belief that you can easily profit from in the markets. Are you putting your money where your mouth is or do you just want to believe that so you can feel smug about your beliefs, independent of reality?

My investments already had a focus towards green energy instead of fossil fuels well before the US war on Iran. Why would I need to "feel smug" about somebody's choice of car purchase?

War with Iran was inevitable - either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand. And that war was bound to disrupt oil supply. Don't forget their goal is death to America and Death to Israel. That's what they've been arming themselves for for decades. That's what they're trying to build nuclear bombs for. They had to be stopped eventually and that was always going to be uncomfortable for whoever did it, but the sooner the better. Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?

Iran has been “two weeks away” from a nuclear capability for nearly 40 years, and the status quo was the best possible outcome for the US.

The US getting dragged into Israel’s war does not serve anyone’s interests other than Israel’s.


Preventing another country getting nuclear weapons is a very good thing. That's Trump's stated aim for this war. How can all these people replying not see the value in? Two weeks away could turn into "never" if he succeeds. I don't understand this belief that if we just leave the festering wound that is Iran's Islamic Republic alone, it'll never get any worse.

Do you also think that global nuclear disarmament would be a bad thing because the Doomsday clock has been a few minutes from midnight for 40 years so the risk is obviously overblown and nuclear war will never happen?


The Iran problem is one that the UK and US jointly created, and that there is no uncreating. The status quo was really the best possible outcome.

I think world peace with everybody holding hands and dancing would be a good thing, but it’s about as likely to happen as global nuclear disarmament.

Ukraine is an excellent contemporary case study of what happens to a nuclear-armed nation with dangerous neighbours that gives up its nukes.


> either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand

Iran's modern history doesn't suggest this at all. Quite the opposite - they have been continually invaded. To me, theirs seems like an explicitly defensive stance. They have no airforce, navy, or tanks and such to speak of - just missiles and drones. Not a force suited to invading other countries.

You could argue about their support for regional militia's but I still wouldn't concede that indicates any desire to start a war.


I assume this is an infuriatingly subtle parody, because:

> Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?

reads like <font size=2> /s </font>.


Yep, it's a profoundly stupid thing to say. Maybe a bot comment?

You seem to be unaware that the whole world doesn't share your bubble's political opinions.

The ruling class of Iran is still in place but more radicalized, global supply of oil is distupted, and nearly 200 schoolgirls are dead. This is a good thing how?

Kids cost time, not money. So the wealthier you are, the more difficult it is because you probably have less free time. You can pay someone else to raise your kids (daycare/etc.) but then you lose a lot of the value of having kids.

This bullshit excuse that somebody can't afford to have kids is proven wrong by the fact that poorer people have more kids than rich people. You can even be unemployed. Gone are the days of destitute single mothers having to give up their child to the church and work in the poorhouse. We have social welfare for that.

Maybe the fact that poor people can have lots of kids has taken away their value as a status symbol for wealth?


> Kids cost time, not money.

There's a well known aphorism about this...


Um, wtf is this rambling statement that doesn't seem to be based in any kind of truth at all?

In the past both poor and rich tended to have tons of kids, this is because kids tended to die young regardless of being rich or poor.

Then you're trying to compare massive social changes in the west that occurred around the same time. For example womens suffrage, women being allowed to work, sexual revolutions and birth control.

If you look at countries that tended to develop later, the rate of childbirth tends to drop with accessibility to birth control and education.


Yea, educated women have fewer kids because they prefer to spend their time making money, and money isn't what you need to raise kids.

Add body weight and the old gear sums to about three percent heavier than the modern gear. I'd say total weight matters more than gear weight alone, doesn't it?

I've done a lot of long hikes (200+km in the sahara, 6000+m mountains in kazakstan), and 2kg extra means a lot, like the difference between carrying extra fuel/food versus just clothing.

Anyway, you can try it yourself, wear a 2kg wax cotton jacket versus a 500gm technical jacket and see how you feel after a day's hiking.


Until you take your gear off, and it's in your pack. I'd much rather lose a kg of pack weight vs. a kg of body weight.

No it does not.

Two kilograms extra is gigantic.

If you have a friend who hikes or backpacks, ask them to take you along for your first time and try it out for yourself.


No. Weight x distance from center of mass is the real metric of burden.

Carrying your lunch on a 10-foot pole, keeping it off the ground at all times, versus slipping it into a fanny pack - or eating it and carrying it in your very center of mass.

I noticed while ultralight hiking (full kit without food, fuel, and water under 9 lbs, for multi-day excursions) that how close your backpack was to your back mattered. Unfortunately, if it was tight to your back it overheated you, so a standoff of an inch or so was essential. I considered dividing it front and back, so each was about half as "thick" (far from my body), but there isn't a lot you can carry in front of you without seriously impeding movement.

Anyway: force times distance equals work.


I keep not learning how corrupt authorship of academic papers is. When I read papers, I imagine all the authors have been working away together in an office somewhere and they all wrote parts of the paper and all read it and all have a feeling of ownership of it and deeply understand the whole thing. But I forget how the only academic paper I ever had published was one that I never read and had no understanding of. All I did was give some technician-like advice to the actual author. It feels dirty and I sometimes regret accepting it but at the same time, the whole science world seems like it doesn't deserve honesty because everyone else is corrupt too.

Not hard to see why. Being an author helps your cv. Allowing you to be an author for tangential or minimal contribs can help keep good relations, especially if there are future options and financial things depending on having good relations. Putting a name on a paper costs nothing and nobody checks how big the contribution was. It's slightly dilutes the subjective authorship fraction of those who did the work, but sometimes the additional person also brings in a nice prestigious affiliation that even has a positive impact on how seriously the paper is taken... It's a game.

It's regulations. But before you call them broken, some of it is safety. Safety standards keep rising with technology and the economy as people can afford more. Same with cars. There's also zoning restrictions in some places designed to prevent slums by requiring large residences. I guess that's happening here too.

Also living standards, ancients houses are dead simple and today could probably be built with usd 5k-10k in a couple months. But most people wont accept a home with no electrity, no lights, no AC, no indoor plumming, etc.

Yes that too. We're a bunch of spoiled brats complaining how much we have to work but it's only because lifestyle creep keeps pace with wealth.

The connection is often with other people experiencing the same thing even if they thing is AI generated. You can see this clearly on Youtube with comments which just quote a line from the video. They get lots of upvotes, probably from other people who felt that line was special too and enjoy seeing others sharing the same feeling. Of course if all those comments are AI too, you would lose that connection.

Wouldn't a big enough asteroid have an inner part which survives entry? You seem to be saying that it's impossible for any meteorite that might have these chemicals to not be completely vaporized which seems doubtful. Have you got a source?

So you survived re-entry. Now, you get to survive impact. Seems like the energy released would also be damaging

Most asteroids have slowed to terminal velocity by the time they impact. It’s not nothing, but it’s mostly going to be relevant to physical processes and not chemical ones.

You might consider that scientists advanced enough in their field to be launching missions to retrieve dust from asteroids are actually aware of basic facts relevant to their field of study.


Quality of comments massively dropped on the HN. It feels like Facebook now.

The Redditors have arrived

You might consider that even concepts like plate tectonics (which frankly are incredibly obvious if one just looks at a map) were considered ridiculous ideas by the most advanced experts in their field at one point. A point not that long ago.

I’m not saying the person you are responding too is right - but appealing to authority on something like this has a pretty bad track record.


Generally speaking small molecules aren't damaged by concussive shock.

I was thinking more of heat

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

Search: