It is totally mind-boggling for me that the same people who are the strongest advocates of CO2 emission cuts are usually, the same time, the strongest opponents of nuclear power. Nuclear power, which is the only one economically viable way to achieve serious CO2 emission cuts they advocate.
And hyrdo power. I've seen zero discussion on building new dams. The PNW is bragging now about their clean energy, but they spent decades trying to get all those dams removed.
I imagine there are a couple of points that play into this:
1) The good dam spots are occupied, to put it lightly.
2) Hydroelectric dams aren't exactly built to be replaced
3) The technical side of hydroelectric power generation hasn't changed much in recent years; the old dams hold up pretty well for efficiency in taking energy from the water flow.
Hydroelectric dams were great before global warming became an issue.
The effect of all the above points is that a modern dam would be situated in a place either too small or too risky or too troublesome to put one before. With the effects that dams have on the surrounding environment, it's unfeasible to imagine a scenario without government on board.
Given that they must be involved anyway, the state's scarce resources might be better placed in other energy investments than the remaining high growing fruit left on the hydroelectric branch.
The last good Spotify client version was 0.8.5. I still use it. This was a proper desktop app, with the interface built with Qt and Linux integration (MPRIS D-Bus Interface).
Todays Spotify desktop client is nothing more than another web browser, which uses WebKit to render all its interface as a web page inside the app window.
All of you are complaining about fake news, but what about omitted news?
What's the point in having a news source which presents only/mostly true news, the same time ignoring huge amount of those ones which do not fit their political line?
This will result in people having a false image of an overall situation, exactly the same as fake news will.
Moreover, I think news omitting is the root cause of fake news problem. People see certain events happen around them. They know these events are true because they see them with their own eyes. But they do not see reports on these events in mass media. The same time alternative and partisan media report these events, people see them on their FB timelines. So they redirect their trust towards these media and FB. If this schema repeats for years, they can trust these media so much that they can accept fake and unbelievable stories (which are also naturally more likely to appear in partisan media). And refuting these stories by mass media makes them even more sound in their eyes, especially if they once saw these media refuting stories which were real.
OTOH the media also loves to report non-newsworthy events, making them appear to be more common than they are. We now return you to our developing "missing white woman" story...
I wonder if Wikipedia regrets its switch to HHVM, having in mind that PHP7 is quite the same fast as HHVM is real apps and switching to it would require much less work than to HHVM.
The impact of this bug is rather limited. It only matters when an attacker has a (local, not SSH) access to the console and simultaneously does not have an access to the hard disk.
When you have a physical access to the hard disk, you can do the same things without exploiting this bug.
Isn't that a common setup for "lights off" servers, where you use something like IMPI to get virtual "local" access to your console?
Now, you should have this sort of access seriously locked down, since hardware vendors are very bad at creating secure IMPI ports, but some people don't last time I checked, which was a few years ago. And someone compromising your system for that (e.g. the firewall in front of them, the VPN to it, or your systems you use to access it) could also get in.
You won't find that info in NYT, WaPo or CNN. You won't find there information about 'Rape Melania' being one of the most trending topics on Twitter in the US either.
You're likely being downvoted for crude misattribution and faux outrage.
That travel columnist - she writes mostly about train journeys - is a freelancer that is equally syndicated in the Daily Telegraph, which is Britain's most conservative broadsheet, as she is in the left-leaning Guardian.
It took me less than sixty seconds to establish this.
HN's reader population has a pretty good BS radar, and fake outrage based on manipulated facts ranks sky-high on that scale.
It makes it trivial remark from a British national of no apparent affiliation, and therefore entirely uninteresting, except for the faux outrage being displayed as a result.
I'm afraid the article you linked to contains substantial remarks from significant people. As a result it merely reinforces just how inconsequential the tweet is that was originally referenced.
In practice there is both conservative and liberal biased media available. This is why using the term "MSM" pejoratively has become (rather like that ugly acronym "SJW", or ugly nicknames like "drumpf"), the marker of someone who has decided to take sides and now wishes to complain bitterly about the other one.
Your comment history is filled with nonsense such as "germany doesn't have free speech", "CO2 is not a real pollutant", "coal is safe", "climate science isn't real" and my favourite: There's a conspiracy on HN to downvote you specifically.
I'm not sure how qualified you are in journalistic integrity. You might well be the most qualified on this site to talk about fake news sites though.
And the sentence you yourself quoted is quite obviously missing an "of", given the poster's consistent view points on the issue.
FWIW, I have had (and still have) an open dialogue with any trump supporter that wants it; one of them I even met up with directly from here. Reasonable discussion is fun and productive.
But for similar reasons as why you don't negotiate with terrorists, I'm not going to bother arguing climate science with someone who believes it was designed as a conspiracy to make you vote Hillary or something.
Edit: Besides, inopinatus already expressed what my thoughts were on the "assassination" issue.
It's a shame that you didn't acquaint with them before calling my words 'nonsense'.
> CO2 is not a real pollutant
From Wikipedia: "CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards."
Now it is more a religion than science. Just look on your own emotional reaction to someone who questioned it: you have compared 'an infidel' to a terrorist...
> and my favourite: There's a conspiracy on HN to downvote you specifically.
I most cases I was complaining about submissions of other users which I noticed were disappearing from lists, despite being highly upvoted. So where did you get this 'downvote you specifically' from?
