I'm not a c++ user but i'm pretty sure you should be able to pull-off a macro to do that ; in c you could alias the lib for something that breaks + alert ; I don't know how I would integrate such additional compiler checks in rust for other kinds of rules however - it's interesting to think about

Am I the only crazy one that bound awsd to movement ?

No, and it always should have been awsd or ijkl

I wonder if openbsd is secure running as a guest ? it it able to isolate it-self sufficiently so that the host cannot mathematically breach it ? (which makes openbsd very suitable for keyholding)

As of 2025 OpenBSD has support for AMD SEV and SEV-ES, with support for SEV-SNP work-in-progress, so with the right hardware yes it's able to isolate itself sufficiently https://www.bsdcan.org/2025/timetable/timetable-Confidential...

I'm wondering if there are any research groups led by sociologist that explore this topic which may be helped by a group of volunteer ?

I've always wondered why applications like Tinder etc... have not been completely destroyed by open-source already ?

We also forget that communities are essentially what allowed this escape in the first place ; I remember going to psytrance festivals but there are so many more escapes : theater, cinema groups, even in tech you have meetings for rust, programming languages and what not

There is definitely some kind of knowledge around being active in life ; and on that point I do not think that working count as active (I'm myself a workaholic so i'm definitely not the best example here)

There are other drivers for isolation than not knowing how to integrate though - it's not always easy to find people who share those common interest or mindset.

It's a very polarized time period which only exaggerate this - the best way to fight it off is to literally do something meaningless with people (eg : play)

> I've always wondered why applications like Tinder etc... have not been completely destroyed by open-source already ?

Same reason why Signal hasn't mogged WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, etc. Social apps have enormous network effects, and companies with large marketing budgets and early movers have big advantages when it comes to establishing a community.

The hard part of Tinder is not the software. It's marketing, moderation, balancing the needs of different users, etc. Something that makes the platform shitty for one type of user makes it more desirable for another.

Could be added to SQL test suites tbh

I never got to comparing the exec plans between PostgreSQL 16 and 17. The latter ran much faster, if you (or anyone) have time, please test on 16 and 17 (and 18) with explain (timing=on) and put it through some online plan explainer (and write a post about it).

Happy to link to it in my blog.

Very thankful for the 1liner tldr

edit : I had an afterthought about this because it ended up being a low quality comment ;

Bringing up such TLDR give a lot of value to reading content, especially on HN, as it provides way more inertia and let focus on -

reading this short form felt like that cool friend who gave you a heads up.

I was unsure whether to post it or not so I am glad you found it useful!

I have that 10-30s time window to fill when claude might be loading some stuff ; the 1 liner is exactly what fits in that window - it makes me wonder about the original idea of twitter now that I think of it - but since it's not the same kind of content I don't bother with it.It really feels like "here is the stuff, here's more about it if you want to" - really really appreciate that form and will definitely do the same format myself

The painting of idiocracy hits hard doesn't it ?

Let's be honest it's one of the smartest and most useful place anyone could be investing - it's literally is whatever happens a way to contribute to mankind - even if it's just so that FB servers are off-grid ; it's still a huge win, I just hope Mark realize he has much more potential than what he is doing rn

The progress on 'nuclear' is so slow, that the same investment in Batterie and renewable would actually help a lot more around the globe.

We know how to build nuclear, we don't do it because its too expensive. Other forms are so far away from being useful, that the current Storage + Renewable pricing is so crazy good, that whatever you do with nuclear will just not be able to compete.

And the benefit? Every 3th world country and person can invest in small and big Storage + Renewable but they can't do the same with nuclear.

>We know how to build nuclear, we don't do it because its too expensive.

Refusing to build nuclear for decades makes it more expensive. If we start actually building reactors the cost will come down.

>the current Storage + Renewable pricing is so crazy good, that whatever you do with nuclear will just not be able to compete.

I would find this more persuasive if there were no new investment in carbon sources, but carbon sources have clearly remained competitive with batteries + solar, and global carbon emissions remain at an all time high. There's demand for baseload energy.

Building nuclear power stations includes a lot of labor-intensive hard to automate tasks like construction. Baumol's cost disease means it's getting even more expensive: rising general productivity leads to higher wages and higher costs in fields that cannot increase productivity as much as the general economic growth. That's why it's also still cheaper in countries with access to low-cost labor.

SMRs are a try to get out of it by building more but smaller reactors. The reality is however that nuclear has an issue with scaling down. Output goes down way faster than costs and most SMR designs have outputs far greater than what initially counted as an SMR.

Investment in renewable energy already greatly outpaces investment in fossil energy. The economic decision to keep using a fossil system is a different one than having to choose a new one. There's still problems that have no economically competitive renewable solution yet, but a lot of what you are seeing is inertia.

Base load electricity is simply an economic optimisation: demand is not flat, but the cheapest electricity source might only be able to create a relatively flat output. You'll need more flexible plants to cover everything above the base load. If you have cheap gas, base load does not make any sense economically.

For the last two years more than 90% of new power generation capacity added globally was renewable. Est 95% in 2025. So no, new carbon sources are not competitive.

https://www.wri.org/insights/state-clean-energy-charted

Highly misleading stat. That's referring to capacity expansion, not new construction.

Prior energy assets go offline and are replaced each year. The report you cite is discounting all of that, looking only at expansion above the baseline, then taking total renewable construction and calcuating renewable total construction's share of expansion. Apples to oranges.

If you look at the chart in your own link you'll see that carbon construction investment exceeds renewables still.

Chart: "Annual energy investment by selected country and region, 2015 and 2025"

I would love for what you say to be true but it just isn't, even by that agency's own stats.

Not sure I understand your point. In the plot you mention what the OP said certainly holds true for China and Europe (less so for the US). Also the Charts plot investments not just new capacity investments, I'm not even sure how you distinguish between the two?

The OP said new carbon sources are not competitive.

ANY investment is by definition creating capacity that would not be there without the investment. If carbon were not competitive it would not get investment.

If you sum up all of the carbon and compare to renewables in the chart there's more new carbon investment annually globally than renewables. (Comparing the dark lines vs the green line)

Also this is ignoring "low emission fuels", which are still carbon sources, natural gas and the like.

If you check the chart "Global electricity generation of zero-carbon sources vs. fossil fuels, 2000-2024" you can see that carbon sources were at an all time high in 2024. Growing slower is still growing.

We ought to be shrinking these to zero. I'm very glad to see solar and wind growing but my point is nuclear is worth supporting as an non-carbon energy source that could replace some of this carbon load because of its baseload characteristics.

"Global investment in clean energy and fossil fuels" shows a decline in fossil.

And there are plenty of good reasons why the investment in fossil fuels is still there because these investments can easily be not because its is still competitive, but its still competitive because base costs have been written off.

Aka the replacment of that coal power plant might have been 'competitve' because the whole infrastructure around it is still there and usable, because they might just replace the main burning chamber. Because for current stability reasons its easier to add gas turbines or keep them alive as backup because the renewable energy build out takes more time.

Nonetheless, the overall statistics says that renewable + batteries are now the cheapest energy source on the planet. Locally it might not be doesn't change the fact.

And no we do not need nuclear for baseload. Wind and solar are capable of baseload.

Alone my 4 year old EV has a batterie of 100kWh which would allow a heat pump to heat a house for 2.5 days.

Also countries in the north like Canada has plenty of waterenergy for baseload and countries closer to the aquator have extreme amount of sun.

Earthenergy can be still used in the most northern countries.

> but carbon sources have clearly remained competitive with batteries + solar

That's because carbon sources are almost never made to pay for their externalities (i.e. pollution during energy generation).

Yes for sure it just doesn't happen because huge projects like this have to be aligned and coordinated on complete different scales.

Thats why the french build a reactor in UK.

Even the CDU/CSU political party in germany, who was in power for 16 years uninterupted wasn't doing it.

So whatever we wish or think would happen doesn't matter if the only ones investing in nuclear are techcompanies and as somone else stated, they do this primiarily for existing nuclear capacity.

But whats happening now is a renewable revolution. Batteries are very cheap now and get cheaper and easier to make and you need the manufactoring capacity for them anyway (cars, storage projects) that they will break up every other area like normal housing.

Especially because now it reached africa as a continent and asia. Its exploding.

And its very easy to just extend this potential. Many normal areas are still vacant.

A LOT of countries probably will either neve be able to afford nuclear or will not be allowed to have it anyway.

Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build.

And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy

What's wrong with steam?

It's better than carbon. And solar + battery requires more carbon to produce than nuclear energy as there's a lot of mining and physical construction involved + you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources.

All for building solar. Do not understand the constant need to denigrate nuclear in favour of carbon sources while doing so.

(If carbon sources were at zero this would be a different conversation)

Nothing inherently wrong with steam, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with spinning rust hard disks or punch cards.

We are at the end of the tech curve for steam, we have pushed it hard and made some super impressive technology, but it's not advancing anymore. Supercritical CO2 might have some advantages, or other fluids.

We have zero-carbon tech that uses non-steam principles, and is currently on a tech curve that's getting cheaper than any thermodynamic cycle. We have storage tech now which is an even bigger revolution for the grid than cheap solar, because a huge limitation of the grid has always been the inability to store and buffer energy.

I still have pinning rust disks, but only because they are cheap. If SSDs were cheaper, then we would see a massive switch.

(BTW denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources, because they use the same mechanism, except for some natural gas turbines)

What is this, the hipster approach to technology evaluation? Steam conversion efficiency doesn't make sense as a metric for nuclear because (AFAIK) fuel consumption per watt isn't the primary driver of cost for that technology. Or am I mistaken?

> I still have pinning rust disks, but only because they are cheap. If SSDs were cheaper, then we would see a massive switch.

I only use this technology because it is more competitive than the alternatives for my usecase ... ?

> denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources

I doubt name calling is a sensible basis for policy decisions.

It's actually hipsters that are into steam, you know, the steam punks.

I don't care about steam conversion efficiency as much as I care that steam Rankine cycle engines are a solved problem so there is no more technological advancement. One of the biggest advancements over the past decades is using a Britton cycle in front for natural gas, ie moving away from steam engines.

> I only use this technology because it is more competitive than the alternatives for my usecase ... ?

If I understand you, yes of course use the more competitive technology. Sticking with steam when there are cheaper alternatives is a poor idea. But moreover as we look to what people choose as technology improves, we will find that steam usage will be relegated to things like geothermal, which like nuclear has essentially free fuel, but doesn't have to go down for a month to refuel, has the potential for more variable generation instead of undesirable constant generation, and is far less complicated.

> denigrating steam also denigrates all fossil fuel electricity sources

The critique is not name calling, it's pointing out that the technology is mature and not improving, unlike the technologies that are recolutionizing grid energy right now across the world. The number of applications that use fuel to generate electricity via steam are shrinking. Perhaps hydrogen in the future, if electrolyzers ever come down the cost curve, but it's pretty speculative.

Horse buggies still exist, but mostly as novelties. Steam generation is headed the same direction.

Wind appears to be similiar than nuclear.

Nuclear has a few other major flaws: Uranium aka nuclear weapons risk, Dependency on uranium (yes china finally solved the Thorium issue but that happened this year?), geopolitical/terrorism risks (see ukraine).

And because i'm from germany: do you know that in bavaria, you still have to check certain meat for radioactivity?

> What's wrong with steam?

> It's better than carbon.

Steam isn't occuring naturally (except for geothermal etc) so you first have to put in energy to produce it

> you must overbuild to supply power or rely on non solar sources

True for every source of power because demand isn't flat across day/year

If you believe that figure, that's still comparable to solar's best ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency ).

Optimal steam plants can get do better, exceeding 50% in some configurations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Eff... ). Steam is awesome.

The difference that makes your statement misleading is that solar doesn’t pay for its fuel, the sun shines for free.

Could you please provide comparable figured of EROI for solar vs Nuclear?

For a useful comparison you have to compare both sides, not give a stat in isolation and assert it is worse without comparing.

What alternative do you propose that's more efficient?

30-35% of what? What are the inputs here? What is driving the cost? What are the externalities? And what is the end result in price per kWh?

> Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power?

My guess would be that you're taking energy that you burn, you then boil water, water then goes through a number of turbines, then to a generator and then you might have electricity. Every step in that process is not 100% efficient.

Direct PV is, sunlight, cell that generates current, current gets transformed into whatever the grid needs. So it's fewer steps.

> If we start actually building reactors the cost will come down.

Why would I invest then if it can't even pay for itself?

Nuclear + Batteries could be nice too because the reactors will be always working at optimal rate without having to start/stop them to adapt to demand and let the storage manage peaks and lows. So investment in one domain can help the other too.

Can but investment in two things with the fundamental same topic can lead to diversation of funds.

Only if the nuclear investors are completly different than renewable than that would be a good idea.

we don't do it because we forgot to do it cheap. At 3bn/unit like GE's ABWR or chinese hualongs/cap's it's a steal. At 20+bn/unit it's not that fun.

There's the "we forgot" hypothesis, but I think a more realistic hypothesis is the "we got too rich" hypothesis.

Construction productivity has stayed stagnant for more than half a century, while manufacturing productivity has sky rocketed and made us all fabulously wealthy compared to when the first nuclear reactors were built half a century ago.

I don't trust China's public cost numbers as much as I trust their actual capital allocation on the grid. And I will trust GE's numbers once they have actually produced something at those numbers, as pre-build cost estimates for nuclear are not believable due to their extensive track record.

GE number is from japanese abwr. So chinese deployments are pretty realistic

We didn't forget how to do it cheap. The ALARA (As Expensive As Reasonably Achievable) policy simply made it illegal to do it cheaply.

Since you say ALARA made things expensive, maybe you can tell me how you foresee cheaper designs without it?

There's a lot of talk and some very shady science about getting rid of ALARA but nobody says what will change on the build that is causing the cost. Meanwhile China has adopted the same designs as in the West, without abandoning ALARA.

Those who advocate for changing ALARA see to be mostly trying to shift the Overton window on the public opinion of radiation rather than trying to pursue engineering and cost goals. I hope I am wrong on that!

The French transitioned the majority of their grid to nuclear back when I was a small child. Their electric prices are lower than Italy, Germany, or the UK. Of the big European countries, only Spain’s is lower.

They are also completely unable to build any new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 13 years late on a 5 years project and 7x over budget.

Their proposed EPR2 fleet requires 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely. With the first reactor coming online in 2038, if everything goes according to plan.

New built nuclear power in 2026 just doesn't square with reality when the costs and timelines are factored in.

Yes, but all of that infra is aging and no one saved for the day when they need to be replaced.

Given where France's national finances are... When that day comes, expect massive hike. They're essentially taking out a loan on the future

They're just purchasing power from existing nuke plants. All this is doing is making a formerly publicly available resource private. This will drive up energy prices for everyone else. These datacenters need to build their own generation. When people talk about how important it is that the US lead innovation in AI what they're really saying is how important it is for their quarterly results

> Our agreement with TerraPower will provide funding that supports the development of two new Natrium® units capable of generating up to 690 MW of firm power with delivery as early as 2032.

> Our partnership with Oklo helps advance the development of entirely new nuclear energy in Pike County, Ohio. This advanced nuclear technology campus — which may come online as early as 2030 — is poised to add up to 1.2 GW of clean baseload power directly into the PJM market and support our operations in the region.

It seems like they are definitely building a new plant in Ohio. I'm not sure exactly what is happening with TerraPower but it seems like an expansion rather than "purchasing power from existing nuke plants".

Perhaps I'm misreading it though.

If history repeats itself ... tax payers will be fitting the bill. Ohio has shown to be corrupt when it comes to their Nuclear infrastructure. [0] High confident that politicians are lining up behind the scenes to get their slice of the pie.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal

You know that there's no actual private investment in nuclear in the US.

The nuclear industry is indemnified by the taxpayers. Without thar insurance backstop, there would be no nuclear energy industry.

Taxpayers are private. They earn money and give some of it to the state.

The weasel wording is strong here. That's like me saying that buying a hamburger will help advance the science of hamburger-making. I'm just trading money for hamburgers. They're trying to put a shiny coat of paint on the ugly fact that they're buying up MWh, reducing the supply of existing power for the rest of us, and burning it to desperately try to convince investors that AGI is right around the corner so that the circular funding musical chairs doesn't stop.

We got hosed when they stole our content to make chatbots. We get hosed when they build datacenters with massive tax handouts and use our cheap power to produce nothing, and we'll get hosed when the house of cards ultimately collapses and the government bails them out. The game is rigged. At least when you go to the casino everyone acknowledges that the house always wins.

Well in a way they are building their own generation by paying elevated prices for nuclear to keep it running, as most nuclear will be shutting off pretty soon due to cheaper alternatives.

Electricity generation is getting cheaper all the time, transmission and generation are staying the same or getting more expensive. Nuclear plants get more expensive the more of them we build, but for already paid-off nuclear reactors there's a sweet spot of cheap operations and no capital costs before maintenance climbs on the very old reactors.

Meta paying for all that very expensive maintenance is not a bad deal for others, unless market structure is such that the price for entire market is set by this high marginal generation from uneconomic aged plants.

> Electricity generation is getting cheaper all the time, transmission and generation are staying the same or getting more expensive

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, since you claim that generation is getting cheaper, staying flat, and getting more expensive all in a single sentence.

But I can tell you my energy bill hasn't gone down a single time in my entire life. In fact, it goes up every year. Getting more (clean!) supply online seems like a good idea, but then we all end up paying down that new plant's capital debt for decades anyway. Having a company such as Facebook take that hit is probably the best outcome for most.

Oops, that's a typo, should be transmission and *distrbution

Electricity costs have two components: "generation" to put power on the grid, and then the "transmission & distribution" costs which pay for the grid. You can likely see the costs split out on your bill, and the EIA tracks these costs.

Generation costs are falling, because of new technology like solar and wind and newer combined cycles natural gas turbines. However the grid itself is a bigger part of most people's bill than the generation of electricity.

Most utilities have guaranteed rates of profit on transmission and distribution costs, regulated only by PUCs. T&D tech isn't getting cheaper like solar and storage and wind are, either, so that T&D cost is likely to become and ever greater part of electricity bills, even if the PUCs are doing their job.

Generation in many places is disconnected from the grid, and when somebody makes a bad investment in a gas turbine, then the investor pays for that rather than the ratepayers. Look at Texas, for example, where even being at the center of the cheapest natural gas in a country with exceptionally cheap natural gas, solar and battery deployments hugely outpace new natural gas. That's because investors bear the risk of bad decisions rather than rate payers.

In places that let utilties gamble their ratepayers money, and where the utilities only answer to a PUC that gets effectively zero media coverage, there is a massive amount of corruption and grift and fleecing of rate payers.

A MW of nuke capacity is not replaced by a MW of solar or wind. New generation is much cheaper, but only because we are neglecting the parts of it that are hard and expensive - storage and transmission. Renewables without those things are worse than nuke - they are undispatchable like nuke and they are uncontrollably variable. We should build more renewables, but it is essential that we either tolerate intermittent system outages or massively improve transmission and storage, the generation is the least important part right now .

> New generation is much cheaper, but only because we are neglecting the parts of it that are hard and expensive - storage and transmission.

That's not correct, including storage with solar is still cheaper than nuclear. That's not measuring the cost by MW or GW, it's by measuring the cost of kWh, or the levelized avoided cost of energy, or the whatever metric you want.

And solar has the benefit of being able to avoid a good chunk of transmission by placing it at the site of use, so including transmission costs can only be to the benefit of solar.

haha, talk about cherry picking data. you essentially picked the most expensive method of generation and then compared solar with storage to it.

>Unlocking Up to 6.6 GW

You could just as accurately sum it up by saying they would like to tie up nearly 6.6 GW, otherwise they wouldn't be making quite as large a deal. They wouldn't be doing it if they didn't have a financial technique to afford it, and it's still taken a while to make the commitment.

What about less-well-heeled consumers who would be better served if the effect of increased demand were not in position to put upward pressure on overall rates?

To the extent that new debt comes into the mix, that's just an additional burden that wasn't there before and this is a very sizable investment at this scale. So the compounding cost will have to be borne for longer than average if nothing else.

Naturally some can afford it easily and others not at all.

I don't really get the antagonism with these ersatz concerns. when FB builds its own datacenters, or it's own chips & racks, or it's own algorithms absolutely no one is saying "well there's no profit motive to build a completely custom server chassis" or "oh no, theyre taking publicly available math and making it private"

It's a purchase commitment, which enables the generators to secure loans to build out additional capacity.

Thank you for stating things so plainly, it's sorely needed on this site. The idea that success for big tech means a better society for workers or citizens is laughable and should soundly be rejected. They need to be broken apart yesterday.

Alternatively a more optimistic and high potential future is more plentiful and cheaper more reliable power and transmission is a huge win for society. So Id say its a perspective issue.

We in Ohio don't need more nuclear. The costs for maintaining what we have is already falling behind solar and wind (including batteries). Then there is the ecological costs that rarely get factored in.

And all these new datacenters are pushing up our electric bills. Maybe this deal could be competitive long term with newer reactor designs and if they are competently executed, but I'm very skeptical.

Maybe PA situation is different

The promise of small nuclear reactors, modular reactors, thorium or whatever else has really failed to materialize at the same time that solar and battery has just leapfrogged the entire field. Nuclear has some big advantages, but it's still mired in humongous upfront costs and the intractable issue of nuclear waste. And I think we're also about to see an explosion in enhanced geothermal. The good kind of explosion.

Are there targeted investment vehicles for the general public, like an ETF?

Well, because it means that other energy generation sources like oil, gas, and coal aren't being used there instead. Since they cause far, far more harm than nuclear waste does, it's a net win.

The same is true for solar and wind energy but without nuclear water. She cause far less harm than nuclear waste, even bigger win.

Our main problem isn’t energy production it‘s storage and quick reaction to consumption spikes. Nuclear energy doesn’t help with that.

the waste isn't a win, of course, but is a downside of a tradeoff that is massively weighted to the upsides for society -- that is (otherwise) completely clean always-on high capacity energy production.

We understand very well how to safely handle nuclear waste and make it a very (very) low risk downside.

Completely clean? Where does the nuclear fuel come from? How do we get it?

Does the handling of nuclear waste consider foul play by terrorists and such?

I didn’t he many worries about russian rockets hutting wind turbines in the war in Ukraine.

looking backwards in the supply chain for other externalities is a good point, but I'm not sure any energy production method is exempt from this?

Also, by the way, my perspective isn't about nuclear Vs X (wind turbines etc) - I like all the ones that are net clean and useful in different circumstances as part of a mix.

I'm just addressing the narrower point about whether nuclear per se is a net benefit for society, which I believe it is, massively.