Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | CM30's comments login

The problem (as per usual) is that the legal system is horribly biased in favour of whoever has the most money/resources. When one side has millions/billions to spend on lawyers and legal fees and the other doesn't, then the former is almost certainly going to drive the latter into settling (or bankruptcy), regardless of whether the latter did anything illegal.

There needs to be a way to fix the system so that both sides of any court battle are on (fairly) equal footing, and having significantly more resources than your opponent doesn't tilt the field in your favour in any practical way.

Hmm a quick check of Google brought up at least a few wikis about maths:

https://math.fandom.com/wiki/Math_Wiki https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Main_Page

And a few about engineering:


Plus a few about computer related topics:


And various languages and frameworks have wikis too, like Python, PHP, WordPress, etc.

So there's definitely some interest in wikis outside of fandom topics. The Wiki listing pages on Wikipedia has at least 30% of the page listing wikis that don't involve a piece of media/fiction:


I suspect the disparity is probably because hobbies and fandoms could mostly only communicate via the internet, and naturally went from fansites and hobby sites to wikis. Meanwhile more academic subjects have an audience who seem to be unsure of the value of these sorts of free resources.

Fandom is complete and utter SEO garbage - every single fandom with enough nerds to have sense has moved off of it into an actual independent wiki. IndieWikiBuddy is an extension that actually takes fandom websites, and redirects google searches to the actual community run page. https://getindie.wiki/

Oh I agree. I like to link to non Fandom wikis when their available, use that same plugin in most browsers, and support things like the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance.

Sadly quite a few wikis still use the service, and haven't gone independent yet.

For maths, there is also ncatlab.

The main problem I see with FOSS projects using Discord is a misunderstanding of what the platform is, and what it works best for.

Discord works fine as a chat room. As a way to have casual conversations about everyday topics, with the expectation being that you'll likely never have to refer to them ever again. If you want to discuss what you had for breakfast that morning, knock yourself out. Something like Discord or Slack or Matrix is perfect for that.

The problem is that many people try to use it as a website, wiki, forum and support desk rolled into one, and it's terrible for those use cases. It being a walled garden means it's a bad solution when it comes to attracting users to a project since it doesn't show up in Google, and for providing a searchable archive of information for things like support purposes. It having a design meant for chatting means it doesn't work well as a forum, since the layout isn't as clear or understandable as a traditional one there, nor does its search work well for that purpose. And requiring people to login to even view it means it fails miserably as a support system, since many people won't have an account when they need help with something.

Unfortunately, because it's 'free' and 'convenient', we get a lot of project teams deciding to use it for everything rather than having a separate website or forum or wiki. It's like the online creator equivalent to that office worker trying to use Excel for everything when they really need a custom designed system or database.

In the same way no one should use an IRC server for documentation, no one should rely on Discord for the same thing either.

The data ownership point is definitely worth noting though. Can Discord really do anything if your users consent to you logging their posts to an external service?

Unless I have something meaningful to say about a topic, I won't leave a comment about it. Posting just for the sake of posting doesn't really make for an interesting conversation.

And given how niche/technical many topics here are, I suspect that's true for most people. They'll discuss things they're interested in, and pass by things they have no interest or knowledge of.

This is also why political topics tend to blow up here as far as comment count goes, since it's much easier to give your two cents about how Musk is destroying Twitter than to talk about the latest in astrophysics from a research paper.

It's worth noting the person working on this remake previously worked on an absolutely amazing Super Mario World hack called A Plumber For All Seasons:


And created enough resources for that game that they basically know the engine inside and out. They definitely have the knowledge to finish a remake like this, and it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

My one worry however is that remaking any sort of finished game as a fan project tends not to end too well. If there's one type of fan game that companies tend to shut down, its remakes, with ones that clone the original game 1:1 being the primary target (see the Link's Awakening DX PC port recently). So I'm also not sure how long this project will last.

Thank you so much for the rom hack link. I just started playing it; the graphics, music, and level design are excellent. I also really appreciate that it isn't too difficult, at least in the early levels I'm playing right now.

If you have any other SMW hack recommendations, please share!

Hmm, what's your experience level with 2D platformers and difficulty?

Because there are some hacks I'd recommend if you're pretty experienced with tough games, but which would probably be too much if played casually (JUMP/JUMP 1/2/YUMP/Send Your Regards to the Czar)

For something a tad less punishing (but still tricky towards the end), The Second Reality Project Reloaded and The Second Reality Project 2 Reloaded are excellent choices:

https://www.smwcentral.net/?p=section&a=details&id=16696 https://www.smwcentral.net/?p=section&a=details&id=9543

And SMW2+3: The Essence Star is pretty good if you want a more relaxed (albeit story driven) experience:


A Plumber for All Seasons is a top-tier standard romhack. Very cool to see the creator working on something even more ambitious.

Writing about marketing seems like it's fine, especially if it's about projects that are relevant to you.

What's not great is when the blog's sole purpose to exist is to market something, or to get clicks on affiliate links/ads/whatever.

Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people. I suspect this is because of a mixture of things:

1. The rare instances of it going wrong look catastrophic, while the many times it does better than coal/oil/gas go ignored. Kinda like how people fear plane travel more than driving, despite the former being far safer than the latter.

2. It's more expensive to setup, so there's an economic incentive to either stick with what's there already (fossil fuels) or try and go with renewable solutions.

3. A certain percentage of the left/environmental movement seem to hate the concept, either because of subtle influencing from the fossil fuels lobby or because the idea of compromising and going with a system that isn't 'perfect' doesn't appeal to them.

Isn't the number one reason that nuclear gets a bad rep because there is no compelling solution for getting rid of the waste?

We don't have a solution to the waste from fossil fuels either, so... We just ignore that.

Coal in particular results in incredible toxic waste. Even if it was inert (which it very much is not) you get enormous heaps of rock you dug the coal out of and those have to be stored forever. Typically people just leave it in a big pile as somebody else's problem until one day the wind blows and it collapses and kills a bunch of people. Oops.

But even for natural gas in the best case your waste is excess carbon dioxide, which renders your planet inhospitable so that's not great either.

The waste problem is solved. As with the rest of the nuclear discussion, it’s mostly hysteria.

Here’s a guy kissing nuclear waste. It’s a bit tongue in cheek on the surface, but he’s PhD and there is quality information in the video.


The waste problem is pretty much not solved. Neither on the technical, nor the political front. That doesn't mean nuclear isn't an option.

Try to list the countries with a permanent nuclear storage site. Pretty short list.

The political front, sure.

The technical front, however, really is fine.

All the high-level nuclear waste on Earth would fit in a 21m cube. The lower level stuff is substantially greater in volume, but overall this is one of the (IMO few) cases where nuclear proponent's arguments about energy density do actually matter.

And that means it's fine for the list of countries with a permanent nuclear storage site to be pretty short.

There are compelling solutions, they just run into the same opposition as the plants themselves.


now there's a multilevel dungeon if I've ever seen one... must be some real neat loot stored at the bottom!

At least the waste is not dumped in the atmosphere. We have better waste management for nuclear than coal or oil.

> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

What a comparison... The worry with nuclear waste is of course that the shielding doesn't last long enough and waste then contaminates surroundings with much much higher radiation than in coal ash

We know how to store it safely though melt the radioactive material into glass ingots and store them in stainless steel barrels at the bottom of old mineshaft in geologicly stable dry areas like yukca mountain. But NIMBYs wont let us. The fear of leaking containment vessels goes back to early days of nuclear such as the Hanford site. Yes thats a horrible mess and a Superfund site. It also dates back to the Manhattan project and waste from the first nuclear pile. We have learned a bit more since the 1940's.

AFAIK it's pretty well know how long the shielding works, so you can always renew it. Also, with coal the shielding is impossible at all.

The shielding of the waste, not the shielding of the plants.

Yes this is what I'm talking about.

You didn't mention what I believe is the true reason nuclear power got its bad reputation: nuclear weapons.

(Tough you could argue that it's your item 3, since nuclear weapons and their open-air testing would be the reason the left/environmental/peace movement started to hate the concept.)

Wasn't it rather events like in Chernobyl and Fukushima?

There's also the small detail of fission vs fusion. We don't currently have fusion power except from the sun, but if we could make it work (which, noted, we've been trying for quite a number of years to make it work), then we'd have rather nuclear power that is quite a bit better than what we can do today. that might be enough to move the needle on nuclear power, since it doesn't have the waste or melt down issue.

1. and 2. are closely related. High cost at least partially can be attributed to the requirement for nuclear to be in not the safest then at least safer than coal/hydro and many other currently used sources. Pretty much like people demand air travel to be the safest form of transportation. But given that without nuclear we would continue to burn coal/gas which is not risk free either may be the balance should be struck on the other point of the cost-safety spectrum.

"Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people."

Well, there was Chernobyl.

Then Fukushima.

I'm all for Nuclear. But I think humans have shown repeatedly they can't really handle it.

So think the trepidation is justified.

But, I am hoping with all the technology advances in last 50 years, maybe Nuclear can be made safe. If we do learn from past.

As far as I know though, Chernobyl and Fukushima had completely different reasons and don't really clump together apart from "both were meltdowns"

Chernobyl was entirely a product of design compromises due to cost savings, combined by a totalitarian system suppressing the known impact of those design decisions. It was also a much older design.

Fukushima also seemed like a design mistake (I remember reading it that the generators or something like that were flooded with water) , but then caused by a natural disaster and flooding.

The nuclear plans (in on paper at least) we have now as a result of decades of additional knowledge, and are way more safe. Combined with the fact that we have incredible computing firepower to better simulate scenarios, all this has convinced me to feel much better about the prospect of nuclear power plants and their safety.

> As far as I know though, Chernobyl and Fukushima had completely different reasons and don't really clump together apart from "both were meltdowns"

A glass-half-empty view of that would be that there isn't a single reason which could be fixed to avoid all future issues. Fukushima AFAIK didn't have the design and operational mistakes which led to the Chernobyl incident, but that wasn't enough to prevent it from having its own incident. Which other causes we might be missing which could lead to new severe incidents in other nuclear power plants?

(And, by the way, the bad part IMO was not "both were meltdowns", but "both were explosions"; if it were just the meltdown, it would stay confined within the power plant, while the explosions are what spread the damage. Yes, they weren't nuclear explosions, but even a non-nuclear explosion in a nuclear power plant is bad.)

But nuclear power starts to look even better when you look up the death tolls and realize that as long as you are halfway competent (i.e. not Chernobyl) even the worst disasters have led to vanishingly few deaths. What is more dangerous is the irrational fear of nuclear power that led to the dangerous evacuation of Fukushima.

We have modern designs that Litterally can not melt down. No meltdown means no explosion.

Maybe. I'm trusting one comment on internet.

I'm pretty sure the Chernobyl engineers also said "this is impossible", "this is very safe design that can not fail". Only in hindsight did the failures appear.

For Fukushima. Sure, once in a lifetime earthquake. It's always something, and at some point walls can't go any higher. Seems like backup pumps should have been on higher ground. But to think nobody will do something similarly silly again, is being pretty trusting.

The difference is in Chernobyl there were mechanical safety systems to stop a meltdown. current designs are such that physics prevents it from being able to melt down. While its possible to improperly maintain safety systems causing them to fail, physics doesn't need maintenance.

Do you have link? I am curious what this design is.

If I just randomly search, it is just hundreds of designs, everyone has a 'theory' on some design that is safe and effective. Hard to filter out the 'crack-pot' from the actual physicists.

Do you have one in-particular.

(edit, also. I ask because Chernobyl was also deemed impossible by 'physics'. Technically it did not melt down first, the reactor didn't 'fail', something else fails, then melt down happens. The risk was never a nuclear explosion, it was release of nuclear material and radiation)

pebble bed reactors.

to quote wikipedia which expalins it better than i can;

"When the reactor temperature rises, the atoms in the fuel move rapidly, causing Doppler broadening. The fuel then experiences a wider range of neutron speeds. Uranium-238, which forms the bulk of the uranium, is much more likely to absorb fast or epithermal neutrons at higher temperatures. This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause fission, and reduces power. Doppler broadening therefore creates a negative feedback: as fuel temperature increases, reactor power decreases. All reactors have reactivity feedback mechanisms. The pebble-bed reactor is designed so that this effect is relatively strong, inherent to the design, and does not depend on moving parts. If the rate of fission increases, temperature increase and Doppler broadening reduces the rate of fission. This negative feedback creates passive control of the reaction process."

Thank You Yes, guess any built in Negative Feedback would be better than defaulting Positive Feedback.

Guess someone could still do some bad design to cause some other type of rupture that would expel radioactive material, but much less possible.

A rupture is unlikely as most pebble bed designs use helium as the coolent. It being a noble gas it won't react chemically, and unlike water cooled designs it doesn't undergo phase change (liquidgas) so no massive pressure build up. And as there is no oxygen fire is unlikely.

So 2 mistakes in the last 50 years, each wiping out a radius of 25km from being habitable for 1000 years. I won’t trust people for not making more mistakes.

Its not likely to be a thousand years before its habitatable again. Long lived isotopes are safer as they are less radioactive and less energetic. And short lived isotopes while dangerous are short lived. Its the medium lived that are a problem 70-150 years that are the biggest problem. Secondly we dont have to wait for it to all to be gone just down to a safe background level

There is a common cause.


You mention both Cost Savings and Design Mistakes. Those are common, and will occur in future projects.

Don't think totalitarian Gov has any monopoly on hiding design problems. Every company does it.

Those are both things, drives, that the US has shown to be incapable of administering. All industry is rife with cost cutting. And "safety" is very much cut in the name of profits. It happens today, just not 'obvious'. We don't hear about it until there is a meltdown.

I do hope that new designs are better. But I am absolutely not confident that humans have learned anything and wont subvert any improved designs again for cost savings.

> Chernobyl was entirely a product of design compromises due to cost savings, combined by a totalitarian system suppressing the known impact of those design decisions.

This sounds exactly like what could happen when a private for-profit company would exploit nuclear, which is already happening

> Chernobyl

The worst designed reactor that led to 60 deaths ?

> Fukushima

As in, the reactor that was struck with a generational earthquauke and where no one died?


Compare this to other energy sources

Coal - 1500 [1]

Coal waste -12000[2]

You can keep going down this[3] list. Nuclear disasters are a mere blip. Only solar is any safer.

[1]April 26, 1942: Benxihu Colliery disaster in Benxi, Liaoning, China. 1,549 workers died, in the worst coal mine accident ever in the world

[2] December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog.

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

I don't think you are including the deaths in following years from the radiation poisoning. Those numbers are just 'the day of'.

But also. I agree, Coal industry has a lot of deaths too. Far more year over year. And things like settling ponds should be more regulated. Lot of deaths from coal waste holding damns failing.

So. Think you are little cherry picking stats to show Nuclear "isn't that bad", and Coals "very bad". When truth is really somewhere in middle.

Think in this, the disconnect, you are discounting the potential much higher risk potential with Nuclear.

A coal damn giving way, kills everyone in the downstream town, maybe hundreds.

But if worst case Nuclear disaster, has much higher potential, millions.

Really in Chernobyl and Fukushima, we got lucky, they turned out to be bad, close calls, but in each we were saved at the last minute, so not so bad.

Both were minutes away from much higher releases. Both could have wiped out their entire country. Potentially, Ukraine and Japan could both be gone today, not exist as countries, by the time you factor into half the country farmland gone, and major cities un-inhabitable.

That sounds dramatic. But think that is what a risk matrix would point out. So how much risk can we tolerate? Is Climate Change risk finally in the public mind enough to overcome the Nuclear risk?

I suspect part of it is because movies and other forms of media are more likely to be 'shared' experiences than consumer electronics are. Like okay, some systems are probably popular enough with the population that this sort of review setup could work well (iPhones/iPads/Apple devices, video game consoles*, high end Android devices, maybe certain leaders in their market niches), but a lot of the time the market would be spread too thin to provide a reliable set of reviews for every product. Like, how many toasters exist on Amazon right now? Apparently about 740 from a quick check.

Add that to however many other brands and models aren't listed there, and I'm not sure you'd find enough reviews to make such a site worth it. Especially not professional ones, since even the likes of Which don't review every single device ever released.

It might also be surprisingly hard to find said products in such a database if it existed too, since often only the model number is slightly different, with the core name being identical across variations. So I suspect it'd be significantly more challenging for users to use than Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, where looking up something like 'James Bond' or 'Star Wars' or 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' will get a bunch of easy to understand results.

Feelings: Depressed and burnt out for the last few months, with severe depression.

Reasons: Entire team is being made redundant in a few months, and the job market is a miserable one at the moment. Also stressed out by some issues with my personal projects, and personal issues.

Actions: Well I'm applying for new jobs in companies I'd be interested in working in, and I'm confident that I'll find something new at some point.

From what I've seen, the latter is manageable with bespoke anti spam measures backed by integration with systems like Stop Forum Spam or Akismet. If you then set new accounts to require manual approval if they do things that are clearly spammy (posting external links most notably, but sticking them in their profile right away is a good one to flag too), then you should be able to keep it under control.

I've had no spam on my forum for the last six months or so doing this, and very few incidents over the last few years as a whole.

Please note however that as with any social site online, this process gets harder and harder to control the bigger the site or service gets, since spammers want to have as much of an impact as possible with as few resources as possible. So while they won't try and modify their software to get round the anti spam measures on a forum with 50 members, they'll be more likely to try when it has 50,000 members, and almost certain to once it gets to a few million or more.

Hence why Twitter, Reddit and others are in a constant battle to try and keep them out (your mileage may vary as to whether they're winning), whereas smaller sites can rest somewhat easier just by changing how the default registration process works.

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