Did you realise that Chornobyl will not be rebuilt in our lifetime?
Nuclear weapon is not equal to nuclear reactor. If Russians will blow up Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant, most of the people will be evacuated, but radiation will poison land and sea for hundreds or thousands of year.
> Did you realise that Chornobyl will not be rebuilt in our lifetime?
What are you talking about exactly: the destroyed reactor #4 won't be rebuilt but I don't think it's relevant, but the other reactors were still functional a decade after the accident, and people have been working there since then.
And Pripyat won't ever be rebuilt mostly because it was never destroyed in the first place. In fact if Ukraine wasn't facing a chronic population shrinkage due to low natality, Pripyat could have been resettled long ago with only minor restrictions (and since the area is mostly a swamp, it's not like it had a big agricultural value before anyway).
> but radiation will poison land and sea for hundreds or thousands of year.
This is Nuclear risk misunderstanding number 1: “radiation” poison nothing except living thing receiving them in very high doses, radiation don't stay. What stays is the “radioactive material” which (unless at the epicenter of the accident) do emit a limited amount of radiations. What's harmful is eating or inhaling such material like any pollutants, and unlike other pollutants, radioactive material decays and only a fraction of it remains after a decade.
People are routinely exposed to environmental pollution that are as dangerous: if you had lived in Pripyat for the past 20 years, your risk of cancer would probably be lower than someone having lived in Kyiv, just because there's no car and the related air pollution in Pripyat.
> Hence, I'm working on http://diffudle.com/ which is a mix of Wheel Of Fortune + Stable Diffusion + Wordle. I Can't figure it out but feels to me like its lacking something.
> For example, I feel it's just too easy to call `.clone()` to store an owned value instead of storing a reference and introducing the correct lifetime constraints.
There's three levels when on the ownership ladder:
1. Taking ownership of an object: this means your have mutability and 'static lifetime. This often implies cloning though.
2. Having the object behind a ref-counted pointer (Rc or Arc in multi-trhreaded scenario) this way you have 'static but not mutability (unless you're using interior mutability with RefCell/Mutex but now you have to think about deadlock and all)
3. Taking shared references (&) to your object. It's the most performant but now you have to deal with lifetimes so it's not always worth it.
Rust beginners often jump from 1. to 3. (Or don't because “too tedious”) but 2. is a sweet spot that works in many cases and should not be overlooked!
This particular situation had to do with `&'static str`s baked into the program repeatedly getting compiled into `Regex`es at runtime. It wasn't possible to precompile these `Regex`es due to `serde` architectural limitations.
I chose to cache them at runtime by compiling `&'static str`s once and leaking to make a corresponding `&'static Regex`. This is a "leak" insofar as I can't ever release them, but it's leaking into a global cache, and it's bounded because the input strings can't ever be released either. There was a code path which handles dynamic strings, and that path still allocates and frees regexes after the changeset.
Having worked at shitty organizations, it is possible that front line workers care deeply about the product users but they’re not being heard by those who prioritize what should get done. Not saying that’s necessarily what’s happening at Atlassian; just want to point out the complexity of the situation.
What I found nice about FreshWorks is the leadership is aligned (or at least says they are) with that goal.
The power (in W) isn't the relevant value when talking about batteries, it's the stored energy (in Wh) that matters (it's the opposite for dam storage, where energy is plentiful but power is limited). Just do the math and check how many minutes the installation would stay up under significant load from the grid.
BTW I'm baffled to see a website called “energy storage journal” mixing up energy and power like this …
> Is this because he is already a skydiver and/or was going paragliding (is this the same rig? Another thing I don't know). Would it make sense that this is just "what he has," as opposed to owning both a bail out and a sky diving kit?
Not really. Those are really different material, with really different design constraints. Skydiving parachutes open slowly so they aren't a good fit for an emergency situation because if you have to leave the plane too low, you're pretty much dead, and as long as your plane is still high in the sky, I guess there's little reason to leave it…
> > long/stable freefall
> What is the norm for this? My thinking was this was to distance himself from the plane, which he later mentioned "came back around him" after he pulled.
AFAIK safety parachute don't open well at high fall speed (unlike skydiving ones) so you want to open it quickly and not enjoy your freefall.
Skydiving rigs are also big which make them annoying to fly with. You can tell early on in the video that he's basically on top of the yoke, which would be extremely obnoxious for obvious ergonomic reasons. The idea that someone would "always" fly like that (as the pilot claims) is ... dubious.
Also, there are other videos of this guy flying without that rig, which doesn't help his case.
