Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | c22's commentslogin

They also make the orangiest orange paint, the yellowest yellow, the pinkest pink, etc. At a certain point I have to wonder how much these are accurate descriptors of the paint colors vs arbitrary made up marketing nonsense.

They just mean that if you look chronologically at the fossil record you can find things that look like cephalopods before you can find things that look like mammals.

The article acknowledges:

> Hydrogen ... currently takes more energy to make than it yields, and the cheapest and most common way is by reacting steam with methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

> It’s possible to make zero-carbon hydrogen by splitting water with electrolyzers powered by renewable energy. But in most cases, the process is too expensive to be economical...

and also says,

> A back-of-the-envelope calculation convinced him that the cost of stimulated geologic hydrogen could easily compete with hydrogen made from methane. “If we get the technology right,” he concludes, “this could be huge.”

It's pretty clear from reading the article that actual yields will be highly dependent on discovering ideal mining sites, but the fact that people are building startups to research and develop this kind of implies someone ran some numbers and thought it was worthwhile enough to be "newsworthy".


thank you for actually reading the article and realizing that the team of energy scientists + engineers doing this have thought more carefully about the viability of the process than a HN commenter that learned about it this morning

I think the number is spelled googol.


It's funny to think that if bitcoin was backed by jpegs it would've failed already.

This would probably be both expected and preferable. The way they currently act often puts the public at huge risk in exchange for officer safety. Given the police are trained professionals who chose their own occupation any added risk should fall on them.

We don't really know what the concern was, because our sole narrator wasn't paying attention when it was voiced. However, if the "solution" was to keep one AC unit off while running the other one I could see there being a concern overtaxing the single running unit.

The building's caretaker appeared to discuss the situation 5 minutes after OP disregarded the sign. I don't know that a phone number on the note would have changed anything.

I’m just saying, to the extent that there’s a moral question here, “how unreasonable was it for the author to ignore the sign?” I think it’s a lot more reasonable if there are no alternatives given.

My take on TFA was that the lesson was “adults negotiate with each other, have the confidence to reject offers, and the humility to respect when their own offers are rejected.” Quietly seething about something you’re not OK with is bad—you are responsible for representing your own interests, and expecting somebody else to anticipate your needs instead of expecting yourself to raise them is not responsible and not “adult”. Likewise, expect other people to represent their interests, and expect them to expect you to represent your interests.

Now, given that framing, I’m speaking to the question: was the author acting rightly (responsibly representing his own interests) or wrongly (disrespecting the building authorities’ “rejection” of his “offer” to rent the space, contingent AC control)? I say rightly, because he had no other way to represent his interests.

If there had been a number on the sign, turning the ac off instead of calling the number would have been wrong. OTOH, if the building engineer or whoever is mad that the numberless sign was ignored, well, obviously someone wanted it off (hence the sign), and you can’t expect that person to disappear. Maybe put a number on there and talk to them.


I think sometimes commercial landlords will offer a below-market deal on a small space for an interesting concept with the idea that it will bring more foot traffic to the area and increase the value of their other holdings. Being off the main street adds some support for this motive.

I think at the end of each year that an officer didn't deploy their taser all year, they should get a bonus equal to $100 x [consecutive years of non-deployment]. The same incentive should be in place for discharging their firearm, except maybe x$1000.

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

Search: