Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

liu.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#121

Post by toss1 »

bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #120
toss1 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price comment was not about "price is low"; it was about it becoming SO plentiful that the overhead in metering the cost would exceed the revenue and it could be just an on/off subscription This HAS happened with telecom services, where long-distance calls used to even be sometimes only one town over, and were charged by the minute. Toll-free (800)- numbers were a big deal. Now, the network is so successful and c…

I guess we differ in that you call generating 20% of the energy in the USA "not a success" lol

Yikes. I specifically said it was a success.

But after 2/3 of a century, nuclear has clearly failed to attain the level of success of other technologies, and it's success has been capped.

Moreover, nuclear is now on a clear and accelerating decline. The peak was 1995, producing 20.1% of US power, and it's now fallen from 19.7% to 18.2% in the last two years.

I wish nuclear had enjoyed more success; it still may with new smaller-scale and inherently safe technologies.

But the current cost profile and construction profile is so far out of line with the continually-rapidly-declining-costs of competing solar and wind technologies, that current nuclear is only falling further behind. To build a nuclear plant vs solar or wind requires far more capital, has a far longer permitting process and construction process before a return on capital can even begin, and a far more costly end-of-life phase (notice we're not even mentioning the usual highlights of nuclear waste disposal, containment, and nuclear material proliferation). Nuclear has simply become an unmanageable option.

So, considering that it's success was limited, and is now in decline with no end in sight, how is it unfair to characterize it as "failing to make the grade"?

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#122

Post by keybored »

dhosek wrote: post #118
shagie wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeating characters doesn't mean "not stock". Consider https://www.shutterstock.com/g/antonioguillem - you've seen some of his work. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/disloyal-man-walkin... ... and an entire story of stock photos https://www.ladbible.com/community/weird-extra-pictures-show...

In fact week before last, John Oliver had a segment about his favorite recurring model in stock photos on Last Week Tonight. Also interesting to note that some well-known actors (or at least two) got their start modeling for stock photos.

Well played guys. I mean well actuallied. ;)

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#123

Post by z2h-a6n »

amelius wrote: post #117
z2h-a6n wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this: two objects are touching when the interaction forces between the objects are of similar magnitude to the interatomic forces within the objects. Very generally speaking, this will happen when the distance between the objects is about the same as the distance between atoms within the objects.

Ok, so I conclude from this that touching is not an exact science.

To be somewhat pedantic: "touching" is a word. The extent to which it is or is not an "exact science" depends on what is meant by "touching", and by "exact science". The definition I gave of "touching" could be made arbitrarily more precise by specifying more precisely the interaction forces under consideration, and the level of precision to which one should compare their magnitudes. What you mean by "exact science" is something I cannot guess at with any useful level of precision. Whether or not any of this has any bearing on the original topic of discussion is another matter.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#124

Post by spauldo »

noisy_boy wrote: post #91
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the grea…

Only the horseman falls on the battlefield, how will that child fall who crawls on his knees. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi

Dude apparently didn't have a hand in raising any children if he's never seen a crawling child fall.

Failure exists at all levels.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#125

Post by BlueTemplar »

weinzierl wrote: post #47

Oversimplified TLDR: They put rolled gold into a Prussian Red solution, waited a couple of months and then rinsed it in Palmolive solution? It is possible they did not obtain the Prussian Red in the good old way of cooking blood and bones with potash but ordered it from the Internet: https://www.morphisto.de/en/shop/detail/d/KIT%3A_Ätzmittel_n... On a more serious note, it is surprisingly easy to create mono- molecul…

But what is cooler, using an ancestral Japanese forging reagent to make gold flakes in cysteine milk ("aureos" ?), or using scotch tape on a pencil ?

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#126

Post by amelius »

z2h-a6n wrote: post #123
amelius wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so I conclude from this that touching is not an exact science.

To be somewhat pedantic: "touching" is a word. The extent to which it is or is not an "exact science" depends on what is meant by "touching", and by "exact science". The definition I gave of "touching" could be made arbitrarily more precise by specifying more precisely the interaction forces under consideration, and the level of precision to which one should compare their magnitudes. What you mean by "exact science"…

I mean, the actual interaction force that defines "touching" is open for debate. Touching is an abstract concept, removed from actual physics.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#127

Post by z2h-a6n »

amelius wrote: post #126
z2h-a6n wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be somewhat pedantic: "touching" is a word. The extent to which it is or is not an "exact science" depends on what is meant by "touching", and by "exact science". The definition I gave of "touching" could be made arbitrarily more precise by specifying more precisely the interaction forces under consideration, and the level of precision to which one should compare their magnitudes. What you mean by "exact science"…

I mean, the actual interaction force that defines "touching" is open for debate. Touching is an abstract concept, removed from actual physics.

That was sort of my point. If we use a definition of "touching" that is relevant to the atomic scale, whatever that definition is, we can reasonably talk about what "touching" means at an atomic scale. If we use a colloquial definition of "touching" which is meaningful for macroscopic objects but not at the atomic scale, it doesn't make sense to talk about "touching" at the atomic scale.
Post reply on HN