What I learned at work this year • Hacker News Board

Re: What I learned at work this year

#121

Post by opo » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #75

SCHiM wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost is a political problem. It's easier for the opponents of nuclear to find support for stricter and stricter safety laws for new reactors. Driving up the cost, making them economically nonviable. Meanwhile the older and far more dangerous reactors are rotting away and cannot be replaced (or are replaced with fossil fuels). It's been pointed out again, again and again. Coal plants pump out more radioactive wast…

If that where true China would happily jump on the nuclear bandwagon. Instead, they use minimal Nuclear because the basic cost of running a nuclear power plant reasonably safely can’t become really cheap. Nuclear in China is 40.6 GW vs 290GW or so total power production. They are adding 14 GW but these things take time so the ratio will stay about the same. Meanwhile they are ramping up wind and solar extremely quick…

Your comparisons between power production of nuclear and solar is somewhat misleading since you are forgetting the low capacity factor of solar.

In terms of power production of solar in China:

>...The contribution to the total electric energy production remains modest[8] as the average capacity factor of solar power plants is relatively low at 17% on average. Of the 6,412 TWh electricity produced in China in 2017,[9] 118.2 TWh was generated by solar power, equivalent to 1.84% of total electricity production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

In comparison:

>...Nuclear power contributed 3% of the total electricity production in 2015, with 170 TWh,[1] and was the fastest-growing electricity source, with 29% growth over 2014.[4

As far as long range plans in China:

>...By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main technology, with a planned 1400 GW capacity by 2100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

In short, it looks like China is doing what any smart country is trying to do: develop all non-carbon based energy sources that they can.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#122

Post by bdhess » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

code_duck wrote: post #36

kosei wrote: post #2

"[Warren Buffett] says his measure of success is, “Do the people you care about love you back?” I think that is about as good a metric as you will find." I love this.

So then why does he bother being an investor? He could probably find that level of success working at Walmart and concentrating on his home life. Given that he’s successful at investing, he must have some other standards.

Maybe a good number of the people he cares about work at or invest in the company he built?

Re: What I learned at work this year

#123

Post by Retric » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #121

Retric wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that where true China would happily jump on the nuclear bandwagon. Instead, they use minimal Nuclear because the basic cost of running a nuclear power plant reasonably safely can’t become really cheap. Nuclear in China is 40.6 GW vs 290GW or so total power production. They are adding 14 GW but these things take time so the ratio will stay about the same. Meanwhile they are ramping up wind and solar extremely quick…

Your comparisons between power production of nuclear and solar is somewhat misleading since you are forgetting the low capacity factor of solar. In terms of power production of solar in China: >...The contribution to the total electric energy production remains modest[8] as the average capacity factor of solar power plants is relatively low at 17% on average. Of the 6,412 TWh electricity produced in China in 2017,[9]…

First, however you want to slice it Nuclear is a low percentage of China’s production. Even nuclear + wind + solar is not that huge, still the trends are very promising.

But, I want to say that growth figure is misleading as it’s comparing as specific year when a power plant came online. In terms of total TWh and rate of increase wind beats nuclear. In terms of relative percentage increase Solar is insane.

  Solar 2013 9 TWh
  Solar 2017 118.2 TWh

  Nuclear 2013 124 TWh
  Nuclear 2017 246 TWh

  Wind 2013 134.9 TWh
  Wind 2017 305.7 TWh

Looking at 2018 Solar’s insane year over year growth is starting to have a huge impact and does not seem to be slowing down. In some ways even 2017 numbers are misleading.

  Solar, *capacity* added per year.
  2014	10,560
  2015	15,130
  2016	34,540
  2017	52,830

Re: What I learned at work this year

#124

Post by cwkoss » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

ssivark wrote: post #3

> [...] we are also going to be focusing more on improving the quality of life. I think this will be the thrust of many big breakthroughs of the future. For example, software will be able to notice when you’re feeling down, connect you with your friends, give you personalized tips for sleeping and eating better, and help you use your time more efficiently. Seems like a retrofitted use case that is more of an answer t…

I think reducing the number of hours in the work-week would do more for this than any technological solution.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#125

Post by bitxbitxbitcoin » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 11:51 PM UTC

douglaswlance wrote: post #45

hguhghuff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People become obese because of emotional issues.

You can't over-eat spinach.

Popeye's relatively obese forearms would beg to differ.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#126

Post by slyall » Thu, Jan 03, 2019, 8:08 AM UTC

Maarten88 wrote: post #39

apatters wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Bill ever been good at predictions? No mention of smartphones or social media in The Road Ahead. Blindsided by how quickly the Internet developed, underestimated "bazaar" economies that enabled millions of people building both software and content. All the smart home stuff he was in love with has gone hardly anywhere. I think he's very smart and great at setting huge goals then hitting them, but I'm not sure he's…

> No mention of smartphones or social media in The Road Ahead The road ahead is from 1995 and is about the Internet ("Information Superhighway") which Microsoft almost missed, but got right just in time. The Smartphone he saw coming earlier than almost anyone else, and Microsoft desperately tried to conquer that market. They initially failed because existing mobile phone companies (Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson) feared M…

Which edition of "The Road Ahead" did you mean? From the Wikipedia article:

After the book was written, but before it hit bookstores, Gates recognized that the Internet was gaining critical mass, and on December 7, 1995 — just weeks after the release of the book — he redirected Microsoft to become an Internet-focused company; in retrospect he had "vastly underestimated how important and how quickly the internet would come to prominence".[3] Then he and coauthor Rinearson spent several months revising the book, making it 20,000 words longer and focused on the Internet.[citation needed] The revised edition was published in October 1996 as a trade paperback,[6] with the subtitle "Completely revised and up-to-date.".[3]

Re: What I learned at work this year

#127

Post by apatters » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 6:21 AM UTC

dbarlett wrote: post #107

apatters wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Bill ever been good at predictions? No mention of smartphones or social media in The Road Ahead. Blindsided by how quickly the Internet developed, underestimated "bazaar" economies that enabled millions of people building both software and content. All the smart home stuff he was in love with has gone hardly anywhere. I think he's very smart and great at setting huge goals then hitting them, but I'm not sure he's…

I think his vision of smartphones has held up well. From page 74 of my hardcover copy of The Road Ahead : What do you carry on your person now? Probably at least keys, identification, money, and a watch. Quite possibly you also carry credit cards, a checkbook, traveler's checks, an address book, an appointment book, a notepad, reading material, a camera, a pocket tape recorder, a cellular phone, a pager, concert tick…

Great comment and I guess he really did see more of it coming than I was aware of. It seems like the main thing he miscalculated, ironically, was how people would use these devices -- it turns out that all that functional stuff is totally dwarfed by being a Facebook zombie, in terms of total eyeball hours.

It's like we all had this innate drive (or susceptibility?) to zombification that we weren't aware of until the smartphone actually appeared