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

For a while we’ve been fixing telemetry-reported crash bugs in the project I maintain, and now hardware bugs are showing up with some frequency. I was amazed how common they are. Sometimes data values (e.g. SP register) are corrupted, but other times even infallible operations (e.g loads of rodata constants) crash, indicating that the instruction itself was corrupted. So, yeah, I believe you’ll eventually see UUID collisions, but not because the underlying cryptanalysis was wrong.

Does the ground source heat up (or cool down) over time, making it less effective? The deep ground is very well insulated, which is why after a century of operation the London Underground is 10 degrees warmer. I wonder whether GSHP users need to balance their load by (say) consuming more heating than they actually need in winter so that summer cooling remains effective.

I think there are two types of this, only have experience with 1 so far. Within a single season, absolutely. In deep winter entering water temp (EWT) is around 30degF (this is a pretty accurate measure of bulk ground temp). Typical for where I live is 50degF.

Other type is permanent change that persists year over year. Haven't lived here long enough to measure this. But if you pull more heat from the ground in the winter than you put back into it into summer (we use a water to air compressor for AC in summer), then yes, it can happen and does happen. Don't know if we are in this bucket yet.


I wonder if you could cost effectively store heat during the summer, running a system strictly to do that vs doing it as a side effect of conditioning.

This administration does love "force".


When you're a celebrity, they just let you do it.


I thought it was about a military space unit.


Another situation to avoid the XOR trick, even when registers are tight, is when swapping pointers in a garbage-collected language, since the intermediate bit patterns are invalid pointers: if a GC mark phase occurs at that moment, you might lose some objects, or spuriously mark others as live.


Quite. A burger that wears its hat at a jaunty angle for a rakish look.


I once wrote a contract document in PostScript that changed the wording based on the date. Two parties could cryptographically sign an agreement in the document, which would change when printed on a later date.

One of the reasons we don’t use PostScript so much any more.


Isn't PDF also programmable? I think it supports javascript and even a subset of PostScript if I'm not mistaken.


> I think it supports javascript

Indeed it does! https://github.com/ading2210/doompdf


It's not an illegal monopoly to be the sole entity capable of a technique. The problems come from manipulating the market to prevent competition.


There was no implying that it was illegal, only that it was balsy (or perhaps foolish) of him to openly declare it. It's not a great PR move, in that the word tends to have a negative connotation for consumers.


The subject of this story is a single proton that you would definitely feel if it hit you: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/


I don't think that is the case. The kinetic energy of these super-energetic particles is often compared to a tennis ball. But that energy isn't released at once, so even if it would interact with yourself, that interaction creates a particle shower that takes most of the energy with it. I don't think we can feel one of our atoms getting violently ripped apart.


There’s Anatoli Bugorski [1] who accidentally put his head into the path of a high energy proton beam.

The injury resembled nothing like being hit by tennis balls.

> He reportedly saw a flash "brighter than a thousand suns" but did not feel any pain.

He’s still alive today, age 83.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski


Oh my god i never read this thats so cool


Also weird phrasing: "a staggering 1.8 degrees" begs the reader to think of it as a large number (which in fact it is, as you point out) yet their intent seems to be, ironically and paradoxically, to diminish it.


I felt like that’s more like a rhetorical device for shorthand-saying “one might expect a ten or twenty degree difference based on modern marketing”, and I’m annoyed the article didn’t say that because it’s a pretty good point delivered rather poorly.


A 20* swing in body temp would render you dead…


Yep! That's what makes marketing against the imaginary foil of death so impactful: the alternative, "if not for our technical fabric, you'd have to fluctuate between zero and six layers of fabric based on exertion, humidity, inclement weather, and personal thermal comfort", is a lot less manipulative than "wear our fabric or die before the peak". Sure, it's true that you have to wear something or die (unless you're a statistical anomaly, anyways), but marketing based on glove weight doesn't cause as many sales as marketing based on frostbite.


Yeah, for "real" mountaineering, weights a concern, but not as much as "I don't my limbs to freeze off".

For my use cases (backpacking/bikepacking), it's all about the weight. But, I tend not to camp when it drops below 40*F (I do, but I have a travel trailer for that).


One might expect to be dead if following Modern marketing guidelines.


It would be hilarious if they did find a 10 degree difference. “Old gear keeps you chilly but fine. Modern gear straight up kills you!”


Because a machine wrote it, not a human.


I’m useless at recognizing AI writing sometimes; so, if this is that, email the mods and ask them to flag it off the site. (Explaining why you view it as AI writing will save a round or two of reply.) I’m all for what the twins are doing but AI writing should be purged here.


Thanks, that's a bug. We should never inline a function that directly calls recover. I've filed https://go.dev/issue/78193.


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

Search: