I always thought programming as being a touch more like two imbecile brothers outsmarting Max Von Sydow's plan to control the world with tainted beer and hockey arena organs.
I think this contributed more to the demise of CL than is recognized. It was cmucl, sbcl, and other free implementations that kept it alive thru the 90s.
I don’t begrudge Franz and others their licenses, but what happened with the LMI and Symbolics IP is a cultural disaster.
Emacs org-mode literate programming allows for re-ordering of code, extracting to multiple files, and if using a suitable language, evaluation of fragments and interactive exploration and rendering of examples.
You can use it daily, intimately, without using nixos. Using it for dev environments on macos for example, and servers. Did that for years before I installed nixos on my desktop.
East coast touring…. Edges are nice even traversing on piste when you going up after the lifts have closed and the machined dust has been scraped off the hardpack. Also the one time a flexy ski is better on ice, when you gotta traverse a bumped out section…
Also have backcountry nordic pair with metal edges for similiar reason — tho i only debur them, never sharpened.
On piste skinning is mostly because it’s where the snow is until the back country fills in later in the season.
I’m an OpenBSD fanboi, and the review of mitigations, their origins, efficacy, and history is well worth the time to watch or just review slides. Its not about some claim of vulz.
Storing as parquet, and using hive path partitioning, you can get passable batch performance assuming you queries are not mostly scans and aggregates across large portions of the data. On the order of ten seconds for regex matching on columns for example.
I thought it was a great way to give analysts direct access to data to do adhoc queries while they were getting familiar with the data.
Many of us paid that cost over the last couple decades. I also have spent years paying a cost for learning AWS, effectively giving rent extracting oligarchs free space in my head, and learning skills I will never use in my own endeavors.
You are myopic in a focus on subsidies, and you need to consider both current costs, and how they are externalized from coal plants to the population, and what the cost will be in the future from the pollutants (carbon and others).
Policy has only started to make them pay for the cost of their pollution, and as they are being made too, it's become increasingly more expensive to run a coal fired power plant. Last one more than 100mw was built in 2013, and no more big ones are being built. The REAL market price of energy must include the cost of eliminating or mitigating these pollutants.
When the real price is considered, not just for global warming, but for public health impacts due to particulate and heavy metal and water pollution, coal is dead. It's only hope is to try and continue to externalize those costs on to all of us by crying about regulation and subsidies.
Those subsidies are an investment to avoid paying a radically higher cost in the coming years for public health and climate change disruption. The science and economic are very clear on this. https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2023-lancet-countdown-u-s-...
According to the EIA, more than a quarter of the us coal fleet will be retired by 2029. This is 10 years before these regulations would be at full strength:
The last large plant came online in 2013 and noone has plans to build more. This is the economic reality of coal power in the US. It cannot compete with renewables (even when coal gets more subsidies) or natural gas, and it certainly cannot once it has to price in the cost of the pollution (particle, heavy metals, and carbon) that it previously made all of us pay for.
The hand wringing about politics in policy, or this EPA decision impacting energy prices are misguided and ignorant repetition of memes that the coal and other fossil fuel industries promote to perform a rear guard action and slow for their competitors who are beating them on most fronts with cheap, clean, zero marginal cost energy with very stable pricing.
Perhaps you should learn more about the US Constitution, the separation of powers, and the role of the executive branch and it's ability to make ruling like this.
Doing so before you bring up an absurd talking point that is always trotted out when someone is held to account by a regulatory agency to pay for the damages they doing to their neighbors.
The politicians and policy makers are very aware of the energy price, so you are not introducing anything new to the policy makers decision making process. Read any of their materials and you will see the energy price sensitivity is a core measure for them.
What you are doing, it bringing up a series of unrelated issue and trying to pin them on these policies, or suggest, in an ignorance, that they are not thinking about one of the core political realities of their career.
This is all the more reason to speed up the transfer of renewables which have near zero marginal cost, and aren't emitting carbon and particles which damage the people around them.
Speaking or cycle of pain and poverty, the particle pollution of coal plants and refineries is an ongoing public health crisis. This policy is an aspect of making them pay for the pollution they previously were making their neighbors pay for, in asthma, COPD, mercury poisoning, lung cancer and many other illnesses directly attributed to these plants emissions.