caddywompus's comments

I've only watched the video, so I don't know a lot about the tool. But from what I can tell, it's a really neat way to view text as it's streaming through a pipe, _and_ it keeps a line at the bottom, for you to be able to type a line, which when you press return, sends your text to the STDIN of the program that is streaming the text.

This can relieve a pain point if you ever need to work on a serial port, and as you are typing in a command, the other side sends text, which overwrites the characters you were typing (depending on how the local echo is configured). It reminds me of a line based serial terminal emulator, where the input is a separate text box, and the output is a larger box above it.

Oh, and it also seems to have methods of sampling the data as it comes in, so that it can be configured to only show the messages you are looking for, and also counting them?

The source file is also tiny: https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/pw/tree/pw.c

Very Unix

Oh hey! Appreciate the work you've done, thanks for keeping the project alive!

I'm actually not too familiar with it, I was too young to use the original Winamp back when it was released, and can only remember playing around with the skins, along with RealPlayer on Win98

I'm guessing they went with version 5, since it looks like versions after that might have been a full rewrite?

Interestingly enough, there has been a community project dedicated to keeping the last Winamp version alive (last version from the original creators), and it really great to use.

https://getwacup.com/

It includes a skin that allows it to work on modern display resolutions. It's really interesting to see just how low-res screens were when it was in it's hey-day, given that they are nearly unusable on a 4k monitor.

Edit: I was too young to remember the releases, but replies are indicating that version 5 was in fact, not the most popular :P

The inability to find joy in things you normally do, feeling tired all the time, even when there is no reason for it, over an extended period of time, are all red flags for depression requiring intervention.

As far as I've seen, there is no physical (i.e. blood/fluids) test that can detect depression, it is diagnosed based on behaviors and history. A common feeling is that you want to make sense of these feelings by attributing it to a more understandable health issue.

Depending on what your mind ruminates on, it can be impossible to talk to others about what your thinking (as they may be dismissive, or alarmed). That's where you need someone who's qualified to talk to, like a doctor or counselor.

I'm surprised by the amount of criticism of medication in this thread. Although it is by no means a cure, it is an extremely powerful tool that can allow your brain to break out of feedback loops, and give you some control over your emotional regulation.

Reach out to your doctor, and be frank. Tell them exactly how low your feeling, and don't sugar coat it. They'll have questions to ask you. Also note that you can get doctors who are not a right fit. If you feel like your doctor is not helping, or you feel worse off from seeing them, then find a new one.

Depending on the severity, know that you can always push the issue, regardless of what friends/parents/teachers/colleagues tell you. If you are in crisis, call a cab, an emergency line, whatever, to get yourself to a clinic or hospital.

This kind of thing takes time and effort to solve, and you're the only one who knows how, you, personally feel. It's not like a broken bone, or infection, you have to do your best to describe to doctors how you're feeling.

Found it! http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-ma...

Does anyone have access to the reports from the scientists? I'd be really interested to see the kinds of stuff they predicted, in case there are any events that haven't occurred even on a small scale yet

I both love and hate this idea

Debating it is difficult, its a really nuanced topic. It's way too easy for it to devolve into a "you're with us or you're against us" type of argument.

And of course, like you said, deeply entrenched industry leaders have their own interests to protect.

The article isn't meant to be for or against nuclear energy, but rather the pros and cons of deploying a miniature plant

In the case of a ship or sub, in the event of both catastrophic failure, or even a material leak, its likely going to end up in the ocean. Water is an excellent radiation shield (though I guess it doesn't matter much, since no one would be around), and even a materials leak gets diluted until its not an immediate risk. RIP ocean microbes though

When it comes to base load, nuclear is pretty interesting. I remember reading that some plants sell electricity at below cost during low periods (nighttime in some locations), since they can't ramp the reactor up or down quickly.

It's a situation where both intermittent renewable sources and nuclear plants would benefit from a way to store excess produced energy

Fun fact, Bhopal was so egregiously horrible, that it is what led to the create of the CSB (Chemical Safety Board). A lot of their investigation videos are on youtube, and absolutely worth watching

I mean, you're not wrong. I'm just thinking that the larger nuclear plants are a safer than deploying many small reactors

Yes, absolutely! Coal is pretty much the worst of the worst.

My concerns are solely with how fuel would be managed, so that it isn't lost, and subsequently broken. One example was scrap workers taking a radioactive source to a scrap yard to be melted down, not realizing what it was.

That's a really good point. Something like that could be used to make a "dirty bomb" which aims to disperse material, rather than try to make it react as in a typical nuclear warhead

Yes, I was really disheartened when I learned that my city only recycles a few types of plastic, and most of it just goes to the landfill. And now its being theorized that oil industries encouraged recycling as a solution, even knowing its deficiencies, so that plastics would be more readily accepted.

Regarding nuclear waste disposal, this is the coolest solution I've seen so far:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50

These are really interesting! It looks to me like the tiny containers and materials are meant to prevent unintended fission rather than shielding from radioactive decay.

Still, I'd imagine identification and cleanup would be much easier with something like this.

I don't think you can really compare the poisonous emissions of diesel exhaust leaked materials from a reactor.

I see your point, any nuclear excursion tends to get blown out of proportion, but it does have some unique dangers.

In particular, diesel fumes eventually dissipate, whereas radioactive materials will settle and continue to be a problem for decades. Which may not be a problem if it's left alone, but anyone unlucky enough to interact with it could end up with it on their body/clothing unaware that they're absorbing an unsafe dose over a period of days or weeks.

But yes, I agree, we do need to move away from fossil fuel sources one way or another.

Ah that is true. In that case the danger would be in the tracking and storage of fuel elements. Assuming re-fueling is required infrequently enough that a regulator organization could keep tabs on them. Although in that case the danger would be the tracking and safe storage of the fuel elements.

Definitely, but those figures can't be compared directly, since deaths by air pollution are caused by industry scale deployment of both small and large power plants/generators/engines. I fail to see how [2] is related in any way to the conversation. As I said, I do believe that nuclear energy has a place in current and future energy production.

The other things we humans are bad at, is implementing solutions that last decades. It is inevitable, that over a period of 30 or 50 years, there will be multiple lost small reactor installations. My case in point, is meant to be the aforementioned videos, where an extremely expensive radiotherapy machine can be neglected to the point of abandonment.

What I want to highlight, is the insidious nature of a potential loss of a radioactive source. A small amount of material can contaminate a very large area relative to it's size, and its not something that can be seen or detected without equipment.

And the type of damage isn't as immediate or jarring as say a runaway reaction/meltdown, it would be limited to people who unintentionally handle, or ingest particulate.

For example, if you don't realize that you've been exposed to a material like this, you can carry it around on your clothes, or in to your home, and that's the real issue. You're body would be exposed to radiation over a long period of time, eventually resulting in a higher than safe dose. Any cancers/diseases as a result of this may not even be attributed to exposure, since a person may not have even realized they came into contact with it.

> That is true. Another weakness humans have is our inability to intuit large numbers and probabilities.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be a jab at my comment, it's not my intent to be a scare monger, but I would like to point out these past incidents to highlight the unique nature of the danger inherent to these materials.