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

It could be like flocking if they were free to do what the members collectively want to do (without things like "maximize shareholder value").

You could use a sandbox process and use some existing out of process calling system for it. This also disentangles the malloc systems of the modules.

Running a shop at maximum productivity is not sustainable of course. Quality and morale suffers, best workers leave, and turns out you really need slack for things to work well. ("You should overprovision your capacity" for the engineer mindset)

When was it updated? The newer research seems up the probability.

Eg https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/28/collapse...


There's water based heat batteries (aka thermal storage caverns) that are supplied with district heat in use in other places, but this is not one of them. The article says "Polar Night Energy’s technology works by heating a sand or a similar solid material using electricity"

> It seems like Norway just wouldn't have power if they weren't connected to other sources, not that they'd have more cheap power.

This is not the case as Norway and neighbouring Sweden have plentiful hydro. It's especially valuable as it can be regulated to complement wind/solar fluctuations, essentially replacing storage.


> the big issue during winters is when there's cold air high pressure systems we get neither sun nor wind

Wind does better in the winter.

See eg here for Canada monthly stats: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=251000...

Also, wind does better at night than day, which may be related or not.


I think the point is that winter can create periods where there is neither adequate wind or adequate sun. Having strong wind production at some times will only be good if there's a way to store the excess. That's exactly what this project does and I believe that was GPs point.

And in Finland: 60% of Finnish wind energy 'collected' in the winter months (Oct-Mar)

https://suomenuusiutuvat.fi/en/wind-power/wind-power-in-cold...


Both can still be true. The interop may be motivated by the EU regulator's intention so and to stave off further regulation.

I guess there are two questions: should the serialization format be coupled with the schema system, and should the serialization format have types.

If you answer the first question with no, then the second question is revealed to just be about various considerations other than validation, such as legibility and obvious mapping to language types (such as having a common notation for symbols/keywords, sets, etc).

JSON and EDN are similar here, if your comment was in context of JSON vs EDN difference. There's some incidental additional checking on the syntax level with EDN but that's not its purpouse.

You can do interesting things with the data even if you don't parse/validate all of it.

Eg an important feature of the spec schema system and philosophy is that you don't want closed specs, you want code to be able to handle and pass on data that is richer than what the code knows about, and if circumstances allow you shouldn't try to validate it in one place.


JSON doesn't have schemas either, JSON Schema is just a separate schema spec that happens to build on JSON, but you might be using for example Zod instead of that. Similarly systems that consume EDN can have various schema systems. For example spec or malli in the Clojure world. (Or you could be using Zod with EDN, etc).

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

Search: