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

I like this a lot.

I assume you are using machine translation on the backend?


I wouldn't consider compile time to be a useful metric here, as you will generally compile once (for the final release candidate(s)) and execute many times.


True. But maybe during development it could.


For those who didn't read the article yet, the vaccine is called 'Sputnik V'.


I have used namecheap as my first and only registrar since I made my first website in 2013. Those free .me domains in the GitHub student pack paid off for you guys in my case.

Always had great service, including quick resolution when I tried to register .id shortly after they allowed international registration (and encountered a few speedbumps).

Thanks for the good work!



Agreed.

I think an unknown route to phosphine generation seems simpler and more likely than a biological explanation. YMMV.

Occam's razor would therefore imply that this is not life.


I think it's debatable, at best, whether Occam's razor would favor "an unknown process" over a known biological process. Especially when some research apparently has already been done, without success, to discover alternate processes.

(And, by the way, the unknown process could also be biological!)


Well... a biological process would be “rare” outside of earth, so if I was a betting man...


Would it? Seems to me we have no idea how rare it is. For all we know it might be quite common.


You're implying we don't have any information at all. We do. Even if you argue is it's limited, to our knowledge bio processes outside of earth has been zero. Whereas, non-bio chemical processes is greater than zero. So now people want to bet on that it's bio??


I don’t think we can say that with any confidence.


Milky Way contains on the order of half a trillion star systems. Would having, say, a million planets carrying some form of life in our galaxy alone qualify as “rare”?


To be fair, I wouldn't consider that rare. When we talk about life, we usually think in terms of are we alone. If there are a million planets with life, life isn't rare, regardless of what percentage of planets have life.


We also know that our solar system has exactly the right conditions needed for life.


No, we know that our planet has the right conditions for life. The conditions on Venus are very different.


That would be rare.

I also suspect 1 million is a massive underestimation.


You don't know if an unknown route to phosphine generation would be simpler and more likely, you would just find such an announcement more mundane, which you mistake for it being more plausible.

Invoking Occam's razor to compare two unknowns makes about 0 sense.


There is research saying that such unknown phosphine generation is not a simple explanation at all.

e.g. http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/phosphine-biosignature-gas...

>The scientists found that phosphine has no significant false positives, meaning any detection of phosphine is a sure sign of life.


That's still a confirmation of the Great Filter; just that life on Earth has already passed through it.


I don't understand with this fascination with the Great Filter. I am sure there are many filters out there, from having a Sun that lives long enough, that doesn't throw off flares very often, need for a magnetic field to shield advanced organisms, water, fossil fuel creation, gravity that can be beaten with fossil fuel rockets, big moon to reduce number of asteroid hits to the planet, just enough water to have continents yet plenty to reduce temperature differences, no tidal locking, ...


(Ok. Can somebody explain what is all this fuss about filters?)


Essentially it's the fermi paradox. If life is out there, why aren't there signs? The universe should be teaming with life but isn't. There's a few reasons why... the Great Filter is a hypothesis that basically means almost all life hits a wall where it dies out no matter what. No life so far that we know has ever made it past this filter.

Here's a good read on the subject: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html


If life is out there, why aren't there signs?

For the same reason the large dinosaurs died out. Life as we know it operates best within fairly narrow mass scales and energy level ranges. Those are both several orders of magnitude away from the quantities needed to produce effects observable at interstellar distances.

The universe should be teeming with life but isn't.

We currently have no good evidence that it is. That doesn't mean it isn't, just that our detection methods aren't yet up to the challenge. Basic information theory suggests that they may never be. Advanced civilizations will use coherent EM radiation for a limited time only. The radiation they do generate in the long term probably won't be wasted by letting it escape isotropically into space.

Also, at some point they may come to understand that drawing attention to themselves isn't a good survival strategy. A civilization that is advanced enough for us to observe is also advanced enough to hide from us.


> Those are both several orders of magnitude away from the quantities needed to produce effects observable at interstellar distances. (...) our detection methods aren't yet up to the challenge. Basic information theory suggests that they may never be.

Not really true. There are more signs of life than just radio waves. One - like in the article - is chemistry. Planets that seem to be very far from chemical equilibrium are objects of interest, as this may imply there is a complex system that's actively fighting entropy. I.e. life. For instance, aliens with powerful telescopes and good understanding of geology could conclude Earth has life on it by observing it keeps a surprising amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, where it should have already oxidized everything instead.


Yes, really true. Look at how hard it was to establish the presence of the PH3 absorption line on the planet right next door. We are not able to make that kind of observation on extrasolar planets yet, at least not beyond very rudimentary levels. Hopefully someday, but certainly not now.

Admittedly Earth's oxygen signature would be a lot easier to detect than a minute quantity of PH3 on Venus. But we wouldn't have been able to look for that either until just a few years ago. Even to a seasoned RF engineer, ALMA and JCMT are indistinguishable from magic.


Fair enough. What I'm saying is that detecting anomalous chemical composition of exoplanet atmospheres seems almost reachable with our current capabilities, and - unlike radio signals - is an indicator we can't really hide. So aliens slightly more advanced than us could be looking at that.


Life, as we know it, only exists in one single known location in the Universe: Earth.

If we assume life is abundant in the Universe, then we should be able to pick up signs of others, such as radio signals, or bio-indicators in other planets' atmospheres, and so, we ask where the aliens are.

Since we don't find any, we then assume that there is something preventing this abundance of life from developing into something we can detect, and something's called the Great Filter.

As of yet, we only have a single point of data, and since we're still here there's some speculation that we've allready passed through the filter. Another data point would mess up the math a bit and we could, statistically speaking, end up with a scenario meaning we still haven't passed the filter, and that we might still have an apocalyptic event wiping us out.

Life on Venus would give us a better idea of what to look for in other places, and that might help us narrow down the search a bit and find other places with life.

Intelligent life is a different matter. We don't know how common it is for

1) a planet to have formed around a star with the right composition of materials 2) have the exact right conditions for life to form early 3) for that life to survive for billions of years while 4) building up large reserves of substances that can 5) be used as fuel by a tool using bunch of talking apes 6) propel their civilization's technology far enough to match ours 7) send a signal that can reach our specific little dot 8) for that signal to be reach us during the miniscule time-frame that we've been able to pick it up.

I mean, what if the glory days of the Milky Way was 500 million years ago and we're developed just a little to late to be able to see the last remnants of galactic civilization crumble to dust? What if we just happen to be the first, and we develop past such technology before anyone else develops it?


On the contrary that would make the possibility that the great filter is the appearance of a cell very unlikely.

That leaves these possible obvious filters: single cell to multicellular life or planetary resources exhaustion.


The development of multicellular life is unlikely to be the great filter. According to Wikipedia, "Multicellularity has evolved independently at least 25 times in eukaryotes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Occurre...

Evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is a more plausible bottleneck. (Disclaimer: I am not an expert on any of this.)


Gasoline is now 40 dollars a barrel.


Crude oil is 40 dollars a barrel. Gasoline is about 80-90 dollars a barrel (= 42 gallons).


This is cool!

I created another page that is more UNIX terminal-like over at https://jetholt.com/terminal/ that you might like too. It's a lot more like the framework that you created.

There's a preponderance of Tech people who create terminal-like projects, so I think that we replicate it purely because we see it so much every day, and to relive the feelings that we had when we first started seeing the power and beauty in these things.


Nice, what did you use to create yours?


Both of these projects are pure HTML, CSS, and JS without any frameworks or external code. :)


it's super well done. congratulations


From my personal experience, people are more likely to read and share threads for a number of reasons:

* They don't have to go off platform.

* the base tweet can be much more eye catching that a link, even with social cards set up

* People may be desensitised to links that lead off-platform, because that's how Ads generally appear on Twitter

Then there are other advantages, like the fact that it tends to encourage you to write in a concise and direct way, with each tweet in the thread being like a bullet point. I often see people retweeting and engaging with a specific tweet from the thread; it's harder (relative term) to do that with a section from a blog post.


Depending on what you are doing(!) users stuck on a platform OR users who don't do links might or might not be the desired audience.


Maybe, but the question is: who are they going to share it to?


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

Search: