News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

m55au

They're not represented, because those are build-time dependencies. Most users when they do pip install numpy or equivalent, just get the precompiled binaries and none of those get installed. And even if you compile it yourself, you still don't need those for running numpy.
It is sadly really inconsistent. The stdlib statistics has two separate functions, stdev for sample and pstdev for population. Numpy and pandas both have .std() with ddof (delta degrees of freedom) as a parameter, but numpy defaults to 0 (population) and pandas to 1 (sample).
Someone correct me if I'm completely wrong, but by default (i.e. precompiled wheels) numpy has 0 dependencies and pandas has 5, one of which is numpy. So not really "squillions" of dependencies.

pandas==2.3.3

├── numpy [required: >=1.22.4, installed: 2.2.6]

├── python-dateutil [required: >=2.8.2, installed: 2.9.0.post0]

│ └── six [required: >=1.5, installed: 1.17.0]

├── pytz [required: >=2020.1, installed: 2025.2]

└── tzdata [required: >=2022.7, installed: 2025.2]

Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @11:01PM (#45511593)
It is surprisingly hard to find reliable figures. Best I could do was a global solar installation of 2-3 TW and global BESS of around 200 GW/500 GWh right now.

China is leading in both, but I'm more interested in local BESS and other storage deployments locally in northern Europe. I think for example Spain started getting more heavily involved only after their massive blackout. According to those links there is a very large overcapacity in battery production, but I don't see it reflected here. I'm sure it will happen at some point though.

Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @09:00PM (#45510843)
I looked at tomorrow's (8th of October 2025) prices in Norway and Sweden. Northern Norway drops down to (negative!) -15 €/MWh at 17:45 while southern Sweden peaks at 190 €/MWh at the same time. So that's that for buying "from across the continent", let alone from your neighbors or even your own small country. I'm not sure that even the suggested reconductoring would help that much.

To answer ajross: I'm quite sure that the shutdown of Ringhals and Barsebäck in southern Sweden has had a much greater impact on their and likely southern Norway's prices as well than building for example 10 times the equivalent solar capacity in Spain. It is not even about losses, but just the grid capacity. Theoretically the prices in Nord Pool (from southern France and western Ireland to northern Norway and eastern Baltics) should be equal. As pointed out, in practice they vary wildly. And in principle it can get even worse. It would not be too unrealistic to have negative prices in northern Norway and rolling blackouts in southern Sweden at the same time. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader how the latter can even happen when Sweden has enough capacity to meet its power demand at that time.

Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @08:25PM (#45510616)
I don't think it will happen either, but I do think there is a bit of imbalance developing in the whole system right now.

For example a decade ago electricity prices in Nord Pool were relatively stable (and reasonable/lowish). Now it is quite common to either have 0 or even negative prices during summer and artificially set maximums in the autumn/winter. IIRC, the rules were that if the price hit 60% of the maximum, it had to be raised by 1000 €/MWh. It got to 4000 €/MWh (which is 4 € or $4.7/kWh) in 2022 and was supposed to be raised by another 1000, but it was decided not to do it, so I think it stands there right now. But in any case, this is a ridiculous price. As are the negative ones.

Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @08:03PM (#45510472)
At some point of adaption everything becomes grid scale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup

Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @07:54PM (#45510423)
Yes, but storage has been lagging behind and when does it catch up is to be seen.
Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @06:16PM (#45509616)
Right, but would not marginal cost approaching zero amplify this problem under the current market system (and without any other mitigations)? So not exactly causal, but making it from a small to a bigger issue.
Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @05:35PM (#45509200)
This is not about grid balance, so I'm not sure what you mean here by curtailment.

It's about nobody making any money, so there will be no incentive to continue building solar.

Re:Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study on Tuesday October 07, 2025 @03:27PM (#45507650)
It has become so incredibly cheap that in some parts of the world it has started eating itself, called solar cannibalization.

https://www.aalto.fi/en/news/rapid-growth-of-solar-power-in-...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/plunging-solar-captu...

The corp is a subsidiary. It is irrelevant if and how long you worked there for, the parent company has the financial and legal control over all the subsidiaries. The foundation literally owns the corporation, no need for quotation marks. If they have not or do not exercise that control or interfere in the day-to-day life today, that does not mean they will not do it tomorrow or whenever it becomes necessary. When shit hits the fan all that matters is what's on the paper.

I can also say, that my hypothetical landlord has nothing to do with the place I have lived in for 10 years. So therefore they do not "own" it.

First of all, I'm not that young and naive to appeal to authority any more after having met too many so-called experts why have only succeeded by the "fake it til you make it" technique. So checking someones bio is unnecessary.

"The Mozilla Foundation will ultimately control the activities of the Mozilla Corporation and will retain its 100 percent ownership of the new subsidiary. Any profits made by the Mozilla Corporation will be invested back into the Mozilla project. There will be no shareholders, no stock options will be issued and no dividends will be paid. The Mozilla Corporation will not be floating on the stock market and it will be impossible for any company to take over or buy a stake in the subsidiary. The Mozilla Foundation will continue to own the Mozilla trademarks and other intellectual property and will license them to the Mozilla Corporation. The Foundation will also continue to govern the source code repository and control who is allowed to check in."

https://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozill...

If this is wrong, please remove it from Wikipedia too, or add an explanation why this plan failed.

Also, if this is wrong, we cannot trust what anyone from Mozilla has to say, including you since they can say one thing and do another.

Also, if this is wrong, why are there consolidated financial statements of "MOZILLA FOUNDATION AND SUBSIDIARIES (Mozilla)" https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202... According to the report, Mozilla foundation (and its subsidiaries) had a revenue of $600M in 2021. If the foundation has no control over the corporation, how can it include the revenue of the corp in its financial report? Is something fraudulent going on in Mozilla?

Exactly, I would even say the foundation has not only lots, but everything to do with Firefox. I don't understand how there are so many "ackshually" guys in this thread. It is all the same thing, Mozilla, and the separation is and has always been only a technicality, nothing more.
Re:US Department of Energy: Fusion Ignition Achieved on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @05:52PM (#33991923)
Stronger bonds by definition are lower energy bonds. So you get energy out by making the total bond energy go lower or "releasing it".
Did you just take two random numbers from that paper without reading any of it?

Their black cotton shirt blocked >99% of both UVA and UVB and the white one roughly 90%.

I looked around a bit in "definitions.units" and there are actually energy densities in there for various fuel sources, including diesel.

  You have: 1 diesel
  You want: Wh/L
   1 diesel = 10103.465 Wh/L
Slightly different value than in Wikipedia, but close enough.
No need to complicate things with obscure units.

  You have: 40 MW/30% / (10722.2 W*hr/L)
  You want: L/hr
   40 MW/30% / (10722.2 W*hr/L) = 12435.259 L/hr
Re:Why Hy? on Tuesday May 03, 2022 @03:47PM (#31252657)
It is not a particularly good example. A better one would be

    a = 1
    def foo():
      x = a
      a = 2
    foo()

    > UnboundLocalError: local variable 'a' referenced before assignment
Basically a name cannot be both global and local inside the same function. Otherwise it would be a total mess.

"a = a" just means assign the value of local variable "a" to a local variable "a", so the error makes sense.

You have measured the apparent power (volt-amperes), not the active power (watts) that you pay for. There can be quite a big difference, especially at standby.
Re:rand() may call malloc() on Saturday April 09, 2022 @01:26PM (#30969982)
Thank you for the explanation. This looks to be correct, e.g. by changing 16807 to 16808 and using the sanitize options, the program can indeed terminate with SIGILL depending on the value of seed.
Re:rand() may call malloc() on Saturday April 09, 2022 @09:44AM (#30968016)
Those compilation options did not make the program abort for me nor am I getting any warnings (at least not with -Wall -Wextra), even when changing all longs to ints in the above code, in order to investigate the case when sizeof (int) == sizeof (long) == 4. Setting *seed = 4294967295 has also no effect. What am I missing?
Re:rand() may call malloc() on Saturday April 09, 2022 @08:31AM (#30967474)
What is wrong with that?
I think it depends on what he is specifically criticizing.

I have not designed a motherboard, but plenty of smaller digital IC-based schematics and PCBs and in my experience the most problematic part has been either erroneous or lack of proper documentation or bugs in ICs which there are plenty of.

What I recommend you to do is to compare the schematics of, for example, Thinkpad T420 and Keithley 2001 both of which should be available with a search. What you will find is that the former is a collection of specialized chips (including one for battery charging) with mostly datasheet reference design based implementations + bunch of mosfets for enabling/disabling/routing signals, whereas the latter has almost none of that and plenty of analog "cleverness" and "raw" digital design, let alone the power input, which in my opinion was totally overdesigned. Or take any oscilloscope, where you need to design not only a computer but also an analog front-end + high frequency signal processing, not only routing. And I'm not even going into the actual RF board designs which you are probably well aware of is more physics than electronics.

Again I am not saying that it is easy for any guy on the street, but "relatively easy" to understand what is going on on the motherboard as opposed to the actual complex stuff. So if you see a common fault among many motherboards you can probably conclude that that specific area of the design was bad and criticize that. Whether the criticism is valid might be another question, but I would not automatically dismiss it.

Edit: I will put designing a motherboard on my todo list.

Would not call myself an experienced electronics engineer (have only gotten into RF lately, but yes I know about signal integrity and EMI problems), but getting GHz circuits to work on a modern motherboard is not as big of a deal as you might think mainly because it is a "solved problem" with best practices and design tools, and there are just not really that many things to connect together.

I am not saying it is trivial or that Rossmann could do it with his knowledge (no, he could not) or that anyone could do it. I just claimed that in the grand scheme of things it is not "highly complex" (as opposed to pretty much anything analog, or proper RF, or getting the actual implementation inside the chips correct).

> the design of a modern motherboard, which is highly complex

The design of a modern motherboard is far from complex since all the complexity has pretty much been hidden inside the black boxes of highly integrated circuits. You as a designer do not in general need to concern yourself with the implementation details and just need to understand the interfaces, similar to, for example, using python's numpy as opposed to writing BLAS or LAPACK from scratch.

> But also I've seen Rossman outright demand their hardware changes just so it's easier to repair, without regard to things like weight, water resistance, and overall UX.

This is just a blatant lie and in fact complete opposite of what he is saying:

https://youtu.be/RTbrXiIzUt4?t=959

It lists the mass shootings between 2000 and 2014. Take a look at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/obama-gun-co... for more information.

The Finland events are obviously Jokela and Kauhajoki.