TermKit VS website

I found this which is by far the closet to what I’m on about. Imagine this but with inline UI controls too (keyboard-controllable, natch), probably based on Nushell (I like Nushell), and maybe an “alternate display mode” type thing for UIs that want to take over more and not act as a transcript. And, no offence, but more visually appealing and implemented with a common-denominator subset of native UI controls where possible. Clearly the issue is not building it, but adoption. I don’t have an answer for that.

https://github.com/unconed/TermKit

Steve Wittens also does a lot of these kinds of articles at https://acko.net/

There have been many. But none of them really successful, in the sense that they were more proof-of-concept, never fully feature-complete, or just not adopted by the community.

See the list here: https://github.com/hoeck/schirm

I think the most popular was TermKit (https://github.com/unconed/TermKit, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30517205).

First time I saw an idea like this was with termkit [1], which I thought was great and was sad to see it didn't get continued development.

I really feel like we overlook the ways in which we limit ourselves by having our CLI interfaces be tied to a thing that emulates a terminal from the 80s.

The composability, scriptability, history, etc. of CLIs is great, but why should that preclude us from being able to quickly show a PNG or graph a function?

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come.

[1] https://github.com/unconed/TermKit

I'm impressed by this blog every time I see it, both visually and content-wise.

I think your down votes are because people are tired of rebutting the same old anti-nuclear arguments.

"Civilizationally" The evidence is nuclear has remained safer than alternatives well over half a century even when we have failed organizationally to do the right things (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima). IMO let us move on and use technologies that might prevent civilizational collapse rather than avoid them and make such a thing more likely. (Although it's unlikely under any scenario.)

"Proliferation" as a product of civilian nuclear power has been studied and discussed for its entire history and has been disproven. There's no link. In general having civilian nuclear power allows more oversight by international bodies about what you're doing, whereas regimes pursuing nuclear weapons tend to pursue them in secret and using infrastructure fit for the purpose of producing weapons materials.

"Fuel efficiency" simply isn't important when the fuel is so abundant and so cheap. We can afford to worry about that in future if we ever wind up building enough nuclear power it becomes a problem. If anything this is a good reason to stop freaking out about "nuclear waste" i.e. mildly used and 95% reusable fuel and leave that where it's been sitting perfectly safe for decades, above ground.

If someone had the time they could mine every nuclear thread on Hacker News and pull out all the common tropes and rebut them someplace in a similar vein to Skeptical Science's list for Climate Change (https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php). @acidburnNSA's https://whatisnuclear.com/ might be the closest thing. But then nobody would read it, and the problem would continue.

I went snooping in your HN profile to find the link, and that is a really well done site. Clean design, relevant pictures, and interesting material. It's probably going to cost me an hour or two of productivity today.

Link for people lazier than me: https://whatisnuclear.com/

In general, https://whatisnuclear.com/ has a lot of useful information abut nuclear energy, along with sources for further reading.

Introductory, I’m quite fond of: https://whatisnuclear.com/

Lots of great takeoff points from here too.

If you want to read more on nuclear from a guy with a PhD on the subject, I highly recommend checking out https://whatisnuclear.com. The upsides and challenges are all clearly laid out without any agenda as some people in this thread have accused the pro-nuclear folks of falling for.

whatisnuclear.com run by a couple of nuclear engineers is definitely a more objective and trustworthy source than the Scientific American / the University of Maryland.

The site WhatIsNuclear.com is also an excellent resource, including this subpage.