To address the baseload question. Baseload for a period is the level below which demand doesn't drop. Baseload isn't a relevant figure if you're running a power network. The job of a grid operator is to make sure supply matches demand from second to second. What happens is that the grid operator uses the cheapest marginal electricity first, which is always renewables, then if there's still a gap it's filled with power from a gas power station. That gap is continuously varying, and gas power is needed because it can continuously vary in response. The point is that baseload isn't a relevant concept in balancing the grid, it's all about matching supply with demand.
Ok but we need a grid without natural gas if we're going to fix climate change. Baseload is a relevant figure if we're designing that new grid. Grid-scale multi-day battery storage is expensive, and possibly even infeasible, so we might be best off using nuclear for baseload, with renewables and battery balancing on top of that.
To take the USA for example, it'll play out like this. As more and more renewables are built there will be periods where the amount of renewable electricity will exceed demand. During these periods, electricity will be very cheap and will be used to create hydrogen. The existing natural gas storage and pipework will be used for hydrogen instead, and hydrogen turbines / fuel cells will be built. So the natural gas infrastructure will be taken over by hydrogen, generated from renewable electricity. This gradual takeover will extend to heating. Natural gas boilers in homes / buildings will be converted to hydrogen, and so in the end the USA will end up with zero carbon emissions for electricity and heating.
Sounds good, but has anyone done this in production anywhere, and if so, what did it cost?
Hydrogen has a habit of leaking through anything and embrittling metals, so it may not be a trivial task. According to the Dept. of Energy, converting pipelines to carry pure hydrogen will require "substantial modification."
This is a WIP (hence why there are drafts and todos). This is being done by the folks at http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashGuide which is definitely a valuable resource if you're trying to learn Bash and its idiosyncrasies.
* it works with IDEAVim
* it uses JDBC so you can easily connect to "non-standard" DBs by using any JDBC driver
* it's better than psql/vsql/... for dealing with complex queries (you have a real editor rather than limited readline support, if you're lucky enough to have readline support)
Nice. Great way to shit on OP and steal his/her thunder under the guise of being helpful with alternatives. "...I was simply (insert BS justification here)." Sure you were.
I'm not sure if you realise how combative your comment is. You mock and belittle alexis-d with no real reason other than your own perception.
Why can we not talk about tools that we're using to get the job done, isn't this what part of HN is about? This isn't Product Hunt or a site for purely marketing products.
It worth to be noted that the verbose flag (re.X or re.VERBOSE in Python) may help to get more readable/friendly regexes (by allowing whitespace and comments).
I'm desperately fighting the urge to snark: but another very effective treatment for dealing with unreadable regex syntax is to learn regex syntax. In my experience probably 90% of people who complain about regular expressions simply don't know them very well.
It's a declarative language without symbols or recursion: that means that it's just not well-suited to being "broken down and simplified". You just have to bite the bullet and learn it. With a little practice, the basic features (e.g. beginning/end of line markers, character classes and captures, maybe non-capturing parentheses too) should be readable without trouble.
I agree that for trivial regex it's useless. For instance (directly taken from Python doc) in this case:
a = re.compile(r"""\d + # the integral part
\. # the decimal point
\d * # some fractional digits""", re.X)
b = re.compile(r"\d+\.\d*")
that's useless. But for more complex problems it may be useful (e.g. http://www.doughellmann.com/PyMOTW/re/ I know email matching regexes are not really complex or even a good example of use of regexes but that's the first example I found).
Another point is that even if I can read/write (that's the case) regexes other people may have to deal with my code and it's a well known fact that many people doesn't understand/like regex, so splitting them in small "chunks" may help them.
To be fair: my argument wasn't against the use of the /x suffix to a regex. I'm sure that there are circumstances in the wild (though quite honestly I can't recall seeing any in production code, and I've written and read a truckload of regexes over the years) where it's used productively to document a really hairy expression.
I'm just saying that 90% of the time when users complain about not being able to read a regex, the solution should be "hit the books" not "rewrite the expression".
I think you misunderstood the phrase (which has been removed since?).
I signed up (my web history has been disabled for months) and I only have data about my OSes/emails/locations, nothing about search "Web History No activity found."
