HN user
Can you give an example of an LED bulb installation with 50%+ luminous efficacy? Perhaps you are thinking of the raw lumens/watt coming out of lab-grade LED material without considering other system draws (cooling, power conversion)?
The GPL variants, for example, require you to allow others to plagiarize your work.
Automotive night vision is expensive and unusual.
Summary: The FAA's B4UFLY app only tells you whether you can _fly_ a drone somewhere. It doesn't tell you whether you can _take off, operate, and land_ from there because that is up to the property owner (whether private or government owned).
May I suggest more than one magnet per train to differentiate them.
Simplest way: number of magnets corresponds to train ID. Small space between magnets (calculated from Hall sensor refresh rate and max train speed). Count number of Hall sensor trips (maybe with debounce) within some time period (calculated from the minimum train speed during crossing and the magnet spacing). Disadvantage: Train minimum speed must be reasonable. Requires n(n+1)/2 magnets, or 36 for 8 trains.
More reliable way: two columns of magnets, slightly offset, spaced as above. Two Hall sensors in a row under the track. Col 1 is clock. Col 2 is data. Whenever Hall 1 (clock) goes high, read Hall 2 (data) (maybe for a short period for debounce). To keep things simple and stay away from speed assumptions, put the same number of clock magnets on all trains: log2(train count), rounded up, for example 4 for 16 trains. Disadvantage: Requires twice as many Hall sensors. Requires about log2(N)1.5 magnets per train, so 96 magnets for 16 trains, as opposed to 16 for the original method. Those tiny neodymium magnet bars are cheap, though. BONUS: Train speed measurement. Speed is the clock magnet spacing divided by time between clock Hall trips. Now you can run a Pi algorithm (e.g. PID) to move trains at a target speed regardless of load, at least in the regions with Hall sensors.
If you are willing to assume the train speed is constant while passing the sensors and do more complex signal analysis on the Pi, the intermediate clock magnets can be removed, reducing the magnet count to N(2 + log2(N)0.5)=64.
GP's point is that we give humans the benefit of the doubt. You have reinforced that notion.
> the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to think.
But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or intellectual "sophistication".
> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering.
> More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
> ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.
I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
> a dead attorney is the only real "good attorney."
You believe there should be no attorneys?
I can give the automotive electronics perspective here. Suppose that resistor costs 2c, including the actual part cost, PCB space, pick-and-place machine time (inc. more frequent spool replacement). Further suppose you expect to sell one million of this device.
$0.02 x 1E6 = $20k
If you are the circuit designer making, say, $150k, you just justified about a month of your salary (after accounting for benefits and other overhead). Your manager may parade you in front of the team at the next big group meeting as an example of how to achieve the BOM efficiency the company need to hit profit margin targets.
Reproduction is definitely a net increase in raw entropy. That's what is meant by "dissipating energy", I imagine.
Title taken from NPR coverage: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/11/592802471...
It's called the Just World Hypothesis and has indeed been studied for decades.
Are you sure? You can still declare a short field on a 8b micro.
It's obvious when applicants do this. There's no plausible deniability unless younger applicants start doing the same thing out of solidarity someday.
> not that long ago computing resources were a limited commodity.
They are still limited in non-phone embedded contexts these days, leading to the ironic situation that the radar in your car that can override your brakes is running a much weaker CPU than your phone. RAM measured in the low megabytes.
Source: I write code for one of those radars and this constant appears in that code, alongside several other sqrt implementations of varying resolutions (8b, 16b, float). You are expected to use the least-resolution option in your algorithm, based on your analysis/testing. Same goes for trig functions.
I have to keep computer game development textbooks from the nineties and aughts around for reference material.
Interestingly, whataboutism is specifically about cases of hypocrisy. The point is that the presence of that hypocrisy is irrelevant.
"It represents a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument." -Wikipedia
*entirely different
Please describe how it is possible to pick such a number. For example, I can readily imagine how to pick a random 32b float, but that it is an entirely problem with a nonzero probability.
Suppose that patents had prevented 90% of useful inventions and overall progress over the last century. That is, imagine that for every 10 inventions you can list from the 1900s, 9 had been prevented. Do you agree that would have been a negative outcome?
Now ask yourself whether that outcome would have changed your conclusion today. If not--that is, if you can imagine finding enough material in the remaining 10% (without knowing about the missing 90%) to point out as proof that patents didn't limit innovation--then try extrapolating that out to imagine the difference between the dribble of inventions we saw in the 20th century vs. what could have been.
I don't comprehend the thinking behind not listening to voicemails. Why have a voicemail box, then? You're just making anybody who does leave a voicemail think you're ignoring them on purpose. Is it people who didn't purposefully purchase and setup the voicemail feature, but it was automatically enabled?
Analogous to shining a flashlight in a driver's eyes or pointing a laser at an airplane cockpit. The law handles it.
> I do actually believe the fact that this violent nutjob who had been interviewed by the FBI three times was able to get a gun is so obviously messed up that it’s foolish to suggest otherwise.
Interviewed because he went to the same church (-equivalent) as some criminal. Is it a crime to be investigated by the FBI now, sufficient to treat you as a felon? Do you think that precedent will only impact "unhinged Muslim guys"?
Five nines isn't enough, as evidenced by the articles lambasting Tesla for a single accident in many millions of aggregate miles. If you assume one decision per second--which is conservative--Tesla is already on the order of 10^9 decisions. Nine nines.