dcanelhas

Clearly making a motor with induced magnetic fields both for the stator and rotor isn't the innovation here, since a large fraction of industrial motors do not have permanent magnets.

I would assume the innovation here would need to be making it small and efficient for any meaningful torque output? Usually when you see claims of a 93% efficient electrical motor its the result of taking an absolute beast of a 2kW machine and operating it at 400W. Does anyone have insights into what Renault are doing here?

KeePass is just an encrypted database file with UI around it for usability. You can keep the db on a USB drive, sync it through a cloud storage, e-mail it to yourself, whatever ... It's really not that complicated. BitWarden is the above as a service, I reckon.

Nb. The above refers to KeePassX. No idea what the KeePass without the x is about. Naming things. So hard.

I figured 2x4 would be the theoretical minimum since ascii characters are 1 byte each (without extensions). 1x5 with color is impressive, even if it is sort of like a faux 3x5

After the transition to digital TV our broadcasted signals mostly look like noise, though. Maybe an outside observer would assume that our civilization ended sometime in 2010.

I'm half expecting to see "AI model" appearing as stand-in for "linear regression" at this point in the cycle.

Wait, does that mean that you could make an ASCII representation of a QR code that points to the URL that the QR code was made of?

How shocking!

Shouldn't 523 in that list of "other numbers" actually be 522?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root for those who just want the info without AI filler

I wrote my first line of code in 1983. I was seven years old, typing BASIC into a machine that had less processing power than the chip in your washing machine

I think there may be a counterpoint hiding in plain sight here: back in 1983 the washing machine didn't have a chip in it. Now there are more low-level embedded CPUs and microcontrollers to develop for than before, but maybe it's all the same now. Unfathomable levels of abstraction, uniformly applied by language models?

The opposite of down is up, so it wouldn't be completely illogical.

Indeed, 15 or 25 mph (24 or 40 km/h) are the speed limits in school zones (when in effect) in CA, for reference. But depending on the general movement and density and category of pedestrians around the road it could be practically reckless to drive that fast (or slow).

It does sound like a good outcome for automation. Though I suppose an investigation into the matter would arguably have to look at whether a competent human driver would be driving at 17mph (27km/h) under those circumstances to begin with, rather than just comparing the relative reaction speeds, taking the hazardous situation for granted.

What I would like to see is a full-scale vehicle simulator where humans are tested against virtual scenarios that faithfully recreate autonomous driving accidents to see how "most people" would have acted in the minutes leading up to the event as well as the accident itself

Indeed, then this design will truly have come full circle.

I remember the pitch for Julia early on being matlab-like syntax, C-like performance. When I've heard Julia mentioned more recently, the main feature that gets highlighted is multiple-dispatch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc9HwsxE1OY

I think it seems pretty interesting.

Even with text, parsing content in 2D seems to be a challenge for every LLM I have interacted with. Try getting a chatbot to make an ascii-art circle with a specific radius and you'll see what I mean.

I think the selfishness here is related to being fine with generating a pile of electronic waste that becomes a problem for everyone else, as long as he can avoid carrying a few ounces extra.

It's hard to recycle electronics, because separating materials that are chemically bonded together is very labor intensive and isn't worth it from the price of aluminum, copper, lithium, etc alone.

It would have to cost more to dispose of a laptop for this to work out financially.

In 15 years: Testing shows that automotive shaped charge glassbreakers can't penetrate the armor on most modern automotive glass.

Was drone-proofing civilian cars a mistake?

I wish there was an active dev community that could patch win10 going forward, but without access to source code for the kernel, perhaps that isn't really viable.

Ideally I would want to use Linux but I also want to play games that are only supported on windows.

Does using WSL help or is an outdated windows base still going to be the weakest link in the security onion?

It's an interesting read. I guess the difference between this situation and the ideal case is that he would have been admitted for observation as a precaution in a world where there was plenty of room and staff to take care of even the less obvious emergency cases.

Even in a very well functioning system similar cases might happen eventually, anyway (but at a much lower frequency). ROC plots come to mind.

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

I wonder what the prognosis was right after the operation. The article makes it sound a bit like this outcome was totally unexpected.

Insulin from pigs can be used by humans, right? But maybe there's more to diabetes than just a new pancreas. Interesting development, in any case. Thanks for sharing.

I wonder where platforms like slack would land in all of this, and how would they go about akeeping people from just using their own encryption e.g. pgp over unencrypted channels? Is public key cryptography too weak to matter?

It depends on how intelligence is defined. In the traditional AI sense it is usually "doing things that, when done by people, would be thought of as requiring intelligence". So you get things like planning, forecasting, interpreting texts falling into "AI" even though you might be using a combinatorial solver for one, curve fitting for the other and training a language model for the third. People say that this muddies the definition of AI, but it doesn't really need to be the case.

Sentience as in having some form of self-awareness, identity, personal goals, rankings of future outcomes and current states, a sense that things have "meaning" isn't part of the definition. Some argue that this lack of experience about what something feels like (I think this might be termed "qualia" but I'm not sure) is why artificial intelligence shouldn't be considered intelligence at all.

If you look at timescales large enough you will find that plenty of extinction level events actually do happen (the anthropocene is right here).

We are living in a historically excepcional time of geological, environmental, ecological stability. I think that saying that nothing ever happens is like standing downrange to a stream of projectiles and counting all the near misses as evidence for your future safety. It's a bold call to inaction.

I think that makes sense and I can tell that you understand the distinction. Formally I believe they're different concepts and think it may cause confusion in some cases to use them interchangeably.

The chaotic nature of a system is one thing.

Our lack of knowledge of the governing laws, initial conditions, feasibility of simulation forcing us to use the mathematical tools of probability (i.e. randomness) to describe our uncertainty about said system is another thing.

The reason why it matters is that a statement like "a double inverted pendulum behaves randomly" is just wrong as it would imply that you couldn't even do a simulation of one in theory without throwing some dice.

However, it is totally uncontroversial that if someone gave you a measured initial position and velocity of one with 'really good' precision and asked you to predict its state 5 seconds forward you would likely have a big smeared-out probability density function to deal with.

I just did a mental substitution for the word "stochastic" and moved on, since it wasn't the main point of the article. But you are correct. Computing the future states of a chaotic system, given the same initial conditions, will produce the same results every time but change the initial conditions ever so slightly and you have no guarante where you will end up next (unless you picked a state from a previous simulation, that is... But that's cheating;) )

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2023/08/12/fibonacci-lattice/

If you want a spiral that covers the sphere with evenly spaced samples, consider this approach.

It has been suggested [citation needed] that the optical illusions of movement caused by gradients are there to to compensate for the time it takes to process the visual input. This should let you have an understanding of what is going on in the world around you right now, based on what happened on your retinas a few milliseconds ago.

it's not a bug - it's a feature :D

Sometimes I like to imagine early people inventing, forgetting about and inventing the wheel again.

Thanks for sharing. I don't see why there is an atomic add in the kernel there. It doesn't look like two separate threads should be able to modify the same pixel, based on the block/thread indices?