ej3

Is there any advantage to doing it this way over just using a compute module?

The only thing that peaks my interest is the "LGA-style" connector for the raspi. Does anyone have photos of this or the part number?

Why chiplets? Can anyone explain to me why I'd want chiplets as opposed to a processor embedded in a Field Programmable Gate Array? Seems like development would be infinitely cheaper and the possibilities far more dynamic? Chiplets seem slow and expensive to develop. Once built they'd be completely static and probably necessarily replaced by the subsequent version in 3-5 years.

Sample size 1, but I've got a kid. I've got an ipad. I put the two together in with supervision, and what I've got now is a 4 year old that reads the walls in the bathroom stall while she's pooping.

I don't know if this is "better" or what you had in mind as "gains", but it's certainly entertaining for me!

In my youth, I was familiar with the facility that came before NIF, built in the 70's the goal at the time was to use a smaller target to demonstrate that the foundational principles that would underpin the success of NIF would work. As far as I know, they never succeeded. NIF was built anyway because this type of device is well suited to allowing access to certain types or demonstrations of physics that are otherwise unaccessible and important in a specific field of research not directly related to the flourishing of our race.

The article is old news before it was written. The article mentions the previous 'success' (yield was higher than previous experiments), and that was over a year ago now. They haven't been able to reproduce the previous experiment even knowing as precisely as they can what they perceive to be the preconditions necessary for an effective reaction. It also seems that this article was written about a single experiment. They will not be able to intentionally repeat the experiment. The manner in which they're exploring the pareto front is like groping in the dark to find a light switch that has an unknown texture and conformation. It's a classic monte-carlo simulation but they have one iteration every several weeks or months, and they cannot even possibly identify all the controlling parameters, nor do they have the necessary throughput or bandwidth to succeed in their pursuit without windfall.

The low hanging fruit providing the basic harmonics of the solution were discovered well before I was even introduced to this technology (in the 70's and 80's. Coincidentally around the moment of the genesis of many of our modern treaties on weapons testing).

You are overly optimistic, a 40-60% increase in nearly nothing is still nearly nothing. The PR campaign around this event is I think more significant in its political convenience, and in white washing the purpose of the facility. There are significant discoveries that still need to be made to even make the reactions consistent, and they will not come conveniently or quickly. Once the reactions are better understood and the mechanisms can be manipulated with intent the distance between the science and a practical industry / commercial product will require even more hurdles that stretch the imagination to be overcome. For instance I cannot conceive of a practical mechanism for actually utilizing any fraction of the massive amount of energy released in a fraction of a second in a chaotic murder of wavelengths and particles. The most practical way we've yet discovered for converting neutrons to electricity is through boiling water. Grossly inefficient in other contexts, I'm not sure that has even marginal utility in this scope.

I for one am 100% sure I barely know what I'm talking about. My disclaimer is that I'm not a physics guy, and high energy density physics was only a hobby of mine at one brief point in my life. Through perspicacity and access to papers and people, this is my honest mental model of the whole thing. You're welcome to your perspective, but although you seem well informed you sound very inexperienced.

My father worked for what was basically a bootstrapped startup at the bleeding edge of computing in the late 80's. Eventually his company, through a series of exchanges was part of Nortel Networks.

He'll tell you a different story. When you mention the "espionage / sabotage" he doesn't laugh or shake his head, it actually just outright infuriates him. Such a naive narrative only angers him because it seems to absolve the people who managed the company of outright incompetence and corruption, which is how it should be remembered.

For example: one story I vividly recall because I could never fully fathom it involved a specific female executive who was traveling for business - first class overseas. She never made her intended engagement because she was immediately arrested upon disembarking the plane. She had got drunk and (although married) decided to perform overt sexual acts with the gentleman sitting adjacent to her. On the plane. In her seat.[1]

At some point the culture of the executive at Nortel, for whatever reason, became completely incompetent and outright immoral. Rather than Huawei underhandedly perpetrating the perfect crime, it was simply the people at the head of the organization that solicited the crime to pursue their own benefit above all else.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2000/04/06/former_nortel_exec_fi...

CO2 may momentarily be one of a convoluted set of factors that contribute to the dominant harmonic component of the system with the output "global temperatures", but it is not in and of itself stable in it's relation to the output of the system. Clearly due to the afore mentioned "convoluted set of factors" having their own internal period/fluctuations/harmonics of convolution.

CO2 will rise, but it will eventually necessary uncouple from it's relationship to temperature at which point some other factor we are wholy unaware of will probably do something as equally disturbing to our environmental "equilibrium".

If you transform the system in respect to time, you'll find that from some perspective almost nothing ever happened, and from another the whole thing was wildly unstable and unpredictable.

It already doesn't matter what CO2 levels are doing now. Up and to the right and how hard is probably completely irrelevant. What matters is the flux of the system, and everything points to the fact that weve already left the station. There's no unwinding this thing, and it's not going where anyone thinks it's going.

The truly conservative thing to be doing would be to prepare ourselves for the most violent future, but instead what we're trying to do is grip onto the past with our already dying hand. Weakening our heart at the very moment we need to bolster it.

Everything is going to be fine, but you and I will be dead. I assure you of that.

You're implicit assumption is that the system's response to ever increasing CO2 is indefinitely linear and proportional?

If you believe that I've got some beans you can buy.

This equilibrium you're chasing is much more transient than you'd like to think. Especially in the face of more and more accurate/precise observations.

I'd also like to add that how easy an egg is to peel has nothing to do with how you cook it. Truly fresh eggs will not peel wonderfully. If you have some week old Kroger eggs, more than likely those things are several weeks old which changes the chemical composition of the egg. The shell/skin becomes more alkaline which somehow causes them to release from the white more easily.

If you have fresh eggs, boil them with some baking soda in the water.

For hard boiled just put cold eggs in cold water and boil them. When it boils, shut off the heat. When you can stick you hand in the water and pull them out they're done.

On that note (interestingly and anecdotally) many of these dams are inundated with ash and sediment that should have flushed downstream from Mt St Helens!

The impact of these dams is just incomprehensible.

I don't always express myself clearly, but I meant that in a more holistic sense. If you were to construct a Venn diagram of remove vs stay in the case of many of the dams in the Columbia river basin, it's hard to objectively weigh the costs and benefits without a perspective. Within that perspective is an implicit number of assumptions that fashion a bias.

The problem is the Columbia is immensely powerful, and as such it's impact on our society or environment with or without the dam create such a incomprehensible web of dependencies that it predicting the outcome would be akin to seeing the future. You can't.

The Elwha is an amazing story, but that dam was in disuse long before it was dismantled. The case for removing it was one-sided.

Thanks for that. I hate to nit pick, but the issues surrounding the dams in the Columbia river basin are so complex and frustrating.. I honestly don't even know who or what is right at any given moment. I've torched friendships debating culling - not even sure I was right or they were. It's just horrible. Everything about it.

The dams are hugely beneficial to society. The produce energy and expedite inland commerce, and that makes us all better off. At the same time everything comes at a cost, and the costs are easily just as catastrophic.

I've seen rivers three times the size of the Columbia that have no dams. They are like the arteries of the Earth. They wend and breathe through existence itself. Heave and fall feet in hours. To see this, to be near it is to feel everything upstream. It's like looking into the night sky, but instead of making you feel small it connects you.

The Columbia is dead. I get itchy about it because we've lost that and no one even knows anymore. We long ago muted a voice that used to sing to us, but people will only consider the loss in economic terms - salmon fisheries. We can't even talk about things like humans anymore.

As the salmon fisherman will tell you...

This is objectively false. Salmon populations are more often than not considered in decline. The fish haven't "figured it out". They marginally persist solely due to intensive management that plainly consists of atrocities for species less popular in the media [0][1], millions spent on fish ladder theatre, and hatcheries.

The dominant mechanism in support of the fisheries being hatcheries that are basically a strangely laundered welfare program for indigenous, sport and professional fishermen each to their licensed proportion.

If you live in the Dalles, and you don't know the Columbia basin damns are an ecological nightmare.. it's unconscionable.

Not to mention the displacement of indigenous peoples from important traditional regions, the complete loss of stochastic annual flows feeding nutrient cycles in the river... etc etc.

Im no eco-activist. I don't necessarily think removing the dams would improve anything for anyone at this point, but if we're going to advocate for doing things a better way in the future - let's be honest: dams are horrible. The dams on the Columbia will eventually result in no salmon, no matter how hard we try. It's inhospitable. They used to run all the way up the snake into Idaho. Into IDAHO. Never again.

It's ok to advocate for energy, and the things you believe in, but let's not be belligerent about it - be honest.

In the Astoria maritime museum (several years ago now) I remember reading a passage that was proud of "..taming the wild Columbia, and turning it into a beautiful series of lakes and streams to wonderfully facilitate shipping and recreation.."

Some hutzpah, to think we know what we're doing.

[0] https://www.audubon.org/news/the-corps-cormorants-and-cull [1] https://www.marinemammalcenter.org/news/response-to-columbia...

The IRS knows what you owe and could just tell you if they wanted to.

I must admit I've always sort of blindly believed the same thing, but here I am year after year accumulating and submitting my own absurd set of turbo-tax button smashes.

Honestly I have trouble figuring out how much I owe myself. I would believe that they have some core set of data linked to my SSN, and every time I submit they run some sort of markov-chain statistical model that says - "meh, looks pretty close. No need for further review. Please pay the refund to the latest identity scam." or "red flag for actual review".

100% chance the IRS is understaffed, running legacy spaghetti, managed by folks just trying not to be the next scape-goat so they can go home to their family and watch the next episode of what everyone at work is talking about.

Hilarious that you responded to a post that was about design wasting user time with a _video_ that takes 2.5 minutes to say, "...well, it doesn't necessarily waste that much time. It charges quickly."

do you really think it's likely that they can avoid short term discontinuities in this context? Maybe we should be looking farther ahead?

I'm not sure I completely understand your comment, but I think hierarchy is a structure that is useful for a society when the exchange of information is naturally constricted. Accreditation, status and authority are strong signals in a setting with limited bandwidth, but when communication becomes more robust.. it's more attainable to construct a heuristic to find utility unique to a specific instance or situation. Aspects of what I think represents the best cancer Dr may not jive with what you think the best cancer Dr is (locality? alternative medicine? cost vs probable outcome?)

Hierarchies are still important, but now they're just training wheels in many instances.

Honestly I've always shared a perspective much like this until yesterday someone mentioned that through the stimulus (I'm not sure of the figures, but what I roughly recall is) each citizen gets $1200 they're then taxed on, and companies get the balance as an interest free loan. If the balance of the stimulus had been simply evenly distributed to individuals, everyone would have received nearly $10,000.

I can't imagine what would happen if you gave every citizen 10k. I would think there would likely be something akin to a revolution that may or may not result in a more robust economy. What the gov't is doing by giving so much money to existing companies that have already failed vs individuals with the possibility of failing is very much protecting the existing social structure of society.

Corporations like these are a hierarchy that generate implicit social striations in our society. By maintaining this regardless of the fundamental success of the product or competence of the management, they act only to preserve the class structure enforced by the institution and thus the stability of society in a configuration with marginal utility as regards productivity.

They're clearly ensuring their own future.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure this is interesting. The media seems overly concerned with 'COVID-19' specifically and I'm sure the backers of this project like to see relevant keywords, but I think in terms of an outbreak it would be more useful to consider specifically how this has immediately contributed to deviance from normal.

"... we've found 19 cases of covid-19 in [insert place]", or "35 deaths from coronavirus" deprived of context has nearly no utility.

I'm not sure I need a tinfoil hat at this point to imply that the people who are supposed to mitigate the effects of this pandemic have no objective quantification of how pervasive the spread of this disease is already.

I'd be willing to wager that if there was a good enough historic and near enough to realtime dataset of individuals entering the ER with pneumonia, and this disease is actually atypical for the season: that the ramp actually started more than a month ago in some regions.

Although I do wonder if the necessity of some pre-existing condition to perpetuate the development of the disease might present some type of choke in the significance of the anomalous nature of the thing..

Anyone know of any dataset like this? It would be really interesting to consider.

I was working with Target when they did this roll-out. As sinister as everyone here seems to make it sound, I can assure you at that time it was not. If you're familiar with the inception of corporate projects, this project was no exception to any of the stereotypical fumbles and foibles of any effort of this scale.

It began simply because Apple said "...iBEACON.." and everyone corporate wanted the new buzzword in their portfolio to let people know how hot/hip/tech they were (toys -r- us considered it for awhile) so they could pull the kids away from the internet and back into brick-and-mortar. How can we use these? What are they good for? No one really cared, they just wanted them in the store and we were there to sell them that (at a premium).

In 2015 - indoor location was bogus. Everyone in this forum seems confident that there are multiple ways you can determine location with Wifi (round trip packet time) or bluetooth (RSSI). A cacophony of radio in a catastrophically noisy environment does not work to provide reliable location information.

In fact - it was so bad, that there were a handful of other equally unrealistic solutions being pedaled by everyone from universities to light-bulb manufacturers. One such solution was to profile the accessible space of a building using a phone's compass, and then use the observations from a client device compass to identify how generated patterns correlated to the profile for the building.

The torrent of data you see pouring from your phone to the service via wireshark is real-time sensor data that is being used to feed a service side bayesian / markov-chain / monte carlo / kalman-particle filter / keyword soup monstrosity trying to generate some possible marginal confidence in a probable location. We found that this system was most effective in turning your phone into a pocket warmer, but sold like hot-cakes in a B2B setting wherein the intended end user had absolutely no voice.

Corporate wanted to buy it so they could sell advert-space (pop-up coupons) to affiliates. So we sold them something that worked barely well enough to provide a one-popup demo to potential interested parties. The affiliates bought the magic, corporate paid our company an arbitrarily large quantity of dollars for the service.

A deployment of thousands of coin-cell driven beacons per store, placed within reach of bored youths, maintained by an underpaid associate staff is of only questionable utility.

On a scale of things to worry about, ranging from nuclear holocaust to e. coli in your produce - this ranks a solid -3. In fact, in the 4 years since I've worked in this field I think the only advancement that has been made is that it's harder for third parties to sell because no one can do it well, so why not just do it in-house? It's cheaper and has the same garbage result.

If you think I'm wrong - go do it yourself. All these signals are easily grep-ed within any store (there's no way to make it proprietary), and you can create your own model and out-sell the proprietor. Surprise me. With an actual, viable client-oriented product (and assuming users actually want reliable indoor location) you'll make bundles selling it to the valley. Everyone is trying to do it (even cisco tried for awhile) - no one has.

Michael Kwet has read all the marketing copy, and rewritten it for popular consumption as a product. The insight/value provided by these systems is far more sparse than implied.

Streaming with a custom built NGINX instance? This person is one of maybe 3 in the world that can actually make this work. This blog post is representative of years of life obiterated in nonsensical DSL syntax / grammer mistakes.

Buyer beware. Seriously, don't do this to yourself. I read this because streaming is an enigma to me, but this post is suicide.

If you want something this fragile for yourself, just pay this guy to do it for you.

Why is this the top post on hacker news? What does this have to do with anything other than anecdotal, hysterical media BS?

I've always been mystified by the modern definition of the word 'nature'. The word itself seems to describe a category without definite bounds. No uniform definition of the word seems capable of capturing all the outlying possibilities that the word seems to embody, yet used in context we all seem to be able to agree well enough on how it should be used. When I discovered C.S. Lewis had composed an extensive essay on the Etymology of nature (or kind) in a collection called "Studies in words" - I had to read it. I've read it several times since. It's absolutely fascinating.

In one vein, nature in it's modern form can simply be rationalized simply as 'uncontrived'. In this respect the article is certainly insightful in that even contrived systems can have emergent properties that cannot be contrived, that must be something other than 'man made'. However nature has always had a noble connotation, and emergent complications that are inarguably [poorly controlled / anticipated / understood] that only stand to ultimately reenforce the futility of our ambition will ever be deemed noble.

Nature is saturated with self organized critical systems (much akin to traffic) but I don't know know that we can see ourselves as pebbles in an avalanche, to do so is unkindly.

see: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4884665

I came here to say this as well - Don't. This is of course my own opinion, and I can only promise this comment will get progressively more subjective the farther you read.

R's documentation is terse and unorganized. Anyone who says different is obviously someone with more experience with the language (which is not how it should be). When people complain about the documentation it's because they're trying to learn, and if the documentation isn't together learning is painful. Learning R is painful.

Next- Learning is painful, and the documentation is horrible because: the actual built in functions or extensions are a nightmare of arguments that [sometimes do/sometimes don't work]. If you plot x and you don't want the key to show up then set auto.key=FALSE, if you plot class(x) = [something else] and don't want the key to show up set colorkey=FALSE, if you want to layer plots: load this library and format your data to a new S3/S4 (object) type, add them together, then plot them (without the library you can't add these objects)... In case you didn't catch that: I wanted to layer the plots so I had to load a function that made the objects I wanted to plot add, not load a library that would change the plotting driver.

The community around R is disenchanted. If you get into the right place on the web and ask about a feature that doesn't exist: more often than not I've seen the typical guru response of the type "It doesn't work that way - that's a feature, not a problem." Change is bad, and in my experience generally discouraged.

Finally (and perhaps this really doesn't need to be said) the more I've been working with it - the more I feel like the reason it is so popular is because you can load it up read your data set, google some of the more central functions, and poof - get that set of characteristic statistical answers everyone needs to have in their [presentation/HW assignment]. If you look at the answers in this thread you get 2 types A) it's impossible to use, B) it does standard statistical analysis really easily. In my narrow world view it appeals to people who don't work with software a lot - professionals who need some automated numbers on the side without hiring someone to do it right.

That all said, I still do use R. You can do some nifty statistical analysis pretty easily and push it to a vector plot, pop it open with your favorite editor and post edit it super pretty (in a few days).