scheme271

It's hard to get more ECC guaranteed than the mobo manufacturer having ECC ram on their QVL (qualified vendor list) for the motherboard and indicating that ECC is supported in the specs. I suppose you can just get a complete workstation with ECC from HP or DELL and that'll be guaranteed to work but you'll certainly pay a hefty premium for that.

Plastic cases might actually be a bit better than steel depending on the radiation type. Neutron radiation is more effectively shielded by interacting with light atoms so stuff with lots of hydrogen atoms like water or polymers have a better chance of interacting with neutrons and slowing it down so that it can be stopped. Steel is probably better for gamma radiation or charged particles like muons.

But overall, pc cases are probably too thin to appreciably affect the radiation levels. Cosmic rays and their secondary radiation is fine with going through buildings so a 1mm thick case isn't going to do much.

Laptops are pretty much unavailable with ECC especially with soldered memory becoming common. On the desktop side, there's multiple motherboards that explicitly note that they support ECC memory. AsRock and Asus both include ECC memory on their QVL lists. I'm not sure how many ITX boards support ECC though so getting it on something that's not a tower might be tough.

But it's definitely possible, I have an ECC setup on my desktop and it's caught a memory error or two over the last few years.

It's preferred but not having it still works if you're willing to leave some potential avenues for errors to get in. However, it's not like not having ECC is a recipe for a corrupted FS.

AMD has historically supported ECC on all it's chips. That's changed in the last gen or two where some of the lower end APUs don't support ECC but the Pro APUs do and all the ryzen stuff (5, 7, 9) support ECC if you get a motherboard that supports it.

It also varies depending on where in a time zone you are. The eastern and western sides of a timezone could see sunrise and sunset at significantly different times.

I think that glass flowing thing is a myth. The manufacturing method back then resulted in uneven panes and they were installed with the thicker side at the bottom.

At upper undergrad and grad levels, it probably would have improved a lot. The issue is that a lot of the why requires quantum mechanics to really explain and even that becomes intractable extremely quickly. Like you can probably do the analytic solutions for hydrogen atoms and electrons but once you get to helium or past that, you basically need to use a computer to do numeric calculations and even there, you are very quickly using approximations instead of solving the quantum equations directly.

I don't think that's actually the case. If you get an tax attorney to document your treatment and indicate that they believe it's legal (e.g. a tax opinion letter), then you're off the hook for penalties and criminal liability (assuming the tax attorney did everything properly). You still have to pay the difference though.

An accountant may not save you from financial penalties but I believe that they are liable for them so you can recover it from their insurance.

I think consumers do care when they have to throw away a device or pay for a repair because the battery health has significantly degraded. This is really similar to the argument against having a standardized charging port or requiring usb-c charge ports for cellphones.

Another issue is that a lot of those office buildings use post tensioned cables in the concrete slabs so making a hole needs to be done very carefully to avoid the cables. Not only do the cables provide a lot of structural support but breaking a cable is like cutting a stretched rubber band except with steel cables and with literally tons of force stretching the cables.

Given the prices and shortages, I'd think people would keep and use the current gen stuff till it drops dead. It may not be as good but it's paid for and given the prices for next gen stuff, it's probably worth using for another cycle or two.

Mostly but there are a few differences and that causes some friction

Doesn't quadlet fix some or all of those problems? It's supposed to allow you to convert podman containers to systemd unit files automatically

It's been in the planning stages for at least 5-8 years at this point. The instruments and upgrades have been tested and validated so it's just putting stuff together and then validating/calibrating. Stuff can still happen like the splice issue and repairs.

There's at least 3 copies of all the data and possibly more spread around the world at different Tier1 and Tier2 centers. The T1 and T2 centers are very likely using different filesystems and everything is checksummed pretty much at every major step (data generation, before and after any network transfers, before analysis, etc).

A scissor lift or some other thing seems a lot simpler than trying to allow for a bipedal robot to knee to reach things close to the ground. Or if legs are the best option, why not a quadruped? Much more stability with a lot of the same advantages.

Stair climbing systems that work using wheels exist. Google stair climbing wheelchairs for a few examples.

Sure, but I'm not sure humanoid robots is the best form factor for this. E.g. something with a wheeled base makes movement calculations a lot easier since you don't need to deal with balance while moving.

In this case, the perjury may apply. It seems unlikely that the person that complained is acting on behalf of whoever owns the rights to a 25 year old article.

The difference is that in the code situation, you can run unit tests on the code, compile it, etc. Unless your LLMs are ordering diagnostics and reviewing the results, there is no further information that the LLMs have on the situation. Having a second LLM review the first is counterproductive, if the 2nd LLM is better, why not use it directly? If not, then what prevents it from sending the first on some incorrect tangent?

There might be "one true diagnosis" but there's no reason to believe that we'll have practical diagnostic tools to get it. If we need to sample the brain chemistry to diagnose a neurochemical disorder, it's probably not too useful in a clinical setting. The world makes no guarantees that we will be able to differentiate between certain situations with tools that we can realistically access and build.

There's quite a few diseases and conditions that don't have definitive tests. For example, alzheimer's and parkinsons are diagnosed based on medical history and symptoms. With alzheimer's an autopsy can tell for sure but that's not much help for a patient. I'm sure there's other things out there with similar situations. Hard to come up with "the one true" diagnosis with an definitive way to determine it.

The problem is that the diagnosis might not be known for a while. There's a few conditions and diseases that require an autopsy for a guaranteed diagnosis and therefore are diagnosis based on symptoms in clinical settings.

I'm not sure how anyone can take that assertion in good faith. It's like saying that you want to bomb a country back to the stone age and then saying that you didn't realize that it meant attacking civilian infrastructure.

The problem is how do you know whether the answer is just the most persuasive or actually the most accurate one? It's hard to figure this out without domain knowledge.

I'm pretty sure that the reputational harms of using nuclear weapons on a country of 70M is going to be pretty severe. Surely you understand how starting a war with a country without sufficient cause and then using nuclear weapons on them might result in significant and very long lasting consequences?

Andrew Jackson was around 150+ years ago. Nixon was fairly competent diplomatically even if he was horrible domestically. Trump is a whole different breed that seems to switch his actions based on whim and who he spoke with last.

Mochizuki and a group of mathematicians still claim that Stix and Scholze didn't actually identify a flaw and his proof was published in a journal (where Mochizuki is the chief editor and the reviewers were people from Mochizuki's instituion). I think most of the math community don't believe his proof although Mochizuki and some others claim it's valid.

Or alterntively, that it's a relatively modern addition to add to it's mystique for tourism purposes. When did SPQR get added to the manhole covers and does anything else in Rome use similar signage?