brandmeyer

At least one party in the conflict is generating enough interference on the ground to obstruct both GPS and GLONASS navigation in orbits passing over the region. Its loud enough to detect as soon as the region is visible (thousands of miles away). Source: we are operating a constellation of sophisticated GNSS receivers in LEO.

Hawkeye360 (a different operator of sophisticated RF instruments in LEO) detected GPS interference and geolocated it to Russian forces shortly before the invasion, but at this point it could easily be both parties.

They are extremely expensive in LCOE terms.

Their core life relies on highly enriched uranium. Production and delivery at commercial power scale is a weapons proliferation risk in addition to being more expensive.

Refueling a naval reactor is a multi-year operation that happens only a tiny handful of times in the life of the ship. Current-gen submarines don't get refueled at all. They can get away with this in large part because they aren't running at 100% power. They are shut down in port, and even at sea they only operate at low power most of the time.

To reduce LCOE, commercial power reactors run at full power all the time. Refueling a commercial power reactor takes a month or so and happens every 1.5 years.

Saturating arithmetic is probably not all that expensive, since its been in every ARM SIMD unit (and sometimes also scalar) for many years. You just pay a little bit in latency when using those instructions.

> You can race cx with a gravel bike and race gravel with a cx bike.

Sortof. The key defining difference is that a cyclocross bike meets the UCI rules for cyclocross, while a gravel bike doesn't. In a sense, the gravel bike trend is the result of consumers rejecting the UCI's definition of what an off-road-capable drop-bar bike should be.

> It's always funny with people having paid $10k extra to save a kilogram on their bike, and then show up on the Sunday group ride with a beer belly.

Ah, the smell of fresh gatekeeping in the morning. You don't know what road these people are on, just their current state. For all you know, they've already dropped dozens of pounds and are happy with their own improvements. Never look down on a fat person on a bike.

The round-bottom shape that sits under clip-on aero bars is very good.

https://cyclite.cc/en/products/handle-bar-aero-bag-01

https://torstenfrank.wordpress.com/2021/12/07/aerodynamik-vo...

Way more delayed than that. Once upon a time, they were planning on test flights in 2017. Then 2018. Then 2019. Then 2020. Etc.

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/boom-xb1-superson...

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/20/centennial-boom-supers...

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/paris-boom-xb-1-schedu...

Its not just interns. In a world where one job only lasts 2-4 years, we're all constantly onboarding and cross-training.

> It's not a conspiracy ... poerful [sic] supranational organizations.

Come on. You can't claim that something isn't a conspiracy and then invoke world-government conspiracies in the same paragraph and expect to be taken seriously.

> so we can expect more dust from ... brake wear.

Nonsense. EVs and hybrids leverage regeneration for nearly all of their lifetime braking energy use. Its commonplace for EV brake pads to last the life of the vehicle today. Exceptions exist, but those are for particularly hard-braking drivers. Our Prius ran 200k miles on the factory brakes, for example.

> If you need UT1, these can only be obtained by observation from the International Earth Rotation Service, and required daily updates, and interpolation of values in between observations.

The GPS CNAV messages (on L2C and L5) have support for the Earth orientation parameters, but GPS isn't broadcast those messages yet. Maybe we'll get them with the OCX deployment. BeiDou 3 is transmitting the Earth orientation parameters now. So this one tiny bit of your headache will get easier in the near future as receivers start to forward these data along.

They just need one more to catch up with the time cube guy.

I have to disagree with the "roughly equivalent" statement. Its missing core functionality relative to PostGIS. For example, the Geography type and associated operators (which is functionally distinct from Geometry) is completely absent.

> A key example of this is the committee's struggle to converge on a clear set of high-level and long-term goals and priorities aligned with ours [https://wg21.link/p2137].

I was frankly shocked by that goals and priorities document. The non-goals section reads like an open declaration of war against anyone whose use cases for C++ differ from GOOG and NVDA. My interpretation of Carbon is that since GOOG failed to take over the standard in favor of its narrow use cases, that they are building a new language optimized specifically for them.

> I have no idea ... how open to non-Google ideas it will be.

The most-generous attitude to take is that it will be managed similarly to Go. If your use cases and priorities are well-aligned with theirs, then feel free to use it. But while they may listen to third-party feedback, it will be their own use cases and opinions which dominate the language's development.

I don't know which filters were used to generate these mediagenic images, but you can see the available filters here: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-camera/nircam...

Note that the "colors" used in that graphic are also false, since only F070W and F090W are in the human eyeball's passband.

Unfortunately, product quality after 150k miles of life doesn't tell you anything about what's coming off the line right now. Most of the company will have churned over in the intervening decade. The car which was built 10 years ago won't even be on the market right now. Even if the brand name is still the same (eg, long-lived pickup truck names like the F150), the vehicle itself will be completely different.

So you might be interested in mid-life or end-of-life quality, but you can't measure it early in the vehicle's life without an accelerated life test of some kind, and you can't measure it statistically without doing so on many vehicles. JD Power's initial quality survey is just that: A simple consumer survey of defects reported early in the vehicle's life. Hence the name: initial quality.

Is this under another namespace or something? std::array<T, Size> doesn't call malloc or free at all. Its entire reason for being is that it provides a fixed-sized type which models a RandomAccessContainer while being allocated inline to the parent object.

> Southern Nevada wholesale rate of $.37 / MWh [4].

Typo. That should be $37/MW-hr, not $0.37/MW-hr (article quotes $36.67 / MW-hr)

That's not my take-away from the chart, especially if you normalize by performance share. "Other" is the clear winner, and AMD has slightly more performance share than NVIDIA.

> And, as an aviator would probably tell you, in order to climb you should care more about the throttle (i.e. increase power) than about them elevators! So, in many cases there is absolutely no such dip.

An autopilot responds the same way, where an altitude error input affects the throttle control. (wincing... when implemented with classical SISO controls...).

This is one of the reasons for continuing to incrementally design and build new submarine and aircraft carrier reactors. If the expertise is to re-emerge in the US commercial sector, it may require another cross-pollination effort from the military.

The difficulty is that both military reactors and commercial power reactors have evolved considerably since their initial branch point. Commercial power reactors provide base load (run at full power) for a year or two and then get refueled. Military reactors now last the life of the ship without refueling at all, but are optimized for propulsion's variable demands.

The personal savings rate is well below pre-pandemic levels now.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

> I forget if they also step the supply side DC voltage up too…

They do, but they don't have to. The front-end rectifier boosts the voltage up to 400-450 VDC. This way, most of the components can be optimized for a single world-wide compatible machine that is capable of rectifying 230VAC.

In principle, you could squeeze out a bit of efficiency (or cost) by producing a North American market machine that was optimized for 120V and a separate machine optimized for 208/230V. In practice, supply chain simplification reduces overall per-unit costs, so just about everything is designed as a single machine for world-wide markets. Only the plugs change. For ATX, only the cord shipping in the box changes.

> I don't know whether we'd argue this DC->AC is harder/easier than an ATX supply (AC->DC) (probably not?) but this was quite an impressive competition, almost a decade ago, that resulted in probably some of the most power-dense, highest-efficiency power conversions that humanity has ever gotten up to.

The LBC was misshapen because they had an odd requirement: Be single-phase. A three-phase inverter (or rectifier) naturally has low DC ripple and is both more compact and more efficient than a single-phase inverter at all power levels. All of the winning solutions had extra energy storage elements which added inefficiency and bulk which a three-phase inverter would not have needed.

With that in mind, the LBC was a little silly. A three-phase machine at the same power level would have been much smaller than any of the "winning" designs.

A high-efficiency ATX power supply has additional requirements that the LBC didn't need to meet: Isolation. This implies the use of a transformer to protect the low-voltage DC side from the AC side. They typically accomplish this by rectifing AC, using a transformer-isolated unidirectionally optimized DC/DC supply to 12V, and then provide a handful of lower-power DC/DC converters to derive the other voltage levels used by ATX. A modern unisolated DC->AC machine is effectively symmetric in its power flow, and also functions as an AC->DC machine.

Same. The resolution of missile crisis itself is lauded as a policy victory only in contrast to and a result of presidential lessons learned in the disastrous bay of pigs invasion.

> all while compiling an unprecedented library of simulated black holes to compare with the observations

It also sounds like this is the combination of an image-generating model hypothesis as well as the raw data itself. Ie, this is the image that the model produces which best-fits the sparse interferometry data.

> all we ever do is steal features from other apps.

Strategically, this is called being a Fast Follower. One of GOOG's problems is that it acts in the market as a fast follower, but tells itself internally that its an groundbreaking innovator. Your reaction (which was also my reaction),

> Nothing I ever do here is exciting. Thought maybe working on app with over a billion users would be exciting...

is a form of corporate-wide cognitive dissonance between GOOG's propaganda and reality.

We did a road trip like this over spring break. Our last day included 700 miles of driving. Drive for 1.5-2 hours, charge for 12-15 minutes, driver swap, and go. It was easily the best road trip experience of my life. Looking back at the stupid exhausted crap I put myself through in my younger days I can only shake my head.

"That which the large print giveth, the fine print taketh away." In this case however, the charging time details haven't altered my user experience in any way. Real-world charging stops really are in the 12-15 minute range for us.

You may have meant this ironically/sarcastically, but it is entirely true. I'm a very happy owner of a fast-charging EV6. For longevity, slow overnight charging almost always just goes to 80%. I only need about 25% of the pack for my daily commute, and lithium battery degradation is dominated by time at high state-of-charge and temperature.

For road trips, the battery charges up to 80% capacity in about 18 minutes on a fast charger (with some caveats when its cold). Charging rate rapidly falls off with increasing state-of-charge, so you're almost always better off just hitting the road at that point. But since you don't actually discharge all the way down to zero, the fast charge cycle realistically only takes 12-15 minutes. The only times that I've taken it to 100% (125%!) were immediately prior to a road trip segment on the overnight slow charger, or for a quarterly balancing charge.

That's all with today's technology on a commercially available product. So this technology can only offer an incremental decrease in weight and/or increase in range.