579 karma · joined February 28, 2019
Then people could decide which ones to use based on the label alone. This would be an incentive for people to fix their libraries.
Then the process of normal attrition would take care of all the sloppy libraries.
Evolution at its finest.
That would fly in the face of conventional thinking which is that Canada will be temperate and the Sahara will be more arid.
I imagine the reason Newton’s laws never developed before was because of all the influential know-it-alls who took empirical data (moving objects stop! Gaseous balloons rise!) and drew the wrong conclusions from it (gases want to rise up to be with all the other gases…solids want to be at rest.)
It took Newton to do a thought experiment of a projectile moving in outer space to deduce his laws of motion.
The fact is that newtons laws aren’t really observable on earth, unless you have the imagination to see it and do the mental bookkeeping of accounting for friction as a separate force.
Having dead decaying logs on the forest floor probably helps because fungi are naturally fire resistant.
If the migration path passed by a mountain that looked like a sleeping man, then it was natural to conjure up a myth about a giant (perhaps while you camped nearby) and tell it to the kids. If it helped them remember the place then so much the better.
These myths were more like an error correcting code. It meant that it would be transmitted and not forgotten for hundreds of generations. The details didn’t have to be true, they just had to be memorable.
Myths about the planets would have been a great way to make sure future generations took this hard won knowledge seriously.
The ancient Greeks knew about epicycles…if you look at some Greek dances the entire family makes a large circle and steps to the right but occasionally takes a step left. Just like an epicycle. I think this was a cultural expression of some piece of knowledge they valued.
Unsigned: should produce a zero
Signed: should sign extend the leftmost bit, so it will either be 0 or -1
Shifting left should result in a 0.
Digital modes are active, as is 6m (50MHz) in the mornings.
I hope they don’t plan to use the ham bands. They are jammed with traffic while the much bigger commercial shortwave bands next door are empty!
If they do allocate spectrum for fixed commercial use, I hope they allocate equally spaced bands (like hams use) so that you can send digital signals and not have to filter out the harmonics.
Once you admit superscalar execution (multiple loadstore pipes), out of order execution and caches into the picture ( as well as the possibility of almost sorted arrays as input) the picture is never as simple.
That said, I’m curious whether insertion sort is categorically better than bubble sort. I thought they might have been equivalent for the almost sorted case. I’ve heard both sides argued on this thread.
In the 1990s Cisco and the ISPs were the biggest internet companies, then it quickly moved to yahoo and google, then mere websites (Facebook, Twitter etc).
Methinks apple and Microsoft just bullied Adobe and kept them down.
“AI will destroy humanity!”
“AI is a blathering idiot!”
No proper reasons.
Many old high efficiency engine designs were discarded because they had poor torque characteristics at the bottom end of their speed range. This is because they were coupled directly to the load through gears. That does not have to be a requirement any more.
Was it released into some Appalachian watershed by Oak Ridge and is therefore in the rivers/groundwater?
Imagine if they put the transmitter right at the base of the antenna. Then you would not need all that coax. You might need impedance matching to make the antenna resonant but that’s all and it could be done continuously.
“They’re bringing pollution, they’re bringing Extinction, and some of the I assume might actually enhance the ecosystems they inhabit.”
It’s not such a hard skill. When we see a complex ecosystem is our first instinct to make it better or to exploit and degrade it? Do we even have a metric for what making it better actually means?
Do we even have a way to debate it? Because the whole debate oscillates between destroy(“jobs”) and the minimum (“we need it to survive.”) nobody has the heart actually suggest it might be worth sacrificing anything for just to make it better.
We need more than a utilitarian reason, we should feel pleasure in making nature better the same way we feel pleasure at seeing a well designed race cad like a Ferrari.
Actually over-production since a lot of food is wasted before consumption.