Contributing to something which could be used by the military is different to contributing to something which will be used by the military specifically.
393 karma · joined August 11, 2017
(I have no evidence that they are not releasing newer cards just to continue to sell the older stock at MSRP).
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/the-u...
Is this article a satire?
Edit: Plus, the TR4 socket is guaranteed to be supported for 4 years, per AMD's roadmap at https://community.amd.com/thread/226363
The total outlay for a 1.5M Bird trip is a buck 90, and you can use one if you've ever ridden a push scooter or bicycle as a child.
In fact, here's an edit which gets his point over in less words, and more clearly:
"Honestly, this looks questionable to me. [U]sing a union to do type punning is the traditional AND STANDARD way to do type punning in gcc. In fact, it is the documented way to do it for gcc. The fact is that gcc documents type punning through unions as the "right way". You may disagree with that, but using the [C] standard to push it - the same standard that came up with the completely mis-guided aliasing rules - is not a valid argument. his is why we use -fwrapv, -fno-strict-aliasing etc. The standard simply is not important, when it is in direct conflict with reality and reliable code generation.
So what's the _real_ reason for avoiding union aliasing?"
No swearing, no abuse, all points covered, less typing required. No talk of splinters.
I've yet to see an incident so far where a human driver, properly engaged with the driving experience and road conditions as they should be when in charge of a vehicle, couldn't have taken action and prevented the accident. There were 7 seconds between the beginning of the maneuver and impact; Human reaction time (including taking action) is typically 0.5 seconds. That leaves 6.5 seconds to correct steering or apply the brake, bearing in mind that Autopilot will always relinquish control in either situation.
Not apologising for Tesla, they need to sort out this edge case, but that's exactly what it was and exactly why the driver is supposed to remain engaged.
Tesla did make a mistake calling it Autopilot, but only because regular folk don't understand that aircraft autopilot is literally a heading, altitude, and speed, and will not make any correction for fault. Aircraft autopilot will fly you straight into a mountain if one happens to be in the way.
In all seriousness, I'm just interested in how much is being obscured when folk like Cox do a TV show, obviously written for those interested but not involved like myself. I've no idea what anything in your paragraph meant past the word "In" (yes, the first word), but I can definitely picture a loop, and get that there is a something which is transmitted / moves / traded / otherwise-not-at-its-origin within that loop, and trying to understand what that something is will leave me drooling into the carpet.
Still, I'm glad I asked. Thanks!
Your phone beeps and buzzes, you pick it up. The home screen shows "Email notification" because you're privacy conscious and don't show details on the lock screen, so you unlock it and enter your email app. It's marketing crap, so you close the app, but notice a Facebook notification, so you check that. And now you're on Facebook and off task.
Your watch buzzes, you look at it. It says "Gmail" because you're privacy conscious and you don't show the details on the notifications. You press the screen and see that it's spam. You dismiss the notification and the phone returns to showing you the time. You return to work.
Your watch buzzes, you look at it. It says "Gmail" because you're privacy conscious and you don't show the details on the notifications. You press the screen and see that it is from your solicitor saying some documents are ready to pick up. You hit Reply, press the microphone button, and dictate that you'll come over tomorrow after 4pm. You don't even notice there's a Facebook notification on your phone.
Why are the words "loop" and "lend" in quotation marks? Are they just a handy visual a lay person would understand to describe a more complicated phenomenon? Is there no better word to describe what is happening, including within your field, but it isn't a technically accurate description?
I'm envisioning a room full of highly educated folk excitedly talking over each other... "Well it looks like a ring, but it doesn't quite meet up..." "It looks like a disc, but with more 'weight' to it..." "No, it looks like a loop-the-loop on a roller coaster!"
The Marshmallow Test is something the lay person can understand, and comes with a great real-world demonstration, accurate or not. Other measures require more field-specific knowledge or statistics education to understand.
(I'm agreeing with you, just stating the point more obviously).
Bikes are a different scenario. If you skid in a car and have your wits about you, you can release the breaks, steer into the direction of travel, and regain control. If you skid on a bike, best case is you "low side" (http://www.360stopni.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rossi-lo...) and follow the bike on its direction of travel along the floor into whatever is in your path. Or you "high side" (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jU-iu7-TAY/hqdefault.jpg) and flip over the bike, hit the floor in front of it (relatively), and the bike follows you into whatever is in your path, and likely hits you when you come to a stop against whatever blocks your path.
As such, bike ABS errs on the side of caution and is much less aggressive than the four-wheel counterpart. Remaining upright and stopping more slowly is a lot safer than risking an off and letting physics, and roadside furniture, decide your fate.
$20 is cheap.