metaphor

Fact: All software is constrained by hardware. Period.

What you describe as "no way" is a 2-second napkin sketch for any witting electronics hobbyist, let alone a proper design EE professional.

On top of all other typical expenses and obligations, that's effectively a respectable mortgage that most households in the US[1] likely wouldn't be able to afford. It's a pretty ridiculous financial burden to shoulder for anyone who isn't in roughly the top 10th-percentile income bracket.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...

> When you are telling people that "this is not milk", you are spreading this lobbying.

I neither object to your fallacious assertion, nor find personal shame in supporting its cause if the objective hammer countinues to drop hard on the class of uncritical marketing wank that you've just demonstrated.

> A counterexample...

Attention to detail: "([a-z]+) milk" != "\1milk"

> It must be because the code you linked only tells part of the story. I'm guessing...

The entirety of CFR is public domain, readily accessible, regularly maintained, and conveniently searchable at great expense to taxpayers. Care to explain why your speculative assertion isn't supported by proper citation?

> The oversupply caused by this bizarre fixation was noticed decades ago and a warning was published in the Federal Register in 1983:

> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1983-08-02/pdf/FR-198...

...starting on p. 13, for interested parties.

As nasty and convoluted as they often seem, your remark is a prime example of why I respect the regulations of my country.

> Food is labeled based on its culinary classification. Something can be culinarily milk without coming out of a teat.

The FDA[1] would certainly love to hear all about it.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=165f903bfaa729843a...

In the US, the legal description of "milk"[1] is not only regulated but well specified.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=165f903bfaa729843a...

To your question, I honestly don't think the WHO would base their definition of "free sugar" on anything with theological underpinnings outside the domain of sound science.

Extending the benefit of the doubt, I interpreted the statement as recommended maximum daily intake, which makes a lot more sense.

Interpret the term "sugar" to be "free sugar" as defined by the WHO[1] and things will make a lot more sense:

> “Free sugars include monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods and beverages by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates"

In other words, the natural sugar in apples technically wouldn't be applicable.

[1] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549...

In the US, by abiding by federal law which mandates reasonable accommodation; able rock climbers categorically need not apply.

It's worth noting that as a consequence of an impromptu 2018 university policy change, this same team forfeited preliminary event 2's $750k prize directly to the university last year that would have gone towards funding subsequent R&D efforts leading up to the final challenge, and, yet again, will almost certainly forfeit this $2M grand prize to the university[1].

[1] https://www.alligator.org/news/uf-engineering-team-wins-mill...

> Usually people can't work effectively toward goals that far in the future.

I certainly agree that the scale and longevity of some defense projects can be difficult to justify, let alone comprehend. However, a project that may not seem pragmatic from the outside doesn't make it unnecessary.

FYSA, from this FY18 report[1] under Programmatics - Static Structural and Durability Testing:

ACTIVITY: The program suspended testing of the F-35B ground test article (BH-1) after completing the second lifetime of testing in February 2017. Due to the significant amount of modifications and repairs to bulkheads and other structures, the program declared the F-35B ground test article no longer representative of the wing-carry-through structure in production aircraft, deemed it inadequate for further testing, and canceled the testing of the third lifetime with BH-1. The program secured funding to procure another ground test article, which will be production-representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft built with a re-designed wing-carry-through structure, but to date does not have the procurement of the test article on contract. The program has not completed durability testing of the aircraft with the new wing-carry-through structure to date.

ASSESSMENT: Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management.

Back of the envelope sanity check: assuming this was all technical labor at a conservative enterprise rate of $125/hr in FY20 dollars, that's roughly $12.5MM/yr or 50 unabused man-yrs per annum at face value--nevermind the time-value of money, infrastructure, materials, tooling, turnover, all the unknown unknowns spanning a period of performance in excess of a decade, etc.--for the Navy to purchase a quantifiable level of predictability still 13 years ahead of its time based on an execution plan that doesn't yet exist, using bespoke equipment and new methods that have yet to be developed, on arguably the most complex variant of the platform (at a unit cost which currently exceeds $100MM) whose tech integrations are effectively riding on the bleeding edge state of the art.

Given the limiting speed of government contracting and the high stakes on the table, 12 years doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

[1] https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35j...

> The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis.

Curiously, how long do you think it should take and at what cost?

Discussed in the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube_mail_in_New_Y...

The article isn't wrong; you're acquisition history is simply miscalibrated.

PolarFire is the operand signal...everything else is in the noise.

> From existing PolarFire FPGAs, Risc-V versions are inheriting security functions including: DPA-resistant bit-stream programming, anti-tamper, a cryptographical bound supply chain assurance, a physically un-clonable function, a true random number generator and a side-channel resistant crypto-coprocessor.

> In addition according to Microchip the processors will have secure boot (128kbyte boot flash), physical memory protection and, on all memories: single-bit error correction and double-bit error detection. THe firm is also claiming Spectre and Meltdown immunity.

With all this buzzword bingo, you'd think the company formerly known as Actel was actively marketing to a defense industry with selective amnesia[1].

[1] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33027-8_2

FPGA-based heterogenous compute has been around since at least early 2000s on Xilinx Virtex-II Pro[1] with PowerPC hard IP blocks.

[1] https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/data_sheets/ds0...

> That’s why many mission critical applications like this one use “obsolete” technologies.

...or perhaps it's a much more simple risk probability v. consequence severity decision?

If your team had Link 16 integration requirements, I extend my deepest sympathies.

> So when we upgrade the hardware, how much of it will be sourced from China?

FYSA[1], would it surprise you if that figure was precisely zero?

[1] https://www.dmea.osd.mil/trustedic.html

To be sure, that draft was written by the Defense Innovation Board[1], who are about as far removed from actual cogs in the machine as you can get.

The final release of that paper along with other SWAP study publications can be found here[2].

[1] https://innovation.defense.gov/Members/

[2] https://innovation.defense.gov/software/

Now read one step above[1] my remark.

The parent made a false assertion (the claim of "highest saftey (sic) rating of any car") while specifically citing IIHS ratings. I corrected this assertion with fact by citing a higher-level IIHS reference. That's not cherry picking...that's proper constraint.

In contrast, you'll have to do a lot better than actual cherry-picked Twitter garbage, blog spam, and self-referencing Telsa press releases.

> Along with NHSTA and IIS in the U.S.

Remind us who IIS is again??

I'll be happy to digest any independent NHTSA OVSC test reports on the subject that you point us towards...coincidentally, I've been shits-and-grins analyzing a bunch of FMVSS 106 and 218 test reports in preparation for next year's racing season, so I suspect they won't put me to sleep...to be sure, not that I really care for Tesla.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21182264

The Volvo S60 didn't even make the secondary IIHS Top Safety Pick list for 2019, let alone the highest Top Safety Pick+ list being discussed. Why is this video relevant? Nevermind that there isn't a dummy post-mortem analysis supplementing the video.

Grain of salt indeed. I thought it was funny how the author decides to "settle" on some arbitary 2-sig-fig number.

It's worth noting that in the US, the SUV/crossover is king of sales.

As a quick basis of comparison, Acura TLX sales for the entirety of Q3 was 5,754 units (verified this figure), whereas Acura MDX sales for the month of August alone[1] was 5,976 units.

Now play this comparison game with Lexus[2][3][4], Cadillac[5], BMW[6][7][8], etc. and you'll discover similar patterns.

How meaningful is it to compare Tesla Model 3 estimated US sales figures to a relatively small market segment that has literally been and continues to be cannibalized by SUV/crossover conversions year over year? IMHO, it's like focusing on salt in the bleeding wound while turning a blind eye to the frenzy of sharks encircling.

[1] https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-corporate/releases/release...

[2] https://pressroom.lexus.com/toyota-motor-north-america-repor...

[3] https://pressroom.lexus.com/toyota-motor-north-america-repor...

[4] https://pressroom.lexus.com/toyota-motor-north-america-repor...

[5] https://media.gm.com/dld/content/Pages/news/us/en/2019/oct/1...

[6] http://bmwmedia.iconicweb.com/mediasite/attachments/190801_J...

[7] http://bmwmedia.iconicweb.com/mediasite/attachments/August_2...

[8] http://bmwmedia.iconicweb.com/mediasite/attachments/191001_S...

I did but nothing really jumped out as evident. However, the post-mortem analysis was indeed revealing.

TL;DR the Model 3 didn't perform as well with respect to driver-side door hinge pillar intrusion and door sill buckling, contributing to "moderate risk of injury to the left lower leg".

General remarks for Mercedes-Benz C-Class[1] and Lexus ES 350[2]:

> The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained well.

> The driver's space was maintained well in both tests, and risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.

...as opposed to Tesla Model 3[3]:

> The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's overall survival space was maintained well, despite moderate intrusion of the lower part of the door hinge pillar and buckling of the door sill.

> Although intrusion overall into the driver's space was minimal, door hinge pillar intrusion contributed to a moderate risk of injury to the left lower leg.

[1] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/mercedes-benz/c-class-4...

[2] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/lexus/es-350-4-door-sed...

[3] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/mercedes-benz/c-class-4...

> But the Tesla model 3 has the highest saftey rating of any car.

Confirmation bias.

The overall rating is also held by BMW 3 Series, Lexus ES 350, and Mercedes-Benz C-Class (which all rated better in child seat anchors ease of use)...and that's just in the midsize luxury cars category[1].

[1] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/class-summary/midsize-luxury-ca...

Sure enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348085

Posted by John Graham-Cumming, Cloudflare CTO.