mshook

Why do you think you have the famous "Intel inside" logo or sound or animation in ads? Because Intel pays you to display that...

Or at least it was not too long ago.

https://www-techspot-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.techspot...

QWERTY keyboard is widely used for information processing nowadays in Japan, United States, and other countries. And the most frequently asked question about the keyboard is: "Why are the letters of the keyboard arranged the way they are?" Several papers in the field of information processing answer the question like this: "To slow down the operator." It's nonsense. In this paper we reveal the prehistory of QWERTY keyboard along the history of telegraph apparatus: Morse, Hughes-Phelps, and Teletype. The early keyboard of Type-Writer was derived from Hughes-Phelps Printing Telegraph, and it was developed for Morse receivers. The keyboard arrangement very often changed during the development, and accidentally grew into QWERTY among the different requirements. QWERTY was adopted by Teletype in the 1910's, and Teletype was widely used as a computer terminal later.

National + American == World

I remember reading a book by an engineer from the Concorde program (he's from the UK) who got invited by the Americans working on the B-1 bomber (which was initially supposed to be a M2.2 thing).

They wanted to exchange about air intakes problems such as efficiency, surges, and all. The author was not impressed at all by what had been developed and tested on the B-1. And he thought what they had on Concorde was so much more advanced (he might have been totally biased of course).

Because as people say, Concorde was not tested, it was developed (hence the many prototypes, pre-production and first production models) because a lot of the technology had to be created and if it didn't, it had to be modified to be usable on a civilian aircraft.

A classic example is pulling the throttle all the way back while at full speed: on most fighter jets of the era, you'd completely trash the turbine if you did that. So they had to create a plane which did the right thing for pilots who weren't trained like fighter pilots...

It was also a case of doing all the wrong thing in terms of management. Like assembling two of the same things on each side of the Channel to please respective governments...

And the other issue in your case is flying supersonic over land but I hear you.

Wiki again: Forces from the internal airflow on the intake structure are rearwards (drag) on the initial converging section, where the supersonic deceleration takes place, and forwards on the diverging duct where subsonic deceleration takes place up to the engine entry. The sum of the 2 forces at cruise gave the 63% thrust contribution from the intake part of the propulsion system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

Wiki says: The overall thermal efficiency of the engine in supersonic cruising flight (supercruise) was about 43%, which at the time was the highest figure recorded for any normal thermodynamic machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593

Here's an explanation of why written on here a long time ago by @chowells: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16239612

This user wrote:

To add even more detail, as there still appears to be a lot of confusion:

The radar systems in these vehicles send out a radio pulse in a broad approximate-cone forward. They get bounces back from everything that reflects radio in front of them. Distance from the object is calculated by time between pulse and response. Speed towards/away from the object is calculated from Doppler shift of the radio frequency.

There are two main things that these systems can't detect.

1. Speed of the object perpendicular to the direction of radio wave travel.

2. Location of the object within the approximate-cone the radio pulse travels in.

Note that thanks to the second, you can't calculate the first with higher-level object tracking, either.

So the data you get back is a list of (same-direction velocity component, distance) pairs. There's no way to distinguish between stationary objects in the road and stationary objects above the road, to the side of the road, or even the surface of the road itself.

Radar just doesn't provide the directional information necessary to handle obstacle detection safely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range

And you're right, the ballpark fuel consumption for Concorde says your hourly rate is not that dissimilar in subsonic than in supersonic so you better fly fast quick...

So the whole "business" argument of having a full work day flying east doesn't really work. Unless you can fly really really really fast which none of these planes do.

The only gain flying east is less flying time.

The only non automatic thing is taking off but there were demos by Airbus showing AP doing taxiing and taking off...

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/01/ai...

Namely, this user wrote:

To add even more detail, as there still appears to be a lot of confusion:

The radar systems in these vehicles send out a radio pulse in a broad approximate-cone forward. They get bounces back from everything that reflects radio in front of them. Distance from the object is calculated by time between pulse and response. Speed towards/away from the object is calculated from Doppler shift of the radio frequency.

There are two main things that these systems can't detect.

1. Speed of the object perpendicular to the direction of radio wave travel.

2. Location of the object within the approximate-cone the radio pulse travels in.

Note that thanks to the second, you can't calculate the first with higher-level object tracking, either.

So the data you get back is a list of (same-direction velocity component, distance) pairs. There's no way to distinguish between stationary objects in the road and stationary objects above the road, to the side of the road, or even the surface of the road itself.

Radar just doesn't provide the directional information necessary to handle obstacle detection safely.

Aka you're on your own...

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on him:

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.

That's from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

If we didn't do it like that, pretty much no one would die from AIDS, people would just die of, let's say, pneumonia or some other opportunistic infections.

I agree with you as the media has been treating the whole thing pretty badly but if you end up at the hospital because of COVID and you die there, COVID brought you there...

"Or all in, Linux 5.9 comes in at roughly 27.81 million lines distributed among some fifty-nine thousand source files.

...

For a while now the AMDGPU kernel graphics driver has been around 2+ million lines of code making it the largest in-tree kernel driver. With Linux 5.9, it comes in at 2.16 million lines of code plus another 247k lines of code comments and another 109k blank lines... Or up to 2.51 million lines of code is the AMD DRM driver code including AMDKFD, PowerPlay, DC, and all the kernel code ultimately making up the AMD Radeon support on that driver (but not the older Radeon DRM driver -- that older Radeon driver is at around 157k lines of code). "

And the counting is done in polling stations after the voting process: just more hands and eyes that way.

And because it's that distributed, it's pretty much parallelized as much as you could. Another quality is you'd have to corrupt a fair amount of polling stations to make a substantial difference if you wanted to cheat.

Results are then sent to the next level (usually city hall which aggregates that and then sends that to the next level).

And then you have:

- one person who opens the envelope containing the ballot and unfolds it

- one who reads out loud the ballot

- at least two who write down what the person above said

And all that is supervised by the same people who were manning the polling station (at least 4 them).

So if you have multiple ballots in the same envelope, they will call it. The only way it'd work is if they all worked together. And you'd have to do that for a couple counting stations in many given polling stations... That sounds like an inside job you couldn't keep secret for long.

Because one thing I forgot to mention: counting is done at the polling station, it's not centralized, only results are.

And it's probably easy in the firmware to check if you're being tested (ask Volkswagen). And even if it's not, you could write a firmware you could trigger with a specific ballot.

The bottom line is firmware for these things should and must be open so they can be audited by experts. And hackers must be given access to them so they can try to do their worst.

As long as you treat it as a black box, I'm afraid to say you aren't trusting the device, you are just having faith in it.

The only way to make sure it's partially secure is to audit the code and even with that you could miss stuff. Code for these things must be open.

Plus a quick google search shows (facepalm) the following (there are many others like that): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/online-vulnerable...

The three largest voting manufacturing companies — Election Systems &Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic — have acknowledged they all put modems in some of their tabulators and scanners. The reason? So that unofficial election results can more quickly be relayed to the public. Those modems connect to cell phone networks, which, in turn, are connected to the internet.

The largest manufacturer of voting machines, ES&S, told NBC News their systems are protected by firewalls and are not on the “public internet.” But both Skoglund and Andrew Appel, a Princeton computer science professor and expert on elections, said such firewalls can and have been breached.

If all counting machines are the same, how do you know they're not all wrong? Or not all tampered with?

And even if they all give you the same results, how do you know it's actually correct or how do you decide to recount? You have no real way to: you have to count. So at that point you might as well have counted in the first place.

Ideally you should have multiple vendors and make sure they all give the same results. But who's going to do that?

The ballot box is made of transparent plastic (something like [1]), and you don't slide the envelope in it yourself. The slot is blocked until an official pulls a lever to let it go through.

So you put the envelope by the slot, if you keep holding it you will be asked you to let it go (so you can't cleverly hold multiple of them while it looks like one). They'll check again who you are and if you can actually vote and so on. If all is good, an official will pull the lever.

[1] https://www.jpg.fr/content/images/product/09812-00J_1_xnl.jp...

And you don't count alone, there are people with you who count with you and who double check what you do.

It works the following way. You legally must have: - one person who opens the envelope containing the ballot and unfolds it - one who reads out loud the ballot - at least two who write down what the person above said

And all that is supervised by the same people who were manning the polling station (at least 4 them).

So it becomes a lot harder not to trust humans when you have at least 4 persons who saw the ballot and a couple others observing if everything is being done as expected.

If it is every time, it means at the end of the day you don't really trust the machine. You could announce results early but they wouldn't be official so what's the point?

And if the count only gets verified every once in a while, what triggers the process? Something abnormal? A random check? Something else?

What tells you the count is valid or not? How do you ensure the machine is working as it should, wasn't altered in any way and so on?

To me these problems can't really be fixed: you need the paper trail. And you can't "count" (haha) on a machine you can't really audit.