They have that, to some degree. The standard library is mostly optional. Also, a lot of things are 'implementation defined', so you could just not implement those. That leaves quite a small language core.
No, I don't think it is loaded, or at least not unnecessarily. The communist background of the glass is an important element in the video. Especially when they discuss the fact they couldn't sell it in the west, due to (tendencies of) capitalism.
No, I don't think you can trust AI to answer correctly, ever. I've seen it confidently hallucinate, so I would always check what it says against other, more static, sources. The same if I'm reading from an author who includes a lot of mistakes in his books: I might still find them interesting and usefull, but I will want to double-check the key facts before I quote them to others.
He did not say he wanted to ban images, that is an exaggeration. I see the danger as polluting the historical record with fake images (even as memes/jokes), and spreading wrong preconceptions now backed by real-looking images. This is all under the assumptions there are no bad actors, which makes it even worse. I would say; don't ban it, but you morally just shouldn't do it.
While the 168mb is ridiculous, I'm more facinated by the choice to depend on an unimplemented feature from a group/company they had no control over or contracts with. I would hesitate to depend on things which haven't been released for a few months/years.
I realize the web moves fast and some might prefer working with new technology, but this sounds so weird to me.
It isn't necessarily, especially if your chip involves some analog or RF design, or must be robust. It is only for increased compute power where the smalles nodes shine
Smaller nodes also do not inherently have better performance for all tasks. They bring performance penalties in some regards, extra costs, and more complexity, which might make something older like 65mm a far better choice
What I miss in this overview is the whole of analog IC design. I get the usual tendency to focus on digital logic (higher volumes, etc), but analog design has a large importance in fields like aviation and defence, for security, communications, radar, etc.
It is also possible for economic reasons like reorganizations, but still, those will need a valid reason, and severence packages are mandatory. Just sacking people who don't have a temporary contract is impossible.
With QAM you're more thinking about the error vector magnitude (EVM), rather then the signal-to-noise ratio. From the EVM you get a bit error rate, which determines maximum sensible data speeds. How high QAM will go is also a strong function of what frequency band: at low frequency, I've seen 512-QAM and higher, while at >100GHz they're struggeling for 32-QAM
Thats's only when applied to things outide twitter, which I don't think it's the case. I have never heard anyone talk about retweeting on facebook or whatever. The fact they don't do this would make their brand even more valuable
Yeah, the difference between manipulating the syntax being the intendend way, and it being possible only through hacking and dark magic is rather stark.
It's fun to know that it is basically possible to do though, and I didn't know python had these obscure parts (ast manipulation and codecs)
Similarly, I have so many terrible experiences at 'job fairs' for engineering students, where they only sent HR. Things like asking what stack they use, and getting answers in the form of 'Diverse an challenging technology is at the heart of our innovative agenda ...'. Even when I _know_ the insider details through friends, HR always does such an appalling job of selling it to you, even when they're actually good.
I would even argue that knowing just how well the accepted candidates did is also extremely difficult. Some assesment might be possible based on some simple metrics, but the ultimate 'how much value does this person add' is a hard one. I wouldn't always trust performance reviews and the like for someone's added value, since that adds another point for added bias.
To add to this, it can still have a similar meaning in regular Dutch. I would usually associate the yard-like meaning with the diminutive form 'hofje', and the the (royal) court meaning with an included article: 'het hof' (_the_ court).
I really appreciate this point, and I think it applies very broadly. Good design comes from a coherent, individual (or group) vision. Citing examples will only incite discussions, because everyone has a different needs and ideas, but the things I most appreciate in tech and art share this common aspect.
As I see it, relying on excessive telemetry, surveys, focus-groups, etc is a bit of an indication that nobody at the top has a strong idea of where to take the project.
Yes, fiction works because the layout is simple, consisting of text, and maybe images?
Research papers are far more complex, and have established standards that aid quick reading and parsing. I absolutely don't want to deal with reflowing equations, reflowing figures, or whatever when publishing papers. Precise margins and column widths.
Mentioning that even this proof of concept is illegal is useful, as it isn't mentioned in the article. This is so easy to make that practically anyone could do it, which makes this very relevant.
Yes, for a C function I agree. With just a glance, I can see what this function will do, and what the arguments generally mean. It could be cleaned up a bit (source as a single argument) but this is more about data design, which you might have little control over.
I always imagined the future of self driving cars wouldn't lie in cities (except maybe some main ringroads or arterial roalds) but in highways. Just tell the computer to go to highway X exit Y, and from there the driver can drive the last few miles.
Basically geofencing known 'sane' locations, which cuts down on the boring bits of driving significantly.
Regulation has always been a part of government, to increase the efficiency of the open market. But in regards to your first point:
> why should the committee put any effort into developing anything better?
The EU is absolutely not in the business of developing any connector whatsoever. They wanted _a_ standard (for eco/market reasons), and asked the industry to create one. This became USB and the USB Forum. Now they make it mandatory to follow that standard. In the act they passed, the power to set the specific standard is deferred to the European Commission, to make it easier to update it if necessary. These are called delegated acts [0].
If a new physical connector is ever necessary, the USB forum will write the standard, ask the EU if they can update the reference, which is easy since it's only a matter of pushing paperwork.
_Not_ hardcoding a feature like this, and following what industry wants is an explicit goal of the legislative process. It has worked extremely well in these sorts of circumstances.
The only risk I could see is a technical innovation for connectors, which the USB Forum refuses to implement for some reason. This could happen, but I don't see it as being any different then current industry practices.
No, it doesn't. The technical details are passed as a so called 'delegated act', which defers the power to set the details of acts to the European Commission.[1] They can update this when necessary, and will do so if the USB forum updates to a newer version. I detest all the people who are confidently wrong about these things, it detracts from the interesting steps the EU has taken here.
Do you have a reference for the trend of dictionaries rewriting words? Is it any different then dictionaries keeping up with the way language is being used in the present? Also, don't new definitions usually get added on top of the older ones? (E.g. literally meaning both literally and figuratively now)
Yes, but the point is the Pi is hiding an infinite series, just like the what you'd see for an ellipse length.
The more interesting point for me is to phrase it as: why can't we write the lenght of an ellipse as some function of pi, since you're able to do that for most trig functions.