Then the obvious solution is to put solar panels over parking spots at work. Doesn't need to be that much power, 1-2kW is enough if the car sits there all day (for typical distances people commute with cars)
As european and a driver of a model 3, I would also not consider buying a tesla again. It's not the car, it has some flaws, I never bought into the FSD bullshit and basically knew what I was going into. But now it more and more feels like driving a car with a huge swastika sticker on it, and I don't see that going away in the foreseeable future.
Strange patent. At first glance you could do something similar with an intel 8052AH BASIC (a 8051 type microcontroller with integrated basic interpreter) back in the 90ies.
I think you can implement self driving without general AI, but it has to be really defensive, err on the cautious side, and that means it can't travel faster that 10 to 25 kph, like a bicycle basically. That car will have a "safe zone" around it, monitored with radar and/or lidar, and if anything enters just outside that "safe zone", the car stops before hitting anything.
The market for such cars would be very limited IMO.
My tesla model 3 on "autopilot" (just keep speed) will ghost break if it sees some cars merging into an adjacent lane. Really dangerous, nobody expects a car decelerating from 130kph down to 50 on the nearly empty Autobahn. My previous car (VW) got that right. Overall it is a nice car (with a massive and increasing brand toxicity problem), but how can one trust the "full self driving" if it can't/doesn't even keep speed in supposedly trivial cases where the driver has control?
I don't know what apple is doing, but in theory, it should be possible to measure ohmic resistance of the coil, and infer temperature via PTC coefficient of coil material. The effect isn't very big at temperature differences you could tolerate in a loudspeaker coil though (~0,5%/K).
Once upon a time (Tcl??/Tk3.6) there was XF by Sven Delmas. It had some issues and really would have needed something like namespaces. AFAIR it took forever to get a stable version for Tk4.0.
Even specifying something like a RAL number is not enough. E.g. powder coatings with the same spec from different manufacturers or even from different lots from the same manufacturer can look noticeably different if placed next to each other. So in order to get a perfect match you need to coat your stuff from one batch of powder coating.
I was under the impression that the concept of social market economy is a conservative project, CDU resp. ÖVP (in Austria). I wouldn't call that socialist, after all, it is a competitive market economy with private enterprise.
You are right, its a GE design. Boiling Water Reactor doesn't say that much, the soviet RBMK (big reactor with tubes) also are of boiling water type. This ORF story https://noev1.orf.at/stories/504751 (in german) claims that the type in Zwentendorf is identical to those in Fukushima (I). Maybe it's not exactly the same type but the designs seem to be very close relatives.
Another thing IMO is that the government wasn't trusted to be completely honest about the dangers and the capability to run it proberly. Radioactivity is easy to detect and the mechanism of biological damage also is relatively easy to observe and prove (compared to other toxic substances emitted by e.g. chemical plants -- i.e. it took a very long time to get rid of leaded gasoline). People knew about the devastating effects radiation can have. Austria was a neutral buffer zone between east and west and a typical scenario of possible war the "Bundesheer" prepared for was NATO/soviet troups trying to bypass via austria (and the other block trying to stop them with tactical nukes).
It is one single westinghouse reactor of the same type that was used in Fukushima II. So essentially 60ies technology. I'm no nuclear expert but there surely is much improved more efficient and safer reactor technology now, not to speak of completely obsolete control and safety systems.
Also AFAIK it isn't really complete anymore as parts have been dismantled and sold to be used in reactors of similar vintage.
The discussion is somewhat moot, what did bug me is that the article claims those are typical tolerances inherent in the machining / wire edm / molding processes whereas it just may be the tolerance that is applied if nothing else is agreed upon. You can achieve much tighter tolerances if needed, even in mass-produced stuff like LEGO bricks, plastic lenses, iphone / macbook cases, PCBs, etc...
The stated tolerances of typical manufacturing processes seem to be off by at least an order of magnitude. Not that it does make sense to give a tolerance number without some magnitude it applies to, nonetheless, 0.125mm stated tolerance of CNC machining is ridiculous.
Even if ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons and processed them into something useable, would that really have deterred russia? And who knows, I wouldn't be surprised if they have nukes again, or are working on a bomb. They certainly have the know-how and access to fissile material. Not that that would help much...
It's a long time since I last read the book but I remember that in a sense the book ends at about 50%, that is a meta discussion in the book says it ends now and the rest that's following is a redundant. Will have to re-read it to find that location again...
They seem to target quality control in manufacturing (semiconductor, electronics etc...). What is puzzling to me is that even your typical atom is an order of magnitude larger than that claimed resolution.
I was offered a 3d laserscanning microscope that combines confocal microscopy with interferometry. Manufacturer claims resolution "up to 0,01nm", (10pm), not a typo. That is quite remarkable if true but I wonder what that even means...
I recently migrated from another (more "enterprisey") open-source EDMS system that shall remain unnamed to paperless-ngx. Can't praise this high enough. Where the other system needed multiple clicks for the easiest things and had a bunch of UI antifeatures, paperless has a very intuitive and well thought-out UI and handles ~30k documents without issues.
A large sun shade for an object in low earth orbit shouldn't be that much of a problem. Transferring a liquid in microgravity should be equally difficult regardless if it's cryogenic or not.
I'm curious why a crygenic fuel is harder to transfer in space than something like kerosene? Space is cold, so my naive idea is that a crygenic fuel is easier to keep liquid (non-frozen).
You can get pretty far nowadays with preempt rt and an FPGA. Maybe you even can get near 1µs max jitter. One problem with the older RPis was unpredictable (to me) behaviour of the hardware, i.e. "randomly" changing SPI clocks, and limited bandwidth.
Hobby systems like a small CNC mill or lathe usually don't need anything near 1µs (or better) max jitter. LinuxCNC (derived from NIST's Enhanced Machine Controller, name changed due to legal threats) runs fine on preempt-rt with control loops around 1kHz, with some systems you can also run a "fast" thread with say 20kHz and more to generate stepper motor signals, but that job is best left for the FPGA or an additional µC IMHO.