std_throwawayay

It's not designed for failure at point X, it's designed for proper operation until at least point X. You always add some safety margins such that the failure rate in the designed life is low enough. After that most of the devices may still work for a long time.

No point, only float.

I don't have actual numbers but it's pretty uniform.

Yes.

Also, the voltage won't be very high. The diodes have to be efficient in the millivolt regime.

I think you are on to something. For non-concentrated solar, what a low-cost application would use, the limit is given as 43%. The numbers given trigger my bull-detector hard and I've had some insight into the difficulties that you face if you actually want to build a rectifying diode. Those things are hard. Really hard. You're getting nowhere near where you'd have to be to achieve the limit. To satisfy the claims given, these guys have to be geniuses beyond imagination.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

You can use btrfs on RAID5/6 without problems if you don't use the RAID features that btrfs provides.

I find ChessNetwork much more clean and accessible for beginners.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ChessNetwork

There's also a series beginner to master covering the basic topics of chess.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQsLDm9Rq9bHKEBnElquF...

The tests should be run at the specified TDP to be comparable. Exceeding the TDP in the tests is a form of overclocking.

It needs air.

But magnetic cores are resistant to the M in EMP?

So, they were basically relying on metadata to inspect an organization. If anything, this shows the power of metadata.

*ternary

We have to share our resources with an increasingly larger proportion of a growing humanity and nobody can do anything about it. We just don't want to hear or see the facts until it's already a fact of the past.

It seems to depend on the definition you use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

Atheism also seems to wrongly be a catch-all for things like Agnosticism which is nothing like Atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. An agnostic can also be one who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic."

The power measurements were correct. What was wrong is that the mainboard supplied a higher voltage to the CPU, something that you only do if your want to overclock and your system is not stable at the original voltage. So all the tests are somewhat suspect as we don't know what the CPU will actually do with the changed voltages and thermals. The CPU could clock higher due to the higher voltage or reduce the clock due to the increased temperatures. Nobody really knows unless you really rerun all tests.

It should be tested with an appropriate cooler. One that does remove 95W in the long term when the case reaches the maximum design temperature as this is what TDP intuitively means.

It probably is the right tool if you have an enterprise problem that needs an enterprise solution.

Many applications run maybe 10 times on real data and then their purpose is fulfilled. You don't need to design a microservice architecture with redundant servers when a simple shell script could do the job better.

You need to foresee the scale of what you're building and how you would proceed to the next level. Some things must be solved right before the first deployment because you can never change them after the application is deployed. You must know what these things are and solve them right. You must also reduce their number ideally to zero if possible. You must use solutions that allow refactoring and later scaling in areas where your crystal ball is not sure. If the hard things are solved correctly you can use average workers to do the rest and it will work well.

It failed by teaching that every data structure should be put into classes using many levels of inheritance, interfaces, encapsulation, accessors and the whole shebang when the thing really is just a plain old integer. OOP is really useful and powerful in many areas and applications but it is not the only tool that has to be used for everything.

My experience with Python is largely the same. I often start with local variables in a script, then put some parts into functions, then start putting some shared/persistent data into dicts. If after some time a pattern emerges where I think "gee, wouldn't it be useful to pack these three variables that always occur together and interact with each other into a class and use some methods to consistently modify them?". Then I create a class that does some specific thing. This transformation occurs gradually over the development process and the data shapes the design of the application. I would call this process a prototype development. At the end I would have the knowledge about the design where I could start implementing it in Java or C++. But the problem is already solved well enough in Python and you almost never need to take the leap to another programming language.

The program is not good, the design is not well thought out and the implementation is not very clean. It is a design prototype that you use to write the real application. If only there were time for a fresh start. The solution that we have by that point is not perfect but it does three things: Actually solve the problem, solve it good enough for regular usage and it allows further modification with only minor pain.

I wish I could tell the full story but most software stories end before the grand finale.

OOP is just a mental model. Deep down everything is made of bits. The church of OOP has failed but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is useful to make a duck class. We're now down to fighting for nuances. You can do most things with OOP or without OOP but each path has some upsides and downsides and most of the time it's good to use some things it provides where it makes sense and not get too religious about it. The great architect has the foresight on how the code will be used in five years and design it accordingly.

The Romans ignored, ridiculed and fought Christianity and then they converted to it.

If we can't detect it or disprove it, it doesn't even belong to science. It belongs to the same realm as witches and demons - until some smart physicist devises a way to actually detect it.

For comparison the Phoronix benchmarks: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia-r...

this one is more oriented to the lower end.

I suspect that they use metrics for making decisions and the total number of users is growing. Those who understand and care for privacy are only a small portion of the user base and don't play a role in metrics. And if they play a role in metrics, they are probably accounted as leeches because they use google products but don't pay back because they block ads. Therefore a totally useless user base... maybe.