You seem to be conflating "vacuum" with "vacuum cleaner". I must admit, though, I've never really understood the point of a vacuum cleaner. A vacuum should be clean by definition, there shouldn't be anything left to clean.
In my experience, democracy is relative. When some countries democratically elect to do something, big powers sometimes disapprove. Sanctions follow. One country is notorious for this.
Countries with "democratic" or "people's" in their official name usually aren't. I recall only one country having both of them.
In my understanding, meritocracy is a system that favours specifically those with merit. They're not quite the same word but I think the connection is rather clear. I'm asking, if our system doesn't favour those with merit, then what's the point of having any merit?
Of course, there are other reasons for learning etc. I personally enjoy learning new things for their own sake. But I also see a widely held narrative that urges us to get a good education in order to succeed in life. I've also witnessed first hand how it doesn't quite work in real life, which seems to be the point of that article.
BTW, "meritocracy" in this article doesn't quite mean what it meant when I first learned it. It was about power as in "democracy". The article seems to conflate success with having power.
No amount of money is going to invent new technology by itself. In the end, you need people with actual competence. Of course, in real life "success" often means making more money using other people's competence, so having money to begin with is rather useful.
If merit isn't the answer to success, then what's the point of learning anything? Let's just be drooling idiots, because success might come around no matter what.
This makes me think of the saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know". It's problematic because at the end of your social network chain, there still has to be someone who actually knows something that gets the job done.
Tell that to Hades Canyon. Integrated Vega GPU equivalent to approx GTX 1060.
If it's sharing the memory bus with the CPU, then that's a lot of GPU power going to waste. However, a little googling shows that Hades Canyon actually has 4 GB of dedicated memory, which is not too shabby.
For those, a global standard time would be extremely convenient.
Nope, because you'd still have to know what everybody's office hours are.
Scenario 1: UTC everywhere
-So, about that teleconference. Is 14:00 OK with you?
-Sounds a bit early, my office hours start at 16. Would that work for you?
-Sure. See you then!
Scenario 2: local timezones
-I'll call you around 2 PM, is that OK?
-Wait, what time would that be over here?
-Let's see... we're on EEST.. I think that's UTC+2 but I'll have to check.
-What's UTC?
-Never mind, I'll check it for you. You're on East coast time, right? Do you guys use DST?
etc.
If you used UTC everywhere, office hours would be different, but you'd still know what your own office hours are. In both cases, you'll have to ask if a given time is OK, but it will be a lot easier with UTC. Heck, even within the same timezone, people can actually have different "working" hours.
Those who work with people in other countries would care a lot, and those who do any long-distance travel. Which not a small bunch. For those, a global standard time would be extremely convenient.
Of course, this would mean a lot of adjustment for your local time. But DST already makes solar noon at 1 PM, which is not its natural time. Your local working hours would still be around solar noon, just not using numbers like 8 AM to 5 PM. Especially when "AM" and "PM" refer to before and after noon -- you really should move on to 24-hour time by then.
I'd expect that sound waves spread out a lot due do diffraction, so determining its central/average direction would be harder. It would be like measuring the vertical tilt of a tree by looking at the outline of branches and leaves. Conversely, light (from a laser) won't spread out that much over 15 km, though still noticeable amounts.
I once coded an FM radio transmitter on an FPGA, using plain 1-bit digital output and ideas such as PWM. The quality was pretty atrocious, but you could basically hear the music and speech on a radio receiver. So no DAC needed.
If only there was a way to connect a keyboard to your laptop using a cable or even using fancy wireless technology.
At home, my laptop is docked and I use a real mechanical keyboard. It's wider, thicker and heavier than the laptop itself. So obviously I'm not going to lug the keyboard around when I'm on the road. If I was going to do that, I wouldn't need a laptop to begin with. A laptop needs to be usable without any external dongles, that's kind of the point of having one.
Finnish government was dissolved today. PM Juha Sipilä was known as an engineer who wanted to lead the country as if it were a tech business, with little regard to constitutional law.
Sure, it's great if you have a concentrated beam with no obstructions. This is sometimes done with microwaves, but you wouldn't want to sit in the middle of the beam.
In your lighting setup, try to estimate what fraction of the floodlight output falls on the yard lamp cells. There's a good start for your efficiency number, of course the actual number will be a lot lower depending on the solar cell etc.
The problem comes when people come up with competing standards - like Thunderbolt - which aren't part of the spec where your only option is to fold it into USB and basically have it be "Thunderbolt over USB".
USB3 is a competing standard to USB1/2. It looks "universal" from a distance because the USB3 pins are hidden next to the old 1/2 pins. It's not even "USB3 over USB1/2", it's a bag on the side. The result is as universal as a lump of serial, parallel and PS2 connectors glued together -- sure, one of them will probably fit, but it's not really a solution to the multitude of different connectors if you just hide them all inside the same ground shell.
USB was supposed to replace "legacy ports" but now it has become a legacy port itself. I.e. even when more and more devices are USB3 compatible, we have to drag along the old 1/2 pins to keep it "universal". Yes, I've complained about this for years.
My solution? Call different technologies by different names. Make a different connector for different electrical protocols.
It was the German doctor Mengeleev who discovered the periodic table. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent humans were sacrificed during the research, so it's the French and the Russians that get the limelight these days.
Now that they've got the bezels down to almost nothing then why can't they make a folding phone from two separate LCD panels
and stop right there. Screen space is great even when it isn't a single unified surface.
I remember reading about laptops where the keyboard was replaced by a touch screen. Or was that just Nintendo DS? Either way, it would make an interesting phone. The top screen could be without the touch capability to keep it clean.
There's also the usual issue we've already seen with a number of companies. A cryptocurrency (blockchain) is fundamentally a distributed, trustless system that anyone can join and use. If a company wants to build a blockchain for their own closed ecosystem under their control, they have either misunderstood the idea and/or they are trying to ride the blockchain hype.
If you just want a new digital currency under central control, there are much lighter solutions than the blockchain. Meanwhile, businesses that understand cryptocurrencies/blockchains have already embraced existing systems such as Bitcoin with great success.
Situation: There are 14 competing USB standards.
-Ridiculous! We need to develope one "Universal USB" standard that covers everyone's use cases.
-Yeah!
(Soon:) Situation: There are 15 competing USB standards.
Also, USB 3.0 is a completely new protocol with its pins tacked on the side of old USB 1/2 connectors. It's like gluing serial, parallel and PS/2 ports together into a single lump and calling it "universal".
once laptops (The preferred being mac) and datacenters have ARM options, which is provably happening, then your x86 argument dies horribly.
This, and a few more reasons:
(1) Server-side software is a more limited set than desktop or mobile. For instance, no dependencies on graphics toolkits.
(2) More and more software is written in higher-level languages and running on virtual machines/interpreters, such as Javascript and Python. It sounds like a joke, but there are major web frameworks written in JS. This further narrows down the set of software you actually have to port.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh
That's what the vacuum cleaner said.
You seem to be conflating "vacuum" with "vacuum cleaner". I must admit, though, I've never really understood the point of a vacuum cleaner. A vacuum should be clean by definition, there shouldn't be anything left to clean.
In my experience, democracy is relative. When some countries democratically elect to do something, big powers sometimes disapprove. Sanctions follow. One country is notorious for this.
Countries with "democratic" or "people's" in their official name usually aren't. I recall only one country having both of them.
You're conflating merit and meritocracy.
In my understanding, meritocracy is a system that favours specifically those with merit. They're not quite the same word but I think the connection is rather clear. I'm asking, if our system doesn't favour those with merit, then what's the point of having any merit?
Of course, there are other reasons for learning etc. I personally enjoy learning new things for their own sake. But I also see a widely held narrative that urges us to get a good education in order to succeed in life. I've also witnessed first hand how it doesn't quite work in real life, which seems to be the point of that article.
BTW, "meritocracy" in this article doesn't quite mean what it meant when I first learned it. It was about power as in "democracy". The article seems to conflate success with having power.
No amount of money is going to invent new technology by itself. In the end, you need people with actual competence. Of course, in real life "success" often means making more money using other people's competence, so having money to begin with is rather useful.
If merit isn't the answer to success, then what's the point of learning anything? Let's just be drooling idiots, because success might come around no matter what.
This makes me think of the saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know". It's problematic because at the end of your social network chain, there still has to be someone who actually knows something that gets the job done.
Accept no substitutes for discrete graphics
Tell that to Hades Canyon. Integrated Vega GPU equivalent to approx GTX 1060.
If it's sharing the memory bus with the CPU, then that's a lot of GPU power going to waste. However, a little googling shows that Hades Canyon actually has 4 GB of dedicated memory, which is not too shabby.
For those, a global standard time would be extremely convenient.
Nope, because you'd still have to know what everybody's office hours are.
Scenario 1: UTC everywhere
-So, about that teleconference. Is 14:00 OK with you?
-Sounds a bit early, my office hours start at 16. Would that work for you?
-Sure. See you then!
Scenario 2: local timezones
-I'll call you around 2 PM, is that OK?
-Wait, what time would that be over here?
-Let's see... we're on EEST.. I think that's UTC+2 but I'll have to check.
-What's UTC?
-Never mind, I'll check it for you. You're on East coast time, right? Do you guys use DST?
etc.
If you used UTC everywhere, office hours would be different, but you'd still know what your own office hours are. In both cases, you'll have to ask if a given time is OK, but it will be a lot easier with UTC. Heck, even within the same timezone, people can actually have different "working" hours.
We don't care what time it is in Greenwich, UK.
Those who work with people in other countries would care a lot, and those who do any long-distance travel. Which not a small bunch. For those, a global standard time would be extremely convenient.
Of course, this would mean a lot of adjustment for your local time. But DST already makes solar noon at 1 PM, which is not its natural time. Your local working hours would still be around solar noon, just not using numbers like 8 AM to 5 PM. Especially when "AM" and "PM" refer to before and after noon -- you really should move on to 24-hour time by then.
I'd expect that sound waves spread out a lot due do diffraction, so determining its central/average direction would be harder. It would be like measuring the vertical tilt of a tree by looking at the outline of branches and leaves. Conversely, light (from a laser) won't spread out that much over 15 km, though still noticeable amounts.
I once coded an FM radio transmitter on an FPGA, using plain 1-bit digital output and ideas such as PWM. The quality was pretty atrocious, but you could basically hear the music and speech on a radio receiver. So no DAC needed.
If only there was a way to connect a keyboard to your laptop using a cable or even using fancy wireless technology.
At home, my laptop is docked and I use a real mechanical keyboard. It's wider, thicker and heavier than the laptop itself. So obviously I'm not going to lug the keyboard around when I'm on the road. If I was going to do that, I wouldn't need a laptop to begin with. A laptop needs to be usable without any external dongles, that's kind of the point of having one.
Finnish government was dissolved today. PM Juha Sipilä was known as an engineer who wanted to lead the country as if it were a tech business, with little regard to constitutional law.
Sure, it's great if you have a concentrated beam with no obstructions. This is sometimes done with microwaves, but you wouldn't want to sit in the middle of the beam.
In your lighting setup, try to estimate what fraction of the floodlight output falls on the yard lamp cells. There's a good start for your efficiency number, of course the actual number will be a lot lower depending on the solar cell etc.
The problem comes when people come up with competing standards - like Thunderbolt - which aren't part of the spec where your only option is to fold it into USB and basically have it be "Thunderbolt over USB".
USB3 is a competing standard to USB1/2. It looks "universal" from a distance because the USB3 pins are hidden next to the old 1/2 pins. It's not even "USB3 over USB1/2", it's a bag on the side. The result is as universal as a lump of serial, parallel and PS2 connectors glued together -- sure, one of them will probably fit, but it's not really a solution to the multitude of different connectors if you just hide them all inside the same ground shell.
USB was supposed to replace "legacy ports" but now it has become a legacy port itself. I.e. even when more and more devices are USB3 compatible, we have to drag along the old 1/2 pins to keep it "universal". Yes, I've complained about this for years.
My solution? Call different technologies by different names. Make a different connector for different electrical protocols.
After all those engagements, it was to be expected that the attention economy is finally settling down with a wife and kids.
It was the German doctor Mengeleev who discovered the periodic table. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent humans were sacrificed during the research, so it's the French and the Russians that get the limelight these days.
I'm pretty sure Apple will invent foldable screens any day now.
With rounded corners and a courageous lack of audio jacks! In fact, forget the foldable screen.
Now that they've got the bezels down to almost nothing then why can't they make a folding phone from two separate LCD panels
and stop right there. Screen space is great even when it isn't a single unified surface.
I remember reading about laptops where the keyboard was replaced by a touch screen. Or was that just Nintendo DS? Either way, it would make an interesting phone. The top screen could be without the touch capability to keep it clean.
There's also the usual issue we've already seen with a number of companies. A cryptocurrency (blockchain) is fundamentally a distributed, trustless system that anyone can join and use. If a company wants to build a blockchain for their own closed ecosystem under their control, they have either misunderstood the idea and/or they are trying to ride the blockchain hype.
If you just want a new digital currency under central control, there are much lighter solutions than the blockchain. Meanwhile, businesses that understand cryptocurrencies/blockchains have already embraced existing systems such as Bitcoin with great success.
Only Alt-Right people would do such a thing.
Situation: There are 14 competing USB standards.
-Ridiculous! We need to develope one "Universal USB" standard that covers everyone's use cases.
-Yeah!
(Soon:) Situation: There are 15 competing USB standards.
Also, USB 3.0 is a completely new protocol with its pins tacked on the side of old USB 1/2 connectors. It's like gluing serial, parallel and PS/2 ports together into a single lump and calling it "universal".
what chip competes against the intel 8th gen?
None, you need Genuine Intel for a flawless Meltdown experience.
once laptops (The preferred being mac) and datacenters have ARM options, which is provably happening, then your x86 argument dies horribly.
This, and a few more reasons:
(1) Server-side software is a more limited set than desktop or mobile. For instance, no dependencies on graphics toolkits.
(2) More and more software is written in higher-level languages and running on virtual machines/interpreters, such as Javascript and Python. It sounds like a joke, but there are major web frameworks written in JS. This further narrows down the set of software you actually have to port.