You have to remember that for many, "reality" is an illusion created by the visual cortex part of your brain. Since it takes time for your brain to decode the input from your visual senses in the visual cortex, in a way your conscious mind is interpreting the recent past as "now". Of course there are always "reactionary" processing from our reptilian brain that work on a faster pace (sound, touch, involuntary reflexes, etc) and these occasionally intrude on our quaint visual cortex consciousness view of "now" to give us the misguided impression that we can somehow anticipate the future (maybe a second or so, the feeling of deja vu or flinching before your see something).
There is evidence that psychedelic drugs like LSD allow for additional intrusions from other parts of the brain into the visual cortex in an often uncoordinated or hallucinatory fashion which leads some to speculate that generates feeling of some sort of break with reality, or one-ness with universe as these novel interactions are interpreted by the visual cortex. Unfortunately, there is also some evidence that LSD also inhibits connections between the visual cortex and the parahippocampus which plays an important role in memory encoding. This might explain why memories of LSD trips are often fleeting leaving only vague impressions in their wake...
If you associate the normal visual cortical view of "reality" as consciousness, maybe you might think of this psychedelic state which causes this disjoint amalgamation of signals in the visual cortex as some sort "higher" or "altered" consciousness, but given the apparent difficulties of recording and learning about perceptions that could be potentially distilled from this state, it's a stretch to say that any specific intrinsic knowledge about the mechanics of self perception could be learned or gained this way, but certainly for many it might enable a different way of looking at things (which might give you insight into something that you know about already or bridge many facts/skills/ideas you already have together into something clever or novel).
As with many systems, it's generally very difficult to discover the nature of the system from within the system, but maybe a researcher armed with MRIs (and neural lace?) might be able to learn something about you and your thought processes by studying you when are tripping. That whole idea of somehow an untrained individual unlocking the knowledge of the universe crap while tripping is not bloody likely...
On the other hand, just like the allegory of the caves, I suspect some that partake in LSD somehow develop the impression that it opens them up to a different type of perception of reality from which they do not want to return, but the sad fact is that it is simply a different reality, not "the" reality (you still don't "see" anymore than your senses, you just have a different take on them, a different perspective so to speak). Your brain is still looking a shadows on the cave wall (but maybe multi-colored and fancy with sound and light;^)...
Ladies and gentleman, this is your stewardess speaking. We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused. This is due to periodic air pockets we encountered. There's no reason to become alarmed and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
I think it's kind of funny that they would choose a Greco-Roman cultural figure for their project name. Were there no gods of Chinese mythology available?
I think Baidu was looking for an association with a "moon-shot" like Google, and called it Apollo as to not confuse it with the Chinese moon program (Chang'e), which unlike the Apollo program is still ongoing.
I would be interested to see what kind of failure modes there are for this new battery technology.
Since they claimed to not have totally figured out the "cathode" configuration part yet, I suspect that's the part that's that's the weak part in the chain... Generally, any difficulties like this in the lab point will lead to a lack of guidance in these areas for commercial solutions which will in turn translate to poorly understood commercial solutions. So any such difficulties are often the prime suspect for failure modes.
Technically a particle system that is theorized to exist, but not yet isolated:
So does that imply a new type of particle in the usual sense (electrons, positrons, neutrinos etc) or in some more abstract sense?
The anyon particle is a more abstract type called a quasi-particle. An anyon would be an isolatable effect in a *real* system, where the system is constrained in a specific way. As a way of analogy, if you had an electron travelling through a semiconductor, you can think as a really complicated system of electrons travelling thorough a sea/lattice of nuclei, or you can think of it as a quasi-electron quantum particle travelling in a more homogeneous media. An Anyon is simply a ordinary particle constrained by the system to a two-dimensional system in a specific way. A quasi-particle is mostly just a mathematical apparatus to simply solving a many-body quantum-mechanical problem using a quantum-field theory approach (rather than a quantum N-body approach).
And by "theorised to exist", again, does that mean "predicted by some postulated variant of string theory / supersymmetry / unified theory of everything (like, say, sparticles or phonons)" or "follows from standard, well tested theory, but not yet observed in the wild (eg the postulated island of stability for very isotopes with very heavy nuclei)"?
Well phonons are also quasi-particles, and they doesn't require string theory or supersymmetry or unified field theory. All phonons do is describe vibrations in crystal lattices (a real phenomena). You can think of the vibrations as quasi-particles that have "mass" and "inertia", "boundary-conditions", etc, but at the end of the day the math describes a real measurable phenomena in the crystal lattice. It's just a different way to do the math.
Anyons are quasi-particles that should mathematically occur in *real* 2-dimensional constrained systems (e.g., crystal surfaces, graphene layers, etc). Kind of like there are fermions and bosons particles which have different statistical properties which cause systems to *get-weird* in different ways when you reduce the degrees of freedom (you can google about cooling a bose-einstein condensate), these 2D anyons mathematically occur in two statistical types: Abelian and non-Abelian. Anyon quasi-particles obeying Abelian statistics have *already* been observed in nature and are key to understanding the fractional quantum hall effect.
Discovery of a system with anyon quasi-particles obeying non-Abelian statistics would be key in creating so-called "braids" which are hypothesized to be a much more stable quantum system from which to implement a quantum computer rather than using spin or polarization (which is what most people use now and suffer from very fast quantum decoherence time).
Being a quasi-particle, physicists are not so-much discovering an anyon particle, but attempting to construct *real-world* two-dimensionally constrained quantum systems that should exhibit this mathematical property, and then experimentally verifying that it has the properties theorized. This is the part that hasn't been done yet.
Technically a particle system that is theorized to exist, but not yet isolated: An anyon particle system with a state degeneracy which exhibits non-Abelian particle exchange statistics.
Apparently, with such a particle system, it is possible to build a topological quantum computer.
Experimental physicists potentially observed such a system in nanowires made from the semiconductor indium antimonide. More recent experiments suggest that it is possible that ultra-pure, ultra-cold, ultra-magnetized gallium arsenide crystals might exhibit such statistics, but verification remains unresolved...
I wonder how closely economists have looked at the "send it home" phenomenon. What portion of immigrant income is repatriated?
Economists generally favor immigration, believing it results in greater economic domestic economic activity. But if some large portion of immigrant wages is sent abroad, it would seem to undermine some of the increased economic activity aspect.
In previous eras, it was much more difficult to repatriate wages, and I wonder if econometrics associated with immigration still has a bias on income predominantly remaining in the US.
"Remittance" has been and probably will continue to be a major economic factor. History of remittances date back to the Hawala (8th century). According to the world bank, although remittances will top 1/2 trillion USD, $400B of that is through migrant workers.
Unsurprisingly, India and China top the list of receivers of remittances ($70B, $60B/year respectively).
Floating as in being one of the best students in your class for instance? Floating because you are so smart that the classes and assignments are too easy and you spend most of your time working on your own projects? And how are computer science students supposed to get work experience if no one wants to hire them?
Does someone has a chip on their shoulder? In my experience, teamwork is way more important than being the "best". Who cares who is the best anyhow? If nobody understands what you are doing, how are they gonna test it? How are they gonna maintain that clever algorithm? How can they figure out if the project is ahead or behind schedule? What are they going to do when you quit and move to greener pastures?
FWIW, Big companies often will sweep hire NCG (new college grads), and sort them over a 2 year stretch. Might not be glamorous work, but that is the entry point for many into certain professions (programming, accounting, engineering, etc).
Working for other people means you have to be likeable. If you are the kind of person people don't like it does not matter how clever you are or how good you are at what you do. You'll be lucky to get a job working at Walmart.
Not much to say about that... Except duh... What good is it if you have a person with 200% of average productivity when it drags down the productivity 20% of the other 10 people on the team that have to interact with that person?
That being said, everyone can be likable, but many folks that think that someone is not likable tend to be simply projecting themselves, so says my psychiatrist friend. How can anyone be sure that *nobody* else likes that person? Projecting your own biases on to other folks is basically conceit, right?
Businesses and professionals don't want new processors because of the lack of Windows 7 support and the abandoning of tick tock means waiting three years for performance increases instead of two. There's simply no reason to want to know the future of Intel's products.
More than likely, a lack of interests in sponsors meant the event was more money than their PR department could stomach.
They pretty much clubbed their traditional partners in the knees and squeezed out all their margins by integrating everything and are now pivoting away from their old businesses. Asking what's left of their partners to pay for a tradeshow is just insult to injury and I'm sure many balked/walked. With their pivot, to new businesses (e.g., IoT, AI, etc), they probably found they couldn't convince any new sponsors to foot the same bill as the old partners (e.g., why would an IoT starter partner be pay as much as say Asus, or HP to sponsor IDF for Intel to talk about servers and platforms) and need to rethink the whole IDF idea.
Perhaps because despite its sensational title, cheesy special effects, and the fact that it's a low-budget rehash of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, it's actually quite thoughtful and intelligently executed. The monsters of the title aren't monsters at all, but aliens with understandable if scientifically preposterous motivations. Yet it doesn't fall into the modern who's-the-real-monster-here pitfall: the humans have legitimate reason to fear and even kill the aliens.
One of the reasons I like this movie is that it shows that low budget and vulgar popular tastes are no excuse for making a stupid, boring movie. If you don't have enough money for color film, use black and white to create atmosphere. If you don't have the money for special effects, use storytelling to engage the audience with suspense.
Or if you have no money to pay for extras, use a loaf of bread...
Bladerunner. Alien. Terminator. In recent years my mind is a blank but that one with the blond chick who was an AI was good.
Hmm, don't know which you were referring to, but "Ex Machina" was okay, but she wasn't blond. On the other hand "Her" was a chick-flick that wasn't so good and in addition to not appearing in the movie, she isn't a natural blond. I haven't seen "Ghost in the shell" yet, so perhaps that one is a more promising "blond chick" who was an AI movie...
That `ring' from the Death Star explosion has always bothered me. To this day I keep thinking they should have made that a spherical blast effect.
Then watch the *original* or *revisited* version (if you can't find it, here's a clip comparing them). There is no 'ring' explosion in the *original* or *revisited* version, only the "special" edition has that particular abomination...
AFAIKT, this controversy is probably only second to the han-shot-first controversy...
Body armor that may as well have been regular clothing for all the good it did? This was a frustrating movie.
I always wondered why they even bothered to wear the body armor when it couldn't even stop their own weapons, not to mention the bugs themselves. That and the fact that none of the rifles even had sights kind of blew my mind. When you are fighting as infantry against thousands and hundreds of thousands of enemies, spraying and praying is really not the best idea. And, for a semi-fascist, military-industrial complex led society, they surprisingly had no idea of combined arms tactics. No armored vehicles, no air support, no artillery. Just lots and lots of people. It was like the WWII-era Red Army in space. The closest thing they had was the bombing run on the one planet followed up by an infantry attack, but clearly the staff officer school for the Federation military doesn't go into much detail on WWI or WWII, otherwise they would have realized that pre-attack bombardments are pretty useless against enemy combatants that are entrenched or bunkered underground.
FWIW, Movie director Paul Verhoeven has stated that he never read the Heinlein book and instead movie drew heavily from his experience in Nazi-occupied Netherlands (which among other things morphed the "federal service" from a switzerland-like idea to a fascist-like concept).
One (of many) of the big points of divergence is that in the original story, the infantry armor was *powered* armor and a major plot device (that idea was unused in the original movie adaptation). Also, the original story glorified the role of the infantry, so of course all the story lines revolve around the infantry and told from that point of view. One of the military ideas explored by the book is the idea of a hybrid infantry/armored fighting unit (based on powered armor) and the fighting tactics such a unit might use, but this idea is of course totally lost in the movie adaptation.
Rationally, nobody wants to be a leader because it is too much extra work and because big decisions generally have the worse predictability of the outcome. The expected return on investment for being a leader generally sucks. Look at who volunteers to be president of small community organizations and scale that up. Since most rational people are lazy and only look for good ROIs, nobody rational wants to become a leader.
Of course if you are delusional, you might want to become a leader. We might be better off following the humble delusional, but since most lazy folks think they are humble (even if they aren't), we tend to hate that which is most like ourselves, so most lazy folks don't want to follow a humble person because we often project our own faults and fears on to that such person because of course we could be that person. So by process of elimination, we follow the charismatic delusional and project our hopes and dreams on to that person.
It's not a surprise that the average outcome is better because humble people are generally more paranoid and the paranoid often survive better in average conditions, but if you want to either succeed greatly or go down in flames, why not follow a charismatic delusional? The big winners write the history books (or in this case randomly survived the cataclysms that formed the evolutionary choke points in our history).
Not quite. In fact it isn't some vague "system" that pays, it's generally the *merchant* and the *poor* that pays the differential.
* cash transaction - merchant has to pay bank cash deposit fees (yes, merchants have to pay to deposit cash into banks ~0.3%), best for merchant * standard credit card - merchant pays a small merchant fee to payment processor (~1-2%) , second best for merchant * rewards credit card - merchant pays a premium "rewards" merchant fee (~2-3%) to the payment processor who gives that money to the issuer (to buy crap like airline miles), worst for merchant
The more "rewards" cards the merchant sees, the more the merchant has to pay in fees. The way the card-issuers and payment processors sell this scam to merchants is that people who hold rewards cards tend to spend more money (which is a load of crap). The payment processors that charged "fixed" fees for any type of card mostly just charge some amount more and pocket the difference between what they have to forward to standard card issuers vs rewards issuers, so it's hard for a merchant to simply avoid this problem by picking a fixed fee payments processor.
Oh yeah, on top of the merchant fee difference that is charged to merchants, card issuers also cost-shift and take part of the finance charges received from standard cards and use them to supplement the rewards card holders (basically stealing from the "poor" to give to the "rich"). It's all a big scam that rewards cards holders are complicit in.
But, yes, the guy with the best rewards card comes out ahead, coming out of the hide of the merchants and the people that pay credit card finance charges. Sleep well at night, it's the system and you didn't design it and probably can't do anything about it but sit back and reap the rewards...
Beating people up to remove them from planes after boarding is standard practice in the US?
Forcibly removing passengers from planes that don't comply with crew-member instructions is standard practice in the US (as with most countries) Its just that for some reason, in US society we have more citizens who refuse to comply with crew-member instructions, and many crew-members aren't trained to de-escalate tense situations very well.
"Pretty safe", yes, but you've never been completely safe. That said, the FAA has some well-defined requirements about how they have to treat people who've been involuntarily bumped, which includes a hefty cash payment (equal, I believe, to the full round-trip fare) plus a seat on the next available flight (on any airline, in any class at or above the class you paid for).
How the heck is it even possible to get involuntarily bumped? Either you have a boarding pass with a seat assignment or you don't. Once you do, you have a seat. So this means they had to have taken someone who didn't have a seat and given that person a seat while forcing somebody else who already had a seat to give up that seat. That's completely idiotic. Just reassign the person who didn't have a seat before. They didn't check in early enough to get a seat, which was their decision. Why should people who spent the extra effort to check in and get their seat assignment have to suffer so that people who couldn't be bothered can take their seats?
The only even semi-plausible situation that could explain this would be if the equipment changed to a smaller plane, but even then, they should have known about the reduction in seats prior to boarding.
AFAIK, you can legally be "bumped" for any reason (including if you have a boarding pass or are even on the plane). Airlines are allowed to make pretty much any decisions (takeoff-weight limitations, allowing frequent fliers or connecting passengers priority, or net revenue concerns) as long as they provide the legally obligated compensation to the person who was denied carriage. The FAA requires passengers follow crew member instructions at all times including disembarking the plane when requested.
As to whether any of this is "idiotic" or causes people to "suffer", or hurts PR, those are other questions, but the practice of arbitrary denied boarding is certainly legal.
If you talk to Vail locals who knew the original founders (there's plenty still around), they will tell you that Vail's site was chosen in part because it's on the opposite side of Vail Pass from Denver, thus making it hard for large numbers of people to get in after a big snow dump. I don't think Vail would want this tunnel thing.
As I recall, Vail was basically born to be a resort that was between Aspen and Winter Park on US hwy 6 (now I-70). They were banking on the fact that I-70 would take the US-6 path rather than the US-40 path (this I-70 decision was made in 1960 before Vail got off the ground in the mid '60's even though I-70 didn't start construction for another decade).
FWIW, the California Zephyr train takes a track that goes from Denver to Winterpark ski area, and then to Granby and Glenwood Springs. The tracks don't currently go near Vail (which is sorta between Granby and Glenwood Springs) because Vail is in a deep valley surrounded by mountains, so the train goes around following the less treacherous US40 route (north through winterpark, granby and kremmling).
That's why Google is struggling. The balls-to-the-wall, 80-hour a week culture means that only the Red Bull crowd will thrive in such organization.
I don't think that's how Google works. It's how Apple worked. I think of Google as the place to go if you don't want to work hard.
That's how Google *used* to work and probably a reason it is struggling *now* for growth. From my observation it's turned into a bifurcation of old-timers that are sticking around because it's comfortable, and newer folks that don't want to take any real risks. The real risk takers often don't work at google because they perceive the reward for risk is too low at Google (unless you are buddy-buddy with an old-timer). Generally it's the real risk-takers that are correlated with the 80-hour/week startup culture.
Some Google managers still want it to run like it's an 80-hour/week startup, so they are mostly getting resume-builders that will put up with that for a couple years and then either settle in until they bail to something shiny and new... Most of the other managers have already settled-in. That's why they seem to be transitioning from hiring to acqui-hiring (like many big companies do after a while) for growth.
It'd be nice if TFS explained why I should give a shit; I'm not going to bother with TFA if the poster couldn't be bothered to say who Walt Mossberg is.
It's a bit sad that people on a tech-site don't know who Walt Mossberg is, but I suppose that is probably why you posted AC.
Perhaps that isn't something that interests the pure techie, but reviews of mainstream tech gear and trends in mainstream publications (like the WSJ) really used to make or break companies. For example, one thing contributing to millions of folks plunkog down hard money for the first iPhone would be a positive review about it in a WSJ publication. The mainstreaming of the computer and handheld revolution basically moved the tech industry from the obscure backroom machine to the common household product and in his position, he probably got a front row seat.
Legally, at least in the US, if they deny you the opportunity to take your vacation they must pay it out in a use it or lose it system. Just some food for thought.
That is part of the reason for the current HR corporate trend of unlimited vacation... Of course, just like unlimited data, unlimited vacation doesn't mean what you think it means, it means your manager has to agree. As part of this HR fad, my company made this transition to unlimited a many years ago. They dutifully bought off all of our unused vacation and initiated this "unlimited vacation" policy.
Since the company "wins" by not booking future liabilities, it's only fair that the employee gets an equitable benefit otherwise, it's just stealing a benefit (reducing your compensation and padding their bottom line). The problem with this policy (or any other policy) often isn't the company, the HR folks, or the other "suits". The problem is that many of the managers do not understand how to apply policies like unlimited vacation in a way that would make it better than fixed vacation policies for employees because it is not uncommon for managers to only look out for themselves.
I suspect this is generally true with most companies, and is why managers need to be "forced" to do the right thing (by the company, or by the law), because left to their own devices, they are often less than competent at the "management" aspect of their jobs (I'm sure we've all worked for examples of this at one time or another).
Another possible explanation for this misguided manager behavior is that those managers are playing out some weird real-life variant of the Stanford prison experiment, or perhaps they are trying in desperation to please some "god" by sacrificing the lives of their employees (the sad part is generally that such a "god" is totally indifferent either way).
Did someone leave a Tesla a bad review and was told suddenly they won't be able to drive their car anymore and to go push it to the nearest shop for a refund?
When Elon unilaterally canceled an order for a Model X of a self proclaimed Tesla enthusiast who complained in a blog about a disorganized customer event where he didn't get a chance to sit in the car, that person didn't even get to drive it in the first place and thus didn't need a refund.
The lesson here is that it's okay to diss past and potential future customers, but not current customers, right?
It sounds like the basic premise of this is to normalize "key money".
For those not in the know, sometimes property managers of hot properties will accept bribes from prospective tenants (either directly or through intermediary apartment "brokers") to secure leases for properties where the landlord has delegated rental lease responsibility to the property manager. Now it appears the landlord is going to get a cut of this in cold-hard cash and it will be recurring... Sad that they are attempting to normalize this practice... Maybe one of the founders was burned by a shady apartment "broker" in the past and decided that they wanted a piece of that action...
Because they couldn't get around the patents they had. They must have figured out another way to do things if they're just cutting them loose. Poor guys, the stock was down 63% this morning.
Probably gonna get worse for Imagination. About the only reason they were selling anything to SoC folks is that they could point and say, Apple uses our GPUs and that's why we are going to stay in business (used to be Apple and Intel). Now, not so much, and ARM/Mali is probably gonna come in and eat their lunch. Imagination isn't gonna be much better than Vivante after this.
FWIW, Vivante isn't in much better shape than Imagination, their main customer is Freescale, which was bought by NXP which was recently bought by Qualcomm who many moond ago had bought ATI's mobile GPU for use in their Snapdragon chips (which is likely in most of the non-samsung android phones that aren't sold in china).
will DDR5 still be susceptible to Rowhammer attacks? Also, will the increased speed make it even more susceptible? They barely escaped a cataclysm last time, so one would hope they addressed the root cause.
The root cause of Row Hammer is physics: reading a row causes adjacent row capacitors to degrade at a faster rate than typical.
You can refresh the memory even more conservatively to eliminate these statistical outliers (reducing average performance and increasing power) or come up with a more nuanced approach (e.g., doing Targeted Row Refresh or TRR). In TRR mode the DRAM chip tracks row activations to identify a row that is being targetted and prepends the two adjacent rows to the Refresh sequence so they can be refreshed before the normal Refresh sequence gets around to them so they don't degrade too much.
Given that many vendors have added some non-standard support for TRR mode on DDR4 (this feature was added as an optional feature for LPDDR4 and some vendors added it to their DDR4 chips even though it wasn't part of the DDR4 spec), I suspect that is the direction they are headed will be TRR on DDR5.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to remember that for many, "reality" is an illusion created by the visual cortex part of your brain. Since it takes time for your brain to decode the input from your visual senses in the visual cortex, in a way your conscious mind is interpreting the recent past as "now". Of course there are always "reactionary" processing from our reptilian brain that work on a faster pace (sound, touch, involuntary reflexes, etc) and these occasionally intrude on our quaint visual cortex consciousness view of "now" to give us the misguided impression that we can somehow anticipate the future (maybe a second or so, the feeling of deja vu or flinching before your see something).
There is evidence that psychedelic drugs like LSD allow for additional intrusions from other parts of the brain into the visual cortex in an often uncoordinated or hallucinatory fashion which leads some to speculate that generates feeling of some sort of break with reality, or one-ness with universe as these novel interactions are interpreted by the visual cortex. Unfortunately, there is also some evidence that LSD also inhibits connections between the visual cortex and the parahippocampus which plays an important role in memory encoding. This might explain why memories of LSD trips are often fleeting leaving only vague impressions in their wake...
If you associate the normal visual cortical view of "reality" as consciousness, maybe you might think of this psychedelic state which causes this disjoint amalgamation of signals in the visual cortex as some sort "higher" or "altered" consciousness, but given the apparent difficulties of recording and learning about perceptions that could be potentially distilled from this state, it's a stretch to say that any specific intrinsic knowledge about the mechanics of self perception could be learned or gained this way, but certainly for many it might enable a different way of looking at things (which might give you insight into something that you know about already or bridge many facts/skills/ideas you already have together into something clever or novel).
As with many systems, it's generally very difficult to discover the nature of the system from within the system, but maybe a researcher armed with MRIs (and neural lace?) might be able to learn something about you and your thought processes by studying you when are tripping. That whole idea of somehow an untrained individual unlocking the knowledge of the universe crap while tripping is not bloody likely...
On the other hand, just like the allegory of the caves, I suspect some that partake in LSD somehow develop the impression that it opens them up to a different type of perception of reality from which they do not want to return, but the sad fact is that it is simply a different reality, not "the" reality (you still don't "see" anymore than your senses, you just have a different take on them, a different perspective so to speak). Your brain is still looking a shadows on the cave wall (but maybe multi-colored and fancy with sound and light ;^)...
Ladies and gentleman, this is your stewardess speaking. We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused. This is due to periodic air pockets we encountered. There's no reason to become alarmed and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
I think it's kind of funny that they would choose a Greco-Roman cultural figure for their project name. Were there no gods of Chinese mythology available?
I think Baidu was looking for an association with a "moon-shot" like Google, and called it Apollo as to not confuse it with the Chinese moon program (Chang'e), which unlike the Apollo program is still ongoing.
I would be interested to see what kind of failure modes there are for this new battery technology.
Since they claimed to not have totally figured out the "cathode" configuration part yet, I suspect that's the part that's that's the weak part in the chain...
Generally, any difficulties like this in the lab point will lead to a lack of guidance in these areas for commercial solutions which will in turn translate to poorly understood commercial solutions. So any such difficulties are often the prime suspect for failure modes.
"A particle that doesn't exist yet"
Technically a particle system that is theorized to exist, but not yet isolated:
So does that imply a new type of particle in the usual sense (electrons, positrons, neutrinos etc) or in some more abstract sense?
The anyon particle is a more abstract type called a quasi-particle. An anyon would be an isolatable effect in a *real* system, where the system is constrained in a specific way. As a way of analogy, if you had an electron travelling through a semiconductor, you can think as a really complicated system of electrons travelling thorough a sea/lattice of nuclei, or you can think of it as a quasi-electron quantum particle travelling in a more homogeneous media. An Anyon is simply a ordinary particle constrained by the system to a two-dimensional system in a specific way. A quasi-particle is mostly just a mathematical apparatus to simply solving a many-body quantum-mechanical problem using a quantum-field theory approach (rather than a quantum N-body approach).
And by "theorised to exist", again, does that mean "predicted by some postulated variant of string theory / supersymmetry / unified theory of everything (like, say, sparticles or phonons)" or "follows from standard, well tested theory, but not yet observed in the wild (eg the postulated island of stability for very isotopes with very heavy nuclei)"?
Well phonons are also quasi-particles, and they doesn't require string theory or supersymmetry or unified field theory. All phonons do is describe vibrations in crystal lattices (a real phenomena). You can think of the vibrations as quasi-particles that have "mass" and "inertia", "boundary-conditions", etc, but at the end of the day the math describes a real measurable phenomena in the crystal lattice. It's just a different way to do the math.
Anyons are quasi-particles that should mathematically occur in *real* 2-dimensional constrained systems (e.g., crystal surfaces, graphene layers, etc). Kind of like there are fermions and bosons particles which have different statistical properties which cause systems to *get-weird* in different ways when you reduce the degrees of freedom (you can google about cooling a bose-einstein condensate), these 2D anyons mathematically occur in two statistical types: Abelian and non-Abelian. Anyon quasi-particles obeying Abelian statistics have *already* been observed in nature and are key to understanding the fractional quantum hall effect.
Discovery of a system with anyon quasi-particles obeying non-Abelian statistics would be key in creating so-called "braids" which are hypothesized to be a much more stable quantum system from which to implement a quantum computer rather than using spin or polarization (which is what most people use now and suffer from very fast quantum decoherence time).
Being a quasi-particle, physicists are not so-much discovering an anyon particle, but attempting to construct *real-world* two-dimensionally constrained quantum systems that should exhibit this mathematical property, and then experimentally verifying that it has the properties theorized. This is the part that hasn't been done yet.
"A particle that doesn't exist yet"
Technically a particle system that is theorized to exist, but not yet isolated: An anyon particle system with a state degeneracy which exhibits non-Abelian particle exchange statistics.
Apparently, with such a particle system, it is possible to build a topological quantum computer.
Experimental physicists potentially observed such a system in nanowires made from the semiconductor indium antimonide. More recent experiments suggest that it is possible that ultra-pure, ultra-cold, ultra-magnetized gallium arsenide crystals might exhibit such statistics, but verification remains unresolved...
I wonder how closely economists have looked at the "send it home" phenomenon. What portion of immigrant income is repatriated?
Economists generally favor immigration, believing it results in greater economic domestic economic activity. But if some large portion of immigrant wages is sent abroad, it would seem to undermine some of the increased economic activity aspect.
In previous eras, it was much more difficult to repatriate wages, and I wonder if econometrics associated with immigration still has a bias on income predominantly remaining in the US.
"Remittance" has been and probably will continue to be a major economic factor. History of remittances date back to the Hawala (8th century). According to the world bank, although remittances will top 1/2 trillion USD, $400B of that is through migrant workers.
Unsurprisingly, India and China top the list of receivers of remittances ($70B, $60B/year respectively).
Floating as in being one of the best students in your class for instance? Floating because you are so smart that the classes and assignments are too easy and you spend most of your time working on your own projects? And how are computer science students supposed to get work experience if no one wants to hire them?
Does someone has a chip on their shoulder? In my experience, teamwork is way more important than being the "best". Who cares who is the best anyhow? If nobody understands what you are doing, how are they gonna test it? How are they gonna maintain that clever algorithm? How can they figure out if the project is ahead or behind schedule? What are they going to do when you quit and move to greener pastures?
FWIW, Big companies often will sweep hire NCG (new college grads), and sort them over a 2 year stretch. Might not be glamorous work, but that is the entry point for many into certain professions (programming, accounting, engineering, etc).
Working for other people means you have to be likeable. If you are the kind of person people don't like it does not matter how clever you are or how good you are at what you do. You'll be lucky to get a job working at Walmart.
Not much to say about that... Except duh... What good is it if you have a person with 200% of average productivity when it drags down the productivity 20% of the other 10 people on the team that have to interact with that person?
That being said, everyone can be likable, but many folks that think that someone is not likable tend to be simply projecting themselves, so says my psychiatrist friend. How can anyone be sure that *nobody* else likes that person? Projecting your own biases on to other folks is basically conceit, right?
Businesses and professionals don't want new processors because of the lack of Windows 7 support and the abandoning of tick tock means waiting three years for performance increases instead of two. There's simply no reason to want to know the future of Intel's products.
More than likely, a lack of interests in sponsors meant the event was more money than their PR department could stomach.
They pretty much clubbed their traditional partners in the knees and squeezed out all their margins by integrating everything and are now pivoting away from their old businesses. Asking what's left of their partners to pay for a tradeshow is just insult to injury and I'm sure many balked/walked. With their pivot, to new businesses (e.g., IoT, AI, etc), they probably found they couldn't convince any new sponsors to foot the same bill as the old partners (e.g., why would an IoT starter partner be pay as much as say Asus, or HP to sponsor IDF for Intel to talk about servers and platforms) and need to rethink the whole IDF idea.
RIP...
Perhaps because despite its sensational title, cheesy special effects, and the fact that it's a low-budget rehash of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, it's actually quite thoughtful and intelligently executed. The monsters of the title aren't monsters at all, but aliens with understandable if scientifically preposterous motivations. Yet it doesn't fall into the modern who's-the-real-monster-here pitfall: the humans have legitimate reason to fear and even kill the aliens.
One of the reasons I like this movie is that it shows that low budget and vulgar popular tastes are no excuse for making a stupid, boring movie. If you don't have enough money for color film, use black and white to create atmosphere. If you don't have the money for special effects, use storytelling to engage the audience with suspense.
Or if you have no money to pay for extras, use a loaf of bread...
Bladerunner. Alien. Terminator. In recent years my mind is a blank but that one with the blond chick who was an AI was good.
Hmm, don't know which you were referring to, but "Ex Machina" was okay, but she wasn't blond. On the other hand "Her" was a chick-flick that wasn't so good and in addition to not appearing in the movie, she isn't a natural blond. I haven't seen "Ghost in the shell" yet, so perhaps that one is a more promising "blond chick" who was an AI movie...
That `ring' from the Death Star explosion has always bothered me. To this day I keep thinking they should have made that a spherical blast effect.
Then watch the *original* or *revisited* version (if you can't find it, here's a clip comparing them). There is no 'ring' explosion in the *original* or *revisited* version, only the "special" edition has that particular abomination...
AFAIKT, this controversy is probably only second to the han-shot-first controversy...
Body armor that may as well have been regular clothing for all the good it did? This was a frustrating movie.
I always wondered why they even bothered to wear the body armor when it couldn't even stop their own weapons, not to mention the bugs themselves. That and the fact that none of the rifles even had sights kind of blew my mind. When you are fighting as infantry against thousands and hundreds of thousands of enemies, spraying and praying is really not the best idea. And, for a semi-fascist, military-industrial complex led society, they surprisingly had no idea of combined arms tactics. No armored vehicles, no air support, no artillery. Just lots and lots of people. It was like the WWII-era Red Army in space. The closest thing they had was the bombing run on the one planet followed up by an infantry attack, but clearly the staff officer school for the Federation military doesn't go into much detail on WWI or WWII, otherwise they would have realized that pre-attack bombardments are pretty useless against enemy combatants that are entrenched or bunkered underground.
FWIW, Movie director Paul Verhoeven has stated that he never read the Heinlein book and instead movie drew heavily from his experience in Nazi-occupied Netherlands (which among other things morphed the "federal service" from a switzerland-like idea to a fascist-like concept).
One (of many) of the big points of divergence is that in the original story, the infantry armor was *powered* armor and a major plot device (that idea was unused in the original movie adaptation). Also, the original story glorified the role of the infantry, so of course all the story lines revolve around the infantry and told from that point of view. One of the military ideas explored by the book is the idea of a hybrid infantry/armored fighting unit (based on powered armor) and the fighting tactics such a unit might use, but this idea is of course totally lost in the movie adaptation.
Rationally, nobody wants to be a leader because it is too much extra work and because big decisions generally have the worse predictability of the outcome. The expected return on investment for being a leader generally sucks. Look at who volunteers to be president of small community organizations and scale that up. Since most rational people are lazy and only look for good ROIs, nobody rational wants to become a leader.
Of course if you are delusional, you might want to become a leader. We might be better off following the humble delusional, but since most lazy folks think they are humble (even if they aren't), we tend to hate that which is most like ourselves, so most lazy folks don't want to follow a humble person because we often project our own faults and fears on to that such person because of course we could be that person. So by process of elimination, we follow the charismatic delusional and project our hopes and dreams on to that person.
It's not a surprise that the average outcome is better because humble people are generally more paranoid and the paranoid often survive better in average conditions, but if you want to either succeed greatly or go down in flames, why not follow a charismatic delusional? The big winners write the history books (or in this case randomly survived the cataclysms that formed the evolutionary choke points in our history).
Not quite. In fact it isn't some vague "system" that pays, it's generally the *merchant* and the *poor* that pays the differential.
* cash transaction - merchant has to pay bank cash deposit fees (yes, merchants have to pay to deposit cash into banks ~0.3%), best for merchant
* standard credit card - merchant pays a small merchant fee to payment processor (~1-2%) , second best for merchant
* rewards credit card - merchant pays a premium "rewards" merchant fee (~2-3%) to the payment processor who gives that money to the issuer (to buy crap like airline miles), worst for merchant
The more "rewards" cards the merchant sees, the more the merchant has to pay in fees. The way the card-issuers and payment processors sell this scam to merchants is that people who hold rewards cards tend to spend more money (which is a load of crap). The payment processors that charged "fixed" fees for any type of card mostly just charge some amount more and pocket the difference between what they have to forward to standard card issuers vs rewards issuers, so it's hard for a merchant to simply avoid this problem by picking a fixed fee payments processor.
Oh yeah, on top of the merchant fee difference that is charged to merchants, card issuers also cost-shift and take part of the finance charges received from standard cards and use them to supplement the rewards card holders (basically stealing from the "poor" to give to the "rich"). It's all a big scam that rewards cards holders are complicit in.
But, yes, the guy with the best rewards card comes out ahead, coming out of the hide of the merchants and the people that pay credit card finance charges. Sleep well at night, it's the system and you didn't design it and probably can't do anything about it but sit back and reap the rewards...
Beating people up to remove them from planes after boarding is standard practice in the US?
Forcibly removing passengers from planes that don't comply with crew-member instructions is standard practice in the US (as with most countries)
Its just that for some reason, in US society we have more citizens who refuse to comply with crew-member instructions, and many crew-members aren't trained to de-escalate tense situations very well.
How the heck is it even possible to get involuntarily bumped? Either you have a boarding pass with a seat assignment or you don't. Once you do, you have a seat. So this means they had to have taken someone who didn't have a seat and given that person a seat while forcing somebody else who already had a seat to give up that seat. That's completely idiotic. Just reassign the person who didn't have a seat before. They didn't check in early enough to get a seat, which was their decision. Why should people who spent the extra effort to check in and get their seat assignment have to suffer so that people who couldn't be bothered can take their seats?
The only even semi-plausible situation that could explain this would be if the equipment changed to a smaller plane, but even then, they should have known about the reduction in seats prior to boarding.
AFAIK, you can legally be "bumped" for any reason (including if you have a boarding pass or are even on the plane). Airlines are allowed to make pretty much any decisions (takeoff-weight limitations, allowing frequent fliers or connecting passengers priority, or net revenue concerns) as long as they provide the legally obligated compensation to the person who was denied carriage. The FAA requires passengers follow crew member instructions at all times including disembarking the plane when requested.
As to whether any of this is "idiotic" or causes people to "suffer", or hurts PR, those are other questions, but the practice of arbitrary denied boarding is certainly legal.
If you talk to Vail locals who knew the original founders (there's plenty still around), they will tell you that Vail's site was chosen in part because it's on the opposite side of Vail Pass from Denver, thus making it hard for large numbers of people to get in after a big snow dump. I don't think Vail would want this tunnel thing.
Have you read the book The Inventors of Vail?
As I recall, Vail was basically born to be a resort that was between Aspen and Winter Park on US hwy 6 (now I-70). They were banking on the fact that I-70 would take the US-6 path rather than the US-40 path (this I-70 decision was made in 1960 before Vail got off the ground in the mid '60's even though I-70 didn't start construction for another decade).
FWIW, the California Zephyr train takes a track that goes from Denver to Winterpark ski area, and then to Granby and Glenwood Springs. The tracks don't currently go near Vail (which is sorta between Granby and Glenwood Springs) because Vail is in a deep valley surrounded by mountains, so the train goes around following the less treacherous US40 route (north through winterpark, granby and kremmling).
That's why Google is struggling. The balls-to-the-wall, 80-hour a week culture means that only the Red Bull crowd will thrive in such organization.
I don't think that's how Google works. It's how Apple worked. I think of Google as the place to go if you don't want to work hard.
That's how Google *used* to work and probably a reason it is struggling *now* for growth. From my observation it's turned into a bifurcation of old-timers that are sticking around because it's comfortable, and newer folks that don't want to take any real risks. The real risk takers often don't work at google because they perceive the reward for risk is too low at Google (unless you are buddy-buddy with an old-timer). Generally it's the real risk-takers that are correlated with the 80-hour/week startup culture.
Some Google managers still want it to run like it's an 80-hour/week startup, so they are mostly getting resume-builders that will put up with that for a couple years and then either settle in until they bail to something shiny and new... Most of the other managers have already settled-in. That's why they seem to be transitioning from hiring to acqui-hiring (like many big companies do after a while) for growth.
It'd be nice if TFS explained why I should give a shit; I'm not going to bother with TFA if the poster couldn't be bothered to say who Walt Mossberg is.
It's a bit sad that people on a tech-site don't know who Walt Mossberg is, but I suppose that is probably why you posted AC.
Perhaps that isn't something that interests the pure techie, but reviews of mainstream tech gear and trends in mainstream publications (like the WSJ) really used to make or break companies. For example, one thing contributing to millions of folks plunkog down hard money for the first iPhone would be a positive review about it in a WSJ publication. The mainstreaming of the computer and handheld revolution basically moved the tech industry from the obscure backroom machine to the common household product and in his position, he probably got a front row seat.
Legally, at least in the US, if they deny you the opportunity to take your vacation they must pay it out in a use it or lose it system. Just some food for thought.
That is part of the reason for the current HR corporate trend of unlimited vacation... Of course, just like unlimited data, unlimited vacation doesn't mean what you think it means, it means your manager has to agree. As part of this HR fad, my company made this transition to unlimited a many years ago. They dutifully bought off all of our unused vacation and initiated this "unlimited vacation" policy.
Since the company "wins" by not booking future liabilities, it's only fair that the employee gets an equitable benefit otherwise, it's just stealing a benefit (reducing your compensation and padding their bottom line). The problem with this policy (or any other policy) often isn't the company, the HR folks, or the other "suits". The problem is that many of the managers do not understand how to apply policies like unlimited vacation in a way that would make it better than fixed vacation policies for employees because it is not uncommon for managers to only look out for themselves.
I suspect this is generally true with most companies, and is why managers need to be "forced" to do the right thing (by the company, or by the law), because left to their own devices, they are often less than competent at the "management" aspect of their jobs (I'm sure we've all worked for examples of this at one time or another).
Another possible explanation for this misguided manager behavior is that those managers are playing out some weird real-life variant of the Stanford prison experiment, or perhaps they are trying in desperation to please some "god" by sacrificing the lives of their employees (the sad part is generally that such a "god" is totally indifferent either way).
You'll have to be more specific.
Did someone leave a Tesla a bad review and was told suddenly they won't be able to drive their car anymore and to go push it to the nearest shop for a refund?
When Elon unilaterally canceled an order for a Model X of a self proclaimed Tesla enthusiast who complained in a blog about a disorganized customer event where he didn't get a chance to sit in the car, that person didn't even get to drive it in the first place and thus didn't need a refund.
The lesson here is that it's okay to diss past and potential future customers, but not current customers, right?
It sounds like the basic premise of this is to normalize "key money".
For those not in the know, sometimes property managers of hot properties will accept bribes from prospective tenants (either directly or through intermediary apartment "brokers") to secure leases for properties where the landlord has delegated rental lease responsibility to the property manager. Now it appears the landlord is going to get a cut of this in cold-hard cash and it will be recurring... Sad that they are attempting to normalize this practice... Maybe one of the founders was burned by a shady apartment "broker" in the past and decided that they wanted a piece of that action...
Because they couldn't get around the patents they had. They must have figured out another way to do things if they're just cutting them loose.
Poor guys, the stock was down 63% this morning.
Probably gonna get worse for Imagination. About the only reason they were selling anything to SoC folks is that they could point and say, Apple uses our GPUs and that's why we are going to stay in business (used to be Apple and Intel). Now, not so much, and ARM/Mali is probably gonna come in and eat their lunch. Imagination isn't gonna be much better than Vivante after this.
FWIW, Vivante isn't in much better shape than Imagination, their main customer is Freescale, which was bought by NXP which was recently bought by Qualcomm who many moond ago had bought ATI's mobile GPU for use in their Snapdragon chips (which is likely in most of the non-samsung android phones that aren't sold in china).
And then there were fewer...
will DDR5 still be susceptible to Rowhammer attacks? Also, will the increased speed make it even more susceptible? They barely escaped a cataclysm last time, so one would hope they addressed the root cause.
The root cause of Row Hammer is physics: reading a row causes adjacent row capacitors to degrade at a faster rate than typical.
You can refresh the memory even more conservatively to eliminate these statistical outliers (reducing average performance and increasing power) or come up with a more nuanced approach (e.g., doing Targeted Row Refresh or TRR). In TRR mode the DRAM chip tracks row activations to identify a row that is being targetted and prepends the two adjacent rows to the Refresh sequence so they can be refreshed before the normal Refresh sequence gets around to them so they don't degrade too much.
Given that many vendors have added some non-standard support for TRR mode on DDR4 (this feature was added as an optional feature for LPDDR4 and some vendors added it to their DDR4 chips even though it wasn't part of the DDR4 spec), I suspect that is the direction they are headed will be TRR on DDR5.