And maybe someone clueless enough to fall for this kind of tricks (bogus phishing links) wouldn't be the best person to trust with your web security (the web extensions they write are probably full of exploitable bugs and flaws).
For me, it's the inaudible part that doesn't add up.
Regarding the laser microphone : If this device emits in the inaudible part of the spectrum, how can it jam speech ? The most obvious counter-counter-measure, would be to clean the sound spectrum from the laser, amplifying the frequencies mostly found in human voice, and masking frequencies out of this frequency-band (thus masking all frequencies beyond hearing range but still somewhat picked up by the mic).
Or is the anti-laser counter-measure banking on output so much noise (out of spectrum sounds), that the signal (speech) is swamped by the jamming, and the laser mic mostly picks up noise. i.e.: make the signal/noise ratio suck a lot hoping that the mic won't pick up the interesting (voice) frequencies against the ultra loud background. so after frequency isolation, the resulting voice would be completely distorted due to poor mic response. (But probably there are no publically available detailed analysis of the response of laser mics) (Though signal processing science tells us that if the analog stage - the lase part of the mic - is able to pick higher frequencies than the digitizer - which probably could be limited to hearing range - the signalling will be strongly distorted in the hearing range - which also the single reason of existance of 192kHz ADC)
Regarding the hearing loss : How the hell is hearing loss possible with a out-of-spectrum noise ? By definition sound outside the audible spectrum is sound outside the frequency response of the human auditory system. I.e.: frequencies which physically can't interact with the inner ear. By which mechanism could they still harm the hearing if we can't hear them ? (= if they can't manage to interact with the inner ear) By damaging the middle ear (the small bones that work as transducers to transmit sound to the inner ear ?)
I can't manage to find a thing about it. - There's only a 2013 study in Germany on 21 individuals that reported a change in spontaneous otoaccoustic emissions (the noise that the ear it self is making) when people were subject to 90 sec. bursts of infra sounds. - Wikipedia page on "Ultrasound" mentions a 120dB safety limit, but the cited source is dead.
Article "Doing activity X will improve training on capability A and B, but the unused skill C and D will dwindle" Press "OMG! X is going to kill us all because of C and D ! Quick, click on our advertisement!"
And if they pay this group, the episodes are going to be leaked by a completely independent team of indian hacker who managed to get their hand on pre-review material.
And if these indian got arrested in time, some other group will manage to release the video acquired by yet another method.
There simply is no way paying a ransom to avoid leaking videos online, even if you're 100% sure that the guys asking for the money are honnest and won't release it anyway after running away with the money.
Acording to the article, the main development is they use NVlink.
I.e.: they use some king of SLI bus for the interconnect between all the graphic cards in their cluster.
Instead of using OpenMPI over Infiniband like tons of scientific clusters have been doing for the past decade.
Yes, they're going to shave a tiny bit of latency (from what I gatter the interconnect is directly handled and access by the graphic cards themselves) (as opposed to Infiniband which would need to go through the bus on the motherboard). But that's about it.
Disclaimer: I'm a Doctor, Jim, not an airplane machanic !
(Is there a mechanics on/. who would spend some time enlighting us, please ?)
But, from what I've read elsewhere and heard from actual pilot friends:
With plottable auto-pilot and automatic landing systems already well-established, things like collision avoidance and take-off should probably fit in something the size of a shoe box. {...} Pilots have been there for a long time to be little more than just in-flight "uh-oh handlers". They are very valuable in flights, but the number of circumstances where a plane would need the pilot is low.
That's what I've hread too : modern plane are virtually flying pilotless most of the time. The only reason a pilot is there is : - to react to unusually weird solution which wasn't envisioned in the computers yet (*). We humans are a bit better than computer at thinking outside the box. - to keep their training by actually flying the plane from time to time even if the plane could have flown on its own. --- (*) though after the fact, computer software can get updated. Airbus eventually have updates to be able to fly with several missing bits on the tail.
I'm almost 100% sure that things like mechanical control of the flaps, elevators and rudder doesn't exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that when you physically manipulate the controls, the steering mechanisms are controlled electronically... and have been proven over time. I'd almost guess that the throttle is not mechanically control.
From what I've read, depends on the manufacturer :
- Airbus is 100% computer. Its controls are basically a glorified force-feedback joystick. A pilot is not as much controlling flaps/elevators/rudders, as giving command to a computer and then the electronics moving them according to the command. (This also gives the computer to give an (overrideable) protest if the input seems not to make sense. It gives also the possibility to the computer to manage to execute the command even if there are missing bits). Security is assured by having multiple redundant system (i.e.: a pilot can still fly when one or even two computer are fried, because there are enough redundant system remaining).
- Boeing is still direct control. Moving the controls *actually* move the flaps/elevators/rudders. Except of course it's power-assisted for obvious size/mass reasons. But in theory a pilot can still manage to fly a plane with a fried computer.
I would imagine that airplanes have lost communications many times and pilots have had to deal without ground communication. I'd also imagine that systems would be in place to deal with loss of communication with ground control. I'd also imagine that there should be some sort of backup... for example, if the plane loses ground communication, sending up a drone to fly in front of the jet and direct it down would be an option.
Regarding unexpected loss of communications : In Switzerland, it's sending an actually-manned military plane (not just a drone) to escort and communicating visually.
Regarding other loss of communications : Some really remote region of the world have a lot less coverage. The plane basically pings at some interval on some really low-bandwidth link. Still, planes are able to radio each other.
The number of circumstances where communications is lost during an emergency is almost zero. If automatic systems can't land the plane and the plane can't be remote controlled and the plane can't be electronically guided in by a drone... I'm pretty sure there's a way that a flight attendant could have a button to click called "Circle and await further instruction" as well as emergency buttons like "fly mechanically in circles above clouds while we reboot all the computers".
If none of that is good enough... well.. I don't think I pilot would be much help either.
But it's not going to be empty, it's going to contain an older version of your OS which the system keeps around so it can update itself and boot from it in case the update fails.
That's in *google*'s update scheme (the one mentionned in the summary).
This thread's top poster is not interested in OTA update from Google. He's interested in installed community firmware such as LineageOS (formely CyanogenMod).
He has no use of the "one partition currently running (with old OS) one partition currently downloading (the next OS)", 1 partition is enough, and wondered if spaces can be claimed from this partition. In this conditions it's actually relevant to point that the firmware running inside the flash chip will actually claim that unused space as more reserve for wear-leveling.
On the other hand AMD's GPU are still much more open-source friendly compared to Nvidia, and at the same time are still relevant when compared to Intel (even if not as power-efficient as Nvidia).
AMD has Linux devs on their payroll, is supporting 2 stack one of which (their long term goal) is opensource (runs a classical DRI/Mesa stack), while the other (eventually targetting for professionnals who need some weird features) leverages the same kernel driver.
The AMD opensource drivers are decent, offer support for most of the hardware (except the current DC/DAL delay) and is the official stack for older hardware.
Means that AMD graphic cards "just work" with the latest version of your favorite rolling distro (Opensuse tumbleweed in my case).
(BTW: Intel is also providing opensource drivers, but completely different than their windows stack)
Meanwhile, Nvidia only provides a blob which, while mostly decent, has several problems : no way to fix it by 3rd parties for newer kernel (so you're stuck with which ever kernel version they decided to support) and they only support a small subset of advanced features (optimus used to not work for quite some time), also lots of problems on platforms which are not the standard desktop (sleep and mode-setting working badly on some laptops).
The only alternative is Nouveau which, while having achieved quite some progress, still needs to be done nearly enterily by reverse engineering Nvidia's drivers, all done only by volunteers with very little actual help from Nvidia. Meaning often some basic stuff (reclocking) isn't working.
proves exactly how much value we should attribute to these so-called 'fact-checking organizations'.
The alternative would be to equip the people with the (intellectual) tools, so they can make up their mind of their own.
There are french teachers currently organising such classes in schools (media awareness). One of them has a youtube channel (sorry, everything in french currently), where he makes presentations about such media-critic methods, and also documents a colleague doing such a lesson in a classroom.
or maybe they are all running to get as much clicks (and ads revenue) as possible by quickly re-posting some sensationalist trash without much checking.
The next step would to check the source mentioned in each of them and build a graph of the propagation.
Then several possible outcome : - you'll go up stream until you find an actual report (the planned parenthood listing 3M spent on this politician on their taxt returns) - you'll go up stream until you find something that remotely looks like this if you squinit enough, which then got completely emplified along the buzz-click mill. (see PhDCommics' entry about news cycle). - you'll just see a giant cycle of people reposting each other's crap (with perhaps some tabloid citing "anonymous sources") (or outright telling that the info was leaked out of the secret base of Illuminati thanks to the action of alien spies)
Mainstream news probably reached the same conclusion and that's why they aren't interested in reposting this shit : - they are not trying to "hide truth so the reptilian can keep opression the people" - they have simply found out that the fact don't add up and the information isn't worth publishing.
Just plug the same ol' 3.5 mm plug into the same ol' 3.5 mm jack on the INCLUDED Lighting to 3.5 mm adapter, and off you go!
Okay, when I point out that Apple is receiving a Ticket Tape Parade for the "revolution" of saving a few percent battery on something which has been done for the past 15 years already, I'm derided as HATER (and life time member of Guild of Android Users Misanthropes ?) But when you point that now any user of analog links now needs to fumble with a tiny easy to use adapter, it's not something problematic ? Double standard ?
In which case, yeah - having an app on a smartphone to tweak this might be vaguely useful
Well aren't you special? Deciding what's "useful" to someone who has to LIVE THEIR LIFE with a Cochlear Implant?
I'm not the one deciding. Laws of physics and biochemistry are deciding.
Okay, maybe you really don't have an idea how a cochlear implant works.
It's a tiny electrode array that you insert nearby the "swirl" of the innear ear (lat.: cochlea), the small snail shaped part. This it the part where the accoustic nerves (the accoustic part of the Cranial Nerve VIII - Vestibulo-cochlear) arrives. Due to how the cochlea works, each part of this nerve is stimulated by a signal due to a different frequency (the cochlear is some sort of mechanical fourier transformer). Thus each channel of the electrode array - which stimulates a different part of the nerves - stimulates according to a different band of sound frequency.
There is no such thing yet as electrodes nano-bonded to the nerves themselve. No "cyber synapses" yet. The electrodes are simply stimulating the nerve electrically from a distance.
There an upper physico-chemical limit on how precisely you can stimulate the nerve. An electrode array can have up to some number of channels (forgot the exact current number with current tech. But it won't be much above 7, because to revolutionnary tech has enabled a jump of several order of magnitude). You can technically put more channels/electrodes in the array, but the end effect will be the same as there will be cross talk between the channels (unable to stimulate precisely enough), so the end result (number of distinct audio frequency bands) will be the same.
In other words : the frequency resolution of cochlear implant sucks, and is going to sucks for the near future until some *actual* revolution in modern cybernetics (e.g.: all this neuron-to-silicon synapse things done in labs that you sometime hear on/. Maybe some day they'll be usable on implant).
Until then it's going to be really hard to be an audiophile with a cochlear implant.
Audio profile ("rock", "classical" and other effect that you've seen on cheap sound systems) are "vaguely useful" in my opinion, not only because they seem to (in my opinion) be a cheap gimmick to add a bullet point on an audio equipment, but mainly because objectively the perceived audio on a impant is a bit limited. There's no much gain in putting a 32-band effect equalizer on something which is basically a 5-7 band audio transmission. (Something, which if you really want it, can be covered with separated bass/mid/trebble pots. Not "something which looks like an airco remote" BTW, I've never seen such huge remotes being used on implants. But as I said I haven't been following latest development)
That's why I'm say "vaguely useful" regarding audio-system-like profiles. It's not that I'm judging that deaf people are unworthy of the joys of enabling a "jazz music" audio profile like other people on their sound system. It's that, given the physical constraints of an implant and the type of sound perceived from it, I thing the relevance is quite limited.
It's much more useful for the quality of life of deaf people to improve the quality of automatic noise filters (and also decrease the overall price of implants).
if it can't even be bothered to do something you claim is so simplistic it's hardly worth mentioning.
...which is probably going to start to pop-up on most other phones, now that LEA is starting to get attention, its specs get published, and most phone actually move to hardware equipped with BTLE (...there might still be some smartphones without the "Smart") and enable BTLE in their stack (there are smartphone with chips that support BTLE, but not yet the OS).
My bet is first on the various community edition/3rd party patches of full blown GNU/Linux OS (like SailfishOS ?) Then on Google's flasgship products. Then on 3rd party android firmwares (LineageOS etc.) - some even managing to use later kernels available from the chipset manufacturers to get most recent drivers. As for the carrier provided phone ? Forget about it, you'll be lucky to get *any update*, just switch to Lineage already.
But then I guess that's not a surprise since Android users never did care about quality of life for anyone, much less the disabled.
Are you trying to insinuate that I hate people ? Or that I could be an Android user ? (I'm not) Or are you insinuating that Apple is the only one to design OS that take disabled into account ? (Note: One of the founders of Jolla - makers of SailfishOS - is disabled himself. Among others, Sailfish is designed to be operated single handed)
P.S. You also must not be very technical if you think there is not a large difference in both UX and energy consumption between BT and BTLE.
I'll have bad news for you. The fact that BTLE consume a little bit less energy than vanilla BT doesn't come only from the signal it self, but the way communication is organized. BTLE comes from different protocols which where swallowed by BT, those protocols where targeted to ultra low power sensors. A significant part of the energy enconomy comes from the fact that those sensors communicate in short occasional bursts. They don't need to be fully powered all the time, only for the short period of time when they emit their readings. Also the whole "opening a channel to transmit data" is much simpler, meaning it's much faster, meaning the sensor needs to spend less time in high power mode.
LEA, by streaming audio (i.e.: a constant stream) defeat this latter advantage. In other words, don't expect to see as much power saving between A2DP and LEA as you could between a hearth beat-rate monitor on BT classic and BTLE. And that's just for the audio streaming it self.
But fuck people who have to power microscopically sized implants, right?
The implant is only a tiny part of the system. The implant IS NOT the part that connects to the phone. The implant is an array of electrode that follows the swirl of the inner ear (lat.: cochlea) and is capable of independently stimulate different region of the array of nerves (corresponding to different frequency bands). The more electrodes the better (up to the point where you can't precisely enough stimulate a small region compared to their neighbors, due to the distance between the electrode and the array of nerves (the spectral resolution of this isn't as good as natural hearing). It's small chip either has a proprietary plug going through the skin (until sometime before my studies) or (anything since then) has a coil under the skin which can receive signal and power wirelessly. This implant doesn't even process audio signal.
Then you have the audio processor it self. It's either a small audio-player like box clipped on the belt (popular with kids because it's easier to manipulate, also has way more battery), or an around-the-ear device (similar to a hearing aid, but without an earphone in the ear cannal). This device communicate with the implant with a coil that sticks magnetically above the implant's coil, or simply with a cable to the through-skin plug for older generation im
Directly getting access to all sounds of an iPhone opens a new world for these users.
No, it doesn't open anything *new*.
15 years ago, when I was still student in a medicine faculty, patients could plug their phones into the AUX-in port of their system. (The external sound processor. Not the actual implant. Yes, backthen, there where still implant with physical connection "ghost in the shell"/"matrix" style. But it's not that plug I'm refering to, I'm referring to the audio-in on the piece that itselfs plugs into the implant / or communicates and powers wireless the implant through the skin)
This was an important feature even 15 years ago : the quality of sound you could pass then through the implant wasn't stellar. Patients couldn't easily distinguishes voices over a noisy background (dual implants - one per ear - of later generations (more distinct channels and thus better spectral resolution) had improved that later) Patients couldn't also easily hear a voice produced by the tiny speaker of a phone and then picked up by the mic of the external sound processor. So having an analog AUX-in to plug directly into phone was an essential feature even 15 years.
i.e.: even 15 years ago, patients were able to place calls simply by plugging their phones into their implant (well not the actual implant, the external processor).
If anything, latest Apple phone are the "disabled-hating" device because they drop this useful analog jack.
Since the last couple of years, some bluetooth audio capabilities also started appearing. So you could even use phones wirelessly.
The only new "revolution" of Apple is using a slightly lower-power protocole (Bluetooth LE/Smart versus classic Bluetooth). And that's it. Big "meh".
The alternative is proprietary remote-control devices made by the hearing aid companies, which means that you pay the price of an iPhone, but get the functionality of a airco remote.
Maybe this has changed in the recent years. But back when I was following the tech, outside of the complex calibration that where done by a technician using a full blown computer, patients didn't need that much controling of the implants. Power on/off, battery indicator, AUX-in, switch to select the sound source. And that's it. These device where designed to be as simple to operate as possible. And could be operated by children. (With later models probably adding a bluetooth button or two for switching and pairing.) But back then I've never heard of overly complex administration/controlling that required patients to have huge button-overloaded remote controls.
(But maybe time have changed, and current patients want to have "audio profiles" in their filters ? Rock music, classical music, etc. like some speakers ? In which case, yeah - having an app on a smartphone to tweak this might be vaguely useful)
I guess Google and Android must really suck if they can't bothered to do something so "minor".
Virtually all android phone support classical Bluetooth (As in Bluetooth 2 in the first ever HTC G1, all the way to the non-Smart Bluetooth 4) and sending audio over it (be it the older, lower quality SDP or the more modern with better [over kill for the sound quality of a cochlear implant] A2DP). These are already been able to communicate the various bluetooth solutions (implants and even hearing aids) that have popped up into the market the last few year. Google doesn't need to bother, it already works.
Virtual any not too old phone support an analog output (the latest lightning-port-only/"revolutionnary"-no-audio-jack iPhone being the obvious exception) and could be plugged in the audio jack of implants 15 years ago.
All that Apple did, was slap a newer protocol working over a slightly different lower-power protocole (Bluetooth Smart / Low Energy). And even forgetting to tell about when they started selling their phones. That's it. That's the "huge revolution / leap forward" that TFA is talking about. "Let's use BT LE for audio instead of regular BT as everybody else".)
This is the "meh-est" of all Apple's "revolutions".
Try that on an iPhone when the temperature is sub-zero.
I'm not joking, this is a real-world experience of someone whose week-end hobby is ski instructor at my university :
Manufacturer have started to embed capacitive-touchscreen material on "under-gloves" for this exact reason (fumbling with touch screens).
Yup. The thing that you put under your ski gloves to keep you extra warm at very cold temperatures, the thing that you keep on your hand (so they stay warm) even when you remove the ski glove (to have more dexterity while rummaging through your back pack or pockets), manufacturer have managed to make it also double as a capacitive-touchscreen stylus.
Which is, in my opinion, ridiculous because the always thinner smartphone (never understood while people need phones so thin that you coudl cut cheese with them) coupled with body made out of metal (because plastic "looks cheap") means that if you take out an iPhone during freezing temperature, very often the battery will freeze and the phone will lose power after the first 2 swipes on the touchscreen.
(And although everybody buys touchscreen under-gloves. Much fewer people have decent powerbanks in their ski jackets).
Any photo is better than no photo!
And for the serious guys in cold-weather activities usually means a sport cam, which very often can also alternatively make a JPEG out of the sensors in addition to streaming a video to the SD card. (at the push of a physical button, or over some remote controlling mechanism).
Or simply use a rugged compact camera (my girlfriend uses an Olympus Tough TG-4. The lens mount even has an optionnal fish eye)
But then if you want an *ACTUAL* digital camera Sony make some of the best on the market.
They're known among other for their wonderful optical parts/lens (by Carl Zeiss). But then you have to cope with the weird NIH flash format.
Though I hope they've jumped on the "tiny embed Linux server serving photos over Wifi" bandwagon as most manufacturer of modern cameras or even flashmedia.
(my suspicion : first time the bluetooth audio is handled by the main SoC of the implant instead of a separate bluetooth chip feeding the analog input of an already FDA-approved processor)
Addendum : actually it's even more minor. Apple has simply introduced a new audio protocol (in addition to A2DP, SDP) and this new one works over Bluetooth Low Energy/Bluetooth Smart. (And has been available but poorly advertised on recent iphones) and that's it.
(First where the Bluetooth is processed by the main SoC, instead of simply having a separate bluetooth chip feeding sound over analog input of an already FDA-approved regular implant ? - that's extremely likely)
Addendum: After looking in-deep the difference is even more minor : - instead of using some older protocole that have been available on older Bluetooth protocols, like A2DP or SDP. - this specific implants simply introduce a new audio protocol over Bluetooth Low Energy (a.k.a. "Bluetooth Smart") so they don't require pairing and a slightly lower energy Which happens to have been available, but not widely documented, on recent iPhones. And that's it.
That the "big break-through" Apple is putting this PR stunt around. Yay.
How's this any different than the tele-coils current cell phones use?
Hearing Aid : a small sound amplifier that you put inside the ear cannal.
Cochlear Implant : An actual cybernetic ear. Think "Ghost in the Shell" and "Matrix" level of cybernetics. Except that it's been years since the implant and the external computer don't use an actual through-skin plug, but communicate and power wirelessly through the skin.
Also minor difference : The thing you point out seem to use some propretary wireless technology for the sound.
The cochlear implant I've seen during my studies tended to use standards for alternative audio inputs (back then : audio jack on the external computer. Since then there has been also bluetooth enabled variants. After reading TFA: this implant introduces a new audio standard over Bluetooth Lower Energy)
this is really cool, potentially life-changing tech.
No, it's not.
It's a tech that has already changed many lives in the past.
And Apple managed to find some technicality to be "first" on some minor variations (my suspicion : first time the bluetooth audio is handled by the main SoC of the implant instead of a separate bluetooth chip feeding the analog input of an already FDA-approved processor), and thus throw a cheap public stunt.
Though the PR might attract some financing in a health field (which might be good in my book)....that is, until the SoC gets hacked remotely over bluetooth. Given the current security trend that's a certainty, and the PR will backfire if the incident is a major one.
- Cochlear implant are old tech (I had to do some papers on their society impact back when I was studying medicine) - Having dedicated connection for phone was something normal (Several of the patient I was following had some plug - basically an audio jack that they can plug into phone/audio players/etc. to pick up sound instead of external mic) - Even some bluetooth connectivity has recently appeared over the last few years.
TFA's implant is only "new" due to some technicality. (First where the Bluetooth is processed by the main SoC, instead of simply having a separate bluetooth chip feeding sound over analog input of an already FDA-approved regular implant ? - that's extremely likely)
This is mainly PR to attract publicity to Apple (who need to put some effort to try to stay relevant in a post-smartphone-peak era) (and maybe hope that they become the default "go to" manufacturer for accessories to connect an implant to), PR for cochlear implants in general to attract money for a health problem (which is actually important) PR for this peculiar manufacturer (...well...)
But it's definitely not something Apple has managed to beat Google on.
They're saying not compatible. What this likely means is a change in pin layout.
As opposed to AMD's "AM#" motherboard which more or less have compatible pinouts, and are generally within a firmware upgrade away from supporting next generation's CPUs on previous generation's motherboards (though lacking support for the feature introduced with the newest "AM#" platform).
Except that developing countries tend to, you know, develop {...} Better to control the population growth while the development is happening,
Except that demographic transition IS A THING. And as the countries are developing, the birth rate is getting lower. So better control of the population is auto-happening and has been measured everywhere.
(Basically, as society develops, children aren't an advantage - helping hands in the farm - but are a burden - need education, etc. So overtime parent have less incentives to have as many as possible, which in turn compensate the fact that modern medicine is having less of the them dying of diseases. That's an actually observed phenomenon)
So "one child policies" aren't the best method. Having them access education, better jobs, even better farming equipment will accelerate the transition.
From that point of view : - cats are strict carnivore. They can't skip meat in their meat (they'll miss tons of stuff). They can't do anything but eat other animals. (Well for now. By the time the "million-dollar-bugger" process can be perfected and be scaled industrially, they will be also able to eat food that was grown in a VAT).
Humans have a very variable diet, - ranging from only eating plants (lots of traditionnally mostly-vegan diest accross culture + the current latest "vegan trend") as long as you compensate for the few amino acids that some plant lack (basically : don't only eat green leaf salad, eat legume too) - all the way to nearly as meat-centric as a cat (happens in some traditionnal diet in most arid regions) as long as you pay attention to get enough vitamins and micronutrients.
- the former (plant) tend to be rather on the lower range of CO2 production (most of the CO2 is basically produced by the farmer that make your food, by transport, etc.) and varies mostly depending on the production methods and the transport distance (eating local foods lower significantly energy requirement) (eating plants that don't need to be grown in complex industrial greenhouses to compensate for bad local environment also helps).
- the later (mostly meat) will be more or less the same range of CO2 as cats. Because you need to constantly grow plants (see above mention) to get enough food to feed the meat-producing animal, until that animal is big enough to provide enough meat, at which point you butcher it for meat. Various animal species will produce more or less CO2 (chicken - i think, i might remember wrong - require less food than beef), transport wil have a huge impact.
In short : - A: sun -> plant -> transport -> food in your plate - B: sun -> plant -> transport -> forage -> animal -> transport -> food in your plate (or in kitty's bowl)
Method B has more steps and loses more energy at each inefficient step.
Hence the interests in method to grow meat in a vat, the same way you could grow algae (cf. million-dollar-burger) : - it has the potential to be much more efficient by short cutting the extra steps (In addition to being less cruel toward an algae-like culture vs. living animals, which is beside the point of this discussion)
so TL;DR:
we're somewhere between "as bad as them" and "more efficient" depending on what we eat and where/how it is produced.
Our coast-to-coast routine involved two or three hours of driving, followed by about 45 minutes of charging, rinse, repeat.
This (making significant pauses every couple of hour of driving) is highly recommended in lots of places (random example: In france, awareness campain against tiredness while behind the driving wheel) and is a legal requirement for professional driver license in lots of places. (random example: In Switzerland).
Our long-distance road trip highlighted that Tesla’s range estimate is consistently optimistic.
In my experience with an electric car (the Renault Zoé available from my local Car Sharing) the mileage can widely vary depending on the driving style. the 22kWh battery is rated for 125km, i can get anywhere between 100km (if I drive like an asshole, floor the accelerator to reach limit speed as fast as possible, etc.) to 150km (if I drive conservatively, try to use regen brake as much as possible, accelerate reasonnably to keep consumtion from peaking, etc.)
the estimate is that : just a vague estimate. better rely on lap since last recharge and battery status. (Or on Zoé you can look at the full screen on the infotainment of consumption analysis instead of the rough estimate on the dashboard)
This discrepancy demanded that the driver perform constant mental math, evaluating how quickly the predicted range was falling compared with the climbing odometer.
On the other hand, this being Tesla, that could be fixed by software : instead of basing prediction on a constant times the remaining energy content in the battery, they could upgrade the software to give an approximation based on the recent (say y100km worth) consumption history.
Slashdot Mirror
And maybe someone clueless enough to fall for this kind of tricks (bogus phishing links) wouldn't be the best person to trust with your web security (the web extensions they write are probably full of exploitable bugs and flaws).
For me, it's the inaudible part that doesn't add up.
Regarding the laser microphone :
If this device emits in the inaudible part of the spectrum, how can it jam speech ?
The most obvious counter-counter-measure, would be to clean the sound spectrum from the laser, amplifying the frequencies mostly found in human voice, and masking frequencies out of this frequency-band (thus masking all frequencies beyond hearing range but still somewhat picked up by the mic).
Or is the anti-laser counter-measure banking on output so much noise (out of spectrum sounds), that the signal (speech) is swamped by the jamming, and the laser mic mostly picks up noise.
i.e.: make the signal/noise ratio suck a lot hoping that the mic won't pick up the interesting (voice) frequencies against the ultra loud background.
so after frequency isolation, the resulting voice would be completely distorted due to poor mic response.
(But probably there are no publically available detailed analysis of the response of laser mics)
(Though signal processing science tells us that if the analog stage - the lase part of the mic - is able to pick higher frequencies than the digitizer - which probably could be limited to hearing range - the signalling will be strongly distorted in the hearing range - which also the single reason of existance of 192kHz ADC)
Regarding the hearing loss :
How the hell is hearing loss possible with a out-of-spectrum noise ?
By definition sound outside the audible spectrum is sound outside the frequency response of the human auditory system.
I.e.: frequencies which physically can't interact with the inner ear.
By which mechanism could they still harm the hearing if we can't hear them ? (= if they can't manage to interact with the inner ear)
By damaging the middle ear (the small bones that work as transducers to transmit sound to the inner ear ?)
I can't manage to find a thing about it.
- There's only a 2013 study in Germany on 21 individuals that reported a change in spontaneous otoaccoustic emissions (the noise that the ear it self is making) when people were subject to 90 sec. bursts of infra sounds.
- Wikipedia page on "Ultrasound" mentions a 120dB safety limit, but the cited source is dead.
In other words :
Article "Doing activity X will improve training on capability A and B, but the unused skill C and D will dwindle"
Press "OMG! X is going to kill us all because of C and D ! Quick, click on our advertisement!"
Cue in ob. reference to PhDcomics
And if they pay this group, the episodes are going to be leaked by a completely independent team of indian hacker who managed to get their hand on pre-review material.
And if these indian got arrested in time, some other group will manage to release the video acquired by yet another method.
There simply is no way paying a ransom to avoid leaking videos online, even if you're 100% sure that the guys asking for the money are honnest and won't release it anyway after running away with the money.
Acording to the article, the main development is they use NVlink.
I.e.: they use some king of SLI bus for the interconnect between all the graphic cards in their cluster.
Instead of using OpenMPI over Infiniband like tons of scientific clusters have been doing for the past decade.
Yes, they're going to shave a tiny bit of latency (from what I gatter the interconnect is directly handled and access by the graphic cards themselves) (as opposed to Infiniband which would need to go through the bus on the motherboard).
But that's about it.
No real revolutionnary breakthrough.
Disclaimer: I'm a Doctor, Jim, not an airplane machanic !
(Is there a mechanics on /. who would spend some time enlighting us, please ?)
But, from what I've read elsewhere and heard from actual pilot friends :
With plottable auto-pilot and automatic landing systems already well-established, things like collision avoidance and take-off should probably fit in something the size of a shoe box. {...} Pilots have been there for a long time to be little more than just in-flight "uh-oh handlers". They are very valuable in flights, but the number of circumstances where a plane would need the pilot is low.
That's what I've hread too : modern plane are virtually flying pilotless most of the time. The only reason a pilot is there is :
- to react to unusually weird solution which wasn't envisioned in the computers yet (*). We humans are a bit better than computer at thinking outside the box.
- to keep their training by actually flying the plane from time to time even if the plane could have flown on its own.
---
(*) though after the fact, computer software can get updated. Airbus eventually have updates to be able to fly with several missing bits on the tail.
I'm almost 100% sure that things like mechanical control of the flaps, elevators and rudder doesn't exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that when you physically manipulate the controls, the steering mechanisms are controlled electronically... and have been proven over time. I'd almost guess that the throttle is not mechanically control.
From what I've read, depends on the manufacturer :
- Airbus is 100% computer. Its controls are basically a glorified force-feedback joystick. A pilot is not as much controlling flaps/elevators/rudders, as giving command to a computer and then the electronics moving them according to the command.
(This also gives the computer to give an (overrideable) protest if the input seems not to make sense. It gives also the possibility to the computer to manage to execute the command even if there are missing bits).
Security is assured by having multiple redundant system (i.e.: a pilot can still fly when one or even two computer are fried, because there are enough redundant system remaining).
- Boeing is still direct control. Moving the controls *actually* move the flaps/elevators/rudders. Except of course it's power-assisted for obvious size/mass reasons.
But in theory a pilot can still manage to fly a plane with a fried computer.
I would imagine that airplanes have lost communications many times and pilots have had to deal without ground communication. I'd also imagine that systems would be in place to deal with loss of communication with ground control. I'd also imagine that there should be some sort of backup... for example, if the plane loses ground communication, sending up a drone to fly in front of the jet and direct it down would be an option.
Regarding unexpected loss of communications :
In Switzerland, it's sending an actually-manned military plane (not just a drone) to escort and communicating visually.
Regarding other loss of communications :
Some really remote region of the world have a lot less coverage.
The plane basically pings at some interval on some really low-bandwidth link.
Still, planes are able to radio each other.
The number of circumstances where communications is lost during an emergency is almost zero. If automatic systems can't land the plane and the plane can't be remote controlled and the plane can't be electronically guided in by a drone... I'm pretty sure there's a way that a flight attendant could have a button to click called "Circle and await further instruction" as well as emergency buttons like "fly mechanically in circles above clouds while we reboot all the computers".
If none of that is good enough... well.. I don't think I pilot would be much help either.
My (non specialist) opinion too.
But it's not going to be empty, it's going to contain an older version of your OS which the system keeps around so it can update itself and boot from it in case the update fails.
That's in *google*'s update scheme (the one mentionned in the summary).
This thread's top poster is not interested in OTA update from Google.
He's interested in installed community firmware such as LineageOS (formely CyanogenMod).
He has no use of the "one partition currently running (with old OS) one partition currently downloading (the next OS)", 1 partition is enough, and wondered if spaces can be claimed from this partition.
In this conditions it's actually relevant to point that the firmware running inside the flash chip will actually claim that unused space as more reserve for wear-leveling.
On the other hand AMD's GPU are still much more open-source friendly compared to Nvidia, and at the same time are still relevant when compared to Intel (even if not as power-efficient as Nvidia).
AMD has Linux devs on their payroll, is supporting 2 stack one of which (their long term goal) is opensource (runs a classical DRI/Mesa stack), while the other (eventually targetting for professionnals who need some weird features) leverages the same kernel driver.
The AMD opensource drivers are decent, offer support for most of the hardware (except the current DC/DAL delay) and is the official stack for older hardware.
Means that AMD graphic cards "just work" with the latest version of your favorite rolling distro (Opensuse tumbleweed in my case).
(BTW: Intel is also providing opensource drivers, but completely different than their windows stack)
Meanwhile, Nvidia only provides a blob which, while mostly decent, has several problems :
no way to fix it by 3rd parties for newer kernel (so you're stuck with which ever kernel version they decided to support)
and they only support a small subset of advanced features (optimus used to not work for quite some time),
also lots of problems on platforms which are not the standard desktop (sleep and mode-setting working badly on some laptops).
The only alternative is Nouveau which, while having achieved quite some progress, still needs to be done nearly enterily by reverse engineering Nvidia's drivers, all done only by volunteers with very little actual help from Nvidia.
Meaning often some basic stuff (reclocking) isn't working.
proves exactly how much value we should attribute to these so-called 'fact-checking organizations'.
The alternative would be to equip the people with the (intellectual) tools, so they can make up their mind of their own.
There are french teachers currently organising such classes in schools (media awareness).
One of them has a youtube channel (sorry, everything in french currently), where he makes presentations about such media-critic methods, and also documents a colleague doing such a lesson in a classroom.
or maybe they are all running to get as much clicks (and ads revenue) as possible by quickly re-posting some sensationalist trash without much checking.
The next step would to check the source mentioned in each of them and build a graph of the propagation.
Then several possible outcome :
- you'll go up stream until you find an actual report (the planned parenthood listing 3M spent on this politician on their taxt returns)
- you'll go up stream until you find something that remotely looks like this if you squinit enough, which then got completely emplified along the buzz-click mill.
(see PhDCommics' entry about news cycle).
- you'll just see a giant cycle of people reposting each other's crap (with perhaps some tabloid citing "anonymous sources") (or outright telling that the info was leaked out of the secret base of Illuminati thanks to the action of alien spies)
Mainstream news probably reached the same conclusion and that's why they aren't interested in reposting this shit :
- they are not trying to "hide truth so the reptilian can keep opression the people"
- they have simply found out that the fact don't add up and the information isn't worth publishing.
Just plug the same ol' 3.5 mm plug into the same ol' 3.5 mm jack on the INCLUDED Lighting to 3.5 mm adapter, and off you go!
Okay, when I point out that Apple is receiving a Ticket Tape Parade for the "revolution" of saving a few percent battery on something which has been done for the past 15 years already, I'm derided as HATER (and life time member of Guild of Android Users Misanthropes ?)
But when you point that now any user of analog links now needs to fumble with a tiny easy to use adapter, it's not something problematic ?
Double standard ?
In which case, yeah - having an app on a smartphone to tweak this might be vaguely useful
Well aren't you special? Deciding what's "useful" to someone who has to LIVE THEIR LIFE with a Cochlear Implant?
I'm not the one deciding. Laws of physics and biochemistry are deciding.
Okay, maybe you really don't have an idea how a cochlear implant works.
It's a tiny electrode array that you insert nearby the "swirl" of the innear ear (lat.: cochlea), the small snail shaped part.
This it the part where the accoustic nerves (the accoustic part of the Cranial Nerve VIII - Vestibulo-cochlear) arrives.
Due to how the cochlea works, each part of this nerve is stimulated by a signal due to a different frequency (the cochlear is some sort of mechanical fourier transformer).
Thus each channel of the electrode array - which stimulates a different part of the nerves - stimulates according to a different band of sound frequency.
There is no such thing yet as electrodes nano-bonded to the nerves themselve. No "cyber synapses" yet.
The electrodes are simply stimulating the nerve electrically from a distance.
There an upper physico-chemical limit on how precisely you can stimulate the nerve.
An electrode array can have up to some number of channels (forgot the exact current number with current tech. But it won't be much above 7, because to revolutionnary tech has enabled a jump of several order of magnitude).
You can technically put more channels/electrodes in the array, but the end effect will be the same as there will be cross talk between the channels (unable to stimulate precisely enough), so the end result (number of distinct audio frequency bands) will be the same.
In other words : the frequency resolution of cochlear implant sucks, and is going to sucks for the near future until some *actual* revolution in modern cybernetics (e.g.: all this neuron-to-silicon synapse things done in labs that you sometime hear on /. Maybe some day they'll be usable on implant).
Until then it's going to be really hard to be an audiophile with a cochlear implant.
Audio profile ("rock", "classical" and other effect that you've seen on cheap sound systems) are "vaguely useful" in my opinion, not only because they seem to (in my opinion) be a cheap gimmick to add a bullet point on an audio equipment, but mainly because objectively the perceived audio on a impant is a bit limited.
There's no much gain in putting a 32-band effect equalizer on something which is basically a 5-7 band audio transmission.
(Something, which if you really want it, can be covered with separated bass/mid/trebble pots. Not "something which looks like an airco remote"
BTW, I've never seen such huge remotes being used on implants. But as I said I haven't been following latest development)
That's why I'm say "vaguely useful" regarding audio-system-like profiles.
It's not that I'm judging that deaf people are unworthy of the joys of enabling a "jazz music" audio profile like other people on their sound system.
It's that, given the physical constraints of an implant and the type of sound perceived from it, I thing the relevance is quite limited.
It's much more useful for the quality of life of deaf people to improve the quality of automatic noise filters (and also decrease the overall price of implants).
Hence my position regar
if it can't even be bothered to do something you claim is so simplistic it's hardly worth mentioning.
...which is probably going to start to pop-up on most other phones, now that LEA is starting to get attention, its specs get published, and most phone actually move to hardware equipped with BTLE (...there might still be some smartphones without the "Smart") and enable BTLE in their stack (there are smartphone with chips that support BTLE, but not yet the OS).
My bet is first on the various community edition/3rd party patches of full blown GNU/Linux OS (like SailfishOS ?)
Then on Google's flasgship products.
Then on 3rd party android firmwares (LineageOS etc.) - some even managing to use later kernels available from the chipset manufacturers to get most recent drivers.
As for the carrier provided phone ? Forget about it, you'll be lucky to get *any update*, just switch to Lineage already.
But then I guess that's not a surprise since Android users never did care about quality of life for anyone, much less the disabled.
Are you trying to insinuate that I hate people ? Or that I could be an Android user ? (I'm not)
Or are you insinuating that Apple is the only one to design OS that take disabled into account ?
(Note: One of the founders of Jolla - makers of SailfishOS - is disabled himself. Among others, Sailfish is designed to be operated single handed)
P.S. You also must not be very technical if you think there is not a large difference in both UX and energy consumption between BT and BTLE.
I'll have bad news for you. The fact that BTLE consume a little bit less energy than vanilla BT doesn't come only from the signal it self, but the way communication is organized.
BTLE comes from different protocols which where swallowed by BT, those protocols where targeted to ultra low power sensors.
A significant part of the energy enconomy comes from the fact that those sensors communicate in short occasional bursts. They don't need to be fully powered all the time, only for the short period of time when they emit their readings. Also the whole "opening a channel to transmit data" is much simpler, meaning it's much faster, meaning the sensor needs to spend less time in high power mode.
LEA, by streaming audio (i.e.: a constant stream) defeat this latter advantage.
In other words, don't expect to see as much power saving between A2DP and LEA as you could between a hearth beat-rate monitor on BT classic and BTLE.
And that's just for the audio streaming it self.
But fuck people who have to power microscopically sized implants, right?
The implant is only a tiny part of the system.
The implant IS NOT the part that connects to the phone.
The implant is an array of electrode that follows the swirl of the inner ear (lat.: cochlea) and is capable of independently stimulate different region of the array of nerves (corresponding to different frequency bands). The more electrodes the better (up to the point where you can't precisely enough stimulate a small region compared to their neighbors, due to the distance between the electrode and the array of nerves (the spectral resolution of this isn't as good as natural hearing).
It's small chip either has a proprietary plug going through the skin (until sometime before my studies) or (anything since then) has a coil under the skin which can receive signal and power wirelessly.
This implant doesn't even process audio signal.
Then you have the audio processor it self.
It's either a small audio-player like box clipped on the belt (popular with kids because it's easier to manipulate, also has way more battery), or an around-the-ear device (similar to a hearing aid, but without an earphone in the ear cannal).
This device communicate with the implant with a coil that sticks magnetically above the implant's coil, or simply with a cable to the through-skin plug for older generation im
Directly getting access to all sounds of an iPhone opens a new world for these users.
No, it doesn't open anything *new*.
15 years ago, when I was still student in a medicine faculty, patients could plug their phones into the AUX-in port of their system.
(The external sound processor. Not the actual implant. Yes, backthen, there where still implant with physical connection "ghost in the shell"/"matrix" style. But it's not that plug I'm refering to, I'm referring to the audio-in on the piece that itselfs plugs into the implant / or communicates and powers wireless the implant through the skin)
This was an important feature even 15 years ago : the quality of sound you could pass then through the implant wasn't stellar.
Patients couldn't easily distinguishes voices over a noisy background (dual implants - one per ear - of later generations (more distinct channels and thus better spectral resolution) had improved that later)
Patients couldn't also easily hear a voice produced by the tiny speaker of a phone and then picked up by the mic of the external sound processor. So having an analog AUX-in to plug directly into phone was an essential feature even 15 years.
i.e.: even 15 years ago, patients were able to place calls simply by plugging their phones into their implant (well not the actual implant, the external processor).
If anything, latest Apple phone are the "disabled-hating" device because they drop this useful analog jack.
Since the last couple of years, some bluetooth audio capabilities also started appearing.
So you could even use phones wirelessly.
The only new "revolution" of Apple is using a slightly lower-power protocole (Bluetooth LE/Smart versus classic Bluetooth).
And that's it.
Big "meh".
The alternative is proprietary remote-control devices made by the hearing aid companies, which means that you pay the price of an iPhone, but get the functionality of a airco remote.
Maybe this has changed in the recent years. But back when I was following the tech, outside of the complex calibration that where done by a technician using a full blown computer, patients didn't need that much controling of the implants.
Power on/off, battery indicator, AUX-in, switch to select the sound source. And that's it.
These device where designed to be as simple to operate as possible. And could be operated by children.
(With later models probably adding a bluetooth button or two for switching and pairing.)
But back then I've never heard of overly complex administration/controlling that required patients to have huge button-overloaded remote controls.
(But maybe time have changed, and current patients want to have "audio profiles" in their filters ?
Rock music, classical music, etc. like some speakers ?
In which case, yeah - having an app on a smartphone to tweak this might be vaguely useful)
I guess Google and Android must really suck if they can't bothered to do something so "minor".
Virtually all android phone support classical Bluetooth (As in Bluetooth 2 in the first ever HTC G1, all the way to the non-Smart Bluetooth 4) and sending audio over it (be it the older, lower quality SDP or the more modern with better [over kill for the sound quality of a cochlear implant] A2DP).
These are already been able to communicate the various bluetooth solutions (implants and even hearing aids) that have popped up into the market the last few year.
Google doesn't need to bother, it already works.
Virtual any not too old phone support an analog output (the latest lightning-port-only/"revolutionnary"-no-audio-jack iPhone being the obvious exception) and could be plugged in the audio jack of implants 15 years ago.
All that Apple did, was slap a newer protocol working over a slightly different lower-power protocole (Bluetooth Smart / Low Energy). And even forgetting to tell about when they started selling their phones. That's it. That's the "huge revolution / leap forward" that TFA is talking about. "Let's use BT LE for audio instead of regular BT as everybody else".)
This is the "meh-est" of all Apple's "revolutions".
Try that on an iPhone when the temperature is sub-zero.
I'm not joking, this is a real-world experience of someone whose week-end hobby is ski instructor at my university :
Manufacturer have started to embed capacitive-touchscreen material on "under-gloves" for this exact reason (fumbling with touch screens).
Yup. The thing that you put under your ski gloves to keep you extra warm at very cold temperatures, the thing that you keep on your hand (so they stay warm) even when you remove the ski glove (to have more dexterity while rummaging through your back pack or pockets), manufacturer have managed to make it also double as a capacitive-touchscreen stylus.
Which is, in my opinion, ridiculous because the always thinner smartphone (never understood while people need phones so thin that you coudl cut cheese with them) coupled with body made out of metal (because plastic "looks cheap") means that if you take out an iPhone during freezing temperature, very often the battery will freeze and the phone will lose power after the first 2 swipes on the touchscreen.
(And although everybody buys touchscreen under-gloves. Much fewer people have decent powerbanks in their ski jackets).
Any photo is better than no photo!
And for the serious guys in cold-weather activities usually means a sport cam, which very often can also alternatively make a JPEG out of the sensors in addition to streaming a video to the SD card. (at the push of a physical button, or over some remote controlling mechanism).
Or simply use a rugged compact camera (my girlfriend uses an Olympus Tough TG-4. The lens mount even has an optionnal fish eye)
But then if you want an *ACTUAL* digital camera Sony make some of the best on the market.
They're known among other for their wonderful optical parts/lens (by Carl Zeiss).
But then you have to cope with the weird NIH flash format.
Though I hope they've jumped on the "tiny embed Linux server serving photos over Wifi" bandwagon as most manufacturer of modern cameras or even flashmedia.
(my suspicion : first time the bluetooth audio is handled by the main SoC of the implant instead of a separate bluetooth chip feeding the analog input of an already FDA-approved processor)
Addendum :
actually it's even more minor.
Apple has simply introduced a new audio protocol (in addition to A2DP, SDP) and this new one works over Bluetooth Low Energy/Bluetooth Smart.
(And has been available but poorly advertised on recent iphones)
and that's it.
meh.
(First where the Bluetooth is processed by the main SoC, instead of simply having a separate bluetooth chip feeding sound over analog input of an already FDA-approved regular implant ? - that's extremely likely)
Addendum:
After looking in-deep the difference is even more minor :
- instead of using some older protocole that have been available on older Bluetooth protocols, like A2DP or SDP.
- this specific implants simply introduce a new audio protocol over Bluetooth Low Energy (a.k.a. "Bluetooth Smart") so they don't require pairing and a slightly lower energy
Which happens to have been available, but not widely documented, on recent iPhones.
And that's it.
That the "big break-through" Apple is putting this PR stunt around.
Yay.
How's this any different than the tele-coils current cell phones use?
Hearing Aid : a small sound amplifier that you put inside the ear cannal.
Cochlear Implant : An actual cybernetic ear. Think "Ghost in the Shell" and "Matrix" level of cybernetics. Except that it's been years since the implant and the external computer don't use an actual through-skin plug, but communicate and power wirelessly through the skin.
Also minor difference :
The thing you point out seem to use some propretary wireless technology for the sound.
The cochlear implant I've seen during my studies tended to use standards for alternative audio inputs
(back then : audio jack on the external computer. Since then there has been also bluetooth enabled variants.
After reading TFA: this implant introduces a new audio standard over Bluetooth Lower Energy)
this is really cool, potentially life-changing tech.
No, it's not.
It's a tech that has already changed many lives in the past.
And Apple managed to find some technicality to be "first" on some minor variations (my suspicion : first time the bluetooth audio is handled by the main SoC of the implant instead of a separate bluetooth chip feeding the analog input of an already FDA-approved processor), and thus throw a cheap public stunt.
Though the PR might attract some financing in a health field (which might be good in my book). ...that is, until the SoC gets hacked remotely over bluetooth.
Given the current security trend that's a certainty, and the PR will backfire if the incident is a major one.
Actually the whole technology is old.
- Cochlear implant are old tech (I had to do some papers on their society impact back when I was studying medicine)
- Having dedicated connection for phone was something normal (Several of the patient I was following had some plug - basically an audio jack that they can plug into phone/audio players/etc. to pick up sound instead of external mic)
- Even some bluetooth connectivity has recently appeared over the last few years.
TFA's implant is only "new" due to some technicality.
(First where the Bluetooth is processed by the main SoC, instead of simply having a separate bluetooth chip feeding sound over analog input of an already FDA-approved regular implant ? - that's extremely likely)
This is mainly PR to attract publicity to Apple (who need to put some effort to try to stay relevant in a post-smartphone-peak era)
(and maybe hope that they become the default "go to" manufacturer for accessories to connect an implant to),
PR for cochlear implants in general to attract money for a health problem (which is actually important)
PR for this peculiar manufacturer (...well...)
But it's definitely not something Apple has managed to beat Google on.
They're saying not compatible. What this likely means is a change in pin layout.
As opposed to AMD's "AM#" motherboard which more or less have compatible pinouts,
and are generally within a firmware upgrade away from supporting next generation's CPUs on previous generation's motherboards (though lacking support for the feature introduced with the newest "AM#" platform).
Except that developing countries tend to, you know, develop {...} Better to control the population growth while the development is happening,
Except that demographic transition IS A THING.
And as the countries are developing, the birth rate is getting lower.
So better control of the population is auto-happening and has been measured everywhere.
(Basically, as society develops, children aren't an advantage - helping hands in the farm - but are a burden - need education, etc.
So overtime parent have less incentives to have as many as possible,
which in turn compensate the fact that modern medicine is having less of the them dying of diseases.
That's an actually observed phenomenon)
So "one child policies" aren't the best method.
Having them access education, better jobs, even better farming equipment will accelerate the transition.
TFS mostly compares CO2 output caused by diet.
...for the very obvious reason that cats and dogs don't drive cars.
TFS mostly compares CO2 output caused by diet.
From that point of view :
- cats are strict carnivore. They can't skip meat in their meat (they'll miss tons of stuff). They can't do anything but eat other animals.
(Well for now. By the time the "million-dollar-bugger" process can be perfected and be scaled industrially, they will be also able to eat food that was grown in a VAT).
Humans have a very variable diet,
- ranging from only eating plants (lots of traditionnally mostly-vegan diest accross culture + the current latest "vegan trend") as long as you compensate for the few amino acids that some plant lack (basically : don't only eat green leaf salad, eat legume too)
- all the way to nearly as meat-centric as a cat (happens in some traditionnal diet in most arid regions) as long as you pay attention to get enough vitamins and micronutrients.
- the former (plant) tend to be rather on the lower range of CO2 production (most of the CO2 is basically produced by the farmer that make your food, by transport, etc.) and varies mostly depending on the production methods and the transport distance (eating local foods lower significantly energy requirement) (eating plants that don't need to be grown in complex industrial greenhouses to compensate for bad local environment also helps).
- the later (mostly meat) will be more or less the same range of CO2 as cats. Because you need to constantly grow plants (see above mention) to get enough food to feed the meat-producing animal, until that animal is big enough to provide enough meat, at which point you butcher it for meat. Various animal species will produce more or less CO2 (chicken - i think, i might remember wrong - require less food than beef), transport wil have a huge impact.
In short :
- A: sun -> plant -> transport -> food in your plate
- B: sun -> plant -> transport -> forage -> animal -> transport -> food in your plate (or in kitty's bowl)
Method B has more steps and loses more energy at each inefficient step.
Hence the interests in method to grow meat in a vat, the same way you could grow algae (cf. million-dollar-burger) :
- it has the potential to be much more efficient by short cutting the extra steps
(In addition to being less cruel toward an algae-like culture vs. living animals, which is beside the point of this discussion)
so TL;DR:
we're somewhere between "as bad as them" and "more efficient" depending on what we eat and where/how it is produced.
Our coast-to-coast routine involved two or three hours of driving, followed by about 45 minutes of charging, rinse, repeat.
This (making significant pauses every couple of hour of driving) is highly recommended in lots of places
(random example: In france, awareness campain against tiredness while behind the driving wheel)
and is a legal requirement for professional driver license in lots of places.
(random example: In Switzerland).
Our long-distance road trip highlighted that Tesla’s range estimate is consistently optimistic.
In my experience with an electric car (the Renault Zoé available from my local Car Sharing) the mileage can widely vary depending on the driving style.
the 22kWh battery is rated for 125km,
i can get anywhere between 100km (if I drive like an asshole, floor the accelerator to reach limit speed as fast as possible, etc.)
to 150km (if I drive conservatively, try to use regen brake as much as possible, accelerate reasonnably to keep consumtion from peaking, etc.)
the estimate is that : just a vague estimate.
better rely on lap since last recharge and battery status.
(Or on Zoé you can look at the full screen on the infotainment of consumption analysis instead of the rough estimate on the dashboard)
This discrepancy demanded that the driver perform constant mental math, evaluating how quickly the predicted range was falling compared with the climbing odometer.
On the other hand, this being Tesla, that could be fixed by software : instead of basing prediction on a constant times the remaining energy content in the battery, they could upgrade the software to give an approximation based on the recent (say y100km worth) consumption history.
Maybe you can even send it as a suggestion.