I wouldn't use "high speed" as it relates to a human running as an adjective and apply it to a car, the same way I wouldn't apply it to say a plane or a rocket. I don't think anyone would say a plane/rocket was travelling at a high speed and think it must be going at least 35MPH!
Personally, depending on the circumstance and who I was speaking to, I wouldn't consider a car travelling at "high speed" wouldn't be true unless it was going 80+MPH. In other cases, I wouldn't consider "high speed" to mean anything less than 130MPH. 35MPH is more like... my car idling down the road.
Ah yes, I guess you can read it that way, and that does seem to make sense.
I originally read it as: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way (to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle) or (when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger). but Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk (that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle) or (when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger). makes more sense.
Apparently, a human would have been driving more defensively on that road? What? What situation is it when late at night on a mostly empty road do YOU usually expect an unpredictable human just walking across the road without looking?
Radar might have been able to see her, but the bike would be hard. It's almost all curves, so any "light" hitting it would mostly disperse rather than reflect. The frame is curved (and hollow), the wheels are curved (and hollow). It is also moving, so it could quite easily be dismissed as "error" or a not solid surface, etc (Like a bag blowing in the wind). There is really no excuse for the person though, that should have lit up radar easily though.
Why would the burden be on the autonomous car? It had every right to drive on the road, legally. The pedestrian had absolutely no right to cross the road in front of traffic (again, not an Arizona lawyer). The pedestrian was doing something illegal. The car was not. Assign blame as you will.
You set the bar way too high. You should only require SDC's to be as good of a driver as you allow human drivers to get licenses. If that means you will license below-average human drivers, then you should "license" below-average SDC's as well.
Fact is, I know quite a few people who would drive much better if they were able to get a car with below-average self-driving tech in it.
As for should Uber pay for the consequences, I'll leave that to the lawyers. I don't live in Arizona, so I know very little about their rules of the road. Even if this happened in Illinois I might be able to shed a bit more light on what would be likely to occur, but I'm definitely not a lawyer, and this is definitely a case that needs some lawyers and a judge to render a fair verdict.
Dry conditions, average reaction time shows approximately 37feet (12 yards) for reaction time. 72 feet (24 yards) for braking time for a total of 109 ft (36 yards).
Actually from that link, it is pretty confusing, because both must yield.
Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger.
That pedestrian I can only assume was approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway (and constituted a danger). Not sure, because I couldn't see if she came from the opposite side of the roadway, or came from the same side and doubled back, or was just walking down the middle and then decided to walk across, but it's highly probable she just walked across the roadway.
But you are correct, it also says the pedestrian must yield the right-of-way as well. So... Great law writing or perhaps the person who wrote that got it wrong.
So now that I said what really hasn't changed.. What has?
Consumer SSDs. Phones. Social Media (-ish. We had the beginnings of social media, but it definitely wasn't as popular, and grandma wasn't on it). Online stores (Amazon, best buy, walmart, pizza, JC Penny, etc). Everyone is on the World Wide Web today, not just techies. Email has essentially replaced mail (USPS for you millennials) for a large number of things. Mail today is mostly garbage. Death of the TV (Unless you can hook it up to a game system or streaming service). Cable TV came, peaked, and we can now see there is a point in which it'll be dead(ish). Just like how broadcast networks were/are struggling, cable tv's days are similarly numbered. News. The big name papers and tv news broadcasts used to be reliable and accurate (and mostly unbiased or very little bias), but with so many online competitors who can publish news minutes later (or as it happens), they've drastically dropped in quality and fact checking before publishing. Good that we get news faster, and unfiltered, but it also dropped so far in quality, and most outlets are highly biased.
Certainly with a lot of things. CPU processing. I remember saying that I don't upgrade my CPU until the new one is at least 4 times as fast as the last one, which typically was about 3 years. Now it seems I'll have to wait about 20 years or more at the rate we are going.
Software. We went from small 30-40k programs to multi-gigabyte programs. We had the beginning of AIs, machine learning. We went from text-based systems (or line/screen based) to GUIs. The mouse, menus, buttons, dropdowns, windows, scrolling. We went from single user, single process, single threaded systems to CPU-sharing systems (cooperative multitasking), to multi-user, multi-process, multi-threaded systems and preemptive multitasking.
Connectivity. We went from hardly none to 75bps modems all the way to 64kbps modems dialing into single user systems then to multi-user systems (CompuServe, etc). Ramped up things like FIDOnet and then the internet with email, gopher, ftp, and then finally http (I'll leave out AOL as our biggest mistake). We had token ring networks, star networks, and shared networks (ethernet). Ethernet went from 10base5 to 10base2 to 10baseT. We had lossful packet communications and a multitude of different protocols to choose from until everyone just settled on IP (TCP/IP and UDP/IP). We went from 3Mbps to 1Gbps, and we were rolling out 100Mbps ethernet in 1996. My office today still has 100Mbps ethernet in it in some places, but mostly 1Gbps ethernet (Which came out in 1998?).
We did multi-user text chats with IRC, ICQ, and a ton of other apps, then added voice and video to chats.
Languages. We went from assembler to FORTRAN/LISP/COBOL (worst language ever)/RPG to BASIC to C/C++ to IL based languages (C#, JAVA, etc). Again, I'll skip over COBOL as one of our biggest mistakes. We went from procedural logic, created functional programming, event driven programming, object oriented programming.
Data Access. We went from ISAM stuff (Mainframes) and BTRIEVE (PCs) to relational data systems (SQL).
Games. We went from pong and text adventures through the many iterations of graphics improvements. Added sounds, and video, and movie-quality cut-scenes. We added 3D graphics (raytracing, tile-based rendering, lighting, shadows, motion effects), and accelerated 3D graphics and even SLI. The first RPGS, strategy games, puzzle games, arcade shooters, adventures, multiplayer games, mystery games, logic games, and first person shooters. We also had holograms and vector graphics which seem to have disappeared.
---- There has been very little REVOLUTIONARY things in the past 20 years. Almost all of it is just more of the same, or the next evolution of one of the many things done 20-30 years ago. In some cases, it's the exact same thing we had 20-30 years ago given a new name, or a really old technique that was well known just given a new name.
I think we are on the same page, but, just to be clear, I challenge you to produce the sections of the US Constitution that gives it the right to meddle/regulate/tax for education at all. The constitution outlines the things that each branch of the federal government MAY do. It SHOULD not do anything that isn't listed. That's the entire premise of the constitution. Nowhere in there does it say may tax from the people and distribute funds to some higher education facilities as they see fit.
And before someone tries to make the claim that "General Welfare" is the clause, well, that isn't true either. As stated by the founding fathers (Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson), and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. You can read more about that here (Yes, I know... wikipedia isn't an authority, just skip to the links to the relevant quotes and case law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here is the entire list of what the legislative branch may do: 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic
No, what would be idiotic is to live in a country that has a constitution, and then say that constitution is idiotic. Please read it. If you don't like what you read, there are 200+ other countries in the world you can move to that have a different set of rules and laws. Stop trying to break mine.
what about (anyone) who fears (legitimately or otherwise) that they could lose their job if they "rock the boat"? Both of these are taking advantage of someone in a way that should not be allowed or encouraged.
Anyone who "fears" losing their job already feels that they are getting paid more than the market would pay for their services. That's not taking advantage of anyone. If you fear you might lose your job by asking for more compensation, then perhaps you shouldn't. If you think you could walk out the door and make what you do + the additional compensation relatively quickly somewhere else, then perhaps you should be asking.
There really is a 4th option: Small companies who wants to get by with the smallest cost with large returns. That's where I usually shine. I have some skills that are top notch, but what I really bring to the table most often is aligning projects with actual company needs. Balancing getting it done quickly with highly maintainable code that works every time. That usually means not using the latest and greatest languages that haven't fully matured yet, or don't have a good support system when you need to do something that isn't in the 90% the language is designed to make easy.
That's when experience to see the difference between what the company is asking for and what they really want. Seeing what is going to work, and what will just lead to an endless cycle of needless maintenance because of poor design, and steering the stakeholders in the right direction. That is of course being able to actually do the work myself, or more than likely lead a very small team of inexperienced, not great coders into delivering projects that are reliable and have impact on the bottom line.
Yes. I started working with.NET back in 1997 or 1998. It took a long time before the betas officially came out, and then another long time before 1.0 was officially released, so yes, by 2003 I had 5-6 years of experience with it, but not 10.
That said, yes, I've seen many requirements that are impossible to meet unless you were on the development team, or following the project before it was officially announced.
I would say for every spec that matters, optane is a huge improvement over both the Samsung 950 and 960. I had two Samsung 950 PRO's (in RAID-0), and then replaced them with a single 960 PRO. Just like the linked article shows, performance on these are all over the place, often not demonstrating good performance until you hit high queue depths, which isn't "common" for a single user desktop.
Just a quick test I ran just now shows read speeds of 1903MB/s, and write of 1076MB/s. And then a second run show 1724/938. Unpredictable and bursty. Optane is just better at maintaining a consistent speed because of the low latencies. That also means it works better with single threaded applications no matter if they use large buffer or small, overlapped I/O or not. So poorly written applications (from an I/O perspective -- which a LOT are) will actually perform much better.
Actually, noon is supposed to be literally the half way point between sunrise and sunset. That's what the AM and PM are for. AM being latin for something like "ante meridiem" or before the half way point, and PM being latin for "post-meridiem" or after the half way point. Our time keeping is quite literally defined in relation to the movement of the sun.
That said, I *hate* the concept daylight saving time. If I had my way, I'd abolish all timezones everywhere and everyone would use UTC, period. So your normal work period is 03:00UTC-11:00UTC instead of 9-5. Everyone else in your general area is also likely working a similar schedule. It would make working with businesses that have more than one location so much easier.
More likely retaliation for google killing the youtube app on some of amazon's products. And then killing the ability for web browsers on amazon products also being able to access youtube. That seemed pretty underhanded.
Nest's offering will be $350 and $20 per month if you want to be able to get video or pictures. I like my nest products (Smoke alarms, thermostats), but they are silly expensive. The security cameras are expensive enough that I had to go with another brand because the upfront cost is bad enough but the monthlies are painful.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that twitter will allow messages longer than 280 characters, and we will see that sometime in the next 10 years. Maybe faster.
Bitcoin as the only currency in 10 years? ROFLMGDAO!
I wouldn't use "high speed" as it relates to a human running as an adjective and apply it to a car, the same way I wouldn't apply it to say a plane or a rocket. I don't think anyone would say a plane/rocket was travelling at a high speed and think it must be going at least 35MPH!
Personally, depending on the circumstance and who I was speaking to, I wouldn't consider a car travelling at "high speed" wouldn't be true unless it was going 80+MPH. In other cases, I wouldn't consider "high speed" to mean anything less than 130MPH. 35MPH is more like... my car idling down the road.
Ah yes, I guess you can read it that way, and that does seem to make sense.
I originally read it as: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way (to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle) or (when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger). but Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk (that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle) or (when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger). makes more sense.
Apparently, a human would have been driving more defensively on that road? What? What situation is it when late at night on a mostly empty road do YOU usually expect an unpredictable human just walking across the road without looking?
Radar might have been able to see her, but the bike would be hard. It's almost all curves, so any "light" hitting it would mostly disperse rather than reflect. The frame is curved (and hollow), the wheels are curved (and hollow). It is also moving, so it could quite easily be dismissed as "error" or a not solid surface, etc (Like a bag blowing in the wind). There is really no excuse for the person though, that should have lit up radar easily though.
Why would the burden be on the autonomous car? It had every right to drive on the road, legally. The pedestrian had absolutely no right to cross the road in front of traffic (again, not an Arizona lawyer). The pedestrian was doing something illegal. The car was not. Assign blame as you will.
You set the bar way too high. You should only require SDC's to be as good of a driver as you allow human drivers to get licenses. If that means you will license below-average human drivers, then you should "license" below-average SDC's as well.
Fact is, I know quite a few people who would drive much better if they were able to get a car with below-average self-driving tech in it.
As for should Uber pay for the consequences, I'll leave that to the lawyers. I don't live in Arizona, so I know very little about their rules of the road. Even if this happened in Illinois I might be able to shed a bit more light on what would be likely to occur, but I'm definitely not a lawyer, and this is definitely a case that needs some lawyers and a judge to render a fair verdict.
Everyone else disagrees with you.
http://www.brakingdistances.co...
Dry conditions, average reaction time shows approximately 37feet (12 yards) for reaction time. 72 feet (24 yards) for braking time for a total of 109 ft (36 yards).
Since when is 35MPH high speed?
Actually from that link, it is pretty confusing, because both must yield.
Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger.
That pedestrian I can only assume was approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway (and constituted a danger). Not sure, because I couldn't see if she came from the opposite side of the roadway, or came from the same side and doubled back, or was just walking down the middle and then decided to walk across, but it's highly probable she just walked across the roadway.
But you are correct, it also says the pedestrian must yield the right-of-way as well. So... Great law writing or perhaps the person who wrote that got it wrong.
So now that I said what really hasn't changed.. What has?
Consumer SSDs.
Phones.
Social Media (-ish. We had the beginnings of social media, but it definitely wasn't as popular, and grandma wasn't on it).
Online stores (Amazon, best buy, walmart, pizza, JC Penny, etc).
Everyone is on the World Wide Web today, not just techies.
Email has essentially replaced mail (USPS for you millennials) for a large number of things. Mail today is mostly garbage.
Death of the TV (Unless you can hook it up to a game system or streaming service). Cable TV came, peaked, and we can now see there is a point in which it'll be dead(ish). Just like how broadcast networks were/are struggling, cable tv's days are similarly numbered.
News. The big name papers and tv news broadcasts used to be reliable and accurate (and mostly unbiased or very little bias), but with so many online competitors who can publish news minutes later (or as it happens), they've drastically dropped in quality and fact checking before publishing. Good that we get news faster, and unfiltered, but it also dropped so far in quality, and most outlets are highly biased.
Certainly with a lot of things. CPU processing. I remember saying that I don't upgrade my CPU until the new one is at least 4 times as fast as the last one, which typically was about 3 years. Now it seems I'll have to wait about 20 years or more at the rate we are going.
Software. We went from small 30-40k programs to multi-gigabyte programs. We had the beginning of AIs, machine learning. We went from text-based systems (or line/screen based) to GUIs. The mouse, menus, buttons, dropdowns, windows, scrolling. We went from single user, single process, single threaded systems to CPU-sharing systems (cooperative multitasking), to multi-user, multi-process, multi-threaded systems and preemptive multitasking.
Connectivity. We went from hardly none to 75bps modems all the way to 64kbps modems dialing into single user systems then to multi-user systems (CompuServe, etc). Ramped up things like FIDOnet and then the internet with email, gopher, ftp, and then finally http (I'll leave out AOL as our biggest mistake). We had token ring networks, star networks, and shared networks (ethernet). Ethernet went from 10base5 to 10base2 to 10baseT. We had lossful packet communications and a multitude of different protocols to choose from until everyone just settled on IP (TCP/IP and UDP/IP). We went from 3Mbps to 1Gbps, and we were rolling out 100Mbps ethernet in 1996. My office today still has 100Mbps ethernet in it in some places, but mostly 1Gbps ethernet (Which came out in 1998?).
We did multi-user text chats with IRC, ICQ, and a ton of other apps, then added voice and video to chats.
Languages. We went from assembler to FORTRAN/LISP/COBOL (worst language ever)/RPG to BASIC to C/C++ to IL based languages (C#, JAVA, etc). Again, I'll skip over COBOL as one of our biggest mistakes. We went from procedural logic, created functional programming, event driven programming, object oriented programming.
Data Access. We went from ISAM stuff (Mainframes) and BTRIEVE (PCs) to relational data systems (SQL).
Games. We went from pong and text adventures through the many iterations of graphics improvements. Added sounds, and video, and movie-quality cut-scenes. We added 3D graphics (raytracing, tile-based rendering, lighting, shadows, motion effects), and accelerated 3D graphics and even SLI. The first RPGS, strategy games, puzzle games, arcade shooters, adventures, multiplayer games, mystery games, logic games, and first person shooters. We also had holograms and vector graphics which seem to have disappeared.
----
There has been very little REVOLUTIONARY things in the past 20 years. Almost all of it is just more of the same, or the next evolution of one of the many things done 20-30 years ago. In some cases, it's the exact same thing we had 20-30 years ago given a new name, or a really old technique that was well known just given a new name.
I think we are on the same page, but, just to be clear, I challenge you to produce the sections of the US Constitution that gives it the right to meddle/regulate/tax for education at all. The constitution outlines the things that each branch of the federal government MAY do. It SHOULD not do anything that isn't listed. That's the entire premise of the constitution. Nowhere in there does it say may tax from the people and distribute funds to some higher education facilities as they see fit.
And before someone tries to make the claim that "General Welfare" is the clause, well, that isn't true either. As stated by the founding fathers (Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson), and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. You can read more about that here (Yes, I know... wikipedia isn't an authority, just skip to the links to the relevant quotes and case law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here is the entire list of what the legislative branch may do:
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic
No, what would be idiotic is to live in a country that has a constitution, and then say that constitution is idiotic. Please read it. If you don't like what you read, there are 200+ other countries in the world you can move to that have a different set of rules and laws. Stop trying to break mine.
If you're going to change my premise, you can't then argue against my conclusion.
I can, and I just did. And my point was that not only does it apply to your specific case, but additionally to everyone else as well.
what about (anyone) who fears (legitimately or otherwise) that they could lose their job if they "rock the boat"? Both of these are taking advantage of someone in a way that should not be allowed or encouraged.
Anyone who "fears" losing their job already feels that they are getting paid more than the market would pay for their services. That's not taking advantage of anyone. If you fear you might lose your job by asking for more compensation, then perhaps you shouldn't. If you think you could walk out the door and make what you do + the additional compensation relatively quickly somewhere else, then perhaps you should be asking.
There really is a 4th option:
Small companies who wants to get by with the smallest cost with large returns. That's where I usually shine. I have some skills that are top notch, but what I really bring to the table most often is aligning projects with actual company needs. Balancing getting it done quickly with highly maintainable code that works every time. That usually means not using the latest and greatest languages that haven't fully matured yet, or don't have a good support system when you need to do something that isn't in the 90% the language is designed to make easy.
That's when experience to see the difference between what the company is asking for and what they really want. Seeing what is going to work, and what will just lead to an endless cycle of needless maintenance because of poor design, and steering the stakeholders in the right direction. That is of course being able to actually do the work myself, or more than likely lead a very small team of inexperienced, not great coders into delivering projects that are reliable and have impact on the bottom line.
Yes. I started working with .NET back in 1997 or 1998. It took a long time before the betas officially came out, and then another long time before 1.0 was officially released, so yes, by 2003 I had 5-6 years of experience with it, but not 10.
That said, yes, I've seen many requirements that are impossible to meet unless you were on the development team, or following the project before it was officially announced.
I would say for every spec that matters, optane is a huge improvement over both the Samsung 950 and 960. I had two Samsung 950 PRO's (in RAID-0), and then replaced them with a single 960 PRO. Just like the linked article shows, performance on these are all over the place, often not demonstrating good performance until you hit high queue depths, which isn't "common" for a single user desktop.
Just a quick test I ran just now shows read speeds of 1903MB/s, and write of 1076MB/s. And then a second run show 1724/938. Unpredictable and bursty. Optane is just better at maintaining a consistent speed because of the low latencies. That also means it works better with single threaded applications no matter if they use large buffer or small, overlapped I/O or not. So poorly written applications (from an I/O perspective -- which a LOT are) will actually perform much better.
Uh... You do realize that Micron is a US company, not asian, right?
Actually, noon is supposed to be literally the half way point between sunrise and sunset. That's what the AM and PM are for. AM being latin for something like "ante meridiem" or before the half way point, and PM being latin for "post-meridiem" or after the half way point. Our time keeping is quite literally defined in relation to the movement of the sun.
That said, I *hate* the concept daylight saving time. If I had my way, I'd abolish all timezones everywhere and everyone would use UTC, period. So your normal work period is 03:00UTC-11:00UTC instead of 9-5. Everyone else in your general area is also likely working a similar schedule. It would make working with businesses that have more than one location so much easier.
Uh... No. Try starting the fee at $10,000, and doubling every YEAR.
More likely retaliation for google killing the youtube app on some of amazon's products. And then killing the ability for web browsers on amazon products also being able to access youtube. That seemed pretty underhanded.
Nest's offering will be $350 and $20 per month if you want to be able to get video or pictures. I like my nest products (Smoke alarms, thermostats), but they are silly expensive. The security cameras are expensive enough that I had to go with another brand because the upfront cost is bad enough but the monthlies are painful.
Keep telling yourself this, while hiding behind the AC.