The army has one of these for sniper triangulation, and Boeing made a civilian version for optimizing sound dampening on the 787. I don’t know if they kept doing that on subsequent planes but I would expect so given how enthusiastic they were about being able to apply the weight budget to greater effect.
You need really high clock rate sensing to differentiate the arrival time for sound from microphone arrays where they are all less than a nanosecond separated from each other.
This sort of Regulatory Capture is quite old in the software field. People were already noticing it in the 90's.
Making a spec that contains a venn diagram of most of the features each of the signatories to the specification have implemented themselves ends up pulling the ladder up behind them. Each non-academic committee member discovers they're already more than 75% of the way to having completed the spec and any junior members or amateurs have years of work to do in order to catch up to Now. If any upstarts threaten to get within striking distance of an implementation you can always convene the committee again and discuss version 2 of the spec.
Mobile devices tamped this down just a little bit but mostly they lowered the slope of the line a hair and changed where the focus was a bit.
No but I used to read their dev blog and if there was a n app that needed Erlang it was Eve. They would announce the latest strategy they had for big battles and it was always reinventing part of Erlang.
In retrospect what I wrote became a bit more of a non sequitur than I meant.
Trees aren't even accessing water at ground level most times but pulling it up from 5-30 feet down. Fungal distribution is also a capillary action network (with asterisks) and ends up making some of that pumping more horizontal, but at the expense that if a tree's root sap is high in sugar due to dehydration, then the fungal network both introduces water to those roots but also exports sugar at the same time. Simard tries to anthropomorphize this process. It's my only real complaint with her work.
The asterisks are that fungal networks can react to information faster than the documented transport mechanisms work so we don't really know how the heck they do their thing yet. So it's possible that they're also maintaining nutrient gradients to feed themselves beyond the straight arbitrage that osmosis represents.
Any system that only works with Hydrogen is automatically hand-wavy because working with hydrogen is a giant pain in the ass.
But it sounds like instead of just a regular compressor cycle, the hydrogen gets forced through a fuel cell kind of membrane and split into protons and electrons? I think my chemistry and physics classes petered out somewhere around there. Higher potential energy in the electrons on the input side than on the output end?
There’s also a theory that the moss on these trees is mutualism instead of simply epiphytic. The moss holds moisture, which can be accessed by the tree.
One of the things Susan Simard proved was that deep rooted trees that had found subterranean water continue pulling that water at full speed at night when transpiration is low, and that water finds its way into the fungal networks in the soil and into nearby plants.
Simard attributes intention to this, but osmosis is “fair”. It seeks to move water to where sugars are and sugars to where water is. So a plant giving up sugars will receive water, and one low on water will give up sugars in the process of equalization.
Do fungi contain pumps to maintain disequilibrium in this work? I could not say. But even when they first learned the trick of tapping roots the basic premise would have worked in a rudimentary fashion woth no further optimization.
There are stories that the moss on trees in temperate rainforests allow the tree to pull water from their branches instead of the ground, increasing their max height.
For a while there were people poaching the moss that facilitated this, which is a problem because it grows only inches per year.
> We think of Steam Machine as an extension of PC gaming, not as a console.
But is that really so bad? I don't want to say 'sell it at a loss' but loss leaders don't need to bankrupt their companies in order to do their job.
If you sold them at or below cost then people would figure out how to buy 100's and make server farms out of them. Particularly for this hardware. The awkwardness of the hardware being made up for by the subsidy from the manufacturer. But pricing them at break-even would still be good business.
Very, very few people actually need to drive 500 miles in a day. Tank size is about convenience, about how often you need to go get gas and what times of day the stations are open.
You can recharge your car at home every night. At 2 in the morning.
Honestly, I think if more people actually used git enough that they understood how the git graph worked, we'd have fewer busted graphs. Like CI, you only get better at the tools if you use them more. And people are avoiding using git features and hoping nobody notices when their journeyman standing bites the rest of us on the ass.
We notice, we just reduce your trust level instead of confronting you. I can think of a lot of things that get bitched about over lunches or coffee much more often, but you're still being complained about.
So I want to be clear that I'm not destroying other people's ability to learn from me. I just don't tell the entire story in the code, but I'm open about it if you talk to me. It's not a long conversation to figure me out. If it was I'd consider that a failure to do my job properly.
I know I'm done with a module when people add features to it the way I would have done so. That sounds like a non-statement, but I bet if you watch your projects closely, you'll see that's often not the case and sometimes it's laughably bad. It goes along with Knuth's thing about code meant to be read by humans and incidentally by computers, and also Kernighan's Law. My code eventually just says exactly what it does. And I don't use the same noun to mean three different things in three different places. Why? Because then I can take my name off of the bus number list and pick something else up. This module that I wrote is Steve's baby now, and that one is David's. In fact taking it over is how David got promoted.
> And personally, I don't remember needing to read main's history more often than probably once a year, and even then mostly out of curiosity.
You're probably delegating that work to someone like me who actually figures out what the systemic problem is that caused the same class of bug to make it to production 5 times in the last 3 years. If you're a lead or a principal and still saying this ^ then you need to expand your skillset.
Bad luck doesn't happen very often. Mostly it's blindspots.
I will confess though that the sort of forensics I do is probably not divisable from the fact that I'm also the designated VCS surgeon on every project I've been on since 1998.
You need really high clock rate sensing to differentiate the arrival time for sound from microphone arrays where they are all less than a nanosecond separated from each other.