Fair enough: I was reading the original comment as referring to (thermal) noise intrinsic to the amplifier design itself (as opposed to noise due to imperfections in DC supply or due to coupling with some external transmitter), but this makes more sense, and we should consider the whole system anyway.
I see, so you want to band-limit the noise, and are willing to accept potentially raising the noise floor in the band-limited range, the idea being that if the original noise is sufficiently broad-band, this will still increase SNR?
Off-topic, but can an RC circuit really reduce noise? I can see how it would reduce distortion (which is not the same as noise), but adding passives is surely going to increase thermal noise?
If the type is an implicit-lifetime type, then you can legally create an unsigned char array, and then reinterpret_cast a pointer to that to a pointer to the type.
https://eel.is/c++draft/intro.object#15 is an example showing this with malloc; the subsequent paragraph further permits it to work with an unsigned char array.
> Yes -- in set theory sets can contain themselves
Which set theory? ZFC doesn't permit this.
Non-well-founded set theories are so non-standard that I think it's wrong, or at least misleading, to claim that unqualified "set theory" permits this.
Given the “rightsholders” have no rights over OpenTTD (only the assets are copyrightable, and OpenTTD has had its own set of open-source assets for the past 15 years), I can’t agree with this.
I’m not sure how to interpret this other than Atari not wanting to compete with OpenTTD on Steam.
> On another occasion much later, I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. But that is another story.
Presumably this is the famous (?) story of him listing his race as “mongrel” whenever asked?
Right, but if you fill in the shorthand there’s no reason to think it’s circular; it’s just a normal definition at that point, albeit one without much motivation.
In its defence, the headline says "file operation" rather than "syscall", which makes it slightly less egregious: it's referring to `mmap` as a member of `struct file_operations`.
F is a forcing function, not the resultant force. It’s often arranged this way with all the derivatives on one side (as opposed to having the resultant force, ma, on one side of the equality by itself) so that it matches the general form of a non-homogeneous second-order linear differential equation.
(At least I assume this is what the original commenter meant!).