Sorry for not in topic, did Intel calculate bonuses on hn karma (more officially impact)? I see this bf16 multiple times and it like authors dying for Christmas bonus.
Being cynical here. From fines GDPR & friends incoming and maximise profits before they forced to pay to market already saturated and without pissing user base there will be no double digit 'adaptation' rate
Beamforming is cheap, for sectorial scan phone cpu can easily handle it, of course it will not be all big HQ image, but for initial scan is enough, but ADC with pulse generator - that one is expensive, for decent quality digital steering you need for example minimum 16 channel adc in mhz range and that one is not cheap. If you think it cheap go and google 128 channel ADC plus 128 pulse generators with protection circuit (i know somebody says overkill, but for ndt is pretty norm)
If you don't like Linus, you can always fork Linux and create DyslexicAtheist OS :), but no you are attacking, he clearly says few mails later, that killing machine without very good reason is big no:
I absolutely refuse to take any hardening patches at all that have
BUG() or panic() or similar machine-killing in it.
Basicaly when linux boot from initrd it starts "/init" executable and chroots to your system (ok, it is using pivot_root and it is slightly more complex), but idea it is same as manually mounting filesystems and doing chroot then starting executable /bin/init
I agree, started to notice in google search last year about this time (maybe i getting older) or maybe DDG started to serve better results. Nowadays, I use google rarely in this year i can't remember when get better results than DDG, but maybe it just my bias
My couch scientist theory is that REM sleep is phase when brains reconnects and tunes quantum links between neuron groups (assuming brain is big quantum computer underneath), that why there are chaotic movements.
I'm not a lawyer, but i have high probability they have "Legitimate interest" to keep the keys (something like preventing fraud) and keys have expiry time
It needs to be revised and is not cool(tm) project than creating new language and rethinking how to avoid any pointer arithmetic (starting from char *str, to arrays char str[999]) is not very easy task.
You can run whatever system (L4 with formal verification and written in super secure language...) as long as there no redundant checks you are already doomed from start. Stuxnet is nice example why critical system must have at least:
* Somebody periodically in person checking what happening and cross-checking results with operator
* Have alternative monitoring system, even amateur arduino system with rs-422/485 network and independent sensors, can become impenetrable wall for Stuxnet type worms.
I'm interesting in this too and wondering why nobody did huge task and compiling everything into one book, starting from refining materials to making 8051/Z80 era pc
In my eyes reliability, having Russian expertise on metal working it is easer to build new rocket than create bullet prof inspection methodology and reuse it. That guy can lost trust with just few failed rockets and everybody will tell that vertical landing is not feasible.
There have been multiple times posted about this and i not following too much, but i haven't seen anybody who can tune even small cnc for small scale production in less than year where there virtually 0 defects (problems arise from software, used materials or even production changes; and they take long time). What i saw from PR tesla rushed and now got problems came to them. Of course it can happen and with human personal
Probably google never do this: For this type application add fake permission control which feeds from random data to some recorded scenario like user record his free time
Maybe can somebody enlighten why didn't do two actuators on same plates, even second only reading the hdd performance could be easily increased? Because current solution looks like put two hard drives in single enclosure and connected like raid0.
Sorry that sounded like i'm scorching you i didn't mean it. Yes agree with when using HW initializing code in constructors I ended with two types of 'constructors/inits': 1 - for object initialization 2 - just for hardware and calling manually :/.
note, static initializers works in embedded you need to execute functions between __init_array_start and __init_array_end before using any static object in gcc somewhere in program