> It’s a professional system from the founders of Solidworks that competes with all the top CAD tools.
Because it's built on Parasolid, the same geometric kernel as everyone else. With ACIS pretty much out the door, almost all the professional CAD packages are just window dressing on the same CG implementation.
People can pretend to care about more than one thing.
Whether they actually actively oppose those things to the point of impacting building permits, that's a completely different matter. It really doesn't take much legislation to make golf courses economically unviable and force them to close, especially if you've got enough population within 30 minutes to support 22 of them (I speak from experience, I helped write a water reclamation ordinance that shut down at least one in my SoCal city)
If anyone actually bothered to talk to their local reps instead of posting internet comments about how much they "care", they'd get something done. If they don't, their care is just a fart in the wind for all the good it will do.
I think for many people (myself included) understanding mathematics is rooted in application because it helps bridge the divide between intuition and rote memorization. Without the application, IMO instructors are doing a disservice to their students and pedagogy of mathematics itself. They’re intentionally ignoring a significant fraction of the class, unless they’re teaching some esoteric grad level pure math.
Canon is still in the market, they just supply parts and license IP to the printer manufacturers like HP. They make some high value stuff to sell to the OEMs but I don’t think they can make a whole print head anymore.
> You're just describing another standardized incentive structure that you're operating in
Yeah, that’s the point. That incentive structure includes going to prison, and employers aren’t willing to die on that hill because it exposes them to insane liability if they go against a certified Professional Engineer.
Especially a layer that is largely out of band in a project (i.e. ~/.claude/…). In any project where I’ve needed memory I just add a line to AGENTS.md telling it to use MEMORY.md to save memories or STATUS.md to track progress.
For context: One climber died and a helicopter crashed trying to rescue her. No one's ever been rescued before at that altitude on that mountain range.
There’s an ambiguity here: what is “this area”? If we’re talking about the semiconductor industry, they’ve been investing billions since the early nineties. The really big push came with the China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund in 2014 at which point they were plowing billions into the industry across the public and private front. That one fund alone has $100 billion in assets under management at this point, and there are many other funds involved.
They’ve also invested in AI separately (before LLMs) in that time period but I’m less familiar with that sector.
> And China is now doing something on the hardware axis; which it may have never explored were it not for the sanctions.
Gaining parity on the semiconductor fab front has been official government policy as part of their Five Year Plan for at least the last decade, straight from the Politburo. They were always going to go down this path, and with AI playing front and center on their upcoming plan, there’s even more pressure.
There was never a possibility of them not exploring it.
Me too! I was visiting my parents’ farm and walking around in pitch black while looking at the stars when I saw a bright green glow out of the corner of my eye. Ended up tracking it down to a California pink glow worm that had perched itself on a rock.
That’s because the Department of Energy originally funded and contributed IP to the EUV Corp joint venture between several semiconductor companies (including ASML and Intel). Their ability to export control EUV was part of that original agreement that the entire technology is built on.
I'm not a physicist so take it with a grain of salt:
> If you model a scientific theory developing over time, are we still so early that neutrino oscillation could actually be entirely different? Or do we actually have the data to demonstrate that "No, a singular neutrino absolutely changes to different flavors over time, nothing else could cause the effects we see in X, Y and Z demonstrations"?
We are still early in the sense of "why neutrinos have mass" but the evidence for neutrino oscillation itself is very strong. The classic experiment is measuring the neutrino flux coming off of our sun: the total neutrino flux matches solar-model expectations but without neutrino oscillation, the electron neutrino flux does not, and the missing fraction depends on distance divided by energy.
The T2K experiment has measured the oscillation of a muon neutrino beam over about 300km and the Daya Bay experiments measured electron anti-neutrino oscillation from nuclear reactors over a distance of several kilometers. At this point the evidence required to overturn neutrino oscillation would have to be extraordinary.
> Like, I have sky high confidence that the standard model captures and predicts things like electrons and protons and quarks extremely well, so it always feels dissonant when we see things get weird like this, but also nature doesn't promise us coherent rules, just consistent ones. Reality could very well be full of crummy edge cases.
My understanding is that the mathematical machinery created to explain quark flavors is also used to explain neutrino flavors, so we're not dealing with a unique snowflake in physics.
That’s because the 64bit upgrade to Creation Engine happened with the Fallout 4 development cycle when 64bit was widespread. Skyrim was also targeting Xbox 360 and PS3 which were still 32bit. FO4 is when the calculus changed for all the target platforms so thats when the engine was upgraded.
> Even if the animal can position itself into a teeter-totter position with center of mass over the pivot/legs, it would still be using muscular energy to straighten up and extend, and then coming back down can hardly have been lossless
The idea is that they don’t position themselves into a teeter-totter position, they always are in that state (at least the species with very heavy tails). When they’re on their front feet, they’re essentially leaning forward. By bringing their tail down, they lean back into a rearing position.
That said I think most paleontologists think neck-feeding is far more likely than rearing because of the energy argument. There are relatively strong arguments for the latter along other axes but we don’t have any fossils locked in that position to prove it.
> it'd be a combination of again using muscles to come down in a controlled manner (and not destroy it's front joints!), and then a final plop down which would transfer kinetic energy into compressing the landing spot...
These dinosaurs were so heavy these were all problems already. Just supporting the mass of the skeleton required a bunch of special adaptations, some of which we see in elephants. The problem is that there aren’t many extant megafauna analogues and for many of these animals we’re not even sure how their metabolisms worked, let alone the intricacies of their musculoskeletal adaptations.
> all for a mouthful of leaves.
Vast majority of the giant necked herbivores didn’t chew at all to keep their heads light, their teeth designed instead to cut and strip entire branches at a time into their gut where they likely fermented. Regardless of the feeding method, they didn’t work a mouthful at a time.
NOTICE: My religion forbids me from recognizing any terms of service that haven't been given the three blessings of the matriarch