> So to make this familiar, you're probably used to traditional coordinate vectors in geometry. For example a 3D vector [x, y, z]. This seems sane enough, but is actually somewhat ambiguous.
The concept of a coordinate system is not ambiguous. You have dimensions, and each can be represented as a vector that complies with specific properties, such as linear independence.
> Which cardinal direction map to x, y, z respectively (e.g. is z for up/down or forwards/backwards)?
That's a function of whatever coordinate transformation you wish to apply.
Nevertheless, I vaguely recall from school the concept of an oriented vector space and direct coordinate system, whose definition was something like the cross product of consecutive director vectors resulted in a positive vector (right-hand rule) i.e., the direction of z is determined unambiguously by the direction of x and y.
> Now in geometric algebra we also have oriented basis vectors.
If I'm not mistaken, oriented referential systems are covered in intro to euclidean geometry classes.
> The key difference is that geometric algebra has the exterior product, notated ^. For example, e1 ^ e2 is the exterior product of two oriented basis vectors. You can interpret this as being an oriented basis for the space spanned by e1, e2. And similarly for e1 ^ e2 ^ e3 being an oriented basis of the volume spanned by e1, e2, e3, etc. These are called basis blades.
Sounds like a convoluted way to refer to basic concepts like direction vectors of a direct coordinate system.
Quite bluntly, this all sounds like an attempt to reinvent euclidean geometry following a convoluted way. I mean, what does all this buy you that applying a subset of affine transformations (scaling, translation, rotation) to an orthogonal coordinate system doesn't give you already?
> Hang on, is that a Natural number, or a signed Integer? Is it place-value, and if so what's the base? Big- or little-endian?
I fail to see how that makes any sense. OP clearly referred to the unidimensional nature of a scalar in contrast to the n-dimensional nature of a vector, or the n*m-dimensional nature of a matrix. It makes no sense to try to go off on a tangent regarding, say, the resolution of a scalar representation. Perhaps the concept of a ray gets halfway there. Perhaps the concept of a line at infinity.
The concept of a scalar is familiar, as is the concept of a vector. Using the terms "scalar with a direction" to describe a vector makes no sense if you come from that starting point. Perhaps magnitude+direction vector rings a bell, because that's also a basic description of a vector.
Perhaps the author made a mistake, or does not have a good math background, or is filing in his knowledge gaps by coming up with definitions . Or perhaps he's actually referring to different concepts that the readership is not familiar. Who knows?
> This is tongue-in-cheek; but from a software perspective, all those representations have the same "API" (arithmetic).
This assertion is quite wrong. Both scalar and vector, in this context, are data types. Describing a data types as a data type of a data type is meaningless and does not compute.
> No. If your device only supports 5 Gb/sec speeds, it's USB 3.0, yes.
That's not how things work.
Devices are implemented while targeting a standard.
If you implement a USB 3.0 device then you do not support any data transfer mode capable of doing more than 5Gb/s. If you're a customer looking for more than 5Gb/s and you see that a device is only USB3.0 then you already know that it won't cut it.
That's the whole point of this submission. M1 macs don't support USB 3.1, only USB 3.0. Why? because they patently don't support the transfer speeds made possible by the new data transfer mode introduced in USB 3.1.
No, not really. Feel free to point out exactly which argument you feel was ignored.
> The issue isn't that things have changed; it's that they've changed in a way that makes things confusing for consumers.
That seems to be the source of your confusion: nothing has changed. Each USB spec is backwards compatible and specifies the same data transfer modes.
And there is no confusion: if you pick up a USB2 data storage device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed. If you pick up a USB3.0 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+. If you pick up a USB3.1 device you know beforehand it won't support SuperSpeed+ 2x or 4x.
The whole point of the submission is to call out that M1 macs don't support USB3.1 unlike the new Mac Studio.
The article also clearly states that Apple doesn't actually advertise USB3.1, just USB3.
> But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage.
No, not quite. What do you think the USB3.0 SuperSpeed is? Why, a brand new transfer mode.
> If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds.
You'd be glad to know that nothing changed in that regard with USB3.0, 3.1, and 3.2.
In fact, the whole point of this submission is to showcase how M1 macs are only capable of drawing a lower data transfer speed unlike the new Mac Studio, thus proving that the M1 macs don't support USB 3.1 Gen2, aka SuperSpeed+.
> I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1"
No, it's not.
If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it.
If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.
If instead you implement it based on the USB 3.2 spec then that standard specifies four distinct transfer modes: the Gen1 specified in USB3.2, the Gen2 specified in USB3.2, and the new ones.
> just because the USB Consortium said so.
Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask.
Keep in mind that:
* USB3.0 was released in 2008.
* USB3.1 was released in 2013.
* USB3.2 was released in 2017.
Each standard is standalone, and specifies all of its transfer modes. I wouldn't be surprised if each of these specs also included fixes, and thus technically would represent different specs.
> Adding a new transfer rate seems like a reasonable place to bump the minor version number of a protocol. After reading all of that I'm even more convinced that it should have just been USB 3.2.
I'm not sure you read any of that. I mean, they bumped the standard version to 3.1 from 3.0 after adding a new transfer rate.
Also, USB 3.2 was bumped up from 3.1 after adding two new data transfer modes.
I also add that the naming scheme is quite obvious once you start to think about it.
* USB 3.0 only supports the one SuperSpeed data transfer mode.
* USB3.1 was released, and it specifies two distinct data transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 mode and the novel Gen2 mode.
* USB3.2 is released, and it supports four transfer modes: the legacy Gen1 and Gen2 modes from USB3.1, and two new SuperSpeed+ modes which are 2x and 4x faster than Gen2.
> Why? To solve what exactly? In a sane world, it'd be major.minor, with nothing appended at the end.
It's always important to get acquainted with a topic before succumbing to the desire to mindlessly criticize in ignorance.
A quick search in Wikipedia shows that USB 3.1 specifies a brand new transfer rate, dubbed SuperSpeed+ transfer mode, "(...)which can transfer data at up to 10 Gbit/s over the existing USB3-type-A and USB-C connectors (1200 MB/s after encoding overhead, more than twice the rate of USB 3.0)".
This is a different transfer mode than the SuperSpeed transfer rate specified in USB 3.0.
To allow implementations to support both transfer speeds, the implementations that supported SuperSpeed transfer rates were dubbed USB 3.1 Gen1, while the implementations that supported SuperSpeed+ transfer rates were dubbed USB 3.1 Gen2.
To me that's a very convenient, and customer-centric way of putting together a standard. So there's a minor addition to a major release. Is that left to an annex? No. Do we fork standards? No. We just release a backwards-compatible v3.1 standard that in practice deprecates v3.0 and thus allows the whole industry to avoid piling up the list of current standards that we care about.
> It's a one time charge and also can be resold if needed.
It's a hefty one-time charge that is not required to operate a Uber and thus can baloon the initial investment between 2x and 3x, and at best is capex that you have to tie down. Therefore, how is that an advantage?
> 1. Uber is actually a higher cost/less efficient producer of urban car services than the taxi companies it has driven out of business
This doesn't seem to be true, given that in some countries you have taxi companies providing services through Uber, as well as their own ride hailing platforms.
> 2. Individual Uber drivers with limited capital cannot acquire, finance, maintain and insure vehicles more economically than Yellow Cab
I'm not sure this belief holds any truth as well. I mean, isn't the biggest cost associated with Yellow Cab the taxi medallion, which represents a +$80k additional charge over the vehicle?
> Since then, what surprises me is that this project continues to be a useful, possibly necessary tool for measuring and tuning Lambda performance.
Is performance tuning a relevant topic for AWS Lambda though? It's my understanding that lambdas are recommended only for:
* glue code for AWS events,
* Run fire-and-forget workers that are neither that complex nor executed often enough to justify the work of putting up a dedicated service, which already takes no work at all.
None of these use cases is exactly performance-critical. To put it differently, if any lambda starts to handle enough executions that performance and cost starts to become a concern, the standard approach is to just handle it in a service.
Beyond the choice of the lambda runtime and how much RAM is provisioned, what else is there that's worth being tuned?
> As long as you haven't made the active window full screen, or the window you want to switch to, then yes, it works. But it is painful :P
What's being described as "full screen" windows on macOS is not exactly that, and it's very different than full screen windows on Windows or the standard Linux window managers.
On macOS, when we click on the little green button on top of a window, that window becomes full screen *and* becomes a new single-window workspace.
The first paragraph of the news piece states that "the head of the department responsible for Ukraine was sent to prison."
Here's the second paragraph:
> In a sign of President Putin’s fury over the failures of the invasion, about 150 Federal Security Bureau (FSB) officers have been dismissed, including some who have been arrested.
I couldn't read more paragraphs as the article seems paywalled.
Tying your personal health and that of your loved ones to your employer gives your boss unduly leverage over yourself, particularly when there are life and death decisions to be made.
The concept of a coordinate system is not ambiguous. You have dimensions, and each can be represented as a vector that complies with specific properties, such as linear independence.
> Which cardinal direction map to x, y, z respectively (e.g. is z for up/down or forwards/backwards)?
That's a function of whatever coordinate transformation you wish to apply.
Nevertheless, I vaguely recall from school the concept of an oriented vector space and direct coordinate system, whose definition was something like the cross product of consecutive director vectors resulted in a positive vector (right-hand rule) i.e., the direction of z is determined unambiguously by the direction of x and y.
> Now in geometric algebra we also have oriented basis vectors.
If I'm not mistaken, oriented referential systems are covered in intro to euclidean geometry classes.
> The key difference is that geometric algebra has the exterior product, notated ^. For example, e1 ^ e2 is the exterior product of two oriented basis vectors. You can interpret this as being an oriented basis for the space spanned by e1, e2. And similarly for e1 ^ e2 ^ e3 being an oriented basis of the volume spanned by e1, e2, e3, etc. These are called basis blades.
Sounds like a convoluted way to refer to basic concepts like direction vectors of a direct coordinate system.
Quite bluntly, this all sounds like an attempt to reinvent euclidean geometry following a convoluted way. I mean, what does all this buy you that applying a subset of affine transformations (scaling, translation, rotation) to an orthogonal coordinate system doesn't give you already?