Imagine a power splitter + phase shifter that produces a correct phase shift for each element in a phased array to produce a directional beam from one radio transceiver.
Now this clever arrangement, instead of having only one radio transceiver port, has multiple. And each of those ports corresponds to a different set of phase shifts, producing a directional beam at a different azimuth angle.
And because this is an entirely passive device, it's linear, and all ports can be active at the same time (principle of superposition essentially). So you can use a single phased antenna array to serve multiple directional beams at the same time.
Right! I think a lot of people, who have not done a lot of "things you can kick" engineering, have a very romantic view of it. Especially the relationship with whoever is nominally setting the goals of the project.
The physics works perfectly, of course. But physics is only a third of the constraint in engineering. The other two thirds are project goals and convention.
Project goals are horribly underspecified, every time. It's incredibly rare to be given a project that is completely constrained on that side, and if you do get one, most of the time it's physically impossible to achieve. This is because the people who write those specifications not doing engineering, they're doing marketing or sales or just had a cool idea. Sometimes that can even be the engineer themselves :-) So it's up to the engineer to fill in the gap, and they do it with experience and a sense of aesthetics, of sorts.
Convention is what constrains the physical possibilities of engineering to the practical. Yes, you can build anything and make it work, possibly even better than what everyone else builds. But you will have to invent and construct a lot of new technologies before you can build your perfect mousetrap. So, you settle on standard components and build a decent one instead. But this introduces a gap between physics and engineering, too. A bit of no-man's land that you can reach into to produce truly great results. But it's up to the engineer to know when it's worth it.
As a matter of fact, Nature does regularly publish papers about wetting properties of water. In fact, it just published one last week, from Nature Physics:
Scientists find more or less everything very interesting, even (especially?) things that are supposedly self-evident. You can both make a big splash disproving self-evident things, and much can be learned from it.
If you can read more than one language, try reading translations into two or three different ones. It'll give you a different view of a book you enjoy: the translations will all have a different feel, in my experience.
On most modern Apple SoCs, including these two, there's an IOMMU dedicated to the USB complex (called the USB DART, perhaps DMA Address Remapping Table).
However, Boot ROM on these two chips does not program it; Apple probably felt that it was an unnecessary technical risk to do so. The Boot ROM code was well-verified and unlikely to contain bugs like buffer overflows. But nobody expected a hardware bug :)
Sure, StarCraft is kind of a hybrid when you think about it. The guaranteed-hit model, the extremely simplified low vs high ground approach to determine if a shot is possible, etc. are pretty deterministic. But in more complicated situations it's still a lot less predictable than chess. Even the examples you're giving can only happen probabilistically outside very early game.
But I'm thinking about TA-style games, the topic of this discussion, which pride themselves on large armies. Though, to your point, early game of Supreme Commander is also quite chess-like, because of how restricted the set of opportunities is.
Chess presents a comparatively small and, importantly, discrete set of choices at any moment. So it feels like it's a solvable logic puzzle: like it should be possible, at any moment, to make an optimal move. You can predict if you lose 2 or if you lose 3 pieces because of your next move, and you're expected to use this knowledge. The strategy of chess is about perfection in every turn.
RTSes present continuous, large choice spaces. So it doesn't really feel like as much of a logic puzzle, and perfection does not appear to be within ones grasp at every moment. Whether you'll lose 4 or 6 of the T2 fighter-bombers is not relevant. The strategy of RTSes is strategy of big plans and high level abstraction.
He's basically repeating his mistake - underestimating the relevance of technological progress - from 28 years ago, except now it's explicitly in service of his political bias.
For your information: Paul Krugman is a Nobel memorial prize winning economist. He used the publicity of his award to become, essentially, a political commentator, including an opinion column in the most important American newspaper of record, the New York Times. He's not a random commenter on a website, without any ambitions of relevance. He uses the aura of being an eminent scientist to give his personal opinions a veneer of respectability that they perhaps do not merit.
It's difficult to consider Krugman's takes seriously after his very flawed 1998 predictions. Perhaps he's uniquely poorly suited to understanding the role of technology in economic development, and is best described as an economist with a very limited outlook outside his narrow discipline?
It became obvious / accepted wisdom that a moderately successful startup exit is the only way to have a decent future as a living person.
This used to be only one of many paths available to a nerd, but now: (a) academia is dead thanks to overly competitive publish-or-perish set-up (probably the biggest loss of the three), (b) corporate jobs do not pay enough to safely survive downturns that leave you jobless for extended periods, (c) government jobs have been made even more onerous and even less paying in real terms.
So everyone has to become a self-promoting, trend-chasing startup-founder type. Even if you don't found a startup, you have to be always ready for a new "business opportunity".
Neat! What do you think about adding a "-2, -1, 0, +1, +2" agreement scale to each quote and showing the average instead of votes?
I think many of those are pretty subjective, and maybe not always right for everyone or for all time. But there are certainly going to be some universal pearls of wisdom, and neither of us can - by ourselves - tell which ones they are.
I don't think I've seen anything sufficiently RAM-like. The classic sense amplifier architecture tends to make this impractical. I guess modern Flash can store a few levels but that's a far cry from actual analog storage.
For a while, you could get things like bucket-brigade CCDs for analog signals (used for reverbs and suchlike). They're still made in small quantities, I think, by boutique operations like Xvive.
Also, there was the ISD ChipCorder, which was actual analog Flash. (Current devices are digital, but the old ones were for a while sold as "MLS ChipCorder" by Nuvoton.)
Tubes can also just be very _clever_ in a way that transistors generally are not. For instance, counting tubes that would contain a decimal counter in a single glass bubble (that's quite a few transistors even in TTL, and about twice as many in CMOS). Multiple approaches to building such tubes existed. This is one:
Pretty good detail in this article! But what really surprises me is how some ideas just keep coming back.
When I wrote a binary translator, I ended up having to keep a translated return stack to optimize RET opcodes. That put me in exactly the same position as the Win16 kernel with regard to having to patch pointers (in case of Win16, just the segment part) on stack.
Of course I did not have the benefit of my guests calling a lock function, so I ended up having to run a garbage collection operation to determine which pointers are in use & take exceptions on now-invalidated segments. Lots of extra work that Windows didn't need: it's nice to be king :-)
That was a fun site to browse. I really enjoy fixing / hacking on non-disposable equipment (lab, test, optics, etc.) and there are some well-done write-ups in there.
USSR, yes. But the ISS was launching during a time when USSR no longer existed and Russia was fairly isolated. Hence, "obviously": US at that time had many close allies, but Russia had only a few, and not as technologically advanced.
I think it's an attempt to express that the station consists of only two segments: Russian (ROS) and US (USOS), but the US invited its allies to work together on its segment. So parts of the USOS are made in Europe, Canada and Japan, and generally lifted to space by the US, usually on the Space Shuttle.
(All this was pretty lucid of the US, but obviously the Russians did no such thing on their side. The Japanese even managed to get an ISS resupply mission launched on their own vehicle, which is no small achievement, and the ESA did a bunch of good science. And what would space be without the Canadarm :-)
Hacker News is still skewed towards people interested in programming languages (as opposed to actually programming). Probably some sort of Y-combinator Lisp heritage. There's also a persistent minority of CS grads who think that developing / using new programming languages is the most fascinating thing in the world, and some of them hold on to that thought.
It's reasonable that such people would also be interested in design aspects of languages, and UB in C is in that field. Though I would argue that a lot of it was originally accommodating old CPU architectures without compromising performance too badly, and about as much a "design choice" as wheels being round...
Now this clever arrangement, instead of having only one radio transceiver port, has multiple. And each of those ports corresponds to a different set of phase shifts, producing a directional beam at a different azimuth angle.
And because this is an entirely passive device, it's linear, and all ports can be active at the same time (principle of superposition essentially). So you can use a single phased antenna array to serve multiple directional beams at the same time.