I think there are a lot of ECEs that work in software. A lot of my classmates from my EE undergrad went to software despite getting a more hardware centric education because software was offering more money.
I imagine there are many people people that, if they pay was higher, would move back to more 'pure' EE/ECE work.
My understanding is that it is ARM's parent company Softbank that stands to benefit rather than ARM looking to reinvest the money to fuel growth.
ARM would benefit only slightly, as its employees have RSUs that the company said it would honor in the event that no sale of ARM occurs.
Softbank on the other hand has 10's of billions of losses since 2017 from its vision fund and may be looking to rebalance its books. I can see why ARM would be a good asset to sell from Softbank's perspective. ARM is unlikely to see explosive growth in a new segment, and the market as a whole, and the tech sector in particular has fairly 'healthy' PE ratios[1]. This means that Softbank could realize more cash from a sale now than a hypothetical future time when there is more pessimism in the market.
[1]P/E ratio is the ratio between the price of a stock and its earnings. Some notable outliers are Nvidia @ 232 & AMD @ 483 compared to Intel @ 15.36 or Texas Instruments @ 20.01; PE is higher for companies that are expected to grow and lower for companies that are mature or declining.
I read it more as, clients have a mix of questions. Clients don’t go through the system everyday and likely have some general worries and procedural questions as a result. Clients also have a case and need to coordinate with their lawyer. AI could enable more of the latter to happen within the limited time the lawyer has for each client.
The language on their website implies that they act collectively in the event of a veto “A vetoed bill can become law if two-thirds of the members of each house vote to override the Governor's veto.”[0].
Practically speaking, there are usually committees (may be area specific, or general such as scheduling/introductory) that make the first choice as to how the process will continue. For new york this seems to be the standing committee which decides what will be put to a vote, “ Members of Standing Committees evaluate bills and decide whether to "report" them (send them) to the Senate floor for a final decision by the full membership.”[0].
My understanding is that it is more a consequence of politics than the system... Sure you have a veto proof majority on this bill, but what about what comes next?
The governor is able to stop "tyranny of masses" by their veto power. Almost no bill in our partisan age is able to pass with a veto proof majority. So the governor has the ability to prevent good outcomes for specific members of their party in the legislature in the future. Sure a budget that makes the party and governor look good will pass, but members who "step out of line", will find that they can't "bring home the bacon" in terms of what is allocated to their district.
So could the bill be pushed through unmodified despite an governor's veto? Of course. The system expressly allows this given a 2/3rds vote. But the legislature needs to weigh their options:
1.) Have all members push the bill forward anyways
2.) Have just enough members push the bill forward
3.) Accept the governor's revisions and move the bill forward
4.) Drop the bill
As a representative it is hard to tell which of 1/2 you are choosing in the moment. The issue is that 2 may paint a target on your back. The members of the party opposing the governor are less incentivized to care about the veto. So do you want the governor to hold a grudge with "1 of X" representatives of their own party who sided against them? Granted the legislature is about 2/3rds democrat, so for a break with the governor to happen maybe half the democratic legislature would have to break with the governor.
3 Is appealing over 4, since you are able to claim victory for now. Something was passed after all, and the name of the bill alone is usually enough to make a good ad come re-election. and if the issues really are so severe, this is just another victory for the future you.
I think that you can at least choose for photos you take to not have location data at all in camera settings.
I found out because the feature of mapping of where your pictures where your pictures were taken did not work for me, because I stopped the camera from having location data.
TI's fabs are mainly focused on analog, so the requirements are a bit different. IIRC we have 3 130-65nm layers for digital in our mixed signal designs which is roughly on par with a the process technology Intel used in 2005.
It looks like the scale rating the energy efficiency of the fridges aged out of being useful. From the article: "Eventually, more than half of the products on the market were labelled A++ and A+++".
The change means a fridge that would be an A in the old system is now a D in the new one. They are hoping that the scale will provide a more accurate idea of the performance of the fridge
'YouTube has decided our Arc A380 review is "18+ only" and "not suitable for ads." This hurts views and revenue. Please share the video around manually since YouTube is restricting who sees it! https://youtu.be/La-dcK4h4ZU There's not much that's more discouraging in this space than working almost 24 hours straight on a review, producing very high quality testing and video, and then getting told "you don't deserve to make money on this because reasons we won't explain instituted by people we won't put you in contact with." Despite having 1.6M+ subs, we no longer have a creator contact at YouTube because it's a revolving door position with a new employee every few months. Hoping this makes it back to them somehow and they fix the ad qualifications of the Arc review.'
Gasoline is maybe 5 dollars a gallon and contains some 35kwh of energy. When burning gas in an engine we don't get 35kwh [1], but that is what is there.
Lets imagine we are building a gallon of gas with perfect efficiency. 35kwh is already about $3.15-10.50 depending on the market [2]. Lets assume however, we are willing to take the capital risk and invest in our own solar plant which gives us a price of $2.10-2.80. We can take this even further.
Lets say we buy our own panels, and don't even connect it to the grid. These panels are only used for this, and we only make gas during the day. Here we pay $1.2/watt of capacity [0]. Solar panels have a life of about 10 years. 8x265x10 -> 29.2Kwh/dollar if we use the energy from the panels entirely efficiently. This is about $1.2 on the absolute low end. Note that panels require some maintenance, and don't just die after 10 years.
Now that we have the energy, lets get our raw materials. Gasoline has a chemical formula of C8H18, a ratio by weight of 96:18 or 16:3. A Gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds, meaning about 5 pounds of carbon to 1 pound of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is not cheap [4], Electrolysis costs some 2.4K USD per ton, 1.2 dollars a pound. Electrolysis is more than energy in, hydrogen out. It uses up electrodes for instance. If we are allowed to use fossil fuel derived hydrogen the price comes down to 0.2 dollars a pound [5].
Carbon is $35/ton, but this increases to $75/ton if we want beverage grade [6]. You could argue that we will need to purify the CO2 ourselves either way so we can use the cheaper carbon. Carbon to oxygen by weight is 12 : 30 or 2 : 5. So for 1 pound of carbon we need 3.5 pounds of CO2. This brings our cost to $122.5/ton or about 0.12 cents a pound.
Thus our material cost, including no synthesis is already in the ball park of $2 -> $12.9 per gallon.
We should also consider that gasoline has costs that our hypothetical fuel would also need. Additives make up 30-70 cents per gallon. Distribution another 30-60 cents a gallon. Taxes another 40-60 cents a gallon [7].
Adding these costs, our hypothetical fuel now costs $3 -> $14.8 per gallon. But we still need to actually add the costs for turning the ingredients into fuel. We also don't have any labor costs, or costs of capital.
Its been a bit since I watched, but he raises a few issues:
1. Many NFTs are fundamentally lacking a copyright. Only humans, not animals or even programs can create copyrightable works. So NFTs that are generated may have one copyright collectively or maybe even no legal protection. This single copyright can only be held by one person. So here clearly NFT != ownership.
2. Some NFTs that could have copyrights are not from their rightful owners. As a buyer it is hard to tell. While the origin of the NFT is easy to verify by design, any non web asset associated with it is hard.
3. Selling a copyright as a NFT is legally dubious. The first sale could legally work, but its not clear how you would reliably bind all subsequent buyers/sellers to the same contract.
4. Even if the work in the NFT is copyrightable, author provided, and backed by a legally sound process, there is no guarantee the “rights” granted have any real meaning. The example given was sport clips where your “ownership” while strong and clear, was limited to basically viewing it on the site/app for non-commercial purposes.
The issue kinda becomes, its hard to tie an NFT to any kind of transferable ownership in a legally sound way. Imo it sounds possible, like how homes with HOAs force buyers to agree to and perpetuate the terms of the HOA. Its just hard. Hard to setup, and hard to verify.
Thus it is clear why nuclear is .9, it doesn’t vary much in its generation. The max is only a bit more than the average. Capacity factor is in some sense, but not exactly, the variability.
I believe that what is happening is that the rated capacity of a power plant is its maximum output times its capacity factor. Say we have a solar plant that produces a maximum of 1 GW in optimal conditions with a .15 capacity factor. This plant is not a 1GW plant but a 150MW one.
In general fossil fuels have capacity factors around .55, nuclear about .9, hydro about .4, and solar is between .1-.3
So you can imagine a scenario where we have 200MW of natural gas and 200MW of solar, and a grid load of 300MW. The natural gas could produce 400MW, powering the grid alone. Similarly, we could have up to 1 GW of solar, more than enough. But the averages are what is important, and what we use in ratings.
These stories are mostly “feel good” and without meaning imo. We will hit 100% energy from renewables for x minutes, long before we have enough power for the grid. If we were trying to make all the renewables come online at once, you don’t actually need that much capacity to hit 100%. The capacity factor says we only need 1/5 of the grid as solar to hit “100%” renewables. The reason we haven’t is intentional, we want more consistent power from these typically inconsistent renewable sources.
My fellowship email said 34k/yr plus 10k in tuition. This was for UT.
In terms of expenses? Maybe about 2k/month. Depending on what standard of living you want 600-1400 for rent.
Separately, I was also a TA. This ıs ın the ballpark of 25/hour wıth a 80% tuıtıon rebate. Beıng an undergrad TA only paıd 10/hr wıth no rebate though.
[1] “ monthly fellowship stipend ($2,222) paid to you for nine months during fall and spring ($20,000 value)
· full tuition paid for classes required for your degree for the fall and spring semesters ($10,554 value)
· two payments to you in the amount equal to the premium for student health insurance ($4,000 current value)
· plus, an additional $9,000 engineering fellowship, renewable for three additional years ($36,000 total value)”
I could be reading this wrong but it looks like the star is likely to come close, and the uncertainty is such that they may even collide.
“ An exceptional event will take place in early May 2028, when alpha Cen A will come within 0.015 +/- 0.135 arcseconds of the mK = 7.8 star 2MASS 14392160-6049528 (hereafter S5). In terms of impact parameter and contrast, this is the most favorable stellar conjunction of alpha Cen within at least the next three decades. With an angular diameter of LD = 0.47 +/- 0.05 mas, it is likely that S5 is a red giant or supergiant located at several kiloparsecs.”
I imagine there are many people people that, if they pay was higher, would move back to more 'pure' EE/ECE work.