Wolphram Alpha tells me that a 44oz container of lemonade contains 312 calories (16% RDA). I suspect that if you printed that information, large enough to read, on the cup then a lot fewer people would order them.
You could end up with the watch using less than something that sends a 3 ms bluetooth blip every second.
Even once a second may be more than you need. If the aim is to have something that communicates with a much more powerful device, then I'd imagine that every 10 seconds you'd turn on the passive receiver and do a tiny bit of signal processing to detect if you have anything that might be a bluetooth signal (the receiver is always online because it's part of your energy harvesting, but the DSP isn't). If you do, then you bring the transmitter up and send a ping. You're only using the 10mW of Bluetooth LE for a tiny period, once every 10s, if you've already detected that there's a high probability that someone is trying to talk to you.
Even then, the power requirements are not obviously below what you can get from energy harvesting. You need to have a timing source that lets you detect when the 10s quiet window ends, and the more accurate you make that the higher its power requirements are. I'd say it was probably possible, but definitely not easy...
Here in Cambridge, computer science has a worse gender balance than mathematics, which is worse than the national average. I think the only department with a worse gender balance than us is the veterinary school (which is something like 90% female - apparently it's easier to find women who want to to take a degree that involves a lot of time with your hand up a cow than to work with computers).
I find it hard to credit logic that says women have more of a natural aptitude for mathematics than for computer science, but something is putting them off applying. I've just become responsible for admissions at an all-women college, which currently has two students in computer science in total for the three-year undergraduate course (both just about to enter the second year, no new admissions entering the first, no second years moving to the third). The college wants to increase its intake in STEM fields, but it can't do much without more applicants - it's not going to do it by letting in women who aren't qualified, because that's self-defeating in the long run (and in the short term affects the college's ranking within the university, which affects applications, and so on).
And, honestly, given some of the male students we've had getting 2.iis, I find it hard to believe that there weren't potential applicants of both genders who would have made better use of a Cambridge education.
If a software engineer can not write code that they themselves would not put their life on the line for then what are they doing as a coder?
The way the joke is phrased is different. Each person in the bar might have been confident in their ability, given the right framework, to write the required code. But writing safety critical code requires different engineering practices to a lot of other software. If you're writing aeronautical code, then you typically have a small required feature set, and a huge budget for QA relative to the development budget. A company that's set up to release early, release often, and do testing by deploying to a subset of users would not be able to easily adapt, even if their programmers were of the same caliber as those writing the aeronautical code.
The same holds for the associated mechanical tasks. The skill of the welder is important, but it's not enough without also having people responsible for modelling the stresses that the weld will be subjected to, people determining the required quality and people inspecting the result. It doesn't matter if you hire the best welders in the business whose welds pass inspection 99% of the time, if you're not paying the inspectors to catch the 1%.
What is the next number in the sequence? 1, 2, 4, 8, 16
Most people here would tell you that it's 32. They're powers of two. However, 31 is an equally valid number (the maximum number of pieces you can divide a circle into using just straight lines). It's not just about pattern recognition, it's about recognising specific patterns. There are lots of other subtle biases involved. The same is true of the visual and spacial puzzles.
They're a good way of exercising your brain, but they're not really very representative of general intelligence. There's also the issue that the tests accuracy drops of quickly as you move away from the median. My test scores ranged by about 20 points over half a dozen tests. If someone tells you that they have an IQ of 143 (for example), then it's bullshit. There's so much margin of error there that it's really hard to distinguish anyone above 130 (I think Mensa requires 131), and even over 120 has a pretty hefty error margin.
The difference with C++ is that the error often doesn't appear where you made the mistake. You'll get an error saying something like type T (and a long string of indirections telling you what T really is in this context) in some standard library header doesn't implement a specific operator. You then need to peal back multiple levels of template instantiations to get to the place where it's actually causing the error. The last line in the first error will tell you the bit of your code that is instantiating the template, but the bug may be that one of the implicit arguments to a template two invocations later picks a value that is incompatible with one of your explicit arguments. This is nontrivial to debug.
Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!