Comment warranty vs advertising (Score 1) 88
It's not like buying an extended warranty, it's holding manufacturers/retailers accountable for promises that they make.
It's not like buying an extended warranty, it's holding manufacturers/retailers accountable for promises that they make.
General-purpose cord-and-plug connected items are allowed to use the full 15A. (This is why power tools can be 15A.) 14AWG copper conductors are actually rated for 20A for static loads like electric heat, they just downrate them to 15A for general circuits because of the possibility of multiple devices being plugged in at once and to allow for motor loads.
As for why appliances don't use the full allowed amperage...most people don't care so they manufacturers don't either.
That said, it is possible to get 1800W toasters, toaster ovens, coffee makers, etc. in the USA. They're just hard to find and you'll likely end up paying more.
The "single point of exit" can make some types of debugging easier since you can hook the exit with less work.
Now do the nested version when you're trying to allocate multiple resources independently and need to clean up all of them if any of them fail. Oh, and it needs to fit within 80 columns due to other coding rules.
Gotos are a clean way of doing error handling.
Comprehensive unit tests don't help when the thing only breaks in integration testing.
Maybe the sqlite database you use in your unit tests behaves slightly differently than the PostgreSQL database you use in production.
Maybe the refactored code adds a race condition that the unit tests don't cover.
Maybe the refactored code runs slower in certain scenarios that turn out to be important.
Maybe the unit tests missed a corner case.
Sure, in an ideal world these wouldn't happen. But they do.
There's really no reason ever to use C over C++ if you have a C++ compiler available.
What about for something like an OS? Or for tiny little embedded stuff where memory is an issue? (Honestly curious, I'm not current with the latest C++ developments.)
Intel's DPDK library is specifically built to bypass the OS and provide high-speed low-latency networking. Sems like a natural fit.
Standard linux distros support timestamping of the packet by the kernel when the packet is received. When userspace reads the packet it can also obtain the kernel timestamp of that packet.
How hard could it be to design real-world economic experiments that actually yield useful and reproducible results?
I'm guessing that most countries wouldn't want to be the subject of a real-world economic experiment...
"He is a recipient of the Free Software Award from the Free Software Foundation for his work on Secure Boot, UEFI, and the Linux kernel". Ah! All the bits that I *don't* want in the kernel.
It's sort of hard to boot on modern hardware without UEFI support, and hard to boot on Secure Boot systems without support for that too. Theoretically there's nothing wrong with Secure Boot as a concept, as long as you pick motherboard vendors that let you add your own signing keys.
Doesn't necessarily mean that it's upper management in Europe though...could be the management of the American design team.
I'm very curious to see how this plays out. Wonder how much of the truth will come out.
It's not impossible that the team assigned to get it to pass US EPA testing could have done something like this without the knowledge of upper management.
As someone with an engineering degree, I'm saddened that they would do something this shady. Professional Engineers are supposed to act ethically.
And seriously...did they really think nobody would ever find out?
The Prime Minister is technically the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected members of the House of Commons.
*Usually* this is the leader of the party with the most seats, but not always.
Totally agree that we need to rein in the power of the PMO, but that would require the members of the House of Commons to take back the power they've ceded to the office of the Prime Minister.
If someone buys a "self-driving car", they're going to expect it to, you know, *drive itself*. If the driver has to be alert and attentive and ready to take over at all times then it sort of obviates the entire point of owning a "self-driving car".
Now if the features are marketed as safety-assist capabilities (interval-keeping in cruise control, auto-braking to avoid obstacles, etc.) then that's a different story. In that model the driver is still expected to be in control, and the car just makes the driver safer.
But I'd suggest that for many people a "self-driving car" is what they want. They'd like to tell the car where to go, and then read a book or sleep or watch a movie or something until they get there.
Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari