Projectiles from your puny weapons will simply bounce off my armored playground robot.

Now, hand over your weapon and your lunch box to the machine.

> And would be so ridiculously dangerous, you would have a death every other race.

you mean like isle of man motorbike racing?

google brushless motor efficiency, look at images if you don't fancy reading.

i said rarely. consider that in f1 the clutch is to be operated 4-5 times. once at the start, two or three for pit stops and one left over for emergency/unforeseen events.

once again, you don't need a clutch for an electric motor, whether it is mated to a gearbox or not

Yes... Don't see your point? The gearbox is necessary so that the motor operates near peak efficiency as often as possible. Considering f1 cars rarely stop, it's not a significant problem to forgo a clutch

A clutch isn't really necessary, i'd guess.

and it will get floated every couple of years until they figure out how to make it worthwhile

the whole "max torque from 0 rpm" phrase that is thrown around is quite misleading. While true that a motor exerts its maximum torque at zero rpm (and drops linearly as rpm increases), it also has the worst efficiency. maximum power draw (it's a short circuit!) and minimum power output (it's not moving is it?). peak efficiency is at a specific rpm, thus a gearbox is needed *for efficiency*.

to put 8 kW/kg into perspective, all commercial brushless dc motors are at 4 kW/kg and it is a limitation of the materials used.

Commercial internal combustion engines range from 1 kW/kg to *maybe* 3 kW/kg if it is turbocharged to the point of sacrificing engine longevity and formula 1 engines are at around 5 kW/kg

although i suspect they saved weight by using the vehicle frame as (part of?) the stator, a perk of making a motor for a very specific purpose.

Why compromise?

All the city bus drivers in my area are on video surveillance. We routinely get to see footage of accidents and altercations with crazed passengers on the local news.

If it's good enough for a bus, it should be good enough for someone responsible for the safety of a 500mph $200M machine.

It reverts to an incandescent bulb with an average lifetime of about 500ms.

Umm, that's why I originally said that languages should explicitly support both trapping and non-trapping versions.

Can anyone identify a product or service that Amazon doesn't sell or provide?

Job prospects are going to be few and far between if you leave Amazon.

750GB per package.

A single SSD may have anywhere from 1 to $alot of packages on the board, hence 10TB SSDs.

The different flow of execution triggered by an overflow trap should almost always be a simple call to "abort()". At this point, your program has already failed and should be stopped.

I disagree with your premise. Garbage input values should be checked and rejected in software before the overflow ever occurs. The hardware overflow check should be a last resort to enforce this at every instruction step, and in the worst case it converts privilege exploits into less serious DOS attacks.

Allowing "garbage output" as you propose just creates more opportunities for attacks when that output gets consumed somewhere.

On an X86, "V".

Not that checking it after every add instruction is really that practical. It would be better to have trapping and non-trapping versions of integer arithmetic, and to have languages with semantics which expose that choice to the programmer.