Battery usage depends on the chipset, with newer chipsets using less power. For example, I've had a misbehaving app leave on the GPS on my Nexus 5X, and I still got battery life of about 8 hours. That's not good battery life, but the power consumption was low enough that I didn't notice the phone heating up in my pocket, and I was able to get through a day at work before it went into power saving mode.
My impression is that the real killer with the map app is screen usage. If you leave the map in the foreground, it will leave the screen on, and that drains power like crazy. Even if you hit the power button to turn the screen off, it will keep updating what it's showing on the screen, and that will continue to eat a lot of power. You can save a lot of power by going back to the home screen or another app, which lets you get voice prompts but avoids the power drain from the screen rendering.
But will it get you a job? Only employers know what it is important to know.
Remember, consumer: 2 + 2 = 5
You'll do fine around here.
I read TFA and it struck me that this is the invention of salesmen who are working very hard to find a rationale for their product. The two examples they came up with, where the benefits of their system are supposed to be maximally evident, are just not convincing. In the case of the mice who are kept awake at night: Wouldn't the test group and the control group of mice both be equally affected by the noise? If the thing being tested for really was making a difference, shouldn't that difference still be visible? This sounds an awful lot like: We went into the experiment knowing what results we wanted, and we twiddled knobs and kept discarding "bad" data under the thinnest pretenses, until we finally got them. And that's not how you do science.
When it comes to the researchers whose polymer was being degraded by UV photons from normal daylight... I'm sorry, they just don't sound very smart. I have to wonder if their situation would have improved if they had installed this monitoring system. What would it have told them? "Your experiment is occurring at room temperature, earth gravity, normal daylight, air of terrestrial composition, yadda yadda." Are the salesmen suggesting that these bumbling scientists would have looked at all this "data", slapped their foreheads and yelled: BY GOD, WE JUST LEARNED THAT OUR EXPERIMENT IS OCCURRING IN NORMAL DAYLIGHT!
I've been building PCs long enough to remember a time when things were improving so quickly that it made no sense to keep a computer for more than 4 years. But since then, the progress in CPU performance has reached a plateau. People like me, who bought a good Sandy Bridge system in 2011, still have a system that doesn't come close to feeling crippled and lazy. We don't have much reason to envy the people who bought the latest generation of i5/i7 systems. Five years used to mean an order of magnitude improvement in performance. Now it's not even a doubling. I've sometimes wondered when I will finally start feeling the urge to upgrade my system.
These SSD latency numbers are the first thing I've seen that gave me the feeling that there is some truly worthwhile trick that my present computer can't come close to matching. I'm not saying that I now want to upgrade, but on reading this, I have become upgrade-curious for the first time in many years.
This is so boneheaded it beggars belief. The straightforward solution is to require the UEFI variable filesystem (or whatever it is called these days) to be mounted read-only, and require (UNIX anyway, but something analogous ought to work for Windows too) an application to do a "mount -o remount,rw" to do whatever it needs to do, then do a "mount -o remount,ro" when it's finished. Not as nice as having UEFI not be seriously broken, but workable, and there's not much of an excuse for things like systemd, openrc, etc. implementing this where appropriate (and for any UEFI crap that can brick a system, this is appropriate).
Applications don't like it? Tough, patch the damn things. Requireing firmware to be exposed to harm like this on any operating system is unacceptable.
It shouldn't be that surprising to see water and methane everywhere. After all, hydrogen is by far the most common element in the universe, and oxygen and carbon are also relatively common. Simple compounds of heavier elements with hydrogen should be among the most common things to see on planets (and dwarf planets and moons) that don't have strong enough gravity to keep hydrogen in their atmosphere.
What's depressing about this is not so much that the data is available, but that important idiots will use the data to make significant decisions about students. You can bet they will do it even without any evidence that library time is an independent variable causally responsible for positive outcomes, and that A- students who go to bars are somehow worse employees/grad students/med students/interns than A- students who go to the library.
There is a growing pressure in universities to reward students merely for going through the motions. I have colleagues who actually penalize students for being absent from class. I asked point blank whether any students who get top scores on all the tests ever get less than an A for the course, simply because they missed some meetings. Apparently, this happens, and I was disgusted when I learned of it. I hate the encroachment of high school paternalism into college.
On the other hand, the local auto mechanic probably has a dozen wrenches and a parts truck that comes around every other day that can bring a new one in for nearly zero overhead. So she might be willing to accept a higher failure rate.
Using male gendered pronouns for overwhelmingly male-dominated professions isn't sexism. If you threw a rock into a crowd, you'd hit more male teachers than female mechanics. It's okay to assume a mechanic is a "he" and a teacher is a "she".
Or, alternately, go whole hog. Instead of someone working in aerospace or other sensitive area, say a woman working in aerospace or other sensitive area.
Your last paragraph suggests that your pronoun gendering may have been intentional and part of a larger issue you wished to promote. If so, bravo! I award you one Internet point for being aggressively subtle.
One of the challenges of using a large mirror is that it tends to bend under its own weight and the force of wind.
I think it's a scandal that we aren't building a massive telescope in space, where you don't have to worry about gravitational sagging or gusts of wind... (or clouds, atmospheric distortions, light pollution, etc.). When we think of near-future space program ambitions, everybody talks about sending people to Mars. But we would learn so much more from building and using a kilometer-scale telescope mirror in orbit. From the article, it's clear that even terrestrial telescope mirrors now consist of a thin glass sheet with scaffolding behind it. Isn't it time to think about how to build that kind of thing in space, where the scaffolding requirements would be much smaller? It's inevitable that for a certain size of mirror, it will actually more expensive to build it on Earth than in space, for the reasons mentioned in the article. So come on, let's get some courageous nerds like Elon Musk on the job and build a telescope that could actually resolve extrasolar planets and see the formation of the first galaxies. Compared to this, people on Mars seems like a vanity project.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.