Not necessarily a capacitor; sometimes a little counter circuit, on the MCU but independent of the CPU and not controllable (or vetoable) by it. In either case, not prone to systemic failures of the higher-level logic.
People overestimate the difficulty of adding low-level contingencies to high-level systems, and underestimate engineers' eagerness to do so. But this is the sort of thing that EEs worry about all the time.
I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on
Read up...
I have, thanks. Now, read about the fact-value distinction, and reflect that average road speed may not be a reliable indicator of overall happiness.
And the approach ways are all congested. Congratulations.
That was the whole point: to help people live where they want to live and get to where they want to get to. Every car making up that new traffic jam is being driven by someone who is, on balance, willing to sit through it because of the positive effects it's had on them.
The refrain of radicals everywhere, and of all sides. "Just shut up and wait until we remake things as we want. You'll learn to want them that way too, we promise."
the best way of doing that is to provide them with a method of doing so that doesn't waste their lives
Thanks for your concern. Please refer to my fuck off from above. You donâ(TM)t get to decide what I want.
You don't drive because you want to drive. You drive because planners and designers have ultimately created an environment which made it either the best or maybe the only option for you.
You're wrong on both accounts as well as wrong fundamentally. I personally donâ(TM)t want to drive. I quite dislike driving. I prefer a short walking commute, and when that's not practical I prefer mass transit. But for many people, driving is the only practical way to simultaneously accomplish several aspects of the life they want to live, including being housed in a very low-density area, working in a high density area, commuting without significant walking sections, etc. Those desires are not a matter of planning. Don't go so far the rabbit hole of social engineering that you forget that people actually can honestly want things.
As with other traffic interventions, there's a risk that Google's approach to spreading traffic could backfire. This concept, known as "induced demand," also applies to efforts like adding a lane to a critical highway, which temporarily relieves congestion, until traffic rises again. "You can do this, but you cannot be too successful, because if you are too successful, then more people will start driving, and essentially you'll be back to ground zeroâ¦"
Oh fuck all the way off.
This idea of "induced demand" always comes up in the context of traffic improvements, as though the goal of traffic design is to keep people from driving. (We had a sale on apples, and everyone bought our apples! Damn this counterintuitive induced demand!) Add a bypass and now it's full of cars? Good! That was the whole point: to help people live where they want to live and get to where they want to get to. Every car making up that new traffic jam is being driven by someone who is, on balance, willing to sit through it because of the positive effects it's had on them.
You can point to pollution and carbon emissions and freeways splitting communities, of course. There are plenty of reasons not to want more roads, and plenty of reasons to want to force people to adopt different living habits than they want to. But if that's your aim, at least be honest about it.
No. It means "correlation". If you find yourself with a thumb on the scale of causation, I think you owe it to yourself to ask why.
They said that, too. One can only go through so many rounds of histrionics about special circumstances and existential threats to democracy before one starts to mistrust the premise.
Yes, that is literally the policy being described here.
Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.
You can't really compare even the relative 2D positions of things on this map correctly without considering an additional spatial dimension.
You can. This is what the Haversine formula is for.
2D map of the universe
Oh geez. Listen, nobody tell them yet, okay? They worked really hard on this.
"How did you get hired?"
"I was top at Fortnite. You?"
"Combat flight sims."
"Damn, two Boeings just crashed over an oil refinery on city limits and took out half the city."
"Did you remember to save your position beforehand?"
"Yeah."
"The reload and continue from there. No-one will notice."
I love computer games. I have XPlane 12 and many scenery packs. I rank well on Elite:Dangerous. From the sounds of it, the FAA would see me as over-qualified. In reality? There's no way in hell I'd be taking those kinds of risks with real lives. There's a huge difference between having good reflexes and a good eye, versus having the complex 4D spacetime relationship mental models needed for robust air traffic control.
That's not clear
Hence my asking them instead of you.
Perhaps so. That's not what the person I was responding to was talking about, and it's not what I'm talking about.
If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer
