I expect that there are groups in the government that have reasonable expertise in that area. But I see no evidence either of what they are (probably some folks in DoD and NSA might have relevant expertise) or reason to believe that they would be tasked with the review.

Well, yes. But this *is* Adafruit's side of the story. Perhaps Flux has some plausible justification, and we just haven't heard it.

(OTOH, there don't seem to be ANY positive reviews of the Flux company or it's products in the comments.)

If AI services are becoming too expensive in the current environment, we can look to nature for help. There is a an abundant species of large mammals in the ape family that can be trained to do this kind of work as well.

OTOH, this is an attached processor, so it's in addition to your current setup. Still doesn't sound likely to blow circuit breakers, but possibly equivalent to running two computers.

There are, or at least were, many applications that were useful and on Windows, but not available on Linux or BSD. Switching off of those can be a significant cost. But if you change the underlying system, those probably won't be available anyway.

The core is a LONG way from the surface. Volcanoes aren't. The mantle plumes move slowly.

OTOH, we've known that the magnetic poles were getting ready to switch for decades now. We don't know when or why or how long it will take. This is probably related to that, but we don't have any really good models.

Unfortunately, when they are separated like that each half becomes nearly useless. They need to be merged, though with clear demarcations so you can skip a part that isn't currently relevant.

I think a giant context is not going to be the answer. It's just got too many problems. Better will probably be parsing the context into connected pieces, and at a different level assembling the "lemmas" into "theorums". (Yeah, those aren't quite the right words, but I'm not sure the right words exist, and that's the analogy from math proofs. Code library isn't the right concept as the "lemma" will often be quite specific to the current task.)

But 1st and 2nd grades???
Sorry, but that sounds like a REALLY bad idea. More than half of what those grades should be about is learning to operate well in groups.

You mean like XML does?

Your mistake is thinking of "the government" as a unitary entity. Different parts of it want different things.

What is the logic there? How do you get from "police have misused it" to "police should be banned from using it"? I feel a few steps are missing.

Easy - the justice system isn't doing the proper checks. Police use it, and it returns a list of names of people WHO LOOK NOTHING LIKE the person of interest. And police do not even perform a preliminary check of whether or not the person could have committed the crime (they may have an alibi). And the judges do not even take 5 seconds to look at the photos of the suspect or the person identified. And then you arrest a random stranger who is then locked up for several weeks, ruining their lives (lose their job, lose their house, etc).

No, they're not supposed to be using the software and going from "surveillance video" to "arrest"

It should not take a judge in a courtroom to have to dismiss the case for obvious "this guy should never have been arrested in the first place".

It's only a matter of time before facial recognition says a black guy did the crime when it was clearly a white guy in the surveillance video. Or vice-versa.

And as long as police do not use their tools properly they shouldn't have access to them. And using the tools properly means understanding the limitations of it. Facial recognition is not a magic box where you insert video on one end and it spits out the name of the culprit on the other.

No, facial recognition is a tool, and it can be used, when used responsibly. The problem is, the police have not shown to be responsible users of the technology.

Especially when they can ruin lives due to misidentification. Once arrested, it can take 2 or 3 weeks before anyone processes your case. Which means you're stuck in jail for 2-3 weeks. Your job will likely fire you for not showing up to work. And you can lose your house because without money, no job, there goes your rent or mortgage payment. 21 days later someone goes "Oops, you look nothing like the suspect, sorry!" and then they dump you on the street. You lost your job, your house, your family is likely somewhere where you don't know.

(And yes, ICE uses the same tactics for those people they wrongly arrest)

If you're lucky great, you can get a lawyer who can expedite matters - but that shouldn't be the determining factor on whether a false arrest ruins your life.

time_t has been 64 bit on Linux for a long time now (over a decade). You haven't needed a 64-bit system for 64-bit time_t.

x32 changes the model for 64-bit computing - these are the C semantics.

Remember in C, sizeof(int) = sizeof(long) = sizeof(long long)

You can have 32 bit ints, 64 bit longs (long longs are 64-bit), and 64 bit pointers - referred to as ILP64 (int, long, pointer). This is traditional in Linux and similar operating systems.

Or you can have 32-bit int, 32-bit long, and 64-bit long longs (and 64-bit pointers) - LLP64 (long long, pointer) - this is Windows where lots of code assumed ints and longs were 32 bit.

x32 is where int is 64-bits, longs are 64-bit, but pointers are 32-bit. The code runs in 64-bit mode (on amd64 systems, this has benefits because amd64 has access to many more registers than in ia32), but pointers and address space is 32-bits (4GiB max for the application - note the kernel does not have to live in the upper memory).

It's a weird mode of operation because it's based on something where having the extra wide register set but limited memory space is a benefit, or for some architectures like ARM where AArch64 is much more efficient. Likely this is for operations where the data to be worked on is wide but streamed - think DSP or other signal processing applications where you don't need 64-bit pointers because your code is tiny, your data is moved back and forth between several buffers, but would like 64-bit wide registers to process with and having a lot of them is useful. Having 64-bit pointers would just be a waste.

But it's really a niche application where you're having so many pointers it might have an impact on RAM usage if you needed to keep them 64-bit.

I'm sure you're familiar with the countdown protocol, all the pre-flight checks, etc. These power up a range of subsystems, motors, etc, so that everything can be verified prior to ignition itself. The complete sequence takes a very long time. Under normal flight conditions, you can't check for absolutely everything (instrumentation is mass, and mass is the enemy) but there's still a lot. However, during an engine test, you can pack a lot more sensors in.

This is where you'd want to be spotting loose connections, pumps that aren't quite even, pressures that aren't as steady as they should be, vibrations that shouldn't be there or do not match expectations, turbulent flows, and so on.

At ignition, it takes between 3-6 seconds to go from stopped to 90% thrust. For humans, that's near-instant. For a computer sensor that's operating a million samples per second, that's 3-6 million readings. A computer performing a billion calculations per second shouldn't have much difficulty in comparing 3 million readings against model predictions and determining if both the values themselves and the rate of change at each point such a sensor exists are all good. Emergency shutdowns during those first 3 seconds are perfectly viable.

Vibrations are the ones that are likely the most interesting, because those are likely to change before something breaks, not sure how fast you can make infrared sensors, but that's also an area where things are likely to alter before point of failure.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it would make sense if it was. Alpha males (ignoring there is no such thing) are the most restricted by laws, because they are the most likely to get their way if there was no enforcement of laws (through the natural law of might makes right). So it shouldn't be surprising that they'd be the least likely to let something slide without getting the police involved to get the same outcome they could have done themselves if the laws allowed them to use their own physical force. "Less alpha" individuals may be more used to not getting their way regardless of the laws, are therefore feel less entitled to get the police involved as quickly.