Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.
This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.
In this respect, it's not really any different from stuff genetic algorithms have been doing for decades. If you have a set of executable tests that can tell if the algorithm is working correctly, then you can evolve something that will pass the tests. Of course, you have absolutely no idea how it will behave on inputs not covered by your tests.
Sometimes. Apple already has their 1 Infinite Loop building and then most of the office buildings nearby along De Anza and a few nearer the middle of town. They're pretty short on space. It makes sense for them to be building a new big building, and the cost difference between building a new boring building and a new shiny building is pretty small. This will let them move a bunch of people who need to collaborate into offices near each other, rather than having them spread across the various De Anza buildings.
From what people were saying when I was at Apple a couple of weeks ago, it's actually coming a bit too late. The company has grown faster than they expected when they started planning and so rather than being able to move everyone from De Anza into IL2, they're having to identify sets of people who need to collaborate and move them, leaving quite a few behind in De Anza. If your company is growing faster than your ability to build office space to house them, that's generally a good sign (though the insane planning permission situation in the Bay Area means that it happens there a lot more often than you'd expect).
TL;DR but I got through enough of it to realize that most, and maybe all, the points are cogent. Above post should be stuffed down the throats of every IAU member who voted for their absurd definition of planet until they can regurgitate those points, with meaning.
Some astronomers are stupid. The phrase "educated beyond the level of their intelligence" comes to mind. This idiots should have been taught somewhere along the way that their expertise in one narrow field does not endow them with the authority to mess about in other disciplines like linguistics.
Good points. But they are basically off topic.
It doesn't matter one whit what terms scientists use in their cloistered jargons. That's why they have jargons.
It does matter when a body of scientists attempts to mold the common tongue to their narrow purposes. Which is what happened with the IAU: they overstepped their area of authority, which is astronomy, to dabble in an area where none of them have any training or standing, which is the study of natural languages, or linguistics. It makes them look like a troop of highly educated baboons, and is one more proof that some people with advanced degrees have been educated beyond the level of their intelligence.
Scientific communities do have an appropriate role in shaping the common tongue, but that is done through education and continued discussion. Never by fiat.
Truth, justice, and The American Way are not science either. Yet these irrational things have more impact on your life than the tiny little subset of the universe that is all that science can ever know.
I do not disagree with you, but I find that your statement has no inherent value and that you are contributing nothing worthwhile to the conversation.
Any "space-trash" that demands to be listed as something else needs to be immediately identified as a "sentient being", and on behalf of all of us Earthlings the UN needs to publicly apologize to him/her/it. That is simple playground rules: you don't want to insult anybody that much bigger than you are.
As to everything else, I think the planetary geologists have it right. If it is big enough to be rounded of its own volition, it is a planet. And planets that go around another planet more quickly than they go around their star are also moons.
Corollary: that makes Earth the larger part of a binary planetary system. Which puts proper emphasis on the way the Moon creates tides that keeps the hydrosphere stirred up, which has had a major impact on how life has evolved here. Exoplanetary explorers should look for other binary planets in the Goldilocks zone as these are much more likely to have life that is similar to Earth life.
(Is a "bazinga!" called for here? Was this just another Sheldon impersonation, or did I accidentally say something insightful?)
The mice infiltrating my house were driving me crazy, which led me to acquiring a cat from the local shelter. Rodent problem solved. So, sure, maybe you could phrase it that way.
As bad as their random-read performance is, their random-WRITE performance is usually much, MUCH worse.
You get a massive speed increase if you switch to a better filesystem: btrfs or f2fs.
git reset --hard: 3m45s btrfs, 3m55s f2fs, 12m30s ext4, 16-18m xfs (huge variance)
"./configure && make -j4 && make test" of a shit package with only ~2MB of persistent writes: f2fs 95s, btrfs 97s, xfs 120s, ext4 122s
(class-4 card in a Pine64)
And almost none do their own wear-leveling, so a Linux swapfile can literally max out the lifetime writes of a microSD card in 1-3 months
Not SD but eMMC: Samsung's fancy-schmancy eMMC cards are apparently made by someone no one told about the write endurance problem: I've been running Debian archive rebuilds and other I/O-heavy loads since early 2013 on a 64GB card ($89) in an Odroid-U2, and despite me heavily overcommitting memory (ie, heavy swapping a lot of the time), the card is still going strong.
So how fast are they moving? And in which direction?
Mars first. No need to run before you can crawl.
Though so far our record is to crawl to the moon, feel proud, then crawl back down our hole and declare the rest of the universe isn't that good anyway.
Your guide to distant worlds:
"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354