Hell that is 3 LTO tapes. I have LTO7 in my house.
My company moved some old projects to an off site tape backup service. They wanted to recover some space on our servers.
When I tried to access some of that data years later I got some “data unrecoverable” responses to my requests.
Fortunately one of the original devs for the project in question was still at the company. He had an old CD-R in the back of one of his desk drawers. It worked.
No, they trusted a contractual partner to fulfill the requirements of their contract.
Was that contractual partner the lowest bidder for the project? That would sort of contradict the notion that their data was priceless and irreplaceable.
To optimists, robots could rescue U.S. manufacturing by increasing productivity, solving shortages of skilled workers and giving Western carmakers a fighting chance at competing with Chinese rivals that enjoy lower costs.
American auto manufacturers exclusively make cars which have very little marketability other than in the U.S. itself. "Increasing productivity" and "solving shortages of skilled workers" is not going to magically make the Chinese or Koreans want to buy lots of F-250s.
Being properly prepared coming out of high school does not make these STEM classes easy. It still requires a lot of work for the intro classes at the university level.
That's a sign you are not actually prepared or maybe not a good fit for a STEM degree.
Or I went to college before things got dumbed down. University professors used to design the coursework based on the ability of the incoming freshman. So a university level calculus class was more rigorous than an high school calculus class. I expect this is still true to a degree, otherwise there would be no AP Calculus in high school.
The fact remains, of my freshmen era STEM friends. We typically had to do the assigned homework and suggested exercises to get good grades. In history or poly sci, we just had to show up for class and stay awake. As I said, two different leagues.
If you're hitting something the size of a building you don't need an Nvidia chip. My issue with it isn't that they're using a processor, it's that this class of processor is likely overkill.
I don’t think so, terrain contour matching and other similar navigational techniques are serious computer vision problems.
So, either it's so readily available they have a warehouse full of them, or somebody wants to stir up shit.
Off the shelf DJI drones have had NVIDIA GPUs for over a decade.
“Nov 2025
Leading camera drone manufacturer DJI unveiled their new NVIDIA Tegra TK1-powered “Manifold” embedded computer this week.”
https://developer.nvidia.com/b...
Currently maintained games often require patches as new versions of windows and direct X come out.
My entire Steam library begs to differ. Roughly 30-40% of them don't even use DirectX to begin with.
Again, you confuse your anecdotal experience with the larger community of gamers. As I told you, it depends on which games you play.
Also, games do not require patches when new versions of DirectX ship unless they want to take advantage of new features.
Backwards compatibility does not mean old games do not take advantage of newer directx features over time.
You are likely also considering only running an old binary. Things can get more complicated as you use newer compiler releases and linked to more modern versions of windows and directx libraries. Sometimes older APIs are deprecated, spitting out warnings,
and you modernize the code to match the current development environment.
I was a rareity doing so in the industry
It's not that rare anymore. Especially with the popularity of the Steam Deck.
Doubtful. The prevailing attitude at most studios is “not our problem”. Windows is our target, Wine and Proton can deal with Linux based problems.
The kernels different, each containing platform specific code.
Platform-specific kernel extensions don't count. They aren't part of the base kernel.
Not extensions, the kernels themselves. A build system for a project may include different source files depending on the target platform (macOS or iOS). An individual source file may use conditional compilation to use different blocks of code within a source file depending on the target platform. Apple’s header include tons of such conditions. The code the compiler spits out is different.
You confuse Mach, etc presenting a common API with a common internal implementation. The implementations differ depending on the platform.
You can deny reality all you want to.
Yet some gamers have to wait weeks for Wine, etc to get a patch.
Yet macOS and iOS have different kernel and OS implementations.
Yet web apps have a notification letting them know when a focus steal occurs so they can deal with it appropriately.
Why?!
Target recognition. For example a particular building in a city.
Seems most likely to be a misinformation campaign. There's plenty of ways to navigate a middle and none of them require AI.
In an electronic warfare environment using visual identification is an important capability. Note “visual” is not necessarily limited to the human visual spectrum.
That’s not true for any Windows game.
Yes, it is.
Your ignorance is showing. Currently maintained games often require patches as new versions of windows and direct X come out. This can lead to changes needed in wine for example. And such changes will occur in higher profile games while lower profile games wait. You can deny other people’s experiences. You can deny Google’s findings. The fact remains I was one of the devs doing those periodic updates and despite Linux not being a target, I was testing under Wine and coding the changes to minimize the impact on wine. The need for it to be patched. I was a rareity doing so in the industry, being supported by senior management who thought it was cool 2% of our customers were running under Linux.
Even 70% is far far from you original "are exactly the same”.
God you are fucking retarded. 70% of the finished compiled products are the same. Within the 70% is the kernel, which is exactly the same across the board.
Then your statement is ignorant BS. The kernels different, each containing platform specific code.
The example you offered describes losing focus.
No.
It seems an opinion in this case.
No.
You got it backwards. What you claimed is what happenedin old Windows 10l It is Windows 10 and 11 that act otherwise to your claim.
No.
Details in previous posts prove otherwise.
Actually human/computer interaction has a lot of literature that says otherwise.
No.
Your ignorance is showing again.
You are speaking of prior to Windows 10. Windows 10 and 11 alls losing that focus.
They lost the user facing option and the older registry "hacks" because Microsoft hardcoded the feature to be always on.
You need to re-read that wiki.
The fact remains that the app could have done something to warn the user
Useless.
A silly opinion.
hidden the portion of the password already entered
Already does that and is useless.
Another silly opinion.
SpaceX is. Grok/Twitter/xAI isn't. And SpaceX themselves advise that most of the growth potential, and thus most of the future value, is in the latter, not the former.
From the wall street short term performance focus only.
However if you just mean not building new ones that it really seems like you do not. New renewables go up fast, and they are operational essentially immediately.
Renewables are increasing becoming delayed through court actions just like nuclear. We’ve had a wind project off of Massachusetts delayed over a decade. Some of it is NIMBY. Some of it is environmentalist, a local solar project prevented because it would destroy habitat belonging to some endangered critter.
The point is building nuclear and renewables displaces fossil fuel faster. Again, avoiding nuclear does nothing other than prolong fossil fuel use. Also, some newer reactor designs have an important secondary role. They can consume some of our store nuclear waste as fuel. That would be an important cleanup, avoid long term storage expenses we still have not figured out.
As we increase electrification of our economy and daily lives we are going to have increasing demand. Southern california is already struggling to meet current demand. Brownouts increasingly common during the summer. If the state achieved its goal of mandating EVs things would get far worse wrt demand.
Reality is that EV adoption will not be as fast as California wants. And renewable plant buildouts will not be as fast as advocates hope. And battery and other storage solutions will bot appear as fast as advocates desire. And this means we will just continue building more natural gas plants to backup renewables. We should be build nuclear, demand is going to be increasing for decades.
Carbon neutral fuels are interesting, although I tend to think of aviation fuel first. Special cases.
The contrast between nuclear and coal is on point, because the US has an outstanding safety record. Coal has literally released more radiation in the USA. That's a point that most people are unaware of...
Regardless of Hollywood context though, it's pretty much undeniable that what the original poster said about the catastrophic nature of something going wrong is correct.
Not quite, newer reactor designs are far safer. Some failure scenarios of the past no longer possible.
There is, in fact 880 tons of what they are calling corium barely kept cool by constant pumping of water underground in Fukushima right now.
Negligent operations that (1) can be addressed by regulation and oversight, if (2) not avoided by using newer designs. If southern california we have a coastal reactor. It could conceivably lose power for cooling. Besides onsite backup generators, additional mobule backup generators are stored on a nearby UIS Marine Corps base. The Marines have ample heavy air lift capability to deliver these backup if needed. But again, newer designs can avoid the failure mode in the first place.
As for SMRs specifically, my concerns boil down to economies of scale and essentially the square cube law. Everything suggests that SMRs produce less power per unit of pretty much everything involved.
Again, we are talking about complementing renewables, not displacing them. The SMRs would still be able to provide backup when renewables are not operational. We have not really solved the storage problem. We are still building natural gas plants. SMRs could displace these gas plants.
Let's not forget that the anti-nuclear stance of Greenpeace was mostly about nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing.
The 1960s/70s Green movement, including greenpeace pretty much lumped in nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Greenpeace vigorously opposed it all.
Basically at present, nuclear is pretty much doomed to be relegated mostly to niches for the foreseeable future because there seem to be better alternatives.
And I expect we will continue building natural gas plants as renewables and storage tech do not deliver as hoped, as demand massively increases as we increasingly electrify.
There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)
