> "My students" - so there's really nothing on the line except a grade then, yeah? That's why you wouldn't pay any cost to make it 10x better, because there's n

> "My students" - so there's really nothing on the line except a grade then, yeah? That's why you wouldn't pay any cost to make it 10x better, because there's no catastrophic consequence if it fails. But sometimes wasting a few milliwatts on average is the difference between success and failure. Years of effort from a large team is worth something, as is the tens of thousands of dollars we're spending. We expect a return on that investment of data and mission success. We're spending a lot of money to improve odds of success. But even in this power constrained application, a few milliwatts is nothing. (Nearly half the time, it's literally nothing, because we'd have to use power to run heaters anyways. Most of the rest of the time, we're in the sun, so there's a lot of power around, too). The marginal benefit to saving a milliwatt is zero, so unless the marginal cost is also zero we're not doing it. > That aircraft was designed to be as efficient as possible, so we could literally measure the inefficiency from the choice of language in terms of how much it cost in extra battery weight and therefore decreased range If this is a rotorcraft of some sort, that seems silly. It's hard to waste enough power to be more than rounding error compared to what large brushless motors take.