creer

21 ms·

361.
by creer 2y ago
There is now a whole bunch of relay computers on youtube! It's become easier to do it seems. This one 2011, some more recent on youtube.
362.
by creer 2y ago
Agreed, 8-bit data, 16-bit address (but 12-bit program counters) is massive for relays! That's a lot of relays to do anything. But it turns out their start was when they stumbled on 1500 relays in good condition. So they were set in re
363.
by creer 2y ago
For the project managers, it's probably wrong both ways (in wasted time, efficiency, competence) plus wrong some more at every change. Don't throw away your paperwork: much of the current change will be challenged in court so prop
364.
by creer 2y ago
It's worse than "micromanaged" for that matter. PIER plans (nominally) required the applicant to do the work to become competent at this themselves, to develop and present a creative plan themselves, to implement that plan an
365.
by creer 2y ago
For hobby projects, paying attention to the datasheet model / reference application diagram, layout, PCB and other notes is likely to matter and still be the right thing when you can't tell any better - even when the datasheet doe
366.
by creer 2y ago
Easy of course in the sense that that many aerospace engineers and aircraft have done it all over the world for many years. And most "government contractors" in the capitalist world are civilian private companies, many of which bu
367.
by creer 2y ago
It's still reasonning based on pattern matching, which should go only so far. But "only so far" could be plenty for lots of applications.
368.
by creer 2y ago
The work to minimize or delete sonic boom - that's an important one. And it's a NASA project.
369.
by creer 2y ago
You are right - (And it's not a civil aircraft just because it's painted white.)
370.
by creer 2y ago
There has not been supersonic civil aviation but "supersonic" is not the interesting point here. "Supersonic" is easy and solved often in aviation. The question is what else can they do to make it work. And there is no a
371.
by creer 2y ago
You can probably cluster raters and the artwork they rate highly - but probably not in large quantities? -- Which might be the case also with raters being willing to tell you why - and how! most love to do that - but also not in very large
372.
by creer 2y ago
For a while, that was the entire strength of Walmart (efficient distribution) and they did amazingly well with just that. For many years now, even they have not been able to achieve that. It's not so easy.
373.
by creer 2y ago
This is a misunderstanding. There is no reason for SOME cereal to not be $8. Competition will not make ALL substitutable products go to the lowest price. The question is whether all cereal is there, or at least all plausibly substitutable c
374.
by creer 2y ago
At least in high population places like much of California, nobody controls distribution and placement to this degree. If you are not happy with Safeway - and there is no reason to be - you can buy some product categories at the other chain
375.
by creer 2y ago
> culture/lived experience of the specific population viewing the painting Isn't this lived experience baked into LLM language bases? It's certainly very hard to target all possible populations at once. And art doesn'
376.
by creer 2y ago
The brute force approach is the expensive one ("probably, so far anyway" add these 4 words everywhere) - and impossible to make "always correct" aka "usual blindsides". They seem to be trying a bunch of special
377.
by creer 2y ago
> can one score a random painting You can get very mechanical in scoring an image. Ask any art student. If you want to or if your instructor or audience wants to. For example "fits rule of thirds?" yes is a point to common attr
378.
by creer 2y ago
It doesn't matter what the reason is. The reason is whatever will look least bad in the news (if it ever makes it in the news) - and is legal. Ignore the reason, it has nothing to do with you, it's not about you, it's a techn
379.
by creer 2y ago
And sometimes it's funny how little it takes. Some people called me simply because they knew of me (I barely had heard of them). They did that because that was soooo much more efficient that some automatic "job posting" circu
380.
by creer 2y ago
You can still cultivate all these people in random places in your network. Apparently you are in a line of work where other country corporations will do fine, and these people will still need you in their next ventures or posts.
381.
by creer 2y ago
When you are just starting, yes. But after a while, if you pay attention to cultivating it, you amass a significant network. Small factor initially, big one later if you work on it.
382.
by creer 2y ago
Perhaps. Pay attention to the time you spend "doing the task well" so that YOU are satisfied. You are now smarter (say) but is your hierarchy going to promote you for this? Or park you and make you do this indefinitely, or blame y
383.
by creer 2y ago
Fine, what else counts? A company may deliberately lower the effect of this in order to favor that - which they feel matters more, or which they feel is not done enough at that time. What else did you notice that they favor?
384.
by creer 2y ago
> if done in a smart strategic way, is the best way to get promoted This alludes to the other bit that's not taught enough: Working effectively, efficiently is not about how many problem reports you close, or lines of code you ship
385.
by creer 2y ago
> If people know you are a standout contributor Yes, each person's network is more important now than ever - as we seem to have achieved pretty thorough uselessness of classical job postings, job boards and applications. Some parts
386.
by creer 2y ago
> It is the task that basically structures the group. Interesting idea. But the illustrations are lacking for now. I have seen events put up - and the thing is less that there was no structure (there are a core of people who know what th
387.
by creer 2y ago
My impression of The Economist is more of "never enough taxes". The article shows some US graphs but is not US-centric. A quick search showed an equivalent article (w much more graphs) for the UK. And France "doing just fine&
388.
by creer 2y ago
Important dimension (also covered) is that high spending does not necessarily get things done. At least in appearance - but most likely in reality also. On the contrary, occasionally an urgent matter (say, a bridge replacement) gets a spend
389.
by creer 2y ago
https://archive.ph/p0bG4
390.
Governments are bigger than ever. They are also more useless(economist.com)
4 points by creer 2y ago|10 comments

More ›