Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | farginay's comments login

Clang v. GCC all over again?


I've always wondered about the aggregate effect of wind pressure across the length of the cable. It seems like it could be significant.


The cable is 62,000 miles long. The atmosphere goes up maybe 100 miles (0.16%) of it, and meaningful wind only goes up about ten miles (0.016%). The pressure doesn't even register.

That said, I've got to imagine that bottom .1% of the cable will be made differently to counteract all the water and oxygen around it.


But you can't rule out the possibility of a storm crossing the cable.


Compared to the rest of the tension and abuse on the cable? I think you pretty much can.

Lightning might be interesting but wind is no big deal.


I wonder about the rotational speed changes of the payload mass more than the wind. The counterweight will tend to speed up and slow down as the mass of the payload is accelerated and decelerated (during climbs and descents respectively), but I keep hearing that the counterweight is just a mass.


If you think the counterweight will move down when you thrust a mass up, you have a misconception. The tether will be consistently under tension, so unless the acceleration mA is sufficient to surpass MV^2/R, that won't happen.


These are all great questions but why do we have to imagine the answers, can we just simulate the damn thing and settle if it would work or not? It seems almost all parameters are known for such simulation except the material used for cable is not invented yet.


Very good article.


Agreed. Very useful, indeed.


It was brilliant indeed.


I think it is fairer to say that tests can specify a system but not to the extent that you personally want to.


I don't know; I'd be wary of working with any architect who handed me a list of test cases as a specification. What if he/she left out important edge cases, which I extrapolate incorrectly? How am I to infer that the absence of a test case means "not specified" vs. "specified to be the extrapolation of other test cases"?

That's kind of like saying that a coder who can only write pseudocode can code a system, but not to the extent that I personally want him/her to.


I'd be wary of comparing programming to architecture.


Be wary of an architect who hands you anything and tells you to implement it. Real architects talk to you and sit down and write code with you.


Different thing. Spec# is about embedding specs in your code. Spek appears to be a Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) framework ala RSpec.

http://rspec.info/


Does anyone have a list of the 50+ options? No article seems to show them.


From http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/02/13/male-female-or-custom...

  Agender
  Androgyne
  Androgynous
  Bigender
  Cis
  Cis Female
  Cis Male
  Cis Man
  Cis Woman
  Cisgender
  Cisgender Female
  Cisgender Male
  Cisgender Man
  Cisgender Woman
  Female to Male
  FTM
  Gender Fluid
  Gender Nonconforming
  Gender Questioning
  Gender Variant
  Genderqueer
  Intersex
  Male to Female
  MTF
  Neither
  Neutrois
  Non-binary
  Other
  Pangender
  Trans
  Trans Female
  Trans Male
  Trans Man
  Trans Person
  Trans*Female
  Trans*Male
  Trans*Man
  Trans*Person
  Trans*Woman
  Transexual
  Transexual Female
  Transexual Male
  Transexual Man
  Transexual Person
  Transexual Woman
  Transgender Female
  Transgender Person
  Transmasculine
  Two-spirit


I've long wanted a shell with logical separation of each command/output pair.



Hah! Perfect.


He starts with an anecdote about cheating and then lays out HFT an implies it is cheating without saying how. If he had to defend his assertion that it is cheating he wouldn't have an article.


I'd prefer to live in a society where things like this were a matter of research rather than pronouncements by bureaucrats:

> "The distraction of the giant screen in the Tesla is not tolerable. I am convinced that the deflection is so great by the picture and sound while driving that accidents were due to the increase markedly. "


> to turn on the fog lights, the driver must tap through several levels

I'm sorry but that alone requires no further research, basic machinery operation should never have to go through a sight-requiring touchscreen, let alone multiple levels of touchscreen menu.


That's the head of public relations for the Zurich police talking, on a ride-along with a journalist. It's not exactly a pronouncement from above carved into a stone tablet.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: