> Today I still work in hardware, but mostly with digital circuits. While my analog knowledge has decayed over the last decade, that project and it's success gives me great confidence any time I have to deal with the domain.
Do you think about the analog qualities of your traces when laying things out? If so then the course was well taken.
In my observations I've found that too many digital engineers assume a differential pair will save them without actually fixing the impedance and parasitic issues. Particularly as the timings of things become so much more precise analog is so important. People forget that a digital circuit is just an analog one under the covers.
AFAIK they are required to use very specific certified parts. So while they could in theory use motherboard replacements cleanly I believe that's prohibited because they haven't undergone certification. That said... I think this is very valid and a company that made extremely high quality parts for this purpose could serve both. But, it would mean getting a modern board through FCC and cert and that is an extremely non-trivial process IIRC. If I was going to go down that route I'd reach out to the utilities to see if they will fund it.
Sadly no, and (IANAL) the law here is clear AFAIK. Money cannot be spent outside of what it was allocated. Firefighting I'm given to understand explicitly excludes prevention. This might be one of the most short sighted budget allocations I've ever seen. As a dollar spent on prevention easily covers 10 on fighting.
I'm already keeping an eye on what NVidia gets into next... because that will inevitably be the "Next big thing". This is the third(ish) round of this pattern that I can recall, I'm probably wrong about the exact count, but NVidia is really good at figuring out how to be powering the "Next big thing". So alternatively... I should probably invest in the utilities powering whatever Datacenters are using the powerhungry monsters at the center of it all.
One thing I'm not clear on is how much of this is cause and how much effect: that is, does NVidia cheerleading for something make it more popular with the tech press and then everyone else too? There are definitely large parts of the tech press that serve more as stenographers than as skeptical reporters, and so I'm not sure how much is NVidia picking the right next big thing and how much is NVidia announcing the next big thing to the rest of us?
Looks like a good start. I'm not actually sure I'd use it on windows however. CPPWinrt has a really decent coroutine support library with tools like winrt::resume_background() [1], I use it extensively even in desktop apps because it makes using the windows threadpool (which is active by default for all windows processes since at least windows 7) trivial. I've basically moved most of my threading code onto that unless I need a dedicated thread to hold a context for some reason. But, that's a windows specific thing as far as I know.
I don't have experience with WinRT, but it does seem quite similar at first glance. One of the key reasons I focused on modern C++ was to ensure cross-platform compatibility. However, I completely understand that if you're working on Windows and are already familiar with WinRT, sticking with it makes perfect sense. I'll take a closer look at WinRT to see if there are any significant differences.
My suggestion is aim for compatibility with cppwinrt, but not anything else. That way devs can freely intermix and get the best of the utilities of both.
Can they be cleaned up? Yes. Is it economical? Probably not. But, in theory one could bring them up in a sealed box, then incinerate them on the ship. This would require literally building a ship for that one purpose with very specialized equipment and government supervision so not even a single shell walks off. IIRC France and Belgium have successfully disposed of equally corroded gas shells from Zone Rouge.
The first solar panels weren't economical either yet here we are. Going over the investment mountains is always slow and dangerous ,but the descent into the next valley might be close.
Note: While none of the Annex 2 countries that are signatories have conducted tests since 1996; the treaty never took effect because it was never ratified by all the required countries. Most notably the US, China, and Russia (although all three signed). In 2023 Russia officially withdrew, allegedly based on the US non-ratification. At least one political candidate for the presidency in the US has advocated for resuming testing. It is not inconceivable that testing could resume in the near future.
Opinion: I don't think the US would if Russia or China didn't first. China likely won't for the same reason the US doesn't need to: they have super-computers and the sims line up with the data from prior tests. Russia might however if only to saber rattle, although they likely don't need to either. Russia however is likely not in any hurry to have a test failure right now. So while testing could resume, I wouldn't put money on it.
> People also don’t use IPv6 because they think NAT is a security feature.
Literally had a sales engineer parrot this at me awhile back. I had to point out that the service they were offering was on the open internet. It only got worse from there. Le sigh...
Do you think about the analog qualities of your traces when laying things out? If so then the course was well taken.
In my observations I've found that too many digital engineers assume a differential pair will save them without actually fixing the impedance and parasitic issues. Particularly as the timings of things become so much more precise analog is so important. People forget that a digital circuit is just an analog one under the covers.
reply