What you are talking about is true only for inductive coupling caused by fluctuating EM waves.
As someone who works in Embedded Electronics and Software for Aerosopace let me drop a little knowledge bomb.
The problem isn't with induction, all the units can be easily shielded from this and they are in EMC chambers every day. A simply faraday cage, some bypass and reservoir capacitors a choke here and there an opto-isolator on box boundaries and bobs your uncle.
The real problem with High Energy Particles (Neutrons, Gamma particles, Protons, etc) is that they displace atoms in your semiconductor lattice and change the doping densities and behaviours of your junctions. Causing your semiconductor to fail... HARD.
When we buy in components, we tend to buy rad-hard devices which have special considerations taken into account when designing the semiconductors because when you're in space, you're bombarded with LOADS of high energy particles all the time, and its not just enough to have memory TMR, you need RAD-HARDENED semiconductors.
•You can switch on any type (not just primitive types)
•Patterns can be used in case clauses
•Case clauses can have additional conditions on them
Here’s a simple example:
switch(shape)
{
case Circle c:
WriteLine($"circle with radius {c.Radius}");
break;
case Rectangle s when (s.Length == s.Height):
WriteLine($"{s.Length} x {s.Height} square");
break;
case Rectangle r:
WriteLine($"{r.Length} x {r.Height} rectangle");
break;
default:
WriteLine("<unknown shape>");
break;
case null:
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(shape));
}
There are several things to note about this newly extended switch statement:
•The order of case clauses now matters: Just like catch
clauses, the case clauses are no longer necessarily disjoint, and the first one that matches gets picked. It’s therefore important that the square case comes before the rectangle case above. Also, just like with catch clauses, the compiler will help you by flagging obvious cases that can never be reached. Before this you couldn’t ever tell the order of evaluation, so this is not a breaking change of behavior.
•The default clause is always evaluated last: Even though the null case above comes last, it will be checked before the default clause is picked. This is for compatibility with existing switch semantics. However, good practice would usually have you put the default clause at the end.
•The null clause at the end is not unreachable: This is because type patterns follow the example of the current is expression and do not match null. This ensures that null values aren’t accidentally snapped up by whichever type pattern happens to come first; you have to be more explicit about how to handle them (or leave them for the default clause).
Pattern variables introduced by a case ...: label are in scope only in the corresponding switch section."
Decreasing the CO2 emissions - which wont happen due to losses in profits.
Reduce deforestation - which wont happen due to losses in profits.
Increase the planting of grasses, and fast growing carbon sequestering crops such as hemp - Wont happen because it costs money, unless its triggered by individuals (Green plants absorb infrared and sequesters CO2). For those people who say, OH! but the CO2 cycle is neutral for growing plants because they rot... B.S. what do you think permafrost is and not to mention... oil.
Seed the oceans with iron to encourage algal blooms, and dredge it all up and bury it deep.
Change the mode of Air Transport to reduce contrails as studies have suggested that ‘contrail cirrus’ is a contributing factor and leads to greater forcings. We need widespread Maglev trains, or dare I say it something revolutionary such as Hyperloop (but one that actually gets made.. lets focus on what we have already)
but seriously I have the same problem. I liked that hangouts was bringing it all together and had live hangouts, and collaborative document editing and everything.. it feels like they just really didn't work on making hangouts lag free and high throughput and bringing the people there with superior quality calling.
that's a great question. I cant test it because as it stands it isn't showing up for me (just showing that I'm still "registered" for it) but since it connects using a phone number (like whatsapp) I wonder how they authenticate the phone number on desktops/laptops? surely it'd be some kind of 2 factor auth, so it should be possible.. but I wonder whether it ships ready to do it.
For me the biggest question is why is that period of time considered the "baseline".
The climate is a dynamic system in constant change. There has never been a static period of climate. It is forever in flux. Climate Change is the normal state of climate. The REAL question is, how much of the observed rate of change is attributable to human factors, and what is the most effective way to combat the emergence of a potentially hazardous climate scenario.
I am personally in the camp of plant more trees. It is a fact that sunlight falling onto a plant causes the energy to be converted into cellular metabolism and sequestering CO2. A desert however will absorb and then re-radiate a lot of that heat. We need to stop deforestation and take advantage of the higher c02 levels to grow more plants. Hell lets start some geo-engineering projects which will be useful for when we need to terraform other planets.
That may be one way to address it, but there's a lot to be done to have any effect there. Most of the places where massive deforestation is happening is where the most corrupt officials are.
I agree 100% that there is a lot more to be done than simply reducing deforestation, however it is a simple action to be taken. The growth of just trees/plants is only one method of sequestration, all the insect and animal growth are also CO2 and energy sinks.
There are many things that we can do to attempt to tackle the issue of a developing hostile climate. however trading carbon credits is not one. We need simple engineering solutions, but biological CO2 sequestration is quite efficient. especially algaes, plankton, grasses, insects, etc.
I've always been confused by the claims of quantum computing, I'm hoping one of the clever folk here can steer me to an understanding.
Doesn't the very nature of superposition and uncertainty make determining when the process has solved the problem impossible to determine?
Its like, when you look at the data, you change it, and if it wasn't solved, you've already forced it into a state, and if it was solved, by observing it you may change it to something else.
How are these problems solved with quantum computing?
that is in part what this discovery is about: how to read out and disentangle the solution from superposition. the roots of the answer to your question are in "shor's algorithm," which is the original proposal for factoring integers in polynomial time with high probability.
What you are talking about is true only for inductive coupling caused by fluctuating EM waves.
As someone who works in Embedded Electronics and Software for Aerosopace let me drop a little knowledge bomb.
The problem isn't with induction, all the units can be easily shielded from this and they are in EMC chambers every day. A simply faraday cage, some bypass and reservoir capacitors a choke here and there an opto-isolator on box boundaries and bobs your uncle.
The real problem with High Energy Particles (Neutrons, Gamma particles, Protons, etc) is that they displace atoms in your semiconductor lattice and change the doping densities and behaviours of your junctions. Causing your semiconductor to fail... HARD.
When we buy in components, we tend to buy rad-hard devices which have special considerations taken into account when designing the semiconductors because when you're in space, you're bombarded with LOADS of high energy particles all the time, and its not just enough to have memory TMR, you need RAD-HARDENED semiconductors.