The restriction goes to 18k because that's the top of VFR space. Anyone operating above 18k has to be on an IFR clearance and under positive ATC control. That makes it easy for the feds to make a call and say "Hey, center, get everyone out of this airspace" wheras in the VFR altitudes it's very difficult for them to legally clear the space since a VFR plane could be flying around not talking to anyone.
What's missing is GenZ isn't into it. The kids are the ones that go out all the time and they drive a lot of the revenue that big clubs need to stay alive. I'm not really sure what GenZ is into instead -- would've been cool if this article had tried asking them.
We may very well see a future judgy christian nationalist generation of youngsters who frown at grandma and grandpa millennial's tattoos and our nasty sexually explicit oldies music.
I think we could say that covid killed a lot of these things. GenZ just happened to be coming of age during the pandemic years and thus prefers to stay home as they see that as normative.
As for modern electronic music, it became very dumb compared to oldschool techno of 90s, who even listens to that crap nowadays? Why someone would pay for loud noise?
Yeah, came to ask this. Aren't global shutters becoming a thing? One would assume they'll be commonplace in the not-all-that-distant future, given their advantages.
Or they could have maybe lead with that sentence and THEN given the explanation.
Too many tech people have that "I want to slowly lead you to the point like Sherlock Holmes mystery" style of writing, and it is such a time-waste. Arthur Conan Doyle was paid by the word, you aren't. Please, everyone, back to middle school: State a Thesis in your first sentence and THEN expand on it, don't force me to spend pages trying to figure it out.
It's not just tech people, but any field with a high enough complexity.
The "abstract" of a journal article is supposed to contain all the key points of a science experiment including the results, but it's too rare that they do.
I think some folks are just hitting their limits, and needed more time to digest/ review their publication.
Other folks are doing it I obfuscate or pad their work, for whatever reason.
When you're deep enough in a thing it can be hard to know what counts as "high level summary." For example, "attackers can decloak routing-based VPNs" might seem like a good high level summary. "Attackers can decloak routing-based VPNs using DHCP rules that give priority to an attacker over other lower priority routes" might seem like it's just in the weeds enough to be misleading, or to result in a bunch of people now believing they are educated on the subject when they really are not.
Picking the right level to communicate such that you avoid clickbait journalists spreading a lie of omission/ hysteria is an art. Personally, I think we should be grateful for all the effort put into clearly communicating all the most relevant nuances; we can generalize that any high complexity field is doing its readers a service when it approaches communication this way. I'd rather the "result" be communicated at too high a level than too close to the middle (giving the illusion of understanding the nuance)
EV drivers more than make this up by not having nearly as many externalities (pollution) as gas drivers. Gas drivers seem to always conveniently forget those real societal costs when they're trying to talk about "fairness".
That still doesn't pay for roads. I love EVs and think their use should be more broadly encouraged, but the gas tax made for a very simple use tax and it's not obvious how one would replace it to do the same thing for EVs.
Simply saying EVs are so much better for the environment that they don't need to pay for roads at all seems a little short sighted.
>it's not obvious how one would replace it to do the same thing for EVs.
Taxing tires would work. Also, mileage is already recorded during vehicle inspections. That could be used to calculate tax but would be more open to fraud.
I don't want tires to be taxed, it would incentivize people to use tires more than they would do today, and that is bad news for traffic safety. Not only for themselves but for other people on the road too.
> by not having nearly as many externalities (pollution) as gas drivers
Depend where you get your electricity from. Also most of car pollution comes from tires and brake dust, which EV create more of given their weight and torque
The article you linked is specifically talking about particle emissions, not anything gaseous. If it included the negative externalities of all emissions (CO2, NOx's too), it might paint a different picture.
There have been lots of complaints about a well-funded advertising campaign from Hobby Lobby called "He Gets Us". App users are getting DMs from the advertiser and are unable to block the adverts or user. Other advertisers are blockable, which stops those ads.
The problem with this is that erase-to-program delay is a major factor in bad write quality.....you really don't want to erase a block and wait a long time before programming it. Where "long" is subjective and there are a lot of details here but the general rule is that the longer you wait after an erase to write, the less accurate your write is (colloquially, your zero decays as it sits)......so in practice while you do erase-ahead, you don't erase too far ahead of your writing and you certainly don't erase at TRIM time in most cases.
Didn’t know that. Don’t suppose you’ve got any links that describe the physical process that results in the correlation between write quality and erase-to-program delay?
Do you want research or do you want an analogy? I can give you both. On the research front:
"An Experimental Analysis of Erase-to-Program Interference in Multi-Level Cell NAND Flash Memories" by F. X. Zhang, et al., in IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1621-1628, April 2016.
"Erase-to-Program Disturbance in NAND Flash Memory: Characterization, Modeling, and Mitigation Techniques" by M. H. Kim, et al., in IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 2381-2392, Sept. 2017.
"A Study of Erase to Program Disturbance in 3D NAND Flash Memory" by T. Wang, et al., in IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 3153-3159, July 2017.
"Characterization and Modeling of the Erase-to-Program Disturbance in Multi-Level Cell NAND Flash Memories" by R. Micheloni, et al., in IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 2384-2392, Nov. 2009.
Don’t suppose you could still provide the analogy. It’ll probably make it easier for me to understand the research as I only have a basic understanding of the physics at play here.
A good one? Extremely hard. Pretty sure 90% of and SSD firmware is just secret sauce magic to deal with the mess and noise the physical world creates when you try to cram so much entropy into such a tiny physical space.
Data is binary when you writing software. There’s absolutely nothing binary about data when you’re in the messy world of electronics, where fundamentally everything is analog.
Reading data from multi-level flash chips, or from spinning rust, has more in common with an FM radio, or mobile phone radio, than it does with anything you’ll see in an IDE. It’s all very complex signal processing, trying to extract small signals from lots of noise, in that world you know what your data probably looks like. You then need checksumming to figure out if it’s correct, and if it isn’t you need to try again, or declare the data lost.
The density is what's most relevant and interesting here. Pure is putting 28 of these drives in 3U - so 8.9P of nand in 3U drawing ~3kw of power. Pure gets ~2.5 data reduction on average (deep compression & dedup) and so the real world density is pretty impressive.
The speed of technology is absurd. I operated the Object store in a small scale public cloud company in the EU in 2014 and we had about that capacity over 12 racks drawing 5-7kW each probably.
reply