Re: "We're in the early stages and they're some quite positive signals"
But we've taken back control
As demonstrated by the fact that we're waiting on the outcome of the French general election....
3274 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jan 2010
You'll probably find that the annoying cookie banner you click through (or the site's T&Cs) have some kind of clause that says "You allow us to treat you like our product to be milked"
There are a few websites out there, where if you click their "decline cookies" pop-up option they refuse to let you in.
It's looking at code you paste in, and comparing it to other code within your code base. Where it finds a match, it suggests that instead of copy/pasting the code multiple times you apply software engineering basics and create a callable method.
I thought Jetbrains' tools already had smarts to highlight potentially duplicate code? (I'm sure I've seen a suggestion along similar lines in some of my projects already)
Many years ago I got to grips with Emacs. But I moved to a MS-Windows shop and Emacs wasn't readily available so the muscle memory faded away. Emacs was powerful, but it had/has such a steep learning curve. Like any system, you have to use it regulalry to keep the memory of how to use it.
FPGAs are hugely powerful - completely different beasts to the PALs, etc many people may have started with. I've seen many startups begin with an FPGA version of the product until they get the money to upscale to silicon. (And many products stick with FPGAs through their life as they're easier to update with bug fixes through a software update)
Apple aren't a daft company: They know where to invest their money. If they thought Qualcom (or Intel) offered them a better solution rather than designing their own, Apple would take it. The fact that Apple have taken on the massive overhead of designing their own silicon and still come out with a design that it as good as, or better, than Qualcom/Intel speaks volumes.
If Qualcom want Apple's business they should offer a solution that Apple couldn't resist. Actions speak louder than words. Qualcom are just throwing a tantrum as they no longer have Apple by the *ahem*...
There's an excellent book on the history of Leo: A Computer Called LEO.
It describes how, for once, the board of Lyons understood IT. They could see that LEO could drastically improve currently manual computations: But they could also see that if LEO broke the business would be stuffed. So they insisted that a second LEO was built, just in case.
...but GPUs probably won't exist ten years from now, as really we do not need bigger monitors at higher resolution.
I thought the next big thing in graphics was real-time ray tracing - which requires an order of magnitude higher in GPU Performance to perform at high resolutions.
To be fair, for a fleeting moment, to the DoD, they don't have a monopoly on over budget, over running projects. (SLS anyone?) Nor is this just a US malaise: The Brits are perfectly capable of screwing up a big project too. I suspect other countries are quite capable of such accomplishments too.
As to why big projects over run and go over budget: Well, there's a whole host of project management textbooks that explore that topic.
The high frequency of some London Underground services has another complexity: At the end of the line where the driver has to change ends, there isn't enough time for the driver to walk to the other end of the train. Instead, another driver is waiting at the platform ready to step into the rear of the train to take it back out.
are never on strike
Because the London DLR never stops working when staff go on strike.
www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious?
Being slightly more serious for a moment...
The problem is cost and complexity.
First off, all the examples quoted are practically, isolated lines/systems: They can guarantee that all the trains that run on those lines will be under the control of the signalling system. If you mix in other traffic, then that makes the system way more complex.
But the big reason is the cost of the signalling system. High Speed Train == Long Distance Journeys == Lots of signalling equipment,
If you're building a line from the ground up to be automatic train control, then the cost will be lower. But upgrading an existing long distance line will be very expensive. (Just look at the London Underground 4 Lines Modernization Program. That is, slowly, upgrading some lines to automatic train operation. But look how expensive that is. (And how much it's running over time)