The original poster in the thread was suggesting that if power usage were low enough, it could be powered by the power provided by the NFC in the phone; where the phone provides power for an NFC circuit that is entirely unpowered. If you could power an eink display that way, you could have a completely unpowered frame, which you could set via NFC.
So yes, of course NFC can be isolated from the displays power usage, the originator of this thread was just suggesting it would be neat if you could power it via NFC.
But NFC doesn't provide nearly enough power, nor likely enough bandwidth to do that in a reasonable amount of time.
In theory you could maybe charge a supercapacitor over time with the power from NFC and then perform the update but you're looking at at least 15x (50mW vs 750mW average update draw) the update time standing there holding the phone to the display while you trickle power over that connection. In reality with losses and extra draws to manage the screen you might not break net positive on the energy from the phone or you'd be looking at a 30-50x multiple instead of /just/ 15x.
It's not the case that there's a constant 1/5 probability of failure each year. Many failure modes are based on cumulative stress/degradation; so the probability of failure can go up over time.
Some failure modes go down over time; maybe there's some manufacturing defect, and those that have the defect fail early, while those that survive past the first year will have lower chances of failure early on.
But in this kind of environment, the cumulative stresses are much more likely than the early failures.
This was the case. There were no pristine laptops. Some kids are gentle with them, but things happen outside their control, kids play destructive pranks, or are just clumsy. Theoretically possible to make it to 5 years? Sure. Practically? No.
But seriously, what relevance does a minority scientific hypothesis (even in the 70's, the majority of climate science focused on global warming from greenhouse gasses, not cooling from aerosols) from 50 years ago have when better data and 50 more years of experience show a clear warming trend, that is entirely anthropogenic, and which is today causing deadly heat waves, wildfires, flooding, storm surge, and more?
Your weather forecast for next week is already impacted by the global warming that has already happened.
HN keeps throttling after 2 comments. Maybe they need more AI to detect bots instead of whatever algorithm they are using at the moment.
Back to the question at hand. How exactly do AI companies plan to build AGI if they can not optimize the AI development loop with their tools and techniques?
I have been couch-potatoing more than I should recently, so when I had some time off but was alone at home, I decided to use that time to try and get back in the habit of getting regular exercise.
I must have pushed myself a bit too hard, because I ended up with flu-like symptoms for a week afterwards, which completely broke the intent of getting started on forming the habit again.
Sorry you went through this. If you want to make another attempt, I've found that the older I get, the slower ramp up time I need getting back into exercise. Do far less than you're body is able to during the workout when you start. To the point where it feels like you're not stressing yourself at all. Then make a plan to slowly ramp up from that point over 6-10 weeks depending on the shape you're in and age. After that, you can start pushing your body closer to it's limits during any given workout. Also, it will just suck the first 3-4 weeks before you start enjoying it.
So, why do they consider that 1 core? Isn't that more like a "compute complex" of multiple cores, as seen on zen 2, but with different core architectures attached instead of 4 cores of the same design?
I'd be inclined to call them multiple cores myself, but if they all share the same pipe to main memory that would be a plausible reason to call them all the same core.
Civilian aircraft aren't generally expected to be able to withstand midair collision or war. Why would this drone be any different?
Most aircraft today contain some kind of power storage that can ignite dangerously; 100LL or Jet-A in the case of airplanes and helicopters and some drones, lithium-ion batteries in the case of many drones and upcoming eVTOLs (and for aux power in many modern airplanes as well).
Regulatory frameworks and engineering practices are absolutely able to be used to consider the risks of fires in energy storage systems.
If positioned in a fixed location over critical energy infrastructure , this drone is on another level.
Rockets that contain hydrogen have self-destruct, and NASA doesn't want to load a rocket with Hydrogen while astronauts are onboard on the ground; though rocket fuel hydrogen is chilled and pressurized with lots of energy.
The true cost of guarding a hydrogen blimp that's guarding the critical infrastructure? Is it as much as guarding an upriver reactor cask that's under ordinance spec?
Compared to grid scale battery farms for energy storage, would
Gravitational Potential Energy and/or CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage (which are less lossy, anyway) be less of a liability if in the flight path of a slow to fixed hydrogen airship?
Aerospace-grade [hydrogen, jet fuel,] tanks are probably more impact resistant than any airship ever?
Which critical energy facilities have procedures for handling a hydrogen airship in their airspace with and without a wind event?
Gravitational Potential Energy in old mines is enough energy storage for domestic US needs FWIU, but supercapacitors or ultracapacitors may be necessary to handle renewable load spikes when the sun shines across the grid.
