I'm in no means an expert in this, but I think it's because of the relative sizes of the economies in each state [1]. California and New York are very large in terms of GDP/GSP and will therefore move this weighted average accordingly.
I don't think it makes sense to force business plans on companies.
And yet we've done it multiple times in the US. We routinely encounter situations in the media industry where a new medium is hated/feared by the entrenched players who try to use refusal to license content as a way to kill the new medium before it takes off. Up until very recently, the standard solution to this, in order to not have artifically-granted monopolies on content stifle technological innovation, was for Congress to impose mandatory licensing schemes on the copyright holders.
That's how cable TV originally got off the ground, for example; over-the-air broadcast networks didn't want to license their content to cable, but Congress imposed mandatory licensing on them. Result: brand-new multi-billion-dollar industry that kept those networks alive a while longer.
To individuals, though? Licensing works great if some big company deems it profitable enough to license the show I want to watch, but isn't a full solution otherwise.
Sure, but does the additional cost of licensing to individuals make economic sense?
It almost sounds as if people want companies to be forced to make their content available at a desirable price to anyone in the planet, no matter the cost of it.
In other words, people are talking as if they have the "right" to see that content.
Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole.
One of these two things makes money.
We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me.
Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.
That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that.
All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.
Internally RadioHead and VirtualWire uses a 4to6 bit en-/de-coding. Their reasoning is that if your payload is either high or low for too long, "for a good DC balance". have you experianced anything related to this? You but in 0b01 padding before each byte, maybe this is enough. Your solution is substantially lower overhead.
Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you that it has lower overhead. I also have really great results in terms of range (200 meters through walls and buildings) and data rate compared to VirtualWire!
Hi! My seuggestion is to start with the simplex mode, and then go forward testing with half-duplex (see readme). In any case I would be happy to see you testing it in a complex set up like the one you described!
For the antenna in the readme I suggest a dipole antenna, there you can find all the data. If you would add something or you experienced some problems open a issue or contact me :). Good experimentations.
It only affirms that you have all the rights on the code and that you are not liable if someone does something with it. What's missing is the part that actually gives other people rights to do stuff with it. Compare the MIT license, which has a middle bit doing so, between the copyright and the liability parts.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: which I don't see in your files?
To me it seems like you left all the bits that allow other people to do things out.
I'm pretty sure it has been seen before that Google or another big tech company buys a smaller up-and-comming company/great idea, and it is never heard from again.
> I'm pretty sure it has been seen before that Google or another big tech company buys a smaller up-and-comming company/great idea, and it is never heard from again.
I'm pretty sure the opposite has also been seen [0]; what's the basis for concluding a Google acquisition would have put Tesla closer to the "never heard from again" side?
[0] Google's acquisition of Android, for instance.
In the context of self-driving cars, autopilot is in the category of "we're 90% done, only 90% to go!" Except much worse than that, because that implies you're about halfway there, and autopilot is maybe 10% of the way towards full self-driving.
Don't get me wrong, autopilot is super cool and really useful. The autopilot features that are currently enabled in my Model S are wonderful, and I can't wait until they're all there. But they won't be even close to full self-driving. All it will do is maintain speed intelligently based on the car in front of you, automatically stay in your lane, and switch lanes on command. It won't switch lanes on its own, it won't stop at stoplights, it won't make turns for you, or do any of the hundred other really difficult (for computers) things that are part of everyday driving.
You have a pixel grid of 17 x 106, anything you want to drawn in it can be.
To draw an arbitrary figure do this: Start with the pixel in the lowest left corner, if black put 1 as the first digit of a binary number else put 0, then continue first up then one right, the down. Convert this (1802 digit) binary number to decimal and use it as input for the function and there it is.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46458936 [1] https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...