I get that tastes vary and some people apparently don't mind the hole punch in the display, but I'm curious why you list its presence as a hard requirement. It seems like it would make the display unnecessarily harder to source.
I genuinely hope both of you continue this thread, even as I think it's unlikely that you'll come to common ground. I'm finding it extremely helpful to clarify my thoughts on this type of situation.
If we let t be time in seconds, and f be frequency in Hz, the sine wave formula is y = sin(2pitf). The 2pi is the periodicity of the sine function. If f is 1, we sweep through 2pi once per second. If we let f be 2, then it sweeps through two times per second, and so on.
So, you can think of the lookup index as being the tf part, but with t counting in integer fractions of a second, with the caveat that you'll want to perform some interpolation between values.
If the waveform were more complex than a sine wave, then in the general case this "skipping agead" could cause distortion. A sine wave is one of a couple special cases (square wave being another, and arguably it's "cheating") where you're not skipping "too far" to cause distortion. (That relates to the Nyquist sampling theorem and low-pass filtering, as kens mentions)
If existence is pointless except for procreation, what is our children's purpose? To have children, in order to have children, in order to have children? This is unbounded teleological recursion, unless you allow for a basis case in which any given life also has meaning for its own sake.
Myself, I hope for more for my own two children than just that they have children of their own some day, just as my parents didn't have me only in order that they might someday have great-great-grandkids they'll never meet
Culture and ideas transmit through channels parallel to heredity. Celibate monastic orders are one obvious example.
I want to live in a diverse culture for a reason analogous to why I'm wary of agricultural monocultures: All it takes is the right virus to come along, and all of a sudden we don't have any bananas anymore. There are some tragic failure modes associated with strong, cohesive, anti-"diverse" cultures.
If I remember correctly, in the FTDI case that was very unlikely to happen. It wasn't a case of `if (looks_fake) do_brick()`. Rather, it accessed registers in a way that they knew their implementation supported but that was buggy in a widely counterfeited version.
(And I understand it they did this knowing the effect it would have. It wasn't some accident.)
> So... what exactly become the merit of taxing land over property? If you tax property, the value of the land is included in that tax.
If land--but specifically not improvements to that land--is taxed then there's relatively more incentive to make productive use of the land. $1 of investment to improve the productivity of land by building housing or whatever is tax advantaged over $1 of investment to try to hold onto appreciating land in hopes it goes up.
For a thermal kill you have to deliver some number of Joules of energy into the target. You can use a lower powered laser over a longer period of time, up to a point. You have roughly 25 milliseconds of thermal confinement time before the mosquito starts to cool off. Longer exposures can work, but the total energy dose needed goes up. Longer exposures also require keeping the laser aimed at the target for a longer time.
Power needed also depends on how closely you can track the target. If you make the spot small enough that the target catches all of it then you minimize power requirements, but that increases the complexity of the optics. If you use a spot size larger than the target then the optical and tracking complexity go down, but you're no longer sending all of your Joules into the target.
It's not literally false, but I got an inaccurate impression based on the headline. To me it implied a positive discovery of evidence rather than a ruling-out.
If they'd said "determined new constraints on a hypothetical 5th force" or something I would have gotten a correct impression.
If you happen to know: Is it the performing the test itself that's illegal, or is it "merely" that to perform a test for someone you'd have to take possession of the substance, however briefly? (Bad for both harm reduction and liberty either way, I'm just curious which it is.)
I think they're referring to the fact that there is one dimensionless base unit already standardized in SI: the mole. There aren't two length units, so there "shouldn't be" two dimensionless ones.
(Whether they were trying to be funny or not I couldn't tell you.)