That makes sense. It's probably less "doing crazy convolution calculations on how sampled ambient noise changes as the helicopter gets close to a pole", and more "rotten wood vibrates slower"
That's very progressive of you and all, but the vast majority of South Korea's military is men doing their mandatory service when they come of age, so it is very much relevant to call out the gender
This is currently a huge source of inefficiency in modern chip design.
I've worked on some of the current highest profile chip projects doing "frontend" RTL design, and at every major chip company I've worked at, and from talking with coworkers about their past experiences at other companies, the handoff-wall between RTL and PD is leaving a substantial amount of perf per power/area on the table. (like 30% I'm general)
RTL designers generally have no visibility into how their designs are getting laid out, and generally don't want to have to care. PD engineers have no visibility into the uArch and low level code details, and maybe they want to care but everything is too obfuscated in general.
So when your pins are misplaced during an early iteration, RTL will blindly add retiming to resolve timing issues and make PD happy but never check if it's actually needed. PD will slave away trying to make busted RTL work with placement and recipe adjustments rather than asking RTL for a trivial fix, etc etc.
There are a ton of small things where visibility into either side of the process would result in measurably better hardware, but the current team structures and responsibility boundaries encourage people not to care.
It's far more reasonable to assume it moves infinitely fast between peasants, but comes to a halt at each one.
Or if not infinitely fast, but we're going to assume a chain could accelerate it indefinitely, than it's still more reasonable to assume each pass happens exactly how fast it needs to for 6s/num_peasants, comes to a halt, and then moves to the next. That way all the peasants have the same, minimum, speed, Instead of some slow, other absurdly fast based on an arbitrarily assumed, linear, acceleration.
(Why not assume exponential acceleration and say after 10 passe s it hits light speed)
Well yeah, this is just supposed to be a paradox where you break down the flaw in the way the problem is presented. Recognizing that there is a flaw isn't the point.
If you believed Bitcoin was under valued, you would just buy Bitcoin and not pay a 100% premium to buy shares in their company.
Also being inflationary is a feature of the US dollar, not a downside. It feels like crypto shills never discuss why inflation is intentional and good and rely on the financially illiterate to be shocked by those 93% and 1/5th numbers