Let's start with the basics. Let's ban unlimited money from politics first (ban SuperPacs and return to 90s era political rules).
If rich people want to influence politicians, there should be hard caps on money and advertising.
There's nothing wrong in saying too much money is now destroying too much of the good parts of our country. Starting one step at a time is better than trying to build a massive reform that goes no where.
Once money in politics calms down, the next steps should become more obvious as the noise from the Billionaires no longer drown out our attention.
ESP32 and RP2350 have pretty crap or nearly non-existent analog. I don't think they even come with a comparator, let alone rarer analog parts like a DAC.
If you need a DAC, Comparator, ADC, and a couple of logic gates, its hard to beat an AVR DD (4x arbitrary gates called CCL. 1x DAC. Differential SAC ADC. I believe 2x Comparators and multiple "internal DACs" so you don' have to spend your 1x external DAC on internal parts). Also 1.8V to 5.5V support, as well as dual-power supply support (PortC is run off a 2nd power supply, but all the logic is compatible. This means PortC can run at 5V while everything else runs at 1.8V, or vice versa, making the AVR DD also a built-in level shifter)
In general, most DAC and ADC colocated on/near a digital chip rail has a list of noise issues anyway, as even an external Vref chip may be unable to help repeatably hit the claimed bit resolution with oversampling. At $9.28/pc for a mcu chip that should cost under $2... runs out of excuses pretty quickly.
It is not about whether something is "crap", because they are all mostly "crap" at analog in different scenarios. Just some vendors have chosen not to polish their "turd" in Marketing. These days many DAC are part of a Class D amplifier, as battery life took priority over the noise floors. These have also become less "crap" over the years.
RP2350 doesn't have a DAC or Comparator. ESP32-S31 has... none. No DAC, no Comparator, no ADC.
"Literally and completely nonexistant" is about as bad as you can get.
Like the reason to reach for a PIC or AVR these days is because of 4-20mA protocol or other such mixed-signal tasks. Read a current between 4-20mA (voltage A - voltage B, so you need a differential ADC) -> MCU -> Logic -> DAC -> controls OpAmp -> controls transistor (BJT or MOSFET) -> outputs a current 4-20mA.
-------
Of the three chips you described (STM32, RP2350, and ESP32), only some STM32 can do the jobs that PICs / AVRs are specialized in.
Most of the ESP32 family includes a dedicated audio i2s interface bus, and doesn't drop out on interrupt like most mcu DAC naive polling offers. It also hits well over 16MHz SPI transfers with ease.
STM32 is in most volume equipment now for a reason. Microchip screwed everyone on long-term pricing, and clown priced themselves out of key markets.
Note, an inaccurate LLM-proxy reply makes people sound lazy. =3
I'm not talking about an audio-DAC chip attached to a MCU. I'm talking about the most basic of analog designs that would transmit data over 4-20mA (just controlling an OpAmp + Transistor passing some currents).
By the time you add that SPI-DAC to your design, you've spent more than any TI (MSP430, MSP erm... whatever cortex-M0+ version was), AVR, STM32 or PIC MCU. There's a lot of chips designed to do this, and they're all on the SDCC compiler for a reason. That's where the niche has been carved out.
Look, I know a lot of people like RP2350 but there's a lot of jobs that chip is just wholly unsuited for.
> STM32 is in most volume equipment now for a reason. Microchip screwed everyone on long-term pricing, and clown priced themselves out of key markets.
AVR16DD14 is 68-cents on Digikey, Mouser, and direct-order from Microchip right now (qty 100 or more). If you need more analog power, the AVR*DB line is closer to $1.20 but comes with 2x or 3x OpAmps (AVR32DB28 I think was 2x OpAmps)
That's mostly a feature of monarchies. Even in European settings, monarchs claimed divine right to rule.
That's why ex: El Cid (a great knight/military commander in Spain) was a threat to King Alfonso. (Doubly so because El Cid is a local hero who could raise a combined Muslim+Catholic Army, while King Alfonso was Catholic only. El Cid actually comes from Al-Sayyid, the nickname the Muslim locals gave to El Cid )
This happened enough in the Catholic monarchies that I have to believe it's really just the shape of Monarchies. Like the King of the Franks King Charlemagne the Great is basically known for his military exploits, with Paladins (his royal guard) forever influencing future Europeans and creating the image of an ideal Holy Warrior.
Did I say military exploits? I mean spreading Catholicism to the pagan Saxons. By conquest. During the Dark and Middle Ages, they spread Catholicism the old fashioned way, with the sword.
I do believe that Kim Jong Um military Uncle was put to death as well, likely as court intrigue and a preventative measure to prevent a powerful well respected General from overstepping his king.
Kings are always worried about their generals. Or better yet, Kings are themselves a general to prove their divine authority.
So then why did damn near every European royal family make a habit of giving every prince and bastard son, including ones not in line for the throne, armies to go play around with?
If you're a crappy king the last thing you want is someone with a "legitimate claim" to the throne with an army to back them up instigating your court to depose you.
Followup question: do you know the story of how the Frankish Kingdom of Charlemagne the Great got split up into Lombards, France and HRE (basically modern Germany) ??
Kings juggled the conflicting tasks of choosing an inheritor, as well as preventing their sons from rising up and... let's just say "William the Bastard-ing" everyone.
Yes, on occasion a random bastard son will take over all of Normandy and Briton.
So I don't really know what your question is. That happened, constantly. Brothers killed each other, and sometimes their fathers, in a mad game of power for damn near a thousand years.
But clearly the kings of the time thought the risks were worth the reward. A hereditary title of king means that your followers know who is charge if you died in battle. The risk of your sons deposing you was accepted, because the risks of dying for other reasons (disease, famine, war...) was greater.
Because the parent's central thesis is wrong. Kings didn't war to spread religion because most of them weren't religious. They warred over land and power.
The way feudal societies worked, allegiance was like a (bottom up) tree. If your lord was at war with the king you followed the fool. ACOUP has a good number of posts on the workings of feudal societies if you have the time to read them.
Richard the Lionheart spent 10 years away from home and at most 6 months in Briton.
Do you know why he was fighting in wars in far away lands? It certainly wasn't about land or power (at least, not for Richard)
It was a Crusade. The 3rd Crusade to be precise.
-------
Also the whole Reconquista thing in Spain, coinciding with the Spanish Inquisition and all that. Plenty of major religious events that interacted with politics and brought glory to commanders.
And then things like the 30 Years War, which had substantial amounts of religious influence of Protestants vs Catholics.
I'm not saying every war was about religion. But Catholics have PLENTY of holy warriors that are even venerated for their battle prowess.
> This happened enough in the Catholic monarchies that I have to believe it's really just the shape of Monarchies.
There are still 12 monarchies in Europe, some of them Catholic, some Protestant. Your theory does not work there. The monarchies and Catholicism itself evolved (to a great degree, courtesy of the French Revolution), while Islam seems to have stalled.
> The King of England isn't in charge of the UK though. The power largely rests in Andy Burnham.
Yes and no...
Firstly there's not been a King of England since 1707, he's king of the United Kingdom (and fourteen other places) and secondly it really depends who you ask. On paper sovereignty flows from the 'Crown in Parliament', many powers are actually the King's and are now vested in other parts of the state. Since the 19th century these powers tend to be used 'on the advice of the Prime Minister / Cabinet'. In theory the King could go against this advice, but Parliament ritually reminds [1] the King's representative what happened the last time a king got too uppity and the courts can still rule on the limits of these powers. There's one view which says the people are fundamentally sovereign (very relevant during Charles I's trial for treason), but while this might be true in practice the orthodox view is that sovereignty comes from the 'King-in-Parliament', a composite body of the King, House of Commons, and House of Lords acting in concert.
The point is that when Andy Burnham exercises his power in many cases he's in a sense doing 'su king' by virtue of his role as PM rather than acting in his own right. The PM role is weird as well, traditionally (and in my opinion correctly) the PM is merely the first among equals in a collectively responsible Cabinet, the term 'Prime Minister' actually started life as an insult. Of course since the late 20th century the role has become increasingly presidential, but this seems true in Westminster-style systems generally.
I would think it's possible to make it so that the 4B model only needs to be called during an initial phase, and then the same queries it constructed can just be re-used with values replaced, unless you're generating a lot of unique on-the-fly query shapes.
Postgres takes the actual values into account when generating a query plan. The same query with different params can (and should) result in different query plans. It looks at statistics on the actual data stored.
8GB isn't even CPU RAM these days. That's GPU super-mega-awesome ram. Ordinary Server CPUs are regularly pushing 2TB capacities.
GPUs are in the 8GB to 32GB typically, at least for smaller and more regular GPUs. This GPU RAM is also well known to be at least 10x the bandwidth of CPU RAM.
Yeah, I have a GPU from almost six years ago in my desktop that has twice that much VRAM. Less than a year ago my wife got a 5070 Ti with the same for around $750 without needing to wait for it to be in stock or anything. I'm inclined to think that for a server that needs a GPU, even 32 GB would probably be considered small.
Which is why a good query plan is so important, so that as much disk I/O can be avoided as possible (predicate push down, index elimination, join ordering, partition/scan pruning). Like the old CTE optimization fence problem.
not necessarily, no.
With SSDs you get much better IOPS for cold data, and many datasets fit in RAM. So a lot of (OLTP/HTAP) workloads can become CPU-bound due to sorting/hashing - bread and butter of joins.
You know that GPUs are more flexible than just linear algebra, right?
GPUs are simply faster at fundamental algorithms like sorting (which has huge parallelism), and hashing. This is because both sorting and hashing benefit from endless growth of parallelism, offering enough "work" for these 10,000 SIMD-core systems to crunch work upon.
And because of modern algorithms/libraries with 'Mergepath sort' (a GPU-SIMD parallel sorting algorithm), its not even that difficult to implement anymore.
Naturally, this then leads to parallel Sort Merge Join, as well as parallel Hash-Join (two ways to implement left or right joins in a GPU that benefit from significant parallelism).
Even if GPUs weren't fundamentally faster at these kinds of operations... the RAM is simply 10x higher bandwidth and we all know its a RAM-constrained problem.
Your typical SQL query is going to need multiple joins, probably a sort and possibly some "group" operations. As long as you have more than 10,000 elements or so (IE: can saturate all 10,000+ SIMD-units of a GPU), you'll be able to at least benefit from the faster RAM.
If you have a LOT of joins (a recursive join or some other kind of deeply nested computationally complex query), you probably benefit even more from the greater compute-power offered by GPUs. These operations (joins really) are nominally over the entire set of data, and cleanly break down into obvious parallelism.
Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated.
In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen.
-----------
Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules back and dismantle any company that refuses to work for the benefit of this country.
Remember that one time when a large global company (The Dutch East India company) got a tax break from the king, and it angered the population so much that we took a bunch of tea (a symbol of the Dutch East India Company) and threw it into the Boston Harbor?
Ahhhhh yeah. I remember. Oh right, we teach that situation a bit differently today don't we? People probably don't remember exactly how easy it used to be or how this country used to treat companies that betrayed our values.
We can go back. But lets start with understanding that we _can_ go back. Step 2 is electing people who will agree with this political message.
If we don't like a technology we can easily get rid of it in practice.
And by that, I mean that Leaded Gasoline is infeasible to be profitable anymore. So no gas station serves it any more.
And please, it will be easier to regulate all public camera companies than to regulate all independent gas stations. So don't give me any crap about difficulties. Especially when said companies are all individually being purchased by government services like police.
So name one. These politicans have names, do they not?
We do have the name of one politician who balanced the New York City budget though. Its probably not going to please a lot of people to hear that guy's name though. But that's what people want, right? Balanced budgets?
But no. That's not what people want and we all know it.
One aspect of that balanced budget that should be noted is that it does rely on a sizable funding increase from the state government.
Now, that state is legally required to have a balanced budget itself, so perhaps this is a small side note rather than a major change in perspective. I just think it’s not spoken about enough when discussing how that budget process went.
So what is he? A Democrat, and what else? Parties are groups of people, ideologies are pure ideals.
They are distinct, with overlaps in their demographics.
Starcraft2's problem was that it was 3 separate games with incredible patches that completely changed everything.
The balance team had no idea of the game they wanted StarCraft 2 to be. By the time it all settled down the community went back to SC:BW.
I'm positive there was some combination of SC2 patches that was amazing, if only the patch/balance team stuck with it. I don't know which set of patches that was though.
----------
I have ranted before about deathballs. Beginners want deathballs but advanced players want something deeper than a deathballs.
For all of their faults, SC:BW and AoE2 are anti-deathball. SC:BW is somewhat "accidentally" anti-deathball because of map bumping and poor patching.
AoE2 has incredible siege and defensive emplacements (castles and bombard cannons and siege onagers) that counter deathballs, above and beyond SC2 anti-deathball options.
The AoE2 deathballs unit, the Crossbowman (line) needs like 30+ units before it really starts to feel oppressive, and universally everyone has rams and mangonels to kinda deal with them (or Skirmishers).
I haven't touched it in ages. But I always felt that it SC2 was more successful in taking out APM and "Deathball" mechanics. I remember a lot of cheese options and nuances. I guess there is just a big spread between balancing the pro players and the bronze league fuckers like myself. I have more nostalgia for SC:BW but only played online thanks to SC2 matchmaking. I think making an RTS that ticks all the boxes is incredibly difficult.
> But I always felt that it SC2 was more successful in taking out APM and "Deathball" mechanics
On "Deathballs", no. SC2 always allowed the player to select all military. SC2 always had smoother patching and better programmed "flocking" behavior.
In SC:BW, it's an APM feat to simply control 12 Dragoons/Goliaths/Siege Tanks across a bridge. Meanwhile, a hundred SC2 Stalkers can easily chain-blink across the same terrain no issues.
In SC:BW, the bad patching and bumping is part of the balance. In SC2, all units moved too smoothly and too easily, as such deathballs are always easier to setup.
SC2 allowed players to easily control Deathballs, so then they tried to balance that by making splash attacks more powerful.
In contrast, it's literally impossible to control a deathballs in SC:BW, because you can only ever select 12 units. Literally impossible to control more units (and even then, those 12 units were extremely wonky around bridges or other terrain features).
In SC:BW, the deathballs debate is innately moot. No human can control a deathballs anyway so it's not even a debate. Like controlling 48 zerglings is a feat reserved for top pros.
Further, because control of 48 zerglings is so hard, pros who COULD do it use the 4x groups of Zerglings on increasingly divergent points of the map (harassing multiple bases), rather than concentrating their efforts in one area. Might as well "tax the opponents APM" by attacking multiple locations if you have such good unit control or APM.
Sometimes SC2 was anti APM. Other times, SC2 adds chronoboost / MULEs for no other reason than to eat up APM and provide an outlet for physical clicking and increase APM.
As it ends up, SC2 is randomly anti-APM and pro-APM, depending on the patch, depending on the year.
By swinging back and forth trying to cater to both camps, all that was accomplished was confusion and ultimately a loss of trust between players and the balance team. In many regards, the community swinging back to SC:BW or AOE2 is because we don't like patches that change the game so dramatically.
AOE2 seems to have hit the correct balance point, major changes that the community desires (ex: Longswords being viable after 25 years of constant buffing) but never so major that it fundamentally alters the game the community likes.
Or ex: being brave enough to throw out all sea units / Naval Battles and basically start over from scratch. (Kind of a big change but one the community actually enjoyed).
-------
SC2 patches were more random feeling and more knee jerk.
I'll have to look into AoE2, never knew it was that in-depth. I only played it as a child, also played BW as a child and that stuck as I still play it periodically since remastered came out.
Since you seem to be tapped into the AOE2 scene, any tournaments you'd recommend checking out?
If you plan to make the jump from SC:BW to AoE2.... Some tips.
* Four resources. Stone runs out first and is the key for Castles, a 4000 to 6000 HP building that deals 11x4 damage. Strategically speaking, the castle locations DEFINE the middle game (aka the Castle Age) and still have huge influence for Imperial Age.
Gold is basically the same as Vespine Gas. Gold is +technology or +advanced units. The middle game is determined by your gold unit choice (usually either Knights or XBows, but some players choose mass Monks, Siege or other compositions). The end game is basically when Gold runs out and players are forced to play with so called Trash units (aka wood and food only).
Wood and Food are basically the equivalent of minerals, except Food is made from wood. (You first cut down a tree then make a farm and then finally food comes out). In many ways, it's best to think of food as processed wood, highly available on most maps but slower to gather than Gold/wood.
* Gold units set your main army, Trash units (aka: units that only cost food+wood) TEND to set up the counter to your opponent and are more of a reaction (or prediction). Remember, gold tends to be easier to gather than food in the middle game. Only in the late game does gold run out.
* As such, start the game thinking of Wood == minerals, Gold == Gas except Gold runs out. And you'll actually be pretty good for the feelings of which units are useful for what.
* Food == processed Wood is probably easy enough for you to figure out by feel. I don't expect issues for StarCraft players trying to understand food.
* Stone needs special consideration because nothing in SC:BW or SC2 feels like an AoE2 castle. My overall recommendation is to pretend stones make castles and nothing else important (Towers can be useful but beginner players should focus on thinking about the castle). Play with the Castle first, get some experience and then work backwards to understanding stone.
* Counters are far stronger and swingy in AoE2 than SC:BW or SC2. Let's take a Feudal Age engagement for example: 1 spearman ties with 3 scouts in an engagement... So we are talking about 10 Spearmen trading with 30 scouts in combat kind of counters.
Another counter: Monks counter Knights. Knights are like Battlecruisers if Battlecruisers were the 2nd fastest unit in the game and appeared in the middle of the tech tree (Castle age) ready to go with very few necessary upgrades.... Like seriously Knights are good. Fast, high damage, high armor but costs a ton.
The counter unit... Monks.... their ability is to convert enemy units to your side. So uhhhhhh, hard counter. Monks appear at the same time as Knights (Castle Age) except Monks need a few more upgrades to really be useful.
Depends on the unit: XBows vs Elite Skirmisher or Mangonels is closer to StarCraft levels of counterplay. XBows can win vs equivalent Mangonel with elite level micro / mistakes from the opponent, but most agree that with "equal micro" Mangonels/Onagers/Skirmishers should usually beat XBows.
Speaking of which: AoE2 micro is defined by arrow dodging, Mangonel shot placement (manually predicting the future location of your opponent and aiming there), and finally quick walls / villager shenanigans.
This means that scouting has a degree of importance. In general, you should scout on chickens maps, and you should mix up scouting vs luring on deer maps. Chickens cannot be lured, so scouting is your only option. Deer can be lured, meaning micro-ing your Scout to push a deer into your base and capture an early source of food. Luring is necessary for some builds (ie: rushes which need more food than other builds).
It also means that "SimCity" is based on map layout. Arabia (most common map generator) sometimes spawns "closed" (long woodlines that act as walls), which sometimes makes walling cheaper/easier.
Or sometimes Arabia spawns "open", or fat tree lines spaced far apart. In these, large "base walls" are impossible and people tend to favor "small walls" (maybe a few to protect farms, and like 8 tiles of walls max to protect gold). Top tier pros prefer "quick walls", only walling after the opponent's attack arrives. This is very difficult / micro/APM-intensive, so feel free to just small-wall by default and/or large base wall if the map generates something useful.
If you "large wall", integrate necessary buildings (ex: blacksmith, market, barracks) into your walls. Full scale buildings tend to have ~2000 HP or so, while palisade walls only have 250 or so HP. In fact, most players use "house walls" (the AoE2 equivalent to Supply Depos), because you need tons of houses ANYWAY, and because Houses have 900 HP, its usually better to defend with houses.
Everyone in Sengoku Era Japan had access and knowledge of guns and cannons.
The key for Nobunaga is "Ashigaru". Nobunaga gave the guns to the peasants. That also means that Nobunaga mass produced the guns to a level that no one else was doing.
Yes it was a technological brawl, but inadvertently it was one that worked with and uplifted the Ashigaru into a real combat force.
Yeah it's meaningless to fight. Except not really. If the powers that be are corrupt we can simply keep calling it Lake Ontario across the board, and use the difference to find who is or isn't on my side on that issue.
The only people calling it Gulf of America or Lake America are hardcore MAGATs in my social circle. Even former Trump voters in my social circle are annoyed and not using the new names. So it's an effective way to figure out who is or isn't going along with the Administration today.
> If the powers that be are corrupt we can simply keep calling it Lake Ontario
This is the same logic that the right wing used when they disagreed with Obama on some issues, so they blocked his Supreme Court nominations just because anything Obama does must be bad.
Sounds like your social circle is in denial. There are certainly plenty of things Trump, buffoon and graft-a-holic he is, has done that are corrupt. Renaming bodies of water doesn't look like one of them. (Obviously, because he would have renamed it after a donor, or at least after himself.)
I mean, sure, we can all call anything whatever. I can call New Mexico "Best Mexico" or call Washington, DC "Bad Washington" and that's my right. But pretending that there aren't official names for things because we don't like the current guy seems immature. It's clearly within the authority of the government. Talk like this makes me think that people want to just live in a reality defined exclusively by party politics where we just pretend every law or policy made by The Bad Party doesn't exist, rather than try to win elections so we can shape the one actual reality.
The President doesn't have an ability to officially change the names of these locations.
They have the ability to change name services in some database somewhere. But it's not actually an official name change.
So all this hand wringing about official names or whatever ignores the reality of the situation. This is just another temper tantrum by Trump that we reasonable people can ignore.
The easiest way to do that is to just say Gulf of Mexico.
> They have the ability to change name services in some database somewhere. But it's not actually an official name change.
Is it Congress who officially holds that power, then? And are you saying that if Congressional Republicans passed a bill renaming whatever, and Trump signed it, you'd then acknowlege it? Given how vanishingly little they accomplish in Congress already, I'm not sure we'd be better off distracting them from their semiannual debt ceiling/budget hostage situation in order to debate these inconsequential things.
I’m not sure either is “how names are established”.
This is a pretty mushy area, philosophically. Is a name what you think something is called (I think our planet is called “Bloop”, but nobody cares) what a lot of people think something is called (“Indian” in reference to indigenous Americans is a famous example of that going poorly, as are many racist epithets), or what an official body says it should be called (“Palestine”, “New Zealand”, and “Taiwan” have entered the chat)?
I don’t think popular usage is any more “truly authoritative” for a name than other sources.
If rich people want to influence politicians, there should be hard caps on money and advertising.
There's nothing wrong in saying too much money is now destroying too much of the good parts of our country. Starting one step at a time is better than trying to build a massive reform that goes no where.
Once money in politics calms down, the next steps should become more obvious as the noise from the Billionaires no longer drown out our attention.
reply