Can you give an example of an LED bulb installation with 50%+ luminous efficacy? Perhaps you are thinking of the raw lumens/watt coming out of lab-grade LED material without considering other system draws (cooling, power conversion)?
The GPLv3 specifically requires copyright notices to be kept in tact on verbatim copies. Other popular Open Source licenses have more stringent attribution requirements. Plagiarism is definitely not inherent to Open Source, though it may be inherent in some licenses.
Summary: The FAA's B4UFLY app only tells you whether you can _fly_ a drone somewhere. It doesn't tell you whether you can _take off, operate, and land_ from there because that is up to the property owner (whether private or government owned).
Extended summary: Except over national parks. Over national parks you are allowed to fly, but not take off, operate, or land, and the FAA's app chooses to say you can't fly.
What’s the difference between flying and operating? If the drone is over a national park, isn’t it “operating” over it?
If you’re saying it’s permissible to stand outside the park and fly the drone in that sounds like the worst kind of hairsplitting to me and totally goes against the spirit of the rule.
As the purpose of the regulation is due to “this new use has the potential to cause unacceptable impacts such as harming visitors, interfering with rescue operations, causing excessive noise, impacting viewsheds, and disturbing wildlife.”
> If you’re saying it’s permissible to stand outside the park and fly the drone in ...
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They want to ban flying over the park, but they don't have the legal power to do so. So instead they banned a bunch of other things (launching, landing, operating) to make flying over the park as inconvenient as possible.
The hairsplitting that goes totally against the spirit of the rule, in my opinion, is not the hair splitting that lets you continue to fly over the park, but the hairsplitting that let them pass this regulation in the first place.
I’d imagine the NPS has a better understanding of the parks than people who like drones. I’m glad they’re making it as inconvenient as possible and hope they become empowered to ban drones completely from the parks.
I have no opinion of whether or not drones should be banned over national parks, and am happy to defer to them on the topic.
We live in a democracy governed by the rule of law though. I'm strongly against attempts to work around the rule of law by government agencies even if I think the outcome is somewhat positive.
In this case that means in order to ban drones flying over national parks they either need to convince the legislative branch to grant them the power to do so, or if the FAA has already been granted such power they need to convince the FAA to pass such regulations. What they shouldn't be doing (in my opinion) is work arounds like this trying to seize authority that the legislature has not granted them. (I acknowledge but disagree with an argument that this is not a workaround/splitting hairs but instead a legitimate use of their granted power)
Is it generally permitted in National Forests? If so, then the prohibition in National Parks seems totally reasonable.
Drone flying is a fundamentally antisocial activity. If you're doing it far away from others then that's fine, but I have no sympathy for the drone pilots in this thread complaining that they're forbidden from flying over crowded city streets or in similar scenarios. National Parks have tons of people in them, while National Forests are generally rather empty. Those are better locations for drone pilots.
May I suggest more than one magnet per train to differentiate them.
Simplest way: number of magnets corresponds to train ID. Small space between magnets (calculated from Hall sensor refresh rate and max train speed). Count number of Hall sensor trips (maybe with debounce) within some time period (calculated from the minimum train speed during crossing and the magnet spacing).
Disadvantage: Train minimum speed must be reasonable. Requires n(n+1)/2 magnets, or 36 for 8 trains.
More reliable way: two columns of magnets, slightly offset, spaced as above. Two Hall sensors in a row under the track. Col 1 is clock. Col 2 is data. Whenever Hall 1 (clock) goes high, read Hall 2 (data) (maybe for a short period for debounce). To keep things simple and stay away from speed assumptions, put the same number of clock magnets on all trains: log2(train count), rounded up, for example 4 for 16 trains.
Disadvantage: Requires twice as many Hall sensors. Requires about log2(N)1.5 magnets per train, so 96 magnets for 16 trains, as opposed to 16 for the original method. Those tiny neodymium magnet bars are cheap, though.
BONUS: Train speed measurement. Speed is the clock magnet spacing divided by time between clock Hall trips. Now you can run a Pi algorithm (e.g. PID) to move trains at a target speed regardless of load, at least in the regions with Hall sensors.
If you are willing to assume the train speed is constant while passing the sensors and do more complex signal analysis on the Pi, the intermediate clock magnets can be removed, reducing the magnet count to N(2 + log2(N)0.5)=64.
If you wanted to avoid the clock thing, you could probably do something like this.
Have two rows of sensors set up like this:
* * * * * * * *
* *
When both of the second row of sensors are high, read an 8 bit binary number from the first row of sensors. This allows you to have up to 255 different IDs with 10 magnets per train. First row is data, second row is alignment. Fast moving trains might have issues with this kind of setup though.
Similar to an old conveyor system on an Eshed Robotech system. There were 5 bits for each carriage encoded using magnets which rode the conveyor giving you 32 addresses. As the carriage passed into a station a pneumatic cylinder extended to trap it so it would stop above the sensors. If that carriage was to be processed at that station it would be picked off by a robot and placed in a dock.
If you're going to do columns, seems like you could save on magnets by putting exactly one magnet, either in column A or B.
Though if you do that, you'd need to worry about ambiguity from trains going different directions along the track. With your scheme, you have to figure out which column is the clock, but that's doable because it's the one with all 1s. (If the data is all 1s, then it's not clear but which column is which. You can still figure out the train number but not which way it's going.)
With my solution, I suppose you could just add a leading pair of magnets in both columns, which adds two magnets (and the space for them) to the cost.
Also, I'm not a hardware guy, but it seems like magnet polarity matters for hall effect sensors. So maybe you could so something like a single column of magnets but flipped north up or south up depending whether you want to indicate a 0 or a 1. I'm not sure whether you'd need two hall effect sensors (in opposite orientations) or a different type of hall effect sensor.
GP's point is that we give humans the benefit of the doubt. You have reinforced that notion.
>> the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to think.
But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or intellectual "sophistication".
>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering.
>> More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
>> ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.
I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
> But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or intellectual "sophistication".
Here's the thing though, high-IQ humans are much more likely to be depressive and so on, so in a sense yes, you can suffer more if you're smarter. Although what you were suggesting was a bit of a straw man, because the gap between a 100 and 150 IQ person is nowhere near as much as the gap between a 100 IQ person and a lizard. That is a massive quantitative difference that's not comparable to the differences between any two humans.
>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
> But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering
Well, I think what he's getting at is that "suffering" seems more like an state of mind than just feeling pain at a given moment, and an important part of it is being upset about past pain and dreading future pain. So he's saying that they suffer less because they don't dread pain, imagine it, torture themselves with the idea of it. As someone who has a problem with working myself into spirals of dread about things, I'll tell you-- that's suffering too.
> > More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
> By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
Well that wouldn't imply understanding the psychological sense of it, now would it? I think what he means is that dogs can seem to have sympathy for you, when you're hurting, and be concerned about you, etc.
> > ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.
> I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
Um yeah in his framework he doesn't really have to? I'm not sure I understand your point here?
In summary: please stop straw-manning people just because you don't like their arguments.
I can give the automotive electronics perspective here. Suppose that resistor costs 2c, including the actual part cost, PCB space, pick-and-place machine time (inc. more frequent spool replacement). Further suppose you expect to sell one million of this device.
$0.02 x 1E6 = $20k
If you are the circuit designer making, say, $150k, you just justified about a month of your salary (after accounting for benefits and other overhead). Your manager may parade you in front of the team at the next big group meeting as an example of how to achieve the BOM efficiency the company need to hit profit margin targets.
I've never bought into that reasoning on the automotive side. Selling "one million of this device," as you say, will bring in $20 billion. So yes, they can afford $20K to do the job right.
Also, SMT resistors at that quantity level are more like 1/10 of a cent, not 2 cents, and the PnP machine is running anyway. In fact you often end up using more resistors than strictly necessary, just because the machine holds a limited number of reels and it's cheaper to use more of the same part to arrive at a desired value than to add a new line item.
Things should be as cheap as possible, but no cheaper. Optimizing the cost of individual resistors is almost always a classic example of measuring the wrong thing. We should strive to avoid making excuses for doing that.
If it was purely about saving costs why even use USB-C, though? They could have just said that a 3A micro-usb supply is now required for USB power. The Pi4 isn't actually using any of the increased power delivery provided by USB-C PD, which is in the higher voltage range, after all. It just wants 5V 3A, which micro-usb can certainly handle as well (there are a variety of such power supplies for previous Pi's in fact).
Seems like a really questionable cost-savings maneuver to switch to a way more complicated & expensive connector for nearly no reason, and then penny pitch on one resistor.
Costs taken into consideration sure, but the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity, so I'm not sure the same sort of incentives exist on a personal basis. It probably is just the engineering attitude of saving costs as much as possible.
Those small SMD resistors come on a reel, and they're typically much cheaper than 2 cent: more like 0.1 cent. Still, that's $1000 for one million units.
