I hear a variation of this type of thing from windows fans constantly. "It's your hardware's fault." But never Window's fault. My experience is this; most of my computers are dual boot with windows and linux. When I have a problem with windows, I'll boot into linux and the problem goes away. Same hardware.
That's close, but basically you need to take the square of each element first, e.g. `m * * 2` [0]. This keeps the shape of the matrix while `m.prod()` returns a single number (multiplying each element together).
So it should look something like this: `np.sqrt((m * * 2).sum())`
The reason why the cost of living is sane in Republican states is because they don't place undue restrictions on housing supply. You might acknowledge that each political party has significant trade-offs with the policies they support, and move to a red state with that in mind.
Factually inaccurate. The reason the cost of living is lower in red states is simply due to location. People desire to live in coastal cities like NY, SF, LA, Seattle, etc.
Supply and demand drive prices. Do you think real estate is expensive on the upper east side in Manhattan because of an undue restriction on housing supply? Or is it just because many people want to live and work in NYC?
I don't know much about Manhattan, but SF is not allowing supply to meet the demand being signaled by absurd prices. Density in the neighborhoods is very low and construction that would increase it is almost never approved.
The SF bay area is an outlier, and yes, I agree about the restriction of supply problems we face (I live here). But to simply paint all blue states as similar to SF is inaccurate.
The fastest growing region in the United States is the South. Of the top 10 fastest growing states in 2019...only 2 of them voted blue in 2016. California is growing at its slowest rate in history:
Yes, supply and demand drive prices, but if you artificially constrict supply like California does with absurdly restrictive zoning laws and inflexible housing policies that only act to protect inflationary ponzi scheme, then you get the present-day California real estate market bubble.
Arch looks like it's got a lot going for it, and I sometimes find myself looking at their documentation when I'm trying to shoehorn a package into ubuntu. Even though I used Gentoo linux for a long time, very similar to Arch in lots of ways, I haven't been able to install and configure Arch successfully on my computers. I'm sure if I spend a lot more time on it, I'll be able to do it, but I just don't have that much time to spare, so I stick to ubuntu and variants. But I really do like what I see on Arch.
I've been using Ubuntu and variants for a long time now. I find lubuntu is ok and small in terms of size. As for older computers, I must have some really slow ass hardware, because even lubuntu is kind of slow on some of my hardware. I stick to standard ubuntu on my desktop just to see what it's like, but prefer xubuntu because I prefer the DE over the gnome crap. I'm used to the more standard keystrokes and shortcuts that you see on windows and the IBM standard which gnome wants to ignore. It's also tough to customize gnome to how I like to do things.
#4 makes me laugh because I had that thought when I was trying to work with bluetooth. I think the real problem is two-fold. The original spec required approval from all members of the consortium. I think a lot of things were left out that are really important, such as security. I know they had security from the start, but really, it's bullshit. Plus the original chipsets were incredibly expensive, and my pure speculative thought is that they cut corners (the firmware part) to bring them out to market. I was really surprised, shouldn't have been with hindsight, to see when bluetooth chipsets started to reach price parity with wifi chipsets.
The second thing is that much of the low level firmware for the stack is closed source stuff that is written in house. I suspect, after working with some of that shit, that it's poorly done and is a major cause of unreliability. Don't know if it would make any difference if it was open sourced, because the hardware/software combo is a lot like what you see with graphics cards. Everyone has their own secret sauce and they don't want to show it to the world.
I was writing firmware for RX transceivers when Bluetooth was specified. I feel like they wrote the spec with very little input from chip designers and without building prototype hardware.
That's why they chose a GFSK frequency hopper. Which ignored the expected advances in low power spread spectrum radio's. Previously the power requirements for a spread spectrum receiver were way too high, but within a two years of releasing the spec power requirements dropped dramatically. RF chip designers new this was going to happen.
Same time their baseband requirements were almost impossible to meet with a low power budget even in 2003 or so. So you had a crummy GFSK radio, frequency hopper. Married to a fat piggy baseband spec.
What I remember is about two dozen design groups spent a couple of years developing Bluetooth hardware and by 2004 or so exactly three of them succeeded. That's big indictment of the spec. And here 20 years later it still sucks.
I remember watching a tech news report on cable TV (yeah, that long ago) about a hot new tech called 'Bluetooth' that was going to revolutionize device interoperability, and the BT chipset would be at most $5 of the device cost.... until that never happened.
It actually did, charmingly. usually I just click upvote on these but it was stunning to read one and think "wait...that is exactly what happened, even if its not perfect"
Yeah, but how long did it take to truly drop to the $5 mark? When bluetooth stuff came out (mice, keyboards, etc.) they were exorbitantly expensive. It was way cheaper for manufacturers to sell stuff with their own RF dongles instead of using BT.
I recall buying a USB Bluetooth adapter in the mid 2000's that was maybe $12 shipped from Asia. If that was a the cost to the consumer for a device that was mostly a bluetooth radio I suspect that the cost to add bluetooth to a high volume product was probably at or below $5 ~15 years ago.
I remember the marketing guys had this spiel that WiFi was for businesses and that consumers would use Bluetooth for wireless networking. Because at $50-100 obviously WiFi was 'too expensive' for home use. LOL.
I think WIFI chipsets hit $5 before Bluetooth ones.
Reminds me of a problem with how people think of 'low power RF'. You don't actually care so much about continuous current draw (within reason) what you care about is energy per bit. Which means high bandwidth doesn't penalize you as much as you would assume. Bonus in practice the longer your packet takes to transmit the higher the chance it gets clobbered. Bluetooth going with a low bandwidth low continuous power radio; FAIL.
There are a few other open-source and crowd-source projects like this that I've seen. It's interesting to see so much volunteer response to the crisis.
