OMG no. Politician have no business making technological decisions. They make it harder to innovate, i.e. to invent the next generation of ECC with a different name.
I would argue that in the present conditions, regulation can actually foster and guide real innovation.
With no regulations in place, companies would rather innovate in profit extraction rather improving technology. And if they have enough market capture, they may actually prefer to not innovate, if that would hurt profits.
Ethernet was once carried over thick coax at like 2 then 3 megabits per second. By the time it was standardized as IEEE 802.3 it was at 10 megabits. 802.3 was thin coax. 802.3e took a step back in speed to 1 megabit, but over phone-type wire. 10 base T, Ethernet over twisted pair at 10 megabits per second, wasn’t until 802.3i in 1990. Then 10 base F (fiber) in 1992.
Then there are various speeds of 100 M, 1000 M / 1G, 2.5 G, 5 G, 10 G, 25 G 40 G, 50G, 100 G, 200 G, and 400 G. Some of the media included twisted pair, single mode fiber, multimode fiver, twinax cable, Ethernet over backplanes, passive fiber connections (EPON), and over DWDM systems.
There have also been multiple versions of power over Ethernet using twisted pair cable. Some are over one pair, some two pairs, and some over the data pairs while other use dedicated pairs for power.
There are also standards for negotiation among multiple of these speeds. There have been improvements to timestamping. There have been standards to bring newer speeds to fewer pairs or current speeds over longer distances.
There’s currently work on 1.6 Tbps links up to 30 or possibly 50 meters. There has been work on the past to use plastic optical fibers instead of glass ones. Oh, and there are standards specific to automative Ethernet.
Ethernet itself, the name and the first implementation of a network with that name, were from 1972 and 1973. It was on the market in 1980 and first standardized in 1983 as ECMA-82.
Ethernet supports in its different configurations direct host-to-host connections, daisy chains, hubbed networks, switched networks, tunnels over routed protocols like TCP or UDP, bridges over technologies like MOCA or WiFi, and even being tunneled across the open Internet.
All of these are Ethernet. They have a common lineage. They are all derived from the same origin. Token Ring, FDDI, ATM, and SONET have all been more than one thing over time too. So has WiFi. 802.11a is very little like 802.11be, but those are also similar enough to carry the same family name.
The IEEE 802.3 series has a lot of history buried in those documents.
The same panel produces much more electricity in space than at the bottom of the atmosphere, because the atmosphere already reflects most of the light. Additionally, the panel needs less glass or no glass in space, which makes it lighter and cheaper.
Launch costs have shrunk significantly thanks to SpaceX, and they are projected to shrink further with the Super Heavy Booster and Starship.
Self-cataloging can be become a method of procrastination. But that doesn't mean that there is no value to be found in methods like Zettelkasten. The activity of looking through your own Zettelkasten has the potential of creating associations and sparking ideas. That can be very valuable and requires some care of your notes. But trying to find the perfect taxonomy for your own notes is foolish mistake. The technical limitations of the original Zettelkasten, makes refactoring the notes to the current approximation of the perfect taxonomy such a huge task, that it is usually avoided.
A nice example of a limitation that supports creativity.
So, in order to avoid the negative consequences of a European monopoly, we make sure that a Chinese monopoly prevails? That doesn't seem like a wining strategy for Europe.
Even if we assume that JSON numbers are JavaScript numbers. There is the problem that some large natural numbers cannot be represented in double or float although some even larger numbers can be represented. This is very bad if you use these numbers as IDs.
scala> (Long.MaxValue-1)
val res4: Long = 9223372036854775806
scala> (Long.MaxValue-1).toDouble.toLong
val res5: Long = 9223372036854775807
The fact that I used Scala is irrelevant here. That is true for many programming languages that 64 bit long and double types.
But with a visible scrollbar you would have a visible indication which behavior you triggered. If the scrollbar is invisible you get a changed viewport in both cases but you have to infer which gesture triggers which behavior.
And still there are more modern idioms and language features that ML had in the 70s but are missing from Go. But, these have the fatal flaw of Not being Invented Here.
The goal of teaching binary trees is not that you can write binary trees in your sleep, the goal is that you train your ability to derive algorithms and data structures. If you look at what a world class soccer player does during training, most of it will never be applied identically during games. The same is true for university studies, if they focus on fundamentals.
Do you have source for this? Because as you write I've always read to derive protein intake from the overall weight. That would indeed be a very important distance.
Yep, it is often repeated bad advice that was originally aimed at healthy weight adults and athletes and then misunderstood by people attempting to lose body fat. It is incorrectly repeated on hundreds of exercise sites and articles. Cite:
> Protein intake should range between 1.0-1.5 grams/kg of adjusted body weight. To calculate adjusted body weight, first calculate excess weight: Excess weight = current weight — ideal body weight (IBW). Adjusted body weight = IBW + 0.25 of excess body weight. This amount generally accounts for 20% to 30% of total caloric intake.
So a slightly more complex way of calculating roughly the same thing. I'd argue that for most people getting your ideal weight is a good enough approximation, and that using your overweight/obese body fat in your protein calculation is wrong by a lot no matter which calculation you use.
