The search seems keyword based rather than meaning based (like Google). Searched 'under garden basement' and got garden furniture. Searched 'gazebo' but didn't get any gazebo cads
When technology is rapidly progressing up in iperbole or exponential it looks like it reach infinity. In practice though at some point will reach a physical limit and it will go flat. This alternation of going up and flattening make the shape of steps.
We've come so far and yet we are so small.
They seem two opposite concepts but they live together, we will make a lot of progress and yet there will always be more progress to be made.
Is it more common in English to use there terms Parallel and Sequential or Parallel and Series ?
Made a React Library to generate video as code and named two components <Parallel> <Series> I was wondering if those were two best terms two use...
Electric engineering talks about parallel and series. (including the old parallel and serial ports on computers, before almost everything became serial)
Programming talks about parallelism or concurrency or threading. (single-threading, multi-threading)
Or synchronous and asynchronous.
The legal system talks about concurrent and consecutive.
Process descriptions might use "sequential" rather than consecutive or series.
"Linear" is another possibility, but it's overloaded since it's often used in reference to mathematics.
Both would be understood and are roughly interchangeable.
"Sequential" feels more appropriate to me for the task runner scenario where we wait for one task to finish before running the next.
"Series" suggests a kind of concurrency to me because of the electrical circuit context, where the outputs of one are flowing into the next, but both are running concurrently. Processes that are Unix piped into each other would be another thing that feels more like a "series" than a "sequence".
When talking in terms of software parallelism, "parallel" and "sequential" are more common to describe, for example, multi-threaded vs. single-threaded implementations.
The electronics terms parallel and series are about static physical connections (things are connected in parallel or series — the more grammatical form would be in a series).
The software terms parallel and sequential are about the temporal relationship of activities (things are done in parallel or sequentially). That’s why in software we also have the term “concurrent” which means something different from “parallel”.
Series would be perfectly fine, though out of context it might be a bit confusing because it's also used to describe data on a chart.
Using the singular "Sequence" might also be appropriate for a component name, as the component represents the collection entity, rather than referring directly to the things within the collection itself (which I presume are either a prop or the children of the component).
I think your average person knows what sequential means but might not remember what series means. Personally I always remember the meaning of series in “parallel vs series” because it must be the opposite of parallel. I’m not proud of the fact that I always forget and have to re-intuit the meaning every time, but the only time I ever see “series” is when people are talking about a TV show or electronics.
Sequential is a fuzzier word. It can imply that a series of steps feeds output from step A into step B and so on. But at the same time it can also drift into areas typically defined as linearization. Where a task runs in parallel but applies in series, in sequence.
Yes on one side Tesla is not transparent but on the other side the author of the article is an hypocrite given they went with the click-bait title "Tesla’s own Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse than humans even with monitor"
Tesla secrecy is likely due to avoid journalists taking any chance they can to sell more news by writing an autonomous vehicles horror story.
Given the secrecy we don't know what happened, yet the journalist did choose to go with the worse scenario title.
While the title is slightly biased, it's completely fair to analyze all of the public data a company provides about a very public problem (how safe their autonomous cars are), and show what the risks are. If Tesla wants us to believe their robotaxis are safe (which they implicitly do by putting these on public roads), it's entirely on them to publish data that supports that claim. If the data they themselves publish suggests that they are much worse than human drivers, then I want journalists to report on that.
It's also extremely implausible that Tesla has data that their cars are very safe, but choose to instead publish vague data that makes them seem much worse. It's for example much more likely that these 9 incidents reported are just the bad incidents that they think they won't be able to hide, rather than assuming these are all or mostly minor incidents like lightly bumping into a static object.
Secrecy clearly doesn't avoid that kind of story though. The question is if their numbers were really good, or at least as good as Waymo, why wouldn't they share them for the positive press? Waymo doesn't get as many negative pieces like this.
It's a pretty logical conclusion to say that numbers they won't share must make them look bad in some way.
Brex rejected my application to open a bank account in 3 different occasion.
mercury.com provided me the B2B account within the day and the product and UX is awesome.
Another good thing about Mercury is that in case you’re stuck/not being treated fairly, you can just email/publicly mention Immad (CEO) and he’ll reply within minutes and will look into this
How does Briar work when a government shuts down the internet?
It mentions Bluetooth and Wifi.
My guess is that it tries to find other Briar devices connected to the same Bluetooth and wifi hotspot but what if the users are not on the Bluetooth/wifi?
Does it share ALL messages encrypted with every Briar user in the hope later they come in contact with the final user?
Indeed, light and 4x4 is the best combo. I think the Citroen 2CV was pretty impressive as well and they did have that dual engine version (though it was never sold to the public).
Top gear driving to the magnetic north pole in Hiluxes was impressive. I figure those would compete. They were a bit non standard. (vid https://youtu.be/q0hoPNmY4oU)
