If it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile.
If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.
This for sure. Its far easier to rework a refinery designed for heavy, sour oil and make it ready to process light & sweet. And WTI is very light & sweet. More and more refineries in the US have moved to processing more and more light/sweet crude oil as the level of imports lessened.
It wasn't any over the top than the original. It mostly just followed The BBC production almost to the letter, except with US spin.
Until Season 4?. Whenever the re-election campaign started. Joel Kinnaman, while a great actor (loved him in Altered Carbon) was a massive miscast as a plausible candidate for the GOP. Mostly due to youth. And the last season was a Game of Thrones-level utter disaster.
> Tons of irrelevant detail and uninteresting sidestories.
That's how I felt about Succession for 3 seasons.
I felt it just dragged and dragged and I couldn't understand what was the fuss.
Then I started watching some YouTube commentary and starting to understand that the irrelevant and uninteresting was actually relevant and interesting.
ATN, the succession, that was all bogus for character development, a setup.
I feel like House of Cards may fall in a similar category there. It's not much about the action but character evolution and dynamics.
Oh I have no doubt that was the aim in the HoC remake. It just wasn't any good, unlike Succession. Not all character development and dynamics are interesting.
The scope and pacing in the original was just perfect. Just because you can layer on more, doesn't mean it's gonna make it better. Much was pure tedium and seemed to serve filling time first and foremost.
In the wild? For people who read books, they probably weren't a fan. For people who don't care about source material, the show was amazing. I'm still pissed it was cancelled. It was apparently ridiculous expensive to produce and that's all the more reason they should have kept going with it: to show that we want more of those types of things.
I thought it was a great standalone show. What I found unforgivable were the underlying plot changes vs the books.
The Last Envoy? What? That did not even become a plot point (at least in season 1, I bailed pretty early in S2). Also, Envoys are terrorists and not the ultimate-special ops forces?
This is what really threw me. In the book, Kovacs was hired because he had been a highly-trained UN envoy. It made little sense for him to be hired as a known terrorist. I wasn't much of a fan of any of the terrorist cell background, or the other background elements like those with his sister, that they decided to add to the show.
let's make it three then. Read the books, enjoyed the series(s). Want a unicorn backpack to carry around, but don't think I can carry it off (pun intended) the way Joel did.
I stopped in the episode where, for me at least, out of absolutely nowhere, Spacey's character seduces a body guard and him and his wife have a 3some with him. I'm sure many people loved that. For me, I was like WTF? what was completely out of left field, added to punch up ratings or just it insert shock value. I stopped watching. What that in the UK version?
But is it easy for a lower economic state kid to befriend rich kids? They do come from different worlds, and even the activities (skiing for a weekend, taking taxis to concerts, etc) can divide you. This was partly my experience, though it never entered my mind to try and befriend “rich kids” but I think my choice of activities (think LAN parties vs poker games with real money), my time spent in a campus job, not knowing how to ski or have money for a trip, definitely narrowed my friendship opportunities.
I'd say its the exception that you should not go Ivy/elite if you get in. Ivy Leagues have experiences/opportunities that simply are not replicated at state schools.
Yes for determined/driven individuals, it may not matter all that much. And if you are not going to take advantage of what those elites have to offer, maybe you should reconsider if the financial burden is too high.
Faculty jobs are incredibly competitive, which means that at almost any school you will get some very high-quality faculty (at least in terms of research, publications, and fundraising.) Non-elite research universities may also offer good opportunities for research. And of course elite public universities offer nearly all of the benefits of their private cousins, usually at lower cost.
But I concur that if you get into MIT (or comparable) and it seems to be a good fit, then it is hard to beat for a variety of reasons.
Nonetheless another strategy that is worth considering is pursuing a science or engineering major at a good but cheaper and less elite school, where you can perhaps stand out more, and then attending an elite graduate school (private or public) in your field.
I don't think that's really true, and if it is I don't think it's an advantage you'd actually want to use later in life. Based of my experience of hiring over the past 25 years (as someone hiring people, not as a candidate), my belief now is that your university degree is important for about a decade, has diminishing returns over the next few years, and then it's basically irrelevant. If you've got 15 years of relevant experience what degree you have and where it's from makes no difference to a good company.
The exception is somewhat antagonistic too - if you still believe it's important (e.g you come to an interview and talk about how great Cambridge is) that's a signal you're not going to be a good hire.
Obviously there are many caveats to this - I don't have an elite university degree, I'm not in the US, I've only ever hired developers, I've never worked in a business that needed people with elite university degrees, the number of people I've hired is a tiny sample of the industry, etc.
I suspect people who think elite degrees are important are mostly other people who have an elite degree, and often those people are the ones who make it into hiring manager positions or higher. In that case it kind of does matter, but only if you want to work in a company where an elite university degree counts for more than experience, and I'm pretty sure you don't.
VCs still care. VC pitch decks will make a point of highlighting the elite schools that early engineers/founders went to (MIT, Stanford, Ivys, Oxbridge, etc). Whether it should or not, having a couple of those big names on there can be the difference on millions of dollars of funding. It might not be important at many levels of the industry, but it's useful to have if you're a founder or early employee in startups.
If generating left to right, it seems to me the condition almost always hold that both the number of empty cells and filled cells to the immediate left and to the lower left, directly underneath, and lower right (four known neighbors at the time of generation) is always equal to two, except occasionally you get three filled, but never four, which would create a thick wall. I’m not sure about the left edges, those would only have two known neighbors (directly underneath and lower right)Al
So maybe with a good intial rowthat’s all you need to do.
LabVIEW has had FPGA programming as block diagrams for a good 15 years now. Vivado has something similar.
Programming FPGA as block diagrams is very natural, because you are essentially designing a circuit. So strictly speaking, you don't need to learn a HDL to do FPGA anymore
Theres the open source Digital (https://github.com/hneemann/Digital) which can run simulations but then export Verilog. If you have an ICE40 based GPU then in theory you can then use open source tools (like apio) to get that onto your FPGA. I've seen some impressive fpga tasks being generated by that.
I'm early in my learning of FPGA and have done nandgame and some other non-HDL circuit learnings. I have gone back and forth if I want to design my project via HDL or via something like Digital. There's not an easy pro/con either way.
For example, everything I've read is that the verilog block diagram tools kinda create isn't behavior, which makes optimization by FPGA compilers hard, because it can't automatically infer optimal feature gate usage if you are giving transistor level HDL vs behavior HDL. Likewise, it's not totally clear if block diagramming tools can facilitate test bench behavior, which I think I want to prevent regressions.
If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.