I think OP is looking at this the other way around -- meaning that it is perfectly possible to create a soft-core CPU on an FPGA, which is a great way to understand what any processor actually does.
I know this, because I started learning and tinkering with this sort of thing a year or so ago, with no prior experience with electronics or hardware design, or a formal comp-sci education.
I had decades of programming experience already, but I think I have learned more about the fundamentals of computer science while playing with cheap FPGAs, than I have by just writing code.
All the digital logic building blocks of a processor, from comparators to ALUs up to branch predictors and pipelines, can be defined and wired together in an HDL. If you have a sufficiently large FPGA, then you can "run" that HDL specification on the FPGA to get a working processor.
It's pretty common for computer engineering students to implement a simple RISC processor (often a simplified MIPS) on an FPGA as a class project. In my experience it was a fantastic way to learn the basics of computer architecture.
The CPU itself? For example, implementing a toy CPU is much much closer to how an actual, non-FPGA CPU works than, say, an emulator. But really anything done on an FPGA should teach you some portion of gate-level logic (yeah yeah, there's LUTs and other specialized cells instead of gates, close enough).
And staying above physics, that's how computers work.
maybe because you're projecting? it's a local culture piece (it's in the ny region section). for better or worse the hasids are large component of ny culture.
it's interesting because it gives insight into a culture and community we typically don't have access to. the point isn't amazon - the point is the hasids.
That's what I want to know as well. This github[0] mentions the sensor as a standalone item, and this appears to be the manufacturer[1]. This[2] is the closest I could find for purchase (24GHz, as opposed to Soli's 60GHz, and nearly 300 bucks to boot).
No? What part of the ACA was intended to upend the pharma industry? The ACA was specifically designed to work within the system as it existed in 2008/9.
If I recall, originally it was supposed to be more drastic in its changes in an attempt to introduce more efficiencies into the system. But then they realized that they could create a lot of jobs in healthcare (remember, we were smack in the middle of the recession) so they opted to do that instead. That’s not any kind of commentary as to whether their decision was good or bad but it does appear to have resulted in making the system less efficient in many ways.
Yes but I think we're nearing a point where the lobbyists won't be able to overcome millions of pissed off citizens who feel like they're getting screwed by an entire industry.
Those are called "election". The entire idea of an electoral democracy is that you have them once in a while, so the government stays aligned with the public wishes.
