I wonder what ever happened with the stream poisoning effort on a creek that ran through his ranch. That was bit of a thing growing-up back in Montana in the 90s, where the billionaire outsider wanted to poison the stream to kill off one species of fish to encourage another species.
Isn't the concern with over the air updates and back-doors? As in, if the citizens in county A buy country B's cars, and now there is a tiff between the two countries, country B could potentially brick all of those vehicles in country A.
That is just another variation of geopolitical worry. Nobody will do this unless there is a geopolitical situation happening. If you are going to war then bricking the enemies cars is useful. Otherwise it is harmful (even if you do it accidentally you lose trust and so nobody will buy from you again - which is why so often rollouts are done slowly - if it doesn't work you only have a few customers affects and can spend more than a car's value on techs to fix them thus ensuring you don't lost reputation)
Hmm, why not? For the astable configuration, you could use a 100F capacitor with R1 = 10 Meg and R2 = 7.5 Meg, for a 55 year period. Base current for the Threshold NPN will come from the Trigger PNP (and hopefully temperature drift matches OK). Other than maybe the 100F capacitor might have some variation in capacitance and leakage current over the course of 55 years ;-)
at 1% initial precision of just eg. LM555 itself, you're looking at +-0.5 year just from the chip's contribution. If you ever find 100F 1% precision capacitor and 0% precision resistors, you may maybe hit +- 1 year if the other conditions are perfectly predictable, which they are not.
For your chosen capacitor, manufacturer doesn't even bother providing the tolerances. :) Good luck with that.
It's just not good because you need to work around its limitations, whatever its purpose is. Not good for prototyping because it's the red tape you need to cut to get work done. Red tape isn't, in general, a bad thing, but when it comes to prototyping it is.
I think most people misunderstood syntax rules. It was not meant as the macro system for scheme. It was meant as the template macro system everyone could agree on, while leaving the more powerful low level macro systems to the implementations. Syntax case, or explicit/implicit renaming or syntactic closures or what have you.
No, the issue is if the first binding is on the same line as the `let`, you are required to write, e.g.:
someValue = let f = 9
fo = 10
foo = 123
in f+fo+foo
rather than:
someValue = let f = 9
fo = 10
foo = 123
in f+fo+foo
I think it used to be the case that it had to be indented past the `=` or the `let` even if it was't on the same line. Note also that `in` has to be indented past `someValue`, but doesn't need to be indented as far `let`.
This is fine:
someValue = let
f = 9
fo = 10
foo = 123
in f+fo+foo
So, it is possible to land on sane indentation, but the parser is much pickier than, e.g., Python's off-sides rule, so it takes some trial and error for new users to find it, and it can be frustrating if you're just temporarily modifying an expression to quickly try something out.
I honestly think it would be less surprising if the parser just disallowed writing the first binding on the same line as the `let` entirely, treating it only as a block, but some people (bewilderingly) do seem to prefer to write their code with the excessive indentation (I'd imagine with editor support, rather than manually maintaining the spacing).
I feel like you are describing that the parser is too lenient rather than too picky. It could just require you to always put `let` and `in` on their own lines, in which case the indentation makes sense, I think. It's only when trying to keep more stuff on the same line that the details of Haskell's indentation rules come into play.
https://shop.yokesfreshmarkets.com/store/yokes-fresh-market/...
...also WinCo Foods. Or at least the closest one to me does, right next to the in-store pizza counter.
reply