This actually sounds a bit like a C/C++ argument. Roughly: Yes, you can easily write incorrect code but when some basic coding conventions are followed, UAF/double free/buffer overflows/... are just not a problem. After all, some of the world's most complex software is built with C / C++. If you couldn't write software reliably with C / C++, that could never be the case.
I.e. just because teams manage to do something with a tool does not mean the tool didn't impede (or vice versa, enable) the result. It just says that it's possible. A qualitative comparison with other tools cannot be established on that basis.
While VHDL makes a fun academic toy language, it has always been Verilog in the commercial settings. Both languages can develop hard to trace bugs when the optimizer decides to simply remove things it thinks are unused. =3
How does this compare to chisel [1] , i never could get around the whole scala tooling - seemed a bit over the top.
Though i guess it is a bit more mature and probably more enterprisey
> i never could get around the whole scala tooling
scala is popular in places like Alphabet, that apparently allow go & scala projects in production.
However, I agree while scala is very powerful in some ways, it just doesn't have a fun aesthetic. If one has to go spelunking for scalable hardware accelerators, a vendors linux DMA llvm C/C++ API is probably less fragile.
For my simple projects, one zynq 7020 per node is way more than we should ever need. =3
I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. all these paper-thin synthetic (plastic) disposable parts and fabrics used in labs shed microplastics way more than e.g. synthetic fabrics designed to be survive a machine wash a few dozen times, or upholstery meant to withstand tens of thousands of sitting cycles, nevermind solid plastics (e.g. reusable food containers, furniture surfaces).
Sure, but then the issue would be in the kind of content, not the medium. There are plenty of non-violent video games, and plenty of violent hobbies that aren't video games.
I don't see any consistent argument to single out video games.
A car's assumed lifecycle is around 15-20 years. Practical suburban EVs have been around for around half that, practical ICE-replacement EVs for about a third. Consequentially, EVs have not yet arrived in the econo-shitbox segment of the used car market, and it will still take some time for them to get there - this is simply a lifecycle question and not a "new product introduction question" (which most of the press gets wrong for obvious incentives).
That being said, there's an argument that even basic EVs are often much more pleasant to drive and less hassle overall, which could be a reason for them to command a sustained premium on the used market.
How are EV's going to get to econobox/shitbox levels when the batteries go bad in less than half the time you mentioned and it costs ~£5000 for a new one?
I saw a Nissan Note ev around here for £600 - the battery is good for around 24 miles - which exceeds what I'd do in a day on school run, gym run and shopping.
I would need to pay for a home charging point, but that would be a long term investment.
For me that Note would likely do me another 4 years of easy and cheap driving. An ice car of the same price would have more to go wrong and I'd be lucky to get 2 years driving from it. We are getting to the usable 2nd hand market already, and it is only going to get better.
Because newer batteries are not degrading as fast due to better thermal and load management. Because newer cars use newer chemistries that are less prone to degradation.
Moreover, just like some cars are good enough for people now, the cars with some degraded batteries will be good enough for some second hand buyers.
This is a conception primarily based around the Nissan Leaf battery, which combined poor BMS, a badly chosen chemistry and no thermal management. (People sometimes claim that the batteryleaftime is because they're passively cooled, but there are other, similarly old EVs, with passively cooled batteries, that have nowhere near the battery degradation that the Nissan EVs had).
It would be really interesting to know what's so special about these UK units that they can be "damaged" by being fed from the "wrong" side (as per some other article), considering that the only place where these behave like that is an island north of France.
These are not just circuit breakers/MCBs, they are RCBOs which combine an MCB + RCD in a single unit. RCDs traditionally only measure - and protect - current flow is one direction, so if you are using them for solar you need a bi-directional unit for full protection. The device will not be damaged, it just won't protect you.
However in the case of a UK home, where you may have a single ring circuit connecting all the sockets on the whole floor, what's in the breaker panel isn't going to protect you with plug-in solar anyway. Better hope what you are plugging in meets UK standards and isn't just some Chinese rubbish that claims it does.
Outside the UK, neither RCDs nor RCBOs (type A/AC) are generally distinguished by bidirectionality (all search results about this being .co.uk), since the RCD part of these devices is just a current transformer driving a trip solenoid; there is nothing in it that's powered by the line, nor something which could sense net power flow direction. The situation is different for AFDDs or type B RCDs, since those have active, powered electronics in them which need to be fed from the line side.
After some research the main reason seems to be two-fold:
Answer #1: Many UK RCDs/RCBOs are actually single-pole devices and don't disconnect the neutral. In the simplest case, this means pressing the test button might burn out the test resistor when backfed. I don't imagine this to be a problem in practice, since grid-tie inverters shut down very quickly if the grid disappears under them, especially plug-in inverters. RCDs/RCBOs elsewhere are virtually always disconnecting the neutral, so don't care about this.
Answer #2: It looks like some/many one-module wide UK RCBOs _do have_ electronics in them, even if type A, because they're actively driving the trip solenoid of the MCB part, and if you sketch this out and do it in a very cheap way it's easy to see how you could burn that out if backfed (i.e. powering the trip solenoid during a fault is assumed to disconnect in a very short amount of time, but if backfed for longer than the disconnect time that might be enough to toast the solenoid or the driver).
Notably neither of these has anything to do with the direction of power flow.
> Answer #1: Many UK RCDs/RCBOs are actually single-pole devices and don't disconnect the neutral.
This is not correct; all type AC and type A RCDs used in British consumer units disconnect the neutral as well. Some RCBOs do not disconnect the neutral and this is a problem in some circumstances. The datasheet I linked for Wylex NHXS1 RCBOs explains that these ones do disconnect the neutral.
> Answer #2: It looks like some/many one-module wide UK RCBOs _do have_ electronics in them [...] but if backfed for longer than the disconnect time that might be enough to toast the solenoid or the driver
This is correct. For an example of this construction in an RCBO, see [1]. This illustrates that if the supply is connected to the "To Load" part of the schematic (toward the end of the video), as it would be if the supply is a solar PV inverter with battery storage, then it can continue powering the electronics and be shunted out by the thyristor after it has supposed to have tripped, very quickly burning itself out.
Bidirectional RCBOs are not designed in this manner. They have more complicated circuitry that makes them more expensive to manufacture, but are absolutely required in situations like this if you don't want your protective devices to burn and/or explode when they operate.
> Notably neither of these has anything to do with the direction of power flow.
Yes it does, because if the power is flowing backwards to how they designed it, that is backfeeding it, keeping its circuitry powered after it should have been disconnected.
The situation in germany is essentially the same, but that's why net supply by these is limited to 800 W. I don't think anything changes w.r.t. earth leakage, why would the presence of the solar supply change anything from the RCD and fault point of views, respectively?
Not expert but one difference is that in Germany the standard wiring is radial circuits with 16A MCBs while in the UK it's ring wiring with 32A MCBs.
So in the UK we have 2.5mm^2 wires in a ring on a 32A MCBs... Of course a 2.5mm^2 wire is rated ~20A so any issues with the ring (sockets still work since connected from the other branch) can burn the wire before the MCB trips...
The "standard" wiring is 1.5mm² on 16A MCBs which are rated to trip at 1.13-1.45x nominal current (so 18-23 A). So this is already mildly improper because you can pull elevated currents continuously and dramatically shorten the life of the insulation.
We would call it "a serious code violation." It's prohibited in the NEC and always has been, it's objectively less safe.
From what I understand the UK allowed it because of a severe postwar copper shortage and it persists to this day because it's allowed and a bit cheaper.
> From what I understand the UK allowed it because ...
I'd say "severe post-WWII money shortage". After wartime expansion, the global copper industry could physically meet peacetime demands. But the UK was very close to national bankruptcy. And the Luftwaffe had turned an awful lot of their prewar housing into rubble. So - any cost that could be cut, was.
If your generator is plugged into their own circuit, it wouldn't change much.
If you plug it into an overloaded ring final (which is not uncommon in the UK - half our house's sockets are on a single ring), you have to rely on the generator being able to detect faults to protect that circuit.
You could also overload that circuit's wiring. If you have a a 16A Ecoflow, plug it into a 32A ring, you could draw 48A before tripping the grid circuit breaker, potentially causing significant heat in the wires. Dinky 3A generators won't do that but I don't think they're the limit our government are talking about.
Guys!!! Important!!! Don't buy or lease an EV now!! Battery breakthrough is coming! Your car will be obsolete trash in two weeks tops! Buy ICE car instead! Stable investment!
It is a slightly weird experience trying to buy an EV as they genuinely do get significantly better very quickly. It's like buying a computer in the 90s or a phone in the 00s.
Ok, but the Rivian R1S is a particularly inefficient EV (2-2.5 mi/kWh = 31-25 kWh/100 km). 12.5 kWh/100 km is efficient but not outlandishly so considering these are likely CLTC ranges, which are higher than WLTP which are higher than EPA, and the car in question is not in fact a dumptruck.
PoE is also fairly bulky, requires large connectors, and either requires a wholly isolated PD or what's basically a class 2 DC/DC converter. That's why PoE-powered stuff usually has that big transformer cube in it with a lot of clearance, slotted PCB, 2-4 kV capacitors etc.
In practice PoE will have lower efficiency than mains powered, since it'll usually be at least double conversion, often three converters in series, plus the losses of the thin network wires, and the relatively high idle losses / poor low-load efficiency of the necessarily over-dimensioned PSE.
Yeah, that too. Windows supports them nowadays too, just to be clear. I think we're still bottlenecked, right now, on #1 and #2 in the form of Java 8 refusing to die.
Yeah, doing the math it's actually only 33 years of not supporting AF_UNIX, but that's not really right either, since those versions of Windows didn't support any sockets. I guess the technically correct answer then is that Windows didn't support UDS for 26 years.
Which is still enough for most portable software to go "eh, localhost is fine*"
* resolving localhost is actually a pretty bad idea (yet very common) and it's way more robust to listen directly on a numeric address.
I.e. just because teams manage to do something with a tool does not mean the tool didn't impede (or vice versa, enable) the result. It just says that it's possible. A qualitative comparison with other tools cannot be established on that basis.
reply