Data Protection Authority (DPA) should investigate. In Germany, the company's DPO (Data Protection Officer) has personal, criminal liability. For these cases, I'd like to see them in front of criminal court, and see what happens. I wanna see someone having a criminal record for this, and then all the stupid excuses of large companies about "I didn't know" and "I thought lalalala" will stop rather quickly. It will turn out that, at the end of the day, it was just a resource issue. And when criminal liability is on the table, resources magically... appear.
You don't need $300 gear to do Level 2. A lot of people who are pretty up there the "pro" scale use something similar to a FNIRSI DWS-200 200W, which I bought for $90, with shipping. It comes with 8 tips, and is extremely tight, supports fast tip switching, very fast heating (auto-spleep, etc), very nice interface, short tip, etc. Yes, the tip is not well-calibrated temp wise, but you can get a non-certified calibrator for $15. I work on RC planes and associated flight controllers with it all day long. The annoyingly expensive area is the hot air station, actually, but that's really a bit "out there" -- the cheap(er) copies don't yet exist, so it's still on the expensive side. A good hot air station is where it's more like lev 2.5 -- with it, you can do HDMI/USB port changes reliably, and in seconds. The BGA etc. is lev 3.
Beyond the soldering iron, my recommendations that are not too obvious at first sight:
* solder paste (verrrry useful, just get it, and use it)
* something to purify air that _pulls_ it (a reverse fan) with a carbon filter (~30 USD)
* magnifying glass, hopefully attached to a ring of LEDs + a stand so you can see what you are doing (30-60 USD)
It essentially already has one. Probably only self-levelling, but has some extra programming like delayed flaps, wheel-up sequence (first up the wheels, then close the doors), blackbox feature, etc. Likely using a version of Ardupilot [1] that's already in use by everyone. Maybe INav [2], but I'd wager on the former. There's more than one computer in there, too. The receiver is likely double-redundant (2 receivers, each with 2 separate receiver circuits, one 900MHz, the other 2.4GHz). I have planes costing 400 EUR that have dual-bandwidth redundant receivers (costs 40 EUR, a joke).
ELRS (radio), Ardupilot (Flight Controller), EdgeTX (Radio OS), and Mission Control (Ground Station SW) are serious tools used by many in the hobby. Them being open means there's a lot of competition and a lot of features. But also not amazing UX :)
INAV is a hot mess, I would recommend against it unless you like beta testing stuff in flight. They don't really have a good SW development process, which kind of surprised me. Betaflight is good for Quads (it nominally also supports some other vehicle types but it is pretty clear where the focus is) and for fixed wing or more complex or strange vehicles I'd use Arducopter or dRehmFlight.
The equivalent reduction would be device consolidation, with the folding iPhone having the greatest capacity since it could replace an iPad and with cheap peripherals be at least as good a computer as a MacBook Neo. Of course, being Apple, it's reportedly only able to run iPhone apps heh.
Yes, agree. At the same time, it's what these top-tier universities are known for: presenting something relatively simple as if it was ground-breaking, but in a way that the average person can (or has a better chance to) understand it. I am still unsure whether the communication quality has such added value. But people seem to like it, so here we are.
There's a difference between a reliable hunch and really knowing something. What is obvious is not always (or even usually) easy to prove. And the process of proving the obvious sometimes turns up useful little surprises.
I do think there's value in science communication, but it does take an intelligent understanding of it on a case by case basis as to whether it's genuine or hype marketing.
Side note: talking to someone from such a "elite" university, I discovered many labs in these unis have standing orders by PIs to tweet their papers/preprints when published. Varies by field, in AI it is by far the most common.
Honestly, the more research papers I read, the more I am suspicious. This "surprisingly" and other hyperbole is just to make reviewers think the authors actually did something interesting/exciting. But the more "surprises" there are in a paper, the more I am suspicious of it. Often such hyperbole ought to be at best ignored, at worst the exact opposite needs to be examined.
It seems like the best students/people eventually end up doing CS research in their spare time while working as engineers. This is not the case for many other disciplines, where you need e.g. a lab to do research. But in CS, you can just do it from your basement, all you need is a laptop.
I still remember the time when a gcc bug caused MiniSat to output UNSAT for a satisfiable problem [1]. I was the author of a SAT solver, and I was chasing my tail trying to figure out why I was getting UNSAT for a satsifiable problem. I have to admit I didn't expect it to be a gcc bug... (note: bug was found by Vegard Nossum on the CryptoMiniSat mailing list)
It's time to be serious about this. Unacceptable.
reply