Both are asking for money to extract oil (and hopefully sell it for more money). I don't see why the oil well being already drilled or not should make a difference if I don't want to invest in CO2-producing endeavours.
The point is that in the secondary market, the oil will be extracted regardless. By you not participating, you actually increase the return on equity for others, making it more profitable. Buying the stock does not add money into the business.
The area for disincentivizing oil production is the political sphere, not the financial sphere. Refusing to participate in secondary market ownership does almost less than nothing to disincentivize the extraction. At least with ownership, you get a say in the firms harm mitigation.
To be clear, I was answering your second paragraph, about "funding oil extraction that is happening anyway". I understood this as "buying shares directly from the extracting company".
I agree that buying on the secondary market doesn't directly give money to the company. However, it increases demand (and therefore price) of shares in petrol companies, which might help them raise more money per share for new projects.
The earnings coming from such shares also comes from actively encouraging CO2 producing activities. Some people don't want to earn money that way, because they think it is morally wrong.
>Some people don't want to earn money that way, because they think it is morally wrong.
I mean that's fair, but it's also why I brought up the three major schools of ethics. The consequentialist likely won't care if it's going to happen anyway. The virtue ethicist will.
By increasing the return for other investors I'm increasing the cost of capital for the oil exploration companies. So: Yes, not buying shares in existing oil companies will (ever so marginally) decrease oil exploration.
The space shuttle stack has a net thrust (thrust minus weight) of about 9 MN at lauch [1]. High carbon steel has a yield strength of 700 MPa [2]. So you need a piece of steel with a cross section of 0.013 square meter to hold it down. That's a rod 6.5 cm / 2.5 inches in diameter. Hardly impossible. Your nearest road suspension bridge probably has cables bigger than this.
If you want to argue that it's impossible in practice, I'll point out that SpaceX's Starship first stage has a net thrust of 53 MN [3], and it does static fires (without the weight of the second stage on top) [4].
The space shuttle didn't do static fires because of the solid rocket boosters that would need to be teared down and reconstructed afterwards; not because it's physically impossible to hold it down.
For electronics without wireless functionality, it is allowed to self-certify. Anyone could also print whatever label they want on their products illegally (i.e. without doing the required paperwork to self-certify).
The policemen controlling imports don't have the competency to check for faults, so we get this situation where specialists regularly sample the products, and heavy fines are issued to the importer.
And for electronics with wireless, they still just ignore everything. No FCC ID, don't even have any silkscreening on the pcb or markings on the ICs. Nothing gets enforced.
There's no free alternatives, because AMD doesn't document the bitstream format (i.e. what you need to push to the FPGA to program it to do wha you want).
Xilinx has the best silicon. Everyone else is behind. Altera is basically dead thanks Intel. Lattice is nice for low power but performance-wise they are behind. Don't know much about Microchip, but from the little I've heard their tooling is a disaster even by the standards of FPGA tooling. Then there are Gowin (not bad, but Chinglish docs and everything), Gatemate (pretty innovative and vendor-backed nextpnr support - but only one low-mid FPGA with a promise to release chiplet assemblies of it latter). And Effinix - don't know much about them, do anyone have experience?
It's not. There's a duopoly between AMD (Xilinx) and Intel (Altera). There's more choice at the very low end but if you're going for a powerful FPGA (which is mostly what people need) those are the choices.
People change their minds. Is that illegal? Maybe they had the intention to only be in the US temporarily at first, but now they'd like to get permanent residence. Why shouldn't they be able to apply for it, from the US, while still on the temporary visa?
Then the administration can say yes or no, in the same way that they can say yes or no to someone applying from abroad.
Smartphones have the huge advantage of direction sensors (3D magnetometer and gyro). I remember using apps like Google sky map (or something like that) way back in 2011 to look at satellites and planets.
That's what formal verification is about. I did some (using PSL for hardware verification); writing the formal spec is way harder than the actual code. It will find a lot of subtle issues, and you spend a most of the time deciding if it's the spec or the code that's wrong.
Having the code-writing part automated would have a negligible impact on the total project time.
In what situation would nanosecond accuracy be needed between cameras? Millisecond accuracy should be enough to get camera feeds in sync, even when looking at videos frame by frame.
To ensure each camera is scanning the same line of each frame at the same time.
This aids in switching without tearing, and if you’re using things like LED video walls, you want to synchronise the refresh rate of the video wall to the camera’s scan rate to eliminate “rolling” and other horrible visual artifacts.
That's a really good question. I hope I'm able to answer it.
The closer multiple sources of video can come to showing up at exactly the right time, in lockstep with eachother, the less need there is for buffers at any step.
When buffers are reduced at any step, latency is reduced at each of those steps.
When latency is reduced, it accumulates slower as steps are added, removed or different workflows are switched in and out.
And that makes getting continual coherency between processing workflows easier, instead of harder. Easy is good, innit?
---
There's other ways to get it done, but tight clocks are a Keep It Simple, Stupid method. The tighter, the better.
And, sure: I hear you. There's usually just 60 frames per second, or ~16ms per frame.
But video isn't necessarily a sequence of fixed frames like film is. It's (still!) often rasterized as scanlines, even just to transmit it from a camera to the next stage.
We can therefore process video as scanlines, instead of individual frames. We can switch between them and even mix them together without even buffering a whole frame first.
Or at least: We can do this if the clocks are tight-enough so that the lines themselves show up at the right time.
And that's useful: If we can get rid just 1 frame worth of input buffer and 1 frame of output buffer at a given step, then we save 2 frames worth of latency for that step, or ~32ms. That's 32ms that we don't need to figure out how to compensate for elsewhere, but we can only get there if the video sources (eg, live cameras) are tightly synchronized.
With 4k60 video, we get new raster lines at a rate of around 65KHz. That's not seeming like a very fast rate, but it's beyond the rate of integer milliseconds and well into the realm where microseconds are a better unit.
---
"So, fine. Microseconds can make sense. Why nanoseconds, then?"
With nanosecond resolution, it may be possible to go beyond clocking individual scanlines and can clock individual pixels instead.
"But seriously. Nanoseconds?"
Sure. Why not?
Maybe we can eventually get to the point where all this latency malarkey that got introduced with the transition from analog to digital signalling just ceases to matter. We didn't need framebuffers or jitter control or anything like that in strictly-analog world. That wasn't an issue at all.
Analog signals went in one end, and came out the other without any deliberate delay. Signals were switched and mixed without delay. Overlay graphics were inserted without delaying the signal they were overlaid upon. The (limited) processing we had occurred without delay. There was no frame judder because there wasn't enough complexity to introduce frame judder. We didn't have to consolidate different system latencies because we didn't have system latencies to consolidate. It was a simpler time.
With tight-enough clocks, perhaps we can get back to that kind of simple flow while maintaining the rote precision of working in digital number-land.
> There's no one person that knows everything about (say) modern food production
True, but it is possible to assemble a team of people that does, with backup for each person. There's also teachers and written knowledge to educate new team members. That's what makes it resilient.
I think that's a very different situation from what's decribed.
Agreed, the food production analogy doesn't really work because the issue is the scale of the problem. On the one end there's the realm where you need a few specialists and a small group could potentially figure the entire thing out from scratch given a bit of time and effort. And then at the opposite extreme there's the realm where everything is built on a giant pyramid of artifacts that currently work, just keeping each individual piece running day to day requires a dedicated expert, and the combined stack took hundreds or thousands of lifetime equivalents to develop.
The idea being that once a toolchain becomes sufficiently complex if you ever have to bootstrap it again for whatever reason you won't be able to speedrun the process the way you might naively expect. I think modern chip production likely already reached this point several decades ago. As evidence I'll point out that China only recently achieved EUV and remains several nodes behind despite directing an obscene amount of resources towards the initiative.
Speaking of pyramid (shapes), this reminds me of an idea in Robert Silverberg's Majipoor series - there's a 30-mile high mountain with populated cities all the way up to the top whose weather and temperature is controlled by 8,000-year-old-tech established by the original colonizers. My memory is that nobody at the time of the series' events knows how to operate the tech - it just works.
People lump them together because of an anti-technology reputation, but I don't think most Amish would have trucked with Luddites. Amish tend to avoid actively participating in popular social movements, and oppose violence and property destruction.
The horizon at sea level is about 3 miles. The strait of Hormuz is 35+ miles wide. Any mechanism used to get around this would be detectable and could be attacked with relatively inexpensive ordinance.
reply