The heat is dissipated by radiation, that's why apart of solar panels all sattelites and space stations also have radiators for thermal management. The average space temperature (far away from stars) is 2.7K (the temperature of cosmic microwave background, CMB), so going below that is hard. Sun would heat up a bit Voyager 2 but at 143au it is just 1/143^2 fraction of solar power on Earth orbit, thus 0.0049%, or just 0.067W/m^2, so extra power is needed to maintain electronics operational.
Best case is if gaming and productivity (with high memory use) activities are not concurrent, and productivity applications are stopped before gaming starts, then `swapoff` can easily release swap device without restart.
In our lab tests phase lock jitter between WR client and master is about 10ps (picoseconds) over 50km fiber (with temperature change of the fiber, so WR actively compensates elongations), so relative clock of one system can be transmitted with about that accuracy to another.
P.S. There is WR workshop this week with some talks being publicly available on CERN's indico website.
Even though you're commenting on While Rabbit post, it took some time to understand "WR" is white rabbit, esp. since describing the pico seconds in brackets.
Please comsider adding log-scales to be able to compare related but wastly different in popularity topics. Also would be nice to show one topic versus another to see a correlation.
Rivers (e.g. Mississipi) work with much smaller gradient of just 0.01% [1], while with your assumption it would be 0.25%, so 25x.
Maybe instead it needs to pass under the rivers [2: cross-section] surrounding New-York, which may be much deeper, especially when it comes closer to the bay passing Queens and Brooklyn [2: map]
This piqued my interest, so I checked: Tunnel #3 passes under the Harlem River and then the East River, but the Harlem River is less than 30 feet deep for the most part and the East River is around 40 feet deep at the most.
(The Army Corps of Engineers has great detailed depth surveys for most of NY's waterways[1].)
Edit: There's also a higher-resolution render of the tunnel layout here[2].
As a user of WhiteRabbit, I can confirm a sub-10ps sync (two clocks phase lock) over 50km fiber connection for variable temperature of fiber (biggest problem of clock sync over fibers is temperature induced length change of the fiber itself, which needs to be measured and compensated).
The standards-compliant endpoints do all of the work. They count clock cycles for ping pong messages and share with each other the length of time so time-of-flight is tracked and compensated for.
As of now, for testing, the two WR endpoints are sitting on the same desk with 50km fiber in a thermal chamber (simulating temperature changes in the soil), but in future they will be separated indeed.
Nature (laws of physics) is agains you on this: it is in fact impossible for everyone. What is in sync for some observers can be out of sync for others (depends on where they are, i.e. gravity, and how they relatively move). See general and special relativity principle of simultaneity [1].
I think you just nerd-sniped me but I’m not convinced it’s impossible to assign a consistent ordering to events with relativistic separations.
For starters, the spacetime interval between two events IS a Lorentz invariant quantity. That could probably be used to establish a universal order for timelike separations between events. I suspect that you could use a reference clock, like a pulsar or something to act as an event against which to measure the spacetime interval to other events, and use that for ordering. Any events separated by a light-like interval are essentially simultaneous to all observers under that measure.
The problem comes for events with a space like or light like separation. In that case, the spacetime interval is still conserved, but I’m not sure how you assign order to them. Perhaps the same system works without modification, but I’m not sure.
For any space-like event you can find reference frames where things happen in different order. For the time-like situation you described the order indeed exists within the cone, which is to say that causality exists.
You can still order them with the spacetime interval compared to a reference event, even for space like separated events.
It allows for differing elements of the set to share the same value but so does using time alone. It just also allows every observer to agree on the ordering.
Bc Assigning a distance function to elements of a set is a common way to do that in fact. It doesn’t work with just a time coordinate or space coordinate, because that’s effectively a Euclidean metric.
You just have to contend with a few nonintuitive aspects but it’s not so bad.
I think you meant compared to a reference observer? Events are not really independent of observers. Consider the case in baseball where a runner and the baseman tag the base at the "same" time from opposite sides of the base. Assume they move at equal speeds. If the umpire is closer to the baseman then the baseman has tagged it first, if he is closer to the runner, then the runner has tagged it first. The "event" of "touching the base" has two possible outcomes depending on where the observer stands, and there is no "view from nowhere" or observer-free view that we can reference.
No, I mean a reference event, though you bring up an interesting subtlety. (Essentially I just mean an event that definitely happened [A particle decay, a supernova, an omnidirectional radio signal, etc] which will serve essentially as an origin point on the spacetime manifold). You are right though that technically, we need at least one observer to define the coordinates of that event initially. Once that's done however, ALL observers can order events according to the spacetime interval between any event they observe and the reference point (transformed into their coordinates) and they will ALL agree on that ordering. A "good" event here would be something that observers can compare. I think using pulsar pulses counted from some epoch is a perfectly good reference here, assuming we could communicate that omnidirectionally. The difference, as measured by the spacetime interval, between any event in any observers reference frame, and a reference event in their past lightcones is something that ALL observers that can communicate will always agree on. Observers may disagree about how many pulses have occurred since that epoch at a particular time in their coordinate time, but it doesn't matter. As long as they're comparing in spacetime intervals to a particular count on the pulsar, no disagreement will occur. i.e. the spacetime interval between the 3rd pulse and some event will always be the same since it's a lorentz invariant scalar quantity (i.e. a rank zero tensor).
Your baseball analogy has flaws: No properly defined "event" in spacetime will have dual-outcomes. The events in that case are that "a baseman tagged the base", and "a runner tagged the base". "x tagged the base first" is NOT an event, that's a comparison between events, and it's one that was done in a particular observers time coordinate, which is not the correct procedure here. No Lorentz invariant transformation between observers within the light cone will disagree that those events happened, though observers may disagree which happened first within their coordinate time.
(Note the issue of observers needing to be in the same light-cone is a superficial one. I haven't defined that precisely, but I don't need to: If observers can communicate at all, they will agree, upon communication, that an event is within their past light cone. In the context of server synchronization, this will always be true.)
Actually even within Apple ecosystem not all devices are made equal. MacBooks lack some features available for AirPods Pro on iPhones, e.g. seal check, translation, everything in the "accessibility" category: button press duration settings, single-airpod noise-cancelling, etc.
Android obviously is out of the game totally for AirPods - no spacial audio, no changes of ANC, no battery level, but at least ANC modes can be changed on AirPods directly, and button press works to answer calls, and pause/play audio, and also volume control works.
I'm three-generation Airpods Pro (around 5 years) user on Android and Macbook (no iPhone at all). In first and second generation there was a "bug" (or intentional feature) that even when connected to Android, and not being connected to my Mac, the latter was showing the charge level on both Airpods, but at some point it was removed.
In first and second generation I had an issue with one AirPod making strange noises, in both cases even Apple Support at the Genius Bar didn't know what to make out of it that I don't use AirPods with iPhone, but only with a Mac (and Android).
I would actually consider sticking the opposite "Nuclear power? Yes, please!" (Same for solar, wind, geothermal of course). Is there a sticker for pro-nuclear power movement?
P.S. There's a nice recent video to have a glimpse into nuclear power plant safety in action: https://youtu.be/v0afQ6w3Bjw
