I've driven one. Zipcar UK (RIP!) had a few Fiat 500 Hybrids and I ended up with one once when every other nearby Zipcar was booked and I had a last minute need for a car.
Given they are a relatively gutless car to begin with (1 litre 3 cylinder 70hp tinpot engine) I did wonder what the zigzag/lightning icon was on the dash so I googled it.
Turns out the system uses a 11Ah lithium battery that lives under the driver/passenger seat that charges through regenerative braking. It gives a small boost during acceleration (mostly at low speeds so it's more for stop-start urban driving), I think it's not much more than a glorified belt around the crankshaft giving a few extra hp.
No appreciable benefit to it that I could feel, but if it's helping us burn fewer dinosaurs then that's all good. (It's still a car but much better than a massive wankpanzer.)
Those algorithms may not be doing any pairwise comparisons (e.g. between elements being sorted) but they still do plenty of comparisons.
And some of the algorithms, as described, still end up doing pairwise comparisons in all-but-optimal cases.
(Bucket sort requires items that end up in the same bucket to be sorted. This doesn't happen automatically via the algorithm as stated. Radix sort requires the items at each "level" to be sorted. Neither algorithm specifies how this should be done without pairwise comparisons.)
Counting Sort does work without pairwise comparisons, but is only efficient for small ranges of values, and if that's the case then it's obvious you don't need to apply a traditional sort if the number of elements greatly outnumbers the number of possible values.
Also, the algorithms still require some form of comparisons, just not pairwise comparisons.
> All other people live in the real world, and care about real-world performance, and modern computer scientists know that.
Yes, completely agree with that, but traditional "Comp Sci" is built on small building blocks of counting "comparisons" or "memory accesses". It's not designed to analyse prospective performance given modern processors with L1/L2/L3 caches, branch prediction, SIMD instructions, etc.
The classical canonical Comp Sci algorithms are effectively "designed" for CPUs with no parallelism (either across multiple cores, via Hyper-threading technology, or "just" SIMD style instructions), and also where all memory accesses take the same amount of time (so no concept of L1/L2/L3/etc caches of varying latencies). And all working on general/random data.
As soon as you move away from either (or both) of these assumptions then there are likely to be many tweaks you can make to get better performance.
What the classical algorithms do offer is a very good starting point for developing a more optimal/efficient solution once you know more about the specific shape of data or quirks/features of a specific CPU.
When you start to get at the pointy end of optimising things then you generally end up looking at how the data is stored and accessed in memory, and whether any changes you can make to improve this don't hurt things further down the line. In a job many many years ago I remember someone who spent way too long optimising a specific part of some code only to find that the overall application ran slower as the optimisations meant that a lot more information needed later on had been evicted from the cache.
It’s nothing to do with the manufacturer. I have 3 Filco Majestouch TKL keyboards, all with Cherry MX “silent” Red switches. They are quiet in and of themselves.
The only noise from them is if I bang away at them too hard, which is generally a sign that I’m frustrated and need to go for a walk. (It’s mostly my wife or kid who point out I’m being too noisy, and they are right 99% of the time.)
Sad to see Filco go. I’ll keep an eye on eBay for any bargains to keep a spare of two.
I wondered if you could sneak in some unicode digit but it seems to reject those too:
$ go run z.go
# command-line-arguments
./z.go:6:2: identifier cannot begin with digit U+0661 '١'
./z.go:7:27: identifier cannot begin with digit U+0661 '١'
> The other one was the time I was speaking to my brother in law, who had just paved his driveway, he said "I could have used airport grade tar, but thought it was too much" and we were in front of his Nest security cam is the only thing I can think of, but the very next morning, I'm scrolling through Facebook, and sure enough, someone local is advertising airport grade tar. Why? I didn't google this, I only heard it from them.
Option A: The Nest camera not only listened to the conversation and picked out "Airport Grade Tar" and decided it needed to show adverts about it to people, but the camera also identified you to the point it could isolate your FB account in order to serve you those adverts.
(I'm making some assumptions but...)
Option B: Your brother had done various searches for airport grade tar from his home (in order to know how expensive it was). You, whilst visiting his home, were on his Wifi and therefore shared the same external IP address, your phone did enough activity whilst at his house (FB app checked in to their servers in the background, or used Messenger, etc) to get the "thinking of buying airport grade tar" associated with his external IP address associated with your FB account that was temporarily on that IP.
I had a friend who was convinced that some device in his house was listening in on his conversations with his wife as he kept on getting adverts for things they'd been talking about buying the day before but he hadn't searched for. (But she was searching for it from their home wifi, which is why it appeared in his adverts afterwards.)
Option C: no cameras or crude wifi tracing needed; they know who you talk to / associate with based on location data and the full profile of both sides, and can estimate things like 'will have mentioned X' -> can dispatch that via heuristic like 'show ads for X thing that was also mentioned by someone adjacent on that social graph'.
That is, BiL was marked as 'spreader for airport grade tar' based on recent activity, marked as having been in contact with spreadee, and then spreadee was marked as having received the spreading. P(conversion) high, so the ad is shown.
It's just contact tracing, it works well and is really easy even without literally watching what goes on in interactions.
Some international flights arrive in to domestic US terminals. These are from a limited set of countries where passengers have cleared US immigration in the departure country.
Canada, Ireland and the UAE are the major three, plus Aruba, Barbados and Bermuda.
I would expect that most nations are performing some kind of surveillance like this.
Finding people who serve on carriers shouldn't be difficult. That kind of information can be plastered anywhere over FB or similar. Many of their friends will also be active in similar roles.
Then find associated Strava accounts. Find more friends that way.
The information you can gather is useful on many fronts. Someone does a few runs a week on shore and then suddenly stops? Could be injury, could be that carrier has sailed. Have many of their "friends" who also serve there also stopped logging things on dry land? Do any of them accidentally log a run out in the open ocean? This kind of patchy unreliable information is the mainstay for old-school style espionage.
Strava Labs beta "Flybys" site used to be a great source for stalkers. You could upload a GPS track (which can easily be faked in terms of both location and timestamps) and see who was running/riding/etc nearby around that same time. The outcry was enough that it was switched to being opt-in (in 2020 I think) but for a while all of the data was laid bare for people to trawl and misuse.
Given they are a relatively gutless car to begin with (1 litre 3 cylinder 70hp tinpot engine) I did wonder what the zigzag/lightning icon was on the dash so I googled it.
Turns out the system uses a 11Ah lithium battery that lives under the driver/passenger seat that charges through regenerative braking. It gives a small boost during acceleration (mostly at low speeds so it's more for stop-start urban driving), I think it's not much more than a glorified belt around the crankshaft giving a few extra hp.
No appreciable benefit to it that I could feel, but if it's helping us burn fewer dinosaurs then that's all good. (It's still a car but much better than a massive wankpanzer.)
reply