So you’re wanting to bet that we’ll get humanoid robots capable of driving a dumb car at L4 before we get cars capable of L5? When we have no humanoid robots driving cars, and many L4 cars driving around? I’ll take that!
The theistic schism? I had to look it up, and was not cleverer after. Nobody can ever know an ultimate why, for obvious and well established philosophical reasons. At least the scientists are trying to squeeze the knowledge gap down as small as possible instead of making up stories.
> Nobody can ever know an ultimate why, for obvious and well established philosophical reasons
Yes we can, you are just presupposing that philosophy is ultimately ineffective. For example Hegel gave a presuppositionless development of all metaphysics among other things. It’s not some kind of philosophical consensus that ultimate justification is impossible
Fractal Patterns in Reasoning – David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg
Abstract This paper is the third and final one in a sequence of three. All three papers emphasize that a proposition can be justified by an infinite regress, on condition that epistemic justification is interpreted probabilistically. The first two papers showed this for one-dimensional chains and for one-dimensional loops of propositions, each proposition being justified probabilistically by its precursor. In the present paper we consider the more complicated case of two-dimensional nets, where each ‘child’ proposition is probabilistically justified by two ‘parent’ propositions. Surprisingly, it turns out that probabilistic justification in two dimensions takes on the form of Mandelbrot’s iteration. Like so many patterns in nature, probabilistic reasoning might in the end be fractal in character.
Only by embracing solipsism, in which case why are you here debating things, since your entire truth is derivable from your existence alone with no other observations or interactions required?
Interesting word soup. Ultimately, no, you cannot build a valid representation of the universe from nothing and you need observation and validation. You can presupposition whatever you want when you are talking about unproveable models, but it says more about you than the universe. Until we have a reason to think that there is a "why", discussing what it is is completely unnecessary and futile because 1) it does not change anything about our understanding or the predictions we can make, and 2) it is not something we can observe, measure or prove.
Oh it's worse than that, for distribution and playback sampling at more than 48kHz is likely worse in many ways due to unwanted ultrasonic noise and increased intermodulation distortion. 96/24 makes sense for production, and 96/float56 is common in DSP chains.
When the production produces unwanted ultrasonic noise, then that's not a sampling rate problem. It is instead a production problem.
And that's perfectly OK, too: The neat part about having too much data is that other end-users (like you and me) are free to throw it away as expeditiously as we choose to.
To that end: I, for one, welcome our 192kHz overlords. (And then I'll shove it through my hardware DSP that operates at 24-bit 48kHz and fuhgettaboutit.)
I don't LISTEN to music in 192kHz. I listen in 48kHz like everyone else and it sounds perfectly fine. But, I do MIX my music in 192kHz, however, before it's final export to 48kHz. It is about the anti-aliasing principle I described in my post above. But, while I'm mixing my audio clock is at 192kHz, and I can't escape that. Hence I will be looking at how to run this project on a beefier device that could run at 192kHz sample rate.
The analog input will use separate ADC modules, just as the analog output uses separate DACs. DSPi itself is purely digital (OK, excepting the PWM based sub out). These modules are just a few dollars on AliExpress for ~96dB SINAD
We throw away food because we are so good at making it cheaply that the problem has shifted to distribution costs and fair wages. Also high productivity economies need to deal effectively with the Baumol effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect). If they don't then even people in the USA can be food poor despite huge GDP per capita.
You might enjoy the book "Red Plenty" by Francis Spufford, which traces the consequences of this thesis ("Capitalism already is a poor allocator") through the Khrushchev years of the USSR, seen through the eyes of the economists, mathematicians and planners who tried to do better than capitalism.
Of course there are in-between approaches like industrial policy in mixed economies, for example the South Korean shipbuilding industry. But those tend to work with the grain of capitalism, not against it.
Since when were payment networks latency sensitive? It’s usually 2 or more seconds to even get a payment up on the card terminal from the merchant POST system, then 2-5 seconds more from card presentation to getting approval back.
> Since when were payment networks latency sensitive?
Since the advent of e-commerce, POS-networking and fraud detection systems in 1990's-2000's.
User-facing and authorisation path are highly latency sensitive. It includes tap-to-pay, online checkout, issuer authorisation, fraud decisioning, and instant payment confirmation – even moreso for EFT payments.
> […] 2-5 seconds more from card presentation to getting approval back.
This is the mid-1990's level QoS when smaller merchants connected the acquirer bank via a modem connection, and larger ones via ISDN.
Today, payments are nearly instant in most cases, with longer than one-second card payment flows falling into the exceptions territory or inadequate condition of the payment infrastructure.
yeah, if the card is an EMV chip card, and might also have a SVA so everything is handled between the terminal and card, it can be blazingly fast.
In EU they use of offline PIN was used massively before PSD2 and contactless, that made the terminal request during the time it took for validating the transaction online, and basically as soon as the PIN was ok'ed by the card that confirmed the transaction. That gave a perception of speed.
Now it's basically online PIN mostly or contactless, but that means you perceive a "wait for an ok", that you had before but was masked by the PIN capture and check on device/card.
So we went a bit backwards for cards, but wallets like ApplePay went a bit forward. You win some you lose some I guess
It's not simple though. In that 140ms the network is checking fraud rules, validating the card, checking available credit, applying rewards logic, and routing across multiple parties. The actual subtract-one-number-from-another takes microseconds. The rest is trust verification across organizational boundaries — which is the hard part of any payment system.
At best it’s checking available credit. All the other stuff is done after the fact. The idea that any banking transaction involves “subtracting one number from another” is so wrong it’s barely worth engaging with.
>Since when were payment networks latency sensitive?
Apple Pay is extremely fast from my experience (at least the web version). There is a high percentage of market loss if payments take long or fail. Im sure there must be a graph for where it plateaus with diminishing returns when it comes to speed but faster payments definitely help with sales.
reply