Chemical engineering is mostly about 'plumbing' - pipes, tanks, valves, etc. Fluid dynamics. It's much closer to physics than chemistry most of the time from what I understand.
Chemistry doesn't have the same stereotypical relationship to engineering that physics does.
(This comment is based on what these terms mean in the UK at an undergraduate degree level. I'm an electronics engineer and I know a couple people who studied chemical engineering. If the terms mean something different elsewhere in the world I'd love to know :) )
Yes, hundreds, many of which are now being 'reinvented' or 'rediscovered'. Time to figure out how to persuade investors to get on board - processor architecture isn't one of their fads at the moment.
On the 40th anniversary of Inmos, creators of Transputer, we filmed this set of talks discussing the legacy and impact of Inmos in Bristol, UK. You'll find some fun insight into Inmos and the transputer in some of the longer talks.
No signup needed, just change your user agent to "Googlebot" :)
>“Moore’s ‘law’ came to an end over 20 years ago,” says David May, professor of Computer Science at Bristol University and lead architect of the influential "transputer" chip. “Only the massive growth of the PC market then the smartphone market made it possible to invest enough to sustain it.
>“There’s now an opportunity for new approaches both to software and to processor architecture. And there are plenty of ideas – some of them have been waiting for 25 years. This presents a great opportunity for innovators – and for investors.”
This article is mostly hype and hyperbole it seems to me. A quick source check (note: not a fact check by any means!) of just some of the stats in the article show how badly they've misquoted.
It claims '40% of American workers will be freelancers by 2020' as a key point - appears to not be true and is an incorrect quote.
I found the original Intuit report that this claim was based off.
The report's actual claim was 40% of workers will be 'contingent workers' by 2020. The definition provided is 'freelancers, temps, part-time workers, contractors and
other specialists'.
That is a lot more than just freelancers and includes many people who have no need of a desk in a freelancer/coworking space.
20,000 coworking spaces worldwide today doesn't sound like that many, but the problem doesn't seem to be as big as CNBC thinks it is (or even the article they're referencing which itself misquoted the stats). So much for checking sources...
"71% of WeWork members were corporate full-timers at companies that were either located in a WeWork office or used WeWork to house their remote teams"
Is another example of hype. The source article linked to merely says "Seventy-one percent worked full-time for companies that are either located in a WeWork office or use WeWork for remote individuals and teams."
Sounds a lot less dramatic - because it is. You'd probably expect most to be working for companies, especially if they're startups or one/two employee contracting outfits etc. They're not all big corps using the space for cheap space and evil things :p
Master should now be stable such that the console appears and you can type into it. You should also be able to Alt+Tab between the two shells.
Please note though, the codebase has been being transformed for the past 2 months and there's more work still to do which means most of the disk, file system and PCI stuff is unstable (related commands will cause the OS to freeze, crash or similar). We expect to be back to full functionality by March.
This is an interesting issue - how people interpet the name seems to come out 50/50 between "OS for learning OS dev" and "OS for educational content". In my experience, people's backgrounds are the biggest factor affecting which they think of.
We're reluctant to go with "model" OS or similar because we're not actually implementing anything like an ideal OS - we don't use optimised algorithms for example. The idea being that you can learn/teach the OS concept using a simple implementation (and readable code) and then students/developers can optimise as an exercise/extension/for a real OS. So it's not a "model" OS but is an "example" OS to use to teach the key concepts.
Unfortunately, "example" OS leads people to think our OS is practical as a basis for a real OS, which it isn't and we don't want to give the impression we're trying to rival Linux/Windows/OSX/etc. No name seems to give a universally correct and good first impression!
As someone who has taken an advanced OS class that involves implementing portions of such an educational / teaching OS, I also perceive "educational" to mean "for learning OS dev".
The other side of the spectrum for me is "research" and "proof of concept" OSes though - like House (written in Haskell) or Singularity and Midori.
Chemistry doesn't have the same stereotypical relationship to engineering that physics does.
(This comment is based on what these terms mean in the UK at an undergraduate degree level. I'm an electronics engineer and I know a couple people who studied chemical engineering. If the terms mean something different elsewhere in the world I'd love to know :) )