Cooling costs often double your direct energy costs. (Your paying for energy, capital costs, and maintenance on the cooling side.) Your also paying for floor space, network conductivity, and manpower.
For fairly simple organisms we have 'cold booted' DNA and swapped a cells DNA with artificial DNA from a closely related organism and it still worked. So, while humans have a lot of Genetic information I suspect you could get it to work if your willing to accept fairly low success changes.
As to read errors that effectively just a 'mutation' which are generally fairly harmless. If you stay below say 1,000 mutations, which would still take vary high accuracy, you have not significantly reduced your chances for success.
We have the raw data on the actual DNA for several people which is what you need to make a copy. What we don't know is what the data means and what all the mutations are in the wild. Which is what you want to know if we are going to start making changes.
Actually we don't have the full DNA sequence for any human. For example, if you look at the data from say the Genome Reference Consortium the first 10,000 bases on Chromosome are designated as N - unknown.
True that we don't have a full sequence, but that's not the best example. The telomeres (ends) consist of the same set of bases repeated thousands of times. Recent research suggests that the length is probably super important. We're good at approximating length, but not detecting exactly.
There are a bunch of regions of 'N' in the reference sequence, most are just repeats.
The genome is incredibly complex, and yes, much we still can't represent accurately. As one example, some genes are given a location in the reference genome, while every person actually has multiple copies that are scattered across the genome.
Cool, but assumes all words have an even probability.
Vs a week player the ideal word list should only include 'common' words.
Vs an ideal player you need to assume they will pick from the list of words that you least likely to guess using optimum play.
Generically, optimum play ends up with a somewhat random list, aka 90% of the time pick E, 10% of the time pick I etc.
PS: Actually generating this list is a 'hard' problem and vary dictionary dependent, but you can probably get reasonably close using some sort of genetic algorithm and a enough simulation time.
> PS: Actually generating this list is a 'hard' problem and very dictionary dependent, but you can probably get reasonably close using some sort of genetic algorithm and a enough simulation time.
Sounds like a challenge. I don't think, given a dictionary, finding the ideal strategy for both parties will be that challenging. It's a fairly straightforward two person zero-sum game. You can either model it assuming hidden information, or concurrent play. (Which is basically the same here.)
As an interesting variation, you might allow the chooser to cheat: I.e. don't make them write down the word in the first place, just require their play to be consistent.
I think maintenance costs / downtime is also a big factor. With robots most failures simply reduce throughput but with conveyor belts you risk shutting down sections of the warehouse when something breaks or needs to be repaired. On the other hand you can order a few extra robots and swap then out for maintenance.
As to energy costs, moving a shelf a at most 1/2 mile at low speeds on a level floor using electric motors probably uses less energy than you might think. Don't forget human pickers are say 150lb people walking up and down the same isles and they use about 150-200W to do so. The shelves weigh more (up to 1,000 lb), but you can a turn off most of the lights and electric motors are more efficient than walking. Assuming it's 400W a robot that's around 4 cents an hour per robot or something like 300$ a year.
Revenue also opens the door for loans which can be a great if dangerous source of funding as you don't give up equity and can still scale slightly ahead of your growth curve.
Great point albeit unexplored by us. Are you talking about loans from traditional banks?
I've perhaps unfairly assumed traditional banks won't fund SaaS companies because of unfamiliarity with non-asset intensive businesses. Or that they'd require me to put up my house, wife and child as a personal guarantee?
Yep, traditional banks. As long as the revenue is stable enough you don't need a personal guarantee from a traditional bank. They can be just as intrusive as other investors and even require thinks like the company take out life insurance on key employees. But it is a real option you may want to look into.
Another option many small companies don't consider is net 30 - 60 day payments from key suppliers. You generally get a grace period after an initial bill and can often work out a deal where you either have say 45 days to pay while still being considered current OR get a discount if you pay within a week of getting a bill.
One company I worked with had the equivalent of a 60k loan from CDW due to the rate they where buying equipment plus the grace period.
The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy gave the most succinct advice for how to fly. You fall down and miss the ground.
The upon reading this and in the absence of any native examples of flying animals the pelzo decided to directly follow this grand advice. After 100 billion attempts, over a billion broken bones, and hundreds of millions of deaths the great zaxuvex finally discovered that the correct way to do so is to reach orbital velocity above the atmosphere in a space ship that provides an internal atmosphere, comfortable temperature, shielding from harmful radiation, chemical rockets to slow down, AND most importantly a heat shield and parachute for reentry. Two weeks later a vising dignitary introduced the idea for wings which was was deemed heretical and started the 42 great war.
PS: If your 'training courses' don't provide enough information to actually implement your process in the real world then it's practicably worthless.
Local Monopolies have little incentive to improve their infrastructure. When you enable them to charge premiums for degrading existing service to carve out 'bandwidth' for premium service everyone looses so they can make a higher profit from the same crappy service.
Bandwidth is cheap. The bandwidth to give everyone in a mid sized city 100mb internet access costs around 20$/person a month + the cost of the wires. So, if Comcast provides 5mb internet for X$ they can make money providing 100mb for X + 20$. Yet, they want to both charge 3+ times that AND make money on side deals AND keep their local monopoly.
Now, latency is a slightly different issue. I would suggest that it's reasonable to either run an extra line OR host some servers locally to deal with that. But, assuming you have a sane network topology there are vary few cases where latency is actually important. Yet, if Comcast sees an opportunity to profit from the latency game they will do so. They already provide crappy DNS service to slow people down just think what they will do if they think latency is the path to extra profit.
PS: You could replace Comcast with Cox and probably just about any other local cable company and say the same things. But, I just happen to know more about Comcast and they are in the article so I stick with them.
I do not want to be in the position of defending Comcast (who I hate with fiery passion), but that sounds a bit like arguing that the cost of manufacturing an Adobe Photoshop disc is relevant to how much it can or should cost.
Talking with friends in the that work at backbone companies. One of the funny stories I remember is the sales people having issues making sure that they actually charged more money for higher bandwidth connections due to some internal issues they almost set the prices for OC-12 lines (622 megabits) below that of OC-3 lines (155 megabits). As I understand it internally OC-3 lines where costing them slightly them more to deploy at the time.
Now, latency is a slightly different issue. I would suggest that it's reasonable to either run an extra line OR host some servers locally to deal with that.
How does running an extra line lower your latency? I think you're confusing bandwidth and latency here. Latency would involve replacing your line with better infrastructure (small impact) or changing the route your packets would tend to take to one with fewer hops and shorter distances (big impact).
If your latency is generally a combination of # of routers, physical path, and network congestion between you and the destination. Locally number of hops dominates the latency. So if the old path is comcast > Level 3 > google then running a comcast > google line will lower your latency by removing Level 3's routers and probably proving a shorter path.
Bandwidth isn't literally width like a pipe of water. It is linespeed. That is why higher quality cables have higher bandwidth, even though packet transmission is completely serial. "wdth" is an illusion created by time division multiplexing, like multitasking/multithreading on a PC.
This isn't always true because time isn't the only multiplexing strategy used. For instance, modern cable modems use code-division multiplexing, and fiber optic communications typically uses a variant of wavelength-division multiplexing. In both of the later cases, there is actually simultaneous transmission.
Sure, but as someone on salary I tend to find disposable income and then calculate that spread evenly over time. AKA I have 1,000$ this month to spend however I like that's 1000/31 = 32$ a day or 1.30$ an hour.
I do this because I can't work more hours to make up for extra spending I can only wait till more money shows up.
Google does give up on determinism when they can. Search is a great example, ask 1,000 machines to give their top 10 results and if 5 don't respond in time your still 99.5% sure that the top result is still the 'best' one. And even if you did lose your best result changes are the rest of the list is still going to be good enough.
