Isn't that a solved problem since like the early 70s? Even computing power is not a limiting factor now, only those pesky humans bickering about "central planning" and "democratization".
Put in the time windows, put the capacity limits, put the pickup and delivery (this isn't same as just delivery).
It's far from solved, and far from efficient. Field isn't even mature as theoretical computer science, not even rigorous enough :D
You have papers talking about their newest hybrid genetic memetic evolutionary deep simulated annealing bullcrap algorithm getting hundreds of citations.
You have services like Routific, Routyn, Viamente, WorkWave, and others struggling with it. No one in this world has the technology powerful enough to optimize at scale.
Example. WorkWave is talking about exploiting 45Billion dollar market of optimizing thousands of technicians and their routes, but they can't even scale that on a daily basis for large number of delivery points, given how slow their optimization engine is. Same goes for every service mentioned above. Oh yeah, WorkWave bought Viamente for $4M, that's how much their tech was worth. Seems a little bit low for something that could attack the 45Billion market.
I have not stumbled upon a single one in the last 10 years that has any potential. All are leeching or would like to leech the big companies that can afford a 1 day waiting time for optimization. UPS seems to be all happy about its routing engine, but they too are being weird about it, if it's good then show it.
Someone who solves this for Uber will definitely get its first billion.
This would be a huge engineering effort since the problem is NP-hard :D
That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US.
It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people working in the US.
US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science majors, historians, spanish/english/lang language teachers, philosophers, artists and bunch of other social scientists know much about nothing - maybe it says something about our national universities, maybe about these science areas as a whole, who knows. But for some reason they think they are capable of having a career in politics, and it works.
That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US.
It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap
EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people
working in the US.
US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my
country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science
majors, historians, spanish/english/lang language teachers,
philosophers, artists and bunch of other social scientists know much
about nothing - maybe it says something about our national universities,
maybe about these science areas as a whole, who knows. But for some
reason they think they are capable of having a career in politics, and
it works.
Eh? Did you read the article?
It states that the US has more stringent and complete controls on net neutrality than the EU. The EU has loopholes, therefore less controlling and protectionist (consumer) than the US.
If you want to take corporate advantage of lax net neutrality protection laws, then you are better off utilising "ruthless capitalism" in the EU (for this particular instance), and not in the US.
If you operate an independent Office of a foreign company in Germany (what your suggestion boils down to) you have to abide by almost the same laws that would apply if you had been incorporated in Germany. I assume it's the same in most other countries. Only huge companies can get around this by operating in many different countries and actually having employees in each of those.
You don't have to. You have an office in Germany, you work for the office in the US. Both companies are entirely unrelated, only thing that bonds them is a contract for doing the work. You are outsourcing the stuff from US company to yourself in Germany.
What US company is selling, or doing, isn't something EU would control.
Disclaimer: I'm a physicist but have no expertise in solid state physics. I remember when the whole high-Tc thing started. My recollection is that the discovery broke what was at the time considered to be the mainstream understanding of superconductivity. And, a more comprehensive and satisfactory theory has not yet emerged. As a result, we're in a sort of tortoise-and-hare race between theory and experiment, where each one advances a bit when the other one catches up and makes a new discovery.
Disclaimer: I'm (technically) an engineer, not a physicist, but I took a course on this back in uni, and as far as I can remember, you're correct. The gist of it is that BCS theory, which satisfactorily explains conventional superconductivity, fails to predict the behaviour of high-temperature superconductors, and there simply isn't a better model available at the moment.
For any sane individuals reading this, the answer is "We're trying really hard but so far we haven't been able to deduce a formula for the highest temperature."
I'm not very optimistic with regards to this ever happening. I remember reading a paper regarding one of the many high-temperature superconductors, BSCCO; it has a crazy crystaline structure, it's quite unlikely that we'll ever come up with an analytical model describing its superconductive behaviour.
>we're in a sort of tortoise-and-hare race between theory and experiment, where each one advances a bit when the other one catches up and makes a new discovery.
Realize that framing your daughters behavior by giving her babies, princesses, dolls, makeup, clothes and similar to play with, while your boy gets the newest action games, puzzles, balls, competitive and brain engaging fun, will definitely influence her future career choices.
When you take your daughter to look at some princess movies, or some toy story thingy, while you watch star wars and star trek with your son, long into the night, think of what kind of framing is done.
Of course, even if you try to keep all the options open. Someone from her school might make your daughter do "girls only" activities. Or maybe she'll be forbidden from accessing the Star Wars room at Legoland because she's a girl. Whole world is against your little girl becoming like a man. She needs babies so she knows she has to be a mother. She needs kitchen games so she knows she has to cook. She needs to play with dolls, to groom them, to dress them, so that she eventually does the same for herself. She needs to be pretty, and by pretty we mean makeup.
If someone is naive enough to believe that boys and girls have innately different interests, then so be it.
But girls ain't "gurls" because they don't like technology.
Before someone jumps in with the notion that monkeys have culture too, it should be noted that monkeys have not developed the wheel. Thus, they are unlikely to have defined gender roles for wheeled toys.
Please use care when dealing with the girls in your life. I know plenty of girls who want to build robots out of the pink legos. Or treat clothing with rules remarkably similar to programming. Please avoid preaching to these girls that they have to throw a ball or play action games to avoid limiting their career choices.
I've met a number of people who espouse views similar to yours. You believe you're sticking up for girls, but all the kids hear is that girly stuff is 'bad' and boy stuff is 'good'. Someday you might know a girl who really just wants to take care of babies. Do you think she is entitled to have that view? How would she take comments like yours? Will she think that because her goals are 'bad' that she is 'bad'. How would a boy who wants to take care of babies react when everyone sees baby toys as lesser? Do you think they will feel free to be more feminine? Or pressured to conform even further. You're reinforcing what you believe you oppose.
I'm just saying that there's crazy amount of conditioning here, and that people might unconsciously make choices for their daughters that will lead them to a very different life.
I am also saying that there's crazy amount of pressure from kindergarten teachers, and who knows what other environments.
> Do you think she is entitled to have that view? How would she take comments like yours?
My comment was pretty much black&white. I'm not advocating pressure. I'm painting my views this simple to evoke questioning of one's choices regarding raising children.
Realistically, women do not go into tech do to tech looking unattractive to women. Women find this men dominant field unattractive for reasons that are mostly based on early conditioning.
It's not that they are incompetent, they just do not try.
> people might unconsciously make choices for their daughters that will lead them to a very different life.
Do you think that life will be worse than if their upbringing was optimized to turn them into engineers? Playing devil's advocate... traditional gender roles must hold some value otherwise people wouldn't adhere to them. There are also many women who enjoy what would be considered a traditional role. I think this push to get women into tech at all costs is stealing quite a bit of agency from people who are exerting their free will (both in career choice and child raising technique).
If you believe I'm advocating for women being raised to become engineers then you and everyone else who downvotes me is silly.
I'm talking about gender roles. They are here, they aren't changing, and no, you cannot do anything about women equity in tech without changing the values that are ingrained in human culture.
> They are here, they aren't changing, and no, you cannot do anything about women equity in tech without changing the values that are ingrained in human culture.
It does sound like you are advocating for changing traditional gender roles. Maybe you think there are other benefits to doing that beyond increasing tech adoption for women? All I'm saying is that there are positives associated with existing gender roles and working so hard to change them while ignoring the negatives that will come about doesn't seem wise.
I'm not really sure how a study about monkeys has any relevance to whether humans have engrained gender roles. People are cognitively far more complex and nature vs. nurture when it comes to gender is not really as decided as it might seem.
Surprisingly that might work - "Several animal studies have shown that hormonal manipulation can reverse sex-typed behavior. When researchers exposed female rhesus monkeys to male hormones prenatally, these females later displayed male-like levels of rough-and-tumble play."
How does Star Wars prepare you do be a programmer, and watching a princess movies does not? I don't recall any programming scenes in Star Wars? And all those movies are made with computers. Girls tend to be encouraged to lots of creative activity which could also come in handy with computer jobs. They also do well in maths at schools (better than boys, apparently).
It's a tiny bit janky on my macbook in Chrome (Canary), and runs like dog on Firefox (Nightly). Not that I care at all - the article is excellent and informative.
But it highlights one of the thing people forget when their language gets a JavaScript compiler: your render target is now the DOM, so you have to start caring/learning about that cross-browser world of pain!
The situation gets even more extreme when you consider FPGAs. Having done Mandelbrot set as a toy example, it worked faster than a graphics card at producing high-resolution images and zooms.
Yeah, not all features of C++ are for students. But writing highly efficient code if one's aware of the copy-move semantics is almost straightforward.
I can't remember when some larger projects rewritten in C++ turned out to be slower. Build tools, developing tools are superior to those 10 years ago, and the compiler(s) is still the best optimizer there is for production code.
Working in C++ today is easy. I sometimes feel a bit strange when I find that I'm oblivious about some hardships C++ developers had in the past, and today I didn't even know you can do it the hard way.
These big engineering projects always leave me with feelings of awe.
It so interesting to look at the shape of the coil, nothing regular. Shapes optimized by a super computer, who knows what algorithms they've used there, what kind of search was it, how many parameters, how long did the simulation last.
I'm always amazed and impressed by the people who work on these giant projects. To do all that engineering without really knowing if it'll even work in the end must require a huge amount of confidence in both yourself and the rest of the team.
Furthermore, if the technology works eventually, you may already be retired (if not passed away!)
In my opinion, the motivation rather comes from the fascinating scientific questions behind those projects. Whether it works as an industry may be "just a plus".
Disclaimer: did a phd in tokamaks / experimental data crunching
Maybe this is pedantic but it does look like it has fivefold rotational symmetry, which makes it a lot more regular than a typical car body, for example. Still, complex geometry.
Yeah, it was probably something symmetrical in the laws that allowed them to simulate only single part of the coil - saving the computing time and lowering the search space, stacking up resulted in full coil.
I'm not sure about the laws you refer to. It seems to me that the constraint is that for a twisting ribbon-like plasma they had to have an integral number of twists or half twists in a complete circuit, not twisting too sharply, not too gradually.
