Readit NewsI've never heard of seals doing that kind of training.
[1] https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fj.201...
(The title of the submission is also "Nationwide FAA weather reporting outage")
Yeah, but the title is made up. There is noting in the official report about this being "nationwide".
The report only states that there is a metar outage consisting of 167 stations.
It doesn't provide any context on which stations are missing or how they are distributed.
Adding "nationwide" to the title is pure FUD IMO.
The report is that 167 are missing.
That would be roughly 5% of US stations or 0.2% of worldwide stations.
I was able to look up meters for airports that I'm familiar with. https://www.aviationweather.gov/metar
So, it is real but far from a total collapse of the system.
Braking redundancy will be achieved by having motors/brakes on all four wheels, and within each motor 3 independant phase coils with independant controllers, such that there are effectively 12 brakes on a car. Normally the controllers work together for smooth braking, traction control, software differential, etc. But even after 3+ failures braking performance should still be satisfactory for an emergency stop.
Obviously braking energy needs to go somewhere. In the happy case, it's regen'ed into a battery. If the battery can't accept it, it gets dumped into dump resistors. If the dump resistors fail, it gets dumped into motor coils (of which there are 12 remember). Obviously the motor coils will heat up very fast, so this is probably a one-use-only failsafe, like airbags.
So the whole system (except the pedal itself) is 12 way redundant.
The ability to use the phone or remote to move the car forward or back in a straight line is super useful and a cool, novel feature by itself. It’s also a buggy piece of shit that a few engineers could probably greatly improve in a month. Doesn’t seem like Tesla cares, it’s been stagnant for years.
Meanwhile Tesla is still charging people $10,000 for an FSD function that doesn’t exist.
I once had a coding problem interview where a half of the logic could be handled by an autobalncing tree. I\ve never really used autobalancing trees in real software before, but i knew how to make them from scratch, quickly as RB tree is a very common school problem. I spend twenty minutes choosing between coding one from scratch and picking an already existing solution. I ended up choosing gnl's RB trees, with all the makefile/autoinstall issue that i would have to fix instead. I did not gain any time, really, but i wanted to show i did not suffer the NIH syndrome. Was that a mistake? Should i stay within the stdlib during coding interviews (i don't know if they could run the code, i think the interviewer was running windows)
I would say something like: "I think a balanced tree, such as an rb-tree, would be useful here for <reasons that make sense given the problem and the properties of rb trees>. I've written rb trees before and think I could write a basic one in 10-15 minutes or I could use <class from the std library, which uses a balanced tree>. Which would you prefer?"
Assuming what you said made sense I would take an interaction like that as a positive signal.
This is what we would lose:
https://thedarkroom.com/film-brand/kodak
My team did an integration with Kodak-Alaris a few years back and we toured their main office in Rochester.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Alaris