They've extended their range, so there's lots of cases where they don't have wild ones around, but there's still overlap, at least according to the article I read.
1. M. Ibericus queen + no male (unfertilized egg) -> M. Ibericus male.
2. M. Ibericus queen + M. Ibericus male -> M. Ibericus queen
3. M. Ibericus queen + M. Structor male -> M. Structor male, no genes from the mother
4. M. Ibericus queen + M. Structor male -> M. Structor/Ibericus hybrid female, (worker ant, infertile)
The authors tried to find evidence of gene flow between the domesticated messor drones and the wild messor populations, but couldn’t. They sequenced about 100 ants, so it was not an exhaustive search. However if it was common you would have expected to see it.
The water (heat) leaking out is what you need to add back. As water level drops (hotend cools) the leaking will slow. So any replenishing means more leakage then you are eventually paying for by adding more water (heat) in.
You can stipulate conditions to make the solution work out in either direction.
Suppose the bucket is the size of lake, and the leak is so miniscule that it takes many centuries to detect any loss. And also I need to keep the bucket full for a microsecond. In this case it is better to keep the bucket full, than to let it drain.
Now suppose the bucket is made out of chain-link and any water you put into it immediately falls out. The level is simply the amount of water that happens to be passing through at that moment. And also the next time I need the bucket full is after one century. Well in that case, it would be wasteful to be dumping water through this bucket for a century.
All heat that is lost must be replaced (we must input enough heat that the device returns to T_initial)
Hotter objects lose heat faster, so the longer we delay restoring temperature (for a fixed resume time) the less heat is lost that will need replacement.
Hotter objects require more energy to add another unit of heat, so the cooler we allow the device to get before re-heating (again, resume time is fixed) the more efficient our heating can be.
There is no countervailing effect to balance, preemptive heating of a device before the last possible moment is pure waste no matter the conditions (although the amount of waste will vary a lot, it will always be a positive number)
Even turning the heater off for a millisecond is a net gain.
Does it depend on whether you know in advance _when_ you need it back at the hot temperature?
If you don’t think ahead and simply switch the heater back on when you need it, then you need the heater on for_longer_.
That means you have to pay back the energy you lost, but also the energy you lose during the reheating process. Maybe that’s the countervailing effect?
> Hotter objects require more energy to add another unit of heat
Not sure about this. A unit of heat is a unit energy, right? Maybe you were thinking of entropy?
Yes it is exactly what we think is causing it. Students use LLMs to get 10/10 in assignments so they don't learn 'the thing' and they tank on the big-closed-books-non-LLM-exams.
BUT (apologies for the caps), back in the day we didn't have calculators and now we do. And perhaps the next phase in academia is "solve this problem with the LLM of your choice - you can only use the free versions of LLAMA vX.Y, ChatGTP vA.B, etc. - no paid subscriptions allowed" (in the same spirit that for some exams you can use the simple calculator and not the scientific one). Because if they don't do it, they (academia/universities) will lose/bleed out even more credibility/students/participation.
The world is changing. Some 'parts' are lagging. Academia is 5 years behind (companies paying them for projects help though), Politicians are 10-15 years behind (because the 'donors' (aka bribers) prefer a wild-wild-west for a few years before rights are protected. (Case and point writers/actors applying a lot of pressure when they realized that politicians won't do anything until cornered)
Calculators replaced books of look up tables and slide rules. As tools they're not really replacing thinking. They help calculate the result but not make good decisions about what to calculate.
LLMs are replacing thinking and for students the need to even know the basics. From the perspective of an academic program if they're stopping the students learning the materials they're actively harmful.
If you're saying that LLMs obviate the need to understand the basics I think that's dangerously wrong. You still need a human in the loop capable of understanding whether the output is good or bad.
When you need to calculate a square root of 12.345 during a physics exam, professor doesn't care that you use a calculator, because the exam doesn't test your calculating ability. But it does test your knowledge of physics. What is the point of allowing LLM use during such a test?
If you plot pixels per degree over the field of view of a fisheye lens you will see that vastly more pixels are dedicated to the center "eye". And also the field of view is large. Which is what this novel lens claims to also do.
It might be like that - but there are other options as well.
There are companies that make stereo lenses, capturing two images side-by-side on a single sensor, for people who want to take 3D photos on their interchangeable-lens cameras. And there are "anamorphic" lenses that squeeze things horizontally but not vertically - in digital terms, producing non-square pixels. Very popular in films in the 70s and 80s. And when it comes to corrective glasses, bifocal and varifocal/progressive lenses are another common type of lens providing variable optical properties.
Self-driving cars need to deal with both "stopped at a crosswalk, are there pedestrians?" (which needs a wide view) and "driving at 70mph, stopping distance about 300 feet, what's that thing 300 feet away?" (which needs a zoomed in view)
If you look at https://www.pexels.com/photo/city-street-in-fisheye-16209078... for example - it's wide (which is good) but the details at 300 feet ahead aren't winning any prizes. Far more pixels are wasted on useless sky than are used on the road ahead.
No it is not destructive, math-wise the transformation is bidirectional and can be used many times without any detail losses. The problem is sampling by the image sensor, some pixels endup with larger fiel-of-view than others, so reconstructed flat image of fractions of the fisheye would have different sharpness over the frame.
So it is destructive in a practical sense. You still need a generative process to fix the "sharpness problems" otherwise you will get a blurred halo after you deconvolve it.
Agree. This text relies heavily on traditional mathematics to define and work through things. It's quite good at that! But it does become weird when it starts out by declaring that it won't do what it then does.
I thought the same, screamed out "ouch that doesn't look good!" right before the catch.
The last part of the live stream they showed footage from a different angle and there it didn't look too bad though! For sure controlled.
Scott Manley put out a tweet that they went down towards a non-tower position until they were at three engine controlled burn, and only then did the side shift.
