Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | samnardoni's commentslogin

This is known as PNS Syndrome.


RAS (Redundant Acronym Syndrome) syndrome: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome


Hopefully it won’t grow into eTLA acronym.


sync.Map?


Erm, they aren’t going to change the nav data.


Untrue. There's a newer format for NAV data -- CNAV. It's currently broadcast on the L2 and L5 bands, and does indeed include a larger week number field -- 13 bits to be exact.


Well, yes, that's true. But my point was that they aren't going to change the legacy nav data structure.


Maybe there’s a reason this is a “not-mentioned” point.


All GPS satellites are in a geosynchronous orbit.


Citation needed?

You may find this helpful:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....

The nominal GPS configuration consists of a network of 24 satellites in high orbits around the Earth, but up to 30 or so satellites may be on station at any given time. Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (the orbital period is roughly 12 hours - contrary to popular belief, GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous or geostationary orbits). The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time).


No, they are not.


Geosynchronous is the word you’re looking for.


Error in boost/bind.hpp:768


Having a pointer to a stack variable is fine, as long as the stack variable lives longer than the closure.


Right, so your original claim about properly cleaning up is not the only problem with closures in C. There are quite a few hazards actually.


> Right, so your original claim about properly cleaning up is not the only problem with closures in C.

Your comment makes no sense. OP stated that your hypothetical problem isn't even a problem if the developer knows what he is doing, and your take from that is that there are more problems?


The original poster said the trouble was cleaning up after the closure is no longer needed. That's clearly not the case as this thread has covered. I thought the previous poster was the original poster, so just replace "your original claim" with "the original claim".


Why should Rust “just compile this” when it’s clearly bad code?


That animation clearly shows they are geosynchronous?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: