Altera MAX 10 evaluation board is probably one of the cheapest options. You use quartus prime lite to configure it which is free, and better than the equivalent Lattice tools.
I think it has its uses. For example its really handy when changing nappies as my toddler wriggles like crazy and it helps to distract him whilst I getting rid of the poo.
This comment is factually wrong. The airlines did not pay compensation to victims families, Boeing did. Boeing accepted full responsibility for the crash, for providing an unsafe system. Ethiopian airlines did their "due diligence" by purchasing an FAA approved aircraft, by Boeing. They weren't to know that a serious case of regulatory capture was happening.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theguardian.com/bus...
Huh, TIL (and relevant username). Thank you for the correction. I noticed the article says they only admitted fault for the second crash, do you know what happened with the first? Did Boeing admit fault for that too?
Breast cancer isn't political. But there's continuing debate in the US medical establishment over the proper way to screen for it -- how to test, how frequently, at what age range, what constitutes a positive result, and how should the doctor follow up if the test is positive? The recommended answers to these questions seem to change every few years, and the substantiation behind the answers is often inconsistent.
The same issues bedevil prostate cancer screening.
The science is pretty well established on *generalized* breast cancer screening not improving health outcomes despite being costly. (In short: cancer is rare, tests have false positives that trigger biopsies, biopsies are invasive and can be harmful, overall biopsies and pointless surgery on slow growth cancers do as much harm as cancer.)
But since screening has been framed as caring for women, pointing out the flaws with screening is automatically seen as hating women.
While Ronald Reagan was in office, he had a colectomy for a colon tumor in 1985 (turned out it was not cancer) [0], and his wife had a mastectomy for breast cancer in 1987 [1]:
While Reagan did a lot to try to defund cancer research regardless, the first lady's mastectomy drew a lot of attention to a previously taboo topic.
Things like: It's normal to breast feed in public. Or the nation does not go bananas when a nipple is exposed on TV. Or how normal it is to sunbathe topless. Arguably this also relates to how normal it is for kids to walk around naked and families to be naked around each other.
If you're really interested, watch some older Dutch movies to see the normalness of naked, like Turkish Delight [0]. Or even have a closer look at the relation between the Professor and Raquel in the recent Casa the Papel. It's different from US series. More respectful, mature wrt women if you ask me. More emphasis on intelligence. Or on a beautiful woman in her 40s with normal wrinkles. The US, like on many other topics, seems to be polarized, caught between the hyper sexuality of Cardi B and the prude nature of American culture in general.
In particular, the pearl-clutching gender-specific moralising: it is absurd that an organ whose specific purpose is to feed infants by being inserted into their faces is censored specially from minors, whereas the non-functional copy of the organ in men which can’t even do that is apparently acceptable (modulo dress code, weather, etc, but you can walk around or swim or sunbathe topples as man, not as a woman).
Also the largest and best known breast cancer fundraising organization, Susan G Komen, has, in the words of wikipedia, "been mired by controversy over pinkwashing, allocation of research funding, and CEO pay."
I don’t think “political” is meant to mean “controversial” here. There were just some extremely successful awareness campaigns for it in the 80s and 90s (to the point where it’s the stereotypical example of an awareness campaign for many of us), so people care a lot about it.
One thing that will cause mammograms to be political, in several countries, is that there's a difference in perception of the downsides vs upsides of such screening programmes, and we're bad at communicating the trade to a population who lack the statistical literacy to understand it intuitively.
So our best shot from a public health perspective is to say "Here's what we recommend for everybody" and pay for that.
All screening programmes have two difficulties, which must be balanced against the benefit, and this trade is somewhat personal, so when the balance is quite fine the arguments can be vociferous as a result.
1. The screening itself may seem unpleasant. One woman may find it a very mild annoyance, a drive ten minutes out of her way, the staff are very pleasant, the scan itself is far less traumatic than a bra fitting, and she receives easy to understand results after not very long and isn't anxious about them; but for another maybe it's an hour's bus journey to the city hospital, the staff there are short-tempered and say she has the wrong paperwork, then another hour in a queue, she feels like she's just meat, squashed around for the convenience of the machine for what seems like forever, and then after anxiously waiting for what seems to be too long the results are confusing to her and she has to have a friend interpret them.
2. Over-treatment is always a problem. Screening by definition detects something that isn't causing noticeable symptoms. If you have a noticeable lump, or mysterious bleeding, you don't need screening you need a doctor's appointment. So a positive screening result might be nothing important. However either you've now got the burden of a diagnosis you ignored or, you accept the medical advice and are treated, even though it's possible (not likely, but possible) that you would have been just fine without treatment.
So, screening programmes are set up based on guessing how to trade these factors plus a third, how much should we spend on this medical intervention? After all, in some sense every dollar doing breast cancer screening is a dollar you don't have to cure blindness in poor orphans (or of course, to bomb somewhere)
If your experience of a screening programme is that it's a minor inconvenience at most, and yet you know people who died of undetected disease, more screening seems like a no brainer. Particularly if you live somewhere where screening stops at age 50, and somebody you know died of undetected disease aged 54, you might reason that the screening should go to age 55 or 60 to detect such cases, no matter the public cost.
On the other hand if your experience is that it's an awful ordeal even when negative, and you know people who spent their last years horribly scarred by surgery as a result of suspected disease but then they died in their sleep from something else anyway, you may feel that there's already too much screening and it should be trimmed back, not to save money but the extra money for other programmes is welcome.
The other issue is the screening isn't risk free. I don't recall the exact numbers, but for every 3000 cases of breast cancer detected one is in someone who wouldn't have got breast cancer at all if she wouldn't have got all those screenings. It is still worth doing because it saves a lot of lives, but the more you do it the more cases you will cause so you need to find the right balance.
Most women don't get breast cancer, the 1 case in 3000 (again I don't know the exact number, but this is reasonable for range) caused by xrays includes screenings of all women, including those who never get it.
However if you are a doctor trying to figure out how often to screen women, the danger if xrays is a strong reason to not do it too often. Daily screenings would catch breast cancer a lot sooner on average, but just isn't worth the risk even if the screening was otherwise free.
We're not even talking about treatment: just regular screening and detection, the same as you get when you go to your doctor and he sticks a finger up your butt and tells you to cough.
Really. Vacuum casing is not even close to sufficient to set heat absorption to zero because of thermal radiation.
And you can't just make the walls reflective once the cold object gets smaller than the wavelength of the radiation. The colder the object, the longer that wavelength.
The way it works is that the entire assembly is in a vacuum. It kinda has to be as any gas which touches it will instantly condense to it or freeze to it. You then have a dual cryostat of liquid helium and liquid nitrogen cooling down the assembly (within the vacuum). The helium and nitrogen cryostat also have a vacuum shield. The nitrogen (liquid at 77K) is a sacraficial coolant which is far cheaper than liquid helium (liquid at 4K) that you need to get to these temperatures. Your're right that thermal radiation is an issue so you have to be careful with the placement of any windows or mirrors around the device.
Souce. I have a PhD in physics where I used equipment cooled to 4K.
Great, then we both have physics PhDs, and you'll know that none of that equipment has, or easily could be, sufficiently miniaturized, which is the topic of discussion ("extremely small cryocooler"). You can't put nested closed dewers of liquid nitrogen and helium on a O(1 mm^2) microchip, and the reason is exactly what I said: it will warm up too fast.
The topic is cooling small objects so that personal electronics (e.g., your phone) can compete with datacenters. Cold at scale (i.e., in datacenters) is comparatively easy.
Thanks for the resource. I'm pretty sure I used it for some of my simulations of C60 molecules hexagonal packing, during my physics PhD a few years back.
I'm not sure if he's edited his post, but it is extremely rare for students to share rooms at any point of their university life. The closest thing we have is a shared study where two people have their own small sleeping room, but share a space with two desks/chairs. And even that is very uncommon.
