> it was the bioburden load of a media component and water temperature used during compounding.

In English, please ;-)

I put it in AI and even that couldn't fix the sentence sufficiently for me to understand it completely.

"So, in ordinary language:"

"One dirty raw ingredient introduced far more spores than expected, and the way it was mixed into the water made the sterilization cycle less effective against them. The autoclave itself was probably not broken."

"The exact relationship to water temperature remains somewhat ambiguous because the HN commenter did not provide the detailed investigation findings."

To be fair I omitted some key information. The 'dirty raw ingredient' mixed in room-temperature purified water wasn't sterilisable. The same process but mixed in 60°C purified water was sterilisable.

It actually took me a minute to decide whether or not to upvote the AI-content post. But it was informative, you were forthcoming on the origin, and the GP has yet to elaborate. Thank you for posting that.

In their defense, this probably looked really cool in 2000, when this was published (or at least, last updated).

But agreed, that lime green is horrendous.

From 2000.

Posting because he's retiring this year?

Data drift. The data you are doing real world inference on can start changing, meaning your model performance starts degrading, so the model needs to be retrained on new data (that you have to collect and prepare).

Sure, but that apparently only costs $500. If you do that once a month then that's still basically free. Hell if you do it once a week it's still about as much as a single cheap employee.

you missed the parent comment's point that the $500 training run was merely the last step, generating the training data is likely to be significantly more expensive and time-consuming. might still pay for itself, but it's not a trivial "spend $500 every month" decision.

My company wanted me to help them to fine tune a model. I asked them if I were working full time on it, never heard back. $500 is largely the cheapest part of it, but I know from experience, most people are clueless about data.

I worked for a billion+ revenue business where they didn't realize one of their key data hasn't been updated for 2 years, until I join them, and these types of screw up is cross business/functions/entities.

Delightfully cursed.

I wonder how consistent the breakdown voltages are between manufacturers? I mean, I am sure there is some spec, but is it not just a minimum in this case?

While the breakdown voltage of the base-collector junction varies wildly even between transistors of the same type, the breakdown voltage of the base-emitter junction varies very little between planar-epitaxial transistors, because in all such transistors the emitter has the maximum possible doping, which is limited by the solubility in silicon, and the base must also be much more strongly doped than the collector, but much less doped than the emitter, which limits the range of possible dopings. Because in this case the breakdown voltage of the base-emitter junction is determined mainly by the doping of the base, there is little variance between transistor types and between manufacturers.

Typical breakdown voltages for base-emitter junctions are e.g. around 10 volt, while the manufacturers specify breakdown voltages like 7 volt, to have a safety margin.

It's one of those characteristics you can't rely on unless you select / bin parts. Also depends on temperature. Which is why no one does this in a production design - it's expensive and unreliable.

Not a lot of it is unsafe, I think they said 4%?

It's practically impossible to write safe Rust when you are calling external libs written in C/C++, like they do for the Javascript engine.

Sure, but you cordon that stuff off into small, bounded unsafe surfaces. My bet is the new bun is a crashy pile of garbage if they've just translated Zig spaghetti into Rust unsafe spaghetti with an LLM. Hadn't occurred to me.

4% is a lot in my world.

He never said impossible, just hard.

But how is this news? Memory safety bugs are one of (if not the) main source of bugs in C/C++ and also Zig, and Rust's main claim to fame is that it makes it easy to catch these issues at compile time. I feel his criticisms of Zig are fairly uncontroversial.

Memory safety is a source of bugs in languages without garbage collection and/or whatever rust does, however memory safety is not THE source of bugs. If it were then we'd expect code written in JavaScript or Python (memory safe languages) to have zero bugs, and that's definitely NOT the case. When you get the hang of C and C++ memory bugs are not very common compared the normal bugs that all software has. They still can happen but people have gotten the idea that every C program is riddled with them without seeming to realize that code written in C is the foundation for almost everything and has been for a long time. Compilers, operating systems, device drivers, network stacks, core utilities, even games are all written in C or C++ and we are not drowning in killer memory related bugs.

You can also take a Bildungsurlaub (educational leave, 5 days a year or 10 days every two years) and take a German course. For a two week course with private tutoring it's like 1k, which at your income level is not much. A lot of bureaucracy in Germany becomes a lot easier once you get over the B1 hump.

Good point. Will do so as well. I've been using it for about a year now on my NAS. I basically set it and forget it, and it has just worked.

What radar pipelines are you working on (out of pure curiosity here)

Re-writing pretty straightforward weather processing from FPGA to GPU just to kick the tires on mojo