Single Board Computer. Yes, it might help to explain such acronyms in the article. And yes, if you think the name is slightly misleading, I agree: most PC mainboards today are also "single board computers" - you don't have to add any additional cards to get a functional PC (unless you consider RAM modules and M.2 SSDs cards).
Maybe you should have search for "SBC abbreviation" instead, as it's not exactly a philosophical question. It's a TLA (spoiler: TLA stands for Three Letter Acronym).
SBC (single board computer) is a fairly widely used term.
Prompt engineering is back? I think not: I got no better results for one or two years now using meta-prompts that are generic and/or from the internet.
I don't think it's that narrow. The article mentions the kinetic theory of gases, which explains the observed properties of gases in terms of statistics of the motions of the atoms or molecules that make up the gas. Chemistry also explains observed properties of chemical elements and compounds based on the properties of atoms and molecules. I think those are included in "microphysics" as the article is using the term.
The article does focus on particle physics, I think because that's the most fundamental level of physics we have--everything else is built on it.
MAGA gets rich on bombing Iran? The "Uno reverse card" of millions of dollar paid out if you assassinate Trump came into play recently. This one regime is not trying for plausible deniability, though, which is not quite a reverse of just using the prediction market tool, too.
Is it 1973? We could invest in solar instead of kings that might ship their energy to us in peace time (i.e. killings happens only within each states borders)?
"In the Talmud, Rav Yehuda says that there are twelve hours in a day. God spends three of them studying Torah, three judging the world, three answering prayers, and three playing with Leviathan."
Chapter 5: Never Seek To Tell Thy Love, unsongbook.com
If the speed of a car increases by 100% does that mean that it arrives at its destination before it left? No, it just means it took 50% of the time it would have otherwise.
But I do agree that it would be a bit clearer to talk in terms of time taken rather than speedup % i.e. instead of "20% slowdown to over 100% speedup" it's clearer to say "takes between 50% and 125% of the original time". (Especially since people very often say things like "3 times faster", which technically means 4 times as fast, when they should say "3 times as fast"; "takes 1/3 of the time" is unambiguous.)
reply