1. So Ariel OS is based on Embassy - IIUC I2S and CAN has some support upstream. That can be used already, although not using Ariel's usually fully portable APIs.
2. Well, ST has released official Rust drivers for a bunch of their sensors. They're built on embedded-hal(-async), so can directly be used with Ariel OS. There is probably more.
Note: I'm not using the same tooling, but CAN and I2S have worked well for years on STM-32/rust. You just need to interface with STM32's SAI (ditital audio peripheral) and CAN. There are high-quality portable libs for both the legacy "BX" CAN and FD-CAN, which will work on any STM-32 variant. The SAI will have to be HAL-specific, but I have used it on both G4 and H7 variants for PDM mic arrays.
> The primary feature of statecharts is that states can be organized in a hierarchy: A statechart is a state machine where each state in the state machine may define its own subordinate state machines, called substates. Those states can again define substates.
Title is misleading. This is about integrated optics that can do "computation" on the frequency of laser input using all kinds of nonlinear optical effects.
I don't think so- seems like they demonstrated a supercontinuum source, which is a pretty good approximation of "any wavelength" laser. Pretty cool on an integrated chip.
Where is the source? Tantalo does not produce photons, it is not like GaAs that you can pump and get stimulated emission. The Nature paper does not have laser in the title.
its purpose isn't to produce photons, neither is the lithium niobate. The purpose is act as a material to mediate the nonlinear interactions between photons to achieve fun things like supercontinuums, frequency comb generation, etc.
Think of it like the phosphor on your white LED - it produces no photons by itself, but it takes in the blue photons and remits them in a different spectrum. Obviously different physics, but still a similar concept.
"Hardt has torn tendons in his own hand after accidentally triggering a cadence sensor that caused the wheel to spin out of control on the stand, even when the motor and battery were disconnected." Can anyone explain how this is possible?
It seems a bad idea in the first place for a public organization to award a single company a huge contract for both the software licences and all the consultancy and implementation efforts.
I suppose the issue is that the NHS themselves have historically been terrible at managing their software. Nobody I know who I rate as even mediocre and above would or have worked at the NHS, and those I do know who have have, I wouldn't hire into junior roles.
I have no doubt that it's an extremely complicated mixture of 100s of systems, but anyone who has lived here knows how terrible it is. GP surgery's have for years had to send paper files across to new practices when a patient moves. The new NHS app is great, but I can see from my history that > 90% is missing.
Another great example of how good the NHS is at this, is the fact that nurses & doctors would have to scroll down a combo list without any typeahead to pick a medication, which would be in an A-Z list of every medication ever.
So, closing the circle, is there a reason to bring in a company that hires people at and above our level of competence, who have the expertise to implement a system to bring the NHS out of the dark ages of IT? Yes. There are many.
There will always be concerns about data, about security, but I'd much rather data be in the hands of a corporation that doesn't leak it than an unknown company getting billions in contracts, building software worse than someone with a $20 Claude extension, and then leaking it to hackers.
> I have no doubt that it's an extremely complicated mixture of 100s of systems, but anyone who has lived here knows how terrible it is.
Yep, as someone who's worked at a couple of small startups trying to sell into the NHS, it's terrible. A big part of the problem seems to be that there's no centralised procurement: each trust (of which there are ~200) does their own precurement. And a lot of the companies (the big established players are the worst) at most pay lip service interoperability. So you end with a big mess of system that don't talk to each other.
And they're not setup to pay "market rates" that are competitive with private employers to their in-house developers. So it's hard for them to attract and retain good in-house developers where they have them (although there are still some great people working there).
Internal restrictions are such that even aspiring software Devs find hurdles to doing basic automation. I know someone who wanted to use python, yes just use it, and it took months to be allowed to do that on an NHS machine.
Is there any proof that Palantir has ever leaked client data? From a security perspective they are one of the few companies that hold IL6, which means they can handle highly classified/top secret information.
They work with many international governments and companies, and I would imagine any sort of unapproved leak would be disastrous for their brand.
> It seems a bad idea in the first place for a public organization to award a single company a huge contract for both the software licences and all the consultancy and implementation efforts.
I'm not 100% convinced that the consultancy/implementation being the same as the software vendor is a bad thing.
Depending on the contract it can give you better exit clauses, implementation costs can be subsidised by SaaS revenue, you might have novel clauses for PS overspends, you get rid of the 'implementation vendor blames software vendor' thing, if you need modifications/enhancements to the base product then it sits with the same person, plus we don't know if Palantir's system is easily made for an independent implementation consultant to pick it up and be able to do everything without having to do some backend magic.
Maybe you can disrupt some markets, but do not expect a strong position in the value chain if you depend on external AI providers that can extract all gained wisdom from your calls and have more execution power.
Agreed. (Reasonable) humans also don't ask for 20-50% raises year on year, but replacing workers with AI places incredible pricing risk in your business operation. AI may be cheaper in the short term, but the ultimate goal of AI companies is to capture as much value as possible, and they will have no problems pricing AI tooling as close to the replaced human salaries as possible.
The major Ai providers (frontier models) have contract clauses and marketing copy that specifically say they do not use your data or sessions for their training.
The lawsuit risk isn't huge. First, most people probably wouldn't be able to discover this has been done. Second, most people wouldn't be able to afford to sue, and the company can just settle with those who can.
I'm also not sure that the risk of brand damage is that compelling. A whole lot of companies misbehave and don't suffer enough to stop their behavior because of it.
genAI companies particularly. Overall, the things they have already said and done strongly indicate to me that they are not trustworthy. That's the main source of my doubt. Why would I expect them to be any different tomorrow than they were yesterday?
reply