The Z80 didn't even do 8 bit add. The ALU operates in two 4 bit cycles.
I am now wondering if it's possible to put a ZX81 emulator on one of these microcontrollers. It would need to emulate the Z80 but you've got plenty of spare cycles, and 3x the ROM and RAM of the original, so enough space for a small emulator!
I'm older, aware, decently resourced and really trying NOT to play but it is still hard to accomplish. I'm married with 3 kids and even though I sit out much of the nonsense, your friends, family and community will keep pulling you back in. It's hard to do"not playing" without "not participating" and I don't think anybody should do that.
Only if you convert it at a loss and are unable to wait for USD to recover. If (and it is, admittedly, a big assumption) we assume that USD and EUR are broadly stable currencies over the long term, then short term changes in the ratio don't matter for long term investors. You're buying a share of productive capacity, the currency it is listed in doesn't matter.
It's reasonable to assume they're broadly stable, but being broadly stable doesn't mean a drop will "recover". There's no specific ratio that the currencies are being pushed to. Permanent changes in the baseline can and do happen.
> You're buying a share of productive capacity, the currency it is listed in doesn't matter.
But I don't own a fixed percentage of production, I own a fixed number of shares and the number of shares can change. If the number of shares doubles, then my investment is worth half as much.
> But I don't own a fixed percentage of production, I own a fixed number of shares and the number of shares can change. If the number of shares doubles, then my investment is worth half as much.
How is that related to currency changes? That can happen anyway regardless of the currency.
It can happen in other situations, but the fact that it always happens with currency fluctuations is what's important here. When the dollar loses value, everything I own that's anchored to dollars loses value too. "buying a share of productive capacity" implies a counteracting effect, but there isn't one, because the amount of productive capacity represented by each share shrinks too.
yes, but could one also argue that due to currency weakening, the S&P's growth can simply be due to the weakened currency?
If I can say something has an "absolute" value of X, but I denominate it in USD, which is normally 1:1 to X, then it's value in USD in X.
but if USD drops to being worth half an X, but its absolute value hasn't changed, it will now appear to be worth 2X in USD.
so why can't one argue, if the dollar weakened by 15%, but everything else being equal, one would expect dollar denominated stocks to appreciate (in dollars) by the same amount? And if the dollar would strengthen, we would expect the stock price to depreciate?
Because the SP500 is a better indicator of the market than USD. Also if you look at the global dollar index, it is right at par historically.
The companies in the 500 are mostly global companies, if the USD shrunk so much they would either be losing money, or it doesn't matter because the US market is so strong it dwarfs the others.
> The companies in the 500 are mostly global companies
Isn't that saying exactly what the parent comment mentioned? Since those companies are global, the growth of the S&P 500 which is USD denominated will track the devaluation of the USD as the underlying companies haven't lost value, the dollar has, and the S&P 500 would track that as growth in percentage to balance it.
I don't understand why they would be losing money since as you said they're global, and more untethered to the USD than the S&P 500.
This is clearly the USD Global index dropping a few basis points, which is an active strategy. Look at the USD Index over 15 year period, there is nothing wrong with USD today.
I'm not arguing if the S&P is a better indicator of the US economy than USD or not.
What I'm asking, to me it seems if the USD drops in value, but everything else stays the same (i.e. GOOG hasn't lost any real value if measured in any other currency for instance). I'd expect GOOG to rise in USD terms (as its value has stayed constant).
Why wouldn't this be true (yes, there are a bunch of assumptions/complexities, and perhaps those assumptions/complexities break the argument), but at a very simplistic level is what I said wrong?
The USD and EURO being nearly on par was the exception. And given the current admins stated goals, I’m not sure we’re going to see the USD strengthen anytime soon. In fact, it’s more likely to get weaker.
> If (and it is, admittedly, a big assumption) we assume that USD and EUR are broadly stable currencies over the long term
Yeah, er, that's a very big if. There's no real reason to assume that, and history doesn't really bear it out.
If anything in the near term you'd probably expect the USD to weaken further vs the Euro; Trump seems _very_ keen to install a fed chair who'll cut rates even where not supported by inflation and employment numbers, whereas the ECB is more disciplined and less subject to political interference.
You're the one making a big assumption: that this is a short term movement in the dollar.
Trump has made it clear he wants a cheaper dollar to make US exports more competitive and JPM is forecasting another 10% drop in the value of the dollar this year.
Just because the dollar and euro have been roughly level for over a decade doesn't mean that will remain true, currencies often go through pretty fast changes in relative values every few decades as their financial and geopolitical positions change.
The pound drop around 2007~2009 is a good example of one such sudden but long term price shift.
Just because GDP isn't a measure of affordability or security or industrial strategy doesn't mean it's not useful. It means you should also have measures of those (which in fact do exist because economists are not idiots and do fully understand these kinds of problems).
I would have thought a simple device that counts the number of times the wheel has rotated would be vastly simpler and cheaper, and surely accurate to within a few centimeters.
It wouldn't. Wheels slip in the wet, they develop flat areas with differential friction, minor differences in wheel circumference would soon add up over long distances, and all dimensions change with temperature.
But fiberoptic gyro navigation is already a thing, and has been for decades. It's not super cheap, but it's cheap enough for an industrial application like this one. So I'm not sure what problem is being solved here.
* What would the Central Limit Theorem give us if a significant number of wheels on loco's and carriages were instrumented and ID logged over the years.
* What drift patterns and correction factors can be observed and fine tuned by passing {many} wheel streams through station to station and line end to line end "known distance" corrections.
For half a century or so aircraft height was largely done with air pressure alone.
To this day GPS accuracy is "improved" by logging the "drift" of fixed point stations giving us filter coefficients to correct for atmospheric wobble, acute angle uncertainty, as yet uncorrected time drift, etc.
For half a century or so aircraft height was largely done with air pressure alone.
It still is. Flight levels (20000 feet and above in the US) are defined by air pressure without reference to current atmospheric conditions (i.e. the actual altitude of FL200 can vary based on atmospheric conditions). Below 19000 feet, altimeters are calibrated to local conditions which are given to the pilots by air traffic control.
Trains in tubes have a lot of suction that draws in condensation from outside air.
A curious advantage of instrumenting all axles for wheel turn counting is calibration against actual known distances (end to end, etc) over time reveals slow wheel degradation that can trigger carriage maintainance.
Not all operators do this, it's been done at various times for heavy rail mining operators with loooong trains and heavy daily usage.
It has to be for research purposes or something. They own the whole system of trains and tunnels, so there’s got to be loads of ways they can easily implement to see if a train passes a particular point.
Not bad, but practically have you seen the underside of many trains?
The spit up of grease, leaves, metal particulate from rail and wheel grind, etc gets pretty thick.
The vision challenge is to cheaply and effectively keep a clean lens.
There's a similar challenge in monitoring production conveyor belts in mineral processing - vibration, tempreture, rocks kick about, dust make for a savage environment.
Back in the day (about 2002) I was working at an education software company which was trying to get itself acquired by Microsoft. MSFT came in and told us our software didn't conform to all these "standards" in the educational software space. Standards which, coincidentally, Microsoft themselves had written. These pseudo-standards did absolutely nothing to help our customers, and were pure bureaucracy and very very complicated to implement.
I'd recently read Charles Ferguson's book about how his company was acquired by MSFT, and recognized this part of their standard operating procedure, along with extreme and invasive due diligence where they spend a lot of time working out if you're stupid/pliable enough to jump through these hoops while buying themselves time to work out if they can clone your product. I tried to warn management (yes, really - even bought them copies of the book) but naturally no one would listen, and reading a book was too much like hard work. At some point MSFT simply ceased returning management's calls, and rolled out a similar product a while later.
The company imploded not long after, not for this reason in particular, but it was part of a general pattern of incompetence and mismanagement.
Friend of mine was in a company that was going to be acquired by $bigcompany. They strung them along and strung the along until their VC funding was exhausted, then picked up the remains for a song. Much cheaper than actually buying them up.
I am now wondering if it's possible to put a ZX81 emulator on one of these microcontrollers. It would need to emulate the Z80 but you've got plenty of spare cycles, and 3x the ROM and RAM of the original, so enough space for a small emulator!
reply