You are likely engaging as a good sport (and the anecdata are fun) but you don't really need to explain yourself, if that's what you are trying to do.
Life is all shades of precarious, unfair, galtonboard-ish, windfall-ish. Pareto-powerlaw-nonergodic-pissed off pikachu-ish. Have fun. Somebody's got to.
Gates plays the long game. The man dodged multiple requests over decades to publish this og code that launched MS as a company (pretended he had misplaced the same or forgot to reply or something): only to perfectly time it for a jubilee release.
Why would anyone put themselves through that if they didn't have to? There is the tale of Allen hand coding the bootloader in machine code, but that was because he was on the plane to give a demo. Otherwise, all of the tales I've heard of the development of BASIC involved a mainframe. Hand coded assembly was certainly conceivable, given that terminals weren't exactly everywhere back in the day, but even a basic assembler does more than the straight translation of instructions into opcodes.
that's only because it is 157 images (one per page).
if it were text it would have been a more reasonably size, albeit still much larger than the actual source.
however, the PDF also adds nostalgia and more information than the source alone. whether that's a good tradeoff I'll leave up to the reader, but clearly Bill Gates thinks it is more interesting to post this than point to GitHub repo. I would agree.
I'll cut mr. Gates some slack if scanned from original printouts, and done so to avoid OCR'ing errors. That said: it's an under 4K binary right? How much effort to check that text version matches original printouts? (or even paper tape!) The guy is a billionaire ffs! If he cares, hire some people to double-check OCR output. Errors in comments aren't end of the world anyway.
Then maybe throw some small(er) sized images in that pdf + link to full-sized ones on the web.
I myself walked the longest path to 1200 karma. It was painful. Blisters of delta_karma=f*vote_points, where f could be 0.5 or 0.3 or unknown lower no. I'm tired, boss.
I think you said it: it's a non-event. It's the reactor reactor-ing within the design basis. But, I think "single rod-drop" will not shut down a reactor. That's a crazy amount of rod-worth. My opinion is that reactor safe-shutdown margin entails "single rod-stuck" scram to be feasible.
> But, I think "single rod-drop" will not shut down a reactor
Why do you think that? When rods are used to control the reaction rate I thought it was by raising and lowering them small amounts usually.
Being able to have a single fully inserted rod stop things would certainly make it more likely dropping rods into the core would stop an even than if you needed (say) all 3 to be fully inserted.
3x the chance of successfully stopping a serious problem, 1/3rd the chance of a blockage prevent the emergency shutdown.
Why don't you just look it up instead of actively arguing an assumption?
This reactor type has 73 assemblies of 5 rods each.
Nuclear safety regulations require that the control rod system must be powerful enough to bring the reactor completely subcritical with all Control Element Assemblies (CEAs) inserted minus one assembly stuck in the fully withdrawn position.
One assembly (or 3) inserted would not bring the reactor subcritical.
I'm already getting downvoted to oblivion for my gp comment, but whatever: what I was trying to convey based on my limited exposure is that a single rod will have a zone restricted shadow or local effect and multiple uniformly distributed rod banks are therefore needed for a an effective control or emergency shutoff. Additionally, on the flip side, I feel a single rod capable of shutoff will insert excessive positive reactivity in case of an ejection (could be a local steam overpressure, idk, don't hunt me down with hounds).
Life is all shades of precarious, unfair, galtonboard-ish, windfall-ish. Pareto-powerlaw-nonergodic-pissed off pikachu-ish. Have fun. Somebody's got to.
reply