Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:28:41 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <20250422002841.00007035@yahoo.com>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com>
	<vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsj2l9$1j0as$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjef3$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjg6t$20pdb$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjgjn$1v1n4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjk4k$24q5m$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjlcp$230a5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsni1v$291i3$5@dont-email.me>
	<slrnvv82gk.2aciv.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
	<vt1a7f$i5jd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vti36r$g4nu$2@dont-email.me>
	<slrnvvqhmc.2eh69.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
	<vtjknt$1sp26$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me>
	<87cyde2vyf.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vtk6es$2cj23$3@dont-email.me>
	<vtkjj6$2qmnt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtkm8o$2u0tr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtlp5v$3nrio$1@dont-email.me>
	<87tt6p11bw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vtmv30$tfkg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtr8bd$vfa6$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtvkdk$vh8f$1@dont-email.me>
	<vu0b64$1jhpi$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250419231546.00006a20@yahoo.com>
	<vu633c$2oo5h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 23:28:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6c2cc229fe770494ec2b66678bc43";
	logging-data="3215193"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VTuMxpCfG0BniEwczraTXgsZgAdPiw+Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qRVXG3VRzeA7zMIlS4uYnmabyVY=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3316

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 20:34:20 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 19/04/2025 22:15, Michael S wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:15:42 +0200
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 19/04/2025 09:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote:  
> >>> On 17.04.2025 17:56, David Brown wrote:  
> 
> >>>> But anyway, the newest breakthrough is thorium
> >>>> nuclear clocks, which IIRC are 5 orders of magnitude more stable
> >>>> than cesium clocks.  (And probably 5 orders of magnitude more
> >>>> expensive...)  
> >>>
> >>> I've not heard of Thorium based clocks. But I've heard of
> >>> "optical clocks" that are developed to get more precise and
> >>> more stable versions of atomic clock times.
> >>>      
> >>
> >> It was only last year that a good measurement of the resonant
> >> frequencies of the Thorium 229 nucleus was achieved - the science
> >> bit is done, now the engineering bit needs to be finished to get a
> >> practical nuclear clock.
> >>
> >>  
> > 
> > 
> > Record my prediction: it's not going to happen.
> > 
> >   
> 
> I don't know enough about Thorium 229 nuclear resonances to be able
> to predict one way or the other.  Do you have a good reason or
> reference for your thoughts here?
> 

Michael's principle.
If you don't know what it means, search comp.arch archives.