kell

OK, let's allow for an overgenerous Kell factor of say 0.8, this figure will drop to ~6.9 megapixels.

Influenced recent work by the computer scientists Steven Kell [2],[3] and Kartik Agaram [4].

You might find this work and talks on liballocs by Stephen Kell interesting.

Search for 'kell systems' for a high-end option to address this need.

While academic exploration of conceptual relationships between systems can be valuable, it requires much more rigorous attention to technical details and historical accuracy than Kell provides.

Stephen Kell wrote a great essay about it.

Yes, and the interesting thing is to me this exactly demonstrates the problem that is being pointed out by Kell (for the community in general) and by me (for Snively in particular).

But like to point out the article from Stephen Kell linked below which explains why C is an incredibly useful tool for systems programming and what distinguishes it from all other languages.

That said, these days the typical image chain can easily achieve much higher pixel throughput than 5 megapixels before bandwidth limiting so the effective Kell derating factor could easily be kept quite small.

Fortunately, there are guys like Stephen Kell who are kind of doing it even in academia, but I think he's limited too towards working on the boring problems that get funding as well.

In boxing, most guys get next to nothing, even a top 20 p4p boxer in the world like Kell Brook makes just $200k fighting his best opponent yet in Shawn Porter, while two guys gross more than half a billion dollars in one night.

(And again - I wrote these articles specifically to gather related material from others, so I welcome any updates or corrections.) One place you can see it in passing is in a 2013 paper from Steven Kell - The operating system: should there be one?

The "composable" aspects Kell emphasizes (pipes, small tools) exist at the userland level, not in the fundamental OS architecture.

It's also odd because Kell only specifically accuses the Snively/Laucher talk of committing two of the "seven deadly sins", and that isn't one of the two.

It seems oddly defensive for Paul Snively to interpret Stephen Kell's "Seven Sins" essay as being mostly about his (and Amanda Laucher's) Strange Loop talk – sure, their talk was mentioned as an example in passing (along with another talk about Rust), but in no way is the essay specifically about their talk.

Which proves Kell's point about the equivocation around type theory.

With deference to Dr Kell, I think this is overwrought.

I think he took Stephen Kell's post as a direct response to their talk when in fact Stephen Kell's post was about the entire culture around static typing and their talk is only one small piece of it.