manicdee

72 ms·

661.
by manicdee 7y ago
An AI that reliably catches stuff that humans sometimes miss is still an advancement in the state of the art. I have a friend who was living with Multiple Sclerosis for two decades until they moved to a new neighbourhood and started looking
662.
by manicdee 7y ago
So it’s like YouTube copyright takedowns but for a victim’s entire internet connection?
663.
by manicdee 7y ago
By the time we are collecting fuel from the lunar surface there will be well marked solid landing pads and no need for thirty seconds of reserve fuel to scoot over to a new landing site.
664.
by manicdee 7y ago
Let sleeping dogs lie, is my advice here.
665.
by manicdee 7y ago
The “habitable zone” is the theoretical range from the Star that allows an Earth-like planet to have mean temperatures suitable for Earth-like life. It’s almost entirely arbitrary, but roughly based on luminosity of the star.
666.
by manicdee 7y ago
Some caveats per Marina Koren https://twitter.com/marinakoren/status/1171873631808438273 1. This planet probably doesn’t have a solid surface 2. Being in the “habitable zone” doesn’t mean a planet is habitable 3.
667.
by manicdee 7y ago
Climate apocalypse is not something that “hits” it is something that grows. It started decades ago and will get gradually worse over time. What you as an individual can do to prepare is put pressure on the suppliers of goods and services (i
668.
by manicdee 7y ago
If you think individual decisions are not going to send economic signals, ask the US car industry about ICE sales.
669.
by manicdee 7y ago
Is that “reasonable” for someone building a warship similarly “reasonable” for someone competing with wind and solar?
670.
by manicdee 7y ago
And yet SpaceX did reply to Loren Grush, who has published a story about this ESA announcement, but it’s quite a different story because she wasn’t setting out to smear SpaceX. https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/3&#x2
671.
by manicdee 7y ago
ESA felt no such thing. What you are recalling here is Jonathan O’Calaghan’s opinion that whoever was in an orbit first automatically has right of way. ESA’s take on the matter is that it was annoying that they couldn’t contact SpaceX, and
672.
by manicdee 7y ago
That was published before the author had any response from SpaceX (it looks like he gave them an hour or two to respond before publishing). Here’s Loren Grush with more info: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/3/
673.
by manicdee 7y ago
No. Jonathan O’Callaghan published his extremely biased and inflammatory clickbait before waiting for SpaceX to present their side of the story (time from ESA tweet to Jonathan’s story was about three hours). What actually happened is that
674.
by manicdee 7y ago
You will note that the official ESA comments on the matter are that “nobody did anything wrong,” and (to paraphrase) “we need better technology to remove humans, email and phone calls from the loop”. For all you know, SpaceX did state to
675.
by manicdee 7y ago
I apologise for using the word inert when the satellite was merely incapable of manoeuvring as required in the timeframe allowed.
676.
by manicdee 7y ago
It’s more likely to be an excellent example of why we should always wait two days to find out the real story. Clickbait headlines are poison, as are hearsay and anonymous sources using emotive language like “SpaceX refused” to move their sa
677.
by manicdee 7y ago
Nobody is playing chicken here. The SpaceX satellite is for all intents and purposes inert, since it is incapable of significantly adjusting its orbit. You know the old joke about the US Navy warship giving way to the second class seaman, r
678.
by manicdee 7y ago
The inability to take a tow truck to orbit is exactly why you need to push the boundaries to find out what works and what doesn’t. Also note that “littering” is an irrelevant analogy in these orbits because of their low altitude. Atmospheri
679.
by manicdee 7y ago
Deorbiting is exactly the process I was describing. SpaceX did not deliberately move their craft to interfere with Aeolus. Aeolus is deliberately placed where every deorbiting craft will interfere with it. It’s like someone setting up an of
680.
by manicdee 7y ago
Everyone intentionally placing their satellites in VLEO is going to be spending more fuel simply staying in orbit against atmospheric drag than they they will spend on avoidance manoeuvres. This ESA satellite is in VLEO by design, which mea
681.
by manicdee 7y ago
You need to update your book to reflect the reality of deorbiting a dead satellite.
682.
by manicdee 7y ago
No. All deorbiting objects (“satellites” or debris, whatever you want to call them) are going to pass through the orbit of the ESA satellite which is intentionally in a very low orbit. It is the ESA that actively moved into that orbit by
683.
by manicdee 7y ago
The track record of experimental designs deliberately intended to push the boundaries of reliability really does not give us any idea of what to expect for the future.
684.
by manicdee 7y ago
The bigger issue is that ESA is coming up to an important administrative date in November where their future budget will be determined, and they want money for their automation program. So they have to portray space as dangerous, ESA proces
685.
by manicdee 7y ago
The “more to it” is that ESA is gearing up to request funding for their AI project, billed as an automated tracking and avoidance manoeuvre planning system capable of handling the vast numbers of objects and debris expected to be in orbit i
686.
by manicdee 7y ago
Can you describe what action SpaceX should have taken to prevent their inert space debris from potentially colliding with someone else’s active satellite?
687.
by manicdee 7y ago
You present a false dichotomy between “everything is chaos” and “it is all controlled by one person.” The truth is elsewhere. There are many people in control, all engaged in various cooperative and competitive activities which may to the c
688.
by manicdee 7y ago
Why should the shareholders have any determination of direction? They are there to invest in a company, not run a business. If they don’t like the direction they can invest elsewhere.
689.
by manicdee 7y ago
This was not about responsibility and accountability, but mission and direction. A company should be able to state that its mission is (for example) to deliver the best electric cars in the world, and be able to do so without pressure from
690.
by manicdee 7y ago
PNG is lossless. There is no adjective or qualifier needed.

More ›