There are safety regulations that require things roughly like, "to prevent harm to planes in the air and people on the ground, either control where your satellite re-enters so or make your satellite entirely out of components that are almost certain to burn up on re-entry".
As far as I can tell, there is no environmental regulation of how many kilograms of aluminum, silicon, etc. being added to the Earth's atmosphere when a Starlink burns up during re-entry.
Cool idea. Given that it transferred ~29 mb when loading, is it safe to assume that the actual page is doing some of the processing? Is the front-end just doing the HNSW or is it doing the mapping of stories or headlines into vectors, or am I totally off base?
Front-end downstream of clicking on a card doesn't seem to work correctly on every reload... but it works sometimes.
Seems like a source that one should not generally take seriously (Tipranks) being syndicated by a source associated with an important name (Nasdaq) as part of a larger wave of articles about how some "pact", "treaty", or "contract" ended on a specific day.
Having done a little more digging, I could find lots and lots of pieces about this topic, but I could not even one coming from a recognizable journalistic source. (Far from the top of search results was a piece that seemed to have some value: it noted the wave of coverage of the purported end of this pact despite the fact that no such pact existed. It also identified a possible connection between pushing this story, which makes the dollar sound endangered, and attempting to promote cryptocurrency.)
Lots of HN commenters taking this at face value. To me, the overall situation looks like an object lesson in basic critical media literacy.
The "routing in the mesh" slide? Definitely given where the satellites are in that picture some of the links would have to be cross-plane, it's just the whole thing looked so messy (even with it being geo-referenced on a globe) that I didn't know whether to consider it a "real routing example" vs a "notional routing example that we overlaid on the globe".
Sounds very cool that cross-plane links are doable, even if they have predictable complications compared to in-plane.
I would have thought that someone would make a big deal (have a press release, e.g.) out of successfully establishing cross-plane links, but maybe it just doesn't seem that impressive to people who already have good enough precise predictive ephemerides or satellite states to make those links in the first place.
My understanding of the state of the art of inter-satellite optical links is that they have only been used between satellites that are basically in the same orbital plane and in more or less the same orbit. That is, the angle from one satellite to the other changes very very slowly, so that the optics don't have to do much tracking -- and consequently satellites can only form an optical link with other satellites that are ahead or behind themselves in ~ the same orbit.
Cross-plane optical links would have a trickier tracking problem.
While there's no explicit mention of same-plane vs cross-plane optical links, I assume that the first time people have a public cross-plane optical link, they will make a big deal out of it. :)
The article also mentions that SpaceX would need to do further study before using laser links between satellites and ground stations-- this kind of optical link would require both more angular tracking and probably atmospheric correction as well.
My biggest beef with JSX is that what I might call the "most natural way" and certainly the "most concise way" of writing certain somewhat-complex structures in JSX often ends up being a huge mess. E.g. an element is some JSX elements with some code embedded, and the embedded code is returning some other JSX elements that have yet more code embedded in them, and the easiest refactoring to make the whole thing less gross is extracting functions that don't really deserve a name of their own.
I'm going to read that gist ( https://gist.github.com/joepie91/bca2fda868c1e8b2c2caf76af7d... ), but what do you dislike or hate about ES modules? From my own experience, they are extremely frustrating when tooling doesn't work well or at all with them.
Given that I don't do JavaScript or front-end for work, I mostly run into these things in hobby programming. Given that this is programming for fun, I can voluntarily cut myself off from all the libraries that use other module systems. In this happy little bubble, over time, ES module support has gotten better and I've selected tools / found ways to use tools that work with modules and I rather like it.
Perhaps because I'm less invested in the tools, I evaluate the situation of "tool X doesn't support ES modules" more like "tool X isn't great" and less like "ES modules are bad".
Perhaps it all stems from being a person who genuinely likes JavaScript, has a high affinity for standards, and a relatively low opinion (yes, I'm a snob) of the Node ecosystem?
I guess that it means that the actual rendering gets fully decoupled from the live, but hidden DOM tree within the WebComponent and that live DOM tree doesn't really matter aside from first render.
The focus on "rational" value maximization on individual bets is doubly blind:
- First, you and I might have different utility functions which are based on valuing outcomes differently; if utility functions are different, there may not be a single "most rational" choice
- Second, a single bet is a single bet, but investing in a company or following a specific policy is more like staking a gambler to make a sequence of bets.
I appreciate this insight. A lot of the EA stuff really feels like Rationalists treading into philosophical problems where theologians and philosophers have been working for like, centuries, cocksure that everyone in the past has at best little to teach them.
hmm. doesn't stuff like this happen every time that chrome implements some interface but other browser vendors don't get on board with that specific version? doesn't this happen... kind of often? isn't it apparent that there's a risk of this happening whenever chrome implements something before there's standards agreement?
> I [...] think it's more likely that some part of the Web Components tech stack will be removed from Chrome, Safari, and Firefox in the next 20 years, consequently breaking apps built with them, than JavaScript will change in a way that means a React 16 app I wrote 2 years ago will break.
Hmm. I think you've specified a bet you are likely to win, but one that's nearly meaningless. Perhaps if you fully lock down all dependency versions your React 16 app will not break, but that's a little more like running an old program in a VM or an emulator than "I can still work and hack on my React 16 app."
A more meaningful bet would be, "can you still develop on a React ZZZ app vs. can you still develop on an app built with web components."
If I got to pick the terms of the bet (to favor my viewpoint XD but also to make it more meaningful), they'd be "would updating a React app to catch up on N years of dependency updates be more or less effort than updating a web-components built app to catch up on N years of dependency updates"; if you keep your web-components built app from having a bunch of weird dependencies, I think the odds are very much in favor of the React app taking more effort to update.
Basically, betting on browser vendors to be less likely to break backwards compatibility than the authors of React.
Yeah, the author has committed to a stance without explaining why or how, beyond kind of provocatively suggesting that it's the only stance intellectually consistent with ruling out family punishment as a policy... as if he didn't outline his stance in several bullet points, and only 1 of those bullet points is sufficient to rule out family punishment.
> How bizarre and ivory-tower.
I agree in general, but knowing that the author is a professor of Economics at George Mason University, I am less surprised.
My perception is that Econ department seems to have a lot of room for unusual ideas within the field and rather a lot of professors who hold forth or publish on topics that overlap to a variable degree with economics-- like how this post addresses questions of punishment and moral philosophy with what appear to be the tools of economics.
I would say that it's unclear; that announcement appears to apply only to the Keisan Casio user forum.
A machine translation follows:
> The bulletin board will be abolished on September 20, 2023.
> Thank you for using our service.
> The bulletin board is a space where members can exchange information and opinions. Please respect each other's opinions and personalities, and post and reply with good sense.
As far as I can tell, there is no environmental regulation of how many kilograms of aluminum, silicon, etc. being added to the Earth's atmosphere when a Starlink burns up during re-entry.
cf. https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/forty-year-old-loopho... https://aas.org/about/governance/society-resolutions/atmosph...