Its true that innovation isn't clearly shown in this mission; we also haven't flown humans out that far in more than 50 years either and while we have memories of it, our ability to even execute something like this must be built again. I'd rather see us doing this and 'pick up from where we were last time', than giving up on it or just using a stack that's not currently set to do this.
What Artemis is doing is not impeding innovation: its building our muscle back to work on such things; the discipline, rigor, scale, and attitude needed to execute such missions is unimaginable and orthogonal to the technical innovation and stack used. I also believe that its completely fine to use a 2000s-era flight computer, if that suffices for this purpose. Somehow, for such critical missions, my mental model is to use at least 10 year old technology that has stood the test of time, before going into space. If there's a need for the latest technology - then yes, it should be leveraged.
63000 acres is about 98 square miles, so about a 10 mile by 10 mile area. Pretty sure this isn't 'destroying wildlife' levels of destruction, but yes, definitely ecosystem influencing. Compared to current alternatives (gas/coal/hydro), this may have less impact overall. Nuclear power should be invested in, but may take more time.
If you want to learn more about good system design at an abstract level (not just online), cannot recommend Systemantics[1] by John Gall enough. I wish all engineers get an opportunity to read it.
I found this article [1] and the one from November from Ben, very educational on understanding motivation. However, putting it in practice is a very different thing.
From [1]:
_That is because the structure of the world economy — choices made starting with Bretton Woods in particular, and cemented by the removal of tariffs over time — made them nonviable. Say what you will about the viability or wisdom of Trump’s tariffs, the motivation — to undo eighty years of structural changes — is pretty straightforward!_
>>> US wants nothing to do with China. As the biggest consumer economy in the world, the have that right.
Yes, they have the right, but it doesn’t mean this is the right way. Consumers don’t suddenly stop consuming, and factories in the world don’t immediately start producing. This is like a slow flywheel; had we been almost spinning and ready to jump, it would make sense. This is not that.
Also, China is a super power which controls more than factories today. I agree they need to be checked, but sudden changes are not the way. I wish we did it by building trust with allies and then pushing China. Right now, even our allies are wary of us.
Haven’t seen the series yet, but I do have some exposure to the underlying problem.
Online bullying and social media pressure are real issues that cannot be ignored. At home, we tackle it by appropriate parental controls, education, and transparency. However , we are privileged to have the time, money, and awareness, for this to happen.
I genuinely feel we need some generic change, somewhere, (I don’t have answers) to incentivize companies to do the right thing to discourage continuous engagement and also build the right set of judgement skills needed by teens to navigate online social space.
It probably starts at home and perhaps an online social media class in school.
It does seem though that this legacy-cloud-pocket-innovation combination continues to work without slowing down. It also what was said for Microsoft 15 years ago too (not really much different from IBM..), which is correct from one perspective, but not turning out true from revenue, market cap, growth terms.
My thinking is that Lindy Effect runs strong in a lot of Big Tech, and with deep pockets, they can afford to not be innovators but build moats on existing frameworks.
How does one define an AI powerhouse? If its building models, a smart business wouldn't bank on that alone. There is no moat.
If the definition of an AI Powerhouse is more about the capability to host models and process workloads, Amazon (the other company missing in that list) and Microsoft are definitely them.
Can you recommend some social apps from China that we may have not paid attention to? I’m assuming there’s a list more than ‘RedNote’. I tried using WeChat but it’s not where my network hangs, unfortunately.
You probably know some that have enough non-China presence.
To the post indicating shouting fire is legal - I believe the parent’s intent is to indicate there are consequences to it. From the article —
>> The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out.
The article, other than the headline, describes a few more details on how kids as young as 6 years old do things different, other the the subway part of it. Public safety doesn't come from fear of repercussions alone, I feel (which probably what 'strong public prosecutors' brings).
Most of my Sonos speakers and soundbars worked before the app update and right after, all that became unreliable, across devices.
I’d say that leads me to believe it’s an app issue versus just Bluetooth. Agree that BT by itself has a reputation to match, but in this case Sonos is to blame. The other apps recommended in the post work well.