I remember going to a planetarium at the local university while in school some 15 years ago. They told us how they use Stellarium to create the skies and Celestia (https://celestiaproject.space/) to create scripted tours for their exhibits. Both were compatible with the hemispherical projector they used.
As soon as I went home I downloaded them both and spent hours visiting stars in Celestia and exploring the sky in Stellarium. It’s great to see they are still quite active.
I have also tried one and I had a similar experience but only in some scenarios. It might be a different effect to what you had but I’ll try to explain.
In my experience I got a good 3D effect for objects that were right in the center but the moment things got close to the edge the illusion broke. At times it did look a bit like 3D content on a 2D screen.
Objects near the edge of the retroreflective area disappear when you would normally expect them to appear ‘above’ the mat. They somewhat get around this by presenting most information below the surface. Apps like board games were the worst for it because they typically use the whole mat and they typically appear on or above the surface. Anything above the surface just gets cut off around the edge. The larger board that can be tilted up at the back helped but only from one angle.
Typically the AI to detect the AI is exactly what they use to train networks like Deep Fake in the first place. GANs are effectively just a local arms race between two machine learning networks.
I imagine all the necessary hands are already on deck for Crew Dragon.
Starship wasn’t built by the Falcon or Crew Dragon manufacturing teams, and the vast majority of the design and engineering currently happening for Starship has long been completed for Crew Dragon.
Let’s also remember that NASA is hardly the only company that pays SpaceX, they have other income sources and what they do with that income is ultimately their choice. Unless they are using NASA money to build Starship there should be no problem.
Not parent commenter but they may mean this: Bula (Fijian greeting) [1]
The same article also mentions Aloha being trademarked followed by cease and desists being sent restaurants in Hawaii using the word.
Good question, and you are probably correct, not worth the effort. There was one launch where they broadcast the drone ship landing from a nearby support ship (or helicopter, I don't remember exactly) which was cool to see but I haven't seem them do it since.
> Then the data was compiled and rendered into an image
A digital camera is just an array of tiny sensors that detect how much light hit them and a computer takes those values and renders an image from them.
> you really think it's that bright?
If you take a photo in a dark room with increased exposure then the resulting image is brighter than what you see with your own eyes. This was taken over a long period of time, effectively a long exposure. If you were close enough to see it at the scale you are seeing it on your computer screen it would probably be far brighter.
> How about orange?
As mentioned in another comment on this thread, it's just the colour scheme used in the output to show the brightness differences. The accretion disk is not necessarily orange, this photo is essentially greyscale mapped to a black -> orange -> white scale.
This is just an array of relatively large sensors with very high exposure gathering information from something very far away and combining that data in greyscale.
> I wonder why it's not symmetrical?
See Veritasium's video [1] on why it looks like it does, in short, the effects of the black hole and our angle to the accretion disk.
You can choose to publish open access conference papers through IEEE but you have to pay around $2000 (I forget if it was USD or AUD). I'm not sure about the exact costs for an open access Journal paper though. That said, IEEE don't prevent you from listing your own paper on your own website (in it's accepted form, not published form) provided you link the correct DOI and include the reference.
Is the contract simply "selling Hololens to the military"? My understanding was that they already had contracts in place to sell them to the military for training purposes and have done so for many years. I was under the impression from other articles that the employees are upset over the request for "targeting ... capabilities" to be embedded into the devices.
Edit: Upon reading their 'letter' it appears they take most issue with the use of Hololens to 'increase lethality'. I would argue that even the use of Hololens for training purposes (as they have done so in the past) would increase lethality anyway (as training of any kind might) and they apparently had no issue with it before. Even then, the military doesn't need Microsoft to do it, they could pay any of their contractors to implement it.
Also they will not involve humans because it removes their ability to blame the system. If a human employee fails to correctly flag something (which is likely given the sheer volume of incoming content to review) and it slips through, YouTube could potentially be held liable for its effects (whatever they may be). Whereas if the system misses something it's easier to pass it off as just a bug that needs fixing or an obscure edge case that wasn't handled.
It's more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute illegal usage of social media than other 'utilities'. Given the international nature of most social media, illegal usage could happen anywhere on Earth and no one but local law enforcement would have no power to do anything. If someone started stealing electricity without paying or using it for some illegal purpose it would be much easier to prosecute them as they would likely be within the same jurisdiction as the utility operates.
We also learn far more from robot/probe missions per million dollars spent than manned missions. The Mars rovers have explored for years on end (albeit slowly) while a manned mission to Mars and back may only be able to stay for a few days. I personally would love to see us walk on the Moon and Mars in my lifetime as I was not around in 1969, but the science can be performed just as well if not better with modern robotics without even needing to bring them back.
Curiosity is doing well at about 6.5 years and had a 2 year mission but it probably won't stay fully operational that long. Its RTG could last that long but it will eventually stop producing enough power for the rover to move.
As soon as I went home I downloaded them both and spent hours visiting stars in Celestia and exploring the sky in Stellarium. It’s great to see they are still quite active.