I can do the same with almost any IP camera and even USB one with low latency and maximum quality the camera can supports. If anyone is interested in such setup I can do a quick write up about or maybe a repo with the configs needed.
Personally, not just twitter, all social media I’m happy to see it dies, and no, “stop using it” mindset isn’t an argument when it severely affects the majority of the people around you, and start not just influencing the populace opinions but shaping the next generation. Who ever controls that narrative in the media get to decide what’s the next laws to be considered, after all, that’s how democracy works.
>The copter isn't able to communicate with satellites or earth directly, so it needs to communicate with the rover itself. This is harder without line of site.
Obviously no satcom on there, but even when the chopper communicates with the rover, a LoS isn’t needed, different comms bands can survive that.
>The copter is all autonomous. Routes are planned and sent for the copter to autonomously fly, because direct control would be infeasible with the latency on Mars.
Great, so if it’s planned how they end up with that situation? Was it a calculation errors? Or they suddenly decided to move the rover and lost comms?
>The copter is charged with solar power, and needs time to charge between flights.
Ok now this is interesting, got any more details about it? As the size of the panels would be big and might hinder the chopper movement, unless something innovative was done.
>The main rover has other missions that are independent of the status of the copter. The copter is well well well past the original mission goals, so if it gets left behind that's a shame, but the main rover's missions are way more important.
Ok that’s good to know, still curious about the whole process as I do have a current project with interoperability between UAV/UGV so any previous lessons learned would be great!
Exactly this, I’m happy of what’s happening with twitter and Reddit and the likes, maybe it’s the reality slap the users needed to get back to smaller communities.
A lot of generic fluff, nothing is specific.. what was the frequency band/s they used? Why line of sight is needed for such comms when it can be done otherwise? Do the chopper needs to be connected all the time for command and control channels, or are there any autopilot? Or is the connection meant is the payload one (camera etc.), I assume there’s or it would’ve crashed in landings if signal was lost and autopilot landed in an unsuitable location? Why move the rover at the same time while the chopper was flying? Shouldn’t be stationary for the best signal? Especially when there’s no gnss system there, why add that complexity of moving two of them (chopper/rover)? And if only one was moving that time, how they missed the fact they are going behind a hill? Was the battery dead when they lost signal? How they charged it after losing it? How they found the chopper in the first place? Did they find it by ground search and then flew the chopper back to the rover? How the battery survived that time?
I don’t know there are a lot of other questions I have in mind, that article barely explains anything..
So in few years all programming languages will be similar to assembly, I remember years ago we studied assembly in classes and wrote programs using it, but now maybe it isn’t the case.
So pretty much AI now can do anything except that “conscious” link between them. So an AI can write the software for drone autopilot for example ..(missing link).. and design the hardware for that drone ..(missing link).. and simulate all that ..(missing link).. to fly that drone autonomously ..(missing link).. to fulfill the objectives.
Unless something new fill these links properly, guess us human kinds are still needed :)
As I mentioned in the comment below, this is the first excuse for such discrimination, as most of the times they do properly communicate and can effectively communicate the idea, but it’s the covert way of discriminating them. One of the examples I witnessed, someone was from Singapore -and in Singapore just like a lot of other countries, English IS native, i.e. taught early in life- but they do have a thick accents, and the candidate was eliminated because of that, and obviously the hiring manager made the same silly excuse like you so he can feel better about himself, that it will “hinder” the communications. As long as the communication can be conducted, anything else is pure linguistics bias, you don’t see such bias when an international team of scientists are working in a space station or similar projects for example, even though in a lot of cases they lack the vocabulary per se, and lacking such vocabulary did not indicate a lack of skill or intelligence either, let alone to be evaluated by an average IQ hiring manager.
Another case I witnessed was in Canada, where French is an official language, yet the hiring manager excluded one candidate because he had a thick French accent..
Technically speaking too, there’s nothing as “native English”, we all do have an accent to some degree, a lot of English vocabulary are taken from other languages, and even English speakers do have a lot of silly typos and mistakes in their writing all the time, including my writings in here, so it’s never an excuse.
>And speaking of discrimination, you wouldn't hire a paraplegic person as a nurse or firefighter, right?
That’s a poor analogy, you do have the tools to properly and easily compensate such linguistic disability, as easy as having someone double checking their writing or having one of these new AI spell check tools, etc., but we don’t have the proper technology and tools to compensate for a paraplegic to be a firefighter, yet, say in the future there are proven ex-skeletons that can help, then yes you are discriminating.
No one said anything about the ability to communicate, but the discrimination against candidates with some disability like dyslexia, it is YOUR job as an employer to provide the proper tool -either during the interview process or even after hiring- to make sure the work isn’t affected, and having a proper process to address it. Same goes with accent, it isn’t about the ability to communicate but rather the accent or linguistics bias either by not hiring these candidates, or excluding them later from meetings, presentations, etc., or eliminating any future career growth.
Obviously those discriminations are illegal so it goes passive most of the times, by continuous interruption during meetings or intentionally asked to repeat or elaborate themselves, among other.
It’s not about communication abilities as this is usually the covert passive response for such discriminatory behaviors, a lot of these candidates can speak “better” in terms of clarity than people with Australian accent for example, it’s just another episode of “I’m better than you”, you can read more about that in here:
