One gets the impression that this was an artfully crafted way around the specifics of the gag order, to disclose whatever wasn't specifically prohibited by it. IANAL.
Exactly. I guess the transparency is nice but at what point are you potentially helping someone cover their tracks who may or may not actually deserve that help?
In Europe we bring the cable to AC chargers. DC cables are stolen once in a while but it’s a lot more rare, it’s not that much copper in them now that they are liquid cooled.
I enjoyed this blog...not so much about the topic regarding legos or even YouTube. I appreciated the way the owner used analytics to quickly better understand his demographics and did some very high-level marketing/product analytics.
I walked away with a lot more insight (no pun intended) on what is being considered as leading now of days. I admittedly started to become numb when it started to feel like a race to the bottom on who has the biggest pockets and largest datasets.
Hurricane, however, is more cautious about seeing fusion as an answer to a need for clean energy.
“While our team is very excited about this result, because it is a hard won science/engineering achievement, I don’t see it as being useful for a clean energy source. The learning from our result may, however, be relevant,” Hurricane tells CNBC.
“I am very concerned, in general, about fusion being hyped as a solution for climate change,” he says. “My personal opinion is that fusion energy is still a future technology, so it would be foolish for people bet the planet on fusion addressing the immediate climate concerns.”
Also noteworthy, research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory National Ignition Facility is part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, a government effort born in 1995 to study aging nuclear weapons without nuclear testing.
“One of the original visions for the NIF was for it to be a substitute for underground nuclear testing, keeping weapons scientists tethered to the reality of experiment so that the Nation can depend upon their skills, knowledge, and most importantly judgement,” said Hurricane. “This new result helps support that vision.”
Adding a bit more context to this good post, the control algorithms are designed and developed around assumptions and an operational envelope deemed to be "normal".
An airplane is much more complicated from a systems perspective (but yet can be more easily automated from an operational POV). To make an airplane fly, there are dozens of control surfaces, very complex mechanical systems, and not to mention a greater degree of danger (i.e., explosions) and loss of life should these systems fail. Yet, when everything "works" within their engineered/designed parameters, we can construct control algorithms around these operational envelopes.
Also, at 10k feet in the air, there are rules that govern flight paths (overseen by controllers); radar and beacons that help keep planes on track; and most importantly much less traffic/congestion (as opposed to a bus or car).
This provides the pilots (and also sailors) the ability to automate their flight at steady-state. This is where it gets interesting. If a plane loses a control surface or a critical system fails, these controls systems will be pushed outside of their operational envelopes, and this is where a human takes over.
It's not a question of "if" but "when" things will fail....
The low-hanging fruit of straight and level flight is, I'd argue, appropriate for automation, but they need to get out of the way when the plane goes outside the normal operating envelope.
Whether these tools are just analog trim tabs that allow the stick to be adjusted so that a stable aircraft basically holds itself in straight-and-level flight, or complex fly-by-wire autopilot algorithms that keep an unstable aircraft in straight-and-level flight, taking the mundane, repetitive, mind-numbing workload of closing the loop between the six-pack of instruments and the sticks for hours on end. A pilot who has been watching the VSI and heading for three hours on a cross-country flight, tediously keeping the plane within 300 feet of its assigned flight level and ensuring that the passengers don't even perceive tiny changes in heading and attitude, or a trucker who has been driving their tractor-trailer cross-country for 60 hours in 7 days, holding an 8.5-foot-wide vehicle between a pair of 12-foot-wide lane lines, and adjusting the throttle up and down hills to keep their speed within a couple MPH of the speed limit, is going to be fatigued and when it comes time to deal with an emergency on landing or a sudden, unexpected brake check from a small car pulling in front of the truck, that fatigue has a cost.
There's a point where cruise control and autopilots can make these tasks safer, allowing pilots to keep ahead of the needs of aircraft, and allowing drivers to keep their eyes scanning the other vehicles, their mirrors, and the road ahead, rather than going back-and-forth between the speedometer and the lane lines. I absolutely acknowledge that there's also a point where this automation gets in the way or causes operators to tune out and be unprepared when asked to take over when the envelope is exceeded. Right-sizing that level of automation is critical!
This topic reminds me of an observation I made a while ago. I have found many folks (esp. non-technical) confuse automation with intelligence (more-so Artificial Intelligence).
Automation ==/== AI. Automation consists of a series of systems that are designed (i.e., programmed using control algorithms, logic rules, machine/deep-learning) to operate under a series of pre-set boundaries. The boundaries are typically defined under "normal" operating conditions, and safe-guards are put into place once the automated systems deviate from those "normal" operating conditions (I see a lot of practitioners esp. in the ML world fail to account for abnormal conditions...may be this is what happened w/ the Uber driver?).
The only comment I will say about AI is that I'm glad I am seeing RL and the like come more into play. I also contend this feels like a supervisory problem.
Yea know this lobbying effort just screams lawsuit by incompetence.
The execs who are pushing this effort appear to know little to nothing about flying, safety, human centered design, and automation.
I might be as brash to state they may not give a damn as long as they get their bonuses and punch out leaving the other exec holding the bag. The compensation structure and laws regarding claw back clauses must be revamped.
Anyway, as a person w a controls background and system automation, this is a total cluster fvck w out a major investment in sensors and UX redesign.
If this passes, I am going to seriously consider those private plane sharing programs.
Surprised the doj didn’t issue any gag orders.