Which leads me to the question: why isn’t the Pentagon/Navy doing basic analyses and arriving at conclusions such as simple optical effects vs. UAP (aliens!?)
If you assume the Pentagon/Navy is not incredibly incompetent and can indeed understand things such as parallax, I’m led to think this entire change in stance around UFOs is some sort of shitty psyops campaign designed to obscure information around secret/next-gen aircraft that are being developed.
Maybe the fact that there are many artificial stars in that photo due to software adding new light sources which didn't really exist in postprocessing? I have no idea if this happens but it is the claim they were making, and would certainly be worthy of a "c'mon" if true.
> Maybe the fact that there are many artificial stars in that photo due to software adding new light sources which didn't really exist
Huh??
How exactly did you come to the conclusion they just added a bunch of fake stars? Am I missing something? Post processing is a normal part of astrophotography, even with a DSLR.
That sounds like a question for them, not me, I made no such claims. In fact I'd be quite interested in any evidence as well, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were using some kind of ML model in postprocessing which ended up adding some extra stars here and there (more charitably, you could think of it as converting noise into stars, when it was really just noise all along). But I'm certainly no expert on how smartphones process their photos.
> Post processing is a normal part of astrophotography, even with a DSLR.
Yes as someone interested in low light photography I'm well aware of this and it's why I'd be quite curious to see any evidence (assuming it exists) of smartphones doing weird things to their low light photos.
I see zero evidence of an effect like that in the linked photos. I assumed they were talking about artifacting they saw in their own attempt to take photos at night with an iPhone.
Either way, given the content of those links, I don't think their comment makes much sense.
This video shows a lot of other ,,interesting" issues with the current FSD implementation. The collision with the pylon is in fact the least interesting thing.
- 2.20: Taking a left turn with a trajectory into the opposite lane. The youtuber's camera clearly was adjusting exposure from underneath the overpass and I wonder if the car's cameras had the same issues.
- 2.40: Right on red without stopping. I wonder if this is related to the stop sign rolling stop issues
- 3.30: Collision with pylon. It seems like the perception system didn't pick up the pylon at all (or if it did, its not rendering on the screen)
- 5.10: Some weird funky trajectory and then pulling into the sunken curb/sidewalk on the right turn
- 6.28: Trying to drive down the railroad tracks
I gave up after the above.
Despite Tesla's (Elon) insistence that FSD will be safer than human drivers soon enough (1 year), there is very little evidence to support that. At the very least if we are going to allow beta testing on roads then Tesla should be forced to submit their FSD incident data to the CA DMV like the rest of car manufacturers that are testing AVs.
2:20 is wild -- the street it's turning onto is clearly marked as a two-way in Google Maps [1] (which I understand provides the underlying data to Teslas). Why would the car think, no, it's best I turn onto the left side of this road?
I'm also in awe of how fickle its predicted path is, especially when turning. Why commit to a new path for a tenth of a second and then change its mind again? This suggests to me it's placing way too high weight on poor quality telemetry. Heck, at 5:14 it can't even decide which street it wants to go down. Maybe it's just a UI thing (always displays the most likely path) and the underlying model is actually keeping both options open.
At 6:45 it tries some insane passing maneuver -- I can't get over that one. Passing on the right, in a bus-only lane, planning to squeeze through the rapidly-closing gap of the car in front of it and a parked car, where there is currently a bicyclist. And it looks like the bicyclist is the only thing keeping it from doing that insane maneuver -- each time the bicyclist is occluded by the car in front (object permanence, hello?), it attempts to pass.
I've lost count of the number of things this car doesn't understand, that it should to be on a road:
* object permanence
* reading basic text in simple print
* logical connections between the map and road geometry
* patience and commitment
* understanding physics and geometry of other moving and non-moving vehicles
* seeing stationary bright orange objects immediately in front of it
AFAIK Tesla doesn't rely on map data for the driving itself, only for routing. Which sounds like the right approach considering roadworks and how often maps are out of date.
As a foreigner, can you explain at 2:40, which light is red? I can only see a green light on the right side, there was no traffic light on the road it came through. Also doesn't the US allow right turns on red?
I would totally drive on those train tracks myself.. it's pretty common here, and there was no signage. Curious to see what the AI would do next if the driver hadn't intervened.
I think the time-scale argument lacks a little bit of imagination. Time scales are very relative.
There could easily be organisms that have lifespans in the thousands of years due to a variety of unique selective pressures (or no concept of a lifespan at all). Or species that have technology that can augment their lifespans to be thousands of years long. I can certainly see humans getting to that point in the next 10-thousand years.
Given a thousand year lifespan, what is a few hundred years in terms of commitment to a project? It would be something akin to working a job for 10 years or so, which is not entirely unheard of.
The ROI argument is more interesting! Although there are way too many factors to consider to have a definitive answer one way or another.
> Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are quasi-police states [1] and will probably mandate vaccination+boosters soon.
Regardless of whatever metric you use to define “freedom” all of those countries rank higher than the US pre-Covid for “freedom”[1][2][3]. If your argument is that those countries are fundamentally “less-free” post-Covid due to public health measures, I don’t see the data to support that. To imply that all those countries will shift from the principles that drive them pre-Covid to a police-state post-Covid is very unlikely given the prior right?
As someone who’s lived in one of those countries and the US, I can say that the tendency of the US to argue over every small issue, even if it is overwhelmingly common sense and beneficial, takes away a lot of focus on the big issues that the country needs to solve.
Those rankings are laughably out-of-date. People can't leave the house in Australia without a visit from the police. In any case, these NGO-compiled lists are suspect to begin with. So, you think federal Covid vaccine mandates are a small issue? What are the 'big issues' the country needs to solve, in your opinion?
I just got done reading the Three-Body problem which is translated from Chinese and there was a very strong escapist narrative which felt very strange for a westerner reading it.
This actually adds a lot of context as I felt the book didn’t live up to the reviews but I felt all along that it was down to cultural differences and the translation to English.
> Many people talk about vim lately, probably the most I've seen and I'm still not sure why.
Extrapolating from personal experience, I think this might be down to Covid WFH where more people have had to ssh into remote machines and may need to edit files so might choose to use vim as it’s easily available. And vim is something that I find is better learned progressively where you pick up 1 or 2 tricks every week or something so those people might have been able to pick it up over the last year or so and are now evangelizing it.
Want to have your mind blown? Microsoft (yes that Microsoft) officially supports remote development on Windows Server via SSH. As in, run vscode on your Linux box, create an SSH remote on your Windows Server, develop remotely on the server via SSH. Fully supported.
Porting cross-platform projects to the operating system that looks and feels very different to pretty much everything else out there. I prefer doing that from the comfort of my primary desktop OS.
I have also been WFH because of Covid but haven't had to change much or anything to my way of working and I do SSH to multiple machines every day. That might vary a lot from person to person, though. I have avoided doing actual dev. on a remote machine by setting up a VM to run Linux locally as any sort of remote desktop tends to be a pain.
Also, with distributed source control (git and friends) there is usually no need to access remote source files.
I wonder if this will encourage a renaissance in China of LAN play, more P2P protocols for online gaming, and informal game servers run by people you know (rather than the game publisher).
Sounds like it could be kinda fun (nostalgia for me)
Yes, I believe playing games with people in the same physical space is fundamentally different than sitting in a room by yourself playing with people online. I look back fondly upon the times in my childhood where we rigged up LAN parties, played console games on a couch or sitting on the carpet, or Pokemon on our Gameboys together roaming around the outdoors.
I don't look back very fondly upon the days when I grinded playing online PC games in a room alone, even though I had a headset and a chat box - that feels more like wasted time.
It's purely personal of course, and I know people who feel differently, but if gaming takes a step back toward anchoring itself in the physical realm, I'm all for it. The arcade heydays of the 80s sound awesome.
> Remember when the previous administration suggested looking into the Lab Leak theory and was laughed at?
Remember when the head of the previous administration thought injecting disinfectants or UV light was a possible solution to Covid?
The problem with trust and credibility is that once it’s lost, it’s very hard to gain back. Even if the broken clock is right twice a day, it’s still broken.
Aytu BioPharma is a small company bringing UV light into the body, and the early trials on COVID last year showed it worked. The same was true for Hydroxychloroquine too. You fell for propaganda.
Hydroxychloroquine has a mountain of side effects worse than COVID for most people, and very little (if any) positive effect.
Maybe UV could help in some way, but was this ever going to be a real solution? I highly doubt Aytu BioPharma was in a position to deliver anything meaningful at the volume and time-scale required.
Trump simply had no clue what a workable solution looked like. He broadcast to the world as the American President the ideas of the most recent crazy to have his ear (or one that he read on Twitter), and then got a bruised ego and doubled down when shown his ideas were worthless.
The side effects of HCQ were very overstated. The first study [1] that was pushed by the media to discredit Trump saying HCQ might be dangerous to the heart was later retracted [2] because the authors refused to share its data. The best metaanalysis today shows HCQ works to treat COVID if used early and is safe at the right doses [3].
He said they were going to look into it. He didn't break trust with your example because he didn't make a statement of fact that it was a cure. He said they'd look into it.
Now if all you do is read the title of articles or videos from left leaning news site, you may walk away with the belief that he's telling people to inject it. But he's not. He says they're going to look into it. Watch the video for yourself (and take note at the video title): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE.
I want to add--I'm in no way indicating the right leaning news sites don't do the same. They've both screwed the country up by failing to report news without some bias slapped all over everything.
You can't blame corporate media and the scientific establishment, and big tech's active suppression of this topic on Trump. That's on them.
Do you think corporate media is giving the recent information the weight it deserves, given the fact that 4.3 million people died so far, and untold damage was done to the global economy and mental health?
> The problem with trust and credibility is that once it’s lost, it’s very hard to gain back. Even if the broken clock is right twice a day, it’s still broken.
If that's the case, then the previous administration's opponents ought to look in the mirror, because they were the first anti-vaxxers, the first covid deniers (pelosi's statements that people should not be afraid of covid in late jan/early feb in chinatown, despite having access to the same intelligence as trump), and Dr Fauci lying to the US congress about gain of function research.
Honestly, given what's happened in the last two years on both sides, it should come as no surprise that no one trusts the federal government.
There was public information about the UVA catheter at the time Trump made his comments.
>The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Therapy, were based on five days of 20-minute treatments with ultraviolet A (UVA) light using a catheter inserted into the patients' tracheas. Patients were followed for 30 days. The findings were based on four patients; the fifth patient had no detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 at the study outset.
Did you post the wrong link? The doctors in that clip don't actually mention the UV light thing, although they are clear in their opposition to injecting disinfectant.
I see this point often brought up to detract from green energy sources. But I fail to see how it would be possible to transition to any new green technology without relying on the existing energy infrastructure for manufacturing. This attitude reminds of of the saying "perfection is the enemy of the good" and would get us no closer to a green energy future if everyone held this opinion.
Put another way, what is the alternative you are proposing for the energy source to manufacture the first wind turbine (at cost and can scale)? You might be able to manufacture a couple of wind turbines with some horses and man power but it will never be cost competitive with fossil fuels unfortunately.
Those also produce CO2 (effectively by burning sugar, more or less), and IIRC generally more of it per unit of useful work than a good fossil-fuel-powered engine.
I’m trying to point out an uncomfortable truth that a lot of green promoters gloss over or fail to acknowledge. In some cases natural gas may be the best option for the environment given a location - that’s simply a fact. Producing solar power, even if it was perfect and constant, does not magically remove all of the petrochemicals involved in its manufacture, transport, and maintenance.
I think hydro and nuclear are the realistic clean options. Solar and wind are not going to fix our problems.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22864637/pro_IMG_387230.jpg){kind=link}
If you assume the Pentagon/Navy is not incredibly incompetent and can indeed understand things such as parallax, I’m led to think this entire change in stance around UFOs is some sort of shitty psyops campaign designed to obscure information around secret/next-gen aircraft that are being developed.