Meanwhile, solar panels might be super efficient because they get to use the moon as a giant reflector. Shedding heat will be an interesting problem though... perhaps thermal panels and Stirling generators instead of PV? They could save a bunch of weight by just using the water-ice when they get there. Sounds like a fun project to work on!
Aviation is safe largely because of training and adherence to procedure. I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world but the US population of drivers seems largely immune to both of these things for driving a car.
A lot of people see driving a car as a right, instead of a privilege it is (or should be). It goes hand in hand with little required training and lenient punishments.
We are talking seconds for a trained pilot. However, going through checklists first might delay that action by minutes and going into direct law probably wasn't on any of the checklists they had to run. Things happen really fast in aviation; You don't have much time, if any, to think in an emergency like the Hudson ditching. Captain Sully already had a lot of other decisions to make in a short amount of time.
NB: Going into direct law would have more than just that one side-effect. I'm not an expert on Airbus (or any airliner) but everything you do in aviation is a tradeoff. If the pilot has most of their time in non-direct law, it might be that going into direct-law just to get rid of a single limit is the lesser choice.
IMHO, Sully's comment is extremely valuable for training consideration and anyone else going through the same or similar scenario in the future.
Regarding the Phugoid pattern and the GPS spoofing:
> Flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24.com showed the aircraft making what appeared to be a figure eight once nearing the airport in Aktau, its altitude moving up and down substantially over the last minutes of the flight before impacting the ground.
> FlightRadar24 separately said in an online post that the aircraft had faced “strong GPS jamming,”
This is a seemingly simple yes/no question but you have actually entered a forest.
Most things can be disabled by a pilot. Airliners are marvels of engineering and often contain a data center to maintain control of the aircraft [1]. There is only so much flexibility you want to create for your customers… and the goal is to simplify operations with safety in mind.
Kinda. There is far more going on in biology than in our computer systems though. Code compiling is generally done without much of the world changing concurrently around it. Also, with repeatable compilation you can get exactly the same output every time. Change the output just a little and potentially the whole thing fails. Meanwhile, in biology, people/creatures are born with quite different attributes and can still thrive. The success of a species often relies on the fact that there is mutation over time. Even just the insane interconnectedness within single biological organisms dwarves the complexity of any computer system on earth.
Many code review products are not AI. They are often collections of rules that have been specifically crafted to catch bad patterns. Some of the rules are stylistic in nature and those tend to turn people away the fastest IMHO.
Many of these tools can be integrated into a local workflow so they will never ping you on a PR but many developers prefer to just write some code and let the review process suss things out.
I really found it interesting that in the engineered society of Brave New World, everyone got a drug. I guess my personally opinion is that I disagree with you, that in a world where you know about drugs, drugs are a sort of need.
More seriously, I think there's ample historical evidence that drugs (with a liberal definition, beer, etc) are very popular across various times and places.
That very wikipedia article you links makes it clear it's not intended to mean religion is a "Drug" in the sense of being addictive, but rather a sociological pain killer. A tonic that limits how much people react to their own suffering.
Absolutely. And smart phones are also not literally a drug. Drugs, video games, alcohol, and religion, are all used as a part of coping mechanisms for many, however.
> a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms (such as anxiety, irritability, tremors, or nausea) upon withdrawal or abstinence
(Merriam-Webster, "addiction")
It might be stretching it somewhat, but I think video games, social media, and religion can manifest a habitual need to indulge, negative effects from doing so, and negative effects from not doing so. Perhaps not in most people.
Coping mechanisms/painkillers can naturally cause some people to be "in too deep" because they keep using it and become dependent.
If you want to get technical, doesn’t it? When some particular variety of thing is popular across all human cultures, doesn’t this point to it addressing some deep desire we might put on mazlow’s? What distinguishes a deep, innate human desire from a need?
One way to distinguish them is the retrospective analysis of the outcome. What happens when someone obtains or goes without each category?
To go deeper, I think one needs to more fully defined "need”. Need for what? Are we talking about needs.. to sustain biological life? Are we talking about needs... To sustain happy and productive lives?
If we take the second definition, there is a pretty clear difference between a desire and a need. Satisfaction of a desire does not necessarily advance that goal, and can very well be counter to it.
I would just argue that “happy and productive“ is vastly too reductive. This seems like a very difficult definition to nail down, but those needs which are not required for survival would probably be defined as something like “those things which increase the flourishing of, maximize the potential of, and/or contribute to a valid and lasting feeling of deep satisfaction in the individual.”
From this definition, it seems like some drugs and some uses of drugs are most certainly not necessary while others seem to be contributing to a real psychological need. Some drugs can give people insight into the nature of their own mind or of their experience, or reshape their worldview for the better. They can allow us to experiment with our own consciousness, which seems to be something that we derive a lot of satisfaction and even utility from. In these cases, drugs may be fulfilling a need. Simultaneously we can recognize that drug use intended more just to anesthetize or produce blind pleasure is most likely not contributing to a need, as it was defined above.
Indoctrination into a dependency mindset fits the "buy a solution" model that our societies run on. We are already primed for this indoctrination from the moment mother puts a pacifier in our mouths. Then constantly looking up at her approval, that constitutes the beginning of our need of approval from the women in our lives. We are programmed and primed from day 0.
> According to Freud, dreaming about trains often symbolizes the journey of life, with the train representing the progression of time and the destination representing death, and the act of riding a train can be linked to unconscious sexual desires due to the sensation of movement and confinement, particularly when experiencing anxiety about missing a train or being trapped on one.
Yes, Freud was who I was referencing; the references to the mother, pacifier, and constantly looking for approval from women made me think of Freud's fringe theories about the Oedipus complex. He was also big into the symbolism of dreams, and thought that one explanation for trains in your dreams were the phallic representations of your repressed sexual desires.
A human baby is helpless and "primed" for dependency on others - there is simply no other way they could be (without a drastically different evolutionary path). This whole thread is about the modern difficulties of teaching children to become independent in spite of that beginning and the corporate machine that wishes to keep us there ("commoditize your complements"). So uh, welcome to the conversation and try not to be so fatalistic.
That kind of misogyny sounds like some deeply rooted trauma you have there, buddy.
Have you ever considered that humans are simply social creatures, that the only thing really separating us from other animals is our ability to socialize and organise in groups?
So if babies are ignored and raised in isolation they still grow up with normal social skills? I think it’s fairly clear that socialization is learned (a term which I think is equivalent to programmed in this context) and not something as innate (or “in our nature”) as breathing.
That’s a fallacy. Human babies don’t grow up in isolation; if they do, it’s in contrived experiments, and drawing conclusions from that is about as helpful as watching birds in a cage.
Humans in their natural environment will interact with other humans socially, mirror their display of emotion, and have a desire for affection.
Of course they will. But that’s is programming. Nurturing, socializing, teaching… all of it is programming. I’m not placing any negative connotations on the word. I’m not sure why you don’t view those things as programming?
A girl got lost. She wanted to call her mom, but the girl had left her phone at home. So she went to the library to phone her mom. The librarian refused to let the girl make a call. [N.B. Yes, the librarian got in hot water for that move]
The girl eventually convinced a stranger to let the girl call her mom using the stranger's phone.
The mom, who was frantically trying to locate her daughter, took the call even though it was from an unknown number.
How many people would make an exception in that case of an unknown number calling?
>> The mom, who was frantically trying to locate her daughter, took the call even though it was from an unknown number.
>> How many people would make an exception in that case of an unknown number calling?
Duh! What a stupid question. Almost everyone in extreme distress due to losing their child would take anything, call, stranger knocking at the door, medium talking to the ether. Anything! :)
I get this is an Idiocracy-level type of question: "If you have one bucket that contains 2 gallons and another bucket that contains 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have?"
That's the point - all the people who said, "Not in contact list, do not pickup" (including me), did they think about an exception list?
I know I didn't. Short-sighted reaction after getting inundated with mandarin-speaking spammers.
I don't know what the globally correct answer is. But "never pickup" seems too extreme (even if the person, calling on the unknown number, leaves a voicemail, if you can't reach them with a return call, what then?)
Well at least where I live, the obvious exception to "don't pickup unknown numbers" rule is shipping services. Some of my online orders will arrive by courier and their drivers will call me when they arrive near my flat so I go out and pick my package. Completely unknown random numbers although companies do have the option to associate phone numbers with caller ID so I can see it's a delivery service. But by some reason (cost, convenience, no idea), they don't.
I can usually infer from the fact that I made an online order, sometimes they'll send me an SMS prior to sending but not always. Anyhow I did have my share of picking spam calls because of the necessity to ignore the "no unknowns" rule while expecting a package.
Overall I don't get that many calls yet that I'd have to configure the phone to reject ALL numbers not in the phone book. But call spam is definitely increasing, along with plain scam. I almost got my card stolen by a post office spoofing scam. And recently my bank cancelled my card and had to get a new one after someone from US tried to buy jewelry with it (I live in Romania) - probably leaked from one of the many online services I pay for. Now I switched to single-one-time-use cards from Revolut for all non-recurring payments, unfortunately it's too much of a hassle to do so for recurring ones. And with increasing security vulnerabilities my only protection is separate bank accounts and keeping only small amounts of money on the account linked to the debit card. No credit, only debit.
Did anyone here use Genera on an original lisp machine? It had a pseudo-graphical interface and a directory listing provided clickable results. It would be really neat if we could use escaping to confer more information to the terminal about what a particular piece of text means.
Feature-request: bring back clickable ls results!
Bonus points for defining a new term type and standard for this.
This is nice, but a poor substitute for what Genera was doing.
You see, Genera knows the actual type of everything that is clickable. When a program needs an input, objects of the wrong type _lose their interactivity_ for the duration. So if you list the files in some directory, the names of those files are indeed links that you can click on. Clicking on one would bring up a context menu of relevant actions (view, edit, print, delete, etc). If a program asks for a filename as input then clicking on a file instead supplies the file object to the program. Clicking on objects of other types does nothing.
I have this side-project fantasy of a very simple terminal pipe-types project. The basic idea is a set of very basic standardized types, demarcated using escape sequences. Dates, filenames, URLs, numbers, possibly one or two number units as well (time periods, file sizes only).
Tools that already produce columnar data (ls) get a flag that lets them output this format, and tools that work with piped data (cut, sort, uniq) get equivalents or modes that let them easily work with this.
Essentially, simple typed tables held in text, with enhancements for existing tooling to know how to deal with it. Would make my day-to-day on the command line much easier.
But note that on the Lisp Machine/Genera, every type has a presentation and can be “printed” to the REPL. This includes any new classes that you create as part of your own programs. It’s not just a small list of standard types, but every type.
The standard tutorial for the system is to implement Conway’s Game of Life. It has you create a class to hold the game board and then guides you through the process of defining a presentation for it so that the it can be displayed easily.
I think PowerShell works this way essentially. As I understand, all data is structured which makes formatting and piping to other programs much simpler.
...glom on to this: "+JSONSchema" with some sort of UNIX-ish taxonomy. Everything from `man test`, add in `man du`, `date`, `... ago` (relative time) as you'd mentioned.
`jc ls | add_schema...` => `jq ...`
...or `jc ls --with-schema | jq ...`
(it appears as though `jc` already supports schema's, so perhaps it'd be `jc ls --with-types` or something, but there's your starting point!)
That's neat and a similar idea. I think JSON probably ends up being too expressive (not just an array of identically-shaped shallow objects), too restrictive (too few useful primitives), and also too verbose of a format, but the idea of a wrapping command like that as a starting point is neat
"prefer shallow arrays of 'records', possibly with a deeply nested 'uri'-style identifier"
...the clutch result is: "it can be loaded into a database and treated as a table".
The origin of this technique for me was someone saying back in 2000'ish timeframe (and effectively modernized here):
sqlite-utils insert example.db ls_part <( jc ls -lart )
sqlite3 example.db --json \
"SELECT COUNT(*) AS c, flags FROM ls_lart GROUP BY flags"
[
{
"c": 9,
"flags": "-rw-r--r--"
},
{
"c": 2,
"flags": "drwxr-xr-x"
}
]
...this is a 'trivial' example, but it puts a really fine point on the capabilities it unlocks. You're not restricted to building a single pipeline, you can use full relational queries (eg: `... WHERE date > ...`, `... LEFT JOIN files ON git_status...`), you can refer to things by column names rather than weird regexes or `awk` scripts.
This particular example is "dumb" (but ayyyy, I didn't get a UUOC cat award!) in that you can easily muddle through it in different (existing pipeline) ways, but SQL crushes the primitive POSIX relationship tooling (so old, ugly, and unused they're tough to find!), eg: `comm`, `paste`, `uniq`, `awk`
> Feature-request: bring back clickable ls results!
Doesn't your desktop (or distro) have a graphical file manager? On KDE it's Dolphin, which ex-Windows users absolutely love. I don't know what it would be on Gnome or other desktops.
