They have satellites of their own. Since it's more expensive to launch, put them into orbit and operate them, I'm sure they'll reach some sort of "mutually beneficial" agreement, like we promise not to screw with yours if you won't mess with ours.
attacking satellites is an escalation, and if they retaliate in-kind, we'll get mutually assured destruction of satellites and Kessler syndrome, and the size of the US economy means there's a lot more to lose in MAD compared to them
The jammer under discussion is not a satellite. It is a ground-based system that jams satellites. Did you read the article? There's even a photo of the system right at the top.
Damn I’m sorry.. the picture was blurry on the device I used since no JS and it was just the free part of the whole article.
I was sloppy at the end of the workday and the weekend ahead.
Probably also biased towards a satellite with jammers.
* Calling p = 0.062 "marginally significant" (Study 1, child perceivers, adult targets) rings my alarm bells.
* The adult photos used (for studies 1/2/4B) are headshots from an Israeli casting agency. Are there any stage names in use? The child photos are all twins from a twin study the same lab was running. Those seem like, uh, different datasets, with no attempt to control for differences between them. What are the results if you use child actor headshots. What are the results if you use random adult twins. Come on now.
* Any control for real correlations between name and visible features like race or class? The false names in the multiple-choice question were taken at random from the set of names in the dataset. The mean accuracy (for photos of adults) was like 30% - was that more or less even across photos? Or is the average dragged up by a few photos? Imagine an American context: how much of this result is from people correctly identifying the black guy as Darius or Hakeem (or from correctly identifying that the white guy ISN'T Darius or Hakeem)? If you can eliminate one option from a 4-choice question, then your odds are 33%, not 25%.
* The way the results are interpreted (people change their appearance in adulthood in a way that makes them look more like their name) depends entirely on the "we aged up these photos of children using a GAN" experiment, which seems extremely shaky. Also be serious here: do they really think people named Ariel have more lion-y haircuts on average in a way that people subconsciously pick up on? That people named David are gonna look more kingly? Not to shit on their proposed mechanism too much, but get real.
* They preregistered that they were going to look at the differences between men and women, between children and adults, between people who went to religious schools and people who didn't, and between people who knew an example of most of the names used and people who didn't, AND between participants' scores using names they were familiar with vs names they weren't. Lotta comparisons there; I hope they did a Bonferroni correction on the reported p-values.
God I keep coming back to them using photos of twins for the children. Imagine taking this study. You're shown a photo of a kid. Does he look more like a John, Paul, George, or Ringo*? You click John. Two photos later you're shown the same goddamn kid. Does he look more like a Matthew, Mark, Luke or John*? You figure the test is bugged or something, so you click John again. OOPS, actually those two photos were identical twins, so you're guaranteed to have gotten one wrong! Does this affect the results? Who knows?
Tried to use one of these in a space application once: cold side on the sensor, hot side attached directly to a radiator. Unfortunately the thermal conductance [W/°C] from the hot side back to the cold side was high enough (relative to my radiator's thermal conductance to space) that I needed to pump not only the sensor's heat load, but a small fraction of the Peltier's heat as well, which ballooned the electrical power required. Not worth spending that much power to buy an increase in SNR from a cooler sensor.
Many CCD cameras used for astronomy use a TEC stack to cool the sensor. Separating the cold and the hot side is paramount. Haven't used it in space, but I'd probably use a vapor phase heat pipe to move the heat as far away as possible before radiating the rest of the heat away.
That would have helped a lot! Using a high-conductance device to transport heat away from the hot side before switching to lower-conductance devices for heat rejection. All I can say is that my thermal philosophy wasn't as robust back then, and I also had an irrational fear of heatpipes :)
Yes, although in practice you will have issues sinking heat at 0K without using additional energy to do so, since that's below the radiation sink temperature of space (~2.73K).
It means "tornado," referencing the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz." The Kansan protagonist is transported by a sudden tornado to a magical land called Oz.
"Affected" is a strong term. The line along which re-entry was predicted to occur is three times the circumference of the Earth (as you can see in the OP article), and a small fraction of that line passes through the borders of Germany.
