It's ability to hover, and fixing itself to the deck allows for a much expanded launch envelope.
How so? I don't see how hovering makes any difference at all... it's just a waste of fuel, increasing gravity loss. It's nicer from a controllability standpoint, but SpaceX has clearly perfected the hoverslam maneuver and once you have that down it makes more sense than to waste fuel hovering and translating. Bolting itself into the deck helps with rough seas, I suppose, but it seems unlikely you'd want to try landing in very rough conditions anyway.
Spacex doesn't seem to care for doing this all that often any more.
Nah. They do it when it makes sense. They don't do it for Starlink launches because it's cheaper to launch a slightly lighter load and shorten turnaround time, to avoid waiting for the droneship to ferry the rocket back to land. Plus their launch cadence is so high that they'd need a big fleet of droneships. So they reserve those for paying customers who need the greater capacity. I don't think anything about New Glenn's capabilities changes those calculations.
The AI is significantly more aware of other cars around it. Unlike a human, the self-driving system has continuous 360-degree visibility.
While I agree that it *should* always be safe to hit the brakes, the truth is that when you're driving on busy roads most of the time it's not safe to brake hard. People follow too close more often than they maintain proper separation.
I also agree that drivers should always have sufficient situational awareness to know whether or not it's safe to brake, they often don't, and they often react without considering the consequences. This isn't a "man vs woman" thing, it's a human thing.
As usual with self-inflicted problems.
AFAICT, people with ink generally have more kids than those who don't.
it is a royal BITCH to try and remove them
It's worth noting that the way you remove them is by making them stop just sitting there, to the degree they do. The various approaches ultimately just try to break the ink up into smaller pieces that can be absorbed into the bloodstream and carried throughout the body... hopefully to get filtered out by the kidneys and liver and then excreted, but who knows? It seems likely to me that tattoo removal may create exactly the same effects as tattoo application, but moreso.
You shouldn't worry about getting rear ended. That's the worry of the person behind you. It's their fault if you get rear ended.
Have you ever been rear-ended? I have, twice. Both times while I was stopped at a red light, so fault was absolutely incontestable. It's their fault, but you end up without a car. Sure, their insurance has to pay, but they only have to give you what it's worth, not what it will cost you to replace it, and the difference is significant. Not to mention that you could be injured. Your hospital bills will be covered, but you were still injured and have to deal with pain, the recovery, and maybe even some amount of permanent damage. My neck has never been quite right after the second time I was rear-ended.
I can tell you exsctly how many human drivers would respond in a situation like this, because I've seen it happen and have heard about it enough times: the driver would have accelerated away from the incident at high speed.
They would have done that after slamming on the brakes in a vain attempt to avoid hitting the dog, possibly losing control of their vehicle, and possibly causing a collision with other cars or objects. If their reaction failed to cause a serious accident, then maybe they'd have sped away.
Many millions of those miles are on roads that never have animals on them.
Until last month, Waymo only allowed their cars to drive on city streets, no freeway driving. Even now, freeway usage is limited, only for selected riders (I'm not sure what the selection criteria is).
So, basically all of Waymo's millions of miles are on streets that often have animals on them.
if it were a medical study on, for example, a robotic surgical system with 10% of the mortality rate of a human surgeon, there would still be concern if, every now and then the system removed a patient's appendix at random during heart surgery.
Sure, there would be concern, but unless you're dumb you will still pick the option with the 90% lower mortality/harm rate. Yeah, it's good to investigate and fix the problem (assuming fixing the problem doesn't increase the mortality rate), but you should still use the provably better option.
The real question is if it simply failed to notice the dog or if it noticed the dog and didn't even attempt to stop.
Also, why it didn't attempt to stop (if it didn't). If it didn't attempt to stop because it correctly determined that attempting to stop would risk causing a more serious accident with other vehicles on the road, that's not only good, it's better than the vast majority of human drivers.
Would this be the Starlink system Musk rushed to Ukraine and afaik continues to allow UKR to use free if charge? (I believe that some donor nations do pay sub fees for the systems they've purchased for Ukr, to be clear.)
Musk repeatedly said that he won't allow Starlink to be used to support offensive operations. Yes, sometimes free gifts come with strings attached.
Your insistence that because Musk doesn't do everything Ukraine wants without question, "we know where his sympathies lie" is childish.
Yes, I can see the argument that an offensive to retake Ukr territory should be allowed, but I can also see the argument that it is an offensive. Musk, a rather pacifistic person who routinely gets collywobbles when confirmed with violence as pacifists often do, probably sees it that way (and your own linked article mentioned that Biden military & intel people at the time thought Putin 's retaliatory threats were increasingly credible). My guess is that he was confronted with Russian threats to himself or his companies globally.
Would it be better if Starlink just entirely shut down all service to the region? Would that be better for Ukraine?
If that's not what you want, then maybe shut the fuck up?
What is happening to Ukraine is terrible. Ukraine's defense against a sociopathic neighbor has been heroic. That doesn't mean everyone, everywhere, 24/7 makes "what's best for Ukraine" their priority.
John Money was the first of the batshit legion (that I'm aware of; his entire oeuvre sickens me so pardon if I haven't delved too deeply) to believe gender was distinct from actual sex.
"My deeply flawed views" are the facts that stand unchanging, despite fads.
Humans are either xx or xy chromosomes, producing large or small gametes respectively.
The tiny percent that aren't that, are mutations that happened to survive, like people being born without eyes or legless or conjoined. None of them are to be brutalized, none of them are to be treated with anything but respect and sympathy; it doesn't make them normal except insofar as 'mutations' in heterosexual reproduction are normal.
Give up; your bullshit carried through the crazy-years of 2020-2024, but nature is healing. Fucked up ideological gaslighting is fading before things like actual facts. We're calling MAPs pedophiles again, and people are recognizing how wrong were the lies that fueled Mengele-like brutal transgender experiments on CHILDREN, ruining their fucking lives. You can't "undo" castration chemicals given to prepubescent teens. You can't just wear a girl-mask and insist you're a woman. If you believe that, you need help and counseling, not endorsement.
Translation: Microsoft has outsourced its QA to volunteers.
You mean MS has outsourced QA to AI. I would think volunteers would have found that issue quickly.
Depends on what "preview” means. If it means an alpha build meant to be internal, such a bug is fine. To me this build was meant to be shown and tested by customers and closer to a beta build. Nothing ruins testing like the inability to test anything.
One time my company was asked to test some software for a supplier. The software would not run after install on any of our computers. There were no errors displayed to give us hints about what could be wrong. Despite weeks of correspondence with their development team, we could never get the software to run. After the testing period was over, they sent us a questionnaire. Unfortunately we could not answer most of the questions as we could never get it to run. One final question was about the readiness of the software for production. We said the software was not ready for production.
The development team was not happy about that and emailed asking for reasons why we said that. I assume their supervisors read the questionnaire responses. We told them that any software that would not work after weeks of correspondence and no hint about what to fix was not production ready. They responded they had since fixed all installation issues in the latest version. We answered back that we could only test the version we were given and that version did not work.
No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham
