Barring pretty exciting advances in biotech(along with either the psychology or...less wholesome methods...of keeping people on-task when they learn that their 4-century lifespan will be dedicated to a period of drifting through nothing and a life sentence studying the surfaces of Kuiper belt objects inside a tiny habitube or something) you are going to hit a line where (human) exploration is not going to be readily separable from human colonization; just because shipping times become prohibitive: Anywhere on earth you can just pack some extra canned goods and a few spare parts and be there and back in under a decade even with age of sail era tech; even faster now unless the obstacle is political objections by people who already live there, in which case it's 'espionage' more than 'exploration'. Hasn't really been a notable case of 'exploration inextricably linked to colonization' since humans crossed the Bering straight into the Americas, with some weaker alternatives from the colonial period where it almost certainly wouldn't have been as cost-effective; but would have been theoretically feasible.

Near-earth objects are mostly in the same board. Shipping cost are higher, so presumably lunar mining overseers will receive less frequent breaks than offshore drill rig workers; but the moon is only 3-ish days away. As you move further away the numbers get less favorable; though they still remain within the realm of "there were people circumnavigating the earth in that time, even before we knew how scurvy worked" or at least "modest chunk of your expected working life"; and it may well be relevant that a lot of the more distant objects are either gas giants that you would only ever observe rather than land on, or very small solid bodies that you could potentially just have a robot slap an ion drive on and bring back for your perusal.

Ultimately, it seems like it boils down to an irrational emotional position. Some people, don't know why, just look at a situation and are all "the most fulfilling outcome possible would be making this the next generation's problem!" Leads to enough bad calls earthside; I assume there will be some particularly grim outcomes in more hostile environments.

We already have to cook our resumes for screening bots. There's going to be a lot more stupid automated systems crappily built on this shit we have to manipulate our output to please, and it will suck.

It's not going to get any easier to find definitely bot slop free software as time goes on; but we can be fairly sure about this stuff. Like hunting for low background steel.

Because the failure occurred after the airplane had passed V1 during its takeoff roll, the pilots had no alternative but to attempt to climb. V1 is the point at which there is no longer sufficient runway to abort the takeoff and safely stop the airplane.

Yes and no. This is the general rule, and V1 is general "decision speed". That said, this is not meant to be an automatic and unthinking rule. There are explicit conditions in which pilots are taught to abort no matter the speed: fire, loss of directional control and total loss of power.

The balance at this point is that there is no longer sufficient time to stop, and so the pilot needs to judge whether is the plane better off overrunning the runway versus taking off on a climb and coming around. That's a intricate question, although the installation of EMAS in a lot of airports actually makes a runway overrun significantly less dangerous that it used to be. But for sure a plane that's (for example) totally lost control authority (e.g. due to a complete hydraulic failure or a complete computer failure) is better off just plowing past the end of the runway than trying to takeoff and land without any functioning controls.

Finally, I'd add that this is in no way a criticism of the pilots (RIP) -- they probably had a handful of seconds by which to make the decision. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, we can absolutely say that even past V1 they should have just slammed it down and prayed, but there is likely no way they could have known that at the time.

Of course any revenue, including the shadiest one would be used to fund the expenses, but why not say that it paid dividends or bonuses for the execs or whatever lobby they're doing (I assume there's a fund for that (I mean a publicly known one).

I can't say that I'm entirely surprised, given what else they've been getting up to; but it seems downright crazy to just unleash a slop engine without even giving your volunteers a heads up; then patronizingly ask if you can perhaps arrange a meeting to understand their concerns.

If your options are 'nothing' and 'hire bilingual tech writer' you can see the attraction of having a not very good but extremely cheap option; but just tossing away the expertise you already get for nothing out of some sort of weird technophilia? Is there actually some nutjob out there who was all "Oh, but machine translation makes my CI pipeline so efficient" or something?

Not sure if it's 1:1 with this new matter thing (I think it's their third push in this direction, at least), I can only recognize the door/window open sensor (even that is SLIGHTLY different), anyway I have a bunch of door sensors, leak/water sensors, and movement sensors. They all work over zigbee, went into Home Assistant with no fuss, I think they can do even firmware OTA updates. Best design ever for each specific use, batteries last forever (and work, even better, and report well the capacity for NiMh), super-happy. In some threads I follow people reported repeatedly that they had problems with the batteries draining quickly, but mine will go over a year for sure (I recharge them just in case once before the winter together with the ones for some thermostats and such) but it might be that there are some quality control issues, OR some environmental (radio) factors that might play a role here.

With a president who solves an existential threat by finding the best expert he can find, and using his own formidable political skills and charisma to run interference for that expert.

Seriously, Comacho was a meathead, but Iâ(TM)d vote for him.

No comment.

Of course we know, because we don't see the source tree to the next GTA game posted anywhere, do we?

No. Like any software, AI requires maintenance, and that maintenance costs money, lots of money.

It does not. Models need nothing more than the storage of some gigs of weights, and a GPU capable of running them.

If you mean "the information goes stale", one, that doesn't happen at all with RAG. And two, updating information with a finetune or even LORA is not a resource-intense task. It's making new foundations that is immensely resource intensive.

Can you integrate it into your products and work flow?

Yes, with precisely the difficulty level of any other API.

Can you train it on your own data?

With much less difficulty than trying to do that with a closed model.

Has it been determined whether the IT situation was related to the theft that occurred?

Obviously it sounds like basically no bad option was left unchosen when it came to their IT config; but I'm curious whether this was a situation where the perps were actually sophisticated enough (or unsophisticated at traditional smash-and-grab/balaclava-when-on-camera techniques) to incorporate the bad IT into the heist; or whether the entry was more or less pure physical access control failure that happens to put the general state of the system in stark relief?

Obviously if it were a heist movie there'd be a hoodie kid using the power of fast typing to haxx0r the cameras and guide the operatives while using a precociously cobbled-together AI to selectively delete them from the surveillance footage; but if the overall physical security posture was bad, and the building is largely accessible to the public, it seems entirely plausible that someone just cased the joint and walked in much as they would have 50 years ago; though a different interested party is probably hosting a C2 server or some exploitation payloads on their DVR.

This is the part in the bad summer blockbuster where it turns out that there was some sort of alien organism involved in the collision; and now people are quietly scrambling to ensure it doesn't make it back to earth, right?

Steam offers developers the option to sell their own Steam keys. In theory, that lets developers use all of Steam's infrastructure services without paying - Steam doesn't take a cut of those sales. Essentially the only condition is that they don't offer those keys on better terms than for Steam buyers.

That's basically the exact opposite of abusing your market power. To the degree you can do better than Steam, with help of a third party or not, they let you keep Steam's share accordingly.

The small game developers I've talked with have all said that Steam is by no means a replacement for a marketing budget. Random indies on steam don't get noticed, as a rule.