I have no idea how you read that in what I wrote.

If I were the Russians, I'd be updating the software so that if the missile decides it needs to turn 180 degrees, it should limit it's turn to whatever the airframe can safely handle. And I'd update the software to treat location data with suspicion if the missile's position abruptly changes 10,000 miles when it had high confidence it knew where it was. And I'd update the software to fall back to dead reckoning or inertial guidance if I have reason to not trust the location receiver. This all seems pretty obvious to me and if it's obvious to me, it should be table stakes for anyone designing actual avionics.

If I were the Ukrainians, I'd be figuring out how to slowly change the missile's received position to counteract the code the Russians ought to be adding. Don't say you're in Peru, say you're 100 meters north of where you really are. Gradually increase the delta to nudge the missile to a safe impact location. That's sounds pretty tricky: you have to know where the missile is now, where it's targeted, where you want it to land, and how much you have to fool the missile to make it think it's blowing up your command post when it's really landing in Russia somewhere.

It's a game of cat and mouse. Can the Russians reliably detect spoofing? Can the Ukrainians spoof so subtly that the Russians can't detect it?

I'm not sure why you'd say this. From the summary and article, they're using the same gear and techniques we use for oil drilling. I'm not aware of any slavery or dead slaves in the oil and gas drilling industry. It's not like they are proposing hollowing out a giant cavern one mile down and building a conventional power plant there. The proposal, which sounds incredible, is to build something nine meters long and 75 cm wide.

I will note we have conventional mineral mines which are deeper than this. The Mponeng gold mine is 2.5 miles deep and there are a number of mines far deeper than one mile.

That would be epic. Without knowing the missile's actual target, you probably can't spoof it accurately enough.

I was wondering if you could make them collide in mid-air. That would be pretty cool. But if you're under attack, it's probably best to just kill the damn things now and not get cute. Kind of like now Dr. Evil should just shoot Austin Powers and skip the bad tempered sea bass.

Which seems like sloppy engineering. I'm not a rocket scientist or weapons designer but even I realize you'd want to put rate limits on your flight controls. And the flight control software ought to handle abrupt changes in received location.

If I were the Russians, I'd be updating my software, not adding receivers. And if I were the Ukrainians, I'd be getting ready to tell the missiles they are only 10, then 20, 50, 100, 1000 meters away from where they really are.

...I want a statement that autism is created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For reasons only He understands, He sometimes reaches out with his noodley appendage and gives kids autism.

Is that true? We don't know, we haven't rigorously investigated it, have we now? Since there's exactly as much evidence to support the FSM as vaccines causing autism, the CDC has a duty to mention both possibilities.

I'm puzzled by this. Monarch was trying to do two things:
1. Sell electric tractors
2. Sell autonomous tractors.

It seems lots of other companies similarly conflate "autonomous" with "battery electric". Anyone know why they do this? I mean, I know it was Tesla who first made waves with self-driving(ish) cars and since it was Tesla, of course they were electric. But these seem like two different products with two different sets of challenges to me.

Surely if you wanted to de-risk your autonomous tractor program, you'd start by buying and reselling conventional tractors so you could use your clever beans on the driving software. Or if you want to sell electric tractors, skip the whole autonomy gambit and focus on drive trains and hitches.

Anyone know a good reason why this seems to get all smooshed together?

That seems like a quite reasonable thing. Here's the question though: what's stopping artists, venues, and promoters from doing that today? I think there's absolutely no barrier and if you could come up with this idea, I'm sure someone at Bill Graham Presents already did.

There's a concept called a Chesterson's Fence. You're walking along (probably in New England) and find a stone fence. Before you remove it, it behooves you to ask "who put this fence here and why?" Perhaps the fence serves a useful purpose that you're just unaware of. Same with all sorts of regulations. If a proposed regulation or rule is so beneficial, you have to ask why have people not voluntarily adopted it? And until you know the answer to that, you don't have a good idea how people will react in your new regime, given that their incentives haven't changed.

I want to implement a BuyBot. Do I need a license for that?

That's a great question, one which should have good answers before enacting legislation. I can suggest a few.

First, reputation. Artists don't want to be seen as profit hungry bandits. If Beyonce sold seats at $1,000 for nosebleed seats, a lot of her fans would be alienated. She has plausible deniability if she retails them for a mere $500.

Second, risk. The venue doesn't want seats to go empty. If they underprice tickets, they guarantee themselves a predictable amount of income.

Third, buzz. If tickets originally sold for $500 and now are going for $1,000, it must be a good show, right?

Fourth, who says the venue doesn't sell them for $1,000? I bought some tickets over the last year and Ticketmaster was happy to let me resell them on their site, for a cut of the action, of course. They make a ton of money if tickets change hands many times so it's somewhat in their interest to let party A buy the ticket for $100 then resell it for $1,000.

I guarantee you lots of smart people have run the numbers and know ticket pricing strategies which incorporate all these effects. I further guarantee they've thought about it a lot more than you and I combined.

I don't think it's a good idea, even in theory. What this proposal will ensure is that tickets are very hard to find.

Imagine Bad Bunny announces a show in your hometown. Tickets sell out in an hour. Now, if you want to go, you have to be watching the Ticketmaster web site like a hawk. A ticket will be listed for sale and immediately be snapped up by some other lucky fan. You've just traded one problem, high prices, with another, a lottery system. What makes you so confident this is better?

Here's a proposal to think about: why is it an either-or? Ticketmaster could experiment with issuing ticket refunds and reselling tickets. They don't need legislation to do that. So we could run an experiment: let people resell tickets and have TM refund and rebuy them. Let's see which is more popular. We both know which will have more traffic.

Here's the thing. The observed value of the seats is far, far more than the original selling price (because that's what people are actually willing to pay). You could solve that problem by having more shows (yay!) or having artists and venues list tickets for their approximate fair market value. The question you ought to be asking is, why do neither of these happen?

This is not, however, how most other products work. If I buy a car then decide I no longer want it, I'm not obligated to sell it back to the manufacturer, I just sell it to some guy down the street. Why would tickets be any different?

Of course there's a practical difference between a used car and an unused ticket but the principle should be the same.

I get it: people hate paying sky high resale prices to see Taylor. Banning resale doesn't change the fact that there are more people who want to see her at $100/seat than there are seats. We use prices to allocate all sorts of other scarce products, from toothpicks to Eras tickets. The beauty of a price system is the people who value the product most get it. The sad part is lots of products I might want for $100 aren't available and I'm not willing to buy them for $200.

I glanced through TFA. They mention that the body is infused with antifreeze, so removing that is yet a third problem to solve.

C'mon, seriously folks. The tank is a 21st century crypt, not any sort of medical devices. She's as dead as can be and not coming back.

Right. I'm far, far less comfortable with our current politicians and regulators shaping AI.

No doubt that's what we think their job ought to be. How they actually act is (1) get elected, (2) get re-elected, (3) provide favors to whoever helped with (1) and can ensure (2), and increasingly (4) enact policies or legislation to support my personal world view, facts and other people's opinions be damned.

Funny. I just read Why it's so hard to bust the weather control conspiracy theory. Ignore the conspiracy theory part, it spends the first part of the article talking about cloud seeding, including what it can and cannot actually do.

TL;DR: cloud seeding can change rainfall by a little bit, likely no more than 10%. It won't make a deluge unless the air was overflowing with moisture already. It's difficult to measure because forecasts aren't accurate enough to know what would have happened.

Legally for free? I still pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime video. AFAIK, most of that content is licensed.