We're generally taught that the same face of the Moon always faces toward Earth, but that's only an approximation. There are a few effects that change the appearance of the Moon, so it'd be interesting to see how the AI reacts to those.

Obviously the phase affects how the Moon looks. Another is called "libration", due to the fact that the Moon's orbital speed varies, while it's rotational speed remains fairly constant. And the fact that the Moon's orbit is inclined 5deg. Parallax is the fact that two observers on the Earth, far appart, will see slightly different faces. The apparent size of the Moon changes as it gets closer and further away during its orbit. For a given phase, the actual ange of the Sun will vary exactly which portions of the Moon are lit.

With so many variables, the same moon nevere really repeats, so just using a stock Moon photo would produce a Moon which appears slightly different. So it'd be interesting ro see how the AI performs taking those into account.

That's actually not a good use case. For high speed photography the flash acts as a global shutter, you usually leave the actual shutter open for a long time in relative darkness.

A good use case for global shutter is to do pretty much the same thing, but with a constant light source.

My local hackerspace did some of these quite a while ago. They were launched from a specific area designed for such things (I didn't attend the launches). Not sure what permissions were required to launch, but onced launched it was up to the wind where it went. One of them was about to enter the no fly zone in Iraq before it failed. We were kinda excited and fearful about what would happen if it got there.

But I think that shows the notion that such things can be regulated is quite rediculous. They can be launched from any place on Earth pretty cheap. Even if the best of intentions are had, contact with the balloon will fail at some point, and it might spend quite a bit more time floating. So there's probably a lot of stuff up there that no one knows about. The money spent flying a plane there to poke a hole in it isn't going to be sustainable. You can't tell people in other countries not to launch them, and they couldn't keep them out of US airspace if they wanted to.

As a Miagi-do student, I take defense to your offense.

Even though Mercury will be low contrast in the twilight, dark skies free of city lights will not help. I was able to pick out Mercury (and the rest) last night viewed directly over downtown Louisville, Ky.

Even got a photo:
https://m.facebook.com/story.p...

Title says it all.

Having a proprietary period delays science getting done. Say one person has a creative idea, gets a proprietary period of 1 year, publishes it. Many others see the data and get a new clever idea from it, one wins a bid for an observation, gets a proprietary period for that... ad infinum.

Worse, is when the researchers realize others can benefit from the data and serve as gatekeepers requiring favors, money, and/or credit for work they didn't contribute anything to, other than just being lucky.

It's really the current system of giving credit that needs to change.

Right. USCF, FIDE, and most other organizations do not permit the use of chess engines, but do allow the use of any written material. E.g. looking a position up in a database would likely be a no no, but looking one up in a book would be fine.

Since the link is paywalled, I can't read it, but a Reuters articles says they "ignored red flags" that should have tipped them off something illegal is going on. https://www.reuters.com/busine...

Working for a bank, we are required to take training to spot money laundering every year. The bank can be held liable for money laundering even if criminals go to great lengths to hide it from us. Just saying "they didn't tell us it was illegal" isn't a defense.

.

How many houses, cars, people, etc had no sign at all? I'm going to throw out a guess and say it was more than 99% of them.

The Onion's brief was explicitly about protecting parody. But I have trouble seeing how copying a FB page under any circumstances rises to the level of being illigal. Was he making legal threats to arrest people? Asking people to use his page to report crimes? Pretending to be a police officer in any way?

The real police FB pages likley aren't administered by real police, and that would be even more likely for a stand alone web page.

Designing an unreliable keyboard is one mistake. Not having processes in place to stop it from shipping is another. Not realizing the overwhelming number of defective units indicates a problem is another. Not immediatley compensating your costomers for your mistake is another. Going to court and fighting what a 3rd party objectively identifies as your mistake is another. I'm sure the list could go on. Of course it's highly doubtful these were all actually mistakes and not deliberate attempts to cover up known mistakes to save money.

I had heard this was used as a control, but always thought it was too weak to help much. Around here, I only remember one place having such a sign, and that was decades ago.

You can hand a customer pretty much anything and claim it's a receipt. At the pizza place I worked at, the receipts were hand written, with a carbon copy that had serialized numbers on them. The previous management had obviously been doing some skimming. The had a whole week were they sold $200 in pizza, that's like 20 pizzas. I had figured they got a batch of order forms somehow that were unaccounted for. Then at one point realized they could have just used anything.

Someone in the know would immediatley pick up on the fake receipt. And they could do that using the serial numbers, even if they were using stolen order forms. So the whole tracking of receipts doesn't really help.

Even in today's printed receipt world, it's not that hard to get your own printer to fake some.

One complaint isn't going to surprise anyone. A dozen will.

You can only get away with this for a bit. The card processors analyze the data for servers making exessive tips. So you could steal some money, but not likely enough to matter.