While I'd love imaginary propulsion tech to be our saviour here, you know that Hubble exists outside a lab, right?

"Peer Review and Scrutiny: While showcased at venues like the Electrostatics Society of America, APEC, and technical discussions, the claims sit well outside conventional physics consensus, and full peer-reviewed validation is pending"

Yeah, why would you post something as ridiculous at "computer tech put in orbit" on Slashdot? Absurd.

It's not like this is a TECH site anymore. This is a "we fucking hate MUSK" site.

Get with the program.

Enjoy your 320x200 streams.

It might be too soon but the Exodus Technologies third-order Coulomb devices (IIRC) are built for this kind of very low impulse long duration lifiting.

Getting a rig up there to clamp on to the Hubble is probably the hard part of the project.

High-impulse propulsion is more likely to damage it than low and slow.

This was during the "NJ Drone Flap".

Trump was on TV saying he'd been briefed on them and the drones were "tracked back to their garage".

Last thing he said about it before his FAA said "they were authorized, we're not explaining, stop asking".

Matthew Livelsberger said they were of Chinese origin.

Robert Hastings wrote an entire book on unidentified craft over nuclear facilities covering four decades of documented incursions.

The FoIA request sounds like good data but nothing new.

I hate Zuck as much as the next geek, but preserving human rights is a governmental-scale responsibility, not an issue we leave up to every random company to do their own due diligence (or we'd have none).

It's great Wyden and Markey are taking an interest in this, but the issue is far bigger than one major brand of spy-glasses; there are dozens of brands of similar glasses that don't even pretend to try to protect privacy; and moving beyond that specific form factor, there are thousands of styles of spy cameras available to any random Joe for under $100 (many in the $20-$30 range!) right from Amazon. This isn't even trying to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube - This is drowning in a vat of Colgate while pissing and moaning over a stray blob of Crest.

Two engineers (one of whom is a stuffed shirt being thrown a bone post-acquisition) are going to rewrite Cisco's legacy code using AI and an unlimited budget.

I'm sorry, can even the most delusional pro-AI executive out there seriously say that with a straight face? This just plain fails the sniff test - Are they establishing a scapegoat for an already-failing project? Honoring some contractual landmine EZDubs managed to sneak in? Straight-up insurance fraud?

If this is exactly what it looks like at face value, excuse me while I go short Cisco stock.

Porn stars. At least back when I quit WP, one of the things that sent me over the top was that every minor porn star (especially female) apparently deserved their own page, while scientists didn't even if they had numerous published articles and citation and done important work - but their field was nothing famous.

In theory.

If you follow actual notability discussions, they are largely about "this isn't important".

The deletionists are one of the reasons I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. It's not like you need to fit into a 20-volume print edition, idiots. You can give every damn porn star who's been in one clip you liked their own page, why not everyone else? For all I care, every human on the planet could have their own page, and every house with a story, and every dog and cat.

Just imagine if the amount of time and energy spent on the deletion discussions alone would go into improving WP instead.

Or, you know, you could use the time to do something about the people hogging their favorite page and considering it their property and reverting everyone else's edits just because it wasn't made by them. Or one of the other dozen issues the site has. But no, whether or not Xav deserves a page, that's what needs discussion. Fuck off.

Closer to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tradition. All they need are the words "Don't Panic" on the front cover.

If it doesn't, it has no real value.

Almost nothing on Wikipedia is true, but all of it is "verifiable" in that there's at least one published source making the claim. Even if 99.9% of all other sources say the opposite.

(The Haka is not, for example, a war chant. Which is attested to, but because it's claimed to be online, it is "verifiable".)

The number of errors is huge, the number of "official editors" who know anything about the subject is extremely small, and this has always been the case. This is why nobody reputable cites Wikipedia. Wikipedia is where you go to find out what is potentially interesting, but you ALWAYS obtain the facts from elsewhere, if you've any sense.

From what I can tell most middle managers hate their employees - especially those who are smarter and more skilled - and can't wait to replace them.

They all probably think they'll be one of the last humans at the company.

It'll be funny when AI supplants middle management.

The right way is for a manager to be the advocate and ally of his subordinates. It can work really well but there's little place for ego and envy.