GigaPoF - Gigabit Plastic Optical Fibers - are a thing.
They are much simpler to cut than glass fiber, you plug them into connector (OptoLock) which basically looks like a spring clip speaker terminal, and some of the more recent variants are transparent to infrared light too (not limited to red light only),can carry up to 10Gbit in some settings, and allow some degree of bending (better than glass fiber).

They work only on relatively short distance (between 25m and 100m depending on speed, etc.), but that is not limiting here: the point is to wire rooms to a central gateway, not transport signal over multiple kilometers.

(For the completeness, there are variants of thunderbolt which both: carry data over optical media, and carry power - though that one is done over different material for obvious reasons. And isn't widely used for Wifi)

But lucrative: You know those GigaPoF-to-USB-C dongles aren't going to sell themselves on their own, somebody gotta sell them.

They should have paid their TV license eh?

Hahah!

Do you know how many Saturn V rockets (you know, the one that was used to take men to the moon) failed in flight?

NONE

Not bad, considering there were 17 Apollo missions!

*Some* failures are inevitable -- but what happened to Elon's promises of Starship reaching Mars in 2020 and manned missions landing by 2024? Instead all we've got are fireworks and skies over the Bahamas that look just like the skies over Israel right now -- raining hot metal.

Remember... Elon claims to be an "engineer" and has told us that he knows more about manufacturing than anyone on the planet -- yet he's so far off with his promises and the capabilities of his products that he paints himself a fool with every utterance.

Yeah... using craft that *aren't* made out of stainless steel!

Yet, strangely enough, it worked *very* well for the Space Shuttle -- right? In fact, Space Shuttle Discovery flew almost 40 missions -- starship can barely manage one at the moment -- primarily due to structural issues.

Another problem with stainless steel is that it work-hardens *really* quickly when subjected to vibration and cyclic stress caused by physical or thermal forces. Once it hardens it then forms micro-cracks that ultimately result in structural failure. Rockets are very "vibratey" machines so this work-hardening is far more of an issue than any change in temper that might occur in aluminum as a result of thermal cycling.

As for cost... this is supposed to be a *reusable* spaceship right? The cost of its manufacture can be amortized over many, many uses. Others in the rocket industry are using more expensive materials and having great success -- so why is SpaceX cheaping out so badly with predictable results when, even if they used these more expensive alloys, the cost per flight and per Kg delivered would still be significantly lower than that competition?

Back in the 1960s, NASA got men to the moon by careful and clever engineering -- not just blowing a snotload of stuff up until they stumbled on something that worked. I suspect that if Mr Musk had been in charge of the Apollo program, we'd still be ducking bits of Saturn V boosters to this day and, at the very best, we might have dumped a lone banana on the lunar surface.

Starship is a bust for so many reasons but one of the primary reasons is that it's built of the wrong stuff -- stainless steel.

As a result of this poor material choice, Starship can't be built light enough to meet its original design objectives because stainless has inferior strength to weight ratio. This means the Starship is either going to be heavy or weak. If it's built weak then we see the type of fuel-line and tank leaks that have been so common because there is significant physical deformation occurring under load. If it's built heavy then the motors will have to be over-driven to get the necessary performance and that means poor reliability and vastly increased risk of catastrophic failure.

Another significant problem with stainless alloys is their COTE (coefficient of thermal expansion). Stainless expands far more than aluminum when heated and that means huge bending stresses are created during re-entry when one side of the craft gets a lot hotter than the other side (despite the thermal shielding). Think of a flying banana -- oh yes, that's right -- maybe that banana inside Starship was the engineers getting the final word -- despite Elon's insistence on stainless steel being used instead of more suitable materials.

Remember, the Space Shuttle (the world's most successful re-usable orbital spacecraft) was made largely of aluminum -- not stainless. Remember also that although stainless has a higher melting point than aluminum, it's not that much higher and still well below the temperatures encountered during orbital re-entry so SpaceX would be far better off focusing on a decent thermal barrier than trying to "brute force" their way through the heat of re-entry.

Nobody else in the rocket industry is using stainless steel and nobody else seems to be having the problems that SpaceX is having with the Starship. All of SpaceX's other craft are built with more conventional materials such as aluminum and composites -- they seem to fly just fine.

Unfortunately, Elon likes stainless "ooohh... shiny!" so I expect this is just another example (like the Cybertruck) where a non-engineer tells good engineers what to do and the outcome is a disaster.

Given the way that YT has "shaped" the content it hosts, by way of its community guidelines and how it considers certain types of software to be "harmful" content etc... the odds are that the output of any AI system trained on YT videos will not be totally balanced. How would it handle this prompt:

"Create a video of an anti-LGBTQ zealot installing ad-blocking software on their computer with a swastika on the wall behind them"

Sorry, I have no matching material in my training data

Depends where. In the US, in the corporate world maybe. (I am in an European country, working in academia).
Here around LinkedIn is considered barely useful. Nobody would find weird if you don't have an account on that platform.
Countless local CV-hosting platforms seem to be more popular for job hunting.
As are also online portfolio on small webpages (github.io seem to be popular in my field of work).
Bluesky and even Mastodon seem more popular network in general in my milieu.

That seems to be very specific to some countries. I guess that the Zuck has managed to successfully becom "the web" in the US and some countries.
But very few businesses here around bother with facebook. Having a cheap static webpage (like some local hosting companies will host for free when you buy a domain through them) seem to be the most popular option.
Followed by listing on various business rating platforms.
If social network are involved, currently I am under the impression that a different Zuck's platform is more frequently used: instagram (mostly for showing pictures of the goods, specially for restaurants).

I've rarely heard classic social networks being used for sharing pictures with family and friends. The trust is extremely low in any of FB / intragram, etc.
For sharing for closed friends, chat groups seem way more popular, specially on platforms that (at least pretend to) implement end-2-end encryption.
WhatsApp used to a be a popular option and can still be find among older generations.
Signal is gaining traction specially among the younger (e.g.: all our PhD students use that for communication. WhatsApp is seen as an old people's chat network {insert here "in South Korea, only old people use" meme}).

Oh common, keep up with the trends:
"Not everybody will self-host a PixelFed instance."

That goes against their whole Netflix and chill binge watching campaign. Plus they want to keep people on the platform as much as possible as that gives them leverage during content negotiations and so on.

A better and simpler solution is to look at viewing habits.

If you watch episodes 1,2,3 from one location, then 4,5,6 from another, and 7,8,9 from a third- you are probably just traveling.

If you are consistently watching the same episodes from multiple locations, that's suspicious.

Or if you only watch show A from location A, but show B from location B, that's also suspicious.

Though I would be surprised if Netflix wasn't already doing that since that's just common sense.

> How would you handle the same situation if you were running Netflix?

You look at viewing habits.

If they are watching the episodes in a series once and sequentially- it's pretty obvious that's not a shared account just someone traveling.

If they are consistently watching the same shows from different locations, or only watching show A from location A and show B from location B it's pretty likely they are sharing.

Reminds me of those bullies who draw a line in the sand and say "Cross this line!

When you *do* cross the line they draw another and say "Okay, cross *this* line!

When you do -- they just keep on drawing lines and never actually carry out their threats.

And not even really that. At its core an LLM is a "plausible-sounding sentence generator".
It merely puts tokens together, given a context (the prompt, etc.) and given a statistical model (the distribution of tokens found in the corpus that the LLM was trained on).
It's like an insanely advance super-duper autocomplete on steroids (pun intended given the context).

If the model is rich enough the plausible-sounding sentence have a higher chance to be close to truth.
(Just like on a smartphone the autocomplete doesn't merely generate a gibberish string of random letters. With a good enough statistical model of the language it is targeting, it can auto-suggest keystrokes that form actual words, and those words are arranged in roughly correct sentences).

Yes absolutely. Specially given this part of the summary:

rather than genuine algorithmic reasoning

LLMs do not reason. LLMs cannot really reason. They can put plausible sounding words together that's about it.

There are some parlor tricks, like old school's "ask the chatbot to explain its answer" or the modern day approach of a "scratchpad", i.e., an internal intermediate storage where the chatbot can "write notes".
But that's again not real reasoning.
It's merely doing longer form of generation, generating an output that statistically looks like what would have been written by somebody writing an explanation or a reasoning.
But it's still merely generating plausible-sounding paragraphs of explanations/reasoning as long as those paragraphs fit the statistical distribution of tokens in the corpus the LLM was trained on.

Ok, I do understand. Fucking Wall Street assholes running the show and obsessed with squeezing every last ounce of profit regardless of what it does to their brand.

But the thing is- John Deere makes a pretty good product and people would continue to buy them thus ensuring a steady and long term customer base. Or at least it should- but instead they seem utterly intent on alienating all of their customers and that just seems like such a stupid long term play.

Yes. Shubhanshu Shukla will take part in an actual mission.

Kate Perry was a tourist: she just paid big bucks to go have some fun at low G in a capsule.

Nobody cares what you personally envion. (Just as you wouldn't care if I personally decided to envions you as a "Zorglub").

Check instead the first paragrph at Wikipedia:

An astronaut [...] is a person trained, equipped, and deployed by a human spaceflight program to serve as a commander or crew member of a spacecraft. Although generally reserved for professional space travelers, the term is sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists, and space tourists.

So most of the time it's used for professionals taking part in amission.

And from the summary above:

They will conduct 60 scientific studies, including microgravity research, earth observation, and life, biological and material sciences experiments.

They are not tourist who merely paid to go frolicking in weightlessness.
They are trained professionnals sent on a mission that includes working on experiments and other scientific goals.

Crew are part of the astronauts.
In its most widespread use the term "astronaut" isn't restricted to a specific task like controlling the spacecraft (that would be a "pilot") and do pay attention that a lot of spacecraft across the history of space exploration have been significantly computer-controlled or on purely passive trajectory with very little piloting actually involved.
But for anyone of the trained professionals sent on a mission. If you want to find a seafaring equivalent, that would be an "explorer" or indeed as you hint "scientist".
There's no equivalent of "sailor" currently in space as, due to high cost to orbit, etc. to make the most efficient use of the personnel sent up there, they are all trained to perform multiple scientific goals of the mission.

So you can clearly build a two column table with people like Neil Armstrong, Valentina Vladimirovna Tereshkova, or today's Shubhanshu Shukla on one side, and Kate Perry on the other.
Did they train professionally? One category did, the other merely passed a medical exam to make sure she doesn't accidentally die.
Did they get deployed on a mission? One category was, the other merely went up there for fun.
Were they either commander or crew? One category has membre which held various posts, the other was up there just for fun.

Another way to look at the difference is the same as between work travel and holidays.

Ignoring the obvious attempts at dog whistling,
for fuck's sake, even Richard Gariott managed to have actual mission goals to accomplish (even if a lot of them were more in the field of public communication and raising awareness).
The only different between Richard Garriott is that his mission was mostly self-funded whereas most of the usual astronauts tend to be deployed on a mission by public agencies.
Kate Perry just paid to go have fun.

Unfortunately it's not that cheap in many other countries and YT has been actively blocking VPNs so some of us would end up paying more just for YT than for Netflix and PrimeVideo combined. There's a lot on YT but most of it is crap and not worth paying for.