JBorrow

What you just described is a 'Challenge Trial'. These have been avoided for COVID and would likely be avoided for other diseases too on ethical grounds.

For a common cold, or other lower-impact disease, you could do a challenge trial.

SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS can mean the core five lines of some key algorithm buried deep in a 1000 line wrapper library with a bunch of language wrappers.

See this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287

Landfill

One thing on the rhyming - you say on one page it rimes with 'lover' and on another that it rhymes with 'hover'. In many people's accents, these are spoken quite differently...

But they are through CCTV

Well a lot of venues ask to see your ID to verify your age for entry. How is this any different? It's not like it contains any contact information.

Human riders can kinda do that too (track standing)

I hate to be that guy but isn't that just... Radio?

Isn't what you've described basically BBC Radio 4, or any of the NPR stations?

Max Planck - sorry I didn't define that (https://www.mpg.de/institutes).

You should read up on the Max Planck institutes in Germany, and on the Flatiron Institute in New York.

As others have said your problem will be attracting talent. You're best off organising free conferences, in collaboration with a MP, to start with.

What is your stake in crypto?

No, gravitational potential energy is linearly proportional to the height over which you raise the weight.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

That's not really how it works. Nobody's out there 'approving' research (well, not seemingly small projects like this), especially at the university level. Professors (all the way down to PhD students!) are usually left to do what they like, unless there are specific ethical concerns that should be put before a review panel. I suppose you could argue that this work should have been brought before the ethics committee, but it probably wasn't, and in CS there isn't a stringent process like there is in e.g. psychology or biology.

A large proportion of the carbon emissions from flights come from takeoff (you have to haul the plane, full of fuel, up through the gravitational potential)

Can you clarify why you think that makes the article deserve to be flagged?

I see it as not spam; it’s a timely post about why a senior member of the open source community is not suitable for a leadership position that they have just taken up.

Difficult to run true HPC software like this as a 'grid'. High speed, low latency communication (with MPI) is required.

Well the reason that we would build the one 3 bn telescope, rather than 10 100-200 m telescopes, is because they can tell you fundamentally different things about the Universe.

In many ways, to move forward, we must go bigger with the tech, not wider. What you are essentially suggesting is a survey - we already have instruments and telescopes to do exactly that, with new ones coming online soon (see the LSST). Deep observations like Hubble was meant to do can actually be done better from the ground now (e.g. the VLT, ELT, etc.). As such, focus has shifted to those for optical observations.

The community at large, however, has decided where it would like to spend its budget. That was on Webb for the IR wavebands, to study so-called 'high redshift' objects that Hubble struggles to see, and leave the more detailed imaging to those ground based observatories.

Look, I would love another Hubble. That would be really useful! And that's why WFIRST exists. But an in-place replacement doesn't make sense. The tech on Hubble (not necessarily the mirror, but the _instruments_, the spectrographs, the interferometers) is really old. You can't take an off-the-shelf component, because it needs to be built to withstand space. So you need to create a one-off, 'prototype', space-hardened instrument. It is also not a case of worrying about them 'failing', but you also must worry about them slowly drifting out of a calibrated range. On the ground, you could fix the instrument, or re-calibrate it. That's not possible in space. That's not a 'random' style error, where we can get out of it by upping the number of them - they are systematic, so all 10 of your proposed telescopes would be ruined.

AO improvements over the past decade have made ground-based astronomy provide better images, with large enough apertures, than Hubble.

You are correct - the NIR is blocked by the atmosphere. That is why we are launching Webb. Optical, however, is very much now the domain of ground-based astronomy.

As another commenter said, they are designed to work for 5ish years. That we have had Hubble so long is essentially a miracle. Same thing for the Mars rovers that limped on for years despite only being designed to last months.

Also your claim about the instruments on Hubble is incorrect.

See: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-....

The reason it is so expensive is, as I said in my other comments - the instruments. These are one-off, heavily tested prototypes.

Also - we are currently launching another Hubble, called WFIRST. This was provided by a 3 letter US agency and required a mirror redesign. Launch costs are not a factor now, and weren’t then either.

2m is pittance for professional astronomy. Hubble may have a 2.4m mirror, but remember that is a 1980s era telescope.

Current and future telescopes target 10-30m mirrors, purely for light capture reasons. We’d need to put something that big in space for it to be worthwhile.

A lot of the cost for space based missions is also in instrument design. When you make a telescope, you don’t need to just design the mirror and the stuff that holds it up, and a camera with a series of filters. You need to design spectrographs and other complex systems that need to be “space-hardened” and extremely well tested. A “sensor package” doesn’t really cut it. See for example this spectrograph:

https://www.eso.org/public/images/ann13071c/

Huge instruments like these that actually power today’s science is another reason why ground based astronomy is required, and why we can’t just move all observation to space if satellite clusters ruin the night sky.

In the UK, you upload a photo from your phone of yourself (that it checks to make sure is valid), you put in your old passport number, and you send your old passport by post to the office. Then in a few days you get your new passport with the photo from your phone.

Why not? It seems like a pretty clear cut move to increase privacy, drive up consumer satisfaction and loyalty, and increase sales. Yeah, they're doing it to sell more iPhones, sure, but I don't see how that's a bad thing.

If all you are focused on is web development, then no - python is likely not the language for you. Especially if you want to do frontend. The reason that python is popular isn't because it has particularly unique features. It's that it has a huge swathe of useful libraries that no other language even comes close to.

Numpy, scipy, matplotlib, flask, django, tensorflow, ... all the way down to tiny packages like emcee makes it an extremely compelling ecosystem to develop software in.

Try using a plaster (to-american: band-aid) to ensure your nose bridge is clamped properly to your nose. Works quite well.

I'd also add to Omni Group that Panic are a company that follows similar principles, to their benefit.

No, these really are a great group. They make OmniFocus, a hugely beloved task manager. See their website: https://www.omnigroup.com.

People really, really, love their software.