Sanzig

I know it's against HN rules to ask if people have read the article, but you clearly didn't read the article.

The "non-sexual nudity" example is at the bottom of the article. It's a stylized cartoon drawing of a nude man and woman with arms around each others' waists viewed from the back as they walk along a path. There is a heart strategically placed around waist level so you can't even see their whole butts.

It's about the tamest artistic depiction of nudity you can imagine, certainly something that is totally fine anywhere else on Facebook. Very clear that this is a bullshit excuse being used by Meta.

Copilot tells me it can't edit my current document, but it can create a new one. I figured okay, Microsoft doesn't want to set it loose on the original, guess it makes sense that it requires a copy. So I said yes.

Nope. Instead of creating a copy of my document and editing it, it created an entirely new document which excised basically everything in the original report and replaced it with a very short summary - I'm talking 5000 words down to 500. All my tables and figures were gone, as was the standard report template my employer uses.

What utter garbage. Office productivity is a major use case for LLMs, and here the largest vendor of productivity software on the planet is happy to fuck it up.

Of course, depending on how much oil you consume for each shot, you will degrade your effective specific impulse - I'm not sure by how much though.

The other issue which you can't really get around is thermal, that plate is going to get hot so you'll have to give it time to radiate heat away between shots. This may be less of a concern for an interstellar Orion since the travel times are so long anyway, low average thrust may not matter too much.

The engineering problem is insurmountable today. But there doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't be done eventually, given our technological trajectory, unless we believe we are truly on the precipice of severe diminishing returns in most science and engineering fields, and I just don't see that right now.

George Cayley figured out how to build an airplane in 1799, but it wasn't for another century until materials science and high power-to-weight ratio engines made the Wright Flyer possible.

There are plenty of depths to plumb in space systems engineering that we haven't even really had a proper look at yet. A Mars mission with chemical propulsion is hard, but could be made substantially easier with nuclear thermal propulsion - something we know should work, given the successful test fires on the NERVA program back in the 60s. First stage reusability was fantasy 15 years ago, today it's routine.

Obviously, I'm extrapolating a long way out, and maybe at some point we'll run against an unexpected wall. But we'll never know until we get there.

These enabling technologies are very, very hard. No doubt about it. That's why we can't do this today, or even a century from now.

But the physics show it's possible and suggest a natural evolution of capabilities to get there. We are a curious species that is never happy to keep our present station in life and always pushes our limits. If colonizing the solar system is technically possible, we'll do it, sooner or later, even if it takes hundreds or even thousands of years to get there.

> I like how you treat "the fusion problem" with a throwaway, "Yeah, we'd have to solve that" as if we just haven't sufficiently applied ourselves yet.

If you'd read my comment, you'd see I didn't say that. Fusion rockets would help, but we don't need them. Nuclear pulse propulsion or fission fragment rockets could conceivably get us to the 0.01-0.05c range, and the physics is well understood.

> And even if we solve the issue of accelerating a human being to acceptable speeds to reach another star, the next closest star is 4 light years away. That means light takes 4 years to reach. Even if you could average half the speed of light, that's 8 years, one way. Anything you send is gone.

Getting to 0.5c is essentially impossible without antimatter, and we have no idea how to make it in any useful quantity. Realistically, we're going there at less than 0.1c, probably less then 0.05c. Nobody who leaves is ever coming back, and barring huge leaps in life sciences, they probably aren't going to be alive at the destination either. It'd be robotic probes and subsequent generation ships to establish colonies. But if you get to the point where you are turning the asteroid belt into O'Neill cylinders, a multi-century generation ship starts to sound feasible.

But we already understand the physics and feasibility of "slow" (single-digit fractions of c) interstellar propulsion systems. Nuclear pulse propulsion and fission fragment rockets require no new physics or exotic engineering leaps and could propel a probe to the stars, if one was so inclined. Fusion rockets would do a bit better, although we'd have to crack the fusion problem first. These sorts of things are well out of today's technology, but it's not unforeseeable in a few centuries. You could likewise imagine a generation ship a few centuries after that powered by similar technology.

The prerequisite for interstellar exploration is a substantial exploitation of our solar system's resources: terraform Mars, strip mine the asteroid belt, build giant space habitats like O'Neill cylinders. But if we ever get to that point - and I think it's reasonable to think we will, given enough time - an interstellar mission becomes the logical next step.

Will we ever get to the point where traveling between the stars is commonplace? No, I doubt it. But we may get to the point where once-in-a-century colonization missions are possible, and if that starts, there's no limit to humanity colonizing the Milky Way given a few million years.

The three sites were originally built with a single 70 meter dish each, which are all still operating today. However, when they expanded the sites, they opted to install at least four 34 meter BWG dishes at each site rather than adding a single 70 meter to each. Four of the 34s arrayed together gives the same gain as a 70, but you have the advantage of being able to split them up to communicate with separate spacecraft that don't need the gain of all four antennas. It gives DSN a lot more operational flexibility.

This was before Netflix instant watch existed, truly felt like something from the future.

Sure, those big physics-based models are very computationally intensive (national weather bureaus run them on sizeable HPC clusters), but you only need to run them every few hours in a central location and then distribute the outputs online. It's not like every forecaster in a country needs to run a model, they just need online access to the outputs. Even if they could run the models themselves, they would still need the mountains of raw observation data that feeds the models (weather stations, satellite imagery, radars, wind profilers...). And these are usually distributed by... the national weather bureau of that country. So the weather bureau might as well do the number crunching as well and distribute that.

It's more a question of how much momentum you need to dump that determines if they are practical or not - magnetorquers are rarely used for direct attitude control, since they don't produce much torque. Instead, they are used "dump" excess momentum stored in the spacecraft's reaction wheels. The wheels can generate high torque, but they do so by changing their rotational speed, storing angular momentum. Ultimately, wheels have a finite maximum rotation speed, so they need to be "desaturated" by transferring angular momentum elsewhere. Magnetorquers provide a way to slowly transfer the angular momentum to the earth over time via its magnetic field.

My guess is this works at all, it is inadvertently expelling reaction mass somehow, such as ablating off small amounts of volatiles from polymer parts (like an inefficient version of a pulsed plasma thruster).

I'd love to be wrong, but this very much falls into the "extraordinary claims" category for me.

Nobody had a way to do silicon transistor manufacturing at scale until the traitorous eight flipped Shockley the bird and took a $1.4M seed investment from Sherman Fairchild.

Big bets on uncertain technology is what tech is supposed to be about.

There's no sane world where it is defensible to remotely brick a device because it can't communicate with a telemetry server.

And yes, AWS' rates are highway robbery. If you assume $1500/mo for a 10 Gbps port from a transit provider, you're looking at $0.0005/GB with a saturated link. At a 25% utilization factor, still only $0.002/GB. AWS is almost 50 times that. And I guarantee AWS gets a far better rate for transit than list price, so their profit margin must be through the roof.

This wasn't a consideration a few years ago, but with how quickly things are devolving south of the border it's now much more of a risk. If I were operating a company in Canada, I would want to be able to assure my customers that their data won't get expropriated to the US without first going through Canadian courts.

OVH Canada now has two Canadian locations, by the way - the original location in Beauharnois and a new location in Cambridge, so you even can have two zones for redundancy.

The poster child for Cs-137 incidents is the Goiânia accident where four people died when a Cs-137 capsule was stolen from an abandoned hospital and sold to a scrapyard. Four people died of radiation poisoning, including a six year old.

My guess is this probably has a similar root cause, someone didn't dispose of a medical Cs-137 source properly and it ended up in the scrap metal stream.

There was also a famous case in the 80s where a scrapyard in Mexico sent some steel contaminated with Cobalt-60 to a foundry where it was melted down into rebar. It was detected when a truck transporting rebar to a construction site took a wrong turn and ended up at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where it triggered contamination alarms. By that point, the rebar had been used in a whole bunch of construction that had to get torn down.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acerinox_accident

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez_cobalt-60_c...