curiousObject

That’s an excellent question, but it is also similar to asking what will happen to wind turbines in a storm.

Maybe some will break. Maybe that’s an acceptable outcome. Probably they can be improved to reduce that risk

Maybe you meant CCDs? Not SSDs

Yes, if you only count purchase/sale conversions

Maybe no, if you also count clickthrough and view conversions, perhaps even lead conversions sometimes (because fake sign ups are possible).

But you’re right. Purchase conversions are one incentive

I guess there is no incentive in most markets. Facebook, etc make only a token effort to reject non-troublesome bot traffic.

[0] bots and other automated traffic which cannot generate revenue or human ad views

I agree. He was asking employees not to cash their paychecks sometimes. $5000 is inconsequential compared to that forced investment from employees and business partners

That was FedEx’s founder, Fred Smith. It wasn’t UPS

He only had $5,000 of funds remaining, which he gambled playing blackjack, so the potential loss to investors was small. He’d already lost almost all their investments through operating FeDex

If that happens, then the demand is big enough that companies would import millions of iPhones from other regions and sell them in the EU.

For warranty service, the company would ship the phones back to the original country where Apple sold them.

Then, if that causes Apple too much trouble, then Apple would have to detect that the phone had been spending most of the time in the EU, and refuse to provide free servicing under warranty.

That’s an interesting can of worms for Apple.

A competent human driver would instinctively slow down, look at the potential obstruction, and think about changing lanes or an emergency stop.

Most probably, the visible object is just some water spilled on the road or that kind of thing. But if it isn’t then it’s very dangerous

This car appeared to be blind to any risk. That’s not acceptable

But, if you watch the car’s display panel, it looks as if the car didn’t see anything and just went full speed ahead. That’s not great.

It should have slowed down and alerted the driver that something was there. I didn’t watch the complete video so maybe there’s more.

So, why not? If a virtual person is the face of a corporation, which is a legal person, then you could be sued.

It’s insane, but it’s real.

I very dislike how the US government administered his prosecution with a clumsy sledgehammer, but that does not mean he is free of responsibility, moral and maybe legal.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

There’s also an option in the search settings which is supposed to enable or disable whether usernames are relevant

The management and search and annotation options are very weak, but when you submit a link here at HN, you are also making a permanent bookmark that will remain accessible via your account

It doesn’t even need to be much better than ROT13. Security by obscurity is good for this situation.

>Can you imagine living in one of the countries that the US keeps bombing? Every time you hear an airplane you have to think if you're about to die, or someone you know is about to die, or a school is about to be blown up, or a water treatment facility.

No, I can’t imagine it. I’m not even capable of imagining it. I agree it must be terrifying, and soul-destroying in the long term.

I think that means it could be possible to enhance the resolution by using luminance data from one wavelength to make an ‘educated guess’ at the luminance of other wavelengths. It would be a more advanced version of the kind of interpolation that standard image sensor cameras do with a bayer color filter

So it seems possible to get some extra information out of the system, with a good likelihood of success, but some risk of point hallucinations.

The image sensor and filters are quite complex. Much more complicated than a simple bayer filter CCD/CMOS sensor. It is not AFAIK a moving filter, but a fixed one, however the satellite is obviously moving.

I don’t know if the ‘Super-Resolution’ technique in the OP is taking advantage of that possibility though. I agree it would be disappointing if it’s just guessing —- although perhaps a carefully well-trained ML system would still figure out how to use the available data as I’ve suggested.

the optical Multi-Spectral Instrument (MSI) samples 13 spectral bands: four bands at 10 m, six bands at 20 m and three bands at 60 m spatial resolution

Due to the particular geometrical layout of the focal plane, each spectral band of the MSI observes the ground surface at different times.

https://sentiwiki.copernicus.eu/web/s2-mission

I’m making some guesses, because I don’t understand most of the optics and camera design which that ESA page describes. For instance if anyone can explain why there’s a big ~250ms offset between measuring different light wavelengths, despite the optics and filters being fixed in place immobile relative to each other? Thank you.

The time per orbit is about 100 minutes. Sun-synchronous orbit.

Actually there are 3 satellites. The constellation is supposed to be 2, there’s currently a spare one as well. But the orbits are very widely separated, supposed to be on opposite sides of the planet, so I don’t know how much enhancement there could be from combining the images from all the satellites. And don’t know if the OP’s method even tries that.

Anyway, the folks at ESA working with Sentinel-2/Copernicus must have already thought very hard about anything they can do to enhance these images, surely?

Edit: The L1BSR project which is linked to from the OP git page does include ‘exploiting sensor overlap’! So I assume it really is doing a process similar to what I’ve suggested

But, amongst those options, you should have the intelligence to choose the least bad.

“The United States is the world's biggest terrorist”, is IMHO almost a meaningless claim. It is true, arguably, but in that case it is irrelevant.

Based on this interpretation, the US is far from the worst powers in our world. In fact it is above the median.

‘early mover disadvantage’ is a compelling phrase

Which was among the reasons that Google did that, not that the company would say so.

But upvoted for helping everyone realize that’s a problem

The essay’s comparison to the deliberately disposable throwaway Saturn V (which had massive additional costs being buried in various agency budgets for congressional pork games and international prestige) - this sounds like a very weak argument.

(Edit - Nobody can deny that Saturn V/IVb and Apollo were heroic achievements in their time, and that SpaceX succeeds because it stands on the shoulders of giants, but we have moved on).

>“weight. Starship weighs far too much”

Now, that is a pertinent observation. The crazy number of missions that are needed just to refuel the most basic mission out of GEO orbit with Starship! But the SpaceX excuse for that would be that their launch cadence and cost is designed to make this manageable and economical. (But not yet, obviously).

Let’s talk again after 20 more failed Starship tests. Then this essay could have greater credence.

(Edited)

I wonder if it would have been safer for SpaceX to just keep building on the Falcon technology? Instead of being mad ambitious with Starship.

The only permission the extension needed was “downloads, which normally only allows an extension to download and search for user files, not read or write to them”

That’s not an unusual permission for an attractive but safe sounding extension, for example an extension to download all images from a page

$100k at least?

The value of this to bad guys could be up to millions