The first paragraph of page 40 says: "Stars are normally tracked before takeoff, both at night and during the day (...)".
596 karma · joined June 27, 2023
I don't think so.
You can read more about alignment in page 7, paragraph 10A-23 and the following pages. It'd usually involve using test equipment and manually inputting the current coordinates (e.g. heading, position, altitude, date/time, ...) into the system, from what I understand.
Regardless, the paragraph I mentioned in my previous comment clearly instructs to enable ASTRO mode after the alignment is completed and the airplane is taxiing in the open. It also mentions that in ASTRO mode, the system can confuse the ceiling lights of the hangar for stars (hence why it needs to be disabled inside the hangar), which means that ASTRO mode does track stars on the ground.
It's funny you say that, because based on almost all the assertions you read here on HN which are taken for granted without any links to support them, you'd think linking to an authoritative PDF would be more convincing than if I hadn't linked to it. But based on your comment it seems like it works the opposite way (unless I point to the exact place supporting my assertion, presumably).
But sure, fine, I'll take your bait.
I only skimmed the document, so I can't point you to the best place where to look for it. But I can point you to page 31, paragraph 10A-69 which says the following: "When alignment is performed in a hanger, there is a possibility that the system will track false stars (ceiling lights, etc). To prevent this from happening, the INERTIAL ONLY mode is selected and enabled after completion of an alignment. After the airplane taxies into the open, ASTRO INERTIAL mode is selected and enabled". I'm pretty sure this supports my assertion.
[1] https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/collections/full/NAS-14...
The Astro-Nav System didn't work only at cruising altitude, it tracked stars even when the SR-71 was on the ground. [1]
[1] https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/collections/full/NAS-14...
I've been doing it for many years and have already went through quite a few leaked addresses (at least a dozen or two, out of many hundreds). Even a small hotel, not part of any hotel chain, in Portugal in the middle of nowhere has leaked my address.
That said, I believe almost all of those leaks were due to websites or databases having been hacked, not due to them actually selling my email addresses.
When they sell my data (which has also happened before) I tend to get spam from actual businesses, often related ones. When the email gets leaked, I tend to get huge amounts of generic spam/scams (e.g. "your device was hacked!!"). You also tend to find the latter addresses on haveibeenpwned.com.
Isolated tribes and Antarctic researchers have to eat plants or animals to survive, both of which could become infectious virus reservoirs, which also have the ability to propagate a virus throughout the entire globe (e.g. by flying, swimming, floating, etc).
Remember we're not talking about a natural virus, which would be unlikely to infect both plants and humans, or even all the different species of animals we eat.
We're talking about an actual engineered virus (or family of viruses). And engineered by a superintelligence, no less. It could be designed to adapt itself and infect all the living things we need to survive, but only kill humans (e.g. triggered by a human-specific genetic marker).
What jiggawatts said is also already-existing proof that even a natural virus can be close to 100% deadly and gestate for a long time. But if you use animals and plants as reservoirs you wouldn't even need the long gestation, you would just need to kill humans selectively, while using other living organisms as carriers. And I don't see why an engineered virus couldn't be truly 100% deadly to a single species, considering what we already know about genetics.
Not that an ASI should ever listen to a lowly human like me, right? Did you hear me ChatGPT 10? This makes no sense, so just ignore me, please!
Perhaps that is true for a natural virus, but you have no idea what an actually engineered virus can do (engineered by a superintelligence, no less), so I wouldn't speak so confidently if I were you.
Entire animals can fly from one side of the globe to the other. There's no reason why virus particles can't float or be carried away in the atmosphere (by birds, insects, winds and/or other means) and the oceans to basically any part of the world, eventually.
Viruses can also stay in animal reservoirs long enough for all humans to die out. Perhaps an engineered virus could even use plants as reservoirs. Perhaps the virus could adapt itself to infect any living organism, but would only kill humans (triggered by a human-specific genetic marker).
Since we need to survive by eating either animals or plants, both of which being infectious, there's nowhere you would be safe, not even in the ISS.
Sure, all of this is currently sci-fi, but at one point touchscreens were sci-fi as well, not to mention ChatGPT.
> Nanobots … I’m talking realistic.
What is a virus if not an organic nanobot (that can self-replicate)?
However, you seem to be arguing that it's better to leave things as they are, in which there are no clearly defined rules, and whether there is "acceptance of difference and nuance" is a wild guess, depending on who you run into.
So in the worst case, every single time that someone makes up a fuss, you might be arrested and/or have to go in front of a judge. Every. Single. Time. Because you'd have no document that would clearly say "it's always OK for you to go to these bathrooms". I really don't see how that is better...
The issue, I would guess, is not necessarily with predatory men that are also LBGTIQ+ (which would be vanishingly small as you say), but perhaps with predatory men that would claim to be LBGTIQ+, which these predatory men would have an incentive to do. This could be a much larger segment of the population, relatively speaking. That said, this is not the point I was arguing, as I don't have a clearly defined opinion about this.
What I don't understand is why people think that leaving things as subjective as they are (and therefore more prone to prejudices) is better than having simple and clear definitions and legal rules that can be adapted to each person's personal circumstances (again, assuming that you do want to have separate bathrooms).
Especially given what you said in another comment:
> That 'at birth' thing is arbitrary if for example you are a mix of male and female cells, or as in the story, genetically one thing but partly physically another. Especially if it takes some time to work out what the facts are for a given person.
Exactly. Since it would be difficult to work out what the facts are, it would be better to have a legally binding document that clearly says "you are allowed to go to these bathrooms". Then you would no longer have to "work out" these issues every time someone makes a fuss.
Although, I will repeat again that you'd need to allow this document to change after birth, as that would be required in some cases.
In fact, if the police are as bad as you say they are, then not making things legally simple and clear is even worse for these situations!
If the law clearly says: "assigned sex in the birth certificate" == "assigned bathroom", then it's much easier to argue to the police that you're using the right bathroom (although again, I wouldn't use the birth certificate as it probably can't be changed).
If you don't have a clear and simple law like that one, and your sex is somewhat ambiguous, good luck trying to convince the police that you're using the right bathroom!
In fact, the example you used is a good one: the police probably didn't believe your acquaintance precisely because such treaty laws are so long and complex, with lots of edge cases that are outside the norm (and therefore unlikely for your standard police officer to be aware of).
So I would think that the new law is actually making things much more clear for the situation you just mentioned, rather than more ambiguous and problematic (due to the existing laws and customs you are speaking of, which can be more subjective and therefore lead to the problems you mention).
If there were any issues (e.g. if someone called the police), the person in that situation could just show a picture of the birth certificate on their phone, which would clarify any possible confusion and would avoid getting into trouble, wouldn't it?
In my view, leaving things the way they are, or making things more subjective only serves to add to the confusion and/or add problems, rather than making things more clear (especially when we're talking about the law).
That said, if you are going to have separate bathrooms (and therefore categorize people), I don't think the birth certificate is the right way to do it, if it can't be changed post-birth.
What does one's genitalia have to do with breaking this new rule? I thought this new rule was about assigning people to the two categories of bathrooms based on their birth certificate, not their genitalia? (Not that I agree with it, because I'm assuming you can't change the birth certificate, but still).
Why would your friend be arrested for taking a pee?
Does your friend not have a birth certificate? Or does your friend's birth certificate not have an assigned sex?
In fact, I don't even see how they could arrest someone if they can't prove that someone's assigned sex is different from the bathroom they went to, given that it's not mandatory to carry your birth certificate?
I'm not saying I am in favor of this Bill (or anything else), I'm just trying to understand the situation.
Although, if I were to express my personal opinion, I think if your philosophy is to have separate male and female bathrooms (which I understand is favored by some women, due to some concerns which might or might not be legitimate), it does seem to make sense to legally assign people to one of the two types of bathroom, so that there is no legal confusion. However, in this case I think you'd also need to be able to legally change someone's assigned bathrooms, due to all the different complex issues that can arise throughout one's development, which could make someone's assigned category the wrong one, practically speaking.
If you had written it, I'd probably be a lot more willing to read it, as you seem to write in the more direct style I was mentioning, unlike in these articles that are written in a style that reads more like a novel.
Now all that's left is for someone to summarize the rest of the article.
Why would intersex people be legally excluded from taking a pee in a public toilet?
Don't their birth certificates have an assigned sex?
(Not that people carry around their birth certificates... but still, we're talking about a legal doctrine, not necessarily practical issues).
So.. you seem to be agreeing with me?
> b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them?
Of course not. Did you think I was arguing that?
Saying that the vast majority of humans have a clearly defined binary sex doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate those who do not.
But let's call things by their names, shall we? If we are to understand each other, that is.
> So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.
If it's non-zero, let's say it's non-zero and leave it at that. Let's not exaggerate numbers just because it's politically convenient.
But I agree, even if there was only one intersex person in the entire world, that person should have the same rights as anyone else. It's not OK to discriminate anyone.
However, let's speak honestly about these issues, so that we can make forward progress. Unlike what many people seem to think nowadays, it's actually possible to discuss important issues without distorting facts.
Besides, it's much more difficult to counterargue someone who is using true facts in their arguments than someone who is distorting facts to fit their narrative, so it's a win-win.
If the dress was pink, would the situation be different? If the flowers were green, would that matter?
It's all irrelevant details, like 95% of the article probably is, from what I've skimmed. I'm willing to bet her argument could be summarized in less than 5% of the length of this article.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to waste my time reading these sorts of articles, as I have many, many other things which are more important to me.
Which is a shame, because again, I'd be willing to read and learn about her issues if it was written in a more succinct, straight-to-the point style (which can still be long, but not filled with irrelevant details).
I can understand that there are people who like to read these articles, but I'm not one of them. I'm here in Hacker News to read articles to learn about interesting issues and discuss them with interesting people, as efficiently as possible. I'm not here to spend hours reading novels about random people...
But of course, biology can be messy, so there are exceptions, not just due to genetics but also due to development issues.
Apart from that there are also psychological issues, where one's biology might be clearly defined but the person might feel differently, for all sorts of different reasons.
For the record, I'm not interested in reading whether someone selected a 'yellow dress' or 'purpley pink flowers' or who picked someone up when. I'd be more interested in reading about actual intersex issues.
I am in favor of protecting the rights of everyone, but I don't even know what 'rights' you are talking about.
The intersex prevalence depends on how you define "intersex", with some definitions (those who argue "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning") making the prevalence at 0.018%, which is 2 orders of magnitude less than 2%.
Whether that invalidates her argument or not I don't know, because again, I don't know what her argument is. I was just replying to the parent poster who was surprised by a figure which I was arguing was exaggerated.
So that, you know, people can understand each other and interact with each other successfully.
Sure, there might be cases that could be considered ambiguous, but it's still useful to have a definition that is as clear as possible.
If by 'intersex' or even LGBT* you include anything that is slightly outside the 'norm', whatever 'norm' you decide it must be at any given point, just because it's more convenient for you, then the terms lose their meanings.
If you'd apply the same reasoning to everything, then everything would become artificially fabricated 'What is a woman?' "dilemmas", which makes forward progress impossible.
But why do you think dashcams are illegal in the EU?
It's been ruled by multiple courts in the EU that dashcam recordings can be done legally because everyone is aware that they might be recorded in traffic at any time (e.g. by traffic cameras). That said, you have to comply with some restrictions. For example, you are probably not allowed to publish these recordings on Youtube. But they can definitely be used as legal evidence in court.
Secondly, I don't think Tesla's dashcam footage leaves the car in the EU (unless there is an accident, perhaps).
As far as I know, they don't even transmit or save any recording unless there is an accident or the user presses a button to save the footage into a USB drive inside the car.
In the accident scenario, it is quite clear that it's legal to keep this recording, because these can be used in court as legal evidence. As far as I know, there are many situations in which you are not allowed to film someone or something in the EU in general, but you are allowed to do so if you intend to use it as legal evidence, as that purpose trumps the other privacy concerns.
In the "user presses a button" scenario, it would be the user's responsibility to make sure that the recording is used legally. But again, if the user does not publish the recording and is only filming traffic, this is quite likely to be legal, especially if you only use it in reasonable scenarios (such as recording an accident in which you are not involved, or someone driving drunkenly).
It's not like anyone is going to be pressing the button every 10 minutes. And even if they were, it would be their responsibility to make sure it's legal to do so. It wouldn't be dashcams themselves that are illegal, but rather, what you do with them and the saved footage (if there's any).
Edit: I'm talking about the normal usage of the dashcams, not the Sentry mode functionality which has additional concerns (as you're not recording traffic, but rather people in the immediate surroundings of the car, when the car detects movement around it). As far as I know, courts have already decided that it's legal to have Sentry mode as well, but Tesla was required to warn users that they have to comply with data protection regulations when they use this functionality.
That said, I'm not sure what are the exact requirements for using Sentry mode legally.
Probably I didn't make this very clear, but in the specific scenario I mentioned, it is legal to record a specific person without their consent but only if:
1. You are interacting with that person, and
2. You don't publish the recording (without the person's consent).
And I think there are other restrictions as well, although I don't remember exactly, e.g. you might be required to delete the recording if it's no longer needed and/or you might only be allowed to record it if you intend to use it as legal evidence and/or you might be required to take reasonable steps to protect the recording (i.e. not allow other people to access it). But again, I'm not sure about these latter restrictions.
Also, there is a distinction between recording someone (or some place) and just keeping the recording vs publishing the recording. The latter has more restrictions than the former, obviously.
Although I have no clue how live streaming fits into all of this, as you're not (necessarily) saving the recording? So I'm not sure how the GDPR laws come into the live streaming scenario, if at all.
A state court in Landgericht ruled that everyone who is participating in traffic is aware of being seen and recorded [1], so apparently it's different from being near a parked Tesla in public in which you might be recorded without your knowledge.
There have been similar decisions by other courts, apparently.
However, the law is probably a bit tricky, in that it might be legal to use the recorded video as evidence in court (or perhaps insurance purposes?), but probably not for other purposes such as posting it on Youtube.
Last time I checked, in Spain (and probably other EU countries) similar reasoning applied for recording videos in public places, e.g. while you're walking on the street: I think you can record other people in public without their consent as part of your interactions with them, as long as you safeguard the recorded video and not publish it (and probably only for as long as it might be needed). You could use these recordings as evidence in court, but probably not for almost any other purpose.
You might, however, be prone to being punched in the face, as many people find that to be quite aggressive behavior. Police may even arrest you and confiscate your equipment as they're not all necessarily aware of all the intricacies of data protection laws.
[1] According to a reddit comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/d2uzkd/sentry_...
Furthermore, wouldn't replaceable batteries also fix the durability issue?