When I don't know how to use a specific API, or how to do a task, I'll often give some high-level instructions to Copilot (Claude's model) in Visual Studio, and then review what it comes up with very, very closely. (Including lookup up specs so I can confirm that it did it correctly.)
It's much, much faster and easier than starting from scratch.
> and made several videos of the furnace attempting to start and gave it to gemini
I assume recorded videos and uploaded them in the Gemini phone on their app; and then probably said "what's wrong?"
Gemini is very good at those kinds of things. I recently got some ratcheting straps and needed to use them, but at the time I didn't know what they were called, so I didn't know what to search for on Google. I opened the Gemini app, pushed the button to take a picture (just like in text messages,) and included a message that was similar to "what is this and how do I use it?"
Maybe someone who knows more about the ISS than I do can answer this:
Naively, I would assume that there are airlocks between the different sections of the ISS. I would also assume that they would close these airlocks while doing the kind of work they are doing to repair the leaks.
So, assuming I'm right (and my assumptions might be wrong,) why do the astronauts need to shelter?
There aren’t even doors between sections. Airlocks are serious things, there is one or two for station for EVA. There are multiple hatches for docking spacecraft.
One of the innovations of ISS is larger docking adapter with bulkhead that is removed after docking. Russian section still uses hatches. All of the cables go through the docking adapter or hatch which makes impossible to close door or quickly disconnect.
There are doors (called hatches) between the segments. Each segment flew up separately and pressurized. So there are actually two hatches between each segment, since there’s one on each.
If things go wrong, they're already in the vehicle supposed to bring them back. It might be upsetting to be 3 locked doors away from your best way to come back home
I feel like other rocket builders, whether private or government, have way less launches but they have more successful launches percentage wise than Space X.
The only thing that matters is that things do not blow up with humans onboard: SpaceX simply accepted blow-ups as part of development cost, made sure nobody was hurt when they happen, and ended up building a rocket to carry humans to ISS much faster than eg. Boeing who got a bigger grant and is still not trusted to do that and bring them back (having only launched once to ISS last year, and not bringing astronauts back). So both faster and cheaper, and with some spectacle included too (everybody likes fireworks, right?)
They also started at the same time, and Falcon is now considered old tech (because SpaceX has been blowing up their new tech in the meantime).
Maybe parent feels like rocket science is a field that should have few launch failures?
I can't give you a quantitative answer since I'm usually focused on new research rather than what company/nation did said research... but their stuff does seem to blow up on the launchpad more often than NASA's :-)
I certainly am not. The only positive thing I have to say about those two is that SpaceX has cool rocketry tech.
>Why post anything online?
Typically people post things on HN for different reasons than they do on reddit or bsky, but your post seems like a much better fit for reddit or bsky. These types of factually nonsensical ideological signaling posts are popular on those websites, but are generally considered to be in poor form on this website.
> Because he suffers from MDS and as such can not but complain endlessly about anything which Musk has started. It is an unfortunate affliction for which the only cure seems to be extraction from whatever environment the sufferer inhabits and removal to another environment where there are no other sufferers, then slowly acclimatising to this new environment until the sufferer is again able to consider the person causing the derangement objectively.
Pot, meet kettle. It sounds like both of you should go outside and touch some grass.
Im not saying Dragon will explode. Im just saying that its ironic the person I was replying to used the word "supposed" like it may malfunction.
As for MDS/TDS, be careful about accusing other people of those. Its not really about politics, more about bring your character into question of supporting pedophiles.
>Falcon 9 is also the most successful vehicle ever flown.
I feel like thats due to the sheer number of launches, which turns out are mostly paid out of pocket, as Space X is hugely unprofitable.
Thats not to say its not a good design, the Falcon engine is actually well made because of the open cycle design which is MUCH simpler to control than the Raptor which is the equivalent of Twin Turbos + Nitrous on 2.0L 4 banger pushing 1000 hp.
Yes, well, that and by aerobraking in the atmosphere where all that potential energy the capsule gained during launch has to be shed. There's plenty of reentry videos from Starship tests which show what happens to vehicle parts which are less protected by heat shields.
Well, I won't claim to know the answer, but "please do not move between different airlocked sections while this work is underway" sounds a lot like the definition of "shelter" to me
In this case, per the article, "shelter" meant "shelter in a capsule capable of returning to earth and put on the spacesuits that you wear during return to earth".
There are normally-open air-tight hatches between modules. Various utility connections and air ducts are normally run through the open hatches so it would take a bit of work to disconnect these connections before they could be closed.
Not exactly something you want to be doing under time pressure.
If such a conduit would connect two sections that the hatch is meant to isolate, you would have to make the conduit and everything running through it airtight, even under a catastrophic loss of air. If the conduit didn't seal as well as the hatch, which is meant to withstand hard vacuum on the other side of it, it would defeat the purpose of the hatch.
Most stuff runs outside of the capsule including power and dangerous ammonia. They use connectors that fit to the hull and have plugs on each side. Gases/liquids can be controlled with valves. And parts can fit tightly together to make a seal. The stuff running through the hatches is designed to be quickly disconnected in an emergency.
I guess the main question about this kind of routing is if things are safer kept on the unpressurized side or not. And that the risk of a small hole on the hull is offset by reducing the risk of leaks in the pressurised area.
They just didn't have enough of reserved general purpose connections for future use. I guess this woild be especially the case with the Russian modules, which were literally surplus Soviet manned space army outposts(such a thing do not make a lot of sense, they did it anyway).
If it made pew-pew sounds (inside the station, obv), mission accomplished regardless of it actually being able to shoot anything down, up or everywhere.
The story that I read somewhere was that it was tested once but the recoil either damaged the station or it would have affected its orbit so they never tried it again.
There was also Polyus which was going to be an entire battle station designed to counter Reagan's SDI satellites[0], but it never made it into orbit. It had lasers, though.
I think the service module is both structurally and functionally critical. If it is failing and you do not know why, catastrophic failure is presumably possible, not just some air loss. A hole or crack in the module is now apparently double the size it was until recently, that is a trend that presumably could continue to rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Compression loss can lead to a decompression of sorts if I had to guess... it is a vaccum out there. The force from a decompression can yield a chain reaction or strongly disrupt the entire station.
Nicotine itself may not be a carcinogen, but its metabolites are.
Nicotine itself has been demonstrated to be a tumor promoter by way of increasing tumor cell division in lung cancer and inhibiting apoptosis.
Quoting chemical highlight 25-1 from "Organic Chemistry" 6th edition by Vollhardt & Schore:
Nicotine appears to play a dual contributory role, because its metabolites are outright carcinogens and because the parent system itself, while not causing cancer, is a tumor promoter.
The metabolic pathway has as the initial step the N-nitrosation of the azacyclopentane (pyrrolidine) nitrogen. Oxidation and ring opening (compare Chemical Highlight 21-3) then take place, giving a mixture of two N-nitrosodialkanamines (N-nitrosamines), each of which is a
known powerful carcinogen.
Upon protonation of the oxygen in the nitroso group,
these substances become reactive alkylating agents, capable
of transferring methyl groups to nucleophilic sites in biological molecules such as DNA, as shown below. The diazohydroxide that remains decomposes through a diazonium ion to a carbocation, which may inflict additional molecular
damage (Section 21-10).
The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes, which are an illegal but widespread cottage (garage) industry where one summer, one of the thousands of manufacturer-enthusiasts made a forum post about the innovation of maybe using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. Experiments were performed, positive results were obtained, and products went out to distributors. The hazard to heavy users (perhaps for manufacturers with poor blending practices, we don't know) who showed up in the ER, was recognized within a month or two, and everybody immediately stopped using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. It took most of a year of panic for the last of that summer's merchandise to percolate through the supply chain.
The outbreak was initially hard for users to trace in particular because of how brands worked in that (again, moderately illegal) industry - a "brand" was basically a paper label/bag production line shipped in the clear from a printer, to hundreds of individual manufacturers, who negotiated their own distribution. Conclusions like "Mellow Mallow Blurple is a safe brand, I tested it" ended up being invalid.
There was a lot of fog of war at the time, and a lot of things were reported in the media that were inaccurate (or reported to doctors that were inaccurate, this being documentation of illegal drug use). This is my conclusion about what actually went on, aides by a number of articles in the tech, health, and especially cannabis media. Eg:
All you need to defend a Wikipedia claim staying in the article is a journalist writing something, and journalists with zero idea of what they were talking about outnumbered informed writers a thousand to one.
Regarding the first: I just accidentally had my AI introduce an argument to some methods; and then I realized that the argument name was the opposite of what it did.
If the AI had more understanding of language, it probably would have come back and said, "would you like to name it XXX instead?"
An AI doing a bad job is not the same as it wasnt able to do a good job. I would bet if you asked it if its a good name it would figure it out, and give a logical argument on why to change it. Im not going to ascribe that to "intelligence" but I do think its a bit existential in terms of what it implies for our definition of "intelligence".
No, it wasn't a matter of AI needing to come up with an argument name. It's a matter of the difference between a trusted assistant who can catch mistakes, vs a sycophant who just does what their told and doesn't catch mistakes.
OK well the initial wording seems like you are presenting this as an inherent limitation. "Has a personality that I dont agree with" is a different critique than "fundamentally does not understand"
> If the AI had more understanding of language, it probably would have come back and said, "would you like to name it XXX instead?"
"Seltzer" and "Sparkling water" often mean the same thing, but a lot of semantics are different. "Seltzer" is usually lower-cost, and often flavored. (IE, plain seltzer is basically sparkling water.)
Some of the seltzers have strong flavors with artificial sweeteners, and thus sometimes the difference between a seltzer and a clear diet soda is very little.
European "sparkling water" (imported here) tends to have less carbonation and is more about the flavor from the minerals.
BTW: I suggest looking at sparkling water from Quebec. About two years ago I took my family there, and we kept buying big glass bottles of something good (can't remember the name) that appeared to be local. It'll be more like San Pellegrino / Perrier, compared to an American seltzer with heavy flavoring.
What became clearer the 2nd time around was that Walter White was a horrible criminal who's downfall was that he was greedy and didn't know when to stop.
Well, yes, it's fiction. My point is that Walter White, as a written fictional character, is written as a horrible criminal.
Pay closer attention to Mike's criticism of Walter's antics; or the general contrast between Gus, who is a professional criminal, and Walter, especially when Gus "fires" Walter. Ultimately, things end up poorly for Mike and Gus because Walter doesn't know how to behave as a criminal. (Or as a tech startup founder, for that matter.)
> because jurors in Seattle have become accustom to thinking that the only way to overcome reasonable doubt is to have it on video.
Who serves on a jury frequently enough to become accustomed to anything? I've only been mailed for jury duty a few times, and every time when I check the night before I'm waived out.
I think a more accurate way to phrase this is that potential jurors in Seattle have grown to believe etc.
How does that happen? Television. They see the police pulling up surveillance videos or using high tech lab technologies on television shows and assume that these fictional techniques are the norm. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
Television courtrooms are half of it, the other is social media. Tiktok and Youtube and Facebook will show you videos all day long with notable events that were pulled from security cameras, or uploaded by bystanders with cell phones, or found in the background of videos that were intended to capture something else.
The other side of the equation is that surveillance infrastructure is already nigh omnipresent, as described by the attached article. A juror who gets alerts every day from their Ring doorbell, who drives a Tesla with an integrated dashcam, and parks in a lot covered by their apartment's security cameras, can be easily persuaded that camera surveillance should be the standard of proof.
FWIW: When I come across reflection code it's often a smell, especially when written by a novice developer. Quite often there's a much simpler (and less fragile) way to do something. Reflection is a powerful technique with many gotchas; and the gotchas can quickly outweigh the benefits.
I used attributes for a serialization framework (long ago before any good ones existed for C#) and found they were exactly what I needed. The solution was easy to understand and reason about, consistent, even somewhat elegant (and I use that adjective cautiously as I've seen lots of code that was "elegant" but fragile). I agree with your forewarnings, but there are absolutely instances where it's the right tool for the job.
Yes, and the attributes that TFA whines about are what make NUnit very powerful. [Values] on an enum argument creates useful tests.
That being said, when I started my current job I replaced some complicated reflection-based code with a dictionary of delegates. I also turbocharged a an ASP (.net 4.x) app's startup time by explicitly referencing each controller in startup code.
It seems you didn't read the article. It's not whining about how people use or write custom attributes. It's whining about how they're implemented in the language.
And I wouldn't really describe it as whining, I thought it was an interesting article that rases valid points and suggests a solution.
The 2nd half of the article is an explanation of the problem of reading enums referenced in attributes, specifically about how it impedes performance, which I am directly discussing, both in this thread and https://qht.co/item?id=48373294
The author is saying the .NET devs did a bad job implementing that, they are not saying you shouldn't use it. So you talking about using attributes is irrelevant to the article, it has nothing to do with developers using attributes nor how they do so.
It's much, much faster and easier than starting from scratch.
reply