There's no need to leave earth, just lift it into a medium earth orbit. There are literally thousands of kilometres in between low earth orbit (where there are lots of communications, spy, navigation and weather satellites) and geosynchronous (where there are lots of communications satellites), and outside of those two there's virtually nothing there
People keep saying that, but it isn't true that the leak being in the disposable part of the vehicle means it's not a safety problem.
It's the pressurisation system for the thrusters. If that fails, then they won't be able to control the capsule until it hits the atmosphere. That could mean they get stuck on the ISS, in the most extreme case, or it could mean that they lose thrust mid-manouvre and they re-enter the atmosphere incorrectly. That could be anywhere from inconvenient (they miss their landing spot and someone has to come get them), to dangerous (they land so far away that they're in danger of sinking or being eaten by bears before anyone reaches them) to outright fatal (they skip off the atmosphere, or tumble their way into reentry and burn up)
It's a matter of perspective. To someone who's job is to write the system which interprets ASM, ASM is high level
Oh, sure. It's not likely to be a serious threat, but not for the reason people keep saying
The only thing I'd add is "not particularity nice to the Muslims living there" is putting it mildly.
Because there's always tension, Israel takes its security very seriously. Unlike most countries, who put a token effort into security most of the time, Israel really is an armed fortress. That makes it very easy for someone with an itchy trigger finger to shoot someone who didnt deserve shooting. Even with the best will in the world, it would happen from time to time.
That, of course, makes the Palestinians very angry. An angry population poses more of a threat, and is more likely to do something genuinely aggressive. The Israeli security is thus tightened further, and their soldiers get even itchier trigger fingers and around and around we go.
It doesn't take long before everyone involved has a personal grudge for one reason or another, and things can get really vicious.
In principle they could have pulled out slightly, if there's jostling and tiny movements in skull then you'd expect them to work loose over time if they're not securely anchored
The Artemis 1 launch was also staggeringly expensive, and yet to be repeated.
In the time it's taken to develop that rocket, SpaceX has gone from it's very first real flight (by which I mean actually achieving something, rather than a pure test flight) to launching far more every year than the entire rest of the world combined. Note that by that definition, Artemis hasn't had a single "real" flight yet.
It depends on what exactly gets cut or punctured, of course, but my understanding is that without proper surgical intervention it can be an exceptionally slow and painful way to die.
The organs in the gut are mostly intestines. You're not going to die just because they've spilled out, but you're going to be bleeding pretty badly and if whatever caused them to spill out is still around then you're pretty screwed.
The bigger problem is that it's unlikely they've just spilled out, they're probably also sliced open. Now you're in serious trouble, because there's lots of blood in there so now you're bleeding really badly. You've also got blood and the content of your digestives system mixing together, and that means some very nasty bacteria which are normally safely contained now have access to your blood.
I suspect the most likely dangerous situation is a stab wound. In that case you'll probably experience internal bleeding. There are no shortage of places for blood to go inside your body around there, including into your digestive system. I don't think there's anything much to stop blood from flowing endlessly into there, and you could bleed to death even if the external wound doesn't look like it's bleeding all that badly.
In summary, getting stabbed in the gut will contaminate your blood and lead to potentially endless bleeding which can't be treated with bandages because it's inside. Even if you avoid bleeding to death, you're probably going to die from a massive infection
I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.
I interpret it as "all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved" (which doesn't mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it's the only right you aren't depriving everyone else of)
Is that an actual legal right? If you've described it accurately, then Facebook and Instagram would be completely illegal
They started launching in 2019, according to a quick look at Wikipedia. They told the general public (and regulatory agencies, I think) that the lifetime of the satellites was on the order of 5 years. The plan was to replace them frequently enough to maintain the constellation with that kind of service life (i.e. to launch the whole constellation worth of satellites every 5 years)
Now, here we are 4 years later. It's not terribly surprising if some of the early satellites are starting to reach the end of their lives.
It's going to be very expensive for them, but not an unexpected cost. This is the reason they're so keen to start launching them on Starship
Just one padlock is enough, but you can use up to 6.
You need all the locks removed before it'll open, so you don't need to count on someone to carefully count everyone back in. You just make sure that each person uses their own lock
"dissolving parliament" means they've announced a general election. Parliament won't meet any more, and all the existing members of parliament will go home and begin campaigning
Personally, I'm alarmed that a bear only merits closing half. Did the guests in the other half do something to make themselves unpopular?
He's the foreign secretary. I'm pretty sure that makes him the person who's permission they'd need, unless the prime minister immediately overrules him
It might not make him wrong, but he also happens to be wrong.
You can't compare AI art or literature to AI software, because the former are allowed to be vague or interpretive while the latter has to be precise and formally correct. AI can't even reliably do art yet, it frequently requires several attempts or considerable support to get something which looks right, but in software "close" frequently isn't useful at all. In fact, it can easily be close enough to look right at first glance while actually being catastopically wrong once you try to use it for real (see: every bug in any released piece of software ever)
Even when AI gets good enough to reliably produce what it's asked for first time & every time (which is a long way away for quite a while yet), a sufficiently precise description of what you want is exactly what programmers spend their lives writing. Code is a description of a program which another program (such as a compiler) can convert into instructions for the computer. If someone comes up with a very clever program which can fill in the gaps by using AI to interpret what it's been given, then what they've created is just a new kind of programming language for a new kind of compiler
The black box isn't like a modern hard drive, with terabytes of storage. They're often old, and even the modern ones need to put so much effort into protection against things like fire, seawater and collisions that they don't have as much space as you might imagine.
They have to rely on someone going out of their way to take the box out, or shut down the plane, because the alternative would be for them to have some way to decide for themselves to stop recording. If they could do that then a false positive would cause them to miss potentially important data, so they're designed to keep going until someone makes it stop
I find it makes my life easier, personally, because I can set up and tear down environments I'm playing with easily.
As for your user & permissions concern, are you aware that docker these days can be configured to map "root" in the container to a different user? Personally I prefer to use podman though, which doesn't have that problem to begin with
Well it's definitely alive, that's not a terribly high bar (plants and sponges qualify, after all).
The ethics question is whether it's a person yet (or should be treated like one)
Podman supports docker compose just fine. You have to run it as a service, so that it can expose a socket like docker does, but it supports doing exactly that
Because a container is only as isolated from the host as you want it to be.
Suppose you run a container and mount the entire filesystem into it. If that container is running as root, it can then read and write anything it likes (including password databases and /etc/sudo)
I didn't say anything like that. The black box is physically much bigger than a modern SSD, but stores far less data because of all the extra problems it has to deal with
By definition, Russia is in fact a 2nd world country.
What they're suggesting is to back up the whole disk, rather than any single partition. Anything you do to the partition to try and recover it has the potential to make a rescuable situation hopeless. If you have a copy of the exact state of every single bit on the drive, then you can try and fix it safe in the knowledge that you can always get back to exactly where you are now if you make it worse
Nah, we're alright. I don't think anyone has clearly defined the requirements of earth citizenship, we can assume it's like Ireland who hand it out like candy
Perhaps not, but it would make it far easier for any sympathetic brain surgeon you managed to find who was willing to try and fix the problem for you.
The key thing is not needing that specific company to help, but needing generic expert assistance is fine
You might just as well ban crowded places. A drone solves the problem of getting a weapon to a target, which is relevant in a war zone but not in a public place.
If someone wants to bomb a crowded stadium, there are simpler ways than strapping a bomb to a drone
Not exactly. There are some species which haven't changed all that much for millions of years, and those have certainly managed excellent adaptability.
Others, though, might find themselves evolving to cope with the climate right now at the expense of being vulnerable to some future problem. Say the climate is very hot, but in a few tens of thousands of years there'll be an ice age. An animal which is well adapted to the ice age will probably go extinct before it arrives, having all been eaten by an animal well adjusted to the heat which is here right now.
"In the end" isn't useful if you get outcompeted in the meantime
You declaring a debt isn't meaningful because you don't have legal authority to do so.
A licence statement is describing in what way you're granting permission for something you do have the right to control, which makes it meaningful
Being hit by a truck, then catching fire and being allowed to burn while doused in jet fuel for a while before being dunked in seawater for a few days.
I'll bet you can't find an SSD which can do that.
They didn't misspeak, they anthropomorphised. People do that all the time, and calling it an error is pedantic to the point of being incorrect.
Also, that statement was probably in Japanese. You can't read that kind of implication from it, even if it would have been correct to do so in English (which it wouldn't)
Also, it's probably possible to fix the partition so that it's as big as it used to be. It's likely that some of your data is corrupted already, but the repartitioning won't have erased the old data except here or there where it's written things like new file tables in space it now considers unused
it is absolutely true that that AI keeps record of everything fed into it
No it isn't.
A properly trained deep learning system will ultimately far smaller than all of the data it's been trained on. It's simply impossible for it to have retained a record of very much of it at all.
When everything is working correctly it shouldn't have any of the actual text stored at all. Certainly every single piece of training data will have left some impression on the model, but that's a very long way from actually storing the training data. The model consists of statistical relationships, not a copy-paste of the inputs.
Strictly speaking there is something resembling text in the model, but it's made up of the smallest possible units of language (unless there's been overfitting, in which case the training has gone wrong and there probably would be a case to answer).
The model builds sentances from a list of "phrases" which don't even need to line up with word boundaries. Things like "is a" might be treated as a "word", as might "ing", if the model finds that to be a useful snippet.
No it wouldn't. Whoever touched it last is responsible for it, that's entirely consistent with the metaphore
While that sort of analysis probably isn't impossible, it is computationally unrealistic to do in realtime on a language which wasn't designed for it.
It's the sort of thing which is simple in 99% of cases, but the last 1% might well be impossible. Sadly it's the last 1% you need to worry about, because anyone trying to defeat your system is going to find them