NASA's Curiosity picks up new skills
jpl.nasa.gov
jpl.nasa.gov
... pushing the envelope.-
"...maximizing the life of the MMRTG for more science and exploration down the road"
Will the MMRTG's plutonium decay more slowly if more electricity is used? No. So where's the value in generalizing poorly?
I guess in a way less overall consumption might prolong life? (heat, wear on the electronics ...)
The problem with being nitpicky is that fixating on isolated/arbitrary details often just means missing the bigger picture in a way that's even more incorrect. Good for "gotchas", but not intellectually productive.
Getting the most out of its life. Doing more science per time remaining. It reads fine to me.
I really wish technical people from other fields wouldn't come in and nitpick so much when the meaning is obvious.
>Will the MMRTG's plutonium decay more slowly if more electricity is used?
Nobody would think this is what they meant.
> Providing ample power for the rovers’ many science instruments, MMRTGs are known for their longevity (the twin Voyager spacecraft have relied on RTGs since 1977). But as the plutonium decays over time, it takes longer to recharge Curiosity’s batteries, leaving less energy for science each day.
The administration has proposed a 50% cut to NASA's budget for the next fiscal year, but Congress pushed back and it looks like it'll "only" be a ~25% cut. Still a total bloodbath.
It's incredibly sad that we're seeing the dismantling of American science by leaders who have no understanding nor respect for it. The damage being done to our country right now is incalculable.
The whole system / society is broken by people and leaders who refuse to take responsibility, on both sides of the aisle. And it's intentional.
I'm a democrat and I blame my own party more than republicans for the situation we're in. You can't just phone it in for decades and expect to win because you're so sure you're right. The republic needs to be and has needed to be actively defended and the people who were supposed to be doing that have been cowards.
Love the imagery this conjures.
One man band Curiosity, patting its head and rubbing its stomach at the same time!
... were our imperiled heroes save their 'hinds by locating and jerryrigging a defunct piece of hardware that was left behind from a previous mission?
It's been a long time since I've seen that (widely panned as not-very-good) movie, but I feel I remember a line about the little rover using an 'off the shelf computer modem' - this is actually true, the little rover communicated back to the Pathfinder base station with a straight up off-the-shelf RS232 9600bps wireless transparent modem link. [0] [1] I remember that detail as it showed that, even though the movie itself was... uhhh... interesting, science-wise, it clearly had someone in an advisory role that knew something about real JPL hardware on Mars at the time.
[0] https://urgentcomm.com/public-safety/data-communications-fro...
[1] http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mpfmirror/rovercom/itworks.html#rover...
Actually this is the one I was thinking of ...
... the one were the guy ludicrously jumps between orbiting crafts at the last minute, and, thus, makes it back to Earth.-
Gotta say I found it entertaining.-
This is it. That moment they told us in high school where one day, algebra would save our lives.
It’s very sci-fi but felt “grounded”.
It seems the internet has profound structural issues that undermine the forces that traditionally retarded and punished ignorance and malice. If it's true that society will inexorably evolve in the direction of the internet, and if we are all helpless to stop, or even slow, this evolution, then we are well and truly fucked.
And that, to me, indicates rather widespread rationality. Because elections are a facade. Do you want to vote for somebody who struggles to complete a single coherent sentence and has a grand vision of 'I'm quite fond of power', or for a narcissistic entertainer? Either of which who will agree on most things that people themselves disagree with, like injecting ourselves into endless conflicts around the world because the MIC needs that dough. No thanks. I'm quite happy with my 'none of the above.'
So the conclusion I'd draw is that there's two rather radical sides constantly flinging poo at each other and pretending this moment is the most important moment ever, always, while everybody else looks on from behind the glass amused at a bunch of monkeys covered in poo which, come to think of it, also works as a fine metaphor for internet discussions.
Don't you see how comically dysfunctional this is? If you took the amount of money we spend and actually optimized it for outcomes, the possibilities are unimaginable. But we simply are incapable of electing the sort of people who could do this, because succeeding in politics is mostly just legal corruption (and illegal, but hey that's what pardons are meant for!) on a massive scale where everybody wants their bellies buttered to the point that suddenly government receipts of $5+ trillion dollars, $14k+ for every single man/woman/child, is literally not enough to maintain the basic operation of government. All the while our 'public servants' somehow get filthy rich in office. It's just lol.
Registered voters voted. Sad to see this ignorance here on HN.
This is half the answer, though we'd also need those indicators to be plentiful and compelling.
> we know very well how personal behavior is distorted
This points to the other half: humans are irrational by default. We tend to believe what we "experience" - see, hear, etc. - even if we know it's a lie. Have you seen those videos of people in VR glasses panicking as if they're about to die because they've just fallen off a virtual cliff?
Consider also the Illusory Consensus Effect: mere repetition of information increases the estimates of group members that other group members believe or already know that information. Logically redundant, rhetorically effective.
We're apes with a souped up prefrontal cortex - critical thinking is expensive so applied selectively (see Tversky and Kahneman, System 1 vs System 2 thinking).
Now I know that even without engagement-maximizing algorithms or anonymity, most content on the Internet is still from self-selecting outliers. You don't walk down the street and listen to whoever shouts at you the loudest to gauge public opinion, so why care about Internet commenters (including me or you) when statistically normal people are "lurkers" who read and move on?
> Why do we all (and I include myself) so easily and often forget this simple truth, and fall into the trap of believing the world population consists mostly of the ignorant and malicious people that haunt public comment sections?
Because we've had millions of years to evolve our social instincts, and not even a single generation to adapt to the current state of public comment sections? In real life, where there aren't the same sampling biases, it makes perfect sense to believe the perspectives that are repeated by peers (as honest indicators of public opinion, if not at face value).
Also because there are major profit incentives for social media companies to make people think they're important fora for public discourse.
I think for-profit social media should probably be viewed as adversarial attackers. Their incentives are not aligned with what we need for healthy relationships and discussions. But even if you remove the profit incentive, it's still a new environment that we lack natural immunity to.
They are. Their incentives are almost diametrically opposed to those of sane, rational, balanced, content individuals.-
Where do you find these unicorns?
... We'll see where that goes.-
Update: It's actually my Safari Browser which is giving me this message. Works fine on google.