cletusw

Could be true, but SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell challenged that report directly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs&t=16m31s

The main factor supporting their claim is that they have a very strong incentive to be ferrying crew to/from the ISS around this time, so barring any big mishaps with Falcon Heavy (supposed to be ready this summer/fall), all the pieces should be in place if not by next year, then certainly just a year or two later. Which, as you mentioned, is just as impressive!

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748302

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13748302

Main conversation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13707547

I imagine their relative distances change frequently, so probably not.

Link to live stream on YouTube (supports rewinding) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdmHHpAsMVw

Apparently finds are close enough to us that we should be able "to follow up, to see, for example with the James Webb Space Telescope that we're going to launch [next] year, the atmospheres and also to look at bio-signatures, if there are any" !

Investigating strange behavior of the Thrust Vector Control system on the second stage.

HOLD, HOLD, HOLD. Next attempt 9:38 a.m. EST on Sunday, February 19.

"That means we don’t have to rely on GPS technology, or a single point of data such as lane markings, to navigate the streets."

GPS accuracy is terrible, and I can only imagine that lane markings (where they even exist) are only slightly better. Even Tesla uses knowledge from other cars that drove through an area to refine its internal map.

Sandbox mode has support for two or three "centers" of political views. And yes, this is just a model. Better to make a decision based on a model than a "gut feeling".

This is also why the author recommends experimentation at the local level and not sweeping national changes.

This added contract between the caller and callee is huge. No more searching for that one branch of a non-trivial function that failed to wrap its immediately available return value in a Promise.

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11723157 ?

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11722775 ?

Rumor is (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3b0stk/falcon_9_wha...) that the barge does not communicate any information to the booster. Instead, it uses GPS and some ingenious motors to maintain position and orientation, and the Falcon booster uses a radar altimeter to judge accurate vertical distance.

I imagine that even with of the possibility of cancellations, the number of reservations is still a good proxy for interest. Using that they can set up their production lines without worrying too much about over- or under-investing in tooling. It'll probably be an even better metric this time since they can use the data from Model S and X cancellations.

Here are mine, helpful colors and error message included.

  sync = "!f() { echo \"$(tput setaf 4)Syncing this branch with origin master$(tput sgr 0)\" && git fetch origin master && git rebase origin/master && echo \"$(tput setaf 2)Branch sync successful$(tput sgr 0)\"; }; f"

  ship = "!f() { echo \"$(tput setaf 4)Shipping this branch to master$(tput sgr 0)\" && git checkout master && (git merge --ff-only - || (echo \"$(tput setaf 1)Could not merge branch into local master\\nRun git sync before running this command\\nIf this error persists, you have local, un-pushed commits in your master branch\\nPush them to origin master or move them into a branch before running this command$(tput sgr 0)\"; git checkout -; return 1)) && (git push origin master || (echo \"$(tput setaf 1)Could not push branch\\nRun git sync before running this command$(tput sgr 0)\"; git reset --hard HEAD@{1}; git checkout -; return 1)) && echo \"$(tput setaf 2)Branch ship successful$(tput sgr 0)\"; }; f"

The reason they are separate is so that you can

  git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:<remote-branch-name>

in between. This way, GitHub marks the PR as "Merged" instead of "Closed with unmerged commits". It's a minor detail, but I like it.

Having used ES7 async/await through Babel extensively for some highly asynchronous code, I can say that it feels much better than using Promises alone, even better than using ES6 generators + a runner (especially since async/await meshes so well with ES6 classes).

I'm a disc subscriber and I think there's only been one movie in the last couple years that I wanted that they didn't have.

> "You can't expect to stick a blu-ray disc on a record player or shove a flash drive full of MP3s into an 8-track tape deck and have the end-user experience be the same. It just doesn't work that way."

Can anyone disagree with this analogy? If not, I'm going to start using it all the time!

Use the old, unsupported, insecure browser only during those upgrades and a modern browser for everyday use. The end-of-life-ed browsers will continue functioning, they just won't get updated. Might require use of a VM, but the cost of that added complexity is vastly inferior to what web developers worldwide spend supporting those old browsers.

New API and new implementation. https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2015-September...

I'm sure Chrome/Opera and Firefox will tweak their implementations to match the updated spec soon, then all that's left will be Edge, and they've expressed intent to implement!! https://dev.modern.ie/platform/status/shadowdom

Couldn't you just put speed bumps at the entrances to the roundabout to ensure a gap between cars in this case?

I've always thought there had to be a way to solve the shared feature branch + rebasing problem! I'll have to try this out!

Here's the "making of" video. Holy crap, he's insane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16BFrEBZQS4

This question is obviously asking about Firefox, but for Chrome users, here's how (starting in version 41, a few weeks from stable): http://ma.ttias.be/view-httpspdyhttp2-protocol-google-chrome

That's one powerful yet easy-to-understand example!