cornellwright

https://status.claude.com/ now shows "Elevated errors across Fable 5" so it seems like they may not have intended to take it away...

Can you share a source for this? It's not in the updates to the NYT article.

At 98F at 3800' elevation, the density altitude would be 7,268' (assuming standard pressure). https://e6bx.com/density-altitude/

You can buy [1] polarization cameras, both mono and with a Bayer filter. They're expensive right now, but I agree it would be really cool to see what could be done with a consumer grade version in a smart phone.

[1] https://thinklucid.com/product/phoenix-5-0-mp-polarized-mode... (among many others)

In most US jurisdictions a material change to employment conditions is grounds for an unemployment claim even if the employee voluntarily resigns. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing requiring in office for a remote job, or what Dell did would constitute this.

This also removes the loophole of a company reducing an employee's salary to minimum wage rather than laying them off. They could still quit and get unemployment.

Interesting that everyone is responding to the first half of your comment. I think 2038 is going to be more interesting than Y2K...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

I'm not a lawyer, but be careful about general solicitation of investment.

Amazon deliberately leading users to a suboptimal product because they get more margin seems like exactly the sort of thing that competition should help to resolve (or at least limit). The fact that search is so bad is probably evidence of too little competition.

Amazon's search is so bad that it's almost certainly intentional in order to get customers to look at more products. This is a great example of them using their monopoly power to increase their revenue to the detriment of consumers.

For an idea of what it could be, try the search on electronic component distributor sites like Digikey[1] and Newark[2]. They are both improving their search in order to attract more customers benefiting all customers in the process.

Try to find a 34 inch 1080p monitor with both VGA and DisplayPort inputs on Amazon and you'll find yourself reading hundreds of monitor product pages. If Amazon had serious competition you could probably find and buy one in 5 or 6 clicks, or easily determine that such a combination of features doesn't exist.

[1] https://www.digikey.com/ [2] https://www.newark.com/

You can see the aircraft used at the Las Vegas airport. It says "Hacienda Hotel" on the side and I think it's hanging over baggage claim.

Does this really work?

1. Cell phones from 30,000 ft are going to produce incredibly low resolution images, especially when taken through the window of an airliner. They're also all going to be oblique.

2. If you use real camera rigs, you're going to have to pay a fortune to outfit enough planes. Given that you don't control where the asset goes, this seems really inefficient.

3. Does the entire US actually get covered by all those flights? While ATC tries to give direct routing a lot more than they used to it still seems like you're going to end up with areas where planes hardly ever fly. I'd be really curious to see for a given swath what revisit rate you could get with what confidence from historical ADS-B data.

Please don't take this negatively. I previously cofounded an aerial imagery company and have designed aerial camera systems for a large aerospace company. I came up with an idea like yours, but wrote it off for the reasons I mentioned. It's really cool to see someone pursuing it. Feel free to reach out if you'd like. My email is cornell at cgw3 dot org.

Optics by Eugene Hecht is a fantastic reference to start with. It's a bit expensive, but you can find used copies if you look around a little bit.

The U2 I saw at Mather was based a Beale (as were the Air Force folks exhibiting it). They said the U2s get rotated in and out of service/training and that this unit had been all over the world.

I saw a U-2 at an airshow (California Capitol Airshow at Mather) and it also looked beat up. I asked about it and they said that it's a working airplane, not some show piece. Basically it just had a lot of hours on it since it was last repainted.

This company does fixed cameras which identify birds and then temporarily shuts down the relevant turbines: https://www.identiflight.com/.

Also, North bought the technology that became Focals from Intel: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/17/18144221/north-focals-in...

I'd love to see an "expedited import" option for this, where the device gets shipped to an AWS facility right near the carrier overnight hub and imported into S3 that night, landing in S3 by ~2am and able to be processed and delivered to customers before they get to work the next morning.

For many remote data collection activities this could remove the need for expensive and long lead fiber installation.

I made http://backseatbarber.com/ mostly just for humor. I get a few 10s of dollars per year in shirt sales though.

I've seen many of Boeing's wing assembly lines and there are a lot of similarities here, except that this is clearly not set up for mass production. (Which makes sense for a demonstrator.)

Also from the startup ground robot prototypes I've seen (and made) this looks much neater and more planned out than what's normal.

I once had 3 guys in suits show up to a new office my work had opened. They acted very official, asked to see our labor posters. I told them we don't have any (should've asked for ID right then). They told me I could avoid a fine if I bought some from them on the spot. At that point I caught on, asked for ID - they showed me something official looking that didn't actually say they were government. Once I asked them point blank if they worked for the government they admitted it was a private company and I told them to leave.

It was a total scam, but it did make us be sure to get our labor posters hung up though. (We just asked our payroll provider to send them to us and they were free.)

My guess is it would choose a different approach or airport rather than circling if the winds are too unfavorable.

This is cool. I can think of a number of places I've worked where having this data for the whole company probably would've been really enlightening.

I've flown a Cessna 182 into KPAO from Livermore for a couple of VC meetings. It takes about 20 minutes (mostly taxiing time). At rush hour getting between downtown and the airport (and waiting for the Lyft to get to the airport) usually took longer than the flight. Still better than a 2 hour drive though.

Hopefully one day flow batteries [1] will be efficient enough where you can pull into an electrolyte station and swap out your discharged (liquid) electrolyte for charged electrolyte.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

Microcorruption is a CTF which is a very nice introduction to buffer overflows and the like: https://microcorruption.com/login

Also search for "15-213 Bomb Lab" - it's from a CMU systems programming class and teaches use of the debugger and some common vulnerabilities.

Lots of airplanes do weird undesirable things at certain points in the flight envelope. Airplane design is all about tradeoffs. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the aerodynamic design of the Max.

There are serious flaws with a safety system (MCAS) which was added to prevent the need for more training and a new type rating for pilots who are already rated to fly the 737. This needs to be fixed.

Sure dropping objects is another option, but arguably that would work in an electric plane too.

However, I really doubt they would certify an electric with a higher takeoff weight than landing weight.

A Cessna 182S has a max takeoff weight of 3100 lbs and max landing of 2950 lbs. If you take off right at max gross you need to burn 25 gallons of gas. At 14 gph, that's about 1h45, minus a bit for the increased fuel burn in the climb.

This is something that can be designed for though (mainly stronger landing gear) and I would argue all the benefits of electric far outweigh the drawbacks aside from battery life/range.

The stabilizer trim switches enable/disable the electric stabilizer trim. There's a wheel with a foldout hand crank to manually control the stabilizer trim. Based on the preliminary report, the copilot was unable to turn the wheel which is why they turned the electric stabilizer trim back on.

One hypothesis is that because the pilot was fighting the extreme nose down stabilizer with nose up elevator the jackscrew that moves the stabilizer was so heavily loaded that the co-pilot didn't have enough strength to manually turn the trim wheel which is connected to the jackscrew by cables.

It's not "exploiting a market inefficiency" anymore than someone breaking into your house is just exploiting a lock inefficiency. It's plain old fraud.