gateorade

I did for a short time. My feelings on it are mixed. Objectively, you can absolutely stay fit and build muscle with resistance bands alone. That being said, it has problems. To do heavy excersizes often requires very thick bands with a lot of tension applied which can result in the bands pinching your hands in a very uncomfortable way. Same with movements where you stand on the band to anchor it, it can be very uncomfortable for your feet. Also, it’s much more difficult to progress in a measured way compared to free weights. If you haven’t made enough progress to move up to a heavier band, you can vary the weight by tensioning the bands more before starting your movement, but obviously this is very imprecise. For these reasons I personally found it much more difficult to be consistent with my workouts than I do now with free weights.

If space is a concern, I would still probably recommend going with a set of adjustable dumbbells and a bench over bands.

This is objectively false though. We could take a deep dive into the relevance of the Serbian shoot down but it’s kind of irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, stealth technology means that an aircraft needs to be significantly closer to a radar for it to be detected compared to a normal aircraft. That also means it has to be closer still for a threat radar to develop a weapons quality track. Theres not really any known radar technology that can mitigate this, it’s basic physics. It’s much easier to see an object on radar that returns orders of magnitude more energy to the radar.

Stealth does not a limited utility. In fact it’s rapidly going to become an absolute bare minimum for any tactical aircraft.

The existence of the b2 was always acknowledged from early in its development, just like the b21 was. The primary purpose for strategic bombers like the b21 and the b2 is deterrence, and deterrence doesn’t really work if it isn’t known about. The f117 on the other hand was a tactical aircraft that was built in anticipation of a sudden need to precisely strike a very specific target no matter how well defended. For that purpose it needed to remain unacknowledged. It was also the first stealth aircraft and presented a larger leap from existing aircraft than the b-2 did at the time.

I’m not trying to call you guys out. Just curious for more information. I would say I have enough knowledge about signal processing to be dangerous, as it’s quite adjacent to my job. But this isn’t clicking with me. Assuming we’re not including cameras outside the visible light spectrum, are there cameras that actually have enough dynamic range to capture a recoverable amount of information about stars against a bright sky? Beyond that, the original commenter takes about oversampling, but oversampling of what exactly? Intuition says that even with a high resolution sensor (like a modern iPhone) the visual size of a star would still be less than a single pixel. If my intuition there is correct, aren’t we spatially under sampling? The shutter is open for some period of time, so I guess you could say we’re temporally oversampling, but then we’re applying the same gain both to the stars and the sky, so that doesn’t seem to helpful. I feel like taking a high pass filter of a daylight sky would leave you with next to nothing save some of the sensor’s inherent noise. Are you discussing exquisite sensors or optics here? Genuinely curious. I tried some basic google searches on the matter of recovering stats in daytime images but didn’t get much back.

The fact that the b21 is being built at plant 42 in Palmdale has been public info for literal years.

Conversely though, how many people are killed in the world every single day simply because of human error? When (in the US) a 16 year old gets their license, we don't ask them to provide a formal proof of their driving technique that shows it's impossible for them to ever get in a crash. We say 'you've had the training, you've demonstrated that you can safely drive, be careful out there'.

It seems like a lot of headaches could be avoided if you just don’t have people share branches. Then you just rebase master and force push away with reckless abandon,

I'm confused by the mixing of abstractions going on here. Technically it's not possible to do anything in any programming language without assembly. But barring that, it is absolutely possible to write bare-metal device drivers without any assembly, because most systems use memory-mapped IO and C can directly reference and dereference that memory.

And then, if an FFI is required do to X, can you really say it's possible to do an X in your language? C/C++/unsafe Rust or another language that can directly reference memory still ends up being required in that end.

This theoretical double standard doesn't exist. In you follow aviation news circles closely, you'll see every couple months these days a photo go viral that someone has captured of actively classified aircraft operating in open areas. Nothing ever happens to these people because obviously what they're doing cannot be illegal.

The article doesn't really provide any information about what specific material on the site they took objection with, but it seems unlikely that it was just a photos of classified aircraft operating in the open, as that material exists in lots of places that don't get raided by the FBI.

Not exactly though, turing complete means the language can compute anything, not do anything. In the vast majority of popular programming languages, it is generally not possible to write bare-metal device drivers, for instance.

50k per week is kind of a lot. I’m assuming you were training for something specific and were therefore on top of it, but that amount of work could definitely negatively effect your cognitive ability if you weren’t getting enough calories/protein/water/sodium to replenish what you were losing.

I answered more in depth about why I left above, but basically the work environment felt a little too academic and a little too static for my liking Aerospace is my passion, so I’m still in that world. But just somewhere in private industry where things change a little more rapidly.

This is all my personal experience working there for two years as an extremely junior engineer more than five years ago, so take with a grain of salt.

JPL’s culture is very academic in nature. I mean JPL is literally an arm of Caltech that contracts exclusively to NASA and a limited set of other federal bodies. My experience was that there wasn’t a huge focus there on career growth. Many people there seemed to be happy to spend decades doing basically the same job. And don’t get me wrong, it’s a great place to work. A lot of incredible technical talent and extremely interesting people work there just because it’s JPL. The campus is gorgeous, Pasadena is an insanely nice place to live. Downside is JPL salaries are on the low end even for aerospace and Pasadena is expensive.

Personally I just wanted a more dynamic work environment.

Nothing particularly interesting. I was very junior during my time there, working modeling and simulation tools for spacecraft that had already been up for over a decade.

I did get to be present and watch the telemetry stream cut out as Cassini (purposely) crashed into the Saturnian atmosphere and was obliterated. Lots of people had spent two decades of their lives with that spacecraft. Many cheered and many cried.

This is kind of a weird take. I used to work at JPL but I didn't stay due to it not being the right cultural fit for me.

With that said, my perspective as a former NASA insider is that JPL is known for the exact opposite, underperforming and overdelivering.

I mean, they have a nearly perfect track record of mission success (sorry Beagle) and when the missions do succeed they often persist for many times over the original lifetime requirement.

Additionally, and yes this is a vast oversimplification, if you just look generally at space exploration missions, they are far more prolific than any other NASA center.

I don't think this post indicates that he's religious. If you read some of his other stuff, he's clearly a person with philosophical interests. There are lots of people who read the Bible out of a philosophical/mythological/anthropological interest rather than a religious one.

I have a little experience from a while back. I’d be curious to know what your management’s stated goal is for it. Simple diagraming, requirements tracing, documentation generation, code generation, all of the above? My experience is that in order for it to provide any more utility than Visio, it requires much more effort than it’s worth. And it’s a much worse diagramming tool.

The believers will claim if you flesh out your system model enough, it can generate at least skeleton code for you. I sincerely believe getting your model to this level of detail and scope would take significantly more time than just writing the code yourself.

If you’re just jumping in, you can’t beat starting with lunarvim or astrovim and then customizing further from there if you need to. Neovim is fantastic, and the best way to edit code IMO, but getting it set up to a point where it has the features of vscode/IDEs can be a project in itself.

To be fair, there’s a pretty massive difference in scope between a 50 mil Afrl tech demonstration program and what this would be. If/when this materializes, it’s likely to be a capital A Airforce program worth at least a billion dollars with a goal to produce at least one demonstrator that can be directly followed by LRIP and then IOC probably only a couple years after the demonstrator first flies.

For that level of effort, five years probably isn’t impossible, but it’s definitely unlikely.

Coke Zero has caffeine in it, and a flavor some find pleasing.

While I can mostly get on board with the idea that it’s better to consume less processed foods and beverages, if I remember correctly there’s never been a human study that showed a causal relationship between consuming zero calorie sweeteners and negative health outcomes.

I’m on my own journey to optimize my diet, and eat less processed foods, but Diet Coke is something I’ll probably never cut out.