236 karma · joined January 18, 2012
I can see how that could be challenging when people get off on intermediate floors, making a full car available again, changing status. And, if 3 people are waiting and there is room for 1, should it stop or not? Etc.
My favorite takeaway from this is how simplicity often beats complexity.
Why can’t learning more about unusual things we can’t see with the naked eye be the same?
“Bury your head in the sand to avoid harm” does not seem to be the right path.
Scans like this will have short term difficulties while we better figure out what’s important and what’s not but will only help long term.
It’s much easier to just show live footage rather than rig up canned looping footage.
It’s pretty astonishing how no one watching the demo with me seems to care. No one asking “Hey, will you just be able to do this with our video if we buy from you?”
I chuckled at this. This describes pretty much every large piece of software I've ever worked on. You don't need an LLM to create a giant piece of slop. To avoid it takes tons of planning, refinement, and diligence whether it's LLM's or humans writing it.
But how does, for example, "1998: Deep Space 1 — Delta II rocket — $86 million" compare to "2025: SPHEREx astronomy mission — Falcon 9 rocket — $99 million"? Are they similar payloads? Are the reliability requirements the same? Could there be a reason the Falcon 9 launch costs more instead of less, as we would expect?
The article does mention interesting reasons why some cost more than others such as scheduling, hazardous payload, weight, non-combined payloads, etc., but without addressing each launch individually there is no way to address the headline, "Why is NASA paying more?"
Incidentally, from the data, I don't see any case of them paying significantly more. It's actually about the same, so even that is misleading.
It hit me that in a few years, this may not be available as Docker and other tool suppliers start paying for advertising. We’ll see.
Take a very promising technology that could be very useful. Jump on it early without even trying to get buy in and without fully understanding the people that will use it. Then push a poor version of it.
Now the nurses hate the tech, not the poor implementation of it. The techies then bypass the nurses because they are difficult, even though they could be their best resource for improvement.
Not “This is bad because it undermines science, is lying, and unethical, regardless of what people think.”
This is true for nearly all drugs, medical equipment, or medical procedures in the US. This is one of the huge problems with our system. Everyone puts a huge price-tag on their stuff knowing that insurance with negotiate down.
To me, this seems like the biggest problem here.
I'm pretty sure no one has responded because no one knows how to respond to your bleak ending. Probably because it exposes our selfishness. I know I don't know what to say.
Do you have any further info about the work you and your brother are doing/have done?
Bill says "Why isn't Ctrl+F mapped to forward?"
Developer hears "Bill wants this mapped to Ctrl+F. I'd better it do it or I'm fired."
Bill means "Please map this to forward, unless there is a really good reason otherwise, in which case I expect you not map it to forward, but tell me the reason why not."