marsokod

You could but that may be a bit complicated to set up, while Helmholtz coils are dead easy to make and install. It's just a frame, copper wires, 3 power supplies, a magnetometer and a PC (even an Arduino could drive it).

Changing the altitude is fine, with all the electric propulsion that is available nowadays. You just need enough power and that means big deployables. The main issue is orbital plane changes, meaning that in the future, satellite-to-satellite weapons will not rendez-vous with the target but just do a quick approach while being on a different orbit and send/drop a low speed projectile to collide with the target. All this is already possible on a 100kg-class satellite.

The default way would be to install the package unattendedupgrade which will install security updates on your system every day.

Depending on how pihole is installed, this may not upgrade it. I personally have it installed with docker and uses watchtower for updates, but the risk with this mechanism is that it can break things.

When you collect contacts, shouldn't you state the purpose of the communication? If so, I would assume most of the contacts in the address book never consented to being contacted about the non-payment of the bill. So European citizens can't use the app legally.

Similarly the Azur Space are roughly $200 for the 8x4cm cell, and they are also space rated.

The last time so checked, I could not find anything preventing the use of Lora in space (if you are operating in the UK). However, the frequencies you can use are different over different territories so it is up to your satellite to use the correct ones depending on where it is and what it is pointing at.

How is compression better with zarr? Pytables has been supporting quite a lot of compression format for hdf5 for quite a while. I've been using it with zstandard without any issue so far.

Actually, this power plant was old, but that was not even a proper argument to close this one. The safety assessments made on it classified it as safe, and representative of the average safety of the other nuclear plants in France. The decision is purely political, and the age is just used as a political symbol, nothing else. Otherwise, France would need to phase out the vast majority of its nuclear power within the next five years, and it would screw up the country.

The big question for me is whether they reused it for SpaceX Starlink. The satellites are in low enough orbit that common COTS should work without any issue, and the automotive grade HW is usually well suited in these environment. And they would benefit from volumes.

I am just wondering if all these issues are not linked to a same error that would be: we loaded an old version of the software on the spacecraft.

It can be quite common in the space industry to load non-flight or old versions late in the AIT phase in order to test on other modules, or even just to officially close old actions. But before delivering everything we would check all the versions, and make sure that everything is as expected and most importantly, as described. If that step was screwed up, it is bad news for the QA, but that would explain why the errors could be found and fixed quickly: it meant just going through all the non-conformances and change logs and understand what was different between the version used, and the version that should have been used.

You can use tabs to indent your python code. Ok, you might be lynched if you share your code but as long as you don't mix tabs and spaces, it is fine.

There are some attempts like subspace: https://github.com/subspacecloud/subspace but I have not found anything stable yet.

You create the rings of concrete around the cylinder while you are carving it, so actually not so much concrete. I am puzzled about the engineering required for the base, but on the paper it looks quite neat.

I believe the main problem with the tax on fuel (it already exists) is that you cannot make it as progressive as you want. It will be the same percentage regardless of how much fuel you use and so far this proved not good enough to skew the market in favour of the low-emission solutions.

Because these press releases were political at best. No-one in the space industry was believing them: unrealistic, playing on the words and not going through proper channels.

Saying it is a few percent per year is proof that it is an exponential growth, per its definition.

Super resolution can only do so much. Basically, a x2 or x4 improvement at best, especially on features more complex than text. Also, as soon as you compress your video stream you lose a lot of information that would actually be used by these algorithms.

If a high res stream is available, it is much better to use it. A basic face detection algorithm and snapshots of them saved regularly would go a long way and are really simple to implement.

I used this algorithm to display satellite telemetry in a faster way. However, this was only reducing the amount of point by 10: that's great but not game changing

That is the value with something close to capacity, but most importantly assuming worse case for weight. And weight has a bigger effect on the consumption on a plane than on a car. So if your plane has less passengers, the MPG of the plane increases, though the MPG/passenger decreases. And it is also mainly for cruise - the longer the travel, the better the efficiency. Taking off and climbing is not that efficient so short haul trip are quite bad.

To me the point is that an airplane MPG/passenger is of the same magnitude as the MPG/passenger for an individual car. What is bad is not necessarily the plane itself, but the fact we do very long distance trips. Trains and buses can be more efficient, carbone-wise, but requires a traffic big enough to offset the carbone cost of the infrastructure needed.

I would argue that macro-economy is done with the wrong timespan. Much climate and weather forecast, there is a gap that is very hard, if not impossible to fill.

Predicting the next semester is done quite alright. There are good economic models for long duration trend (50 years at least), though they are not used much because they are not very useful to invest as they do not have enough granularity. But the middle ground is just chaos.

While I would totally love to see nuclear fusion be an option, I am afraid the timeline simply does not fit the challenge. Realistically, we won't be able to have nuclear fusion production-ready under less than 20 years, and most probably ~40 years.

If we do nothing in the next 20 years, it's not 2 degrees we are looking at, but 4+ degrees. The difference will be millions vs billions of deaths.

Exactly, rent and loans/mortgages interests linked to the appreciation of assets are all included in the GDP.

Yes, unmodified Pi, camera and lens (not the stock lens, a fisheye one as well)

No, the benefit of FOSS is that if the group developing a product does not support it anymore, you are free to fork it and support it yourself. And I am sure we will see a fair share of people doing that. What I am not sure is of anyone doing so will have the shoulders to actually support it.

Python 2.7 was released 1 decade ago. That's quite a long transition time.

So much this.

The only place where those technologies could make sense would be on the industry generating a lot of CO2 in a concentrated manner. Or if you are creating a Mars colony, where it could be used to control your system.

And even if you do all that, you are placing an equipment that is fairly expensive into one of the worst environment of a car: next to the ground, lot's of shock and vibration, even higher thermal changes, water and other liquids in very close proximity. These were also the reasons why the Smart ended up with a classical design.

Wheels need to be somewhat expandable otherwise you increase your cost. And what happens if you have a flat, has the spare wheel got a motor as well?

Given that the market price of the electricity when the wind is blowing is usually below €20/MWh (see time series on pfbach.dk), I hope they are expecting to reduce the price even more because it is still too expensive for the current market.

There is a linear dependency between the wind production (and solar production) and the market price: the more intermittent energy is available on the market, the lower the price.

Yes. The car is responsible for the safety in all circumstances and recognizes it's limitations. Think level 4 autonomy.

As soon as the car sees it cannot proceed properly, it parks somewhere or go in a safe situation and requests a remote human operator to intervene. Then the whole point is to have a call center sized so that you do not have to wait too much.

We're not there yet, and giving back the control to the passengers is also a possibility. However, in a world where passengers almost never drive, it might be safer to give the control to trained remote operators.

Cost is a good first order proxy for energy used, so this is not negligible if you want to take into account all the energy used by the developer (including home activities).

As for any other product, this is a trade-off between fixed and variable cost: want to do some quick processing on an hourly basis? Just write a quick python script with a Cron. Want to compute something billions of time? Use C or something more modern that compiles. Need even more savings? Build an ASIC doing the job.

The problem is not that Ireland is a country using its taxes more efficiently than another. The problem is that one country can offer a much lower rate that is only viable for them if companies make their entire EU business as if it was happening in this country.

Let say you are Luxembourg, and the average tax is 30% of your profit in the EU. Luxembourg is roughly .1% of the EU population. Assuming an ideal world, a company would them make .1% of its profit in Luxembourg. Now, let say Luxembourg offers a deal with a company so that they can artificially put all the profit from its EU operations in Luxembourg: in order for the country to keep the same taxes, it would only need to have a tax rate of 0.03%. From the Luxembourg point of view, they have the same tax amount as before. And from the company perspective, they are now paying taxes as if they were only paying taxes in Luxembourg, which is peanuts for them.

Now, the current situation is not as caricatural as this scenario, but that is what is happening. The end result is just lower taxes created artificially (but legally). And the big problem is that it is not easy to fix while being in a EU context: the easiest solution would be to have common tax rates, though that would create some other issues. At the very least, closer tax rates would help the matter as moving your profit from one country to another is not free for the companies.