1
180
Time to stop using Chrome (arstechnica.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Google is now rolling out a system where Chrome directly tracks your activity and shares its summary with advertisers.

Also Firefox is faster as of like two months ago.

It takes five minutes to switch browsers, and the difference is so little that you'll often forget you did it.

2
48
submitted 16 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

As requested by @[email protected]

The Space Shuttle, the iconic American launch vehicle used from 1981 to 2011, is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration, rivaled only by the world historic tragedy of the breakup of the USSR. The Shuttle is responsible for 73.6% of all deaths in the entire history of spaceflight and the Shuttle program and its consequences have crippled the crewed space launch capability of NASA to a current state worse than during the Mercury program in the early 60's.

How did this happen? In short, Nixon, Congress and the Department of Defense.

So it's 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin are standing on the moon, Richard Nixon is President, and the US declares victory in the space race after posting a wall of L's on every previous step of the race. Nixon tells NASA to make a plan for what to do next after the Apollo program and they come back with this pretty cool plan they call the Space Transportation System, or STS for short.

The idea is that you build a whole reusable modular infrastructure of space vehicles and stations for missions to orbit, to the moon, and eventually to mars by 1983 at the earliest and 2000 at the latest. This system consists of several parts:

  • A two stage fully liquid fueled fully reusable winged shuttle to get up to low earth orbit

  • A modular space station there in orbit along with a fuel depot to do microgravity stuff and to transfer crew and cargo from one vehicle to another.

  • Some space tugs to move stuff around, with the bonus that if you stick some landing legs on one it'll work as a lunar lander.

  • A nuclear powered space-only shuttle with no wings or anything but a fuel tank, nuclear rocket engine, and module attachment points, capable of getting back and forth between the earth and moon. Stick a few of em together and you can reach mars.

  • Finally, a second modular space station in lunar orbit made of the same modules as the first one to manage all the cool lunar exploration we're definitely going to be doing.

So, design four things and you get a whole cheap reusable space infrastructure for the entire earth-moon system and all you need is a bigger new lander to include mars in the bargain. Fantastic deal, one of the best deals of all time.

This is where it all starts to go horribly wrong.

Of course Congress refuses to fund, and Nixon cuts, everything but the winged atmospheric shuttle, leaving it with nowhere to go, a bus to nowhere. NASA's reward for going from putting their first person in space to putting people on the moon and bringing them back safely in eight years is having their budget cut drastically.

But the cutting don't end there. No, that would be a good bus to nowhere and we can't have that. We get the shitty bus to nowhere. Look back up at that Shuttle concept pic above. See how both parts have wings and engines? See how there aren't any solid rocket boosters on it? All that stuff costs money up front and we can't have that. Sure, it makes the system cheaper to use and more reliable and safer but who cares about that we gotta get the sticker price down. Vietnam isn't gonna bomb itself.

It's time to start fucking up the shuttle itself.

Okay, we lose the reusable winged first stage and replace it with a big dumb disposable fuel tank to save money. That means that in order to reuse the first stage engines they have to be put on the orbiter. But the orbiter is off axis to the center of mass of the whole stack, by a lot and also by an amount which changes a lot as the fuel gets used up. This means the engines have to be able to gimbal really far while at a full burn, making the engines even more complex, which in turn makes the engines even more expensive and makes them need to be refurbished and pretty much completely rebuilt after every flight.

Oops, now we need more boosters because the engines on the orbiter aren't enough. We could use liquid rocket boosters which are much safer and cheaper per launch, but the Office of Management and Budget, who you may notice are not rocket scientists, say we have to use solid boosters to save money on up front development costs.

Let's have a quick aside here to explain very simply how rockets work, both liquid and solid. A liquid rocket has two big tanks of very cold liquid, one of fuel, most commonly liquid hydrogen or kerosene, and one of oxidizer, most commonly liquid oxygen. It pumps these down into a combustion chamber where they combine and explode, sending a jet of hot gas consisting of either steam in the case of hydrogen fuel, or steam and carbon dioxide in the case of kerosene out of the back to push the rocket forward. If something seems to be going wrong, computers can sense that and stop pumping more fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber. A liquid rocket that fails in flight generally just stops burning with an accompanying loss of thrust. This is bad, but usually nothing explodes that shouldn't.

Solid rockets are completely different. Instead of having tanks and a combustion chamber a solid rocket consists of fuel and oxidizer formed into a solid block coating the inside of a tube with a hole down the whole middle of the tube. The fuel is commonly metal or plastic particles and the oxidizer is commonly some nasty stuff like ammonium perchlorate. In the case of really big solid rockets like the shuttle now uses, the tubes are manufactured in vertical sections and sealed together with o-rings. Once you light a solid rocket, the whole middle of the tube is burning all along its length, and it cannot be shut down. The exhaust is all kinds of toxic and still burning shit so even if you detach them, they fly off still burning and you get washed with all that deadly exhaust.

Great, now instead of a fully reusable two stage rocket that runs on hydrogen and oxygen with a first stage that can land back at an airport we have a rocket you have to rebuild after every flight that needs a disposable external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters you have to fish out of seawater to reuse.

As we're doing all that redesigning, the budget just keeps getting cut so now we have to go beg the Department of Defense and the National Reconnaissance Office for money. What they want is a bigger payload bay and bigger wings. Why do they want those things? First, to launch bigger spy satellites. Second, they have this bazinga brained idea that they can fly up into a polar orbit, snag a Soviet satellite out of space, and land back on US soil within one orbit. But the Earth moves as you're orbiting, so in order to launch from Florida and land back at Vandenberg you have to have a lot of wing area too, so you can glide further and not end up in the Pacific. This is a very stupid idea, and would have been an act of war if they ever actually tried it, which they thankfully didn't, but all that extra payload space and wing area adds weight we have to lift every time we launch.

Next let's think about the crew: how many of them should we have and how will we keep them alive if something goes wrong? Apollo (and Soyuz) have a launch escape system that can pull the crew module right off the stack the instant something goes bad and fling them far away, but you can't do that with the whole nose of a spaceplane. We could maybe have ejection seats, but then we only have room for four crew, and we want seven. For the first few testing flights where we only need a pilot and copilot we give them ejection seats but once we start flying full crews it's a pretty bad look to leave the other five behind so we take those ejection seats out.

So here's the plan if something goes wrong:

The bars are timelines of launch, the black zones are where if something goes wrong at that part everybody dies. Note how most of it is black zones. Now, if something goes only a little bit wrong we can try to return to the launch site, but let's not test whether that actually works because in the words of the guy we got to fly the damn thing first, Astronaut John Young, "let's not practice Russian roulette" and "[the Return To Launch Site abort] requires continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful."

This whole mess works okay, in the sense that nobody dies, for 24 whole launches. This lulls us into a false sense of security, and we start to do some even dumber things, like assume that when the o-rings holding the solid rocket booster sections together burn through a third of the way it's fine and we can save a little bit more money by not redesigning them so they don't burn through. We also get really focused on keeping the cadence of launches up to prove to Congress that we can do things quickly and efficiently and most importantly cheaply.

On the morning of January 28, 1986, all our chickens come home to roost at once. Before the launch, we get a call from Morton Thiokol, the manufacturer of the solid rocket boosters, telling us that it is not safe to launch because the o-rings (the same o-rings we have been letting get burned through) tend to harden and shrink in cold weather and won't seal the joints between sections well enough to keep the unstoppable explosion contained and pointed in the right direction. Shuttle program manager, Lawrence Mulloy, does not like this. "My God, Thiokol," he says. "When do you want me to launch — next April?"

We ignore this last possible chance to avert tragedy and launch anyway. This is a very bad move, and immediately more than doubles the number of deaths in spaceflight total ever in history. One of the o-rings in one of the solid rocket boosters fails in exactly the way Morton Thiokol engineers predicted it would and sends a new unplanned jet of flame out the side of the solid booster and into the side of the external fuel tank, which makes it explode. This means we will not go to space today. Worse, because the shuttle has no launch escape system it means everybody dies.

To be continued...

3
31
ELON MUSK v SAM ALTMAN/OPENAI (www.courthousenews.com)
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Musk is suing OpenAI. Musk's legal teams' argument in two premises is:

  1. OpenAI's 'contract' as stated in their founding agreement was to make any AGI system for the benefit of humanity.
  2. GPT-4 is an AGI system ∴ OpenAI, by licensing GPT-4 exclusively to Microsoft, has effectively breached this agreement by making the first AGI system beholden to corporate interests. Musk's team also alleges that OpenAI is effectively an Microsoft subsidiary at the moment.

OpenAI deserves the lawsuits, but alleging that GPT-4 as a base model is anywhere close to AGI is probably not the angle to put it lightly.

Some other arguments:

OpenAI has comitted promissory estoppel by moving away from the open source non-profit model Musk initially invested in.

(This means that OpenAI has breached a promise enforceable by Law)

OpenAI has committed a breach of fiduciary duty by using Musk's funding on for-profit projects against the initial understanding of that funding's usage - letting Microsoft on OpenAI's Board of Directors and not open-sourcing GPT-4 are their examples of this.

(OpenAI had a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of their clients, which they failed)

OpenAI has engaged in unfair business practices by convincing Musk they would commit to the 'Founding Agreement'

(I think this is self explanatory)

DAMAGES

Musk wants:

A. Court to order OpenAI to follow their 'Founding Agreement' which means cutting the Microsoft connection and open sourcing.

B. A judicial ruling that GPT-4 constitutes AGI, and any followup models related to it.

C. Return of all money Musk invested into OpenAI that was spent on 'for-profit' projects.

D. General damages to be determined by court.

Personally, I think banging hard on the 'GPT-4 is AGI angle' is a really mistaken line of argument and it's a huge weakspot in their case. OpenAI can probably be sued for a lot of things, as we're seeing with NYT, so it's not like this is their only angle of approach. I want to see them get sued in court just in a vindictive sense, but I don't think this is how you do it.

4
176
Yes (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5
69
I would (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6
80
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
7
93
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8
30
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9
37
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10
28
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
11
21
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
12
12
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13
9
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

new krazam just dropped

14
18
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
15
19
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Well, my entire phone stopped responding until I closed literally everything, so explain that, liberals.

16
47
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17
30
submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I admittedly have very little professional experience with SQL (just single table databases with SFW queries and inserts) but I've been learning more lately, and I find I strongly prefer writing it with lowercase keywords. It's easier to type since I don't have to keep pressing caps lock or holding down shift, and I don't find uppercase keywords to be any more readable (but like I said, I don't have much professional experience, and maybe it's different at that level) largely due to the syntax highlighting that pretty much every editor of the last 20 years provides. The only reason I can think of for using uppercase keywords is if you're working with a legacy codebase with existing SQL code that uses uppercase keywords.

It's not really an argument per se, but one other point I'd make is that so many programming languages have been invented over the years and afaik pretty much none of them use (all) uppercase keywords, in fact the only mainstream language I can think of off the top of my head that does that is COBOL, which is older than SQL. Did the creators of all those languages make a mistake by using lowercase keywords?

18
9
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

What is the best way to do it and what apps do you recommend?

19
146
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20
12
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I might post this in some other spots if tech is the wrong place, but I was wondering what people use for a note taking app. I still have evernote, cuz I thought it was a good idea to have access to all my notes on all my devices, but they keep blowing me up with ads for their premium version and limit my number of notes. I want something that I can backup my notes, is free, and secure. I really only use my phone for notes nowadays, pls help

21
106
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
22
35
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Better do some walnut side projects for your portfolio folx

23
56
It’s joever (streamable.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

No more web dev jobs

24
36
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

While this article is a form of advertisement, it does a decent job at explaining why Google results are so bad when you search for product recommendations.

25
17
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/1878156

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/1878146

I heard the last update for the 3DS fucked peoples homebrew consoles, so I haven't even connected to the internet since then.

But now I want to transfer a bunch of my old Pokemon to Pokemon Bank so I can get them onto Home and then my Switch, but Pokemon Bank needs an update...

Whats the safest way to do this? Can I just update it or will that fuck my homebrew?

view more: next ›

technology

22756 readers
239 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS