Given how little skill/effort is required for AI-generating music (compared to making it "from scratch"), I find it surprising that they're getting more human-created music than AI generated music. I would have expected something like 10x-100x more AI submissions than human ones.
As I understand it, the star altitude is measured relative to an artificial horizon.
How did it determine "down" in a moving airplane? Was it essentially doing the high-tech equivalent of dangling a rock on a string with some dampening (in a gyroscopic cage to avoid being affected by the airplane's rotation), or something smarter?
When I looked into whether astronavigation would be solvable cheaply or somehow trivially using modern hardware, I found this a surprisingly difficult problem even on a static platform - inclinometers that would get you down to 0.01° accuracy (which would still translate to a ~1 km positional error if I'm not mistaken, roughly what a skilled sailor is supposed to be able to do with a sextant) are expensive even today.
With a moving, shaking platform that's changing position (i.e. a perfect gyro will point perfectly in the wrong direction after a few minutes of flight) and might be flying turns (which makes "down" point in the wrong direction) that seems hard to solve.
The B-52 star tracker used a gyroscope to determine vertical. The Astro Tracker was stabilized by a bunch of motors and synchros so it matched the gyroscope. Thus, the Astro Tracker was a stable platform even as the aircraft pitched and rolled. (Footnote 4 in my article shows the vertical gyro attached to the Astro Tracker.)
> Was it essentially doing the high-tech equivalent of dangling a rock on a string with some dampening (in a gyroscopic cage to avoid being affected by the airplane's rotation), or something smarter?
Yes, that is essentially how a gyroscopic artificial horizon works.
Consider that the local horizon changes relative to an inertial frame (the stars) as you travel across the surface of a sphere, so even if you could build a perfect gyro that remained stationary in the inertial frame you would need to update the local down as you move. The solution is to slightly weight the gyro cage to bias it to the local down.
Now, consider that, in a properly-coordinated turn, the passengers (and gyro) will feel that gravity points straight to the floor :) So the time-constant of the damping is important.
I assume the constant is usually chosen short enough that the system will "forget" turns quickly, in exchange for becoming useless while turning?
Still, getting this whole thing accurate to probably one minute of arc is insane, especially with the gyro and star tracker linked only via motors and synchros. So the total error is the sum of any deviation of the gyroscope from the actual down direction, the error in measuring the gyro angle, the error in setting the star tracker to that exact angle, and then all other errors the system introduces. Then you need to take multiple separate measurements at different times and compensate for the movement, and a one-degree difference means you're over the wrong city (or in Europe, country) so the end-to-end accuracy must be much better than that.
And sailors supposedly did that with a sextant to something like 0.01° on a moving ship.
The article states "every lithium-ion battery sold in the EU must come with a digital battery passport. This includes smartphones [...]" but also "This regulation applies to all batteries with a capacity above 2kWh or those used in electric vehicles."
Every other source I found talks only about EV batteries (including scooters and bikes) regardless of capacity + industrial batteries >2kWh.
Edit: Given the discrepancies and vague wording of the article, it sounds like corp-blog slop (doesn't matter whether it was hand-crafted or AI written, slop is slop) that shouldn't be relied upon. HoldMyBill is some kind of receipt management app, not a web site that explains laws as I initially thought.
I have mixed feelings about this for scooters. They started out as low friction, low regulation, very low cost means of transport. Adding bureaucracy to them might create more friction/harm (by increasing cost/reducing accessibility) than the benefit of reduced friction when selling used ones. OTOH being able to buy a used one with some confidence that the battery is still usable would be a huge benefit of course.
Great, so now they will have to repay the illegal profits and get some measures forced onto them to bring the inflated ticket prices back down, right? Right? Guys?
Under GDPR, I believe that would be accurate. I think CCPA was to some extent inspired by GDPR so I wouldn't be surprised if they copied this point too.
Which, hilariously, means that under GDPR, you only need to contact the web site, and they have to go talk to their 1207 partners that value your privacy to fulfill your request (I'm sure that in practice they'll say "sorry it's all 'anonymous' so we can't" or "we can't be sure that it's you even though you provided the identifier from your cookies"). I'm really disappointed that NOYB hasn't started going after web sites like that - that's quickly put a damper on the whole web surveillance economy.
The really good thing about this is that if we somehow do manage to "ruin earth" and lose a significant portion of agricultural production, we will just have less tasty food rather than starving to death.
Food waste is another kind of "slack" in the food supply chain that would help. Imagine how the world would look if food supply was as optimized as e.g. microchips and then we got any kind of disruption... except now you starve rather than not being able to upgrade your car.
> You can’t grow potatoes and veggies and expect people to survive only on that.
I'm sure most medieval people survived (without food types being a detriment to their health/lifespan) on vastly less meat than most of us eat nowadays.
I don't want to live a "medieval peasant" lifestyle, obviously, but I don't think the food part of it would be unhealthy (assuming enough food).
Medieval people were a lot shorter too. When I was in Saint Basil Cathedral in Moscow I was amazed how narrow and low were the corridors inside those side towers. I hit my head multiple in that church.
(In the world graph towards the end the height seems to decrease since 1990s-this is because countries with shorter people have a higher birth rate. Within the same population the height is still increasing)
At 6' I'm unlikely to ever dunk on my 6'4" brother, which is a bummer, but ego aside I'm not really impacted much by my height since I can secure food and shelter by pressing buttons and pushing a mouse. From an evolutionary perspective I understand the preference to be bigger, but I wonder if it's still a logical aspiration for modern humans. More cells means a higher risk of cancer, after all.
Yes, I believe we could cut beef consumption in half in the US and probably be healthier for it, without even compromising people’s standard of living (beef more as a “treat” than everyday ingredient).
We’d be healthier, and the reduction of water use from all of the crops grown for feed would eliminate all water shortages in the west
Starving people in North Korea are surviving (since per definition they are surviving if they are not dead). Doesn’t mean North Korean diet is something we should strive for.
Average North Korean is now about 3 inches shorter than the average South Korean [0]. 70 years ago they were the same people with the same height... Both nations have very little in the way of immigration so this difference is all due to the environment (i.e. in this case nutrition).
No idea how they actually do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if manual reports and actions play a big role. The policy doesn't need to be enforced reliably as long as it is plausible for reasonably big actors to get caught sooner or later and the consequences of getting caught are business-ruining.
But detecting it on a technical level shouldn't be hard either. Visit the page, take a screenshot, have an AI identify the dismiss button on the cookie/newsletter popups, scroll a bit, click something that looks inactive, check if the URL changes, trigger the back action. Once a suspicious site is identified, put it in the queue for manual review.
The URL does not even need to change, you can pushState with just a JavaScript object, catch the pop and do something like display a modal. (I use this pattern to allow closing fullscreen filter overlays the user opened)
Still, requires user interaction, on any element, once.
So the crawler needs to identify and click most likely the consent/reject button. Which may not even trigger for Googlebot.
So they likely will rely on reports or maybe even Chrome field data.
Field data is a great point - it should be really obvious when people click "back", and many then click back again immediately after (or close the tab, or whatever people do to "escape").
Because clicking on a navigation button in a web app is a good reason to window.history.pushState a state that will return the user to the place where they were when they clicked the button.
Clicking the dismiss button on the cookie banner is not a reason to push a state that will show the user a screen full of ads when they try to leave. (Mentioning the cookie banner because AFAIK Chrome requires a "user gesture" before pushState works normally, https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/T8d4_...)
Ideally, when I create valuable content I am paid and when I consume valuable content I don't pay. Advertising does this but I hate it so I don't want that. So ideally, there is no way to extract value from me but I am able to extract value from others. I think I would support someone who finds a way to enforce this.
But I am also willing to pay for valuable content an exorbitant amount if it is valuable enough. For instance, for absolutely critical information I might pay 0.79€ a month.
But a paywall is a rather useless page, so it shouldn't be shown in search results. Normally, serving Google one page (e.g. a full article) and showing users something else (e.g. a paywall) would be grounds to ban that site forever, but Google built a special exemption for paywalls.
Showing search results that the user can't actually use is user hostile. It's essentially an ad disguised as a search result, with the problem that those ads displace other results that I might actually be able to read.
Of course, if the policy was to not index paywalled content, we might have avoided the paywallization of the Internet. Somehow, decades ago, when the Internet was smaller and there were fewer eyeballs, high quality content could successfully get monetized with non-tracking ads.
Now we have invasive ads that try to profile you, ads that are full of scams because quality control has gone out the window, and yet, somehow, everything needs to be behind a paywall...
reply