Mastery of technology must infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We must be as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple languages
I'm guessing the geostationary orbit was selected to provide a location that is always visible for testing.
Just a nitpick, but the article said geosynchronous, not geostationary. Both are 24-hour orbits, but geosynchronous orbits can be inclined or elliptical, as opposed to geostationary which are circular directly over the equator. Geostationary satellites appear to be in a fixed position in the sky, but geosynchronous satellites appear to move about over a 24 hour period.
we don't experience single photons.
It doesn't really affect you argument, but under the right laboratory conditions it is possible to see a single photo.
[T]he Waymo crash rate (reported as part of the NHTSA SGO [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Standing General Order]) was found to be similar in magnitude to self-reported human transportation network company (TNC) crashes. It’s unclear what definition of a crash is used for the self-reported TNC crash data, and whether that TNC crash definition is well matched to the ADS [Automated Driving Systems] crashes reported as part of the NHTSA SGO. That is, there is an unknown amount of underreporting in the TNC crash data, while the ADS data from the SGO includes any amount of property damage with little to no underreporting. TNC drivers may have incentives to not report low severity collisions, as reported collisions may lead to deactivation from the platform.
Epidemiological factors related to human monkeypox virus (MPOX) in men who have sex with me
Blimey, that's one hell of a study! (obviously, it's been truncated)
I'm hoping someone builds a hotwheels like track where racedrivers actually at high speed with enough downforce drive upside down for a bit (although, probably hard to make something like that safe enough...).
Driver 61 on youtube is having a go at this: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fplayli...
You are literally hallucinating.
No, SethJohnson was being satirical. Your satire meter is broken,
Just knowing the time by itself is not a solution though so there is something missing from the article
There is indeed. This is all about developing quantum inertial navigation systems for real-world use. Clocks are just one part of it.
Changing the law and basically telling them "it's not yours, it's in the public domain" is such a punch in the face
...
You are basically saying that once you have created something (anything), it is free for anyone to use
This is a strawman argument. Almost no-one is saying you should be able to do what you want with other people's creative works,, Most people agree that:
1) It is NOT OK to copy and distribute other people's creative works without permission
2) It IS OK to learn from other people's creative works, and use the knowledge gained to produce new, different works.
The question is, how much is it OK to get a computer to help you do 2), or indeed to automate 2) entirely. This doesn't seem to be what copyright law was designed to stop, but it's the only hammer people have to try to stop something they see as unfair (AI learning from other people's work on a scale no human could match, but not acually producing copies of it)
Personally, I put this in the same catagory as recording car number plates, or taking photos of people in public and trying to identify them. Historically, it's OK to do these things, but problems can arise if these are automated and done on a massive scale (and the results kept forever). They may be qualitatively the same, but quantitatively they are very different. I think it is OK for the law to do distinguish a person doing something on a small scale, and a computer doing the same thing to everyone and everything, everywhere, and all the time.
Ideally, I would want judges / juries (in any legal cases brought) to rule that AI learning from copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. And then government could decide if we, as a society, want to allow this thing. If not, government can pass new laws specifcally forbidding using copyrighted works for teaching AIs without permission. But I fear that is hopelessly naive of me
After the split up of Bell, and subsequent mergers etc, the current Baby Bells operators are (somewhat simplified):
Much of the excitement we get out of our work is that we don't really know what we are doing. -- E. Dijkstra
