The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.
There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).
Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.
All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.
I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.
But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.
Just as a thought experiment, I wondered just how sophisticated a sound engineering system someone like Delia Derbyshire could have had in 1964, and so set out to design one using nothing but the materials, components, and knowledge available at the time. In terms of sound quality, you could have matched anything produced in the early-to-mid 1980s. In terms of processing sophistication, you could have matched anything produced in the early 2000s. (What I came up with would take a large comple
It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.
If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.
But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.
Radiation on Mars really isn't an issue. Radiation levels on Mars are on average 0.64mSv per day. Radiation levels in Ramsar, Iran are 0.71mSv per day (that's entirely natural, not some crazy weapons program the Iranians are running). Want to know how many extra cancers there are in Ramsar due to the elevated natural radiation levels? None. Absolutely none at all. In fact, Ramsar has a lower cancer rate than both other cities in Iran, and the world in general. This matches a pattern where it seems that people exposed to low-moderate radiation levels actually appear to have lower risks for cancer than people not exposed to any elevated radiation at all.
There certainly will be areas of Mars with high radiation levels due to geology, altitude, etc, and we'll want to avoid those areas, or use shielding, but the average case is really not a problem at all.
While you're not wrong about pushing a bunch of recycled crap in a lot of cases, you're just plain wrong (TM) on prices. The price of games has been falling for decades when you adjust for inflation. The average retail boxed game has cost:
1985: $35 ($110 after adjusting for inflation)
1990: $50 ($125)
1995: $60 ($125)
2000: $60 ($115)
2005: $60 ($105)
2010: $60 ($95)
2015: $60 ($85)
2020: $60 ($75)
2025: $80 ($80)
As you can see, the "$20" price increase is rather more modest when you account for inflation, and is a *long way* from offsetting the drop in pricing that we've seen over the past 3 decades. The games industry, unfortunately, can't survive on expecting the base of players to continuously expand, like it has in the past. If they're going to pay all the people working on these games, they genuinely do need to keep up with inflation now.
Tim Sweeny wants to be able to push out AI generated swill without you being able to tell until itâ(TM)s too late. News at 11.
Indeed, now it's not dark matter, but instead the matter previously known as dark.
Sometimes, to get your thoughts straight, all you need is to discuss them with somebody. Chatbots seem to be just great for this. You really do not need anything from them, you just explain your ideas and this makes them more organized. This is really useful. Especially, now when you really have to be careful what you say to others, or you may end up totally cancelled.
ChatGPT has three aspects that make this practice - what you describe - very dangerous.
Firstly, ChatGPT implements universal positive regard. No matter what your idea is, ChatGPT will gush over it, telling you that it's a great idea. Your plans are brilliant, it's happy for you, and so on.
Secondly, ChatGPT always wants to get you into a conversation, it always wants you to continue interacting. After answering your question there's *always* a followup "would you like me to..." that offers the user a quick way that reduces effort. Ignoring these requests, viewing them as the result of an algorithm instead of a real person trying to be helpful, is difficult in a psychological sense. It's hard not to say "please" or "thank you" to the prompt, because the interaction really does seem like it's coming from a person.
And finally, ChatGPT remembers everything, and I've recently come to discover that it remembers things even if you delete your projects and conversations *and* tell ChatGPT to forget everything. I've been using ChatGPT for several months talking about topics in a book I'm writing, I decided to reset the ChatGPT account and start from scratch, and... no matter how hard I try it still remembers topics from the book.(*)
We have friends for several reasons, and one reason is that your friends will keep you sane. It's thought that interactions with friends is what keeps us within the bounds of social acceptability, because true friends will want the best for you, and sometimes your friends will rein you in when you have a bad idea.
ChatGPT does none of this. Unless you're careful, the three aspects above can lead just about anyone into a pit of psychological pathology.
There's even a new term for this: ChatGPT psychosis. It's when you interact so much with ChatGPT that you start believing in things that aren't true - notable recent example include people who were convinced (by ChatGPT) that they were the reincarnation of Christ, that they are "the chosen one", that ChatGPT is sentient and loves them... and the list goes on.
You have to be mentally healthy and have a strong character *not* to let ChatGPT ruin your psyche.
(*) Explanation: I tried really hard to reset the account back to its initial state, had several rounds of asking ChatGPT for techniques to use, which settings in the account to change, and so on (about 2 hours total), and after all of that, it *still* knew about my book and would answer questions about it.
I was only able to detect this because I had a canon of fictional topics to ask about (the book is fiction). It would be almost impossible for a casual user to discover this, because any test questions they ask would necessarily come from the internet body of knowledge.
Uhh, except that on macOS, to implement XDG youâ(TM)d set the config directory to ~/Library/Preferences, and the state directory to ~/Library/Application\ Support, so⦠if you think their implementation is good, then thereâ(TM)s no problem having multiple locations to put the data.
The last great recession was due to precisely this sort of spending pattern plus a collapse in payment. Banks may be healthy, for now, but they can't keep lending forever with no recover. This is not a good sign.
I'm sure they'll go on to point out all the damage to the heat shield, and the leaks etc that occurred in the last test. And they'll carefully gloss over the fact that the heat shield had tiles missing deliberately to find out what happens if you lose tiles in all kinds of places.
Okay... are Blue Origin returning second stages back to earth and reusing them?
Didn't think so.
The thing is, Blue isnâ(TM)t learning lessons from SpaceX on how to do it. Theyâ(TM)re not building an incredibly cheep rocket thats fast to build and lets spacex innovate for them. Theyâ(TM)re building the lightest, most expensive possible rocket with intricate machining steps that require an age, and a ton of money to produce. No big sheet steel parts welded together, instead complex aluminium isogrid..
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex
