Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | krisoft's commentslogin

> We still don’t have any plan I’ve heard of for avoiding a cascade of space debris when satellites collide and turn into lots of fast moving shrapnel.

What do you mean we don’t have any plans to avoid that? It is a super well studied topic of satelite management. Full books have been written on the topic.

Here is just one: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230002470/downloads/CA...

Did you think satelites are kept apart by good luck and providence?


I am very aware that the US Air Force / Space Force monitor’s trajectories and calls satellite owners when there is an anticipated collision but that method doesn’t scale, especially with orders of magnitude more satellites in the same LEO shells.

And it still doesn’t solve the problem of a cascade causing shrapnel density to increase in an orbit shell which then causes satellites to use some of their scarce maneuver budget to avoid collision. But as soon as a satellite exhausts that budget, it becomes fodder for the shrapnel cascade.


> Whatever sat datacenter they biuld, it will run better/easier/faster/cheaper sitting on the ground in antarctica than it will in space

That is clearly not true. How do you power the data center on antarctica? May i remind you it will be in the shadow of earth for half a year.


A tanker full of LNG and a turbine would probably work.

Kinda like the ones they are already burning in Starship to put these in space in the first place.

Anywhere on earth is better than space for this application.


Space is so expensive that you can power it pretty much any way you want and it will be cheaper. Nuclear reactor, LNG, batteries (truck them in and out if you have to). Hell, space based solar and beam it down. Why would there ever be an advantage to putting the compute in space?

Get those penguins doing something productive for once, put them on treadmills!

Or burn them in a furnace. Pretty much any way you can think of to accomplish something on earth, is vastly cheaper, easier, and faster than doing it in space.

> How do you power the data center on antarctica?

Nuclear power plant?


By tapping into the geothermals of the volcanoes under the ice. Otherwise nukkular.

Then you put another in the high north. Two, or six, is still cheaper than one in orbit.

There are two different kind of “prediction” mixed up here.

The thing which was easy to predict is that Trump is going to continue his trade war against China. It is also easy to predict that in a trade war companies who manufacture some product in China and sell it in the USA will suffer.

That prediction is enough for one to stay out of that kind of business. But it is not enough to do trades and profit from it.

If you could predict that Trump is going to announce x tarrifs on y tomorrow at z time that is much more likely to lead to succesfull trades. That is hard to predict.


> France? A nuclear state? Paris is properly sovereign.

That is true. But nukes are not magic. Explain to me how you imagine the series of events where Paris uses their nukes to get the USA to extradite Elon to Paris. Because i’m just not seeing it.


> nukes are not magic. Explain to me how you imagine the series of events where Paris uses their nukes to get the USA to extradite Elon to Paris

Paris doesn’t need to back down. And it can independently exert effort in a way other European countries can’t. Musk losing Paris means swearing off a meaningful economic and political bloc.


No need for nukes. France can issue an Interpol Red Notice for the arrest of Elon Musk, for whatever excuse is found.

> an overworked air traffic controller in Germany

Actually the air traffic controller in question was Swiss not German.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_c...


> You don't get to throw out "fondness for throwing Nazi salutes" slander, based on an hoax immediately debunked at the time, and then act like you're doing democracy a favor.

Just to clarify. This is the video context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw

Are you claiming that this is not an accurate depiction of what happened on stage? (That is the video is in some form fake. A deep fake, or special effects, or an Elon impersonator or whatever.)

Or are you claiming that the gesture seen is not a nazi salute?


Yes, "nazi salute" is obviously not an accurate description of the gesture Musk performed before saying "my heart goes out to you".

Here's a thought experiment for you.

If I stuck my middle finger up at you while saying "my heart goes out to you", what would you think?


Probably not that you support the Nazi regime, as that would be a ridiculous thing to think.

Particularly so if a year before you visited Auschwitz and stated it was "tragic that humans could do this to other humans", and told us how you attended a Hebrew preschool and have a lot of Jewish friends.


I didn't ask you what you wouldn't think. I asked you what you would think.

I don't get your point about the tailpipe emissions. Of course there is a hard cutoff. What else could there be? Do you want them to gently suggest that you should maybe fix your car above 90ppm, and then rudely suggest from 95ppm?

The response they can do is that they either let you use the car or not let you use the car. That is binary. Technically they cannot even do that. All they can do is promise you that if you use your non-compliant car and they find it out they will fine you. Laws are after all just formalised threats backed by force.


> What else could there be?

Charge a fee based on the number of ppm's your car emits:

    tax * ppm = fee to renew your tags
Even better would be to look at the odometer reading each year:

    tax * ppm * miles driven last year = fee to renew your tags

I work at a self-driving car company and we observed a similar problem when we did some off-road testing on dirt tracks. The cars were too precise and they were cutting deep ruts into the soil. We too solved it by adding a pseudo-random offset to the track.

I believe Google Maps adds a bit of a rng in which route it will recommend when two otherwise similar in distance/time. Obviously the traffic input also affects this, but that's a slower feedback mechanism; better to distribute the cars all leaving the airport for downtown across the 2-3 possible routes upfront rather than dumping them all onto route A until it's a jam and then all onto route B until it's a jam, etc.

I'm sure Google Maps has had to put their thumb on the scale in numerous instances. I recall reading articles about it "discovering" more optimal routes between Point A and Point B only to find things like the new "optimal" route being down a neighborhood street, and then the locals started squawking.

Annealing.

Before the current wave of automation there was a previous technology to automate buses using optical sensing and lines in the road which had the same issue.

If you want rails: build rails.

There are entire subway systems built with tire-on-concrete where the trains ride precisely the same routes down to the millimeter. Montreal’s is a famous one. These systems are not as efficient as rail, but they are quieter and gentler than the typical subway.

The problem is that the optical guided bus was built with the intention of reducing cost, since painting lines is a lot cheaper than building rails.

The moment you have to build rail-like things you lose most of the cost advantages.


That's still rail. It's just not steel-on-steel.

Otherwise you'd have to seriously limit what systems you call "monorail".


> pilots are trained to keep their nose gear on the centerline

Funily I was learning to fly at a grass strip and we were told to vary our positioning left and right on the runway for exactly this reason. In practice it meant that as we were taxiing to the runway my instructor would tell me “Today we are taking off left/right of center to avoid damaging the grass too much.”


> The real translator touch comes about when their is some nuance to the language.

And as we all know legal language is famous for having no nuance whatsoever, there are no opaque technical terms with hundreds of years of history behind their usage, there is no difference between the legal systems of different countries, and there is no possible difference in case law or the practicalities of legal enforcement. /sarcasm

What is clear to me that in a situation like this neither AI translation nor human translation is sufficient. What the imagined American signing an important legal document in the Czech Republic needs is a lawyer practicing in the Czech Republic who speaks a language the imagined American also speaks.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: