Uruguay offers amazing entry experience and long visa with no conditions for technology workers. I'm not saying BA won't cut it, I prefer BA to Montevideo in some ways (10yo experiences mind you) just that you have a good rational and price competitive natural alternate nearby.
My domain hosted at google workspace mailing lists are increasingly marked as spam, because google uses central Google identities sending them and every workspace @mydomain is tainted by whatever spam other hosted workspaces acquire. They haven't worked out how to dkim/spf them into buckets which other big mail players won't cast as bad"
The value proposition behind google hosted domains is falling.
More than that, people today seem to be saturated with sarcasm.
It's especially tragic with younger people who seem to have no experience with handling genuine sincerity. They laugh nervously at it, as if they're unfamiliar with how to handle someone saying what they actually think and feel.
The questions from the news agencies and their responses are not scripted. I encourage you to listen to the Q&As the astronauts and ground crew had during the mission and judge their character on that. You won't find any public figure / politician with any amount of media training that even comes close to their level of genuine humanism, humility, and professionalism.
The craft has aerodynamics and speed. It might be figuratively true "unrecoverable" but if it takes e.g. 2 weeks to complete a return, their oxygen and food and batteries ran out. Alternatively if it enters too fast they return ... in pieces.
I think you're being a pedant, if your point is a grazing entry causing rebound skip ultimately returns to some orbital path downward.
You seem to intentionally be ignoring the original quote that any error may have caused them to be flung into space. This is patently false unless the one math error is pumping in hundreds of pounds more propellant and burning far longer than the scheduled burns. NASA would need to make a significant series of mistakes beyond orbital math for the "flung out into space" statement to be true.
They certainly could've gotten the return wrong but with a perigee of 119 miles they arent even in a stable orbit and likely could deorbit themselves using only rcs thrusters at apogee, or by just waiting a few orbits.
This is underselling the risks. On top of the many trajectories which push them into unrecoverable situations, leaving them stranded in orbit, there can be trajectories where the moon gives a gravity assist strong enough to fling the spacecraft into escape velocity, fulfilling the OP.
In fact, the trajectory they chose for this mission exploited the opposite effect to yield a free return without propellant expense.
In the modern day, the chance of a math error being the root cause behind this failure mode are vanishingly small, but minor burn execution mistakes that do not require hundreds of extra pounds of propellant are definitely plausible. They were extremely common in the early days of spaceflight and plagued most of the very first moon exploration attempts. Again, with modern RCS this is unlikely. But reentry is still incredibly tight and dangerous. Apollo famously had a +-1° safe entry corridor, and Orion is way heavier and coming in even faster. If their perigee was off they could’ve easily burned up or doubled their mission time, which they may not have been able to survive.
The amount of things that would have to go wrong for the craft to get an accidental gravity boost and be ejected would be significant.
I feel like the original claim paints the whole thing as on a knife edge and barely achieved by virtue of not making a single mistake. In today's age with so many moon landing deniers and worse I feel like we should be specific about where the actual dangers challenges and unknowns there were here. In reality, the orbital mechanics are one of the simplest parts of the entire problem, at least when we're talking about a moon flyby
Yes, this is a fair point. I agree that orbital mechanics is trivially easy compared to everything else. The chances of a math mistake in particular are null, these trajectories have all been calculated years in advance.
The moon's gravity turns out to be "lumpy" because its density is not constant. This was detected by the Apollo missions and caused them to make errors in orbit calculations. This source of error could have influenced the flyby.
Time triggered Ethernet is part of aircraft certified data bus and has a deep, decades long history. I believe INRIA did work on this, feeding Airbus maybe. It makes perfect sense when you can design for it. An aircraft is a bounded problem space of inputs and outputs which can have deterministic required minima and then you can build for it, and hopefully even have headroom for extras.
Ethernet is such a misnomer for something which now is innately about a switching core ASIC or special purpose hardware, and direct (optical even) connects to a device.
I'm sure there are also buses, dual redundant, master/slave failover, you name it. And given it's air or space probably a clockwork backup with a squirrel.
Aircraft also have software and components, that form a "working" proclaimed eco-system in lockstep- a baseline. This is why there are paper "additions" on bug discovery until the bug is patched and the whole ecosystem of devices is lifted to the next "baseline".
I am in two minds about this one. I do think this is a retrograde decision, but I can also see (steelman?) a perspective from the DoW that they were entitled to make assumptions about the inputs they use for planning and the inability to follow through on those assumptions means they can't now "supply" the kinds of intelligence they sought.
King for a day I wouldn't have done this, but the current king (of the hill?) has, and the court aligns to his intent more often than not these days.
The designation means no one else receiving federal dollars can contract with them, not just that the DoD will offboard them as a vendor. It's also a clause the government had already agreed to for over a year prior.
Huh? Leverage to... coerce the company into serving all DoD usecases?
No it's not. They can invoke DPA.
The supply chain risk designation is not logically able to be used to coerce a company into integration. The whole premise is that its integration would be an unacceptable risk, therefore it must be banned from being integrated!
I think I'm saying it's leverage as punishment: "do what we want or this happens to you" combined with "we can un-do this pain, if you do what we want"
Oh yeah, I'm not doubting that's functionally what they're trying to achieve.
I'm saying 1) it's not the only tool they have (they have DPA), and 2) this use of the supply chain risk designation will likely get struck down in court (regardless of these interim rulings like TFA), and Anthropic knows it, so it's not even a great coercive instrument. But such is life under the rule of retards.
Couldn’t help but laugh at the irony here— you’re not wrong! The fact of the matter is that anthropic is an “unacceptable risk”… that the government had contracted with to use with classified milnet.
That contract was already signed and active, the government had already agreed to Anthropic’s terms, and contractors were already cleared to use Claude on the classified networks; only until anthropic started enforcing those pre-existing guardrail clauses (probably for good reason) did Hegseth get pissy.
Guess it should go without saying: if you cannot support clause A.) surveillance of Americans, and clause B.) AI assisted weapons systems, then you are a /supply chain risk/. Lord knows we don’t need heroes here.
But you know, if abiding those terms is a legitimate threat to your supply chain, then why would you agree to those stipulations to begin with ;)
Edit:
So to more respond to your point: big disagree, this can absolutely be used for compliance. The crucial thing you’re missing is that the government /threatened/ to designate them a risk in response to the CEO’s enforcement of the clause. The government gave them a -timeline- to desist and comply… which debases the claim that they are a supply chain risk. The judge is a moron.
The -only- legal argument for the designation is the ugliest one: the fact that Anthropic is willing to play dead canary. “You’re not a supply chain risk a priori, but you’re a supply chain risk for asserting this work violates 1 and 2”
By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink
> By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink
Actually if you read Sam's statements closely (which you must, because he's a snake), this is not necessarily true.
What he said is that they "are working towards adding" similar protections. He did not say they even proposed them to DoD, never mind that DoD agreed to them. So maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I've never seen any public info that actually provides clear evidence of it. All the reporting comes back to Sam's rather nuanced statement.
With the same steaks (ducks out rapidly..)
reply