But even that peace keeping will involve active combat, unless the mission fails or the force involved is so capable ot deters opponent. You dont want to end up like the blue helmets in lebanon and more like nordbat in kosovo.
That still means the main point, the reason they are there, will never be peace. They are there to fight, and to fuck your shit up - which is both an image the current administration embraces, and very much not a good look outside the country.
This is in no way a solution to the population-scale problem of a belligerant nation having root on the citizenry's mobile phones/cameras/GPS units/network scanners
I'd throw in the manual gearbox, the noise, vibration, smell, and being able to see the mechanical workings as well. We can get a punchy, lightweight vehicle with an EV conversion, but as you've heard from others, that leaves something to be desired
But yes, the vibration, sound, and feel of the incredibly simple (as in stripped down, not unsophisticated) mechanics around you all very much contribute to the special feeling of driving these cars.
My 1976 BMW 2002 is actually my first car. I used to drive it to high school more than half my life ago, and I still drive it today. I’ve driven some other classic cars, luxury and sport, and simply nothing feels like a 2002. Just a beautiful, balanced, timeless design.
Fuck, you missed it being bad at being a phone. It launched on the network that had such bad coverage they needed Apple's hottest product ever to get people to switch. They had to put a cell repeater (or was it a miniature tower?) in the presentation center so the call would go smoothly, and still had to rig the cellular icon to always show full bars.
Judged purely as a "Let's give Ted a call"-phone, it was fucking bad compared to the competiton. They killed it in other areas, don't get me wrong, but not at being a phone.
> Devs have always considered ourselves lazy. The point of programming is to do as little actual work as possible ;) Any self-respecting sysop has a couple hundred scripts so that they don't have to actually type anything :)
Sure, that's why this [0] XKCD was made - getting pulled off on a geeky sidequest, automating something that has (almost) no business being automated, and spending far longer configuring, debugging, and refining your "time saving" scripts than actually doing the damn task are what I expect a dev to get lost in.
Which, sure, is a form of laziness, but it has a different vibe than getting an LLM to do everything for you IMO.
As an aside, a common refrain is that the best computer people are innately curious; they wanted to see how the computer responded if they broke or changed something. LLMs make putting up with the (relatively) long slog to find out less likely to happen; in a way, I'd argue they destroy curiousity itself: a horrifying proposition for anyone that looks to the future of computing, or even humanity in general.
> LLMs make putting up with the (relatively) long slog to find out less likely to happen
My experience has been the opposite. I get claude to go down those rabbit holes a lot, precisely because the effort of doing that is smaller, and claude usually has some insights that help. Often mistaken insights, but still.
While I could have sworn RIM put out their own modems (which Qualcomm used to make life difficult for them, especially as the world transitioned from 3G to 4G), and did their own hardware and software, I can't currently find a source
The frog was smart enough to hop out, and only stopped when just this side of lobotomized. The story doesn't match, and it's because frogs are smart enough to leave when they recognize their environment is not amenable to their continued existance
> They even requested access to a ULA building to see if a sniper could have taken a shot at the rocket.
> It turned out to be an exotic failure: liquid oxygen had gotten caught inside a buckled liner
I gotta say, suspecting "Rival company hired a sniper" before "Dealing with liquid oxygen is very fucking hard and incredibly flammable" feels very Elon
Dealing with liquid oxygen is hard, but we've been dealing with it in rocket engines since the 1940s at least. It's not a mystery, but like anything in aerospace, as the saying goes, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
It reminds me of my younger self when I encountered inexplicable behavior in my own software, “I think I found a bug in Firefox!”
…
“Oh, nope. I forgot to add an event handler.”
Using c++ templates wrong in the year 2000 exposed me to real compiler bugs in the Microsoft c++ compiler at the time, the kind that would make the compiler crash.
LLMs aren't nearly mature or deterministic enough to earn that distinction. I've had an agent tell me it read a link I gave it, when actually it lied. I don't see how you could possibly compare that to a compiler where thinking "maybe it's a compiler bug" means you've almost certainly missed something.
The funny thing is that I was so sensitized to this behavior that when I actually found a hardware bug in a chip, it took me forever to convince myself that the problem wasn't actually my code.
Finally contacted the manufacturer's rep, expecting to be called an idiot, only to find out that "yeah, we know about that bug. It's going to be fixed in the next revision."
We formalized that as "if you didn't find a kernel bug yesterday, you didn't find one today either" (while implicitly glaring at the java developer who kept blaming everything but his own code.) The funny thing is that we actually had one guy who found two kernel bugs (spread over a couple of years, but still) while hunting down weird product issues - we didn't think the kernel was perfect, just that "you need to have exhausted the possibilities in your code before considering blaming the kernel" was well supported by evidence...
The real concern was Russia, given SpaceX has always been a MIC project, now publicly manifest as "Golden Dome" .. a program which undermines M.A.D. and obviously greatly incentives sabotage. There just happened to be a ULA building nearby that was in range and investigated as a possible vector of attack.
People need to stop with this SpaceX has always been about golden dome theory. Its just a silly conspiricy theory that boils down to, lots of people have worked in the US space industry for a long time.
The history of rocket accidents involving problems handling liquid oxygen is long and considering a sniper as the reason was considered quite unique perspective for someone to propose.
Well, because it is very Elon. In Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age, Eric Berger recounts how Elon was the only person on the planet who believed his sniper theory.
Elon is a true genius, up there with Euler and Feynman. So when things don't go perfectly with his initial idea surely it must be a conspiracy to get him down
I hear what you're saying but ... clearly SpaceX has made some broad technical decisions - I'm think of using metholox or making starship out of steel or falcon first stage re-usability - that seem to have been the correct choice.
I doubt Musk originated these idea but he was the one who ultimately made the decision on them. There were a lot of other people who had the same choice and either didn't come down that way or took a lot longer to come to the same place.
Like I said, genius? I personally wouldn't use that word. He's not an idiot though. He might be the minimum viable product for technical knowledge combined with a large amount of money but that's still pretty remarkable.
The whole reason for this was because of SS's supposed strength under the heat of reentry. Yet they now need to cover the whole thing in thermal insulating tiles. So I wonder if a composite Starship would not have been a better decision?
Comparing Elon Musk, a rich kid that got lucky by investing his money in to "cool shit" with some of the most significant scientists and mathematicians of humankind is just wrong.
Irrelevant to his ability to run a company that makes good rockets at an efficient price, so... who cares? This is exactly the point of the person you're replying to.
The ad hominem destroys your ability to recognise how insanely good SpaceX and Elon are at this rocket ship thing.
Actual Nazis made a lot of stuff 75 years ago that you use and take advantage of on a daily basis. Nobody's judging you, dude. Appreciating and recognising a good scientist or businessman doesn't necessitate that you align with them ideologically.
But "running the company" also involved claiming a sniper agent may have been to blame.
I think it's apropos then to consider that this is the same guy who called someone who rescued children stuck in a cave a "pedo". This is a guy who has made some unfortunate public statements.
Which, if any of the exploits require anything that isn't on-screen (USB or other HID, key combination), requires a reboot, or anything done before Windows has fully booted, means one must have an external camera
Doesn't sound like it for these exploits specifically (except Yellow Key), but I could be wrong, and again: that's just for these exploits specifically
I believe Hyper-V supports emulating TPM these days, so doing things to a VM and recording the desktop with the VM window _may_ work. In this case though it'd look very boring because you couldn't tell from the recording that anything happened.
Personally I'd think Microsoft would be cool with following the report instead of demanding video evidence in the first place, but silly me thinking the trillion dollar multi-national would be reasonable
>>> flow chart tech support with a "buy a webcam" cherry on top
>> I feel safe in saying that they don't want a video of you at your keyboard typing stuff. An exploit video is a recording of your screen, not of you.
> if any of the exploits require anything that isn't on-screen (USB or other HID, key combination), requires a reboot, or anything done before Windows has fully booted, means one must have an external camera
That still wouldn't mean "buy a webcam" - if someone has had a mobile phone (smartphone or dumbphone) from recent decades, it likely had a camera included.
Because it implies, quite pointedly, that the United States will never send a peacekeeping force.
reply