I’ve worked closely with the people that do reverse engineering and such for FromSoft games and I can damn near guarantee that any PSN requirement would be ripped out pretty quickly. At worst they might tie it to online features. My real worry is exclusivity, timed or otherwise.
Yeah my guess from the very limited information I have is the abort-to-spashdown decision was probably automated, so I’m extremely interested to hear why they aborted the catch. It feels a bit at odds with the ambition to catch a starship soon, but if their code is so conservative about aborted catches, it seems realistic to at least try
Honestly, I don’t think this could have gone any other way. As the article says, this is the so-called “Lane 1” missions which, while they’re less important and less heavy than “Lane 2” missions, are perfectly suited to the Falcon 9, or heavy if needed. There’s no need to get a heavy rocket like Vulcan involved, especially since it’s not proven yet, so the only reason I could think of for someone else winning would essentially be as a subsidy to help SpaceX’s competition. Once Vulcan has a couple dozen successful missions under its belt I’ll expect it to be more competitive.
I’d be interested in setting up the highest quality models to run locally, and I don’t have the budget for a GPU with anywhere near enough VRAM, but my main server PC has a 7900x and I could afford to upgrade its RAM - is it possible, and if so how difficult, to get this stuff running on CPU? Inference speed isn’t a sticking point as long as it’s not unusably slow, but I do have access to an OpenAI subscription so there just wouldn’t be much point with lower quality models except as a toy.
They have concepts of an ICBM.
Well they said .NET Framework, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if they more or less wrapped that up - .NET Framework specifically means the old implementation of the CLR, and it’s been pretty much superseded by an implementation just called .NET, formerly known as .NET Core (definitely not confusing at all, thanks Microsoft). .NET Framework was only written for Windows, hence the need for Mono/Xamarin on other platforms. In contrast, .NET is cross-platform by default.
Holy shit. I knew they were going to simplify Raptor a lot, but even knowing most of the rat’s nest was sensors/etc., this is insane. I wish we could see cross sections!
I was very intrigued by a follow-up to the recent numberphile video about divergent series. It was a return to the idea that the sum of the integers greater than zero can be assigned the value -1/12. There were some places this could be used, but as far as I know it was viewed as shaky math by a lot of experts.
As far as I recall the story goes something like this: now, using a new technique Terrence Tao found, a team was seemingly able to “fix” previous infinities in quantum field theory - there’s a certain way to make at least some divergent series work out to being a real number, and the presenter proposed that this can be explained as the universe “protecting us” from the infinities inherent in the math.
It made me think about other places infinities show up in modern physics (namely, singularities in general relativity) and whether a technique something like this could “solve” them without a whole new framework like string theory is.
The issue is that, in the function passed to reduce, you’re adding each object directly to the accumulator rather than to its intended parent. These are the problem lines:
if (index == array.length - 1) {
accumulator[val] = value;
} else if (!accumulator.hasOwnProperty(val)) {
accumulator[val] = {}; // update the accumulator object
}
There’s no pretty way (that I can think of at least) to do what you want using methods like reduce in vanilla JS, so I’d suggest using a for loop instead - especially if you’re new to programming. Something along these lines (not written to be actual code, just to give you an idea):
let curr = settings;
const split = url.split("/");
for (let i = 0; i < split.length: i++) {
const val = split[i];
if (i != split.length-1) {
//add a check to see if curr[val] exists
let next = {};
curr[val] = next;
curr = next;
}
//add else branch
}
It’s missing some things, but the important part is there - every time we move one level deeper in the URL, we update curr so that we keep our place instead of always adding to the top level.
Pretty crazy that losing a booster is exceptional now. This also gets me thinking about whether the final F9 life leader, as F9 retires, will be lost or recovered and still able to fly if it needed to. Either way it’s exciting to think about a future where Falcon is obsolete!
They’re welcome to retaliate. They’re just not allowed to indiscriminately bomb civillian infrastructure.
Here’s a field manual that details the rules and has some advice. There are a whole host of rules protecting civillians hospitals, but in the case where Hamas is using them as military bases, I’d say they can be considered primarily as human shields, though I’m no expert, and even if that’s not the case they’re still civillians and therefore protected. According to paragraph 2-20, “feasible precautions” must be taken to reduce civillian harm. This means bombing is pretty much out of the question, but there are still plenty of other ways to get at Hamas, such as SpecOps, sieges, and diplomacy. It’s a difficult situation, but that doesn’t mean you get to kill civillians with impunity.
Yeah personally I haven’t needed jQuery in years.
I’m really hoping for before '24 of course because of the yearly launch limit, but realistically I think January is possible and February is most likely. I’d be surprised if it isn’t before March unless there’s extenuating circumstances, e.g. FAA or lawsuits.
Thanks for this! Really want to keep up with the goings on in space but it’s really hard without Reddit.
It’s very well documented that machine learning will have the same biases its training set does. Years ago this was a big deal when Google tried to use ML for hiring but it kept ending up racist.
For reference, OTV stands for “orbital transfer vehicle”, basically something that can change its orbit via onboard propulsion. And Tom Mueller is the guy behind Merlin and Raptor. Almost certainly SpaceX wouldn’t be anywhere near what it is today without him.
Currying is converting a function with n parameters to n functions that each have one parameter. This is done automatically in most primarily functional languages. Then, partial application is when you supply less than n arguments to a curried function. In short, currying happens at the function definition and partial application happens at the function call.
Currently the type of test_increment is (int, int) -> unit -> unit. What we want is int -> int -> unit -> unit. The more idiomatic way would have this function definition:
let test_increment new_value original_value () =
Which would require this change in the callers:
test_case "blah" `Quick (test_increment 1 0);
See, in most primarily functional languages you don’t put parentheses around function parameters/arguments, nor commas between them - in this case, only around and between members of tuples.
Oh, make no mistake; prior FS games have no modding support. In fact, they encrypt the all game files with RSA nowadays (which is awful for read speeds because RSA is slow but whatever). Current modding support is based off of a robust reverse engineering community that’s documented most of the file formats and a significant portion of the important code. And that’s while contending with Arxan which, while not as awful as Denuvo, still impedes RE. They’d basically have to implement something as draconian as Denuvo to make things more difficult than they are.