

BGA, like in the photo, isn’t the only option. There are options only slightly larger with hand-solderable packages (if you’re good at soldering)
BGA, like in the photo, isn’t the only option. There are options only slightly larger with hand-solderable packages (if you’re good at soldering)
“shortest route” and “straight line” actually mean pretty much the same thing. The shortest route is the straight line. Sorry if I confused the matter by switching up the terminology.
Flying parallel to the lines of latitude would mean that your bearing doesn’t change much, sure, but flying in a straight line would require your heading to change continuously.
The aircraft in the screenshot was flying a very not-straight course
That’s misleading. The shortest route would be the “great circular” joining the two points, which lines of latitude definitely are not.
The only line of latitude which is a great circle is the equator.
No, it’s not. It’s noth of the equator, so the straight line route would look like a curve towards the north. This route is curved south, which means it’s actually because of air traffic control routing them along approved flight paths. That might be for traffic management reasons, or because of terrain on the route, or restricted airspace.
Even that won’t be truly effective. It’s all marketing, at this point.
The problem of hallucination really is fundamental to the technology. If there’s a way to prevent it, it won’t be as simple as training it differently
If that’s their solution, then they have absolutely no understanding of the systems they’re using.
ChatGPT isn’t prone to hallucination because it’s ChatGPT, it’s prone because it’s an LLM. That’s a fundamental problem common to all LLMs
How did you calculate that? The question didn’t even mention a specific speed, just “near the speed of light”.
The kinetic energy for a grain of sand near the speed of light is somewhere between “quite a lot” and “literally infinity” (which is, in a sense, the reason you can’t actually reach light speed without a way to supply infinite energy).
It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.
In fact, we don’t treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren’t tolerant then other people aren’t obliged to tolerate you in turn
I bet he’d quickly become less busy if he was the supreme commander of the US armed forces
For once, I don’t think that particular charge is entirely inconsistent with the dictionary definition.
He’s accused of killing a member of the public in the hope of frightening everyone else in that person’s position into taking some kind of action.
I think the law says something about killing for a “political purpose”, with the goal of changing some kind of public policy or behaviour. That’s not an unreasonable interpretation of what happened, I think.
Unfortunately that means they get to use the laws which were written to deal with mass murder and bombing public spaces, which I don’t think is particularly appropriate but doesn’t seem out of line with the law
The ISS has enough spacecraft docked to take everyone home at a moments notice, always. Nobody needs to launch anything.
They broke that rule briefly when the Boeing capsule was deemed unfit for use, but they quickly fixed that.
In principle, yes. It depends on your Linux distribution though, I’m not familiar with the one you’re using
It’s asking for the ability to take screenshots, which is definitely suspicious unless there’s an in-app screenshot feature, and for the ability to launch discord and interact with it. The thing is it’ll be interacting using your discord account, I expect. That means it’ll be able to see your conversations and all the servers you’re in. It’ll also be able to post as you. Again, that’s the sort of thing which is very suspicious unless there’s some way in the app to have conversations over discord for some reason (maybe a bug report button, or a social feature).
Basically, I’d consider both of these alarming but not necessarily evidence that they’re spying on you to collect personal data or training data for an AI
I’ve heard it’s actually really difficult, because a good translator doesn’t do it literally.
They’re supposed to say something which gets the same meaning across, which often isnt what you’d get just by translating each word.
That leaves people translating trump with a problem: you can’t generally turn his long rambling speeches into something with a clearly understandable meaning without putting words into his mouth, or summarising so aggressively that you’d only say a couple of sentences for every few minutes of speech
Making a virus identical to one which existed in the past isn’t particularly worrying, because the original virus is already in the wild (except for the very few which are extinct, because of vaccination efforts).
The real trick is creating a novel virus, which our immune systems aren’t all accustomed to already, and that’s a whole different challenge. I don’t think our genetic engineering technology is at a point where that’s a realistic concern yet
Technically, perhaps, but it’s far less likely.
It’s also possible to be run over even if you’re following the rules and being careful, but that doesn’t make safe behaviour around roads irrelevant
There certainly was a lot of scepticism early on in SpaceX’s history. They had to fight political pressure just to take part in the commercial launch program, and had to take NASA to court and argue (successfully) that they hadn’t followed their own rules when they rejected SpaceX’s bid.
They seem to have gotten over that now. Presumably it’s difficult for anyone to argue they can’t do the job when they launch more rockets than the whole rest of the world combined, and they (eventually) delivered on the commercial crew program while the “safe” (and much better paid) pick, Boeing, seems to be very publicly failing and considering cutting their losses.
As for Soyuz, I’m not sure how much those rockets and capsules actually cost so I can’t perform a direct comparison. It must be cheaper though, because they stole all the business for commercial launches from Roscosmos and left them with a serious budget problem. They charge about $60 million for a basic Falcon 9 launch, and they’re making huge profit at that price. We won’t really see the real cost of the rocket until someone builds something which can compete with them for business, because they’re really the only player worth mentioning in their weight class for anyone who doesn’t have ulterior motives (such as governments who want to support their own launch industry)
What I can say for sure is they never came even close to the launch rate of Falcon 9. I think it took something like 8 years, off the top of my head, for total Falcon 9 launches to exceed the number of Soyuz launches and the number of launches per year is still increasing.
Because sending an entire rocket up to collect them would be very expensive, so NASA would prefer to leave them up there until the next routine flight so that they can send other things up and down with them on schedule.
There might also be limited space on the space station to dock a capsule. There are only so many docking ports, and I think they’re often full
No, that’s a different and largely unrelated rocket.
The one which will be bringing back the astronauts is literally the rocket with the best track record in history, and usually flies at least once a week.
This explosion was a prototype for a new rocket, which has only been sent to space a handful of times
I couldn’t find the actual pinout for the 8 pin package, but the block diagrams make me think they’re power, ground, and 6 general purpose pins which can all be GPIO. Other functions, like ADC, SPI and I2C (all of which it has) will be secondary or tertiary functions on those same pins, selected in software.
So the actual answer you’re looking for is basically that all of the pins are everything, and the pinout is almost entirely software defined