I think we are a long way along from digging out Dr Feynman to look into why a shuttle exploded.
Unless you happen to have some deep links into NASA, in which case please elucidate us all, then why not celebrate a happy and safe return from a sodding dangerous mission that involved things like >25,000 mph relative velocity and some remarkable navigation.
When you depart earth (close quarters gravity, air resistance, things in the way), everything moves really fast, really fast and any acceleration becomes an issue really ... fast!
The moon moves, the earth moves: both famously in some sort of weird dance around each other and both orbit around the sun. Obviously the moon affects the earth way less than vice versa but it still complicates things.
I think that NASA did a remarkable job of making Artemis II look almost routine and I don't think that was down to behaving as they did in the past.
> I think that NASA did a remarkable job of making Artemis II look almost routine and I don't think that was down to behaving as they did in the past.
I have been excited for Artemis--yes it's big and expensive and late, but look how it has brought out the best of what humans can be--but, despite all that, the heat shield situation was textbook "normalization of deviance." Just as the O-rings were not designed to have any damage but they retroactively justified it was okay, just as there was not supposed to be any foam or tile damage but they retroactively justified it was okay, so too was the Artemis I heat shield not supposed to come back with damage, but they...
I'm not trying to be negative, and risks are inevitable, but the resemblance to me was uncanny. The lesson with normalization of deviance is that a successful result does not inherently mean a safe decision. After all, most of the time that you play Russian Roulette you will escape unharmed.
There will always be issues on something a mad as putting some people on a firework and shooting them at a moving target 100,000 miles away from a moving platform.
The heat shield failure was a test and the result was a working heat shield, when it counted. That's the point of tests. NASA already had several working heat shields from the old missions but the new one needed testing - for the shape of the craft etc. They already had a lot of data from the old efforts (that worked).
I think that exit and re-entry are almost routine now, provided your rocket doesn't explode. The tricky bit is out there in space and trying to make the moon a resource of some sort.
The new one failed in ways it was not designed to fail. In C-compiler terms it was "undefined behavior." In Donald Rumsfeld terms it was an "unknown unknown."
The mere fact that the outcome was successful does not inherently indicate that the decision-making was safe: the O-rings "worked" for 24 missions and the foam/tiles "worked" for 111. Nevertheless there were ample warnings and close calls.
Reentry from the Moon is not routine. Re-entry speed was about 40% faster than from low earth orbit, and kinetic energy goes up by the square, so about double.
This is probably a good example of the opposite. It would be a mistake to design for the fleetingly rare case. If you’re dealing with a handful of extensions, a json file that’s rewritten is fine.
But the software already has multiple database systems built in. There's not exactly overhead to use what plumbing is already there, instead of writing to disk.
Firefox is absolutely abysmal at not corrupting its JSON stores, too. I've had it crash and lose tabs so many times. Perhaps moving back to SQLite wouldn't be a bad idea.
I had to recover somebody's bookmarks for them recently after it decided to destroy the main copy.
In an ideal world, software with 100 million users would be optimised for energy usage. It all adds up. This does pale in comparison to everything else, though.
The thing about the rich is that they have access to sufficient levels of abstraction that they can commit terrible, disproportionate violence without it looking that way. And then fools who crave the simplistic safe comfort of moral absolutes come to their aid.
Throwing a petrol bomb at a building with children inside is about as evil as murdering 150 students at an all-girls school. I'm obviously not defending that.
> Throwing a petrol bomb at a building with children inside is about as evil as murdering 150 students at an all-girls school. I'm obviously not defending that.
Really? I don’t know how many were in his house but at most it’s attempted murder of a few versus killing 150.
I see a difference.
US law sees a difference too. The person that threw the firebomb will get the full weight of the law if they are caught, and spent an awfully long time in prison.
Those that killed the school girls will never face punishment.
If you want to draw that distinction, then don't you need to account for intent? I don't think the USG intended to bomb a school. The guy throwing a Molotov cocktail has even less claim to it being an accident.
On the topic of leaving X but not TikTok and Facebook: I think being principled but pragmatic is necessary more so than ever. If you always pick absolutes, you'll quickly find yourself helping nobody. It requires a right balance, otherwise you end up justifying the means to an end. Certain principles cannot be comrpromised, others are a bit of a luxury. It's a moving target. It's a fuzzy target. You'll never quite get it right but you just keep trying. I think I'm most wary of those who think too rigidly and would see this as an intolerable contradiction.
This very conveniently allows one to pick any actions they like regardless of stated goals or principles. There's very little it couldn't be used to apply to. "I'm principled but only when it's easy" isn't much of a statement.
The third image showing the arrows for traffic direction gave me a tiny eureka moment. You don't need complex rules for what cars can do at an intersection. You don't reason about the intersection at all. You reason about the lanes!
At each choice cell, you just weigh the turn lower than going straight when randomly deciding. And if you don't want U-turns, you set a rule like it describes, or any sort of "cooldown" on turning.
It's amazing how "bad/inaccurate" the traffic simulators are in those games, even with great mods, and yet how informative they are about real traffic patterns.
Anyone know of any communities/game jams with the theme of "has no business running on such low hardware requirements"? Kind of like the demoscene but for games.
There were many games growing up that gave me such a warped view of what was to be expected from the hardware. Battletoads, Crash Bandicoot, Marathon Trilogy (Macintosh), Age of Empires (Multiplayer), Roller Coaster Tycoon (of course).
Frontier Elite (David Braben). A vast universe, with awesome space flight mechanics (gravity, etc), great graphics/audio, all fitting on one floppy disk. It was coded in assembly:
For older games, I would say the original Prince of Persia. I played it on an 8088 machine, and it was pretty impressive how he made the animations sophisticated and smooth.
Not entirely sure if it's fit the critera but there is usually pops up retro-themed compos for most retro platforms meaning there's natural hardware restrictions (like demos for retro platforms).
8bit like Nes (Nesjam late may/june), Gameboy(GBJam was last year, bi-annual), Atari,etc, but also for MSDOS, Amiga and more "mid-school" platforms together with semimodern like PS1.
Now, even with modern tools it's plenty of work to get impressive things working on older platforms (I had a Gameboy techdemo last time there was a compo that's due to grow ridiculously much).
Maybe an issue would be people not all having the same type of hardware though? Maybe you target an emulator. (Some Fantasy Consoles sort of count here?)
I haven't looked expensively but some of the retro themed jams were missing the "spirit" I was expecting.
I did a Nokia jam a while back — monochrome, beeps — and I remember being kind of annoyed that the rules technically allowed 3D Unity games as long as they followed resolution and color palette.
(A 3D cube spinning on a TI calculator is a different matter ;)
They definitely do. I recommend GP check out PICO-8 which has some VERY real games on it like the original Celeste (by its original creators), Cattle Crisis, POOM, Combo Pool, Into Ruins, Dank Tomb, UFO Swamp Odyssey, Porklike, and much more. Most of which you can play on Itch.io for free in your browser.
I’ve been having a blast making a “real” and very full-featured PICO-8 game to serve as a “market fit” prototype — if a PICO-8 game on Itch gets meaningful attention, I’ve “found the fun” and therefore I should make “the full version” (non-PICO-8) for Steam, etc.
Yeah, I imagine a target emulator is the way to go for this kind of thing.
Speaking of your last comment: while very impressive, I feel a bit disappointed when someone's done something amazing with a Game Boy or SNES or whatnot, but the solution involves shoving an entire computer in the cartridge. This is still very cool but your console just becomes a head unit for your GTX 4080 or whatnot.
Maybe it’s a useless distinction but it feels like we’ve gone through overlapping ages of Communication, Data, Processing, and Information.
First we conquered the ability to move matter and transmit signal, greatly shrinking the world. Next was sensor technology, especially the mobilization of it, and our ability to collect more data than we could ever imagine being able to process. Then we started going crazy with data centres and big data and the idea that maybe we can somehow correlate it all if we just process it enough. And now we’re finally turning data into information, building enormous graphs of correlation without even having to manually reason about a lot of it. Before AI, the hard part was figuring out how to go about finding the signal you needed. Now it’s getting easier at an incredible speed.
I've always wanted two horns in my car: one that toots with a smile and a tip of the hat, and one that heralds your pending demise. It sounds like Australia cycle bell culture does that with short vs. long bell ding-a-lings.
Which is kind of how it has worked with cars, except I find that more and more cars have a style of horn that's hard to control with the necessary precision. Maybe this is Canadian culture but I get very anxious that my horn will honk for a millisecond too long and the poor victim will think I'm angry at them.
I can corroborate this finding -- I think the horn switch is just a logic-level digital switch going into one or more MCUs somewhere, subjected to all manner of latency and (probably) CANBUS jitter. It's not great. Trying to send Morse, or even a quick 'toot toot' results in a garbled mangled mess, and I find that very annoying. My early cars & motorbike had what felt like direct, switched control over power to the horn, those were great to use. I've debated installing a dedicated pushbutton rated for the amperage or at least controlling a solenoid somewhere that would power the horn.
As an experiment, I've found that you can reliably detect the presence of crummy horn control by trying to pulse the horn for the shortest amount of time possible. The shorter my push on the horn button gets, the more likely it is that the timing will feel wrong somehow, or the horn doesn't even sound at all.
I've definitely tried friendly beeps at friends or neighbors and it came out sounding like an angry honk.
Reminds me of a mini-course I took on sound design. Lots of exercises in trying to squeeze expression out of a limited palette. Not too different from LEDs, but of course we have different cultural references for audio. Neat subject.
Agreed! It's a small but satisfying interaction to have that coordination and unspoken communication with other drivers at a 4-way stop.
I've taught my kids when crossing the street to make eye contact with drivers to make sure they see you. Drivers with smartphones unfortunately add to the challenge.
reply