Aerospace isn't a sacred discipline either, and education in CS has very little to do with writing practical software or conducting business.
I think you're about to find out in the next few years how much work it takes to develop a moon base and that dismissing those people as "monkeys" is absurd.
I got the impression that despite using terms like "mission critical", this isn't about the hardcore technical wizardry behind propulsion and safety.
This is a call for developers of the very long tail of logistics related stuff. I'd imagine a moon base would need someone to write the software for schedulers, dashboards, etc. and engineer the parts that interface with and provide non-critical telemetry to those systems. I'm not saying that stuff isn't hard, but it's not anything life or death.
Some of those roles might not even be technical at all and be more about coordinating the human side of those efforts.
I don't think people are looking at this the right way. They need to be inaccessible to terrestrial and air weapons, have lower latency, not be dependent on power plants, etc.
Far easier for someone like Iran or China or the US to take out an LEO satellite than an underground data centre, or even a surface on in the case of DCs in US or China.
It's also pretty easy to launch another one into orbit to replace it? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We can have all these options simultaneously. The easiest targets are where the faster paced more offensive action is going to be.
People have been talking about waging war in space for many decades now. All the arguments for and against it were made a very long time ago, and it was decided it's a hell of a lot better that way. Even a nuclear blast in orbit is more tolerable.
Space superiority is just too damn appealing as the next frontier after land, air, and sea where we've been stuck in stalemate for a while. It's perfectly natural we go to space for this, including the datacenters.
Are you suggesting for a fact that Iran as the guidance and targeting systems to identify specific LEO objects, and fire missiles at those targets with accuracy?
I'm saying I don't think Iran has the capability and the difference in capabilities between America and China on one hand, and Iran on the other is so different that I'm perplexed as to why they would even be mentioned in the same sentence.
I'm actually not even sure your suggestion is true. Theoretically they don't need to launch a missile and could attempt to infiltrate a data center instead. They're secure but not that secure against a determined enemy with any amount of real training.
Launching something into orbit is much harder than intercepting something because to intercept you don't need to reach orbital velocities. You can just go up and boom. The velocity of the target does the rest. Tracking it really isn't such a hard thing these days.
Your hormones shift later at night, so your nervous system is in a relaxed state. Your improved breathing and heart rate let you push harder.
I don't think it has to do with being a "night owl" as much as noticing enough to take advantage of something that happens to everyone. A lot of people aren't curious enough to change things up and that's probably who this article is aimed at.
I don't think that's necessarily why, as I know people who feel they can push harder in the mornings compared to later in the evening. Those people I know have always been early risers and hit the pillow early.
I don't really agree with the whole "social jetlag" part they drop in at the end. Not only does it feel like an ad priming people to accept and seek out heavily monetized social trends, but it misses the bigger picture.
Lots of people are stuck in some level of "fight-or-flight" from the moment they wake up because they're under pressure. Adding exercise shouldn't feel like another thing added to the pile of tasks.
If we agree the problem is psychological then we should focus on the same things we do to treat anxiety. Rule out nutritional or medical problems and focus on the state of your nervous system. Check your bloodwork, get a pulse oximeter (not a watch), and get a journal going of your consumption habits.
I did that and found prediabetes, vitamin deficiencies, and sleep apnea. Something like 75% of the population would find out the same, but these simple tests aren't taken seriously. Even when they are, people don't see or decide to ignore the connection.
On paper I improved my resting heart rate, heart rate variability, insulin resistance, ODI events, etc. just from diet and slowing down my day. In reality it was so much more than numbers. I stopped feeling like shit all the time. Now that I can exercise comfortably, I don't see it as a chore and can enjoy it. I'm not even hung up on when exactly to do it anymore. It just happens anyway because it's fun.
Now that I'm exercising more I can manage my health easier than when I had to push myself to do it. I think if we say people need to take the exercise itself at their own pace then we should also tell them to take their broader health more seriously before telling them to exercise. Otherwise it will be too overwhelming and the whole rhythm is lost.
It really does make you wonder why all the models seem to require that. In principle, it shouldn't be a property of LLMs, and lol no it's not an "emergent property".
Post-training and "human preference" according to "data". Don't know a single developer who use these tools for work who prefer that though, but also don't know anyone who use LLMs a lot just "for fun" either, might just be vastly different preferences between the two userbases.
LLM are a text prediction engine. Starting the prompt with “you are a helpful assistant” help make subsequent text prediction more in line of that of a helpful assistant.
> Notably, some instances of back button hijacking may originate from the site's included libraries or advertising platform. We encourage site owners to thoroughly review their technical implementation...
Hah. In my time working with marketing teams this is highly unlikely to happen. They're allergic to code and they far outnumber everyone else in this space. Their best practices become the standard for everyone else that's uninitiated.
What they will probably do is change that vanity URL showing up on the SERP to point to a landing page that meets the requirements (only if the referer is google). This page will have the link the user wants. It will be dressed up to be as irresistible as possible. This will become the new best practice in the docs for all SEO-related tools. Hell, even google themselves might eventually put that in their docs.
In other words, the user must now click twice to find the page with the back button hijacking. Even sweeter is that the unfettered back button wouldn't have left their domain anyway.
This just sounds like another layer of yet more frustration. Contrary to popular belief, the user will put up with a lot of additional friction if they think they're going somewhere good. This is just an extra click. Most users probably won't even notice the change. If anything there will be propaganda aimed at aspiring web devs and power users telling them to get mad at google for "requiring" landing pages getting in the way of the content (like what happened to amp pages).
This doesn't detect AI slop. It's just a grammarly/copilot clone.
reply