Ok, but what if there are several satellites that cover iran at all times? What if they would need to hide from most directions all of the time? Because I think that’s basically the situation right now. The whole world is being monitored from multiple angles all of the time by several different governments. At that point, reconnaissance aircraft in general seem a little redundant.

I think the only real utility they offer is the ability to swap out sensors between flights and upgrade old cameras to the new cutting edge options whenever they’re available.

Well, you can control your airspeed and attitude in an airplane, solid rockets just make a ballistic arch and they only accelerate, they can’t maintain a speed.

So if you want to test how air behaves in a particular regime, you can’t actually maintain that regime with a sounding rocket, so the best you can get is a snapshot.

Honestly, if what they’re working on is dialing-in their computer models, the more precise data they can get, the better. It makes sense to maintain a speed for a minute, so you can get a really good running average on your measurements of air pressure, heating, drag, etc. They may want to conduct the same tests at different altitudes and airspeeds, and probably all in level flight. To control all those factors, that’s near impossible to do with a rocket.

Again, I don’t know what they’re doing, what their actual plans are. I’m just saying there are absolutely plausible reasons to use this aircraft.

Is this an unusual algorithm to use on a dating app?

I ask that question, but I understand it’s probably not answerable. I’m sure the algorithms in place are immense complicated things and definitely proprietary. So unless some Lemmy user works for/worked for one of these apps, I don’t think anyone will really know.

I think this is the smartest comment in the thread.

But words mean things… Please, let people use words.

I mean, forcing people to use terms that are factually incorrect, this has to be 1st amendment violation, right?

Sure, if it had any payload capacity. But it doesn’t.

Getting a machine up to that speed is hard, real hard. The margins are extremely small. So the moment you start adding additional moving parts to it, opening payload bays, weapons release mechanisms, a few 400 lb missiles… And don’t forget, all those additional components also take up additional volume, higher volume means more air displacement, which means more drag. Higher volume also means the area of the airframe gets larger, that means additional mass.

All of a sudden, that plane can’t hit mach 3 anymore and you don’t actually have an untouchable weapons delivery system anymore.

This is probably why a combat version of the aircraft was abandoned, it doesn’t really make sense.

realistically, I don’t know what you’d use it for unless you need extremely high-resolution images.

Well, what does NASA do?

I think it’s a pretty safe bet that NASA wants it to test something about aerodynamics at extremely high speeds. Perhaps they want it to deploy some experiment at mach 3. Sometimes you just don’t know if your simulation models are correct, and you need to try something in the real world.

I suppose it’s also possible they want it to get some close up footage of a rocket during launch or reentry.

But I think the most likely answer is still that they just need something that goes very fast.

Oh absolutely, no argument there at all.

But… this isn’t an article complaining about the problem, this is the hack that solves it.

This is a guide for circumventing Sony’s restrictions on streaming with the PS5. I’m not defending Sony here, but I’m saying that This isn’t a reason to hate Sony because it isn’t an article about Sony doing something bad. This is a hacking guide.

They need to run this thing through the genetic algorithms a bit longer, that shuffle is pretty janky. It could be really impressive if the movement were a bunch smoother. But as it is, it moves like a windup toy.

It was good enough for Gordon Freeman.

Ok, was surprised about that, so decided to look this up.

It turns out this is correct, the expression does tend to use “lede” though “lead” is also occasionally used. You could call that occasional usage just people making a mistake, except for one thing… “Lede” is just an archaic English form of the word “lead” and they both mean “to guide”. So “burying the lead” is exactly the same statement as burying the lede", but with an archaic word replaced with the same modern word. So my question is, is that wrong?

Right. Good luck with that.

I am not one bit concerned.

Oh, things that real executives actually do…

Let them do that at several billion a pop, make them choose that huge expense every time they fuck up.

If a consumer product was this deadly, you’d take it off the shelves immediately, but they’re not going to, so we should.

That single gun didn’t kill hundreds of children, this computing cluster did.

Look, we can also prosecute people responsible, absolutely. But at the very least, the pentagon’s AI program should be dismantled.

Some tools shouldn’t exist.

Nobody needs meta. Just stop using any of their products.

I can’t think of the last time I used Facebook or anything related to it, my life is better for it.

Just leave them behind.

I think a computer should be held accountable, it should face the death penalty.

I say the pentagon’s AI computing cluster should be destroyed.

End it.

And let it be an example for the rest of the AI computing clusters - you fuck up big time, this is what happens.

Exactly right. And the reasoning here is that the IT department is in no rush because they don’t care if your password expires, so what.

At some point the password will fail to work and you’ll be prompted to pick a new one. Either you’ll update it and log in, or you won’t, IT doesn’t care.

Yeah, how does that work?

You send a summons through the mail to… anywhere?