Lichtblitz

joined 2 years ago
[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

IBM owns Red Hat.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 53 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If you use something Android based for watching YouTube on the TV (some TVs, fireTV stick, etc.), you can: https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube?tab=readme-ov-file

I haven't watched a single Ad on YouTube on TV (SmartTube), mobile (ReVanced), or PC (Firefox + uBlock origin) since it became unbearable... five years ago or so?

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 9 months ago

It's visible in the PDF. I have used that extension to mark draft versions of documents. This makes it very obvious and saves you from accidentally handing in a draft. At least back when things were printed out much more often. With PDFs I find that the file name is sufficient.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wenn alle Autofahrer so fahren, wie du es beschreibst, werden nur einer von zweihundert mit zu hohem Tempo erwischt. Für diese ist es aber dennoch so, dass sie nur einmal zu schnell gefahren sind. Daher ist das grobe Netz an Kontrollen für die Einzelpersonen nicht hilfreich, nur für das Kollektiv. Ich wollte damit auch nicht sagen, ob es unfair ist oder nicht, dass man das gleiche bezahlt, wenn man sonst immer ordentlich gefahren ist.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Zufall hat die unangenehme Eigenschaft zufällig zu sein. Es ist statistisch genauso wahrscheinlich beim einmaligen zu schnell Fahren kontrolliert zu werden, wie Tags drauf beim normalen.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 9 months ago

That's not the case (at least in Germany). Being brain dead does not replace the conscious decision on when to disable life support.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

No, I said they hadn't demonstrated it. But 95% is close enough, I stand corrected.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In that case I stand corrected on the whole orbit bit. Thanks for taking the time.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I didn't say "a little" money. It may be important or critical for the business but from a technical perspective, demonstrating how it can safely bring loads up and down decides whether the whole concept is actually feasible. That's when people will start to get excited.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 9 months ago (13 children)

As far as I understood it, SpaceX uses the word "orbit" liberally. If it reaches the hight where an orbit would be possible, that's "being in orbit" for them. In an actual orbit, the rocket would not fall back down again in an hour or so without active breaking. If my understanding is incorrect, I'm happy to be corrected. And even of that was achieved soon, it's still all without demonstrating that the starship could actually carry a load and return it safely. Not even an inexpensive dummy load. All SpaceX is showing in their live feeds are empty cargo holds that fill up with hot gases and fumes during reentry.

[–] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 9 months ago (19 children)

I think the average person gets it right. It's a nice feat to catch the booster and it will save money. But that's a side quest. The main quest of getting an actual load to orbit and beyond is still pretty far away. At least compared with the official time line where they wanted to achieve much more than that three years ago.

view more: ‹ prev next ›