|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Assuming you have humans on your DevOps teams
So much for considering the management. 
|
|
|
|
|
AI is hungry, and there's not enough data to sate its appetite. They'll have to start training it on AI output
|
|
|
|
|
Major Input[^]
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The company is reportedly focusing on robotics after scrapping its EV ambitions. Danger, danger Will Robinson. You're holding it wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
what can go wrong?[^]
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, I want one.
Go mow the lawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. I've also heard stories where a dog has crapped on the carpet and Roomba has spread it far and wide. 
|
|
|
|
|
Guess I'll have to get a collar and tags for my Apple SlaveBot.
|
|
|
|
|
This article summarizes what's new with -fanalyzer in GCC 14, which I hope will be officially released sometime in April 2024. Assuming you're not coding in FM ("FM, no static at all")
|
|
|
|
|
A new code completion tool, driven by AI, is designed to keep code on site, reducing security concerns for regulated industries. Get your questionable code without sending your existing questionable code to The Cloud
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is secure if you know how[^]
today I have a film day
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
NIST is trying to manage a growing backlog of security vulnerabilities coming into the database it maintains. Maybe they could ask the hackers to submit directly to the database?
|
|
|
|
|
The White House ordered NASA to create "Coordinated Lunar Time,' as activity on and around the Moon intensifies. For Daylight Savings Time, they have to push the moon back an hour in its orbit
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: For Daylight Savings
or turn it around and bring the dark side to the front   
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Would that be Moonlight Saving Time?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't the Moon use UTC, just like any other sensible region on Earth?
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly, but I think it's the usual answer: USA! USA! USA!
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Because time on the Earth and time on the Moon run at different rates (see General Relativity for the reasons). Taking the numbers in the article, the Moon would gain 1 millisecond every 17 days. This is enough to affect synchronisation between computers in the long term.
Nothing in the Apollo missions required accuracy to that level, but synchronising computers nowadays between the Earth and the Moon does.
Personally, I think a better idea would be to add "backward leap" milliseconds every 17 days or so (i.e. the last second of a day would have 999 milliseconds), and keep syncronization with the Earth that way. It's not as if the Moon is likely to blast off into an independent orbit...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Nothing in the Apollo missions required accuracy to that level, but synchronising computers nowadays between the Earth and the Moon does.
To highlight this: A coworker of mine was earlier working on GPS. He told that when the first satellites were put up, there were big arguments in the development team between those who insisted that because the gravitation is weaker out where the satellites go, you have to correct the clocks for time running faster up there, and then there were those laughing at this. The latter were the stronger, so the first satellites launched without relativistic corrections applied.
The initial positioning values were as precise as had been estimated. Gradually, over several weeks/months, they became more off target. The 'relativistic' guys nodded: That corresponds quite closely to what we told you - the errors add up! Now, the victory of the 'newtonians' was not absolute or final - the software in the satellites included both the 'relativistic' and 'newtonian' versions, and they could activate the relativistic corrections by remotely throwing a simple switch; the software was in place. In a flash, the positioning values became correct with the expected precision.
I think a better idea would be to add "backward leap" milliseconds every 17 days or so (i.e. the last second of a day would have 999 milliseconds), and keep syncronization with the Earth that way. 'Synchronous' implies an idea of perfect simultaneity (on Earth and on the Moon). In a relativistic world, that is not possible. For larger time intervals, you can tell that an event on Earth occurred 'before' some other event on the Moon, or the other way around, although not exactly how much. When the events come closer in time (determined by the light's travel time between them), you cannot tell which event occurred 'before' the other.
As the concept of 'simultaneous' is invalid, it doesn't make sense to regularly 'resynchronize' Earth and Moon clocks. For interworking, you have to make relativistic corrections anyway. It does make sense to have a local time reference point on the Moon, though - in particular for local operations up there!
So my comment about UTC was a joke - but a serious one: If we, here on Earth, would relate to one single time reference point (e.g. UTC), rather than 24 (or actually about 30 - some time zones are shifted by 20 or 30 minutes), a lot of problems would have been avoided, coordination simplified. China, which we call Red China, realized this many moons ago, and adopted a single time zone for the entire country. Let's do it for the entire Earth (Moon excluded)!
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct in the general case that it is impossible to synchronise two reference frames that are moving (or accelerated) relative to each other. However, one could apply a correction similar to that applied by the GPS satellites, which are also in an accelerated reference frame compared to the Earth.
We know the Moon's orbit, we know the Earth's and the Moon's masses, so it is possible to calculate how long an "Earth second" would last on the Moon, and vice versa. Given that we know the Moon's orbit, it is also possible to apply the necessary corrections to synchronise the two clocks (i.e. set the clocks to the same time, and periodically correct for the differing clock rates with a "leap millisecond"). I emphasise that this is impossible for two arbitrary frames of reference, but can be done when the frames of reference have a known relationship to each other.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: It's not as if the Moon is likely to blast off into an independent orbit...
But something else[^] could happen to it...
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot the counter-example of Space:1999... 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Not forgotten, I didn't know it existed. Looks like fun. I wonder if I can find this on a stream somewhere.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about streaming, but a few years ago one could still get the series (2 seasons) on DVD.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
