brandonjm

I remember going to a planetarium at the local university while in school some 15 years ago. They told us how they use Stellarium to create the skies and Celestia (https://celestiaproject.space/) to create scripted tours for their exhibits. Both were compatible with the hemispherical projector they used.

As soon as I went home I downloaded them both and spent hours visiting stars in Celestia and exploring the sky in Stellarium. It’s great to see they are still quite active.

I have also tried one and I had a similar experience but only in some scenarios. It might be a different effect to what you had but I’ll try to explain.

In my experience I got a good 3D effect for objects that were right in the center but the moment things got close to the edge the illusion broke. At times it did look a bit like 3D content on a 2D screen.

Objects near the edge of the retroreflective area disappear when you would normally expect them to appear ‘above’ the mat. They somewhat get around this by presenting most information below the surface. Apps like board games were the worst for it because they typically use the whole mat and they typically appear on or above the surface. Anything above the surface just gets cut off around the edge. The larger board that can be tilted up at the back helped but only from one angle.

They did, the README was updated 4 days ago with a banner explaining the situation.

Typically the AI to detect the AI is exactly what they use to train networks like Deep Fake in the first place. GANs are effectively just a local arms race between two machine learning networks.

I imagine all the necessary hands are already on deck for Crew Dragon.

Starship wasn’t built by the Falcon or Crew Dragon manufacturing teams, and the vast majority of the design and engineering currently happening for Starship has long been completed for Crew Dragon.

Let’s also remember that NASA is hardly the only company that pays SpaceX, they have other income sources and what they do with that income is ultimately their choice. Unless they are using NASA money to build Starship there should be no problem.

It is certainly a little bold of Bridenstine to comment on other space companies being behind schedule given NASA’s own delays.

This is missing the particularly annoying 'halts for 5 seconds then catches up' option.

Not parent commenter but they may mean this: Bula (Fijian greeting) [1] The same article also mentions Aloha being trademarked followed by cease and desists being sent restaurants in Hawaii using the word.

[1] https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/366621/bula...

There are plenty of others but these are some that have stood out to me.

SIGGRAPH has a VR Theatre where they show short VR films [1].

EyeJack is a platform for AR art, though you may need to visit an exhibit to see the actual art. [2]

[1] https://s2018.siggraph.org/conference/conference-overview/co...

[2] https://eyejackapp.com

The renders aren't that bad, but that is a terrible choice for the cutout image given the lighting angle with thin shadows.

Good question, and you are probably correct, not worth the effort. There was one launch where they broadcast the drone ship landing from a nearby support ship (or helicopter, I don't remember exactly) which was cool to see but I haven't seem them do it since.

Then the data was compiled and rendered into an image

A digital camera is just an array of tiny sensors that detect how much light hit them and a computer takes those values and renders an image from them.

you really think it's that bright?

If you take a photo in a dark room with increased exposure then the resulting image is brighter than what you see with your own eyes. This was taken over a long period of time, effectively a long exposure. If you were close enough to see it at the scale you are seeing it on your computer screen it would probably be far brighter.

How about orange?

As mentioned in another comment on this thread, it's just the colour scheme used in the output to show the brightness differences. The accretion disk is not necessarily orange, this photo is essentially greyscale mapped to a black -> orange -> white scale.

This is just an array of relatively large sensors with very high exposure gathering information from something very far away and combining that data in greyscale.

I wonder why it's not symmetrical?

See Veritasium's video [1] on why it looks like it does, in short, the effects of the black hole and our angle to the accretion disk.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo

A fourth reason:

Wouldn't a pilot rather spend some time to train for a new potential issue than not know what to do when that issue came up?

You can choose to publish open access conference papers through IEEE but you have to pay around $2000 (I forget if it was USD or AUD). I'm not sure about the exact costs for an open access Journal paper though. That said, IEEE don't prevent you from listing your own paper on your own website (in it's accepted form, not published form) provided you link the correct DOI and include the reference.

Is the contract simply "selling Hololens to the military"? My understanding was that they already had contracts in place to sell them to the military for training purposes and have done so for many years. I was under the impression from other articles that the employees are upset over the request for "targeting ... capabilities" to be embedded into the devices.

Edit: Upon reading their 'letter' it appears they take most issue with the use of Hololens to 'increase lethality'. I would argue that even the use of Hololens for training purposes (as they have done so in the past) would increase lethality anyway (as training of any kind might) and they apparently had no issue with it before. Even then, the military doesn't need Microsoft to do it, they could pay any of their contractors to implement it.

Also they will not involve humans because it removes their ability to blame the system. If a human employee fails to correctly flag something (which is likely given the sheer volume of incoming content to review) and it slips through, YouTube could potentially be held liable for its effects (whatever they may be). Whereas if the system misses something it's easier to pass it off as just a bug that needs fixing or an obscure edge case that wasn't handled.

It's more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute illegal usage of social media than other 'utilities'. Given the international nature of most social media, illegal usage could happen anywhere on Earth and no one but local law enforcement would have no power to do anything. If someone started stealing electricity without paying or using it for some illegal purpose it would be much easier to prosecute them as they would likely be within the same jurisdiction as the utility operates.

We also learn far more from robot/probe missions per million dollars spent than manned missions. The Mars rovers have explored for years on end (albeit slowly) while a manned mission to Mars and back may only be able to stay for a few days. I personally would love to see us walk on the Moon and Mars in my lifetime as I was not around in 1969, but the science can be performed just as well if not better with modern robotics without even needing to bring them back.

Safari, Chrome and Firefox all do not trust it on macOS as well.

Curiosity is doing well at about 6.5 years and had a 2 year mission but it probably won't stay fully operational that long. Its RTG could last that long but it will eventually stop producing enough power for the rover to move.

I had the same question, I don't imagine it takes too many people to decide what it should do and give the robot commands while monitoring it.

It did have some interesting effects though. I know of several of my old school acquaintances who were very technologically challenged that managed to navigate their network settings far enough to change DNS.

their RTX crap

I was hyped about RTX when it came out and I'm all for more performant raytracing however my hype has seriously waned since the RTX release due to the lack of support. Until we have more games that support it I'm inclined to agree that there is no reason to included it when deciding between NVIDIA and AMD at this time. I would argue that by the time raytracing in gaming is more widespread there will be a more open and accessible solution, likely supported (or built) by AMD.

There would be short-term blowback about it and that would pass in a matter of weeks.

They could potentially stop selling software products and disable service access entirely.

What if all customer photos on iCloud become inaccessible, all iTunes and App purchases become inaccessible and OS updates stop. Then Apple stores shut down, customer support or repairs become unavailable, thousands of jobs are lost. I feel like the blowback would last much longer than a few weeks.

That's an extreme response, but if Apple really wanted to get the point across they can easily include it alongside any other threatening proposals.

Meanwhile the same guy wanted Australia to become an "innovation nation" [1]. You can not innovate technology without mathematics and when you can not export due to fear of it being compromised.

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/innovation-nation-tak...

Do you mean the "ISP-only" DNS restrictions of 2016? That was just a lame attempt to appease the film and media companies. Unfortunately for Aus Gov, DNS registries are not solely operated by Australia.

"...while reducing the risk of engine damage caused by knock while running on low octane fuels."

That doesn't necessarily mean it reduces the risk of engine damage to zero. The engine still has to knock for the sensors to detect it and adjust unless it uses flex fuel sensors. Yes modern engines CAN cope with lower octane fuel than they were designed to use, but you would lose performance and run an increased risk of damage. If the manufacturer states a minimum octane rating you would likely be voiding some parts of your engine warranty by running the incorrect fuel.

If humans were forced to start eating "dystopian future soymeat" and stop eating meat, I'm sure it would become far cheaper as it becomes more readily available. As it stands currently, most humans do eat meat so it is cheaper than a heavily researched niche alternative which has taken years to become remotely comparable to real meat.

I experienced this with my PhD topic decision. My focus generally is VR/AR and I was considering looking at health care applications or haptic tech. In the end I decided on haptics because it seemed more interesting however I have often thought my research could have had more impact had I chosen healthcare. Since starting, my haptic research has subsequently opened up doors into possible health applications and research anyway. This was effectively a middle ground because my research is what I want to do but I can still contribute to something that feels objectively more important.

So based on this, my suggestion would be to do what you want, and see if you can find applications in things you think should be worked on.

If you are developing a AAA title with "hyper-realistic graphics" or a more artistic, cinematic game you can use raytracing to achieve effects which are otherwise 'faked', give you unique effects, or just to get more dynamic lights in scenes.

Indies and less realistic or more "casual" games may not bother with it, just as many of them don't bother with things like parallax mapping and some don't even bother to use textures at all. The features are there and easy to use but developers opt in and out of the different rendering options based on their artistic styling.