• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

264 Excellent

About micha

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL www.micha.name

Profile Information

  • Location London, UK
  • Interests Computer (games); Motorbiking; Scuba-diving; reading; travelling; ...

Recent Profile Visitors

2,100 profile views
  1. Thanks @Bersagliere81! I do plan to keep this updated, but I'm partially through a revamp of all the models to Unity 5.4 - which I guess I now have to change to Unity 2017!! - and also still settling into Tokyo. A "quick fix" would be to just recompile for KSP1.4.x, but I'm fairly keen to finish fixing up the models first as that will likely mean some minor incompatibilities with existing saves. I was really hoping to get that all done before 1.4, but I wasn't planning on relocating! So right now I'm a bit undecided whether to release a new version "as is" or whether to finish up the Unity/model revamp first. What do people think? By the looks of things, KSP1.4.2 is still pretty flakey..
  2. Way to go @IncongruousGoat! Brings back memories of my Caveman days... although you are way more hardcore. Best of luck!
  3. The only reason he's talking about flat earth is to get money off the flat earthers to fund his rockets (and possibly get more media attention). Previous launches were just personal stunts. The behaviour of the "paramedics" (article term, I think they were just hillbilly mates of his) is totally unbelievable. If he really does have a broken back, lifting him out like that was the worst possible thing they could have done. Requires some pretty skilled handling for suspected spinal injuries to avoid doing more damage. That said, pretty awesome dude for actually going ahead with it! As others have said, to get altitude, there's better ways. I think he's just doing it for the stunts. EDIT: PS: the kids "watching" the launch are hilarious, they are just goofing about and not even watching the rocket when it blasts off.
  4. Uber Troubles For Uber

    Which has been discussed ad nauseum here and you just won't accept the fact that increasing engineering controls to reduce risk is just not possible everywhere. You have to do a cost/risk analysis - the highest risk areas get fixed, and the lowest-risk areas don't. And I strongly suspect that this particular road section just doesn't factor into the high-risk bracket. It was an accident, and we'll have to wait where the blame will be assigned by the investigators. In the meantime, there -is- an effort to implement an engineering solution which will NOT require fixing millions of miles of roadways, but instead by removing or reducing one of the fallible factors - humans! Which is true. HOWEVER, humans will program the AI as an "expert system", that is, they take the BEST human drivers as input into the system. Once the system becomes an "expert" driver (and the bugs are ironed out and the hardware has sufficient redundancy), it will be BETTER than a human because, unlike a human, it will NEVER get distracted or sleepy or otherwise run under impaired conditions. It can have better sensors, it WILL have much better reaction times, etc etc. Will accidents still happen? Of course - whenever unpredictable behaviour is such that it exceeds the physical capabilities (eg, a human stepping out in front of it where physics dictates that it cannot stop in time). But it SHOULD reduce the number of accidents significantly. The #1 factor in accidents is humans.
  5. Uber Troubles For Uber

    Hm. Ultimately in both cases it's just energy. In the case of biology, electromagnetic and chemical, in the case of AI, presumably, just electromagnetic. So I'm not entirely sure about the concept of Mathematics manifesting, or at least, how it would differ from the current biological concepts of a "self". You can ultimately also describe biology in terms of physics and hence Mathematics... Also, Mathematics is just an artificial tool invented by humans to aid in describing the world around us. At best it's an approximation of the real physical world (* assuming we don't live in a simulation); a very good and very useful approximation which allows us to predict as-yet unobserved effects of reality, but ultimately, it's an artificial simplification of what's really going on. I don't follow your question. Yes, in a 20 zone it's safer to jaywalk than on a highway, but you're still dead if you walk out in front of a bus without giving it enough space to stop. Sure; but we already established that accidents will happen. We're human. We make mistakes. Yes I have responsibility as a driver, but I ALSO have responsibility as a pedestrian. Despite which I was talking from a personal perspective - it's my responsibility to avoid putting myself into situations which have a high risk of getting me injured or killed. Of course you're "right" and the "higher class" will lose a court case. Not much help though if you're dead. I meant losing in the sense of losing physically, not legally. It doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys whether you win a court-case, except maybe to the lawyer (your family will also get a payout, but that will never replace losing you).
  6. Uber Troubles For Uber

    Which also puts the onus on pedestrians to ensure they do so in a safe manner! It doesn't mean pedestrians can just jump out into the road at a moments notice and expect all traffic to magically stop/avoid them. Whether or not jaywalking is a crime is immaterial; the point is that IF you jaywalk, you do so safely. Heck, even if not jaywalking, I always check to ensure approaching traffic will stop! There's plenty of cars which run red lights or ignore pedestrian crossings. I expect -everyone- (me included) to make mistakes. I ride a motorbike, mostly for pleasure, long distance rides across Europe, but in the last year also for commuting in London. As a motorcyclist I may have a lot of "rights" but I also know that in the event of an accident, I will always lose in a collision with another vehicle. Ditto if I'm a cyclist or a pedestrian. As such, I will waive my "rights" in favour of avoiding such a collision. I don't want to be right and dead (or seriously injured). The more vulnerable you are in a particular situation the more care you have to take. If you don't take care, you will get hurt, sooner or later. So yes, I expect both to make mistakes, but I also expect the more vulnerable party to exercise higher vigilance. Ultimately in this particular instance there was some sort of failure of the automated vehicles sensors / algorithm; it really ought to have detected something on the road ahead and reacted accordingly. Any alert human driver would have. However, given the fact that this technology is still in its infancy and there was a human supervisor, I would place the blame of this particular incident primarily on the shoulders of the human supervisor who was not supervising but playing with her phone, and secondarily on the pedestrian who was crossing illegally without due care. Let's see what the investigation will conclude.
  7. Uber Troubles For Uber

    *I* can't. Society does. Always has, and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to. At least modern society places quite a high value on life. And how about if you value your life so much YOU take some responsibility for your own actions too and don't just rely on society/engineering to wrap you in a safe little cocoon? Someone crossing a road in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere in front of an oncoming car is asking for trouble. (Deserted roads are the #1 spot for drivers losing concentration). So tell me how people will get from A to B in Australia across thousands of miles of nearly *nothing*? In the still-slightly-civilised areas you'll get a petrol station and pub every couple hundred miles. In the Outback, you get what you bring. Reduce the lengths of roads? How about shrinking the planet then, Mr Wiseguy? Or stopping people from going places? We don't all live on a small island with a high population density (UK, Java?). Even in the UK there's plenty of areas which aren't built up enough for comprehensive public transport. In London itself it makes very little sense to own your own a vehicle and use it (people still do and I'm generally against it). In Australia in most areas it makes little sense for public transport because the population density is just too low to support it - even around cities the suburbs are too spread out and too thinly populated to cover so people have to use personal transport at least in order to GET to public transport. I'm outta this conversation, yes, I'm all for public transport and alternatives to roads and personal vehicles, but there's also practicalities involved and you're being militant about your views without considering when and where they can be applied.
  8. Uber Troubles For Uber

    I'm not "you guys" (never lived in America), and all I'm saying is that it may be possible to fix a couple of thousand miles of such things, not a couple of million miles (yes, the US has over 4 million miles of road infrastructure - I just looked it up) of such things. Areas which have a high number of incidents DEFINITELY get looked at and fixed. Areas which have had ONE FATALITY also get investigated. Areas which may be "unsafe" but have had no incidents funnily enough don't get looked at. (At least, this is true for Australia). You really expect the population to pay for hundreds of thousands of miles of road safety equipment (which will require periodic inspection and maintenance) for the 1 (* number pulled out of my cheeks) bicycles and 100 (* number also pulled out of my cheeks) cars which use those isolated stretches annually, just to avoid the potential of that one careless biker and driver coming together? As I said, it's a question of distance and population density. You can't use the same rules everywhere.
  9. Uber Troubles For Uber

    That video is rather misleading - visible light cameras are notoriously bad for distinguishing light from dark; a human drivers' eyes would perform significantly better in that situation. That being said; _IS_ that car being navigated by those cameras (in which case there's a huge case to be made to the manufacturers for using insufficient sensors). For night-time driving, it -SHOULD- have IR or LIDAR or similar. The potential for driverless cars to have significantly better sensory input than a human is immense. 360deg vision not obstructed by the cabin with multiple different viewpoints. From a software perspective, a driverless car should use significantly different algorithms depending on whether it's driving in heavy traffic (ie, following other vehicles) or whether it's on a near-empty road by itself. The latter has significantly higher potential for non-traffic incidents and such the car should monitor a much wider arc and distance ahead for anything which moves. @YNM: I can understand some of your viewpoints about reducing the dangers of mixing vehicular traffic with pedestrian traffic, but what may seem doable in a high-density low-distance environment is infeasible in a low-density high-distance one. You can almost always engineer something to be better or safer, but until we live in a post-scarcity world, cost is (unfortunately) always going to be the major factor (funnily enough, only when us mortals are involved; never seems to be an issue when our ruling classes or their immediate sycophants are involved) in any improvement works. As to @LordFerret's original posting (ie, Mathematics becoming sentient) - I think it would make more sense to compare it to DNA. That is, it'll be at the core of AI and ultimately driving its shape and behaviours, but it won't be sentient in and of itself.
  10. Hi @Wolf Baginski, I've never seen this error before (and I just double-checked using the latest MM (3.0.6), KSP (1.4.1), and Corvus (1.3.2). Thanks for the report, but without version numbers, platforms, and/or full logs I'm not even sure how to start looking into this. Sorry.
  11. Marked as compatible with KSP1.4x. Is there any interest in having this mod localised?
  12. Feature improvement suggestions: - move the GameData/Squad folder somewhere, and mklink/j it into every new GameData - saves nearly another 500MB per GameData. - use the same trick for the CKAN/downloads folder - only keep one set of downloaded mods (another potentially large disk-space hog) Really neat idea, but personally I'm a bit wary to use it in my "production" install given some of the reported issues and the author's perceived lack of recognition of the severity of some of these ("coded this while sleepy", "it's only a tiny bug", "didn't bother checking which button the user pressed" etc). Considering this tool is altering the filesystem on my PC, that's a bit scary sounding... (yes, I know I can audit the code, but I won't do that for -every- version I download). So @Icecovery: it would help if you could take bug reports a little bit more seriously - I'm sure you do when you actually code fixes for them, I meant your language here.
  13. Thanks @Apollo13. Sure, the DLC adds a "Gemini", but for all the people who haven't (yet) got the DLC, I just released v1.3.2,. It has some minor tweaks from v1.3.1, but most importantly I've updated the metadata to mark it as compatible with KSP 1.4.x. Please see the release thread for details.
  14. [1.4.?] Animated Decouplers 1.3.6

    DARNIT! I did initially see that thread, read it, then went looking for yours as that one looked dodgy as heck. Looks like my copy-paste to update my post still had the old clipboard info in it. Will update ASAP. Thanks!
  15. Done; I've added a link to an album in the second post. I just made this (looks a touch messy once the launcher stack is decoupled, but worked well):