WestAir
-
Posts
641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by WestAir
-
-
10 hours ago, YNM said:
I'm not sure, we haven't even found the majority of the aircraft's body yet.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55614074
"He added that it was possible that the plane broke apart when it hit water, based on debris found so far.
"It possibly ruptured when it hit waters because if it had exploded mid-air, the debris would be distributed more widely," said Nurcahyo Utomo."
As for any sort of dual engine failure, that would not result in the accident we've seen. We used to do those for fun in the sim if we had time to burn and finished all our important sim stuff for the day, though I'm not sure how Indonesian training works.
If I were to take a complete shot in the dark with no other information than what's been shown, I'd say this were something along the lines of American Airlines Flight 587. It might explain why fishermen claim to have heard bangs prior to the crash. I will say that I've always been critical of people who play investigator prior to the facts, so feel free to be critical of my presumption lol. -
On 1/9/2021 at 7:41 AM, YNM said:
Given the sudden deceleration and falling out of the sky, I'm expecting a mid-air breakup.
The crash area is very small. I strongly doubt this was a mid air breakup.
On 1/9/2021 at 7:41 AM, YNM said:Stall speeds are basically free-fall velocity, right ?
Stalls are not necessarily free falls and can happen at any airspeed, including very fast speeds.
On 1/9/2021 at 7:41 AM, YNM said:Maybe the engine somehow exploded ? Or it broke after something else explodes... or just on contact with water.
Very likely structural damage caused by terrain.
QuoteWhat I find interesting is that the speed actually also decreases while descending.If this data is made from recorded groundspeeds, then it's only relevance is to show us that the descent became more vertical over time, rather than showing us either indicated or true airspeed.
As far as speculation goes, this crash is very tough. All we know is it hit the water intact at a near vertical profile while transmitting data until impact. Much like the Atlas 767 crash, we're going to need the flight data recorder and voice recorder to put together the pieces.
-
15 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
You cannot lift yourself off the ground by tugging on your own bootstraps.
I wonder if you couldn't fire prograde in orbit of a binary black hole, and time it to get the exhaust to push you at the 45 degree X intersection of the figure 8 orbit, since the ship would be moving so much faster in the same direction.
EDIT: I think not. Exhaust moving slower than you in the same direction wouldn't help accelerate you. Damn you, Newton. Foiled my boostrap acceleration device.
-
On 10/19/2020 at 6:38 PM, K^2 said:
I would go as far as to say that for practical interstellar torch ship, black holes are probably more practical than antimatter.
Until you run out of fuel.
-
On 10/13/2020 at 1:51 AM, K^2 said:
Pluto definitely can't be a planet or we'll have like a dozen more we'll have to add.
Moon, on the other hand, totally a planet. It's silly that we count it as Earth's satellite, when Sun pulls on it a lot stronger than Earth does. Moon orbits the Sun and happens to share the orbit with Earth. So we should bring the count back to 9, with Earth-Moon system counted as a binary.
I know, I know, some people might complain that Moon not being a moon would get confusing. But if Moon is reclassified as a planet, it would need to be promptly renamed after a Roman deity, and honestly, the only sensible choice is to call it Luna. So that should resolve the confusion. Well, in English. Other languages will have to find their own workarounds.
P.S. I have one final argument. If we say that Moon/Luna is a planet, humanity is technically an interplanetary civilization.
This is hands down my favorite post in this entire KSP forum.
-
5 hours ago, Dragon01 said:
Oh, we will manage. I just think we'll go back to the kings and princes.
Who, bear in mind, ruled through most of those ages, with a more or less decent record on average.Those, at least, do not need to be concerned about fake news directly impacting the way they run their countries. An autocrat can't completely disregard public opinion, but doesn't have to bend to its every whim. They also don't benefit from hyperpolarization, quite the contrary, in fact.
Democracy requires rational people (already a tall order) acting on unbiased information in order not to devolve into tyranny of the majority and/or outright ochlocracy. I'm not saying there weren't biases all over the place before the internet, but it did give them far more visibility. Because of that, they aforementioned requirement is fulfilled more and more poorly.
I imagine the last state of human society will be one where big brother works in tandem with ultra-transparency. I imagine that, while camera's and Siri will remove any real privacy for the people, our future leaders will also have a 24/7 dash-cam and everything they do will be scrutinized as harshly and unfairly as the rest of us.
I imagine Star Wars would have ended a lot differently if Palpatine had a camera on him at all times. -
Back to the frightening future of AI -
I think one thing that a lot of futurists miss is that there's never only one of anything. If there's an AI that's doing deep fakes and hurting humanity, there will invariably be an AI that lives to counteract it. Much like the Ecosystem - once one organism exists, another will appear to smite it. There's a natural checks and balances at play with this sort of thing.
And besides: once we've become completely inundated with fake news and deep fakes, and everything that can be real can also be fake, the only thing that will change is our willingness to act on new information. Physical needs and infrastructure won't lose value: We'll still need homes, roads, food, and language. All the fluff - like history and politics - will undergo a metamorphosis that I can't even begin to imagine. -
One thing science fiction stories have against them from the start, is that technology is made to solve problems, and good stories have problems that are hard to solve.
Let's face it: By 2400 we'll probably have thought to thought communication and complete augmented reality. Your friend from Spain will think a joke at you in real time. There will probably be some sort of system in place to filter and weed out fake news, and whatever body sensors you're wearing will not only forewarn you about any growing issues to your body (I.E. "Your blood sugar is getting high. Don't eat that next Ritz Cracker") but it'll probably know you well enough to answer any questions or concerns you're thinking about before you even think about it, based entirely on predictive models.And getting back to a story; I imagine by 2400 if you're shot in the chest, your clothes or whatever will be smart enough to call the police and medics for you with full details on the type of wound suffered, your location, and who shot you. That sort of cuts down a lot of drama for sci fi stories, especially on NCC 1701-D where someone is wounded or kidnapped or under mind control every other week.
And so a sci fi writer needs to dumb down the helpfulness of next gen technologies to make their story work. Otherwise there's no entertainment to be had. If I were to improve a tri-corder it would be to remove the handheld entirely and make it a thought-based virtual tool that uses the ships powerful external and internal sensor network to gather data, and using your own intent you (and not those around you, unless you so wish) can see all of the pertinent data you desire at will and to the extent you need. But that is very hard to visualize, explain, or use in a TV show.
TL;DR - A tricorder is clumsy and unrealistic because it needs to be for the story to work. -
10 hours ago, Terwin said:
This has been a goal of computer science for more than 50 years, but more and more it is looking like a pipe-dream. While Strong AI has not yet been proven to be impossible, it looks more and more like we just do not have either the tools or the understanding to create it.
Surely you don't suggest that this will still be an obstacle to overcome in 500 years?
The human brain relies significantly on the configuration of neurons, axons, and dendrites. Just because we haven't replicated it doesn't mean it's impossible. There's also no evidence to suggest that alternative methods of logic and reason-driven processing are impossible. -
If a mechanized workforce can allow for a labor-free society, even without post-scarcity, then the meritocracy grinds to a halt. If people don't work because the robots took the jobs, then there needs to be a way for society to determine how assets/goods are distributed. What form of capitalism will a labor-free (or non-compulsory labor) society adapt? I'm not smart enough to answer that, but it's a good question.
Edit: The same applies to when only the biggest, largest corporation can produce any sort of complex good, and 99.99% of the community is unable to compete, and therefore cannot enter the market as a seller. -
18 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:
One thing to keep in mind: the more automation we'll introduce, the less unskilled human labor will be worth. Because of that, drudge work will still be a thing for a long time, as long as it's cheaper to hire a human than buy a machine. This is a moving target, and it will lead to exploitation of unskilled laborers. In fact, it's happening right now in some places. We already have the technology to automate many jobs that are currently done by humans, but it's not always the cheapest option. A sweatshop full of poor workers (often including children) in some 3rd world country is still a cheaper way of making T-shirts than a fully automatic production line in the 1st world. Eventually, this will change as machinery gets cheaper, and those poor workers will have to find another place to work at, probably for less pay and in worse conditions. That's what the original Luddites were on about, and what trying to compete with machines looks like from a human perspective. It would take a major paradigm shift and probably abandonment of capitalism to get away from that, because no matter what, most people are simply not intelligent enough to do useful work with their brains.
Scientists, engineers and designers are already using computers to maximum extent practicable. In fact, most serious work is done with them, barring some menial lab jobs that are easier to get a grad student to do. And even that can be automated:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/09/robo-chemist-the-latest-version
Now, I don't see it replacing grad students just yet (again, mostly because robots are expensive and students are cheap ), but compared to my father's time, there's far less stuff to do around the labs, especially for undergrads. Between increasing automation and more stringent regulations (liability and so on), it can be though to find something to get started on. Of course, it's not that big of a problem in itself, as long as the university is well run.
The thing is, making a computer that can think is impossible, because there are fundamental differences between what human brain does and what computer does. All a computer does is implement a logical operation, in a mathematical sense.
Critical thinking is not deterministic, and it involves imagination, which is very much outside the realm of traditional computing. Whether quantum computing can do that remains to be seen, but either way, it will take a fundamental breakthrough, because a logic machine has some limitations inherent in the very fact that it's a logic machine.
(Edit: I went through a phase where I was writing my own sci fi and your threads really stoke my creative side. Keep it up, brother! These thought games are excellent.)
The current processing design used for modern computers, if history is any indication, will not be the same design used by computers two centuries from now. Everything changes, and I think the problem, Dragon, is "when" not "if" some college project or research team will invent a completely new and fundamentally different processing design that bridges the gap between modern computing and human computing and can learn and reason. There is a ridiculous demand for this sort of capability, and I assure you there are thousands of people feverishly pursuing computers that can think. We're a smart enough species to make it happen, eventually.
As for the other point on cheap labor versus mechanized labor, I also think that's a modern phenomenon and one that won't exist in, say, 2920 society. Sure, we might still have sweat shops in 150 years, but nothing lasts forever; Eventually the human element will get replaced, probably once the next iteration of future computers begin to design their own replacements better and faster than we can, and especially when said machines begin to operate everything from the acquisition of resources to the building of equipment.
In this example, there's no way a fully autonomous Nike can compete with a Nike that hires labor. Full stop. -
58 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:
Robots can't give a live performance of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing or Franz Liszt's "La Campanella", or handcarve wooden furniture.
Alright so, again let me clarify that I'm not an expert.
That said, it's been my observation that computers are very good at monkey see monkey do. There will come a point where computers will be used to create screenplay, will write books, and will create paintings and furniture based only on examples. In fact, there have been examples of all of the above. For instance, there's a webpage you can go to where you can draw a sketch and a computer will finish the painting for you. There are websites where a computer will write a story for you based on your own concepts. Moving forward - especially when decades turn to centuries and so on - we'll reach a point where computers will do these things far better than we could. That's just my opinion.58 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:I assume you are being facetious about public office?
Sort of.
Today there are no computers that can think critically or, really, think at all. I'm assuming eventually - given enough time - we'll have computers that can. And how amazing will it be to have a Judge or CEO or Prime Minister that is programmed to follow the law, is completely selfless by design, is incapable of lying, and has only the best interests of the public in mind? I'm surely not the first to imagine peerless leadership, and I would be lying if I said I wouldn't support replacing humans with their fairer creations with that regard. Imagine a leader that can't be bribed and won't lie.
I guess I'm imagining Lt. Commander Data from Star Trek running for public office. And it's got my vote.58 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:And future war is gonna be *kinda* different from that of 1943, or even today.
Absolutely. I can't pretend to know through what medium a hot war will be fought in 2040, let alone 2540. That said, there's an argument to be made about the absolute lethality and efficiency of a computer based "SkyNet" system. We already know no human chess player can beat the computer chess player that comes with every version of windows. In what way could a human General outsmart a computer General if said computer was designed well enough?
What happens when a computer can look at satellite data, social media, and other sources to accurately map enemy movements and distribution and can strategize against it in real time? When a computer can tell a grunt on the ground to duck because a sniper miles away is aiming at him? When a computer can coordinate individual assets in a manner we couldn't dream of today? I mean one day these small cheap unmanned robot vehicles are fast enough to shoot down individual bullets with their own bullets?
I'm just imagining a playing field where the human element isn't just irrelevant, it's obsolete. And I can't imagine that being a bad thing for us; but I've been wrong a lot of times before. -
I am not an expert in any of the discussed fields,
That stated, in my uneducated opinion, I can see a mechanized workforce becoming the norm - especially in response to the fragility of service based economies as a whole. You already have automated checkout scanners, automated phone lines, automatic trains. We're working on automated cars and buses and planes.There will come a time, probably in our life-times, when any occupation you can think of can be done better by a machine; up to and including public office.
Where does that leave us? Better off, I hope. As for large militaries using mechanized assets to fight each other, with super-intelligent computers out-strategizing each other, I can't say where we fit in the mix. It'll certainly be interesting to see. -
2 hours ago, magnemoe said:
Now if you used mind uploading or backup you could theoretically live forever.
Just not aging and not getting sick and you could still get killed. Now if you was restored from an backup would it be you or an clone? that is another question
Clone. But what if whenever you died they used your physical remains to rebuild you? Used your brain as the material to rebuild it with the same roadmap, etc...
Would THAT person be you, or a clone?
-
8 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:
But what can you do if you die in a car accident? Or anything else? Risk of death will still exist. The life expectancy may rise to thousands of years, but that's a blink of an eye compared to the half life of proton decay.
Sure, there may be a way to save someone, but there's a new debate about whether or not that's even the same person.
Biological immortality isn't the total elimination of death. Just a large reduction in the risk. But that risk still exists.
I can't refute your points because everything you said was spot on!
I mean, sure, if billions of people get the "immortality" surgery and we somehow survive to see post-scarcity, one or two of those billions and billions of people might avoid being run over by a self driving car or disease or murder - at least long enough to see if the Earth really sinks into the Sun or not. Surviving the several googol years until protons decay is far fetched, I concede. Death by boredom has no cure I bet.
-
8 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:
Well they’ll still be able to relate to us. Likely won’t expect to see the oceans boil either, and almost definitely won’t live long enough to really care about proton decay.
I disagree for one reason: They'll live long enough to see technology advance their livespan further. .
Liver goes bad? 3d print a new one. Brain decays? Smart-cells repair all that rusting. Of course they'll live long enough to where their lifespan is a question mark. There's no reason to believe any part of us is not replaceable. -
14 hours ago, Bill Phil said:
Biological immortality doesn’t mean they won’t die. Death by non-biological (and even some biological) means is still very possible.
You're right, but I never said anything to the contrary...
-
The first biologically immortal human will not be able to relate to the rest of us at all; He or she will be making plans for how to watch the Ocean's boil, or starting research on how to survive the decay of his or her protons. Money, politics, even simple things like birthdays would be an absolutely ridiculous concern. This person could spend 200 years watching glass droop like a fluid, just because.
What's really interesting is what happens when a decent portion of society becomes biologically immortal. -
21 hours ago, wumpus said:
Depending on your values for "never", you need either Earth escape velocity or Solar escape velocity. If you stick to Earth escape velocity, expect the arrow to return to Earth within 100s-1000s of years. Solar escape velocity means there won't be an Earth if the arrow ever gets near the brown dwarf that used to be the Sun (and it almost certainly will be collected by some other star system before that).
File this under "things I didn't really understand before playing KSP".
Ok but what if I don't want it to return to what's left of the Solar System?
What's the Milky Way escape velocity? -
39 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
Note that this is for the compressor, not the fan.
I had that video up for maybe 90 seconds before I realized that Mr.Fox already mentioned VIGVs and edited it out.
You must have been a quick shooter in your past life.
-
2 hours ago, mrfox said:
I've always wonder how turbofans - effectively a fixed pitch ducted fan - deals with this blade AOA/aircraft speed mismatch - I know the intake cowlings mitigates this somewhat by reducing intake velocity, and variable stator vanes alters the downstream pressure, but I was wondering if anyone can provide or knows of a detailed treatment with numbers they can share.
I misread your comment and replied with a video that didn't really help. Edited.
-
8 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
Why would they? It's cheaper to drive a car than to simulate one.
Some race teams do have sims, because renting a track and doing testing is quite expensive. But of course they can't simulate the physical stresses on the driver.
You're right on your point. I only compared a driving sim to make it easier to visualize why even $10,000,000 sims are not true to life experiences.
The reason sims list all the things they try to model, and not all the things they do not, is because one is a shorter list.
-
10 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
You speak, of course, of the kind of sims that one can buy for their home.
A full-up actual simulator is a different beast entirely, but we're talking $10M or so for them.
My last time in a sim was in 2016, and most times I was just worried about passing more than nitpicking accuracy. I imagine systems wise they were nearly identical, but as for literally everything else...
I imagine some drivers school somewhere has an amazing driving sim. But can you imagine it to be the same as real life?
-
As an aside, since you brought up DCS, my dormmate in college flies the F18 with the Navy. Sunday we were talking about Sims and I suggested we both play DCS as it has an F18.
I showed him a video that impressed me and he responded: "Haha, I wish that video wasn't a hornet, I can help but see the errors in the systems"
On the topic of study level sims, I did find the Leonardo MD-80 addon for FSX really good, but even if you learned it inside and out you still wouldn't know 10% of what you would need to do the real job.
Sims are not a replacement for reality. I think we'll have fully autonomous airliners and fighters before sims reach even 50% accuracy. Sorry.
Who, bear in mind, ruled through most of those ages, with a more or less decent record on average.Those, at least, do not need to be concerned about fake news directly impacting the way they run their countries. An autocrat can't completely disregard public opinion, but doesn't have to bend to its every whim. They also don't benefit from hyperpolarization, quite the contrary, in fact.
[1.12.x] Parallax - PBR Terrain and Surface Objects [2.0.2]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Couldn't find if someone else asked already; I installed the mod. Looks great. Landed on Minmus and my kerbals were walking on air. (The old sea level?) I could jetpack to the new terrain, but if the kerbals walked they slowly rose upwards into the air. Ships and planted flags etc all sunk to the new terrain heightmap.
Happened to anyone else?