Pixophir

Well, if this refers to this type of sandboxing there are no imminent dangers per so connected to sandboxing as is. It is fancy word for "separation" or for creating an environment in which OS functionality is available but damage to the OS can not be done. For instance, by replacing the system libraries for file manipulation etc. with ones that have the same interface to the user, but have only harmless consequences at the back end. OS Kernels use "sandboxing". A virtual machine can be a sandbox. Or even a dedicated PC not connected to a network which, when infected, will be completely wiped. But it depends how exactly the feature is implemented, the border between sandbox and root kit is narrow. A bad example is/was Google's chrome sandbox that needed SUID bit set on Linux, a no-go for any third party executable, specifically from a known data kraken. The feature is deprecated meanwhile. Every browser I know has some sort of sandboxing implemented, mostly "sold" as a security feature. On Linux, this is not necessarily necessary for browsing as one can always create a user with extremely low rights whose account would be expendable in case of an attack. But then again, not everyone is aware of the capabilities of a true multi user OS and thus relies on 3rd party products to protect them. If you want to be reasonable safe from any kind of malware, the best way is not to download any untrusted software (for me that is software that is not in my OS's repositories, with only very few exceptions of which I am sure they are harmless), always check downloads, e.g. verify keys and checksums, not to open mails of unknown origin, and not to browse too colourful websites. And ofc use an up-to-date browser with appropriate settings, even if that means that certain websites don't load any more. There was nothing interesting there anyway :-)

It is the best chance to survive, e. g. in case of stalled engines or out of fuel, and when there is no surface in range to risk an emergency landing, but it would not be safe. Actually, as @mikegarrison said, many water landings go wrong. Slow flying aircraft have a much higher chance of success than fast jets with their high approach speeds, specifically short after take off when the plane is heavy. Chances are best on flat water (lake, estuary, river mouth like the exceptional ditching on the Hudson). When ditching on the open ocean, one can try to "land" perpendicular to the travel of the swell in a valley. Such a situation usually does not leave much time for decision making, witch raises the risk because of the stress put on the crew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing#Passenger_airplane_water_ditchings Edit: The respective flight manual may have some recommendations on how to set up the plane for ditching, but as said there is often simply no time. And afaik there is not enough data to support general recommendations.

Sadly, it is a short way from propaganda to real war and all the suffering that comes with it. Fun fact for distraction: Add half a cm to the radius of a ball with the diameter of 2cm and its circumference grows by ~3.14cm. Do the same thing with earth and its circumference grows by ~3.14cm.

There is no simple answer to such tedious detail ;-) that would fit in here, but you can find a thorough chapter on this for example in Cozzi/Ring, 3D Engine Design for Virtual Globes, CRC 2011 https://www.virtualglobebook.com/

Popular culture is one thing :-) But true, we can't categorically exclude whether any carnivorous dinosaur scavenged from time to time. I believe there is one work hinting to a triceratops that might have been in a state of decay when a TRex felt hungry. But that cannot be generalized and it was not their main ... income.

The shower question was how do we come to the conclusion that Trex was a daylight hunter and not a scavenger. Enter functional morphology, one of the oldest disciplines of applied science there is. It studies an organism's structures and how they fit in an ecological niche. As such, we can't reverse the argument and address a situation like "what do we need for an organism to work in a given setting", that doesn't work because there are always multiple solutions (e.g. flight), and no body function is isolated from the rest of the organism (example sabre teeth and a long flexible neck). Now a few arguments: TRex is clearly not a herbivorous animal, too slender (intestines won't fit), bipedal and well balanced so a fast runner though top speed unclear, Jurassic Park scene "object in mirror are closer than they appear" probably exaggerated, teeth can't chew on green stuff, also no grass at that time (available energy), teeth backwards curved, sharp and pointy. Forward looking eyes that work best in daylight, though we can't exclude that they'd refuse a midnight snack when one came along and the moon was bright enough. Also we don't know their olfactory abilities. But there's more, like coprolites (petrified poop) with bones in them, a shed tooth in the carcass of a hunted animal somewhere, and even cannibalism among them. Now, that was a lot for the shower :-)

Because functional morphology :-)

Technically that is a matter of definition. Let's say someone writes a paper, they'll get among other things their terminology right. They may be careful and avoid confusion (random example). As we don't write papers on earth about "insolation" from Beteigeuze for instance because that would certainly be confusing if not invalidating the sense of the writing. So it is automatically clear what the source of the radiation in a given context is and if not it must be described. The reviewers may also have a word and hint to difficulties they feel need clarification. The rest is up to the reader.

Austrian Coat of Arms is the eagle. Austria is latinised from Germanic. First mentioned in the mid 12th century or so, meaning what is now lower Austria. The term goes back to ancient Germanic, a predecessor of the family of Germanic languages. The appendix -austar stands for "eastern". It was later (14th century onwards) expanded to the whole of Austria. In high/late Medieval, Austria was a fiefdom of the Holy Roman Empire. Of course there are more details through time and space, too much for a casual forum post. The similarity with "Australia" is incidental.

Yeah, when science meets entertainment ... isn't there a "bad science in fiction" thread in here :-)

That only generates a sphere, not featured terrain. And it is relative to centre, not to camera viewpoint. If I read it correctly, there's no before for vertex data. Meshes are generated on the fly as the camera moves, they aren't stored anywhere. That's why they mention that they have to keep the values stable, independent of camera position. With small planets, there is also less concern about floating precision than there was with real size planets because the horizon is not that far away. Depth range can always (on the frame) be adjusted to the situation. Only thing that's done on the CPU is are the frustum tests, i.e. determine which parts are in the camera field of view and need to be calculated and rendered. That's done with bounding boxes that would need pre-calculation in world space, but an axis aligned bounding box is just 24 bytes, or 48 with double values. Idk. if there is more meta data that describes how exactly the surface looks, if there are craters, or mountains, etc. Yes, FP64 is too slow on consumer grade graphics cards. As I understand it, they do this (relative to camera position, or relative to eye) to get around the precision problems, and thus jittering and other artefacts of lacking precision, by calculating directly from the camera position instead of doing it in world space first and transform afterwards, thus avoiding the super large numbers. And it does it this each time one visits (looks at) a point, meaning possibly each frame. Thus they also avoid the additional memory/storage traffic of having to store positions for future use. It is just generated again and again. That's pretty performant :-) If you're up to rendering "real" planets as so many have tried and few have accomplished, that's indeed quite a different feat.

The sheer amount of documentation from trivial how-tos in more or less intelligent YT videos to series of textbooks, regularly evolving through new editions, discussions in forums, the number of open source engines on public repositories, etc. shows how populer the subject actually is. With something in hand to show-off one could also join other projects and offer help extending an existing ecosystem.

Impossible to enumerate all the reasons why someone wants (or hast) to do their own framework. In scientifical simulation this is the normal ... I mean the norm. I've tried Unreal, Unity, Godot and a few render frameworks and also decided to give it an own try. This may be not opportune here, but just look at KSP with its miniature planets with adapted physics because of the limits the engine Unity imposes. KSP physics are not accurate, though the game is fun. Orbiter had real size planets and integration methods up to the task, for atmospheric modelling (remember KSP's "soupmosphere" ?) and reasonable flight dynamics. KSP planes were more like submarines. Orbiter would not have been possible with an engine at that time. Orbiter's source code is online meanwhile (and it is a mess). To the book, bowsing the contents, it seems to be another one that covers linear algebra well, good enough for the classical render pipeline. With the advent of ray tracing and heavier integration methods this will only be the start. Happy hacking. But yes, as a single developer, you either do an engine, or a game. That is an xor :-)

Hi, note that angular size in the sky and size on the sensor are different things and resolution of an image is yet another thing. All must be calculated for good results, to check if a given equipment/setup lives up to the expectations. Don't get me wrong, as said, it is well possible for the somewhat experienced and aspirign, but not an trivial goal. You mentioned an observatory in your vicinity, sure they can explain things. The forum at cloudynights.com is a very good resource for all things atrophotography. If you want to get into that, don't bother with hunting artifical satellites in the beginning, observe visually, try images of the moon first, the big planets Saturn and Jupiter are also nice and the chances of success much higher. For deep sky, objects like Andromeda galaxy, the Plejades or the Orion nebula can nicely be imaged but need specific equipment due to their sizes (field of view, correction of errors of the telecope's optics play a role then, and fit of the sensor), before hunting such evasive objects as the ISS.

High end equipment (>10k euro/$) is not necessary to image the ISS in reasonable resolution, with the solar panels and tubing clearly distinguishable, atmospheric conditions permitting. Skill and patience is needed above all, and multiple tries, and then the thing doesn't allways pass at convenient times. Some show off their images and setups, e.g. on youtube. The mentioned parts are in the 3-4keuro range. Starship is somewhat smaller, but just a featureless blob anyway.

As the various images you mention show, this is easily possible for the versed skygazers. Resolution/size of the image depend on the telescope, but much more than those images is hard to achieve. Brightness is not the issue here for objects that are in the sun, but the shear speed with which LEO objects cross the sky. One really must know their orbital parameters to aim to when and where they rise above the local horizon, and have an extremely fast and perfectly set up mount to catch up with their angular speed.

@Hyperspace Industries, I had some time today and performed a short search on PV in South Africa. From what I get there is a strong case for small private installations connected and feeding surplus into the grid, not just as a means to secure personal power supply of households, but also as a stabilizing element for the grid as a whole. It seems to me that the municipalities are the ones to ask for the detailed how-tos of such a system. Haven't found out if there are subsidies. There also seem to be financial benefits, tax exemption, etc., even to a degree that some money can be made with a private installation that feeds surplus into the grid. Get all the information you can, from other installations in your area, from the administration of your neighbourhood/municipality/whatever, your tax advisor if you have ... before you start. In principle this sounds like the best of both worlds to me, far more than I can expect here in Spain where the utility bill can not go below 0. You will definitely want a certified installer for such a thing, and if there's money to be made you will probably want the PV as big as affordable, meaning use all the available/permittable area. I would, in this case, also advocate for a smaller storage, just to get over an outage and not too much more. You want to sell the energy, not to keep it in the pockets. Your house-inverters should not charge from the grid, but from solar alone. Such systems usually have a galvanic separation between the inhouse-energy and the grid connection (different inverters/chargers), so that in case of a grid failure the inverters that feed into the grid can switch off but the in-house supply remains stable. This is extremely important ! In the end, even an electric car can be charged from solar alone if the system is large enough. My advice: grab your dad, talk him out of the rebellous aspects, tell him about the good in people who dedicate their personal efforts for the wellbeing-of-all(tm) and all that, you get it :-) And that he can draw some satisfaction out of the fact that you'll be selling energy to the ones who have been fooling you for so long ;-)

Good idea. They know better what to do in your setting, geography and regulatory environment than some random guy from the internet could possibly without more detail. I'm somewhat on your side. But let me comment, 'sheer spite' alone might not be the best criteria. As said, we're talking about a lot of money, and a constant obligation to maintain and repair things. In principle a photovoltaik installation runs or doesn't. If it does, fine. If not and you don't know where to look you become dependent on installers. There are also details to observe, and things to maintan, cables, connections, batteries to monitor, and components might need replacement in a few years, etc. That'll all cost your time if you DIY or your money if you must call an installer. Think it over, also alternatives like a solar powered UPS, or a setup that allows you to feed into the grid, with compensation or without, if that exists over there. I read SA is actually pushing small pv installations.

Not an air incident, just an eyecatcher:

This was about surface structures on venus. The round structures can be interpreteted as the heads of plumes, mantle-upwelling with subduction-like features around them. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2928 Pop science: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/on-venus-tectonics-without-the-plates/ Interesting also in so far as it may be a hint to tectonics on earth before the onset of "modern style" plate tectonics with rigid plates and all that in the Archean.

Have followed SETI only very superficially. Just looking at how much current and future survey telescopes have improved in every aspect and what happened with data science since the early 2000s I would argue not to cry too much and leave it to a museum or (better) recycling. Data on tapes doesn't last that long (20 years ?) any way and needs frequent copying, so some of it is probably already unreadable.

Ah, wasn't aware that KSP 2 will still have the downsized planets and thus specifically adapted physics and gravity. Bummer. The 64bit problem is essentially a platform question and what to do on the CPU and what on the GPU. No problem on desktop computers (and even most mobiles) but still essentially prohibitive on graphics cards. Both Nvidia and AMD limit FP64 to a fraction of the FP32 performance. For anything 64 bit wide that has to be passed into the graphics render pipeline or for computation on the GPU there would be a lot of gymnastics to perform that have serious impact on performance. If someone has tried this before, they now what I mean. It would probably be easier to do a complete software renderer with everything 64bit, at the cost of shale graphics, and a few people of the team doing nothing but engine development. Also I don't know how flexible the Unity engine actually is. Modern CPU's parallel capabilities are vastly underwhelmed with games, which usually need a performant main thread and some workers at the side. Games as a whole don't lend well to parallelism. One could do physics in 64bit accuracy (which would cover for instance the solar system out to Jupiter at a resolution of 1m) easily on a cpu, without performance impact simply because so many cores just hang around idle. There was a time, before the pandemic and supply chain interruption and shortages, when AMD started with 64bit graphics cards in the consumer sector, but it'll probably take some time till we get there again, if at all. That would be a game changer (sic) for the simulation sector. But it may well be that things go the wrong way for us, with Intel planning to charge extra for CPU features. tl,dr: Bummer that the planets are still dwarfs.

David Gilmour et. al. 2016, Comfortably Numb From the comments: The 70 years old rock the 20 years old in a 2000 year old theatre with a 40 years old song. Remarkable guitar solo.

Native GNU/Linux and playable offline after installation (just the game, no steam/proton/any download assists/other, no emulation) are my prerequsite to play any computer game, no matter how fascinating it may be. And installation must be completely in user space. That was how I was introduced to KSP, actually :-) A price around 60 would be ok for me if this is a full game, and doesn't only become complete with additional DLC. I will need reviews to see if it is worth my time.

Hello, very old time player here, not playing KSP atm but eagerly waiting for KSP2, just browsed the forum in search of a release announcements and found this thread instead. My setting is subtropic, and I am going off grid soon joining quite a few households around here, but my new place is still under construction. It'll probably be autumn until it goes into production. I opted for bifacial panels (~10 kwp), monophasic inverters, chargers, system monitoring of a high price sector, 51.2V ~28kwh LiFePO4 battery (LFP from now on, diy), and as a future option charging of a small electric car. This isn't cheap (~22keuro when ordered in february, more today), allthough I am doing it myself so only little extra cost, mainly for the bureaucratic things. DC isn't rocket science, if I may say so :-) The layout is redundant in terms of component failure, otherwise it could be much cheaper. I may join a neighbourhood project in the future, should such a thing ever come into existence. The most important thing before starting over is to do a thorough review of your necessities, list up all the consumers, the potential your roof/patio cover/garage/whatever has in store in terms of area, azimuth, inclination, geographic setting, shading, prevailing weather and climate. You can't of course go offgrid with solar alone at 70°N because winter and cold. You can easily go off grid with solar alone in South Africa (?) if you're not under a constant cloud of a prevailing wind system ;-), have a well insulated and air-tight house, use a heat pump for heating/cooling and a ventilation system with heat exchanger and recuperation. Whatever technology and how much of it you choose as a storage depends. When using lithium, I'd recommend LFP because they do not (easily) suffer from "thermal runaway" like some othe Li-Ion tech. They are temperature sensitive, but have a high round-trip efficiency and needs only very little care, mostly adjusting and monitoring settings and charge states. When going for Lead-acid, have a look at "traction batteries" (OPzS). Leave Gel, AGM and starter batteries alone. All lead acid is environmentally unfriendly and needs quite some love and monitoring, but is extremely sturdy and can also last a long time. But they can easily be destroyed in a short time when discharged deeply or overcharged to a high degree. Also, do not nuy batteries from storage, have yours made for you on demand, by a battery make not on the other side of planet. LTO is another upcoming lithium technology. NiFe (as said Nickel Iron, good old Edison battery) have a terribly efficiency, but can last longer than a human lifetime. They are very expensive, if available at all. Oth, they can be discharged until they switch polarity. They only need little brewery every now and then, refill water or change the electrolyte. There is more upcoming technology, like sodium batteries, but for a beginner it is probably best to go with the main stream and use either LFP or OPzS. When they die in 20 years or so things may look different. You asked for a dvice, but this is far too general. A lot of things play a role, besides some electricity which can potentially kill and a high component value which could probably go up in smoke, there may be regulations, scarcity of material these days. Question: do you diy or hire an installer ? Have you thought of a system to just get over the grid failures instead of going completely off ? Because off is off, usually utility companies do not allow such systems to be connected to the rgid because of multiple failure modes they can introduce. For a mere UPS like system with a set of panels and a battery/inverter combination to get over the failures you will need an installer and proper documentation, but it may be much cheaper than your own power plant.