p1t1o

@NSEP It erks me that they said "an AI". Is this really AI? The software still had to be programmed to do what it did, so what if it absorbed the data from a bunch of languages first, the programmer is still the guy responsible for the result. I know "AI" has a broad range of definitions, but I hate using it for everything that needs a computer, even if it did "learn". When the general population reads "AI" (especially "an" AI, like its a standalone entity and not an executable on someones windows desktop) they automatically think "Artificial life!" and I hate propagating that kind of reaction.

And once upon a time, we might have gotten this instead of the Harrier:

Do. You. Even. Know. What. You. Are. Missing? This: Thats right. Ready to come home yet?

I think its pretty safe to assume they have tried every technique known to man so far. I'd go so far as to say, if your cryptographic technique hasnt been tried on the Voynich manuscript, its probably not a very good technique.

An XKCD always gets a like My gut says its an illustrated novel written in a language made up for the purpose, Tolkien invented Elvish, its been done before.

https://transacl.org/ojs/index.php/tacl/article/download/821/174 So apparently there has been some progress in decoding the Voynich Manscript - using "An AI" (which I think might just be 2018-speak for "we used computers" but it did involve some "machine learning") and combined with an analysis of a document called "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which was produced in 380 languages, there are strong signs that the language used is a ciphered version of hebrew, with the letters of each word then put into an alphabetised anagram (ie: letters put into alphabetical order, where "saturn" becomes "anrstu"). Apparently the first sentence decodes to: “She made recommendations to the priest, man of the house and me and people.” The analysis is statistically strong, but it still takes a little word-wrangling to make it make sense, but if it is consistently spitting out recognisable hebrew words, they must be close, right?

I notice that they didnt touch on my job application that I appended to the bottom of the email, I presume they will be in contact shortly to discuss terms.

True, true, but i posted it for the humour value that they replied at all! In fact they were very prompt! You dont think a 2kW floor unit could suck the dust out of a keyboard? The issue with compressed air is that it blows the dirt somewhere else, which is fine for some things, but not for everything. But anyway its moot, theres a reason this is in "Lounge" and not "Science" I definitely didnt think it through at all. Only wrote to them to kill a few mins. And I suppose the technically non-zero probability that they'd actually make one (that I could afford) anyway, despite the rather off-the-cuff suggestion.

Unfortunately, Dyson will not be designing a miniature cyclone keyboard vacuum. But its sorely needed and a perfectly miniature Dyson would have been so cool, amirite!

Due to me being "in between" copies of windows (dont worry Im fully paid-up) and it not liking my multi-monitor setup, I have just had a black desktop for about a year. Er, I mean, an ultra-high resolution, Hubble ultra-ultra-ultra-super-rickdiculously Deep Field panorama...

Agreed for sure. ...but I'd also say precisely the same thing about manned exploration of the Moon or Mars (at this point in time), and wouldnt necessarily limit it to space-based scholarships. Its certainly a waste of money, but in terms of rich people wasting money, this is at least harmless and has a little bit of star-gazing romance about it. A little...positivity? Actually that question was kinda rhetorical, like "space shiny thing, what the what?!" The implied question being "Im not quite sure what to make of this, what do you make of it?" In which case your opinion is totally valid, even though I might not share it 100%

Are you kidding? I can think of hundreds of worse wastes of money! I'd rather a millionaire waste money on something like this, something whistful and whimsical, if not actually of any use, rather than spending it on artificially inflating property prices or keeping a collection of hypercars that see the road for a few hours per decade. I mean, I'd rather they didnt waste it at all, but if they are, I quite like this. Not as much as I did when I first posted this thread, but it seems fine, he's not selling anything. On the other hand, as cool as his inventions are, almost every time Elon Musk opens his mouth it sets my teeth on edge.

You may be trying to return too much mass, try shifting some 1st stage dV to the 2nd stage. You'll get an earlier seperation, and more room for correction in the 2nd stage. It may not be strictly SpaceX but you could try a few parachutes to save dV on the descent, unless that jars too much with your "powered landing" sensibilities. And try as much as possible to do most of your rocket-enabled slowing down at the last minute, a "suicide burn" uses the least dV for touchdown. If you're getting desperate, reducing the payload mass will of course improve performance at all levels.

Well, 1) yes. But 2) name a rocket which doesnt look Kerbal.

Obligatory:

Wow quite a polarising topic! Honestly I hadnt realised that the idea had been done in so many iterations before though, that does make it seem less cool to me. If anyone is worried about space junk though - one object wont make the slightest difference, especially in such a short lived orbit. Just for reference, this: And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford

Unfortunately getting to test each pair out is easier said than done. I think - if it came to a purchase - I would be happy to weigh as much evidence as possible and take a plunge. But evidence is skant, probably much because a lot of the differnce IS subjective as you say, which might mean that there isnt much between the options, which does make the choice a little less critical. On the games front, Im pretty much already happy, since they are perfectly suited to flight simulators and they have been coding support into DCS (amongst others) for a while now and reports are excellent. If any other games are supported, thats icing as far as I am concerned. Its a concern, as my card is a 970 - though coupled with a decent CPU it gets very workable benchmarks. I could spend this money on a new GPU, but then it would be largely moot until I next came into enough dough again (2020 looks good) and so SSD+RAM would be a higher priority. I stupidly skimped on RAM when building my current rig. (Tip-Top-Tip: dont do that.) So basically, I may not be able to afford an upgrade for a while, but I can afford to upgrade 1 system now. Given that they are very high on my list of "wants", should that upgrade, given the current state of the art, be VR goggs?

Yeah I'd assume that we've been observing its motion, and the motion of every other significant body in the system, for long enough to be able to have a pretty good idea of whats going on, within certain limits.

Ooh, I have a fact. Since its discovery in 1930, Pluto has yet to complete even half an orbit of the Sun.

Oh I bet you just LOVE barging into conversations with nothing but SENSE huh?

So I've been saving small change for about 3.5 years and counted it up the other day and have approx £400 to waste on something frivolous and as it happens, VR goggle sets have come down to near-enough this price range. The products leaders, as far as I can tell, break down to the Oculus Rift, The HTC Vive, and Acer's new "mixed-reality" set. Performance-wise I have been unable to find much difference between them, I cant see any differences in technical specs that are obviously deal-breakers or game-changers. Here are some pertinent points: Oculus rift is associated with Facebook. HTC Vive is associated with Steam. Vive is a little heavier than the Rift. Vive has slightly lower system requirements. The Rifts hand-controllers look better. More ergonomic, more compact and with a greater variety of controls. Thats literally the only easily-definable differences I could find. If there are differences in comfort or subtleties of motion-tracking, its hard to judge without trying them all (problematic). Im not too worried about game compatibility (although Vive with the link to Steam seems like it ought to have an edge). Anybody have anything to add? Opinions? Facts? Has anybody had the opportunity to try different sets for comparison? Oh, and I should say, the 4th option is "not the right time to buy" - so the Vive will have the "Pro" version out later this year with much higher resolution. Which is great, but would probably need a new computer to get the most from, also it will be expensive. But it might drive down the price of the original model. I have also heard that the kit that made the Acer version possible, might spawn several other 3rd party models, which might be a better price-point too. But it does seem like the rift and vive are at a good price right now. Any input appreciated because at this point I have no idea. If I choose not to buy VR, I will get SSDs and more RAM instead.

Showing that, mass-wise, in the order of Jupiter-Earth-Pluto, they are all 2 orders of magnitude different from the next, none of the 3 can easily be grouped together by mass. Size-wise, Jupiter is 11 times larger than Earth, but Pluto only 5 times smaller - Pluto is within the same order of magnitude, Jupiter is not. Both metrics however, pale into insignificance given that one is solid and the other is fluid!

https://gizmodo.com/shimmering-disco-ball-launched-into-space-by-a-milliona-1822408141 Its lifetime will be short, but I like it

Im pretty sure the first observed planet was Earth... XD

If you ask me, they should seperate the classification of "gas giant" and "planet". If Pluto is too small to be a planet, but is still a rocky ball of the same order of magnitude as Earth...how can Jupiter be a planet and Pluto not? Im not saying Pluto should be a planet, but Jupiter is WAY more different, if you take Earth to be a "textbook" planet.