No, she was arrested for disobeying police orders. But whether they're lawful orders or not is a different matter; strongly suspect that if this went to trial, she'd have a decent 1st amendment argument, which is why it won't go to trial. (ACAB, but also this is a pretty standard part of civil disobedience -- getting arrested is just part and parcel, for better and worse.)
I don’t know why you think she’d have a 1st amendment case; intentionally obstructing public passages is a crime in PA. Time, use, and manner restrictions are widely understood to be constitutional as long as they are content neutral and do not restrict expression. If she was following behind or in front of the robot with a sign, that would be one thing, but intentionally blocking someone or something almost certainly does not constitute protected speech in itself.
ACAB & ACAC both span multiple english speaking countries, predate BLM days by at least three or four decades, and are hardly idiotic in the face of documented abuses of power by rotten apples, coupled with tacit acceptance of the bad ones by their wider fraternity.
No drama, I first encountered the acronyms on the 10th of June 1987 while hitchhiking - I was picked up by two lads just out of reform "school" one of whom had both tattooed across the knuckles of his two hands.
In classical times the same sentiment evolved from "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes", although the actual context of its appearance in Juvenal's poem it deals with the suspicion that wives will always be unfaithful, even via the corruption of those assigned to watch them.
You can buy them on your phone in some states, e.g. Georgia. Their "scratch offs" look just like slot machines and give the same lovely dopamine spikes; used to drop $100 in every couple months when I just needed happy brain chemicals.
Even better, honestly: a large bloom filter for the data, such that the likelihood of a collision is relatively low, then send it up to the server for a check. That way there are a small number of erroneous potential hits, but the list never needs to exist on-device.
I just ask our fleet maintenance agent to configure the variants of the new model and then run the bakeoff. In a few hours, I get a doc containing exactly how it performed on my real tasks, against the other models we've benchmarked.
We don't do any "prompt engineering" to make specific models work better or worse, so this gives us a direct comparison that lets us objectively compare how they'll work in practice for different types of tasks.
Good enough to have guided multiple model swaps and measured increases in productivity.
> I certainly do find new slang introduced by gen Z like "he got the riz!" to be quite cringey
This is interesting to me, if only because it's such a natural bit of slang. Given that it's a shortened form of "charisma", this one just Makes Sense to me! I figure it'd be incredibly cringe for me to use at my age, but it's a good term IMO.
You're right, it absolutely does make sense. And yet it annoys me anyway.
There's been research by linguists (John McWhorter comes to mind) analyzing this phenomenon and it basically just comes down to the fact that as we age, we get more set in our ways, so the linguistic innovations that younger people do just have a tendency to annoy us, even when they logically follow or are objectively useful.
I try not to let it bother me, because it's irrational to feel that way, but it just does lol
This sort of mistake is easy to make when you're mixing up your units; if they kept to one system of measure, it would've been trivial to catch, before or after release.
We need to standardize on using Earth circumferences as the unit of length. Or better, football fields! (the type of football of course being implied by the website's ccTLD)
We _have_ standardized on Earth circumferences for length, only we divide by 40 million to make the numbers more sane, and got the measurement slightly wrong!
How hard would it be to fix this? Could we theoretically add or subtract enough material or make whole thing slightly more dense or less dense to compensate?
Per Wikipedia, the discrepancy is approximately 74 km, so digging a ditch with an average depth of approximately 74/2π ≅ 12 km around the circumference of the Earth would theoretically fix the problem.
Feasibility and geological implications are left as exercises for the reader.
Regardless, I suspect a more cost-effective fix would be to redefine the meter to be a couple "legacy" millimeters longer.
You jest, but times around the Earth is the actual origin of the Meter. Kinda.
The history is quite interesting and well worth checking out.
I can't recommend a book on the subject, but I do heartily recommend "Longitude", which is about the challenges of inventing the first maritime chronometers for the purpose of accurately measuring longitude.
Some people just prefer to listen. I read well and I read quite quickly -- I don't know how many books I've physically read, but it's gotta be in the high hundreds at least -- but over the past ~10 years I've switched primarily to audiobooks. Rather than being something that I enjoy while I'm doing something else, I typically do something mindless with my hands (weave chainmail, cross stitch, sew) in order to give my full attention to the book.
Some audiobooks also seem to gain over the book; for instance, IMO, James Saxon's narration of "Blandings Castle" is truly excellent and gets out the most of Wodehouse.
The astronaut in question may choose to disclose that they had the medical emergency and possibly its nature, but it seems wholly reasonable to not single them out (when it affects the whole mission) or disclose their medical status.
Especially since every movement up and down from space is expensive and risks the life of the crew, it'd be a bad idea for NASA to name the astronaut ahead of time.
Disagree; this is completely taxpayer funded and we deserve to know every detail relevant to mission status. In this scenario knowing what illness and why it's grounds for a return is very relevant. That said, I can see NASA delaying information release to figure out a good strategy for it while still respecting any wishes of the sick astronaut with regards to disclosure.
When you drive on a taxpayer funded road, should you disclose publicly your medical history? When the taxpayer funded US military kidnap a foreign president on your name, should you disclose publicly your medical history ? When you use the taxpayer funded GPS etc...
What a strange take. Does this also apply to every soldier in the armed forces? Seems your criteria is equally applicable there.
The relevant people that can do the research and write future policies based on the data obviously will have the information. Not sure what good you think that you personally having it can do.
> What a strange take. Does this also apply to every soldier in the armed forces? Seems your criteria is equally applicable there.
Why? There are different rules for different endeavors, specializations, and roles. NASA is ostensibly for exploration, in an expansive sense. Hiding information of any kind, seems antithetical to the over-arching mission.
> The relevant people that can do the research and write future policies based on the data obviously will have the information.
Given recent events, this assumption of fidelity is not something I can subscribe to, for the rest of my days.
A single soldier having a medical issue generally doesn't cancel a multi-month mission costing some X large sum of money, requiring another Y large sum of money to even finish cancelling it (returning their unit home).
Therefore it's not relevant and not needed for the public to know.
Yes, I’m sure aircrew never get so violently sick as to affect millions or billions of dollars in crew and and supporting assets due to an emergency, and armed service members are never transported by emergency transportations for eye-watering costs. Technical inequity that ignores facts is the argument of those without arguments.
The specifics of “who” has zero relevance to what is necessary for an ongoing situation; you don’t get to dictate your access and timeline to information just because you contributed a fraction of a penny to something.
I've been working in security for more than 20 years and have seen the deleterious effects of security through obscurity first-hand. Why does "adversarial engineering" rely on obscurity?
I love (and heavily use) source generators, but the development experience is godawful. Working with the raw Roslyn types is painful at best and this is compounded by them having to be written against .NET Standard, severely limiting the use of newer .NET functionality.
Eventually I want to write a good baseline library to use for my source generators -- simplifying finding definitions with attributes, mapping types to System.Type, adding some basic pattern matching for structures -- but haven't found a way to do it that's general enough while being very useful.
I agree, .NET Standard limitation unnecessarily complicates development experience. I think it's because some tools (Visual Studio) is still use legacy .NET Framework. I don't understand why they didn't integrate them via out of process architecture into these tools, since source generators didn't exist in the legacy framework anyway.
I sometimes generate code from plain CLI projects (avoiding source generators altogether), as whole debugging and DX is so much better.
Yeah, I went with that approach for most of the code generation in the emulator I'm currently working on. Source generators handle a few core things, but more advanced compilation tasks went to just ahead of time generation; couldn't get my parser combinator library to play nicely with .NET Standard, so that was just a dead-end.
.NET standard isn’t the biggest issue with making source generators. You can’t add dependencies to your project, which is an absolutely huge oversight IMO.
I feel the exact same way. They can be insanely powerful, but the syntax is insanely off-putting.
And the documentation is still pretty sparse.
> Eventually I want to write a good baseline library to use for my source generators -- simplifying finding definitions with attributes, mapping types to System.Type, adding some basic pattern matching for structures -- but haven't found a way to do it that's general enough while being very useful.
I'd use it in a heartbeat. The new ForAttributeWithMetadataName function has been a big help, but everything else feels like a totally different language to me.
reply