All of SapaceX rockets waste close to half their payload capacity on extra fuel for landing, extra equipment for landing, and they still have a 100% failure rate on every super-heavy launch they've ever attempted. SpaceX has blown up more rockets in the last year than NASA has in its entire history. NASA's super heavy rockets have been working successfully since 1967. NASA did build the first single-stage-to-orbit rockets that also successfully landed, but it immediately realized that was a huge waste of resources. Instead, they put parachutes on rockets and then refurbished them instead. So NASA gets double the payload capacity for free. The boosters currently strapped to the SLS that's about to go to the Moon are the same ones that previously took space shuttles to orbit in the 90s. NASA has been to the Moon and Mars; SpaceX has never made it to either, and just last week Elon said they've officially given up on going to Mars, and they're hoping to make it to Moon in another decade instead. NASA is going next month. SpaceX is just vaporware being run by a drug addict whose only goal is to sell it to the public markets before the house of cards comes down.
Only with LEO launches, and the soviet rockets from the 90s are still cheaper and more reliable at that. Enormous subsidies and sanctions against Russia are the only thing pushing anyone to spend more on inferior Falcon rockets.
It would be great to have some actual numbers. How did reuse work out for Falcon 9? How much does the reused boosters for SLS cost? What's the cost and performance of an expendable Starship vs SLS?
It's not possible to compare, because while the SLS just got back from the Moon and is about to go back; SpaceX has never had a single successful super-heavy launch. Now that Elon has officially given up on Mars and decided to spend the next decade trying to figure out how to get to the moon, we may see some progress. All he has to do is put down the drugs and catch up to the NASA of the 1960s.
Surely the could put a traditional upper stage on Super Heavy and just go directly to the moon, no? I’m not sure what the obsession with second stage reuse is, because you lose almost all your margin.
Falcon Heavy (as its name implies) is not capable as a super-heavy lift vehicle. Past GTO, it can only carry 18 tons. You need more than double that to reach the Moon and come back, as NASA did in the 1960s.
Space X cares way more about reusability than the moon, they're not actually in a race to the moon. Step 1: build the best general solution. Step 2: do everything
You're confused. Elon said two weeks ago that they have given up on Mars and the Moon is the goal they're currently working on. He said it will probably take them another decade to catch up to NASA of the 1960s by reaching the Moon with a real super-heavy rocket that actually works.
He said moon first, not no Mars. And a decade to build a moon city, not to get there.
However what people say and their real reasons aren't always the same.
I assume Issacman went around to everyone and convinced them to say they're all switching on the moon, add another test flight to delay things, and in return they'll switch to using Starship in the future as they will cancel Block 1B of Artemis
A KPI is an ethical constraint. Ethical constraints are rules about what to do versus not do. That's what a KPI is. This is why we talk about good versus bad governance. What you measure (KPIs) is what you get. This is an intended feature of KPIs.
Excellent observations about KPIs. Since it’s intended feature what could be your strategy to truly embedded under the hood where you might think believe and suggest board management, this is indeed the “correct” KPI but you loss because politics.
If Radxa would slow down their rollout of another new hardware board with vastly different target markets every month or so, they could wind up with a few really well-supported boards.
But as it is, you have to love tinkering with Linux or reading things across forums, blog posts, GitHub issues, and Discord to get a given Radxa board going nicely. It can be done, but it still takes too much effort for many.
idk but sounds like they might be run by designers and also they might be outsourcing PCBA. Just doing one batch simplifies operations by a lot. Not that I think it's commendable to do so...
This brings up a point many will not be aware of. If you know the random seed and the prompt, and the hash of the model's binary file; the output is completely deterministic. You can use this information to check whether they are in fact swapping your requests out to cheaper models than what you're paying for. This level of auditability is a strong argument for using open-source, commodified models, because you can easily check if the vendor is ripping you off.
This is an obvious third-factor for poverty and marginalization. Air pollution exposure is the most classic example of unequal protection from harm in environmental justice. Alameda county did a study on this that found as an isolated, direct-result of unequal exposure to air pollution, black people live 15 years less than white people on average in Alameda County alone.
Roads being a huge factor also plays into socioeconomic factors though, at least in some places. Take New York City for example, where the off-ramps for highways were purposefully planned to let traffic out in larger numbers in impoverished areas to keep the noise and pollution minimal for the more affluent burrows.
Same. I hail from a particularly polluted (compared to the rest of the EU) country, so PM2.5 over 80µg/m3 during the entire heating season, NOx constantly above 50µg/m3 in cities due to old diesels with anti-pollution devices turned off or removed entirely and the overall effect is said to be a 3-6 years shorter life expectancy.
It checks out compared to countries without these issues, so 15 years to me sounds exaggerated, especially if we're talking about areas close to each other.
Such a huge shortening normally involves heavy metal pollution of the drinking water and soil.
Yeah, I mean, how do they identify the causal effect here? It's obviously not easy, because polluted areas are also poor areas, and poor people live in poor areas (and have other problems).
It would be nice if the article had mentioned this issue. A metastudy of lots of bad correlational studies is just garbage in garbage out. So, did they address the issue?
There are ways round it, by the way. As a recent review said:
"it is unclear why federal ISAs that are the input into all regulatory analyses tend not to incorporate the emerging body of evidence on the effects of air pollution on health outcomes from the economics literature despite the additional rigor imposed by the emphasis on causal inference."
It's not surprising that poverty affects life expectancy but what I find hard to believe is that poor air quality shortens life expectancy by a full 15 years.
That sounds incredibly obvious on the face of it though ?
Having the study at hand is nice of course, but environnemental factors being alleviated through money and discriminatory policies is rampant enough I don't get the surprise.
People using high quality water filters or straight buy clean water tanks in areas where tap water is bad, getting better indoor air filtering, blocking construction of pollution sources to move them further away (near poorer areas) in the county, redlining/manipulateing zoning rules to make it systematic etc.
15 years disparity in life expectancy exclusively attributed to air quality is not incredibly obvious. To put this in perspective, nationwide average disparity in life expectancy is 5 years between Black and white people. Triple that amount, exclusively attributed to air quality, is a substantial claim.
Smoking is voluntary, partly self-adjusting (willingly or not you'll reduce smoking as you get worse), composition is regulated and that habit only starts at a later stage in life.
I don't believe this, show me your stats. The poorest region is Bulgaria, with life expectancy of 75. Just looking at the American Congress (which isn't even composed of the richest people), few people there die at mere 75 years of age.
Also, here in the EU, life expectancy varies a lot. Interestingly, not-so-rich countries such as Italy and Spain win over richer Austria, Germany and Denmark by a year or so.
Diet is most likely a big factor. Despite being less rich, Italy and Spain have decent healthcare systems, and traditionally Mediterranean diets tend to include more vegetables and less saturated fats than cuisines in those Northern countries, and even poor people have access to those healthy options.
...in one single cohort-based study that only looked at around 10K deaths between the United States and 16 European countries, not the EU or all of Europe.
Life expectancy in the EU varies a lot by country. Someone born in Sweden has a life expectancy over ten years longer than someone born in Latvia.
That one study feels like a paper that was engineered to make headlines and social media sound bites, not to be an accurate look at the entire population.
No. It's because large models have leveled off and commodified. They are all trending towards the same capabilities, and openai isn't really a leader. They have the most popular interface, but it really isn't very good. The future is the edge, the future is smaller, more efficient models. They are trying to define and delineate a niche that needs datacenters where they can achieve rents.
We already have an interplanetary internet called the NASA Deep Space Network. Understanding it's limitations and challenges is a good way to start thinking about this.
The GPUs themselves are named after norse mythology (utgard, midgard, bifrost, valhall), the driver names have been related to those (panfrost, panthor, and now tyr). And the whole theme comes from the fact that the GPUs originate from Norwegian company (later acquired by ARM)
