Readit NewsDeleted Comment
eh_why_not commented on Old Soviet Venus descent craft nearing Earth reentry leonarddavid.com/old-sovi... · Posted by u/Wingman4l7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_482
> Its landing module, which weighs 495 kilograms (1,091 lb), is highly likely to reach the surface of Earth in one piece as it was designed to withstand 300 G's of acceleration and 100 atmospheres of pressure.
Awesome! I don't know how you can design for 300 G's of acceleration!
Deleted Comment
eh_why_not commented on A proof of concept tool to verify estimates terrytao.wordpress.com/20... · Posted by u/jjgreen
The ChatGPT session he links [0] shows how powerful the LLM is in aiding and teaching programming. A patient, resourceful, effective, and apparently deeply knowledgeable tutor! At least for beginners.
[0] https://chatgpt.com/share/68143a97-9424-800e-b43a-ea9690485b...
eh_why_not commented on The Animals That Exist Between Life and Death nautil.us/the-animals-tha... · Posted by u/dnetesn
Why wouldn't seeds also be considered in the same category?
Seeds also do not change or exhibit life, and can remain in that state for years, even centuries. But then, with water, they start to grow.
Could it not be considered the same mechanism, except that as these organisms are simpler than seeds and retain their shape (ie do not grow and change) and it is possible for these microscopic creatures to revert to the initial 'seed state' then animated life repeatedly?
Seeds were also the first thing that came to my mind.
I've always found it fascinating that I could plant many spice seeds (e.g. mustard) as long as their container said "not irradiated", and they would sprout and grow just fine, several years after buying them. I.e. they are still technically alive, and can stay as such for many years, which is just amazing life resilience.
That said,
> ...except that as these organisms are simpler than seeds...
I wouldn't say any animal that can move around to be simpler than seeds. IMHO by any definition animals are a big jump up in complexity over plants.
Deleted Comment
I looked into donating to Mozilla, and (as always) the first question I asked was “what will this be spent on?”
It turns out it wouldn’t go to software development, so I did not donate:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/a...
Even worse, they’re spending the revenue they do get in wildly irresponsible ways.
The AI initiative makes no sense. Currently, dozens of industry leading groups are doing a great job converting unlimited Chinese govt grants, monopoly rents, and VC money into open infrastructure and open weights
Targeted advertising is fundamentally unethical, regardless of whether it respects privacy. Examples:
- A friend struggled with prescription drug addiction and repeatedly relapsed due to targeted ads.
- Entire industries are built on targeting people with gambling problems.
- Companies like Cambridge Analytica explicitly target mentally ill people to change election outcomes and dismantle democracies.
Anyway, I wish they’d spin off Firefox and related stuff (Rust made sense, I think FirefoxOS did too), and abandon the rest of their “mission”.
> I wish they’d spin off Firefox and related stuff..., and abandon the rest of their “mission”.
I wish the community (I don't have the technical skills myself) would fork Firefox back into a privacy-focused browser; strip out all the Mozilla "products" code that's snuck in it, and manage the development in a non-profit organization like how the Linux kernel gets developed.
(This is what I learned in school, for common-law-ish jurisdictions.)
What you said is true, if there's negligence or malicious intent you're generally liable. In tort. (Edit: also criminally liable as well but that's far off topic)
However, whether you sold it or gave it out for free does matter, because for sales of goods, there's also contract law involved, there's usually additional implied warranties about the product being "merchantable" (you see this word in OSS disclaimers as well), and generally you can't disclaim your liability if you sold the product for money.
If there's no money and no other considerations involved when you give away the apple, then there's no contract, so only the tort part applies.
Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time.
Again, IANAL and not legal advice.
> In tort.
New word for me.
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others
That is a strong claim. As someone who watched them drive around their neighborhood, you could easily tell Cruise was the worse driver compared to Waymo. When the 2023 incident occured, I was not surprised at all. They had difficulties with even the most basic of intersections. Waymo on the other hand has a much more natural driving style. Waymo has its issues, but not like Cruise. It drove like it was 15 and still in Driver's Ed.