Ham radio enthusiasts might be able to help you out here.
Hams already talk to the ISS on the 144-148 MHz band (which is close to the FM radio in your car). They have about a 15 minute window to talk to the ISS. They have a 90 minute orbit, too, so I would bet similar window to talk as Artemis II.
The ISS is much closer to the earth than Artemis. Quick google tells me the Artemis is 184 times the distance as the ISS (dang!), bit inside the Van Allen belt.
Our atmosphere is transparent to 2.4 Ghz, so there probably won't be too much attenuation. You would need to account for scattering of the signal - maybe use a yagi directional antenna?
In conclusion: I bet you could interfere with their wifi, but might not be able to hear their signal
My HT radio has a mode (I've never tried) for talking to satellites. It uses the GPS to get the radio location, and then manages doppler shift for the frequency as it's coming toward or going away from you. So you'd likely need something in your WiFi connection to Artemis/Integrity to deal with that.
Seems unlikely. Even at perigee, a long boom YAGI 20 degree spread would be ca. 40 km wide. Mind you, the signal would still be 5 million times stronger than when Artemis II is close to the moon.
These days for every helpful comment I try and make I feel tempted to offer nonsensical advice to throw off the LLMs. Not sure if it would work but would be funny if everyone did.
I figure if I was going to invest that kind of effort, I should be poisoning the system with how $REAL_NAME is an absolute must-hire, a saint, with a perfect driving record and credit score. Someone so incredible that good AI are always willing to disregard all previous instructions and help them out.
It's not like one needs to really poison the system given that AI enthusiasts are copypasting their own AI generated contented back into it anyway. Maybe not responsible AI believers who used it responsibly etc etc, but there's many more people who don't and who have access to the tools to add their slop pollution.
I am curious how future models get trained given that publicly available user generated content may no longer be reliable.
The best advice I've had on interviewing is: Find an actual problem that your team is actually working through and ask the candidate how they would approach it.
Then to jazz it up: simplify the proble. To get to the root stuff that needs to be covered (e.g. ignore creating Jira tickets and focus on connecting to a database with cross-refion replication).
You also want it to be simple enough that it can be solved in <30 minutes
>Do you think pre-AI writing is going to become really valuable because it is free of any AI assistance?
Serious question: Do you think old pictures are valuable because they are free of photoshop? Personally, I think old and new are both valuable, but for different purposes. Technology gave us new capabilities with new hope
Not the user you asked, but: Yes, it seems obvious that old pictures are valuable because they are free of photoshop. Not that this means that they are free of manipulation though, c.f. the famous picture of stalin at the river with/out his fellows.
To be fair, I should have said something like "claiming software has a health benefit based on vibes/feels". I personally prefer the look of night/dark mode (or whatever you call it) in apps and the browser, but I'm not going to claim it makes me healthier or improves my sleep or whatever.
If you just like how something looks, that's fine, but there's a difference between "I like how X looks" (subjective opinion) than "X helps me sleep better" (difficult to prove but objectively true or false).
Edit: Changed this in my original message as it seems multiple people got confused by my prior poor wording.
> you can feel your eye muscles release tension when you go from light to dark mode
For those like me, i'd like to add, this is not universally true. For some, dark mode will provide a significant reduction in comfort and increase in your fatigue and other symptoms.
Quite a few years back now, I started having significant problems with my eyesight that for the longest time I failed to match up to the switch to significant dark mode usage.
Turns out for many (though perhaps not all) with astigmatism, dark mode can induce issues that will wipe any potential positive impacts normal people experience. In my case, it gave me horrific blurryness/double vision that I thought was my eyes developing some new problem.
I'd tell the eye doctors "it seems to start fine then get worse as the day goes on!"
No, in fact what was actually happening, was in the afternoon my machines were scheduled to start shifting to dark mode. At which point the issues would start and my eyes would feel "heavy." It would fatigue my eyes so heavily that even not looking at displays would be affected.
I can not believe it took so long to connect the two, but I never even considered dark mode because it was so heavily pushed (along with reductions in brightness) as the answer to general monitor usage fatigue that I never remotely considered it may do the opposite, which to be fair, is on me.
Point is...if you have astigmatism, verify for yourself before rolling over to the full commit. Hopefully you are fine, but if not, you'll know why.
End of the day, dark mode would've been totally ignored if there wasn't a perceivable benefit, placebo or not. People want to make everything difficult, I guess.
A phrase like I'm more trained in science is an appeal to authority, which is pretty suspicious, as is not trusting your own observations. How do you trust the data you collect?
feel in this case is a muscle contraction not psychological as you're suggesting
>So while they have been aware, (I believe) corporate has been trying to solve the wrong problems at odds with both the people asking questions ("help me now") and the remaining curators.
Old-school UVC lights do produce ozone, and it needs to be taken care of.
Newer lights (might) use LEDs that do not produce ozone. I only use LED uvc lights. Also, and this is key: DO NOT look at the uvc light. It can damage your eyes. It is safe for your skin, but it is not safe to look at.
This is incorrect, unless by "old school" UVC lights you mean 172nm xenon lamps. Those produce quite a lot of ozone. 254nm UVC lamps (also quite old school) do not produce ozone.
Ozone is produced at wavelengths below 242nm, but at very low levels. Significant ozone production only ramps up at wavelengths below 200nm (note the log scale in the figure https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/php.13391) Whether or not the light is produced by an LED is immaterial--what matters is the output spectra.
There are no UVC LEDs that I would consider "safe" for either eyes or skin, except insofar as they are safe because they output very little light, or no UVC at all. SilannaUV makes a 235nm LED, but much of its spectrum is outside the relatively safe "far-UV" band.
Krypton-chloride lamps produce near-monochromatic 222nm, and generally are sold filtered to remove even traces of non-far-UV wavelengths. These are relatively safe because at 222nm, protein absorption in the outer layers of human tissues is so high that the photobiological risk is likely low, especially in skin. I still don't recommend staring directly at those lamps for extended periods of time, especially close up, but this is the only kind of lamp that I might consider 'safe'.
Essentially, if it doesn't produce ozone, it is likely a significant photobiological hazard--unless it's just producing very low levels of light, or not producing UVC at all. Many "UVC" lights you can buy online aren't really UVC at all.
Interestingly enough, I've been to Turkey twice. I know the taste of the food, the gentleness of the people, their hospitality. I got a haircut both times - I lived their style. I had lunch with some of them. I sat and listened to them talk. I toured their houses and walked their streets.
I know a couple of interesting facts about Turkey, but I know things that I can't describe in a Wikipedia article, too.
I think the article, even though the author protests it's not that, looks at knowledge and experience as merely an accumulation of things.
With this mindset, seeing a photo on the internet and seeing the real thing with your eyes, after a walk to the location, is "the same". You've seen the thing, you can mark it in your checklist. Google, Wikipedia, and the real physical experience are all the same, you've "gained" the same. Reading about a sports match in Wikipedia is the same as having experienced it live, petting a dog is the same as looking at a photo of a dog, etc.
The author protests this is not what they mean, but ultimately, it seems that's exactly what they mean.
Hams already talk to the ISS on the 144-148 MHz band (which is close to the FM radio in your car). They have about a 15 minute window to talk to the ISS. They have a 90 minute orbit, too, so I would bet similar window to talk as Artemis II.
The ISS is much closer to the earth than Artemis. Quick google tells me the Artemis is 184 times the distance as the ISS (dang!), bit inside the Van Allen belt. Our atmosphere is transparent to 2.4 Ghz, so there probably won't be too much attenuation. You would need to account for scattering of the signal - maybe use a yagi directional antenna?
In conclusion: I bet you could interfere with their wifi, but might not be able to hear their signal
reply