I prompted chatgpt to make it more human and casual:
huge props on launching! Seriously love how you’ve brought back the whole Ohlife vibe but made it way easier with WhatsApp. No apps or sign-ups? Genius. Plus, those daily reminders and little throwbacks? Such a nice touch—perfect for sparking some good ol’ nostalgia. You can totally see how much you care about this, and I’m hyped to see how people, especially the Ohlife fans, will dig it. Wishing you all the luck with it!
---
I personally wouldn't have realized the above was written by AI. YMMV
My point is, "reinforcement learning" to make it not sound like AI is a little bit pointless at this point, IMHO.
> Congratulations on launching 'Today Has Been'! It's truly inspiring to see how you've revived the essence of Ohlife with a modern twist by integrating it with WhatsApp. The simplicity of journaling without the hassle of app downloads or registrations is a game-changer. I particularly love the daily nudge and the 'blast from the past' feature—it's a wonderful way to encourage reflection and nostalgia.
> Your passion for this project is evident, and I'm excited to see how it will resonate with users who miss the simplicity of Ohlife. Wishing you tremendous success on this journey!
--
rephrase it so that it doesn't read like a standard AI generated text. use creative wording and add a typo or two. it should feel like a human wrote it. super, super casual.
Reliability, and depending on your work load the ability to use it commercially. Your house isn't going to have any meaningful reliability for either the network or power.
Your house will have one connection to the outside work, the DC should have multiple for redundancy (In case a digger goes through your network connection), and same for power any good DC will have their own redundant power supplies (Batteries, generators etc).
And if your server is serving a lot of traffic, your consumer home ISP might not be too happy about it. Theres a reason they split plans between home and business.
> Your house isn't going to have any meaningful reliability for either the network or power.
Not really a serious argument, but maybe worth looking at this these days. Mostly because I think as engineers we all have the desire to hit 100% uptime and reliability when in a lot of cases "close enough" might be a lot further than you think.
On the power end, a lot of people are getting to some form of local generation and storage (e.g., solar + batteries). Small backup generators aren't entirely unheard of. And on the network end, I'm probably not the only person that went to multiple connections when my ability to earn income became tied to my ability to be online from home.
As it sits right now, my power's not the most reliable in the world but because of that I already have a fair sized generator and a lot of fuel stored on-site (~5 days of gasoline, ~10 days of propane). I'm directly off of a fairly regionally important power line, so I'm usually fairly high up on the priority list during any major outage. (I mean, not "hospital" but if my power's out so are tens of thousands of others generally.) My grid power's rarely out for that long, and my local power even less since I have the generator. If I finally got around to adding some solar and storage to bridge between grid going down and the generator firing up I'd be able to pretty comfortable ignore power outages for over a week before I started needing to worry about making trips out to dump fuel in the generator or calling for some propane.
As far as connectivity, I've got three connections across two providers. All my traffic hits a real data center first so I can bond the connections (because residential) then flows to and from my house. One of the providers is wireless so the only single point of failure for cut lines is a few feet in front of my router.
I'm well aware this gets nowhere close to the reliability of a data center. I wouldn't run anything safety or life critical this way. I wouldn't run anything making a substantial amount of money this way. But there's a lot of stuff that fits in below "successful SaaS" and "life critical" that I think could tolerate an hour of downtime here or there that would get along just fine like this. And even if you think "well, you're clearly an insane person no one else is going to do that" I think there's still lots yet that could tolerate a day or two of downtime every year or two just fine. There are a lot of smaller services out there that businesses rely on that are hosted in AWS but aren't much more reliable than if they were running in someone's basement and they survive just fine.
I wonder if it would be possible for SpaceX to set up something for telescope operators to request a "dark spot", turning off the transmitter for x amount of time at a specific position. I imagine the satellites will have to know roughly where they are in space.
Doesn't prevent the issue of optical telescopes being able to see them, but at least for RF telescopes it should solve that problem
Not at all - they launch rockets right next to a wildlife habitat, and it's not like they are really that useful, compared to scientific/exploration launches. Yes Starlink internet is 'cool' but is it worth the damage?
How much is an interesting question because it is difficult to quantify - There is no "unit" for ecological destruction. I said above, i think it is worth paving over the entire estuary, which is about 2 square miles.
If I were to put an upper limit on it, it would probably be 100x that.
As for justification, I think that the common value of the local habitat is miniscule, and the common value of SpaceX is immense.
some small number of people use the wild refuge for bird watching and the like, meanwhile SpaceX internet provides millions of people access to education, telemedicine, employment, and/or entertainment. Further development will help advance global Astronomy and encourage space exploration.
You say this as if the refuge is a thing that lives in isolation and isn't connected to the broader environment in which it exists.
Do you think that it is possible that the destruction of some distant ecological system could destroy this one? And by extension do you think that it is possible that the destruction of this system could destroy another one?
I have no misconception of isolation. I studied postgraduate marine biology before following the money into biotech, and have about a dozen friends in state environmental agencies.
There would be some consequences, but within limits. The earth wouldnt stop spinning and explode. There would likely be some marginal impact to migratory birds and local fishery, but it wouldn't cause mountainous in Tibet to go extinct or anything like that.
Anyways, Costal wetlands usually change constantly under natural conditions. Most of our static wetlands are already extremely unnatural, because cities and states have gone to great lengths to modify them in some ways and keep them from changing. They are about as natural as central park or a zoo.
Not for me. If natural outcomes of type X and frequency Y are tolerable to us and we don't fight them, it indicates that this sort of outcome should be tolerable in general.
the method of action is an important variable as well.
the wildlife of a wetlands that undergoes a drought has a chance to spring back once reintroduced to water.
the wildlife of a wetlands that is chemically poisoned will not spring back to life without either lots of time or remediation efforts.
'on the box' both situations look the same : no wildlife -- but they're not.
The reasons matter, more data than just statistical prevalence is needed here in order to assess the damage realistically in the attempt at scoring man-made disaster against natural disaster.
I find the recent religious switch towards worship of nature somewhat disconcerting, even though I like nature in general.
But one particular short stretch of Texan shore vs. space abilities of humanity as a whole doesn't seem a balanced problem to me. Starlink saves Ukrainian lives in battle and can save other lives in distress. It can also make countless human lives more comfortable, and a lot of businesses viable or more profitable. It is not a 'cool toy', it is one of the upcoming communication backbones of the planet, and it even protects some natural lands from being dug up, because it doesn't need laying of long cables across the wild.
I just cannot see how this could be considered as important as convenience of a few sea birds, who, if they are bothered by the launches, can fly a few miles away and be content again. After all, there is abundant wildlife around Cape Canaveral after 60 years of intense space activity - it is not as if rocket launches are a horrible Holocaust of all living things around. Nature adapts to changes. It always had.
Two wrongs don't make a right. You won't help damaged/destroyed nature in some places by banning relatively harmless activities in completely different places. You will only harm net human prosperity.
Spaceflight isn't anywhere close to, say, mining, when it comes to its negative effects on nature, not even 1 per cent as bad. And we still cannot simply ban mining if we want to continue our civilization.
I'm not going to argue with you on this particular case as I don't know enough about the local area and can't be bothered to do any research.
However, my comment was really to provide context for some of the sweeping statements you were making, e.g.
> I find the recent religious switch towards worship of nature somewhat disconcerting...
> ...a few sea birds, who, if they are bothered by the launches, can fly a few miles away and be content again...
> Nature adapts to changes. It always had.
If you want my two cents, I think people are turning to nature because:
1. It's threatened with virtual annihilation by the externalities of our hegemonic economic system.
2. Many people have to deal with their (natural) human nature being ground down as they are forced to file off their rough edges to fit into the position of cogs in an uncaring economic/totalitarian machine. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel relatively powerless to do much about their internal personal situation, but see that analogous processes are destroying the natural world outside of themselves and feel that's something worth fighting for too.
Way more useful to humanity than the exploration launches. At least currently in the timeframe of a human life.
It’s been game changing for a few friends and family. Perhaps the science missions may be game changing to their great grandchildren but that’s gonna be a tough sell to many.
There is (was?) some degree of coordination with personnel at the Green Bank Telescope and the VLA related to the Ku beams transmitted down from the satellites. However the newer satellites have higher power transmitters and even the sidelobes may cause undesirable interference.
The interference cited in this article appears to be on a much longer wavelength and is likely due to the larger electronics payloads on each satellite (flight computers, routers, "cloud servers", misc DoD payloads, etc). The cost to mitigate this may be quite expensive, in terms of time, cost and payload mass.
Fundamentally there is a tension between a scientific community that is concerned about interference and a business in which revenue may be correlated with keeping orbiting Ku transmitters powered up as often and as cheaply as possible. This is unfortunate as there is some interesting science that may be observed at these wavelengths.
That might not even be necessary because the satellites are transient phenomenon with predictable trajectories. This makes it more a matter of data cleaning to remove them.
Imagine someone walking through a log exposure photography shot. You can filter out the frames or pixels with some extra work.
Nit: Lucky imaging requires multiple frames, not long exposures. In short, you need multiple frames to be able to reject any. Long exposure times are still important for astronomy because they improve the noise floor.
In capitalism thats a wanted and necessary feature, under a socialist system thats an unfortunate accident. I gotta admit, it very likely happened because workers republics had to do what needed to be done to survive relentless attacks of western oligarchies.
I read five days a week and thought to myself, christ thats quite a lot. 70% of your week, then I remembered I do that. It is crazy to think you spend that much time in the office.
Syncronym Depence comes to mind once you add in all the bells an whistles like its control module and fountain module, easily well over $11k
https://shop.syncronorm.com/5-software
reply