NVIDIA’s marketing overhypes, but their technical papers tend to be very solid. Obviously it always pays to remain skeptical but they have a good track record in this case.

Precision for what? Knowing their cron job will fire? Knowing what was wrong with the commands they sent? Neither of those are crazy precise or ambiguous statements?

The only highly precise thing that needs to happen is the alignment of the antenna but that system has been working for decades already and has been thoroughly tested.

NASA tends to be pretty straightforward when talking about risks, and if they feel like all the systems are in working order and there’s a good chance we’ll be back in contact with it, I think it’s worth talking them at their word.

Like yeah, it’s impressive they can aim an antenna that precisely, but using stars to orient an object is a very very well understood geometry problem. NASA has been using that technique at least as far back as Apollo

Lol. The knee-jerk contrarianism online really gets under my skin, especially when it’s towards experts.

Like yeah, sometimes experts are wrong or systems don’t behave as expected. But framing that as some sort of erudite insight really bugs me.

“I hope the recovery system works!” doesn’t need to be rewritten as “Mmm yes. But what these engineers haven’t considered is the possibility that they are wrong”.

This is one of those things that sounds meaningful, but can be said about literally any problem in any system. Not all knowledge requires the same level of precision for confidence.

If the engineers at NASA who are familiar with the system say this is a known error state that will be fixed the next time the system designed to correct it fires on its set schedule, there’s not a whole lot added by saying sure, but what if they’re wrong?

It’s just restating the table stakes of existence.

Lol, whoops

Can’t believe Hot Fuzz hasn’t been mentioned yet.

It’s a remake that uses new, higher quality assets though, so isn’t an option in this case.

IMO, it’s always better to try. Worst case scenario is that nothing changes, so no worse than if you didn’t. The only sane choice in that kind of situation is to pick the one with a chance for improvement.

In my experience, giving a shit about what you’re doing has a bunch of positing knock-on affects as well. You just end up feeling better about yourself. In your specific scenario it sounds like trying would also afford you the opportunity to live a happier life, and that’s worth chasing. The world is fucked, but scientists keep saying they if we act soon it’s not so fucked they we’re past the inflection point to un-fuck it.

Haven’t seen acollierasto mentioned yet.

She’s a scientist with a PHD in Astrophysics and does deep dives on specific topics, generally from the angle of science communication and how it often fails that topic in some way.

Her videos are very simple and low production value, but packed with information. She’s a great communicator and you walk away from each video, not just with better knowledge on a topic, but also with a sense of where the holes in that knowledge are. Like where the limits of the metaphor being used to covey the topic to you exist.

Sure, but that assumes this manager would be happy with generic “medical stuff” as an answer…

Right, but if you’re request for denied for something medically necessary unless you revealed it, you went anyway (because it’s necessary), and then you got fired… That feels like it shouldn’t be legal (obviously that doesn’t mean that it isn’t).

I’m not sure it would be legal if they were forced to reveal medical information.

Part of it is how you engage with the media. I worked in film for a while and when I watch a well-made TV show, I’m constantly analyzing the shot composition, editing, and sound.

What lens is this shot on? Where is the camera placed? How is it moving? What does that say about this character or moment?

When does a scene choose to use it’s closest shot on a character? Why that moment and not another?

How is the story or scene structured and do I think that works? What order are they revealing information to us and why?

When the scene pivots, what are they doing with craft to underline that. How is the balance of power between the characters changing and how is that being visualized?

Whose scene is it? Is that choice surprising? When they chose to show a character reacting rather than the one speaking, why?

Are the actors making surprising choices in their performance? Are they playing big moments small or small moments big? What ticks are they giving the character? What are they trying to say about who this person is with all that.

Visual media, like any other craft, is filled with hundreds of intentional choices every frame. Taking it in doesn’t have to be a passive experience on the viewers part. We don’t listen consider reading a book passive, and watching a film or television series doesn’t have to be pace either.

Just like books, not all television has the same depth to it’s choices, but as you actively take in various pieces of media, you’ll start to get a feel for the level of intentionality sleeping was made with. Like Andor has a lot more intentionality in it’s craft than The Book of Boba Fett.

I’m not saying that it’s good to watch hours of TV every day, but the time that you do spend watching television need not be time that you’re brain isn’t exercising itself.

I think better algorithms wouldn’t be a waste of developer resources. At the end of the day, the post feed algorithm is the core product, IMO.

Figuring out how to lower the weights on highly active subs is a good idea. As is ranking smaller subs’ content appropriately.

For all it’s faults, Reddit’s algorithm was pretty good. There was always a decent mix of small and large subs on my feed.

Kbin’s post ranking overall seems better than Lemmy’s and that was a major factor in me choosing it as my home base.

Same situation as Relay for Reddit on Android.

Yeah, I bought gold a few times. I had no problem with “this content was so good it inspired me to give back a little to the free service we’re all using.”

I wouldn’t mind some equivalent for the fediverse honestly. Let me donate to the home server of a user who’s comment I thought was especially good.

I know you can donate directly, but I do think there was something about also making another user’s day that felt good about the Gold system. The service gets some fuel in the tank and the comment author gets a little boost to their mood. It was nice.

I agree it got way too out of hand when they moved beyond Gold though.

Oldie but a goodie.

You have to start somewhere. Most people are too scared of corporate retaliation, so it’s a situation where no-one wants to jump first and be left out in the cold if everyone else chickens out.

In that sort of scenario, it takes one group deciding to take the risk that can help tip the next domino.

I’m okay with a small bubble of randos as my Fediverse, I don’t need – or want – my social media to be “everybody”.

I’m in a discord with my friends and that’s pretty much all I need.

Sure, but having the legal standing in the first place is a good idea.

And secondly, if the licensing is done on individual posts and owned by the user, systematic disregard for that seems like it would be good grounds for a class action, which can be incredibly lucrative, and therefore attractive, to large law firms.