I can almost guarantee you that by the time you need a survival assistant, you won't be willing to spend gasoline on generating electricity for your GPUs.
(It's helpful for shorter outages. But "survival assistant", I think not, unless you run a compound)
You keep your source tree on a separate file system with version control, one hopes.
So you only snapshot the rest. (And since your source tree is under version control, finding stray garbage there is straightforward unless you checked it in)
No, a moveable couch. One of the most comfortable cars ever. (It was designed to be a vehicle that farmers could use to e.g. transport eggs to the market - hence, soft seating and amazing suspension)
My dad has a Citroen B11 from -54 that he bought when he was young at the end of the sixties and has kept alive since. The design is from the thirties and revolutionized suspension at the time, winning races. Citroen has always been at the forefront of suspension development.
The one my dad has isn't polished and perfected in renovation, he uses it as his summer car and its got great patina. No exhibition car. He's around 80 now so he had it for 60 years. He took it apart and reassembled it completely at some point. Also drove it from mid Sweden to Italy and back with my mom.
It feels like going 200 kmh when you push it to 80 :)
It was also the ultimate gangster car for European film makers.
The Vichy-french cops use it in Joseph Losey's movie Mr. Klein, there are lots of them on screen at some point. Great film!
> Something most modern (and expensive cars) don't have because of endless cost cutting on the mechanical side.
No it's because Citroen had super nifty _non-independent_ suspension back then. Pushing the front wheel up would push the rear wheel down making the car feel like it's floating across bumps. Present in various forms on several models in the 70's.
Turns out linked suspension isn't great for handling and road feel at higher speeds. Modern cars are fast and heavy so these systems have fallen out of favor.
I wouldn't take the 2CV as an example of suspension that modern cars don't match, but Citroën's later hydropneumatic suspension[1] are indeed unmatched.
And it's heartbreaking to see the low resolution. I hope the author will explore the large catalogs of high resolution public domain/CC0 images available.
Because the core implementation is really, really nice. I just want to look much more closely.
Paris Musées, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Gallery of Art, Rijksmuseum are some sources I can think of - there are more, I'm sure.
And I _wish_ the super-high rez ones at https://artsandculture.google.com/ would fall on that list too, but I guess that's not the case.
It's meaningless anyway, unless you have a calibration approach the home page doesn't mention. Aligning a phone to within 10 arcseconds of where your scope is pointing is... ambitious :)
It would be easier if you could use an eyepiece adapter. I have no idea why the page claims "The field of view is typically too small for plate solving to work." for that approach - it works just fine with a FOV of at least 0.2 degrees or so, which is much smaller than what most beginner/intermediate scopes have.
And if you do have a scope with a smaller TFOV, I'd argue you're likely not the target audience for the app. (Yes, you can get there cheaply and as a first scope, but it's not the usual route)
Edit: I want to be clear it's not a diss on the app - it's great. Plate solving at that speed is pretty cool. I just wish it'd work at smaller TFOVs :)
So the reason that line of text is there is we designed AstroHelm to be mounted directly on the telescope facing the sky. We don't want our users to go to Amazon and search for "telescope smartphone mount", get an eyepiece adapter, and found that it doesn't work :)
As for why we don't support adding optics between the phone and the sky, there are a few reasons. The accuracy from phone's camera lens is good enough, and we don't want to introduce complexity. The plate solving algorithm also benefits heavily from knowing the field of view, which you get from phone's built in camera but need user input for custom optics. Finally, supporting smaller field of view means shipping a much larger star database which most users won't use, so it's just a waste of storage and bandwidth. Not to mention blind solving a small FoV would be very slow and not work interactively.
For alignment, we support two alignment methods. You can align it like a finderscope, i.e. aim your telescope at a distant treetop and drag the crosshair over it. Once you begin observing, you can also sync to the object, which should give you better accuracy.
Water pumped into a field only to drain back into the soil cannot be equated with "recycled". If the crop wasn't there, would it have been sensible to pump the water there for "recycling" purposes? Are we regularly pumping water into the middle of dry areas for no reason? Of course not. Almost all of that water is being effectively discarded and it's a huge waste, which, no, you do not see at data centres.
Something like 1% of corn grown in the U.S. is used to feed people directly. The majority of it is used to inefficiently make gasoline (via ethanol) or plastic, because farm subsidies make it profitable.
While ethanol requirements are a hand out to corn farmers, it’s false to say the majority goes into gas and plastic, an equal share (~40%) goes to animal feed.
And growing at that scale makes that 1% super affordable as a food source. all these 'we need AI data centers at crazy huge scales' people suddenly don't understand scale when it comes to feeding the brokies.
I never said that. The comment I replied to seemed to imply that water used to grow crops is used very efficiently, or at least as efficiently as water used for data centers. That is clearly not true so I objected. That is all.
I truly don’t understand how you could think that. It’s literally water, from the earth, to which it returns for recycling. Great that data centers “recycle” water, but earth is significantly better at that than google. Fun fact, water that evaporates becomes clouds and rain! Seems pretty infinitely efficient to me, unless you look at a tiny section of what is not a closed system.
Growing food on a scale that makes it affordable to and reduces hunger for the plebes? That's a waste according to AI bros. Good luck with your crime bots, no jobs, no real music, hunger for the masses propganda. Should be a real winner.
(It's helpful for shorter outages. But "survival assistant", I think not, unless you run a compound)
reply