i'm amazed at the transcription quality here. i spent a couple minutes listening, just in awe at the often nearly unintelligble crackling over the speakers, and then a half second later it prints a transcription that seems totally plausible to what i just heard, but without the transcription i don't think i would have been able to understand it.
I've honestly never understood how pilots or the tower are able to understand anything that's happening over the radio. Not only is there always constant static and interference, but they all speak in short rapid fire bursts that even beyond the lingo and shorthand is hard to process. I'd never be able to get a pilot's license.
90% of radio communications is standard and expected.
If I get the call sign and a few key words, I can normally figure it out. For the most part you kinda know what people are gonna say before they say it, or at least have it narrowed down to just a few possibilities. You also just get an ear for the narrowband AM sound after a few hours.
“(Garbled) n123a (garbled) joining (garbled) one three” heard at an untowered field is going to be “local traffic, Cessna N123a is joining the downwind leg for runway 13.”
Or if you’re on final approach and the tower calls you up, there are really only a few things they are going to tell you, most likely is “Cessna 123a cleared to land”.
Plus, I’m guessing you have o my listened to very busy feeds at commercial airports. Students at smaller airports will often announce that they are a student, and controllers and other pilots will try to slow it down and give them a little extra room and time.
No idea how AI does it, but I assume it’s not too hard since there are essentially unlimited hours of recording to train on.
That feels like a recipe for a mixup due to going by assumptions rather than facts. Given all the regulations, rules, checklists, etc. otherwise present in aviation, I'm surprised. But I guess there are not that many known cases of serious mistakes in comms?
Sounds that way, but it isn’t an issue in practice. The first example I gave where you piece together garbled reception is an example of an advisory, non-required communication at a non-towered airfield. The communication isn’t required and just serves as a backup to standard VFR flying. At some fields you aren’t even required to have a radio in the aircraft. Reading between the garbled lines isn’t an issue for these purposes.
There’s redundancy built in for critical comms. For critical messages (e.g. “cleared to land”, ) the receiving party reads back what they heard. If a controller doesn’t get the right readback with all of the details, they will correct it. You do occasionally get errors that aren’t caught, or someone that does a readback and then has a brain fart and does something that they aren’t supposed to, but that’s inherent to humans in the system.
Also, keep in mind that what you hear on liveATC is not what the pilots and ATC hear. Typically, you get much better reception because you are either on the ground transmitting to an antenna on a tower right next to you, or you are transmitting from thousands of feet up. It’s not unusual at all to hear crystal clear radio calls from 100 miles away.
The comms system is surprisingly robust, especially since it can degrade gracefully. AM is much easier to receive at low signal strengths, if there’s some sort of emergency in the tower, they can and have just sent a guy out with binoculars and a handheld to get people on the ground. If you have an electrical issue in the plane, you can grab a backup handheld out of a bag, etc. AM radios have been standard since WWII so all planes have the same equipment. Pilots and aviation regulators think a lot about safety, but replacing the aviation radio system is just not something that comes up.
In the air it’s usually way more clear than the stuff you hear on liveatc etc. if I’m 5k above terrain, have a nice radio and antenna, I have a solid 50+ mile range with anything local being quite clear. Ground recorders have way worse reception unless someone rented space on a tower.
this seems like a post-rationalization. when an app generates a file to send to another service, it's usually a good practice to timestamp that. unless you're severely bandwidth-constrained, putting a timestamp in your protocol almost always solves more problems than it creates. "we shouldn't include a timestamp because it might at some point trigger a date-math bug" is just not how software gets built.
if this bug was caused by a lack of a datestamp instead of the inclusion of one, you'd be here leaving comments about how silly it was they didn't include something as standard and widely useful as a datestamp, and that of course that was necessary.
A datestamp is a privacy risk. If it's optional, don't include it. If it's not optional, it's a spec bug! It should be optional. Or even better, removed entirely.
that's not AI-free search, that's blocking the ai mode from search.
If google signs a contract to deliver AI-free search, it means they have to deliver a search product that doesn't use ai to generate any of the search results they show, not just inside the ai-mode box but anywhere on the page. Which obviously is not a thing they want to guarantee.
In general, schools don't care if "AI is used to generate" search results. They care if a chatbot is shoved in front of students' faces every time they google something. The issue is the UI, not whether AI is used anywhere along the chain.
you're probably mostly correct, but given the current discourse around AI there's definitely at least some subset of people involved in pushing schools to go AI-free that really mean entirely AI-free.
And if google delivered a chatbot-free experience to a school for a contract that said AI-free, they're looking for the inevitable outrage when somebody finds out their search results are being generated in an AI datacenter.
Expensive for whom? Class action lawsuits are typically handled on contingency. If the lawsuit fails, the lawyers eat the time cost, and if the lawsuit succeeds, they are paid out of the funds paid by the wrongdoer.
False. You are describing plaintiff legal fees only. Lawyers do in fact charge a lot of money when you are sued and you generally do not get that back if the case has any merit.
That's why I asked "to whom?" in my last comment. Most people don't pity big companies like Google — who in this case, was arguably the wrongdoer — for the legal fees they have to pay to defend class action lawsuits. They have stables of in-house attorneys, and a meritless case wouldn't cost much to get dismissed.
this happened to me earlier this year. no communication or anything, just "you've been banned" and then a few days later it started working again, so i guess my appeal was successful.
but basically turned me off using it at all, i need my google account more than i need to use antigravity.
when you're on a $100/mo plan, this is absolutely true. when you're paying API rates to deliver a product to people at scale and the difference between $1 and $0.03 per response is the difference between a feature being viable or not, you realize there's lots of things that haiku is fine for.
is this something that's actually happening, or just something elon told investors at his optimus event with the obviously fake robots a couple years ago?
The quest for a good voice command tool for developers (and others) has been on for many years. Dragon and Talon are 2 that immediately come to mind, mainly for the "others".
my experience on apple devices in alberta hasn't been any better, microsoft is just the bigger target for articles like this because more people use it for scheduling meetings.
it took around 40hrs for my apple watch and my iPhone to start agreeing on what time it was.
reply