I'd love to know how many people are verifying checksums, and sourcing the checksums themselves from reputable sources. An event like this seems like a prime opportunity for someone to insert something extra into one of the components needed and a proportion of users will pick it up, whether the security cure is worse than the disease of an unsupported OS.
Just as an example of this everyone points out Massgrave for activation on a version of windows I doubt many are properly licensed for, and one of the methods used relies on periodically talking to KMS servers they provide including some on a Chinese TLD [0]. Personally I'd be charitable and say it's probably well intentioned using the cheap resources they can get (there's no mention of donations on the site), but I wonder how many are aware of what is involved and this is just something they rush through to get rid of the big scary warning that windows puts up and tech news hysteria.
Add to that that the demand for imaging is not fixed. Even if somehow imaging became a lot cheaper to do with AI, then likely we would just get more imaging done instead of having fewer radiologists.
All the photographs from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo are public domain. They've been previously re-scanned with modern equipment and all of the RAWs are publicly available for free:
Thank you for that! It gives all the details. Interesting they used a HR-500. When I was scanning for Universal I was using a Hasselblad which has a much higher resolution. (although usually the film stock itself was way lower "resolution" than the scanner could image)
The first one has been adjusted to bring out the contrast and saturation while the one you link is an original scan. They brought a number of different swatches like that and took a picture of a calibration array at the end to account for the effects of space exposure on the film.
Doesn't mean it hasn't been altered before posting to juice the shadows and make it more vibrant. The one from NASA's site looks like an unaltered scan.
This seems like an odd error for the article to make. The great pyramid in Giza is nearly 50% taller, was built nearly 2500 years earlier, and still stands today.
Why does it “stretch the limits of what it means to be a building?” As far as I understand, the Giza pyramid was built block by block like any other building. Both building probably didn’t many people going to the office every day in them, although the lighthouse probably had some light keepers enjoying a better view than folks keeping the triangle gods happy.
The aquaducts and viae were built block by block too, but they're, I hope we agree, clearly not buildings. In my mind at least, the pyramids are too close to not having an inside relative to how big the outside is -- like how you wouldn't call a mine or a tunnel a building either.
Words are fuzzy concepts meant to convey ideas. Etymologically, I imagine the pyramids are "buildings" in that they're things that are built, like you're describing, but in my internal idea of what a building is, pyramids are too close to just being a carefully shaped mountain. There's also the issue of the fact that they weren't designed for _any_ living person to stay or visit, pushing it closer to a "monument" or "memorial" or something than a "building" in my mind.
Interestingly, if there were more internal space or if they were actively used by people (at any point in history) instead of just being left to the dead in the sands of time then it'd be a lot less clear-cut for me.
I'm not totally sure how other people use that word, but a (obviously biased) survey of the top 10 people I knew would care and respond quickly unanimously called the pyramids of giza "not buildings," the most common alternative description being a "monument."
Kufu's pyramid was actively used. It's the only likely reason for the design of it's portcullis, which doesn't defend as well against entry as previous designs, and is equipped for repeated opening. Plenty of information on the topic here:
Your reasoning is well taken and haven recently read Hofstadter's "Surfaces and Essences" the idea of what is a thing and what is not is fascinating.
Some of the criteria are questionable to me. For example, some monuments or memorials are still buildings, such as a mausoleum. Would your survey respondents deny a mausoleum is a building?
I could also ask myself, would I consider the Statue of Liberty a building? It is in active use; it has some usable interior volume; it is free-standing above the surface. And yet I hesitate to call it a building more than I hesitate to agree a lighthouse is a building.
Without exploring etymology, what strikes me as interesting here is that buildings are generally structures in which we live or work. Mausoleums and pyramids are interesting in this regard because they are the opposite: they are places for the dead. Perhaps it is this use rather than the actual form that is cause for debate in the description of building, given that a building can take so many forms even in our agreed definition of the term.
It's about what you define as "free standing" i.e. self supporting, which at least means no wire anchors, but arguably also means no pyramids because they are a sort of refined mound, no ziggurats, no cheating by excavating around mountains and putting a cap on it
Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. The article itself states that:
> "This is an observational study, and as such, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. The researchers also acknowledge that their study was retrospective, and they weren't able to account for dose or length of gabapentin use."
Not to be too meta, but it’s kind of boring to point out the obvious limitation of the research method.
“No casual link is proven” could be said about so much science, specifically medical science and other disciplines which limit research methods for ethical or practical constraints. So you end up with this comment in every front page post about an observational medical study. We could be discussing the actual research or its implications, instead of repeating a discussion on limitations of research methodology.
In addition, I find these types of critics to be a little too cynical even for my taste. There’s a whole group of people that feel smart by finding ways to dismiss scientific studies even when there is some actually interesting data being brought up.
On first brief reading I misunderstood the title to be causal, even though it only claims a link. I think it is worth pointing out for those who check the comments before reading.
Yes, these comments are necessary pushback against the habit of these disciplines to push interventions that don't work because their evidentiary standards are bad.
reply