This reminds me of the experience VRML wanted to be 3 decades ago. The only difference is that links went to other worlds living on another server. But that seems trivial to implement with this.
A little late I know, but yes it was. The problem was the hardware didn't really support what VRML could do at the time. I had access to an SGI irix workstation and VRML (and 3d scenes) was still challenging for it back in the early to mid 1990s.
There's some work going on at the Metaverse Standards Forum to progress these ideas with Web of Worlds (https://webofworlds.github.io/). It's scope is a lot broader than VRML, it covers assets, identity, avatars, payments, etc.
I know a guy in LA who basically spent every waking minute of his life past year or two building a spec for this. Announced soon apparently. I’ve spent hours reading some of it.
I’d bet a lot of money that the NTSB will determine that the pilots’ failure to maintain clearance from terrain during a visual approach will be the primary cause with contributing factors of dark, moonless night and GPS jamming.
That one’s going to be on the flight crew, not the GPS jamming test.
I'm not going to argue that as it's always easy to blame dead people, but there's two different types of jamming.
One is to actually jam the signal IOW preventing reception. The other is to overpower the satellites' signals and replace them with your own. That defeats the doppler calculations of GPS needed for triangulation, and instead the receiver believes it's where the jammer wants it to be.
If the latter includes altitude information, then it's a huge problem.
If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? I'm not saying you're right or wrong here. I'm just saying there's a long history of coverups in the government and military.
If you can say, "oh we were only jamming" when in fact you were spoofing, well that's certainly a super easy excuse to hide behind.
In either case, asking for and being cleared for a visual approach (as the crew did and was) puts the onus on them to maintain continuous visual contact with the airport and to maintain their own terrain and obstacle clearance, which it’s safe to say they didn’t do.
>If you overpower a signal, is there a difference?
Yes, obviously. Losing signal on your GPS unit, and having your GPS unit tell you that you are in a different position than you actually are, are two very different things.
Also, since other aircraft reported GPS issues, that is evidence that would speak to jamming or spoofing. All three other aircraft reported a loss of GPS, not inaccurate GPS. Coverups are real, government conspiracies are real. But the completely evidenceless “I’m just saying…” or “isn’t it weird…” or “I’m just asking questions” is tiresome.
The potential for widespread radiation leakage from nuclear doesn't exist with wind or solar. I would think a terrorist would hit a nuclear power plant over any wind or solar farms.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone will remain uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years.
If refugees were allowed to live there, I wonder how many people would choose radiation over their current worse situations?
The article mentions people moving from Donbas (perhaps less inhabitable): "Following the outbreak of the war in Donbas in 2014, refugees from that conflict settled in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone or nearby".
Terrorists are only one piece of the issue. Corporations and "Responsible Adults" have done more to harm nuclear power in this country than any terrorist act has.
ConEd and Three Mile Island meltdown brought out a mass of normal people to chant "Hell No! We won't Glow!"
Hanford in Washington State.
San Onofre in So Cal.
Santa Susana Meltdown.
The reality is that everyone wants nuclear, but no one wants to live near a nuclear power plant.
This kind of "purity" argument is absolutely toxic. We've seen it with the vietnam paper comparing ORMs to SQL, etc. etc. Please stop this. You didn't hire him, you certainly aren't willing to give him a salary for him to live off of.
If you want to complain about LLMs used in software, advocate for a voluntary LLM disclosure published in the docs someplace, so people can make informed decisions.
I remember the Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine fights where people were gaslighting others for some unknown reason. People sharing dubious studies, with questionable results.
Meanwhile many of those people had a secondary agenda to keep the FDA from releasing the covid vaccine. America's Frontline Doctors (the group) promoted drugs over vaccines, etc.
Granted there was a lot of fear in the air back then. But this site is not immune from toxicity.
Yeah COVID really showed the darker side of HN. It was madness and still sticks out in my mind. Any question that didn't toe the line was shouted down from all sides. Don't forget Youtube was even censoring content then. It was a mess.
AI's can write deterministic code and have been doing so for a while. Humans do this as well. We write deterministic code with a goal, and generally it works out okay.
If you say that you can't trust AI because LLM's are statistical models, that's a true statement. Though it also turns out that we don't trust humans to write code correct either, which is why we have code reviews.
I was not trying to say that statistical can't generate deterministic code - I was wondering what tools I could use to make sure that they catch all the invariants when given a specification of inputs, logic layouts, and outputs. Certainly, feedback loops have to be involved - e.g. look at the lifetimes guarantees the Rust compiler gives - to make sure the answer is refined in iterative steps.
Yes, and that's the case I've seen as well. I would also say rust is also more heavy on symbols, which can make code look kinda hard to parse in places.
But weirdly Opus (N=1) in Claude Code does okay on it. Enough I can reliably have it write software and feel confident it works.
C/C++ has "compiles but may have undefined behavior". Golang has numerous "compiles but has incorrect behavior" (normally known as footguns). Meanwhile with Rust, if you get past the compilation step, bugs become much much fewer. (You can still have memory leaks, but those are easily traceable).
It seems like claude code can code Rust pretty well with Opus, and I've started moving codebases away from Golang to Rust at work with Opus. Spin up an LLM and it cranks on it for a while, and as a benefit, I get easy apis to build on with other languages.
And that's the problem with Golang really, not that it's a bad language per se (all languages have footguns), but that the language interoperability story is terrible. Meanwhile Rust and Python/C/C++ go great together like peanut butter and chocolate. And I love it.
Logic bugs in fairness happens in all languages. My unproven theory is that the fewer the foot guns, the better it will be for humans and LLMs to generate.
If Rust's footguns are limited to getting past the borrow checker, and memory links with their reference counted memory structures, I'm all for it.
Once I've fought the language once I typically won't have to fight it again. This is my problem with C++.
