You are confusing the internet, which became operational in 1969, with the web, introduced in 1990.
The US Government (specifically DARPA) started funding research into packet-switched networks in 1960, and funding by the USG for the internet continued uninterrupted until it was clear that the internet no longer needed outside funding in 1992 or 1993. Internet email dates back to 1972. Multiplayer online games began on the internet in 1979 (but they were text-only). Richard Stallman started using the internet to distribute free software in 1984.
Just to defend myself from the pedants out there: it was not called the internet till 1983. Before then the name alternated between ARPAnet and DARPAnet, but the userbase remained mostly the same across the transition to the name "Internet", and email, multiplayer games and other services (FTP, telnet) continued with only minor interruptions.
It's weird. On the one hand governments are devious and brutal oppressors of freedom, on the other hand governments are calculating masters of subterfuge faking moon-landings and implanting microtransmitters by vaccination, on a third hand governments are money-wasting incompetent douches who can't even tie their shoes, and on a fourth hand governments are morally bankrupt and do everything to get re-elected. A strange beast, with four hands, no less!
"Enemy is strong and weak" seems like a universal trait for any propaganda, I really have no idea why some want to say that it's a special fascism trait.
It is the exact line the US is taking on Russia. “Ukraine need help now or soon Russia will be in SOME_NATO_COUNTRY” and “Russia is loosing hard” at the same time, often in the same “according to government officials…” speak.
You frame this as a contradiction but a moment of reflection reveals that it's not.
If the US continues to aid Ukraine, then it's likely that Ukraine will be able to beat Russia eventually, due to the West's superior military equipment and tactics.
If the US stops aiding Ukraine, it will be much more difficult for Ukraine to beat Russia. If Russia achieves its goals and gains control of Ukraine, then yes, other NATO countries will be in danger.
Some of the "russia is loosing hard" news is propaganda of course, to raise the morale of people fighting for their homeland. I find it hard to get too mad about that.
Most people's "knowledge of government" is more like "knowledge of stereotypes & tropes about government".
Also, it can be more about the emotions of the humans doing the attributing than about the real governments. Just look at all the bizarre, contradictory, and fridge-test-flunking attributes which humans have attributed to gods and related mythical beings.
With a creature as big as a modern government, there isn't as much contradiction in such claims as it sounds, especially if considered with regard to the task at hand. Tasks differ.
If a modern government wants an $unpopular_group exterminated, they can probably do so with brutal efficiency, given the tools at their disposal and the overall balance of power between the state and individuals.
If a modern government wants to win a war, well, half of those governments lose, because the other side is usually way more powerful than a random $unpopular_group.
If a modern government wants to achieve some nebulous goal such as "defeat disinformation" or "root out racism", I would bet on a spectacular bumbling failure with a lot of graft every time.
I agree it's ridiculous (though not in the way you meant), but he is telling the truth. I don't doubt that there are facilities which are watched as closely as you describe, but not all are. I have worked in a SCIF where the only thing stopping me from bringing in a phone was the fact that I said I wouldn't, and I keep my word.
I added “most of the time” to match my experience. If the entire building is a SCIF, I’ve usually left my phone in the car. If it’s just a room in a building, they usually have lockers outside and use the honor system.
Lots of comments here about a 172 at these altitudes. Our field is at 7,500’ and has the continental divide with peaks over 14,000’ on one end of the runway.
A 172 can fly up here, but you have to be smart and very picky about the days you fly. We don’t fly with full fuel and take the back seats out in the summer.
If there’s enough wind over the passes, or density altitude is high, we stay in the valley. Mountain flying is an entirely different beast.
Oh yikes. Every 152 I’ve flown makes 172s look like Superman. They are anaemic even at sea level in the summer!
In that class of plane, 182s are my personal minimum up here in the summer. I have heard of very experienced pilots having close calls with unexpected downdrafts on otherwise calm days.
> What used to take a dedicated research team and millions of dollars of compute (to play professional go), can now be done with a sub $1 gpt4 call (to do something like make strategy slides).
Is that an accurate statement, though? AFAIK, the Go-AI was hyper-specific to Go. I don’t think any LLM would approach the level of skill exhibited by those specialized AIs (much less provide valid moves for an entire game in my experience).
It’s really not that bad unless you really don’t want to be found. Most DMCA/copyright firms just do a basic investigation which stops at the IP AFAIK.
Mullvad and I’m sure other modern VPN clients have “kill switches” built-in that shuts down traffic if the tunnel isn’t on. You can also do a leak check before starting anything up.
Unfortunately Mullvad and the majority of VPN providers don't offer port-forwarding anymore, last year when I checked only a couple, maybe three remained...
Having wrote that, another option, under Linux with network namespaces and Wireguard it's possible to have a pretty fail proof VPN...
I find their error model to be off for my location. I'm in a mountain valley in Colorado, and forecasting the weather is like throwing darts at the wall (especially with precipitation).
We have no radar coverage, and the only "official" sensor I know of is at our local airport. It was recently upgraded to be somewhat accurate, but isn't operational about half the time. The most accurate forecast we have is the text synopsis from a forecaster in Pueblo talking about how it "might be stormy in the afternoons this week."
Our nearest city is a 2.5 hr drive, so we're in a pretty big gap of weather coverage!
Anyway - hope someone finds this interesting. I envy those of you with accurate weather! It has been interesting moving out here.
Something I learned only recently: Weather forecasts don't actually directly use sensor data. Instead, a physically consistent model is first fitted to all the available sensor data, and then the forecast is made based on the values that model produces. Doing it this way has the benefit that physically implausible sensor readings are given less importance, and the fact that this model can be sampled in regular intervals, whereas the sensors are all over the place (and often moving, e.g. in aircraft, which contribute crucial data).
Of course, higher density of sensors would lead to a better fit of the model to the real world, but there would still be no guarantee that the model would reflect the measured values exactly. I found that pretty interesting.
(And it's kind of funny to think about our own consciousness in this way, which seems to work somewhat similarly: we don't experience the actual 'sensor values', but instead we experience the output of a model our brain fits to those inputs.)
I think it depends on the shockwave. Maybe someone can math it out, but it’s like the sound leaf blower makes vs standing right next to a jet engine. I have never seen a shockwave on the ground behind a “normal” firearm, but it seems commonplace with artillery.
Ex artillery officer here, the shockwaves from firing artillery can be so powerful they can knock you off your feet if you're standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught unawares
Oh yeah, I don't think we're anywhere near "sample return" capability for an extra-solar object.
I doubt we're even near "impactor" capability, tbh. I think our best bet might be "catch up with something in the Oort somewhere around 2070, if we see something coming a decade ahead of time".
Never underestimate the ability of humans to throw something really hard ;)
I actually think if the object was on the right trajectory and we had enough time, that you could pretty much park an impactor in its path. You could probably do a lot of science based on the spectra of the resulting cloud.
I agree that gently landing and return a sample with that much delta V is out of our reach at this point. Maybe with enough shielding, you could park a second sample return vehicle in the path of debris.
I had a similar experience recently. Massive turbulence on a commercial flight low over the continental divide flying into Denver.
I personally witnessed 3 people vomiting, but I was all smiles the whole time. I am in small planes a lot, so kind of enjoy the bumps when it’s someone else’s job to fly now.
It did play a pivotal role in its development, but CERN also was there at the beginning!
The US arguably just deployed it widely first.