The surface is dotted with holes, each with an orbital mirror that are used to create day/night cycles on the surface

To play devil’s advocate for a second - no-one is stealing anything, the code is still right where it was. If I willingly give someone a sandwich, did they steal it? Of course not.

There was a reason that PS chose FreeBSD, and it was because of the licence. If FreeBSD used the GPL then PS wouldn’t have used it, hence there never would have been a FreeBSD gaming OS either way.

Strong disagree. I ran non-ECC memory on my server and services would unexpectedly crash maybe once per week. Over the span of a year I had two databases get corrupted that cost me a lot of time to fix. I tried swapping sticks but it happened with all of them. I switched to ECC memory and the problems disappeared. I needed more memory anyway and the price delta for ECC was about $100. I didn’t have to swap CPUs or anything, AMD desktop CPUs and chipsets support it out of the box. ECC memory is absolutely worth it.

Not that I know of, at least not for our cubesat. The aerospace sector moves extremely slowly because of ‘flight heritage’ - basically, if it hasn’t been in multiple long-term space missions before then it’s an instant rejection. You might ask ‘then how does any new tech get into space?’ and the answer to that is ‘it generally doesn’t’. More amateur satellite developers like university programs tend to ‘move fast and break things’ but with an emphasis on ‘break’.

Besides this suborbital flight I haven’t heard of anyone using carbon fibre frames before. I’m not a chemical engineer but I would imagine CF composites may have issues with outgassing, compared to metals. Outgassing can result in volatile compounds leaving suspension under a vacuum and depositing elsewhere, particularly bad for camera lenses and solar panels and such. Since the frame touches basically every part of the satellite, the risk here is high.

The original comment couldn’t understand why people were ‘raising their eyebrows’ at the price. I said because it’s basically a luxury item. Whether there are other alternatives that are even less value doesn’t factor into it. That’s the ‘door in the face’ fallacy.

Regardless of whether a Rolls Royce is more or less ‘value’ than a Lamborghini there’s gonna be a whole bunch of people that are gonna look at that and say ‘why would you spend X times the money when it gets you from A to B just the same as a Toyota Corolla’. That’s the answer to the original question.

Only when people comment that ‘the price is normal, actually’, and that I ought to buy one because they’re so cheap.

If it’s priced like a racing motorcycle then you shouldn’t be surprised when people raise their eyebrows at the price.

Sorry dude, I’m not paying $100 USD for a controller. The last controller I bought cost me ~$30 USD (GameSir T4 Kaleid) and has everything I need, including hall effect sticks. The steam controller having cool tech like touchpads and a gyro and whatever else is cool I guess, but I don’t need or want that. No amount of stuff like that is gonna make me spend that much on a controller.

So yes, the steam controller price raised my eyebrows, in the same way that basically all first-party controllers do. They’re all crazily overpriced imo.

This is not uncommon for high-profile CVEs. For example, brokenwire.fail, heartbleed.com, spectreattack.com, etc…

A solar flare is just one example of many possible causes. There are plenty of other ones. You didn’t touch on any of the others so let me explain - NASA reports on small satellite missions show that about 40% of satellites experience at least partial mission failure within their lifetime. Studies have shown the leading cause of satellite failure is propulsion systems, responsible for about half of all failures. This is not uncommon at all.

Most altitude ranges in LEO still have debris from decades ago, the exception being below 300km, which is basically still in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, debris strikes have regularly produced debris that are flung into higher orbits, so even collisions between satellites in this range are dangerous.

Edit: I also forgot to mention, the five day estimate (now three days actually) wasn’t for a close-call, it was for a debris-generating event.

Collisions aren’t theoretical, near misses are so common that there’s an entire department at NASA dedicated to detecting them and warning satellite owners to adjust course, I know because we were contacted about a possible collision involving our cubesat. Prior to megaconstellations being deployed if humanity stopped adjusting satellite orbits there would be a collision within a month, now there would be a collision within 5 days. It’s only a matter of time until both satellites on a collision course don’t have the ability to adjust course (engine failure or no propulsion/fuel/comms). In the event of a Carrington-style solar flare there’s a good chance a decent percentage of satellites would be knocked out, making this hypothetical into a reality. Further, we can only currently track objects down to about 10cm, but NASA estimates suggest about 500,000 objects exist between 1-10cm in size in LEO.

It seems to be even higher, several studies suggest it’s closer to 50%:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c05002

Three different studies predicted emitted tire wear proportions (TWP and TRWP) of total emitted MP [microplastic] loads in the environment (both aquatic and terrestrial) for around 45%. (6,7,52) These calculations were mainly based on global, annual production data and matched the TWP proportions of around 40% in this study. However, since C-PVC was excluded here, a comparison of the percentages is not trivial.

AES-256 is fine actually. The best known quantum attack reduces key strength from 256 bits to 254.4 bits. The problem is that in order to use AES (which is a symmetric encryption scheme) you need to exchange keys using an asymmetric system like RSA, which is known to be weak to quantum attacks.

Another poster already mentioned that transuranics and other such byproducts tend to be very dense, so a swimming pool can in fact hold tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel. Also, ‘nuclear waste’ is a generic catch-all term that includes less radioactive material, compared to ‘spent fuel’ which is just the really ‘high-grade’ material.

The part about not needing enrichment is worth discussing, but we do have solutions to that already. There are entire classes of reactors dedicated to not producing weapons byproducts or needing enrichment using the same processes capable of generating weapons-grade material. The reason we see reactors that can make these materials so often is because many of the early reactor designs (many still in use today) were explicitly selected for use by the US government during the early days for their dual-use ability to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. Examples of proliferation-safe designs include molten salts and integral fast reactors, but there’s an engineering experience chicken-and-egg problem - they don’t get built very often because we don’t have experience building them. A new design like this will face the same challenges.

TL;DR: Combining a particle accelerator and a nuclear reactor to turn Uranium-238 into Plutonium-239, which then fissions. The reactor itself is subcritical, so if the proton accelerator turns off then the reaction stops.

The main advantages of the system claim to be ‘increased efficiency of fuel use’ since the uranium doesn’t need to be enriched, the ability to burn long-lived nuclear waste, as well as the system being passively safe.

The first point strikes me as an odd thing to focus on, since all nuclear reactors are already very fuel efficient, and if you want maximum efficiency then breeder reactors exist already, which produce more fissile material than they consume - you can’t get much more efficient than that. Fast breeder reactors are also great for burning up nuclear waste too, but they never really took off because, well, there isn’t actually much nuclear waste to use, precisely because typical reactors are already very efficient: A reactor might consume one ton of fuel per year. You could fit all the spent nuclear fuel humanity has ever used into a single swimming pool. I mustn’t be too critical though - any attempt to close the fuel cycle is good, I just don’t think it’s a really pressing issue. Lastly, being passively safe is cool and all, but almost all new reactor designs are, and attaching a particle accelerator to a nuclear reactor sounds like an expensive way of doing it.

All of that being said, I’m always interested to hear about new reactor designs, so I guess we’ll see how it goes.

New Zealand.

Our laws make carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon (in self defence or not) a crime - whether it’s a gun, sword, pepper spray, cricket bat, screwdriver, or lollipop stick. This makes sure that when someone robs a corner store the owner gets jailed for having a baseball bat behind the counter. It’s absurd.

The law not only doesn’t equalise your chances, it actively forces you to be at a disadvantage when defending yourself, and by the time any police arrive the assailant is long gone. Most criminals don’t have guns (except for the multiple armed gangs of course), but plenty of them bring bladed weapons, there have been multiple cases of machete attacks.

I’m all for gun ownership for the purpose of property defence. Including strong legal defences for home and store owners repelling assailants.

I don’t think just anyone should be able to go and purchase a gun no questions asked, it should probably be tied to some kind of mandatory formal training, e.g. participation in army reserves. It should definitely be more difficult than getting a driver’s licence (but I also think a driver’s licence should be harder to get than it is now. The idea that you can go and sit a written test and then legally pilot a two ton steel box in areas constantly surrounded by very squishy people is kind of absurd to me).

Here’s the generation statistics of the BN-800 reactor I mentioned before: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=451 It’s been operating at about 70% of it’s rated capacity basically since it was first turned on, that’s large scale power generation. Breeder reactors have been in commercial use for decades (see also: Phenix and Superphenix).

The simple reason why breeder reactors aren’t the default is because most reactors don’t need to be breeders. The two main upsides of a breeder reactor is a) breeding of nuclear material, which as I said before was only ever a concern in the very early days of nuclear power. We have thousands of years’ worth of fuel available now. b) The reuse of nuclear waste for additional power generation. Of course you have to have nuclear waste to reuse first, which necessitates many other, non-breeder reactors already being in use, so breeder reactors are usually restricted to countries that already have significant investment into nuclear power, like France, Russia, China, etc… If you don’t need to breed more nuclear fuel, and you don’t have waste to reprocess you might as well keep it simple and build a regular LWR reactor.

The Wikipedia page for breeder reactors has a whole list you can even sort by output capacity. For example, the BN-800.

There have been plenty. For example, the CANDU series of reactors developed in the 1950s and 60s. Breeder reactors were quite popular during the early days of nuclear power, as it was initially thought that there was maybe only 100 years’ worth of (easily accessible) nuclear material on earth, rather than the thousands (or tens of thousands) of years’ worth we know of now, due to both more reserves being discovered and also easier methods of fuel enrichment being developed. The fact that breeder reactors have fallen out of favour due to abundant fuel reserves certainly says something.

Breeder reactors produce more fissile material than they consume.