All it would need is a wi-fi antenna internally, and then it could connect to an open wi-fi network anywhere. And it's going to be pretty much impossible to avoid ever driving your car within range of some open network.
It would have to find an open Wi-Fi network that isn't gated behind a captive portal, which is very rare. Rare enough that most telemetry would be too stale to be useful.
Xfinity (Comcast) does the same, and the LG TV data leak demonstrated it joining these open “xfinitywifi” SSIDs to transmit telemetry home (edit: retracted, see below subthread).
While LG TVs send a lot of private data when connected to the internet, I'm not aware of any credible reports that they automatically connect to open or partner-provided wifi networks without a user choosing to do so.
It's certainly a threat to keep an eye open for, but it seems manufacturers haven't quite stooped to that low yet.
It has not been demonstrated actively in use, only that it is possible and trivial to implement. Statement with regards to it being demonstrated retracted.
I stand by the concept that any consumer IoT device could join these networks, and the end user would never know. The only legal solution to this problem statement is to physically disable the radio on the device if assurance is desired.
And just for comparison on that number, the entire Apollo spacecraft (command+service+lunar modules) was about 50 tons to lunar orbit. And that took a gigantic Saturn V to launch.
SpaceX is planning on launching the significantly more gigantic Starship daily. It's not there yet, but they're steadily grinding toward regular launches, and they supposedly are retiring Falcon 9 from commercial launches within the next couple of years.
And "From a technology standpoint, Tesla will have a car that can do full autonomy in about three years, maybe a bit sooner.". Uttered by Musk in 2015. So ... yeeeeaaah.
Musk has 10+ years of history we can go by that says: Nobody has to follow anything closely to know that he will just say whatever he wants to say and you should give a rats ass about it timeline wise.
Now, do not get me wrong: I got frickin' goose bumps when I saw the first Falcon touchdown. Goose bumps again when they did the first landing out in the open ocean. Of course I still love you! The pincers catching a starship booster were super awesome. Did I mention goose bumps? I am getting them as I write this, thinking back to those moments and now I want to re-watch all of those on youtube after I finish typing this.
But believing a single timeline prediction by Musk? No, forget it.
EDIT: haha, and yeah I did go re-watch and this is so super awesome when I got reminded of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&t=1s No this is not meant as a jab btw. I love that they have this up. This is what many of us do in software development. Just we don't blow up actual frickin' spaceships to do it "It's just a rapid unscheduled disassembly!" ;)
Can you tell me what the difference is between "technologically" and "safely" standpoint?
"Technologically we can do self-driving, we'll just be killing any person that happens to stand in our way" does not qualify even as "technologically" for me ;)
The technology has to take into consideration the safety part. Legal, sure I'll give leeway. If you've seen some of the stuff Teslas have done past that predicted timeline, then no, they really did not qualify.
There's a fun time loop here: The Star Trek Enterprise and the real-life space shuttle Enterprise were each named after the other. In real life, the shuttle was named after the Star Trek ship. In-universe, the first starship Enterprise (NX-01) was named after the space shuttle. [Edit: I remember reading that years ago, but can't find any official source saying so now, although the intro to the Star Trek Enterprise tv series does emphasize the shuttle.]
(Of course, both really come from a long lineage of naval vessels with the name.)
Wikipedia (FWIW) says that the fictional USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was named after the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6) rather than the Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101).
GP is referring to in-universe canon, where the NCC-1701 was conceived and constructed by Starfleet, long after the Space Shuttle program was obsolete.
Wikipedia articles are largely discouraged from using in-universe perspectives or content, as opposed to Fandom/Wikia/Memory Alpha.
The definition isn't fuzzy, we define a brown dwarf as an object that has undergone deuterium fusion.
The fuzziness is in the physical properties needed to achieve that. 13 Jupiter masses is generally the threshold where deuterium fusion starts, but that can vary: a brown dwarf composed of only primordial H and He would need a bit more, while one with some heavier elements from previous generations of stars will be denser and need slightly less. Rotation speed also matters: a faster rotator will experience centrifugal force and thus have less interior pressure.
And there is fuzziness in what we can observe, so sometimes we're not sure if an object is a brown dwarf. We may not know its exact mass and composition, and we might not be able to tell if it's radiating energy from deuterium fusion, or just from gravitational compression, or (in a binary system) if it's just reflecting light from its companion star.
The other reply gave good info, but didn't quite answer this. Once an object's core acquires enough temperature/pressure/density to start protium fusion, it will continue, not burn out. The fusion itself increases the temperature, and the produced helium is denser than hydrogen, so the core compresses more under gravity thus increasing the pressure too. So protium fusion creates its own conditions to continue, so there's no such thing as borderline stardom; once protium fusion starts at all, it will continue and it's now a red dwarf. Fusion doesn't begin or occur everywhere, it's still only at the core, but convection will eventually (10^12 year timescale) cause all the hydrogen to have moved through the fusing region.
Thanks; this is much more concise than I could manage.
I think the key idea is fixed minimum/maximum boundaries for a lot of astrophysical phenomena—stellar protium fusion, the Chandrasekhar limit, Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, etc.
I appreciated both yours and the parent's comment. I read the shorter answer first, which was accessible enough to a layman like me that I was left wanting more, which made reading your comment immediately after all the more satisfying.
It should have been obvious to me (fusion duh!) that the result of the fusion is a higher density material that then increases the conditions for the reaction to take place. Both comments were immensely helpful and interesting! Thank you.
It's low resolution at only 256 x 80, stretched vertically to the screen size.
It's only 16 colors so only 4 bits/pixel.
That comes to 10kb per frame.
A variant of Huffman coding gets it to 3.52kb per frame.
It's at 15 fps and is 12.5 seconds in length.
15 x 12.5 x 3.52kb = 660kb, which fits in a 4mb cartridge.
There is dithering to give the appearance of more colors, and it's done in vertical stripes rather than checkerboards because that compresses better. Then at runtime, every other scanline is offset by 1 pixel, and in opposite directions every other frame, so the dithering blurs back together to give the appearance of many more colors.
Second Reality was art indeed, but the GUS didn't make all that much difference for it. The soundtrack didn't have higher rate samples for the GUS's memory to hold or more channels for it to mix. Later demos and games did use these capabilities, but for Second Reality, the GUS sounded just about the same as a 16-bit Sound Blaster.
I seem to remember to have watched a recent comparison on YT between Second Reality using SB vs GUS, and I did appreciate an audible improvement with the latter, but it may have been a placebo -- I admit you may be right, as sources seem to confirm that the track used 8 channels that minimised if not outright eliminated synthesis differences. I am not an audiophile or audio engineer by any stretch so more informed people will have to chime in here, but what I had going for me then was the fact I never had a Sound Blaster to compare with directly. I think the fact my card died mere months into my purchase, kind of prevented me from forming a more objective opinion on the quality difference between it and SB.
On a system of that era, some scenes look far smoother with the GUS than SB16. With the GUS running, the CPU could focus on graphics because the audio was offloaded to the GUS. This was particularly true of the 3d flight scene.
There's a 7-minute version, with two more verses that aren't in the version you always hear on the radio. The one starting at 3:45 in that video is particularly powerful and chilling.
> Every now and then, I know you'll never be the boy
you always wanted to be. But every now and then, I know you'll always be the only boy who wanted me the way that I am. Every now and then, I know there's no one in the universe as magical and wondrous as you. Every now and then, I know there's nothing any better. There's nothing that I just wouldn't do.
Well, I never knew this till now:
> With 'Total Eclipse of the Heart', I was trying to come up with a love song and I remembered I actually wrote that to be a vampire love song. Its original title was 'Vampires in Love' because I was working on a musical of Nosferatu, the other great vampire story. If anyone listens to the lyrics, they're really like vampire lines. It's all about the darkness, the power of darkness and love's place in the dark.
20 cycles through the bag can be packed into exactly 56 lines and that pattern can be repeated forever. Such a solved game might not meet everyone's definition of best. Although for casual play it's great to have every piece coming regularly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_rotation doesn't say anything about bimodal. There's a formula with a relation between size and rotation speed, including the fact that smaller stars live longer and have more time to spin down, but it's nearly monotonic. Stars spin down because of their magnetic field exerting torque on their stellar wind, an effect that's much larger than any transfer of angular momentum to planets.
reply