There are large organizations at Meta focused on basic research & design (FAIR, Open Compute, PyTorch, etc) and giving back to the community. Not everyone is maximizing revenue.
Like all of us these people make a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to their choice of employer and how much it suits their purposes and personal priorities like giving back to the community.
This is just another factor they’ll have to grapple with in their analysis.
I’m sure some of them will find it a bridge too far but not enough to really matter. The work will continue as will the expansion of Meta and the negative externalities that it produces.
> “Our test facilities can’t reach the combination of heat flux, pressure, shear stresses, etc., that an actual reentering spacecraft does. We’re always having to wait for the flight test to get the final certification that our system is good to go.”—Jeremy VanderKam, deputy manager for Orion’s heat shield, speaking in 2022
The Orion heat shield is sixteen feet across. NASA's test facilities can only test small material samples in these facilities, not capture how the entire heat shield will behave.
There were 19 successful unmanned Dragon 1 missions before Crew Dragon, and an unmanned Crew Dragon mission before the first crewed one (actually two missions, but one didn't reenter from orbit). The heat shield material and design was essentially the same and so there was a great deal of flight heritage.
In particular I don't think its physically possible to test Orion components in flight very many times. It relies on SLS which chews through 4 space-shuttle engines every time, which even with unlimited money I don't think you could acquire a large supply of very quickly.
Not only that, but it has to reach much higher altitudes in order to also reach the much higher re-entry velocities that it will have IRL. That makes testing Orion very expensive. Testing Crew Dragon was much much cheaper.
SLS is required to get Orion to the moon, but there are other options for LEO tests. Exploration Flight Test-1 was performed on a Delta IV Heavy, and Falcon Heavy is also capable of launching Orion to LEO (and now New Glenn, although that wouldn't have been an option at the time NASA needed to start work on another Orion test).
By having a much higher launch cadence and then analyzing the flight hardware afterwards.
Also, they don't have anything human rated going beyond LEO. Coming back from the moon means you're going significantly faster and thus need a better heat shield
> Nothing stops you from doing this with manned flights except that it's not culturally accepted currently.
Trained astronauts are also really 'expensive'. In addition to the innate worth of a human (which you might chalk up to culture), there's also lots of opportunity costs of what the astronaut could otherwise do, and replacement cost of their training etc are pretty high, too.
> But maybe that changes as NASA will demonstrate with artemis 2 and 3 (which will then use another newly desiged heat shield).
It would arguably be better (or less worse) if they did this deliberately and designed the mission from the ground up to be pushed to failure and to learn as much as possible from that failure. Instead of just accidentally sacrificing people.
Thanks. However note that the site dropped electrostatic filters to simplify things. My understanding is that for non-static-affected particles merv-13 would obviously out perform merv-8 for smaller particles. However the promise of electrostatics is that the materials in the filters create a e-stat field that makes them more efficient re: particles like dust. Certainly the two electrostatic merv-8 filters on my hvac blower capture A LOT of dust (fine particles). Since you clean them in a bathtub by filling the tub and washing the filters thru them, I can attest that there is A LOT of really fine particulates being captured.
The lead line for this article pretty much reflects the reason for my post: "The air purifier marketplace is an apt metaphor for how a particle must feel while being trapped in a filter - at every turn there's a new acronym or regulatory agency or purifier type."
Are you talking about an electrostatic precipitator (metal plates with a power supply) or an electrostatic filter (fibers with a surface charge)? Electrostatic precipitators are neat, but there are basically no standards for them and they’re not cheap to operate. For charged fibers, I see no a priori reason to expect amazing performance or to expect them to remain charged after a bath. If they met MERV 13 standards, they would say so.
In any case, if you see lots of gunk, that’s not the hard-to-filter stuff. I can say, as the proud owner of a monstrous HEPA filter with a dirt cheap noting-special MERV 8 pre filter and an utterly boring metal louver before that, all continuously collecting outsize air, the louver gets a bit gunky, the MERV 8 filter turns black after a while, and the HEPA filter is indistinguishable from brand new. This whole system replaced an older “ISO ePM1” (yes, the manufacturer conveniently forgot the number after that, but it’s MUCH higher spec than MERV 8), and the indoor air quality as measured by a little particle sensor suggested that the ePM1 filter missed about 50% of the outdoor PM2.5, whereas the new system produces air that measures zero across all particle sizes. And that ePM1 filter did a fine job of turning black :)
Get a particle counter and test your system!
P.S. the HEPA system uses less power and will cost less to operate over time because it is HUGE but has the same flow rate.
Devil's advocate, but maybe ISPs should all inject ads to make a point. They make money, and anyone using HTTP gets taught a free lesson on what MITM means
> OpenNIC (also referred to as the OpenNIC Project) is a user owned and controlled top-level Network Information Center offering a non-national alternative to traditional Top-Level Domain (TLD) registries; such as ICANN.
Many big tech companies have inclusion training calling this question out as inappropriate on the grounds it provides an opportunity to introduce bias.
Sure, that's advised in interviews, where you're about to make a decision on someone's livelihood, hence the importance of reducing bias. That's a completely different context than in casual conversation at a social event.
In the same lines, don't ask anything. Everything is a bias. ie, What do they do? - Also a bias as they are engineer, or product, or sales, or whatever.
The signage claims the _image_, i.e. the pixels, is deleted but makes no claims about embeddings, biometric measurements, etc that are generated from the image.
