I recently tried to copy over an old box of floppies from the 80s and 90s. I'd say 80-90% success rate.

Floppies aren't a bad technology, but they do have limits.

I doubt that SD cards will last that long.

I wonder if this is caused by so much of the training data is the web, where millions of articles were written to hit some word count. It's just following what it was trained on.

They have been sold out of a lot of units, due to people developing AI, so apparently, it is significant.

Wait does this suggest that there are can be vulnerabilities in viewing a website in curl? I do this sometimes, when I want to check a website that I suspect might be malicious. There have been vulnerabilities associated with ANSI control codes, so I really DON'T want those to be included in a display.

Now, that's fascinating. Posts like this is why I started reading hacker news.

Exactly!

Good advice. As someone for whom this is currently relevant, let me add "find a support group".

At least, if it's a common cancer, a group will gather accumulated wisdom and can research better than a single person.

Also, they can help more with practical questions, like financial aid, how to manage sleep and pain, etc.

This is a good addition, although I have not joined one which is probably why I didn't include it in the list. I should find a group to join.

Nothing!

Keep up the good work

IBM and Red Hat announced today they have identified and remediated more than 400 previously unknown vulnerabilities across popular Java libraries.

They have to stop subsidizing at some point!

And they still aren't there, I bet.

> It's a browser view of the Solar System at real scale

Is it really? I don't think you could see the satellites, if they weren't drawn at 1000x scale. I am wrong?

At real scale, i would expect to not see anything.

Those are just UX elements -- indeed, no satellite other than maaaaaybe the ISS could be seen here. For one thing, anything in LEO would seem to be moving so darn fast that it'd be disorienting.

I imagine there's various similar problems -- Saturn's rings not having the exact right pattern, asteroids not matching their real shape, all the planets being perfect spheres, etc. But I think this resoundingly meets the bar for "a view of the Solar System". Maps and territories and all that, y'know? A quick sketch in a textbook can also be a "a view" while containing far less detail.

> For one thing, anything in LEO would seem to be moving so darn fast that it'd be disorienting.

They take ~90 minutes to orbit - it's not that quick. The satellites are actually moving at the right speed.

Sorry, to clarify: if you zoomed in close enough to see the actual objects without digital labels, then they’d be going very fast

I think it's pretty obvious the satellites aren't drawn to scale, given they don't change in size when zooming in/out.

But this is a fundamental problem with using it as a 'space is crowded' argument.

I assumed they meant that relative distance from Earth or orbit is to scale, not that the size of the dots was to scale, but I could be wrong

Good point, the page now says it: distances are to scale, the dots are not.