I guess that's what I always do. or grep or awk or sed.. Maybe if a program takes hours to return it's helpful to be able to search the terminal, but otherwise i'm just pushing up with my arrow and `| grep -v UGLY | grep BEAUTIFUL`
Image creator here. This is such a massive dataset, most of the image processing needed to be custom written software pipelines. It not really practical for every pixel to be hand inspected. A few defects (and bright asteroids) imprinted through. It really hard to decide what is a real weird thing in the universe, and what is some sort of instrumental effect. We try to not pre-decide on what we think we should be seeing and filter for those by using things such as using classifiers. That leaves us with heuristics based on temporal information, size (is it smaller than a point spread function), and other related things. On large numbers of objects and pixels 1 in a thousand or 1 in a million outliers are bound to occur.
I'm glad you responded (i'm assuming you knew i wasn't criticizing the effort, but just in case -- I wasn't). I was assuming asteroid trail, but I've read that green stars can't exist and _could_ be a technosignature of "little green men". :) Your work on this is lovely. The combined effort of so many smart people over decades of work is truly heartening. Thank you.
At time 1:38:19 - one hour 38 minutes 19 seconds - into the livestream presentation, there's a slide that shows RGB streaks of fast-moving objects that were removed for the final image.
Those streaks are apparently asteroids.
Perhaps it is indeed a glitch or cosmic ray event.
Negative constraints like anti-knight significantly improve my enjoyment of Sudoku. They make it more likely that puzzles don't devolve to straight Sudoku near the end.
Typically i would agree with the harsh tone, but this person is being clear about their position. Perhaps I sympathize since I may also have a habit of being too credulous.
Credulity is a fine default for human interaction. It is gift of assumed sincerity.
Deciding at which point that gift was misplaced is a learned skill and one I cannot claim to have expertise in.
I may credulously assume that our poster friend is sincere. However, as I read replies that the poster has made to sincere responses, I observe:
* a claim of mutual empathy via mutual distrust "I've criticized Musk!" ... "I've been contradicting DOGE on things since they became a thing"
* a surrender of high-ground via tenuous appeal-to-authority "Bibi says he's not a nazi"
* a veneer of emotional maturity over others: "we don't have to be so stressed about needing to trust DOGE's changes"
I've seen enough of on-line conversations to understand the "I'm just asking questions" type -- the kind who
only grows in power as response after response is parried with "my goodenss, how rude?!" aplomb.
Buffeted yet calm, our poster friend claims the high-ground while having-and-eating cake.
Our poster is in an incredulous superposition of:
"So yeah, I don't trust him." and "I was shocked"
or
"I don't think they'd renege on it. I'm certainly not naive!"
I've wasted too much time discussing our mutual friend. I should not have done my drive-by, and I apologize to you both for the energy consumption of my this and my previous post. I shrink away cowardly from responding anymore.
My position is very clear and I maintain it. DOGE should be audited by CAT and CAT should operate alongside DOGE to review all changes. DOGE should also be on a leash, even quarantined, while reviews are ongoing as to ensure sustainable changes and accesses.
My interest in having any kind of "superposition" is simply to be impartial and accurate to the greatest degree possible as to get the greatest results possible. That is it. In any case, you got it wrong when you said:
> * a veneer of emotional maturity over others: "we don't have to be so stressed about needing to trust DOGE's changes"
There is nothing like that at all in my posts. What I was saying is that DOGE should operate with such a level of transparency and controls that would eliminate needing to simply trust DOGE's changes. Tthus the stress that goes along with that level of trust would fade away.
> * a surrender of high-ground via tenuous appeal-to-authority "Bibi says he's not a nazi"
That is not an appeal to authority. It is saying that the people who are most equipped to answer the question, because it is a matter of their own history and hide, are the ones saying that it warrants overlooking or good faith. By all means, continue that line of investigation on your own if you want.
> I should not have done my drive-by
I agree! Because it's poor faith and on top of that you're questioning my own consistency and integrity to boot, even though it's clear that in one case X has premium features warranting a credit card...whereas there's no reason at all to blast my bank account details on here...
Anyway, to summarize it all...CAT should audit DOGE and DOGE should be on a tighter leash or quarantined if they cannot be trusted to make changes.
> How does it prevent building up resentment, when obviously a green landscape is more important to the foreigners, then the starving locals?
> How does it solve the hard problem of exponential mankind vs civilizational allmende protection?
> How do the plants survive in the climate change storms yet to come?
I plan on using this set of questions next time my girlfriend says we should do something I don't want to do.
