I guess if one color pixel was significantly less efficient, and that color was also overrepresented on the display, then MAYBE changing to grayscale would require slightly less power to display the same intensity. But I don’t think that convoluted scenario probably isn’t what this person was thinking.
Every single example given under “In Chinese, affirmation is often compiled through negation:” sounds completely natural to me, as a midwestern American English speaker.
However the direct affirmations are also acceptable. Maybe the difference is more that both are pretty acceptable in English, but that is less true for Chinese. Or at least the version he speaks.
when the guy is making sentences like "affirmation is often compiled through negation" you know hes just trying to sound clever. the entire premise of the article is bunk, we DO use these patterns in English. He also treats (in that wide eyed western admiration for the orient) the Chinese like a simple monoculture where everyone has the same speech patterns.
Option 1 isn’t really an option, unfortunately. There are no viable single launch options using it. So it’s really SLS x 2. But building and launching one SLS at a time is almost too much as it is. If that’s the only option, I think Artemis is dead and we should start over.
I think we use the same PPBE process at NASA. Many of the systems and procedures that NASA uses are are defense-derived. If it's anything like what we do, then it's a total mess and we mostly just go through the motions with it, knowing it doesn't actually reflect reality and it's kind of a waste of time for everybody.
However, it's risky to assume that scrapping a crappy system will result in things being better. The current shitty system was almost certainly the result of scrapping and replacing something else that had some problems.
Anyway, hopefully this works well, because we'll probably end up copying it at NASA.
I'm a NASA civil servant and I'm regularly involved with SBIR contracts. While there are definite wins that make the SBIR program feel totally worth it, those are probably exception.
A big factor, however, is that much the tech NASA needs to develop for space applications has no commercial viability outside of NASA. We're the only potential buyer. And since it wasn't directly motivated by a specific NASA program and funded by a NASA project dollars, it has little chance to continue development once the SBIR contract ends. For many technologies, SBIR funding is the only fundamental tech development funding they get at all.
How can a private company develop a technology only the government needs when the funding from the government is extremely irregular, inconsistent, and insufficient?
I guess they could have a bunch of irons in the fire so they have a decent shot of getting some funding for anything they can do to stay in business. Maybe some of them eventually turn into SBIR mills.
I can speak from experience by saying that SBIR awards/contracts can be an extremely effective way to develop commercial product technology while also satisfying the requirements of the SBIR customer. It just takes a good engineering approach to make this feasible.
And SBIR mills have been around forever. They usually have the inside track by writing the requirements (as white papers) for COTR's that then end up in the book a year later--sometimes without changing a word!
NASA was originally formed as NACA to research aeronautics technology and help advance our uncompetitive nascent aerospace industry.
Building spacecraft and space transportation systems like the shuttle came later and is a very different type of task.
Unfortunately, the more flamboyant manned space flight and science missions have gradually come to dominate NASA, and much of the fundamental tech research that made it possible in the first place has been deprioritized and defunded.
reply