> But four of those years involve studying generally unrelated topics like any other college degree despite medicine effectively being a trade.
There's a lot of value in knowing about more than just one thing. Anyone leaving their university with a degree should have at least some exposure to topics outside of the field they want to work in. People are more than just their jobs, having a well rounded education is useful, and matters outside of the field of medicine still have real impacts on the lives of doctors.
I'd certainly feel better about going to a doctor who has a reasonable baseline understanding of the rest of the world outside of his work. You could argue that people looking to become doctors should able to avoid some percentage of the other classes they're forced to take, but doctors can often pick up some relevant credits while still fulfilling those requirements too.
I thought I'd heard they'd already made changes to the heat shield after the last failure. Hopefully whatever they learn from this trip will be useful for their next one.
So they made a first real test with Artemis I, and it was deemed unsafe because of the heat shield. So they modified the heat shield and didn't bother making a real test with it. "Move fast and break things", I guess?
Sure, they tested it on the ground. But that's what they did for Artemis I, and we know how successful that was.
According to the article [0] that's been making the rounds, NASA didn't make any changes to Artemis 2's heat shield after getting data from 1's re-entry. NASA did change the trajectory for 2, and they made the compound "less permeable" but that change was made before 1 flew.
"Back to the moon" sounds deceptive since we're not actually going to the moon, we're just sending a rocket around it. An actual moon landing will get a lot more attention. What's far more impressive about this launch to me is that it will be the farthest out into space people have been. I think the NASA PR team would have done better making that the headline rather than all this "to the moon!" talk
Email is a pretty good way to send short text messages, but it's not great at sending files. The basic protocols are pretty simple and we've got a lot of experience using them. I can see the appeal of email.
There's no way that outlook is the best tool for the job though, and it's no surprise at all that they're having problems with it. It's a complete mess with insane amounts of overhead and bloat if all you want to do is send text. Even the message headers it sends/mangles are trash. It's a pain to work with on the end user side too. I can't imagine that they couldn't have written a basic email client that would do the job better with far fewer problems/resources or used/built off of any number of decades old open source projects.
This comment is downvoted, but it is correct. Emailing a file takes roughly 30% more bandwidth than a file transfer protocol (any such protocol, not necessarily FTP) due to mime encoding.
Discussion of the MIME part’s encoding as being an inefficient size is missing the forest for the trees.
The entire message is (or can be) compressed before transmission (eg. When IMAP has DEFLATE enabled).
Just because an intermediate encoding step expands binary to make it text safe doesn’t mean it has to stay uncompressed during the entire existence of that MIMe message.
If all you need is file transfer even the message header is a lot of overhead (how much overhead depends on the client and how many devices handle the message). Mail servers don't always handle large files very well either. Even if they upload correctly downloading can be difficult. It's not uncommon for a single message with a large attachment to clog a mailbox and prevent other messages from being sent/received. That said, I'm not even saying it can't/wont work, just that there's better options for sending files and there are certainly better MUAs than outlook.
I’m not arguing for Outlook. I wouldn’t touch that POS unless I was forced to.
But maybe it’s just easier to not have to teach an astronaut to use another app. If they are using Outlook in space, it’s probably the same app and server they use on the ground.
Of course FTP or RSYNC or whatever would be slightly more efficient for the transfer or more capable or retrying / resuming. I’m not arguing that either.
Sometimes it’s more important that the astronaut doesn’t have to learn another app instead/ system.
Sometimes it’s better to choose a less efficient system that is less prone to accidental destructive. It’s not like anybody ever screwed up a sync command and accidentally wiped a directory or anything.[1]
Great, one more thing that can fail. Does anyone remember, that some time ago lots of people were in panic, because Exchange servers had a vulnerability on "high severity" level, and people everywhere had to patch their Exchange servers, if they didn't rent them from a service provider? Can't wait to see that happening again, this time affecting an Exchange server used by astronauts in space!
> The list of extensions they scan for has been extracted from the code. It was all extensions related to spamming and scraping LinkedIn
Not according to the website which says:
The scan doesn’t just look for LinkedIn-related tools. It identifies whether you use an Islamic content filter (PordaAI — “Blur Haram objects, real-time AI for Islamic values”), whether you’ve installed an anti-Zionist political tagger (Anti-Zionist Tag), or a tool designed for neurodivergent users (simplify). Under GDPR Article 9, processing data that reveals religious beliefs, political opinions, or health conditions requires explicit consent. LinkedIn obtains none.
It also scans for every major competitor to Microsoft’s own products — Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive — building company-level intelligence on which businesses use which software. Because LinkedIn knows your name, employer, and role, each scan aggregates into a corporate technology profile assembled without anyone’s knowledge.
I've love it if LinkedIn got successfully sued for millions and it resulted in similar lawsuits against every other website that did this sort of thing.
So no compelling here. The police asked for it and google gave it, either for free or in exchange for money. They didn't say "no" to the police, they didn't wait for a court order.
The bad guy here is google. And the people that champion data collection by private companies because of free market == good.
In that case, the main bad guy was the police who didn't bother to do even the most basic investigating after "check Google's GPS records to see who was at the house" including "Check Google's GPS records to see how how long they were there" which would have shown them this was a drive by, but yeah Google is absolutely a villain
NoScript will prevent that script from loading and scanning extensions. JS is required for almost all fingerprinting and malware spread via websites. Keeping it disabled, at least by default, is the best thing you can do to protect yourself.
Sometimes it works in ways you don't expect though https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/telco-wont-ins...
reply