I'm no ai expert so consider my opinion having little value besides casual user.
But I really like this. It seems clever and easy for me to grasp some pros for this approach.
I could envision a bunch of use cases about this workikg well. Ive personally encounter scenadios where sometimes the ai gets hung up on irrelevant outdated fact. But could still look up if specifically needed.
I could see even an automated short summary of all history that is outdated being updated in the vector db from this too. So not all context is lost.
it's a bit of work and effort to give a talk. And he is rich enough to not need to do it for the money. Time is important. If he'd be doing it for free he'd probably get too many requests. Adding a high $ can simply help filter down to a reasonable thing.to only the largest locations and highest number of people.
I dont want to do contract work but people ask so I just quote an unreasonably high number and on occasion someone bites. I dont need the money so I need an easy filter.
Most of the rips are probably the same-ish size. But there are definitely now a lot of incredibly huge rips. A 13-episode season of television that's like 80 gigs. It's an additive load, and while it's not that regular, it could have a massively outsided impact.
Also you can still personally take old ludumdare themes. Do them in 48 hours. And then go and see what others did.
Even if you can't submit. They can still be fun mini challenges.
I think the question is, how does the 41st object to be discovered in 2018 get that name in 2025?
Clearly there's a missing link to this, as in some guy in a field "finds" an object, submits it, it gets added, it gets identified, it gets removed, and it's actual designation is then used in write-ups as if that name were the one in use before it was identified as not being an object discovered in 2025.
For accuracy, or should say 2025 CN2 (or whatever), aka 2018 CN41, was removed from the database.
Ooh, I know this one! I worked on historical asteroid observations categorization and precovery for a few years.
The MPC has many observations of unidentified moving object candidates. These are called “tracklets” and come from pairs of observations of the same patch of the sky by the same observatory, separated (typically) by a few minutes.
The “isolated tracklet file”, or ITF, is a catalog of all of these unidentified moving objects.
When an identification is made and submitted to the MPC, the MPC back-projects the orbit and checks the ITF for any past observations which might have actually been of this newly identified object.
Then, the designation’s timestamp is of the first matching observation. So in this case the ITF had an observation from back in 2018.
Occasionally, two “objects” turn out to be the same actual physical object, but we learn late. In this case, the MPC does maintain a list of “aliases” of the object, so you might get that “aka” list. But that is not quite what happened here.
I'm not an expert but my understanding is it takes multiple observations to pin down an orbit and be sure it isn't an existing object. Those observations can be very chance driven.
Even top secret NRO launches get a designator, since it's impossible to hide the launch itself, but its orbital activity and TLE might not be obvious once in space.
reply