Why? They don't necessarily increase productivity at all [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44526912

I stand corrected, either way NASA.gov is entirely down.

Humm, works just fine for me.

It's back now indeed, after around 1h30 of downtime, https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/nasa.gov.html

For an hour now the DNS record for nasa.gov has pointed to 192.0.66.108, leading to a total outage of NASA web services.

Not in the outer planets area...

Many people on H1Bs work for nonprofits or hospitals, or are otherwise publicly funded.

only a very small percentage i think, for example only 4.2% work anywhere in the medical field [1]

[1]https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...

Yes, that's tens of thousands of people.

i have never heard of this and nothing i've read has indicated this; it's always been tech companies large fortune 500's. I did some googling and am not finding anything to support this claim, either. If you've got sources i'd love to see them.

You should look up 'cap-exempt H1B'. Many postdoctoral researchers, research staff, and doctors use the H1B program.

This doesn’t appear to apply to people on cap-exempt H1-Bs.

All cap-exempt institutions that I know of are treating it as if it does. There has been no clarification as of yet.

Astronomical seeing severely limits the efficacy of even multi-million dollar telescopes. The size of the pixels in this image is ~0.2 arcseconds, which is far below typical seeing limits even in excellent conditions.

Excellent seeing on earth is typically 0.4 arcseconds, so close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing

My setup gives me around 1.92 arc seconds for a point diameter.

That 'excellent seeing' is for sites that are chosen for telescopes. Typical seeing from sea level is much worse:

- https://www.ing.iac.es/astronomy/development/hap/dimm.html

- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig-C1-Seeing-distributi...

- https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/9/2225

Around 1-2 arcseconds is 'good' seeing in your backyard. There is a good reason for telescopes to be on some of the tallest mountains on Earth.

And you can do tricks such as lucky imaging or active optics (depending on your budget) to further improve the resulting resolution. Lucky imaging is tricky on something as dim as Andromeda, but has been shown to be just about possible.

I haven't seen lucky imaging used on dim objects by anyone I know. I personally do not have a large enough aperture to collect enough light for that. But I've used it on bright planets before via AutoStakkert[1]: https://www.astrobin.com/full/06dzki/0/

[1] https://www.autostakkert.com

Lucky imaging was always a tool for use on planets and the moon. Anything bright.

It's hard to do dim objects because there's less for the software to inspect in each frame to determine the luckiness and distortion, but you can maybe use fortuitous bright stars in the frame to index off. You also need to collect a huge number of images to get any sort of signal to noise ratio. This video is an example of the technique actually used on a dim object, though the results were fairly modest because of murky British skies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s9xbZ5G-wk

I’m not so sure. For me a reliable way to find a “good” dentist is to find one that’s attached to a (big) medical school or university. Of course this is easier to do in cities than in rural areas though. I’d always take a waiting list and, say, a dentist from the UC system than one that’s a regular practice.

Thankfully there are a few amazing Diamond/Platinum open access journals popping up (that are often ‘arXiv overlay’, meaning they simply provide peer review services to arXiv-hosted papers). These journals are free to publish and free to read but still provide the useful categorisation/review/cataloguing services of traditional publications. Notably this includes a post-review DOI.

Relevant for the HN crowd is the Journal of Open Source Software: joss.theoj.org.

[I am an editor at JOSS]

Calling PostgreSQL a 'legacy C codebase' is funny.

Was just about to type the same thing. It's hard to escape the feeling that this article belongs somewhere around the Peak of Inflated Expectations on the hype cycle chart.

Indeed. The whole discourse around rust is getting more ideological than technical day after day.

It's like some people are getting irreasonable intolerant to non-rust languages.

It's... Puzzling, to say it politely.

I don't think the only utility of a depth model is to provide synthetic blurring of backgrounds. There are many things you'd like to use them for, including feeding into object detection pipelines.

They use a distributed data management tool called RUCIO: https://rucio.cern.ch to distribute data on the grid.