It even can model 'vi', including modal input, exiting with <Esc>:wq!, and it results in a file containing the entered text in the imagined filesystem.
Quite interesting that it will make subtle errors in its otherwise reasonable-looking answer, e.g. "kipedwaia" has two "a"s; "kawipieda", "kipedwaia" and "pwakieida" have only two "i"s.
I have seen reports that it will happily hallucinate a plausible but wrong answer to all sorts of different prompts, intermixed with many mostly correct answers. It's interesting to think about how to place trust in such a system.
Peter Watts has a series called Rifters that explores this a little. "Smart gels" which are neural nets made up of a mishmash of cultured neruons and silicon that run most of society. They're trained just like neural nets today, and therefore their decision making process is basically a black box. They do a great job, but no one is really sure how they get there, but they work great and they're so much cheaper, so they who cares.
Anyhow spoiler alert, the neural nets running the virus response have been inadvertently trained to prefer simple systems over complex ones without anyone realizing, and decide that a planet with no life on it after being wiped out from the virus is infinitely more simple than the present one and starts helping it out instead of stopping it.
So short answer to your question is I would not place much if any trust and systems like that, in as far as anything that has high stakes, real world consequences.
So, if it's true that these KH-12 spy satellites are basically modified versions the Hubble space telescope, would it be reasonable to assume that Webb will get copied in a similar way for spy satellites?
Yes, the spy satellites were first by a long shot. The KH-11 (2.4m mirror, CCD focal plane) was first launched in 1976. Hubble (2.4m mirror, CCD focal plane) was launched in 1990.
The space shuttle was funded and designed to meet Department of Defense specifications. Its cargo bay designed to ferry satellites up and to potentially return them back to earth.
Keyhole satellites were seriously cool. Photos were taken on film, and the film reels were jettisoned over the ocean. C-130 transports would capture the payloads as they parachuted back to earth:
Doubtful, I think Webb only sees in the infrared. Looking at the earth would blind it. This is why it'll be a million miles away protected by a fancy heat shield.
Wouldn't that depend on how much dynamic range it has? Webb is intended to look at very dim signals in space so Earth would blind it, but if a spy-Webb were intended to track rocket or jet engines, things quite hotter than the rest of earth, perhaps it might be capable of that?
Your comment brings focus to the question of why reviewers agree to do these unpaid reviews in the first place. I assume your comment is in jest, and you were fully aware of the unpaid nature of the work. But what was your motivation to do it anyway and spend 2000 hours on it?
I personally do peer review because I am part of a research community that requires it -- 9 of every 10 articles I review are absolute crap, and the community is better off if only 3-5 reviewers waste time reading those articles. The only way to avoid a free rider problem is if everyone agrees to participate, so I participate. It is also a good way to build a career in research -- reliable peer reviewers will eventually be asked to do more visible things like chair conference sessions.
Would it be nice to be paid? Maybe, although to be honest I would rather keep money out of the process entirely -- I would like to continue having peer review be voluntary, and go further by also scrapping the publishing companies (who add nothing of value to any article I have written or seen in my entire career). In my field (cryptography) we run a preprint archive on a volunteer basis and it would not be a huge step to introduce a formal peer review process (there is already a minimal review process where the eprint vounteers reject papers that are obviously crap). We only bother with Springer because the European professors demand it (more precisely, their universities demand one of a handful of publishers, and Springer is least bad of the bunch).
When I do peer review, I don’t think of it as providing free service to the publisher, but as providing free service to the scientific community. I’m indirectly paid to do so by my employer. IMO employers of scientists should strike deals with publishers to get compensation for peer review from them.
This is like asking an open source maintainer what their motive was to contribute to an important piece of software, since it’s going to be hosted on a for-profit entity like GitHub. The motive is that reviewing is necessary to make science work (and secondarily it’s required for promotions etc.) The problem in this setting is that Elsevier is part of the equation and demands copyright ownership, which makes it much worse than hosting on something GitHub. Unfortunately “just stop contributing” isn’t a good answer, because that would throw out the baby with the bath water, and scientists care very deeply about the baby.
This way you would trade in a null-byte-terminated variable length string for essentially a null-bit-terminated variable length number (plus the remaining string). I am not convinced that this actually would be much safer.
Unicode does variable length bit strings too, so I'm not a visionary or anything. It would be safer for no other reason than that such a pattern could only occur at the start of the string, with zero special handling, while a null could occur anywhere in a zero-terminated string.
At least you don't have (obvious) performance problems with it, because you will effectively never need more than 9 (usually 2 or 3) of these bytes.
But sure on modern 64 bit systems just using a 64 bit integer makes much more sense. On a small embedded 8 bit oder 16 bit microcontroller it might make sense.
You are correct, I was trying to show that such a scheme was practical even in the early 1980s when zero-termination was beginning to dominate. This could well be used on 64-bit systems (just with a larger word size than a byte), though the utility of such a thing is questionable.
In a toy language I once wrote I got around that by encoding binary values as quaternary values and using a ternary system on top of that with a termination character: 11 = 1; 01 = 0; 00 = end; 10 was unused.
Having truly unbounded integers was rather fun. Of course performance was abysmal.
The advantage 2 was only released in 2016. I myself have the advantage (1) since about 8 years. Sorry for being pedantic here, but that's why that statement tripped me up.
I have a couple of pants made from G-1000, and I really like it's properties (light, durable, will not retain much water, can be made water-repellent with wax), but it actually is made from 65% polyester and 35% cotton [1].
