0) What if interdimensional travel is easier than we think, we just haven't figured out the hack yet. Ergo: they're not actually that advanced.
0.5) What if they're hyper-specialized? They're really good at crossing dimensions but not so good at conventional flight.
0.618) What if they're hyper-efficient, and sending these craft for them is like us manufacturing widgets in a manual factory? As in they've reduced the cost so much that a few trips having "defects" is normal and within an acceptable QA tolerance for them?
1) What if unreliability is a fundamental property of interstellar/interdimensional (or whatever we think this is) travel. In a physical-law type of way analogous to the uncertainty principle specifying an inviolable tradeoff between precision of position and momentum.
2) What if they're very promiscuous? What if there's 200 craft in Earth's atmosphere right now, and basically constantly for 1000 years. Assume they arrive and depart at basically constant rate of 40 per second (20 in / 20 out). For 90 years of cover up that's 110,730,240,000: or 110 billion. Assume they only crash on entry or exit. Assume that 20 craft have crashed in that time. That means they have a 1 in 5.5 billion chance of crashing. Googling estimates of airline crashes gives 1 in 1 million to 1 in 11 million. Making them 500 to 5000 times more reliable. Checks out.
I think the extraordinary thing is taking a default anthropocentric point of view, and extrapolating it to the whole universe, and having a high expectation that's highly likely to be valid.
It’s not really anthropocentric WRT physics. If interstellar travel were easy, we’d see lots of different species and some form of distribution along the “willingness to be discovered” axis.
That is what we see, it's just suppressed — with ridicule, and dismissal.
Also, our physics is a human model remember: it's completely anthropocentric. As is the human propensity seemingly to assume that's all the physics there is.
Physics is not anthropocentric. The mass of an electron or the speed of light do not depend on the species measuring it.
While it is possible that life might exist in more than 3 dimensions and be able to protrude into our spacetime (at least, there isn’t anything prohibiting it), I can only imagine such intrusions would be much weirder than the average UAP.
Furthermore, we are venturing so far into speculative territory that I’m not sure we are doing any scientific investigation anymore.
No, but the idea of a totality of physics is: that there's nothing outside it that we don't understand. That's very anthropocentric. And heard in the dismissals people give of possibilities or observations that "violate a law of physics".
There are some pretty weird stuff out there outside the average UAP cannon — of metallic orbs, cigars and clamshells — that may qualify as your intrusions; good word!
Science lives at the edge of the unknown. In this era I think we need to engage in far-out speculation if we're going to understand what comes — especially if we hope to understand it from a non-anthropocentric point of view! Ha ha ha! :)
> that there's nothing outside it that we don't understand.
That we don't understand and that we never observed. This is why I mentioned we wandering into speculation territory - I really can't prove there is no invisible pink unicorn sitting in my living room right now. All I can say is that I am not observing it.
How can you think about something if you've never seen it and it doesn't make sense based on your worldview? Well there's definitely ways that you can view it from a more open viewpoint! Ha ha ha! :) And lots to view: plenty of things we've observed and don't understand! Ha ha ha! :)
> if you've never seen it and it doesn't make sense based on your worldview?
You'll see something that doesn't make sense. Then you'll examine it and start formulating plausible explanations for it, and then you may start testing those against what you know and see if they can predict what is observed in other circumstances you haven't seen before.
The important part is that the explanation needs to be testable. If we just say "something outside our comprehension", it's not usable, because you can't really test that.
Hey, ha ha! I retired my graderjs account so I'll reply you with this one: yeah, definitely it's got to be testable! But you got to be open to it, you know?
Yeah! Except not all flies are associated with poo. Ha ha ha! :)
I laughed out loud in the video when the narration was like "It seems like they can see the future. They can see you coming from any angle. This is because they have " goes on to describe their incredible compound eyes, 100 times faster sense data processing versus humans, faster reactions. So cool! :)
Try a different tea? Lapsang Soochong or Pu-er for stronger flavor? Herbal teas are good if caffeine is what is disagreeing with you: red bush tea (rooibos), chamomile. Matcha is also good if caffeine is OK for you. If you like bitterness it probably sounds kind of weird but you can steep some lingzhi mushroom dried slices in water and after steeping a while it's pretty bitter. There's probably other mushrooms you can find too.
Or just go simple and sip water, maybe you'll find infinite "wateriness" is like no wateriness at all! Ha ha ha! :) You can add like tobasco to it, or bitters, or bitter gourd if you want bitter.
Key quote: [said a source who testified to ICIG and Congressional committees] “There are people who say we have reverse-engineered them and are flying them. I never found any support for that. And found a lot of support for saying we can’t figure it out. If we do, it would be in some program at a higher security level.”
Now you see the reason for the disinfo campaign, as well as 90 years of fear and denial: the embarrassing secret - "We don't know". We can't figure it out. We can't control it. We can't reproduce or operate it.
The existence of aliens and superior-to-human technologies massively challenges government/corporate authority and power, and it terrifies them. People on the other hand, are pretty open and curious about such things, but humanity's power structures? Terrified. Hence, 90 years of fear and denial, and disinformation.
It's sad, but it's the banal truth. We're too dumb to understand it. Yet. They should just step up, release it, show they are leaders we can count on, no matter where humanity may be in the universal cosmic totem pole. No matter our ignorance or level of advancement we need to know we can trust our leaders. Not have them running and hiding at the first thing that exceeds us in a panic that we'll no longer listen to them and they'll "lose control". That sad, bullshit and pathetic attitude, ney, mistake has likely cost us all a lot, and a lot of people, sadly, everything.
Getting it out there, owning our ignorance and vulnerability, being upfront, being stand up about this, is the only way forward. Then, with everyone focused on it, instead of bullshit high-level inter-nations competition/collaboration in illegal deep-black programs that for all their bullshit secrecy have made zero progress and have nothing to show, for all their blood and treasure spilled to keep the lid on the "embarrassing secret", then and only then, when it's all out, might we have a chance to advance, make progress and figure it out. Because together, we can do anything. But fighting each other? We may as well let the aliens take over, because if that's how we act, and there really are evil ones out there, they've already won.
Release the fucking totality of it. Oppose anyone who gets in the way of that. Simple.
Haven't they already done that? And it was just a bunch of strange videos that could easily be 100 non-alien things, like the duck video and the drones around the navy base.
Ha ha ha! :) what duck video? I love duck videos.
But no, they haven’t done it: if they have craft if they have biologicals if they’ve managed to develop any tech (which they haven’t) then they should release all of that is what I mean.
At this point they have released nothing, they’ve shown nothing: zero results, just whistleblowers testimony; all talk, no action. Ha ha ha! :)
Yeah! What’s that weird filter they have on the camera? I love the fluoro lightsaber magenta color of it, and the topological patterning of the ripples. Kind of reminds me of something from my childhood. I can’t put my finger on where I’ve seen this type of thing before.
I guess it's like an entrance fee to stop the club getting overcrowded. Apple Developer support forums, apple developer support, the App Review process...all these things take resources and are probably already overloaded (or pushed to limit). The fee helps keep check of that, like charging people for your side-project development work. Sure, you could do it for free (as you have a main income) but charging clients helps you manage and prioritize your workload.
Incidentally I've made back my Apple Developer fee in app revenue, so that's cool. Ha ha ha! :)
Will this make it possible to link in standalone libraries as like a single bundle easily and distribute that without having to worry about local installations?
E.g., I tried to bundle ffmpeg as a library with my voice memo transcription MacOS app^0, but it was too difficult, so I just went with building a standalone ffmpeg binary (~40MB), and instrumenting it with a bash script that I called from the Objective-C code, ha ha ha! :)
> If you’re using AGPL-licensed software like a database engine or my own AGPL-licensed works, and you haven’t made any changes to the source code, all you have to do is provide a link to the upstream source code somewhere, and if users ask for it, direct them there. If you have modified the software, you simply have to publish your modifications. The easiest way to do this is to send it as a patch upstream, but you could use something as simple as providing a tarball to your users.
GP was saying that statically linking would have been a violation. That is what GGP was trying to do, they fell back on running an executable because they didn't manage it. They're asking how to do it, but that wouldn't be legal (unless you offer a way for people to re-static-link with a modified version of ffmpeg, which is not easy if you don't want to publish your sources).
Even distributing the standalone ffmpeg executable might be a violation, if there have been changes to the ffmpeg code and it's closed source.
If there have been changes to ffmpeg code, then all that's needed is making it possible for the user to obtain the changed ffmpeg code. Voila. There's way too much FUD.
Just based on what the comment says, they're distributing a compiled FFmpeg, presumably not with source or attribution. I can't check to see if there's information in the app but there's no mention of it on the store page or anywhere else I can find either.
They could be fine, but going through the checklist FFmpeg provides for legal considerations (not legal advice), they seem to be doing the opposite of all of them.
I haven't checked their specific app ($119.99) but it's common for packages to have OSS attribution and copyright notices as a dialog or something that the user can click on to see. Since they're presumably not modifying ffmpeg, there's also no source that needs to be provided.
For example, my Chrysler car infotainment has an option in the system settings to see all of the copyright notices and OSS info that goes into the system.
Ha ha ha! :) You need to know the full story: Grusch brought witnesses with evidence in front of IG / oversight committees who deemed it urgent and credible. His public tip-of-the-iceberg is for his own safety, but whistleblower law only covers him disclosing to Congress, not public. It's less about trusting him, and more about trusting the processes of your government. But yeah, totally understand if you don't trust that! Ha ha ha! :)
