Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

blogs.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 330 posts

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#321

Post by somenameforme »

vlovich123 wrote: post #319
somenameforme wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repair and modularity tend to go together, especially in the face of bad actors. Otherwise you get this scenario where companies work to intentionally create hardware that is likely to be damaged during repair/replacement efforts. The hardware equivalent of Microsoft intentionally trying to 'integrate' Internet Explorer into Windows. As for government trust, I think it can almost entirely be explained as a result of…

I agree about the opaqueness likely being the root motivating factor regardless of idealogical bent. I'm not sold on modularity - the EU seems to be effectively dealing with malicious compliance. Even the details of repairability are tricky enough because you're internalizing an externality but it can be debated that if the externality is a better tradeoff for society which benefits from a faster pace of innovation b…

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here at all. The EU seems to be doing basically nothing about malicious compliance. Apple's DMA 'compliance' is actively hostile and ensuring it's all but impossible for anybody to actually take advantage of the freedoms the DMA is supposed to mandate. This page [1] offers some of the fee schedules developers releasing on alternative marketplaces would face. If anything it'll just turn into another GDPR where they'll occasionally fine Apple some token amount (relative to their revenue), which Apple will drag on through the courts as long as possible, and ultimately just shrug and write off as a business cost.

[1] - https://mspoweruser.com/apples-app-store-changes-in-the-eu-i...

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#322

Post by lang4d »

jlaneve wrote: post #101

> The team started by singling out the code responsible for packaging the spacecraft’s engineering data. They sent it to its new location in the FDS memory on April 18. A radio signal takes about 22 ½ hours to reach Voyager 1, which is over 15 billion miles (24 billion kilometers) from Earth, and another 22 ½ hours for a signal to come back to Earth. Talk about a slow feedback loop! And I get frustrated when I need t…

Hopefully they have a few local benches to iterate on for testing.

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#323

Post by vlovich123 »

somenameforme wrote: post #321
vlovich123 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree about the opaqueness likely being the root motivating factor regardless of idealogical bent. I'm not sold on modularity - the EU seems to be effectively dealing with malicious compliance. Even the details of repairability are tricky enough because you're internalizing an externality but it can be debated that if the externality is a better tradeoff for society which benefits from a faster pace of innovation b…

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here at all. The EU seems to be doing basically nothing about malicious compliance. Apple's DMA 'compliance' is actively hostile and ensuring it's all but impossible for anybody to actually take advantage of the freedoms the DMA is supposed to mandate. This page [1] offers some of the fee schedules developers releasing on alternative marketplaces would face. If anything it'll just…

First, they are tackling repairability & it seems fairly reasonable as most EU legislation seems to be [0]. Repairability is a tough topic not only because there's opposition for BS reasons. Think about a CPU - are you arguing that you need to be able to repair a broken pin on the socket? I hope not because you recognize the physical and economic challenges that entails & that making that repairable likely drives up the cost of the CPU in the first place (if someone wants to they should be able to try, but is the manufacturer on the hook for offering repairs if their non-standard repair attempt fails?). And think about how much more and more integrated the SoC has become with the main CPU package absorbing almost all peripheral chips - within that context "repairing" often effectively means buying a whole new super expensive component to begin with (& in my experience the 3p repairs often try to skimp on using substandard components & don't clearly communicate it). So basically the number of repairable parts in electronics is shrinking due to improvements in manufacturing.

As for DMA malicious compliance, it's still waaaay to early to say they're doing nothing. There's a lot of hubub about it clearly and it's on their radar. Meta & Microsoft have gotten into the game lobbying the EU to do something so there's countervailing pressure [1].

> According to a new report from the Financial Times, two of the biggest critics of Apple's new App Store rules are officially lobbying the EU to reject the iPhone maker's crafty new App Store terms.

> The EU could potentially fine Apple for non-compliance when the law goes into effect if it determines that these policy updates do not embody the spirit of the DMA. Or the DMA could reject Apple's App Store proposal entirely and force the company to come up with a new DMA-compliant policy.

But basically expecting a regulatory body to start enforcing something less than one month after compliance became mandatory (it took effect March 2024) of a fairly complex piece of legislation is asking a bit much of any regulatory body. It takes time to investigate this stuff in the first place so that they can get ready to bring a court case. They'll also negotiate with Apple before-hand to see if a resolution can be reached without a lawsuit in the first place.

But the EU already hit Apple with a massive 2B antitrust fine:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/tech/apple-europe-antitrust-f...

[0] https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/04/24/apple-wont-have-t... [1] https://mashable.com/article/meta-microsoft-lobby-eu-apple-a...

Summary of repair rules:

* Manufacturers must provide spare parts and tools at reasonable cost

* Manufacturers cannot use "contractual clauses, hardware or software" to obstruct repairs

* Independent repair firms must be allowed to use secondhand or 3D-printed parts

* Manufacturers cannot refuse to repair solely for economic reasons

* Manufacturers cannot refuse to repair a device because it was previously repaired by another company

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#324

Post by somenameforme »

vlovich123 wrote: post #323
somenameforme wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here at all. The EU seems to be doing basically nothing about malicious compliance. Apple's DMA 'compliance' is actively hostile and ensuring it's all but impossible for anybody to actually take advantage of the freedoms the DMA is supposed to mandate. This page [1] offers some of the fee schedules developers releasing on alternative marketplaces would face. If anything it'll just…

First, they are tackling repairability & it seems fairly reasonable as most EU legislation seems to be [0]. Repairability is a tough topic not only because there's opposition for BS reasons. Think about a CPU - are you arguing that you need to be able to repair a broken pin on the socket? I hope not because you recognize the physical and economic challenges that entails & that making that repairable likely drives up…

Yes, I'm sure they'll fine them, and Apple will laugh. That 'massive' $2 billion fine is the world's most gentle slap on the wrist for a company of Apple's scale. Their European revenue was $89 billion 2021 and had been regularly growing, so it's easily upwards of $100 billion. [1] And their global revenue is $383 billion. They likely earned vastly more than $2 billion from the bad behavior alone.

Imagine you earn $100k a year, it would be the equivalent of a $520 fine - a speeding ticket. And it won't just be the $520 fine. Apple will appeal and drag it through the courts for as long as possible, both reducing the cost of it due to inflation, and also potentially getting the cost itself reduced. So you create a scenario where at the end of the day, we can engage in all the behavior we want and all we have to do is deal with a speeding ticket every once in a while, all the while the bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for really cracking the whip. This is not even close to a deterrent.

It's the ongoing practice of treating massive corporations with kid gloves, while behaving brutally towards small businesses or individuals - when, in an ideal world, it should be the exact opposite. And again, we're back to the trust issue. Because obviously the reason they're being so gentle is because they want to have the headline of really cracking down on e.g. Apple, but don't actually want to risk Apple withdrawing from the EU. And that conflict of interest will not go away, and thus will guide their future actions as well.

[1] - https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology--media-a...

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#325

Post by eru »

echelon wrote: post #283
eru wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we can harness all of the energy and mass available in our solar system, we [1] can likely compute more than several galaxies full of classical humans. We might even begin to test the edges of physics. I grant that. But why would that keep us from pressing on? If we have more resources in general, we will also have more resources for interstellar adventures.

I'm sure we will send interstellar probes of some sort. But I think that assuming we'll want to send lots of entities vast distances in space and time might be a lot like thinking we'll have flying cars. We already have quite a lot to exploit in the region around us. We assume we understand our future wants, needs, costs, and capabilities. (Granted, any future thinking is also subject to this, including my own.)

> We already have quite a lot to exploit in the region around us.

I don't disagree.

> We assume we understand our future wants, needs, costs, and capabilities. (Granted, any future thinking is also subject to this, including my own.)

Even if 99.99% of people are content with what the solar system has to offer, there will still be billions left to go and explore and settle outside for whatever needs and reasons they have. Even if those needs are imagined, or the reasons might be purely ideological or religious.

> But I think that assuming we'll want to send lots of entities vast distances in space and time might be a lot like thinking we'll have flying cars.

If only a tiny fraction of people will _want_ this, that's enough.

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#326

Post by talldayo »

GeekyBear wrote: post #294
nolist_policy wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google certainly delivered on 8 (now even 10) years of updates for Chromebooks. And advertising n years of updates is legally binding in a way. Apple can stop updating tomorrow if they feel like it. Google can't.

Google literally testified before Congress that they wouldn't link their user data with advertising profiles when they bought DoubleClick. That didn't stop them from doing it anyway. I think the fact that Apple started delivering long term support over a decade ago is much more compelling.

I think the fact that Apple has refused to unlock iPhone bootloaders for over a decade suggests that they can't naturally compel hardware upgrades without artificially depreciating software.

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#327

Post by talldayo »

vlovich123 wrote: post #323
somenameforme wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here at all. The EU seems to be doing basically nothing about malicious compliance. Apple's DMA 'compliance' is actively hostile and ensuring it's all but impossible for anybody to actually take advantage of the freedoms the DMA is supposed to mandate. This page [1] offers some of the fee schedules developers releasing on alternative marketplaces would face. If anything it'll just…

First, they are tackling repairability & it seems fairly reasonable as most EU legislation seems to be [0]. Repairability is a tough topic not only because there's opposition for BS reasons. Think about a CPU - are you arguing that you need to be able to repair a broken pin on the socket? I hope not because you recognize the physical and economic challenges that entails & that making that repairable likely drives up…

> Think about a CPU - are you arguing that you need to be able to repair a broken pin on the socket?

No, because a CPU is not a line-replaceable unit on Apple hardware. Nobody, not Louis Rossman, not Apple-certified repair stores, and not street-shops in Shenzhen are doing SOC-level repairs. It is a complete red-herring example that almost makes me question how serious you take this, accusing others of using "BS reasons."

> So basically the number of repairable parts in electronics is shrinking due to improvements in manufacturing.

That's really tangential to the point. Integrated components can still be replaced with donor parts (or OEM replacements) if each component isn't DRM-matched to a phone. Apple goes out of their way to deliberately stop their systems from being repaired by others, and it doesn't stop at miniaturization.

> it's still waaaay to early to say they're doing nothing.

If someone is doing nothing, you're never too early to call them out on it. We're not waiting for Apple to get the memo, they have had three years to anticipate this legislation and the only thing they seem interested in doing is pissing and moaning in a PDF while trying to get their last petty jabs in against Spotify and Epic: https://developer.apple.com/security/complying-with-the-dma....

Apple is doing nothing, you can't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#328

Post by GeekyBear »

talldayo wrote: post #326
GeekyBear wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google literally testified before Congress that they wouldn't link their user data with advertising profiles when they bought DoubleClick. That didn't stop them from doing it anyway. I think the fact that Apple started delivering long term support over a decade ago is much more compelling.

I think the fact that Apple has refused to unlock iPhone bootloaders for over a decade suggests that they can't naturally compel hardware upgrades without artificially depreciating software.

In the time since both devices shipped in 2016, refusing to provide support after three years has been a much more effective strategy to force users to toss out the original Pixel Phone than Apple's strategy of continuing to offer software support for the original iPhone SE through to the current year.

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#329

Post by talldayo »

GeekyBear wrote: post #328
talldayo wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that Apple has refused to unlock iPhone bootloaders for over a decade suggests that they can't naturally compel hardware upgrades without artificially depreciating software.

In the time since both devices shipped in 2016, refusing to provide support after three years has been a much more effective strategy to force users to toss out the original Pixel Phone than Apple's strategy of continuing to offer software support for the original iPhone SE through to the current year.

Tough, me and my Pixel 2 will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Re: NASA's Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

#330

Post by wolverine876 »

gpvos wrote: post #316
exitb wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The two Voyager spacecraft could remain in the range of the Deep Space Network through about 2036 It would be quite depressing if it was us failing to receive a fainter signal, rather than Voyager failing to send it.

I think the reverse would be more depressing. There will inevitably come a time when the signal will be indiscernible from the background noise.

Is that strictly true? Doesn't it depend on the signal processing power of the receiver?
Post reply on HN