Clearly, you've never worked with a live video crew. If they have no practice, it's amazing how bad you can appear with a lack of appreciation of how fast things move. You also have to remember the camera/operator are really far away with a very large zoom. Things leave your field a view much faster than anticipated. After that, any correction becomes over corrections again because of the zoom factor. Also, I would not be surprised if people were watching IRL as much as their screens/viewfinders.
I've seen it in sports where someone just not up to speed is always behind the play and the center of action is just out of frame. At that point, you zoom out some to recenter and then zoom back in. Or the director cuts away and lets you catch up. But that's assuming competency up the chain.
Shots in which the base plate was taken from live footage (crews trained in filming the sport) are stable and show all the action. Shots from Hollywood camera crews can barely keep up.
One may say this is a bad comparison point, and that it was an artistic choice, but I call bullshit on that. So much of the movie was based upon live footage that the ones that didn't just look amateurish.
And yet, both crews are professionals. It is difficult to film these things well.
Yeah, it seems like the site's processor should have noticed this one site sending thousands of $1 charges and refunds in a small window much more easily than the site recognizing it was being done. The processor has much more to loose multiplied across all customers making it worth their time
thousands of $1 charges and refunds in a 7 hour period seems unusual to me. then again, i've never run a site that received thousands of charges ever, so seeing it in a few hours would be obvious.
Genuinely asking, are you a product manager? You’re giving me flashbacks to all of the PMs who suggested a 2-3 branch decision tree for a complex classification problem, because that’s what struck them as intuitive. We are just a few baby steps away from reinventing the entire field of fraud detection within this thread.
Sir, I resent the implication! I do not lie with such swine!
It's easy to say that every site must add protections against every single type of attack, except it's impossible for site owners to be experts in fraud. While credit card processing vendors are expected to be experts in fraud. I ask you where in this situation would be the better place to implement fraud detection? Of the two places, whose more financially at risk?
I think we’re 100% in agreement: let the payment processors handle the fraud. Except payment processors unfortunately hold all the cards and will shut your site down if you don’t comply with their standards :(
I'm assuming there were transaction IDs provided that can be given to the processor. If they can't do anything with the IDs, then that's a pretty broken system.
A lot of people mistakenly refer to Chromium-based browsers as being Chrome-based.
I feel like this is obvious and you know that this is the exact mistake being made, but rather than drop an actual correction, you take the insufferable approach of pretending you don't know what's happening and forming the correction as a question.
> A lot of people mistakenly refer to Chromium-based browsers as being Chrome-based
This seems to be a case where the poison seeps through the cracks. From Google and Chrome to other Chromium-based browsers. In very correct ways, in this case, they are Chrome based.
I was cussing at the director of that video stream during that. It was a totally useless shot as well that they lingered on that already had me bothered, and then to cut back to the SRBs fully separated had me in full contempt. Nothing to see here and everything to miss. It's like music videos showing the singer doing nothing while the guitarist is shredding a solo. Like WTF. You have one job, and you totally botched the hell out of it. You get what you pay for I guess. Lowest bidding contractor???
That's what I thought standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. Pictures just do not do it justice. Same thing with Starship. My brain knows it's massive, yet feels underwhelmed looking at it on video. Musk should let his ego build replica Saturn V and a Shuttle next the Starship launch pad so there will be proper perspective available
Have you been to the rocket garden at KSC? The Saturn V isn't vertical, but they've got almost everything from the Redstone and later vertical. I was in Florida in 2018 and I think they were getting ready to display a pair of SRBs. They did have Atlantis inside, too. And of course a horizontal Saturn V.
I saw that Saturn V as a child once, too. I think that the Saturn V really made me the person that I am today. Seeing something so huge, that is literally engineered down to every last tenth of a millimeter - that was profound for a young child. I could not believe how detailed that rocket was, yet so huge. There should be an engineering term for the size of a machine divided by the smallest critical engineered component of the machine. I don't think any machine would have beat that in the Saturn V's day - maybe some ocean liners?
I've never been to KSC. I've been to Houston a few times. I couldn't imagine trying to have a Saturn V permanently standing would be an easy feat with both locations susceptible to hurricanes and tornadoes. Walking the length of it is still pretty impressive.
I come from a construction family, so I'd put some of the famous sky scrapers in that category too. Especially thinking about the crazy beam walkers like that famous photo of the guys riding the I-beam up eating their lunch on the way up.
A few years ago Spacex did a homage to that photo, with the crew working on the Starship. One of those amazing Human For Scale photos that emphasize just how huge that rocket is.
Artemis II won't fly by the moon until Day 6, but it only took Apollo 8 to Day 4 to get to the moon. Looking at the wiki for Apollo 8, it shows the moon was 218k miles at launch while they said the moon is currently 240k, so it still looks like Apollo was moving faster than Artemis.
My understanding is Artemis II orbits earth for 23.5 hours before heading to the moon while Apollo 8 did so for under 3 hours, so that accounts for some of the difference.
That would account for some of it. I was surprised the TLI burn wasn't until tomorrow, but I guess we didn't get the Apollo 2-7 tests of the system either, so maybe those are getting compressed into the additional time in earth orbit before TLI???
It's kind of said that we are having to do all of this repeated work just to get to where we've already been even if we are doing it on a much more accelerated schedule.
Apollo put a lot more burden on the Service Module than Artemis plans to put on the Orion. Apollo put the CSM/LM into a low lunar orbit while Artemis plans to put Orion into a high lunar orbit and make the Starship carry a lot more delta-V to land from a much higher velocity (and then accelerate back up to that velocity when coming back).
On top of that there weren’t really solar panels in the 1960s so the Service Module had to carry tons of chemicals to produce electricity, as well as extra fuel for all of that weight. As a result it was massively overbuilt compared to anything we’d try today and even so had to take an expedited flight path to the moon of 3 days in order to conserve operational lifetime. Artemis does not have nearly as severe constraints on either the Orion or the future Starship and so can afford to take a more fuel efficient 5 day coast up to the Moon and make the design tradeoffs on Orion that that entails.
You seem to be forgetting that the country launching people to the moon is primarily of one holy book and is currently bombing the people of another holy book.
reply