It's a little bit nitpicky, but I really wish technical people wouldn't generalize incorrectly:
"...maximizing the life of the MMRTG for more science and exploration down the road"
Will the MMRTG's plutonium decay more slowly if more electricity is used? No. So where's the value in generalizing poorly?
zokier · 1h ago
More generous reading of the entire sentence would be that the usable life of the mmrtg is increased by improving the energy efficiency of the rover. The mmrtg power output is constantly decreasing, and so it is reasonable to say that the mmrtg reaches end of life when the power output is not enough to operate the rover. So that cutoff point depends on the power demands of the rover.
Intralexical · 1h ago
Yeah. There's nothing wrong with that statement. Reducing the minimum power required will obviously prolong the life of a system that has a monotonically decaying power supply.
The problem with being nitpicky is that fixating on isolated/arbitrary details often just means missing the bigger picture in a way that's even more incorrect. Good for "gotchas", but not intellectually productive.
hnuser123456 · 1h ago
Yeah, sloppy writing. They're maximizing how quickly they can complete tasks by multi-tasking and enter sleep mode sooner, reducing recharge time and reducing the amount of energy wasted on systems that are in active standby. They rediscovered race to idle.
Bluestein · 1h ago
Good point-
I guess in a way less overall consumption might prolong life? (heat, wear on the electronics ...)
justinrubek · 1h ago
It could be that it prolongs the useful life by reducing the power needs such that it can be used for longer
Bluestein · 1h ago
This - we want the poor lonely thing to make it at least until we get there ourselves :)
svdr · 1h ago
When images of Mars are shown on social media, there always is a flood of 'Devon island, Canada' comments, so depressing!
simpaticoder · 1h ago
One of the most curious aspects of the internet is how it creates the illusion of providing insight into public opinion. There is a strong desire to understand not only what is happening in the world but also how people are responding to it. In the absence of more reliable indicators, we tend to rely on whatever signals the internet offers. Even when, as internet- and media-saavy technologists, we know very well how personal behavior is distorted by anonymity, the desire for attention and clout, and the lack of accountability. Why do we all (and I include myself) so easily and often forget this simple truth, and fall into the trap of believing the world population consists mostly of the ignorant and malicious people that haunt public comment sections?
plemer · 49m ago
> In the absence of more reliable indicators
This is half the answer, though we'd also need those indicators to be plentiful and compelling.
> we know very well how personal behavior is distorted
This points to the other half: humans are irrational by default. We tend to believe what we "experience" - see, hear, etc. - even if we know it's a lie. Have you seen those videos of people in VR glasses panicking as if they're about to die because they've just fallen off a virtual cliff?
Consider also the Illusory Consensus Effect: mere repetition of information increases the estimates of group members that other group members believe or already know that information. Logically redundant, rhetorically effective.
We're apes with a souped up prefrontal cortex - critical thinking is expensive so applied selectively (see Tversky and Kahneman, System 1 vs System 2 thinking).
Intralexical · 21m ago
I used to think social media algorithms created a distorted view of public opinion on the Internet.
Now I know that even without engagement-maximizing algorithms or anonymity, most content on the Internet is still from self-selecting outliers. You don't walk down the street and listen to whoever shouts at you the loudest to gauge public opinion, so why care about Internet commenters (including me or you) when statistically normal people are "lurkers" who read and move on?
> Why do we all (and I include myself) so easily and often forget this simple truth, and fall into the trap of believing the world population consists mostly of the ignorant and malicious people that haunt public comment sections?
Because we've had millions of years to evolve our social instincts, and not even a single generation to adapt to the current state of public comment sections? In real life, where there aren't the same sampling biases, it makes perfect sense to believe the perspectives that are repeated by peers (as honest indicators of public opinion, if not at face value).
Also because there are major profit incentives for social media companies to make people think they're important fora for public discourse.
I think for-profit social media should probably be viewed as adversarial attackers. Their incentives are not aligned with what we need for healthy relationships and discussions. But even if you remove the profit incentive, it's still a new environment that we lack natural immunity to.
Bluestein · 13m ago
> think for-profit social media should probably be viewed as adversarial attackers
They are. Their incentives are almost diametrically opposed to those of sane, rational, balanced individuals.-
kevinventullo · 57m ago
If only there was some kind of major indicator of overall public sentiment, conducted nationally, say every four years, which might allow one to draw conclusions about the portion of the population who is either ignorant or malicious. Surely the data would show the vast majority of my countrymen are rational, thoughtful people.
Intralexical · 20m ago
That makes Devon Island, Canada sound really cool, though.
shmeeed · 2h ago
Go Curiosity!
accrual · 1h ago
I hope one day Curiosity will be an exhibit in one of the first Martian exploration museums established on the red planet. The rover can stand proudly in warm, cozy structure after decades of research on the brutal surface.
Bluestein · 1h ago
What was that movie (one of many I am sure) ...
... were our imperiled heroes save their 'hinds by locating and jerryrigging a defunct piece of hardware that was left behind from a previous mission?
tetha · 1h ago
I think that's The Martian, where the Pathfinder is used as a communication device.
Bluestein · 1h ago
Bingo.-
Intralexical · 57m ago
> For example, Curiosity’s radio regularly sends data and images to a passing orbiter, which relays them to Earth. Could the rover talk to an orbiter while driving, moving its robotic arm, or snapping images?
Love the imagery this conjures.
One man band Curiosity, patting its head and rubbing its stomach at the same time!
"...maximizing the life of the MMRTG for more science and exploration down the road"
Will the MMRTG's plutonium decay more slowly if more electricity is used? No. So where's the value in generalizing poorly?
The problem with being nitpicky is that fixating on isolated/arbitrary details often just means missing the bigger picture in a way that's even more incorrect. Good for "gotchas", but not intellectually productive.
I guess in a way less overall consumption might prolong life? (heat, wear on the electronics ...)
This is half the answer, though we'd also need those indicators to be plentiful and compelling.
> we know very well how personal behavior is distorted
This points to the other half: humans are irrational by default. We tend to believe what we "experience" - see, hear, etc. - even if we know it's a lie. Have you seen those videos of people in VR glasses panicking as if they're about to die because they've just fallen off a virtual cliff?
Consider also the Illusory Consensus Effect: mere repetition of information increases the estimates of group members that other group members believe or already know that information. Logically redundant, rhetorically effective.
We're apes with a souped up prefrontal cortex - critical thinking is expensive so applied selectively (see Tversky and Kahneman, System 1 vs System 2 thinking).
Now I know that even without engagement-maximizing algorithms or anonymity, most content on the Internet is still from self-selecting outliers. You don't walk down the street and listen to whoever shouts at you the loudest to gauge public opinion, so why care about Internet commenters (including me or you) when statistically normal people are "lurkers" who read and move on?
> Why do we all (and I include myself) so easily and often forget this simple truth, and fall into the trap of believing the world population consists mostly of the ignorant and malicious people that haunt public comment sections?
Because we've had millions of years to evolve our social instincts, and not even a single generation to adapt to the current state of public comment sections? In real life, where there aren't the same sampling biases, it makes perfect sense to believe the perspectives that are repeated by peers (as honest indicators of public opinion, if not at face value).
Also because there are major profit incentives for social media companies to make people think they're important fora for public discourse.
I think for-profit social media should probably be viewed as adversarial attackers. Their incentives are not aligned with what we need for healthy relationships and discussions. But even if you remove the profit incentive, it's still a new environment that we lack natural immunity to.
They are. Their incentives are almost diametrically opposed to those of sane, rational, balanced individuals.-
... were our imperiled heroes save their 'hinds by locating and jerryrigging a defunct piece of hardware that was left behind from a previous mission?
Love the imagery this conjures.
One man band Curiosity, patting its head and rubbing its stomach at the same time!