It's very confusing in the text of the article, at times it sounds like the author is using heuristic methods (like timings) but at times it sounds like they somehow have access to network traffic from the provider's backend. I could 100% believe that a ton of these companies are making API calls to providers directly from an SPA, but the flow diagrams in the article seem to specifically rule that out as an explanation.
I might allow them more credit if the article wasn't in such an obviously LLM-written style. I've seen a few cases like this, now, where it seems like someone did some very modest technical investigation or even none at all and then prompted an LLM to write a whole article based on it. It comes out like this... a whole lot of bullet points and numbered lists, breathless language about the implications, but on repeated close readings you can't tell what they actually did.
It's unfortunate that, if this author really did collect this data, their choice to have an LLM write the article and in the process obscure the details has completely undermined their credibility.
A major reason for the enduring use of satellite in radio distribution is that, for live events like sports or (more common in NPR's case) political events, the satellite system provides appreciably lower latency than distribution over the internet. Reduced jitter also allows for generally higher reliability, you never hear the radio station buffering. There are options for low-latency land-based connectivity but at the scale of PRSS, the satellite system is cheaper to operate.
Most stations can also receive this programming over the internet, another reason for the satellite system is that it provides a completely redundant path for programming delivery. This is important for general reliability but especially so in an emergency.
Historically, radio networks distributed their programming over leased telephone lines. Satellite took over because it was cheaper. That gap has probably narrowed as terrestrial communications infrastructure continues to expand, but the internet struggles with low-latency real-time media, and an arrangement like leased fiber wavelengths to member stations would still be more expensive than the satellite system. There's a lot of member stations in a lot of places, satellite reaches all of them at once.
> the satellite system provides appreciably lower latency than distribution over the internet
Is that true? Round trip to/from geostationary satellites is about 240ms.
And, with most stations using HD encoding, which adds 8 seconds to the transmission delay, any network latency isn't going to be that important anyway.
It’s not about the latency between when words are spoken and when they’re heard, it’s snot when a packet is sent and when it’s received. There’s a lot of jitter and you really don’t want intermittent drops to cause people to miss parts of your programming.
I'm not an expert in this topic but I've been working on a book in a related area and had to learn a lot. Here's what I can figure.
Unfortunately radiation medicine is pretty complicated and the report gives us very little info, presumably mostly because they don't have very much info. It will take some time and effort to establish more.
What we do know is that they measured 300 CPM at the person's hair, which was probably where they expected the highest count due to absorbed water (likely clothing was already stripped at this point). CPM is a tricky unit because it is something like the "raw" value from the instrument, the literal number of counts from the tube, and determining more absolute metrics like activity and dose requires knowing the calibration of the meter. The annoying thing here is that radiation protection professionals will still sometimes just write CPM because for a lot of applications there's only one or a handful of instruments approved and they tend to figure the reader knows which instrument they have. Frustrating. Still, for the common LND7311 tube and Cs137, 300CPM is a little below 1 uSv/hr. That wouldn't equate to any meaningful risk (a common rule of thumb is that a couple mSv is typical annual background exposure). However, for a less sensitive detector, the dose could be much higher (LND7311 is often used in pancake probes for frisking because it is very sensitive and just background is often hundreds of CPM). Someone who knows NRC practices better might know what detector would be used here.
That said the field dose here is really not the concern, committed dose from ingesting the water is. Ingesting radioactive material is extremely dangerous because, depending on the specific isotopes involved, it can persist in the body for a very long time and accumulate in specific organs. Unfortunately it is also difficult to assess. This person will likely go to a hospital with a specialty center equipped with a full body counter, and counts will also be taken on blood samples. These are ways of estimating the amount of radioactive isotopes in the body. In some cases tissue samples of specific organs may be taken.
I believe that the cavity pool water would be "clean" other than induced radioactivity (activation products from being bombarded by radiation). Because water shields so well the pool should not be that "hot" from this process. Most of those products have short half-lives which, on the one hand, means that they deliver a higher dose over a shorter period of time---but also means they will not longer forever and are less likely to be a chronic problem if they are not an acute one.
I suspect this will get some press coverage and we will perhaps learn more about the patient's state.
Another way we can get at this question is by the bureaucracy of the notification. An 8-hour notification as done here is required in relatively minor cases. Usually for a "big deal emergency" a one-hour notification is required. The definition of such an emergency depends on the site emergency plan but I think acute radiation exposure to a worker would generally qualify.
KCNSC is a large organization that will have hundreds of distinct networks at different risk and control levels. Every variation of "public internet" to "single-site air-gapped network" probably exists there, including many levels in between like multi-site secure networks and networks with limited internet connectivity. Many networks air airgapped, this sometimes means that they consist of a small number of assets in a single room, and it sometimes means that they have connectivity to airgapped enclaves of AWS and hundreds of other military, government, and contractor sites. All of these controls will have been determined by a combination of risk scoring, compliance policies, legal requirements, office politics, and happenstance. Multiple contracting authorities will periodically audit many of these networks against various standards, which may or may not allow connectivity to specific other networks depending on risk levels. Connectivity between networks is sometimes controlled by NSA accredited cross-domain solutions and multi-level security systems that enforce complex policy, in other cases it's controlled by an administrative assistant with a DVD burner. There will be case-by-case risk analysis decisions made for specific systems, ultimately signed off by a government official who may or may not have read them. Inevitably some of these will appear reasonable and cautious in retrospect and others will not.
The root fault with this article, and the resulting discussion, is the extent to which it generalizes over one of the larger organizations in a very complex part of the defense industrial complex. Many parts of KCNSC's operations are absolutely not exposed by this incident. Other parts absolutely are. Determining which fall into which category, and to what extent that is acceptable, keeps quite a few people employed.
When the tower was constructed in 1887, multiplexing technology was probably not available (I'm not so sure of the timeline in Europe). By 1913 it likely would have come into use. However, multiplexing really isn't a factor here, as the tower seems to have been built to serve local loops. Since these loops go to subscriber telephone sets, there's no option for multiplexing without expensive and maintenance-intensive equipment at customer premises. Multiplexing of local loops is called "pair gain" and wouldn't be developed until later, and it was never really that popular in most phone systems. Outside of suburban areas, it's typical that each copper pair runs directly to the exchange. Historically, and today, there is rarely any active equipment (or since the 1950s or so even passive conditioning) on local loops, they're just wires from the exchange to the phone.
As for why you didn't see similar constructions in other cities, this was definitely an unusually large telephone office for the time. In the US, a city exchange of the late 20th century would usually have just hundreds of lines, many of them multi-party. Telephone companies scaled up by building more exchanges, rather than a single very large one. When they got into these kinds of subscriber numbers at an exchange, the F1/F2 cable scheme was in use to avoid this kind of wiring. It does seem to be the case that telephone adoption was unusually rapid in Sweden, I find one (poorly sourced) claim that there were some 4,800 telephone subscribers in Stockholm in 1886 which would very likely make it the most telephone-rich city in the world. The situation of the tower seems to have developed in part because its builder, Allmänna, was consolidating the Stockholm telephone market through acquisitions and made a decision to centralize the many acquired customers onto on exchange.
What I'm a little confused about here is the lack of cables. The other big reason you didn't see constructions like this in the US, even in places like New York City, is because subscriber loops were quickly moved into lead-sheathed, paper-insulated multi-pair cables. These could contain hundreds of pairs. Cables were pretty much reaching maturity when this tower was built. I am curious as to the reason that multi-pair cables were not adopted more quickly in Stockholm, but it may be as simple as the considerable investment in this tower making open wire the preferred option for its short lifespan. In any case, the common claim that underground cables obsoleted the tower rings hollow to me, or at least misses an important detail, as aboveground cables were already in use in the 1880s. I suspect that modernization to cables was just deferred in Stockholm until it happened to also make sense to move to duct or pipe systems. In the US, it was more common that telephone exchanges switched to overhead (aerial) cable to manage exactly the wire sprawl issue that this tower exemplifies, and then only later (if ever) started to bury cables.
> As for why you didn't see similar constructions in other cities, this was definitely an unusually large telephone office for the time
For some perspective here - it took until the mid-80s for most of Germany to be connected to a phone line. That is, the 1980s.
I recently talked about that with my father after I found a postcard from one of my uncles from the early 80s confirming meeting and dinner plans. While I remember them always having a phone they were one of the households only connected in the mid 80s - which in retrospect explains some of the things I've found odd about them when talking to them by phone. It was a new thing for them.
(My parents got connected early on - my mother used to work for the post office in the phone exchange, and one of the perks of the job was priority for getting a phone line. Which also explained why we had an old grey phone, while pretty much all my friends had a relatively modern - for the time - one: they all only somewhat recently got phones)
I just wanted to say that after the first paragraph, I wondered who this comment was written by, and then I realised I knew the answer already. There was no need for me to even check.
I wouldn't take these Truth in Accounting reports too seriously. They're linked to ALEC and take a very hard-right stance on fiscal issues, and in particular, this report on NM (which is also nearly five years old) seems to ignore the permanent funds---as best I can tell they are lumping them all under "restricted" and ignoring them, even though the land grant permanent fund, the largest of them, is totally at the discretion of the legislature and the others are very broad. The permanent funds are also now significantly larger than that report shows.
While NM has debt it has been servicing it fine and state revenue has increased year over year pretty much since that report was produced in 2020 (either 2020 or 2021 were the worst years for the state's financial position). It's projected that 2025 will close out with nearly $3.5 billion in unspent revenue, and the state has about $50 billion saved in various permanent funds. The state's financial situation is currently so good that it has allowed things like universal free college tuition in a largely revenue-neutral way due to the significant balance of the invested funds.
One of the main criticisms you will hear of the NM legislative on the fiscal front is that they are too hesitant to spend money, since NM has serious issues with underperformance in areas like education while also having billions of savings that could be spent down in an effort to address those issues (and in fact the state supreme court more or less mandated the state to start doing so several years ago). However, since NM's revenue is so tied to the oil and gas industry and its boom-and-bust nature, the legislature likes to keep a substantial cash reserve to manage the bust years. That may be particularly important right now as the Trump administration is radically reducing the amount of federal funding that NM receives, which has always been a critical revenue source due to the state's high level of poverty (third highest in the US or so, depending on year and how you measure).
I'm referring to the Tizard mission exactly, in which Cockcroft brought a magnetron to the US for show and tell. Nuclear weapons were less of an emphasis than radar (and jet engines, also a UK-led development) at that point in time.
Yes! I will draw a slightly roundabout connection here to my pet topics, the British shared a number of fuze concepts as part of the Tizard mission and designs based in large part on the British concepts were developed and tested at the New Mexico Proving Grounds, part of what would later become Kirtland Air Force Base. Much of this work was directed by physicist E. J. Workman, president of the New Mexico School of Mines.
I could probably rewrite the above sentence to improve it, but I focused on the magnetron because it was seen to be of special significance at the time (directly addressed issues that US efforts at e.g. MIT Radiation Laboratory were struggling with) and that there's an interesting story surrounding the couriering of the "most secret" magnetron to the US (it was briefly lost). These were the early days of "classified" as a concept and consistent techniques around safeguarding classified matter hadn't been developed, so the magnetron plays an interesting role there as well (along with documents on a number of topics, but I believe the magnetron was the only "physical artifact" brought by the Tizard mission).
A tremendous portion of the truck market are people who live in urban to suburban areas and need to move things. For that audience, the ability to fit a 4x8' plywood sheet easily puts this ahead of a surprising number of conventional trucks on utility. The 2k lbs payload on the 2WD drive model is more than a Tacoma and some configurations of the F150, for example, popular models that also don't fit a 4x8 sheet without strapping it down over the cab or another awkward technique. It also lists a towing cap of 6,600 which is competitive with many production pickups.
There's a divide in needs between off-roading and moving things around, and this seems oriented in the moving things around direction. I can easily see it working for a landscaper in a suburban environment, for example, where the driving miles per day are really not that high and 6,600 is plenty for a typical landscaper's trailer.
From everything I've seen, true off-roading applications are a pretty small portion of the overall truck market, and one that many popular trucks right now are also poorly optimized for (popular 2WD configurations, middling clearances, etc).
I just put down a deposit. I make things from plywood sometimes, and even in my wife's R1S it's a pain. When we don't take the R1S, all 5 of us have to fit in my car (Honda Clarity). I coach robotics teams and sometimes need to haul a lot of stuff. Sometimes we do some light offroading in the R1S.
Looks like this will do all the things I need OK. I would like to drive something small and easy to park, that I could offroad a bit, carry my family a bit, haul stuff a bit.
And I've always liked the weird aesthetic of kei trucks and things like the Jeep Forward Control.
You don't usually have to call any more, there's a captive portal provisioning process. It's not totally reliable and sometimes you might give up after a few tries and call instead.
It's an interesting comment, it has the same "compliment the OP, elaborate, raise a further question" format I've seen used by apparently LLM-generated spam accounts on HN. But, the second paragraph is so incoherently structured that I have a hard time thinking an LLM produces it.
I might allow them more credit if the article wasn't in such an obviously LLM-written style. I've seen a few cases like this, now, where it seems like someone did some very modest technical investigation or even none at all and then prompted an LLM to write a whole article based on it. It comes out like this... a whole lot of bullet points and numbered lists, breathless language about the implications, but on repeated close readings you can't tell what they actually did.
It's unfortunate that, if this author really did collect this data, their choice to have an LLM write the article and in the process obscure the details has completely undermined their credibility.