numpad0

Except, trains already have them since about 150 years ago. The problem was that the "train TCAS" requires minimum distances for detection, so to speak, below which the system can't detect anything other than itself. When the newer system went down, there were more than one train within that minimum distance, so the older backup system didn't detect anything other than itself.

They can upgrade the system so that the minimum distances are smaller. Sure. Except, such hypothetical upgraded system was already in place, since 90s, and __that was what went down__.

If you were to then ask me, okay, why did they get the trains apart before committing with the downgrade into the older system. And that would be the right question. It's such a braindead move to not do that before executing the full downgrade. It's not like trains were moving when downgrade took place and it couldn't be done, the newer system going down triggered emergency stop of all trains. Train systems are intentionally built that way. So they could (load-bearing-)just ordered the trains to get spread out so there will be enough distances between trains so the older version of "train TCAS" would work correctly. The decision to NOT do that, with hindsight, is downright reckless.

By the way, if all reports on this matter is to be believed, the required distance of the older version of the "train TCAS" in operation was in excess of 25km, or 15 miles. That's long. It can be shortened. Sure. But then again, there was such a newer system already in place since 90s that has much less minimum distances than that, which went down.

English speakers left. Or so I assume. It's still roughly what it always was so long if you were somehow illiterate in English yet educated and plenty smart :p

LLM auto-translations haven't changed that much. The current corporate seems to be trying to figure out why and whether those remaining huge mass of foreign users lean left or right by the criteria of US politics, but still haven't have any clue about that nor had accepted that non-English-speakers actually don't speak English lol(or, to say, find translated contents natural as speeches with reasonable flows of logic, to be even more blunt)

Just inferring from GP, it sounds like the line was in an illegal/invalid state. Couple others are pointing out that the newer LZB system have much smaller block sizes than ASFA system it fell back to. Which means there were likely multiple trains under different LZB blocks occupying same ASFA blocks. That is a crash state, and train safety systems aren't designed to offer safe and normal operation of two already-crashed-on-paper trains.

What they needed to do was to move ALL trains around until the initial state is in a valid configuration under the ASFA system. Probably like moving one train at a time at <40kph so that there is minimum one ASFA block, which might be tens of miles or however long they are, between every single trains on the line. Then the whole operation could be switched to ASFA system at full speed at much reduced capacity. It also means the train more or less wouldn't be moving for the rest of the day. Not only passengers would be angry but there will inevitably few that needs to be hospitalized for things like mild dehydration and sometimes small injuries if they needed to be evacuated.

What likely happened was that they didn't think about any of that at all, and just hot rebooted into the ASFA system without deconflicting anything. The ASFA system signaled ok to proceed to all trains sharing the same ASFA blocks to their next vacant blocks, not knowing that some of blocks were occupied by multiple trains before humans put it online, which would be an out-of-question horrifying hypothetical to the ASFA computers. And when the system ordered a train in the block to stop because a block in front was occupied, there were in fact two trains in that block, one still driving towards the one in front at 160kph, far away from the stop signal, and two collided.

You're not supposed to run trains in ambiguous situations period.

On single lines with bi-directional services, you can design and implement a token based lock system: it's literally a token, often referred to as tablets, what inspired mutexes in computer science. They are like a golden medal or a durable hunk of metal, with the name of the station it belongs to engraved, often enclosed in a leather case or something. The arriving train drops the token it holds at the station, and obtains the new one when departing. The trains traveling opposite side will return them. When a train fails to obtain it, whether because it merely failed to catch it or the new one hasn't arrived, it MUST stop once, before it technically leaves the part of the rail that is considered "the station", until one is obtained.

This won't work as-is if there's going to be a T shaped crossing in which lines branch from the trunk line into short segments to stations. The crossing must be a station with its own lock token in that case. But that also can be some sort of crude technical stop for staff uses only with just maintenance guys with helmets and vests as station masters and apprentices moving the tokens around.

If they couldn't get computers handle it or make signals turn from red to blue or at least red to nothing, and didn't even have that token system, the train cannot move. It may technically be able to, and maybe it's ok for moving just few meters back and forth, but that's it. The trains should not have been operated at all if they couldn't figure out the computers.

I was once just asking for a single page webapp once. I mentioned it's for Japanese users and Gemini started to completely destroy the HTML, trying to turn it into a typical mile-long receipt style page.

LLMs are still text completion engines, Maybe in the way we humans are merely adaptable to spacewalks and not designed to do it, but I think wild claims like "China backdoors LLM to generate vulnerabilities for dissents" needs more substantiation than just these random experiments.

My point is about endemic lack of general understanding for these types of arts on English part of the Internet/WWW, no offense to GP intended. It feels like listening to museum curators discussing "oil on canvas" without ever having set foot on a store that have tubes of paints and canvases on the shelf and Apple Pay stickers at the cashier.

Without more widespread recognition about how these models, arts, games, etc., are artificially made by humans, and not magically discovered, I think discussions as to how they should be handled will be always a bit off, whichever way it would go. That's my point.

IIRC, ChiTu Systems once tried to use their leverage against the printer brands that rely on their components, and printer brands pushed back by seeking an alternative systems supplier with a new slicer. ChiTu-based printers have gained compatibility for alternative slicers after that.

I believe the Open mode in Form printers disable couples of interesting features that don't seem strongly connected to material properties of resin used, like resin recovery to tank and vat stirring wiper.

Form resin vats/tanks/tray/bed/whatever you call it are also not just proprietary, but their equivalent of FEP film is not replaceable. The resin vat usually have what is referred to as FEP film, a thin transparent Teflon sheet at the bottom of about a phone screen protector thickness and durability, stretched and pre-tensioned like a drum. The non-adhesion performance of film affects print quality, and it needs replacement eventually(I believe it is characterized as after x thousand layers printed, internally by printer manufacturers). On most printers, the replacement film can be bought and installed by the user. Formlabs printers use something other than regular FEP, and uses tool-less assembly that cannot be reversed, and therefore the whole proprietary tank needs to be discarded and replaced.

It's like Bambu Lab but the printbed is proprietary too and heated bed turns off for non-Bambu filaments. As if proprietary nozzles was not enough.

Metro style trains all have it. It's just continental long distance systems that are sometimes lax about those things.

Train wheels are all solid metal so you can watch out for electrical faults between the left and right rails. You can, and this is in fact how many metro style trains operate, require the ground infra to be responding OK and report no faults in the next part of the rail for the train to enter a new section.

Reading other comments, looks like this Spanish system did have a German system that is more advanced that basic electrical fault based system, it was just switched off because it was broken. That's downright reckless, and it shouldn't be a normal behavior.

They don't advertise you how those things work, because it's useless information for most. Doesn't mean they never had such systems for the past ~150 years.

Those override switches are dangerous enough to have tamper evident seals, or sometimes padlocks. And even if they are to be used, there just must be something mechanical to substitute those systems, most simply and least efficiently by physical tokens(tablets) assigned to each stations. Trains had those systems literally since late 19th century.

Passenger service with just verbal orders over a phone is simply unacceptable.

They ran the trains with no blocking, not even tokens!? In 2026!? Unbelievable.

Qualcomm did it once. A SAW filter had hermetic seal issue or something and Wi-Fi modems lost voice in matters of months. Quite a lot of Android phones around 2010-2012 were affected. Virtually none of manufacturers took actions based on that information.

I understand importance of preservation, but frankly, the English WWW seem to massively and simultaneously overestimate rarity and undervalue financial costs of creative assets like 3D models and 2D images.

It's not rare that these assets cost in ranges of $10k and made in less than dozen man-hours each. They're not harvested and collected, but artificially created by individuals by work orders or as their own projects. A lot of these conversation feels like people are talking about something similar to Louvre collection items that cannot be obtained other than by somewhat illicit means, leading to discussions of which illicit means will be tolerated in the name of preservation.

No, it's something they make as we speak on Blender. Like with a mouse and a keyboard, or sometimes with a pen tablet. I think the anglosphere Internet hasn't yet reached the point where justification of dubious means can be discussed; we're at the phase where it should be educated to people more often that these are man-made creations that each has economic values.