John Wiseman

Finally, the only daily, global, free map of GPS interference has officially launched: gpsjam.org Watch jamming around conflict zones develop over time. Wonder who's jamming GPS all around Moscow. Like all the best maps, it raises more questions than it answers!

@OnDisasters N249CP lost GPS shortly before the crash. White Sands Missile Range was jamming GPS at the time, according to ADS-B data and a NOTAM. bsky.app/profile/lemono…

Today: a medevac aircraft crashed in New Mexico (US). All 4 aboard died and the accident triggered a forest fire in Captain Mountains, NE of Ruidoso. Aircraft was a King Air [Reg. "N249CP"] operated by Angels Envy Aviation LLC

@UAVHive @RandoRobby42 I might imagine possibly driving enemy drones in a general direction with spoofing but I think it’s practically impossible to get them to hit a specific target. (IM testing popular drone firmwares to see what they do when spoofed.)

@RandoRobby42 Some X accounts are essentially saying Russia is spoofing drones into NATO territories, so yes, effectively driving Ukraine drones onto a new course into the likes of Latvia.

People that don't know how drones work present a picture that you can spoof a drone back at NATO as though whacking a shuttlecock 🏸 back. A) there are mitigations in hardware & software B) if mitigations fail, once out of range of an effector the drone course would correct

@smod4real Slaughterbots. youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_…

Imagine each of these strapped with a grenade, a simple infrared camera, and few lines of code that says “if object is above 94° F and is moving, fly into it and detonate at 1 meter from impact.”

@DJSnM Maps showing glideable aircraft and glideable airports. "Glideable" means within glide distance and has a runway of an appropriate length.

@DJSnM Using FAA NASR data instead of X-Plane now, but the answers are basically the same. Aircraft data as of 2321Z. KVQQ in Jacksonville had the most aircraft within range. N801CB, a Citation, was within range of the most usable airports.

This leads me to wonder what proportion of flights in the US are in a position to glide to a usable runway at any random time. Maybe I could do this with ADS-B data and code.

@cryptopunk7213 @xm_build Anthropic released the Claude Code SDK almost a year ago.

@xm_build ai labs have no incentive to do this

this is huge news from Cursor, they've pulled of the impossible and turned their ai-wrapper into a in-destructible moat sam altman literally called it <24hrs ago and here we are: > cursor's ai agent harness is available for anyone to build on, which means ai models are now a commodity > 1-time install and now anyone can run cursor's agent locally or via cloud. use any model (e.g. gpt 5.5) but with the added cursor harness that makes it 10X better. > its so good that 3 of cursors biggest competitors are embedding it into their products. > now cursor DOESN'T DEPEND on anthropic or openai. their own model (composer 2) competes directly! yesterday sam altman said the ai model and harness are one and the same and today cursor turned their harness into a self-owned moat fucking masterclass (coming from a former cursor / ai wrapper hater)

New video demonstrating the latest version of my AI pilot: An LLM Flies X-Plane. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite taxis from parking, takes off and flies a lap, lands and parks. 12 minutes, $0.08. You can try it if you want, the code is public. youtube.com/watch?v=UiXcLU…

@AmandaAskell You can use the free trial and try to pass the first few steps toward their CAT (communication and airspace training) rating. pilotedge.net/pages/cat-rati…

@AmandaAskell Try it with pilotedge.net. You’ll be sweating irl, behind the plane, trying as hard as you can to not screw up.

What I'm learning from flight simulators is that it would be a bit boring to be an amateur cessna pilot but a lot of fun to be an amateur fighter jet pilot.

@Casillic @thenewarea51 I think that’s the issue, since there are currently no restrictions on sales of these things. Imagine the scary headline: “15 Agricultural Drones Purchased By Random Guy”, which probably happens a couple times a week.

@thenewarea51 Remember concern back tens years ago on dual usage

Remember the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult that attacked the subway in Tokyo? Back in the early 90’s they purchased two R/C helicopters capable of carrying payloads. Per a story by Jeffery Lewis, “The story of the remote-controlled helicopters ends happily; inept cult members apparently smashed one into a tree and the second into the ground, and that was the end of that. Whether and how seriously Aum considered using the helicopters to spread chemical or biological agents remains unclear.” Before the advent of “drones” the only thing remotely close to something like this was Radio Controlled aka R/C aircraft. They were somewhat complex to maintain and operate compared to today’s tech. It took training and a basic understanding of aerodynamics to operate them. I spent many years building and flying R/C airplanes and helicopters starting when I was a kid. Nowadays you really don’t need any training. What a time to be alive!

@root0120 @bcherny I just got the same erroneous message. I don’t even think I’ve actually hit my session limit.

Claude Code limit messages seem a bit off. My session limit is clearly maxed out, but the error says I’ve hit a “monthly org limit.” First time I’ve seen this. Is this a bug or something new? @bcherny

In the best case scenario, Trump struck a deal to reopen a Strait that was open before the pointless war he started, with the IRGC demonstrating its control over the Strait and potentially extracting fees plus sanctions relief. Thousands of innocents - including hundreds of children - dead in Lebanon and Iran for no reason. U.S. troops killed and wounded. U.S. embassies and bases in the Middle East badly damaged. U.S. standing in the world obliterated. U.S. munitions badly depleted. Hundreds of billions spent. Prices up everywhere. More global economic fallout to come. Putin strengthened and enriched. Just a catastrophic situation even in the best of circumstances. A profoundly shameful episode in American history no matter what happens next.

@deepfates This might be an @enf topic.

im curious about the history of "prompts" -- as in, the > or $ or whatever in your terminal, not the text string for AI models. unfortunately this is impossible to google now

@astroferg @IntRschAgncy NASA522: globe.airplanes.live/?icao=ae654a KML: gist.github.com/wiseman/d4c03f…

@IntRschAgncy NASA522 maybe, but I want to see if anyone can get me the ads-b playback to confirm it. If I can get the lat/lon/alt I can see if it matches SLS look angles at that moment.

Spotted something strange next to SLS in my footage. It's visible in two different telescopes and cameras that I had tracking the vehicle. It appeared to move roughly with the rocket as the telescope vibrated a bit during tracking, so it's not a hot pixel. Needs more analysis...

@jsrailton @cemaxecuter First April Fools joke to be cited in a DARPA solicitation.

@lemonodor @cemaxecuter Same, shoot

🚨“See through walls” without WiFi.
Iridium L-band: 1–6 dB through walls, 2–4 dB foliage.
Add micro-Doppler + multi-sat CIR → passive detection with just an SDR.
No TX. Satellites do the work. 🤯
github.com/alphafox02/iri…

@cemaxecuter Someone is going to submit a PR that makes it work.

@lemonodor Kept me up at night preparing! Haha

@lord_diavlo @MCCCANM Using ADS-B data.

@lemonodor @MCCCANM Great stuff! May I ask how you managed to do this?

Attention Aviation Journalists (& anyone interested)! I have a primer for you on the SFO “parallel approaches” story. It has the potential to be a big story. I imagine the airlines, and maybe even the city, will fight the FAA’s decision. Big impact. So, here’s a bit of history & a perspective on simultaneous close visual approaches to runways 28L & 28R from a pilot perspective. Summary: these are *not* dangerous approaches. You can find someone who will tell you they are, but I’d bet 95% or more of pilots who’ve flown them will tell you it’s not dangerous. In fact, it’s a fun approach & a treat for passengers w/ the added benefit of increasing the airport’s arrival rate capacity. In essence, these approaches – the “FMS Bridge Visual 28R”, the “Quiet Bridge Visual 28L” & the “Tip Toe Visual 28R” (list not all inclusive) – are used in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) only. Pilots must be able to see a long way to do these approaches. When there are low clouds, fog, rain or something, these are not an option even offered. Visual approaches are not at all unusual at any airport. In many cases, the visual is the preferred method of approach. At SFO, we must be able to see a long way because we must be able to identify our “pairing traffic” & keep them in sight during the entire sequence. We know exactly where the other jet is at all times during this approach. I’ve included a sample of the approach to runway 28R, below. Somewhere around point “TRDOW”, approach control is pointing out your “pairing traffic”. They won’t allow you to get close, or continue the approach until you have them in sight. It can take a couple minutes to visually acquire them, but by “GAROW” or “JANYY” it’s very easy to spot them. If you still can’t spot them, approach won’t let you continue. Keep in mind that the example I included below is *only* for 28R. Runway 28L has a different approach & it’s not depicted here at all. There is space between the runways to begin with…but the 28R approach creates more space between aircraft by bringing you in at an angle…it does not line up with the runway until a very short final. The aircraft on 28L is also looking for you & must keep you in sight, as well. The problem with these approaches is that they used to set off a “TCAS RA”. I assume you know this term. A TCAS RA must be obeyed. So, we obeyed it & did a go around, even though we can see the other jet & know it’s not really a problem. Reports are filed & records kept. At one point, SFO was one of a few places that certain airlines were allowed to switch the TCAS to “TA Only” mode. The RAs were a nuisance rather than a real threat & everyone knew it, so we disabled the RAs. I don’t know of many other instances this was allowed. That may sound extreme, but (the majority of) pilots were happy to have a solution, even if it was only temporary as they tried to find a better fix. They did. They offset the approach track to 28R enough that a jet following it would be below the TCAS inhibition altitude before it got close enough to the other jet to set off an RA. It’s an elegant solution & works very well. Now, these approaches are famous for videos of jets landing simultaneously. That’s cool, but not how it works in practice most of the time. One jet usually ends up behind the other & at nearly the same speed. They are below the required distance for usual separation, but they are separated in trail. Even when it does end up with the jets landing together, it’s not dangerous. I’m speculating, but this decision seems to be someone looking at reports of TCAS RAs over several years, seeing a bunch at SFO & deciding we can’t do this anymore, not understanding that the RAs are not a real danger signal in this case. It’s a spreadsheet decision, not a wisdom decision. It doesn’t actually make anyone safer, but it looks like it does & that’s what matters. The disruptions this decision will cause? Not included on the spreadsheet. Hope that helps!