Skip to main content

Astronomers Discover 196-Foot Asteroid With 1-In-83 Chance of Hitting Earth In 2032

3 months 2 weeks ago
Astronomers have discovered a newly identified asteroid that has a 1-in-83 chance of striking Earth on December 22, 2032, though the most likely scenario is a close miss. Designated as 2024 YR4, the asteroid measures in at 196 feet wide and is currently 27 million miles away. Space.com reports: The near-Earth object (NEO) discovered in 2024, which is around half as wide as a football field is long, will make a very close approach to Earth on Dec. 22, 2032. It's estimated to come within around 66,000 miles (106,200 kilometers) of Earth on that day, according to NASA's Center of NEO Studies (CNEOS). However, when orbital uncertainties are considered, that close approach could turn out to be a direct hit on our planet. Such an impact could cause an explosion in the atmosphere, called an "airburst," or could cause an impact crater when it slams into the ground. This is enough to see asteroid 2024 YR4 leap to the top of the European Space Agency's NEO impact Risk List and NASA's Sentry Risk Table. "People should absolutely not worry about this yet," said Catalina Sky Survey engineer and asteroid hunter David Rankin. "Impact probability is still very low, and the most likely outcome will be a close approaching rock that misses us." As for where it could hit Earth, Rankin said that the "risk corridor" for impact runs from South America across the Atlantic to sub-Saharan Africa.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD

CodeSOD: Does This Spec Turn You On?

3 months 2 weeks ago

I'm a JSON curmudgeon, in that I think that its type-system, inherited from JavaScript, is bad. It's a limited vocabulary of types, and it forces developers to play odd games of convention. For example, because it lacks any sort of date type, you either have to explode your date out as a sub-dictionary (arguably, the "right" approach) or do what most people do- use an ISO formatted string as your date. The latter version requires you to attempt to parse the sting to validate the data, but validating JSON is a whole thing anyway.

But, enough about me being old and cranky. Do you know one type JSON supports? Boolean values.

Which is why this specification from today's anonymous submitter annoys me so much:

field: sw_auto_update type: string valid values: /(on)|(off)/ field: data_auto_update type: string valid values: /(on)|(off)/ field: spanning_tree_protocol type: string valid values: /(on)|(off)/

Their custom validator absolutely requires the use of strings, and absolutely requires that they have these values. Sending a boolean, or worse, the string "true" causes the request to get rejected.

Our submitter doesn't explain why it's this way, but I have a strong suspicion that it's because it was originally designed to support a form submission with radio buttons. The form is long gone, but the API contract remains.

[Advertisement] Keep the plebs out of prod. Restrict NuGet feed privileges with ProGet. Learn more.
Remy Porter