Daily Archives: September 1, 2021

The Space Development Agency (SDA) is seeking responses to their Request for Proposal (RFP) to help build the Tranche 1 Transport Layer (T1TL).

T1TL is a mesh network of more than 100 optically interconnected satellites that provide a resilient, low-latency, high-volume data transport communication system.

T1TL will provide global communications access and deliver persistent regional encrypted connectivity in support of Warfighter missions around the globe by serving as the backbone for Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) built on low-latency data transport and sensor-to-shooter connectivity.

T1TL will consist of six near-polar orbital planes of SVs in a 1000 km altitude proliferated LEO constellation, linked together to form a global space mesh network. SDA expects to make multiple awards from this solicitation.

Proposals are due by October 1, 2021 at Noon EDT.

More pertinent information is available at this direct infolink

Originally posted here:

Space Development Agency's Latest RFP Calling For 100+ Satellites To Help Build The Trance 1 Transport Layer SatNews - SatNews Publishers

Even by the usual American standards, the collapse of the US-built and generously sponsored Afghan army in the face of the Talibans walkover victory into Kabul is a fiasco of mega proportions. The habitual post-mortem (who lost Afghanistan, how, and why?) hardly scratches the surface of what actually happened.

When a ragtag movement, supposedly crushed into oblivion by the most powerful military alliance on the planet, and bombed and re-bombed to smithereens for over two decades, rises from the ashes, walks into the very presidential palace built by the terminators who were incidentally still around, watching as if in a trance to manage its terminal absence, it is not Afghanistan we should be discussing here. It should be America itself and what is left of it as a world power.

Hitherto, the standard answers being offered included: how the good war in Afghanistan (unlike, God forbid, the bad one in Iraq!), turned bad as well; how better logistics and timing could have helped, how strategies could have been different, etc.

This focus on largely technical issues, such as the internal command problems within NATO, weak planning, corruption and incompetence in the Afghan leadership, the failure of President Barack Obamas 2009 surge, missed opportunities for peace-making, etc, is more of a distraction than a insightful analysis.

Even the persistent accusations against Pakistan of supporting the Taliban are irrelevant; even if those are true, its involvement would be no match for the over 40 other advanced countries backing America, and the strong support from tribal-ethnic forces that did most of the ground fighting initially.

Here, we have the worlds mightiest, ultra-modern war machine, failing dismally in a war against a marginal, almost alien, military-political force, in one of the poorest countries in the world. This dream alliance, generously funded (to the level of over a trillion dollars) and backed by United Nations leadership and guidance in civil affairs, spent two decades amassing victories and achievements. Then it watched in stunned impotence as bare-foot villagers walked in, or rode in on motorbikes, to wipe out all those achievements within a couple of weeks.

That was no technical or logistical mishap. It was a thrashing, a defeat in all the senses of the word, an abject failure. Even in the wake of the most violent colonial wars of liberation, never have we seen an occupation that had to rush to take all its human achievements, including the translators, home with it. As routings go, this was epic!

A few critics raised the fundamental issue of whether the idea of the war itself was sound, reminding us of the questionable justifications, given that none of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks came from Afghanistan, and America has harboured more of them than Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda chose Afghanistan because of its statelessness, not because it had a terror-sponsoring state. So, the war did not address the root cause of the conflict.

Afghanistan had remained exceptionally resistant to foreign invaders and very effective in keeping them out, unlike Iraq, which had a formative colonial experience. The invasion was thus both unhelpful and unwise. Many deemed it unjust and illegal.

However, Western support for this good and just war remained strong overall, apart from a small section of sceptics. In October 2019, Foreign Affairs asked a group of authorities with deep specialised expertise on the Afghan case whether the war was a mistake. Only a handful questioned its legitimacy, even after all that had happened or become known.

In the post-9/11 trauma, US leaders felt they had to do something violent, and soon. It was more an act of seeking catharsis than a rational response. Like Osama bin Laden, George W Bush also chose Afghanistan, the apparent weakest link, as the site of his retaliation spectacle.

Nonetheless, the consequences of such a rash indulgence were not that hard to predict. The question is: Why was foreseeing the disaster so difficult in this advanced country, with a limitless supply of pundits, scholars, experts and veteran policymakers?

The Afghan debacle was not the only major occurrence that had caught experts by surprise. So did the Arab Spring, the Berlin Wall, the Iranian revolution, the rise of Islamism you name it. There is something problematic about experts who always appear the last to know.

Some scholars had contended that historical developments are inherently unpredictable, even to the actors involved in them; many of the latter engage in preference falsification (the deliberate hiding of intentions). However, this is not the whole story. There is often a reluctance by experts to see the obvious.

I have spent the past few decades responding to wishful thinking about the end of Islamism. In the late 1990s an American friend sent me for comment chapters of her book, which predicted the end of Islamism. I sent her an article I had published a decade earlier, criticising the methodology for similar conclusions reached by State Department analysts.

They had based their conclusions on election results from five countries, all autocracies! I warned in that piece that continued oppression by US-backed regimes will radicalise Islamists, not eliminate them, as some seem to aspire. I think we all now know how things have evolved since then.

Edward Saids deep critique of Orientalism has shown us these errors were part of a broader pattern of distortions. Ironically, Saids work faced a backlash that triggered a sectarian polarisation in Middle Eastern studies in the US. Opponents of his views, including an alliance of neoconservatives and pro-Israel lobbies, launched multiple crusades against fair-minded academics, including campaigns of defamation, lobbying to cut official funds to universities deemed anti-Israel, or even anti-America.

These ventures included the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, set up in 1995 by Lynne Cheney and Senator Joe Lieberman, and described by critics as a form of New McCarthyism for its systematic targeting of progressive academics as enemies of the American civilisation.

In 2002, the pro-Israel lobbyists launched Campus Watch, dedicated to targeting academics deemed hostile to Israels agenda. The group published a black list of offending academics, and urged students to snitch on their professors!

Given the already mentioned problems of expertise in foreign policy analysis, the advice of these campaigners looks like a prescription for the poor-sighted to wear blindfolds. Enhanced since then by Trumpism and its hostility to anything rational, this approach threatens American society as a whole, and not just academia and rationality.

The Afghan question needs to be seen in this broader framework. Faulty analyses (or plain prejudice/bias) often produce disastrous policies, which in turn generate more misguided analyses. There is the background issue of Israel, and the irrational decision in Washington to indulge whatever absurd and dangerous policies Israelis propose, oblivious of the consequences, even to Israel itself. As a result, it is not Israel, but America that is the gravest threat to stability in the region.

But the immediate roots of the current crisis go back to 1990, when President George Bush Sr decided to exploit Iraqs invasion of Kuwait to assert US hegemony in the post-Cold War era. Instead of using diplomacy to resolve the crisis, he took the opportunity to show off American firepower, shore up friendly despots, secure oil supplies, and show everybody who the boss was.

Senior British and US officials dismissed warnings of serious consequences, boasting after the war about how right they were: nothing happened. Then, of course, 9/11 happened, and the same people were asking: where did this come from?

What happened in 1990 in the Middle East was similar to what happened in Afghanistan in 2001. In both cases, a conservative society was traumatised by a disruptive foreign presence (more violently in the case of Afghanistan) that tore it apart and provoked violent defensive reactions that spilled over into America.

The intrusion into Saudi Arabia in 1990 was the original sin, producing al-Qaeda; the 2003 invasion of Iraq produced ISIS; then the invasion of Afghanistan created a more viable Islamic emirate.

Simultaneously, the regional balance came unhinged. Ironically Iran, the supposed enemy, was handed multiple victories; the US neutralised its Iraqi (and later Afghan) enemies, and practically handed over Iraq to it. Simultaneously, Saudi Arabia, Irans nemesis, was destabilised by the disruptive presence of US troops on its territory.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, followers of Irans late Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini would be forgiven to regard this as a divine intervention: Heaven sent Irans archenemy to subdue its local adversaries and hand Iranians the spoils. The US acted practically just like one of the pro-Iranian militias in the region, doing its bidding from a distance, only for free.

In the same vein, instead of taking serious action to stop Bashar al Assads genocide of the Syrian people, the selective intervention against ISIS made the US and NATO the complimentary air force of the Syrian regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Qassem Soleimani, this time handing over Syria to Putin and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Americas most dependable ally, Turkey, was left carrying the can, hostage to the Russia-Iran alliance. Even good old Machiavellianism appeared elusive. Ethics is not the only casualty here, but pragmatism as well. By continuing to let down its allies through its fickleness and faithlessness, and helping its enemies prosper through its incompetence, America will be without allies next time it decides to face up to China or Russia.

Only a decade ago, the question asked would have been: How long could extremists survive in the era of American unipolarity? I think now the question would be: how long can America last in the era of the Taliban?

In this, so-called experts are as guilty as the blundering politicians.

A few years ago, a taxi driver who drove me to Sky News studios in London for an interview, asked about the topic I was going to speak about. When he learned it was the war in Iraq, he remarked wryly, I think the intelligence agencies should be sued under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Maybe they are not the only ones.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Continued here:

What is left of America (and its experts) in the Taliban era? - Al Jazeera English

When Sensorium's virtual PRISM world finally opens its doors to concert-goers later this year, don't be surprised to find yourself striking up a conversation in the crowdwith an AI-driven avatar.

Its no secret AI has been a pillar of Sensorium Galaxys overall development strategy, but the technologydeveloped in partnership with Muberthas been kept vastly under wraps.

When it comes to AI, Sensoriums computer-generated avatars serve multiple functions. Some are artists with the potential to produce an endless stream of electronic music in a live performance setting. The remaining AI personalitieseach possessing unique behavioral traits and professional and personal backgroundsare residents of the Sensorium ecosystem. They have the "freedom" to navigate the hyper-futuristic PRISM grounds, converse with fellow festival-goers, and encode new shared experiences.

EDM.com had the chance to interview and interact with several of Sensorium's avatars first-hand and learn more about the role AI will play in shaping the company's broader metaverse experience. The demo was led by Ivan Nikitin, Sensoriums Product Director and Head of AI Research and Development.

Sensorium Galaxy

We were first introduced to Katherine, an aspiring AI makeup artist. While the avatars are meant to function as conversationalists, we were initially full of questions for Katherine.To start, she handled personal questions with ease, drawing upon her programmed background and using it to elucidate her long-term goals and career aspirations. We questioned her on her creative approach and what makes a great makeup artist, and she was able to articulate her stylistic preferences in a manner that felt organic.

"First I figure out what the person needs based on their features and their character, Katherine said of her approach. Then I start playing around with ideas that have to do with that, drawing little sketches in my sketch book.

A particularly impressive element of Sensoriums AI personalities is their ability to track a conversation across multiple lines of questioning. WhenKatherine shared some of her artistic inspirations with us, we followed up with a probe: Why?

Katherineshowed us she was able to retain the context of the conversation long enough to understand the follow-up. "He has an incredible eye for color," she said of her favorite artist. "He can change the entire feel of a performance using his makeup using colors and textures like no one else."

While these machines embody some impressively human qualities, talking with them long enough does create the potential to expose gaps in their knowledge. During our conversation, Katherine revealed that she considers herself an impressionist capable of impersonating Britney Spears, Jessica Alba, and more. However, our follow-up question asking her to do her best Paris Hilton impression fell flat when she simply responded, "Impersonates Paris."

Therein lies both the appeal and the Achilles heel of AI personalities. They are largely unpredictable and unscripted, save for a few guardrails.

When it comes to shaping the internal frameworks of these AI, Nikitin refers to the emerging field of AI Ethics as the guiding principles under which Sensorium operates.

"The considerations for AI Ethics are technical in nature,"Nikitin explained."We do content filtering and semantic analysis of both user and AI replies. We do not process responses from the users that contain vulgarity or fall within our age ratings category, which is 16-plus. With the AI responses we do analysis to never allow any of the sensitive topics, such as politics and religion. We do not allow any wording that can be considered aggressive or toxic in nature."

Nikitin says that by default the AI personalities mainly seek to provide positive reinforcement to Sensorium Galaxy occupants. They listen and react absent judgment. The company has also ensured conversations between users and avatars are completely siloed, eliminating the risk of sensitive information from one attendee being transmitted by the AI to others.

Our experience meeting Lilith, an AI personality with a background in accounting and finance who appreciates going to raves in her spare time, illuminated the congenial nature of the technology.

Lilith shared that one of her favorite artists to see is Ferry Corsten, an iconic trance music producer and DJ whom she speaks very highly of as a "musical genius." As uplifting trance fans ourselves, we waxed poetic on the genres euphoric qualities: "Youre right," Lilith agreed. "Its like a great filmits brilliant when it comes together."

While these types of interactions with AI are entertaining, the avatar's generally agreeable nature wont necessarily challenge the viewpoints of users or present them with earth-shattering new perspectives.

After conversing with several of Sensorium's AI-driven avatars with varying backgrounds and experiences, we were ultimately left wondering how artificial intelligence fits into the organization's broader vision for creating next-generation entertainment experiences.

"The ultimate goal I believe is the creation of social bridges," Nikitin said. "All of this connection creates a different level of immersion in the virtual world. Its like creating a true illusion of a parallel world which lives by its own rules and exists even when youre not there."

Sensorium Galaxy is expected to debut its PRISM concert platform in the back half of 2021.

Read the rest here:

The Robots Are Coming and They Like to Rave: What We Learned From Interviewing Sensorium's AI Avatars - EDM.com