Category: Technology

  • A Novice’s Look at Sidus Space SIDU [Web App]

    A Novice’s Look at Sidus Space

    Posing a Simple Question About Commercial Chips in a Radiation-Filled World

    Important Disclaimer

    This is not financial advice. I am a complete novice at this type of research. I hold degrees in Engineering Physics (B.S.) and Electrical & Electronics Engineering (M.S.), but my conclusions could be entirely wrong. I have previously bought and sold securities in both Sidus Space (SIDU) and Draganfly (DPRO). This report is for informational purposes only and represents my personal line of questioning. Do your own research. I am not responsible for any financial gains or losses.

    The Central Conflict

    Sidus Space, a company working on space and defense technology, has announced the use of NVIDIA’s Jetson platform for its on-orbit AI processing. This raises a fundamental question about equipment survivability in space. Let’s look at the two conflicting sides of this story.

    Side A: The Company’s Claim

    Sidus Space states its LizzieSat™ satellites use AI for “next-generation intelligence solutions” and touts its “AI-driven on-orbit capabilities.”

    “Sidus Space … announced the successful on-orbit operation of its Automatic Identification System (AIS) sensor onboard LizzieSat®-3… advancing the company’s strategy to fuse multi-sensor satellite data with onboard artificial intelligence…” – Sidus Space Press Release, Sep 10, 2025

    Side B: The Technical Reality

    The processor at the heart of their AI strategy, the NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX, is a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) component. It was never designed or intended for use in space.

    “The NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX System-on-Module (SoM) is unequivocally not a radiation-hardened device… Its official product documentation makes no claims regarding its suitability for aerospace or radiation environments…” – An Engineering Assessment of the NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX

    Hardened vs. Tolerant: What’s the Difference?

    To understand the risk, we need to know the key terminology. “Radiation Hardened” and “Radiation Tolerant” sound similar, but they represent fundamentally different engineering philosophies and levels of reliability.

    Built for Purpose

    These components are intentionally designed from the ground up to survive the harsh radiation of space. This involves specialized manufacturing processes (like Silicon-on-Insulator), redundant circuit designs, and materials that resist radiation damage. The manufacturer provides a guaranteed performance specification (e.g., will survive up to 100 krad(Si)).

    A Staggering Difference in Resilience

    Independent testing reveals the gap between the Jetson Orin NX’s tolerance and the guaranteed resilience of true rad-hard chips. The metric here is Total Ionizing Dose (TID), measured in krad(Si). A higher number means better protection.

    Processor Head-to-Head

    Here’s how the commercial Jetson Orin NX stacks up against two processors actually designed for the rigors of space. Note the trade-off: immense performance for unguaranteed reliability.

    Metric NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX BAE Systems RAD5545 Frontgrade Gaisler GR740
    Type COTS (Commercial) Rad-Hard by Design Rad-Hard by Design
    AI Performance Up to 100 TOPS N/A N/A
    TID Rating ~37-39 krad(Si) (Tested) 100 krad(Si) (Guaranteed) 300 krad(Si) (Guaranteed)
    Destructive Latchup Not Immune (Requires external protection) Latchup Immune (Guaranteed) Latchup Immune (Guaranteed)
    Manufacturer Stance Not intended for space Designed for SpaceVPX QML-V Certified for space

    So, How Do You Square the Two?

    On one hand, we have a company making exciting claims about AI in space. On the other, the hardware enabling these claims appears fundamentally unsuited for the operating environment without significant, undisclosed, and expensive mitigation strategies (like advanced shielding or complex watchdog systems).

    Is this the “New Space” paradigm of accepting higher risk for higher performance? Or is it a critical vulnerability being overlooked? As a novice, I don’t have the answer. But the question seems worth asking.

    About This Report

    My skepticism stems partly from past experiences with related companies and underwriters like Think Equity and H.C. Wainwright, particularly with Draganfly (DPRO). The pattern of dilution and bold claims warrants careful scrutiny.

    Report Published: October 7, 2025.

    (more…)
  • The Problem: Decentralized, Trustless Last-Mile Logistics

    Companies like DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Amazon Flex have solved the last-mile delivery problem using a centralized, server-based architecture. A central server, owned by the company, is the trusted intermediary that holds all the data: customer orders, restaurant/merchant locations, driver locations, driver reputations, and payment information. It acts as the “brain,” dispatching orders to drivers based on a proprietary algorithm.

    From first principles, design a system that accomplishes the same goal—efficiently matching customers who want items delivered with a fleet of independent drivers—but without a central server or trusted intermediary.

    Your proposed system must solve the following core problems from the ground up:

    1. Discovery: How does a customer’s order request get broadcast to nearby, available drivers without a central server to see everyone’s location? How does a driver “see” available orders?
    2. Selection & Bidding: How is a driver selected for an order? Does the customer choose? Is there a bidding system? How do you prevent a single malicious actor from accepting all orders and never completing them (a Sybil attack)?
    3. Reputation & Trust: Without a central database of star ratings, how is driver reputation established and verified in a decentralized manner? How can a customer trust a driver they’ve never met? How can a driver trust that the customer will pay? Reputation must be resistant to manipulation.
    4. Payment: How are payments processed trustlessly? The customer needs to be sure they won’t be charged until the item is delivered, and the driver needs to be sure they will be paid upon successful delivery. Design a payment-in-escrow mechanism that doesn’t rely on a central company holding the funds. Consider using smart contracts or a similar cryptographic method.
    5. Efficiency & Scalability: Centralized dispatch algorithms are highly optimized. How can a decentralized, peer-to-peer network achieve comparable route and batching efficiency without a god’s-eye view of the entire system? How does your system scale from a single neighborhood to a whole city?

    Your answer should focus on the fundamental architecture, protocols, and incentive structures, not just the user interface of an app.

  • Digital Enclaves or Inclusive Communities? The Societal and Legal Implications of Match Group’s Niche Dating Portfolio

    Digital Enclaves or Inclusive Communities? The Societal and Legal Implications of Match Group’s Niche Dating Portfolio

    David’s Note: This article was substantially revised on October 11, 2025 to incorporate new research and provide a more comprehensive analysis.

    Executive Summary

    This report examines the societal and legal implications of niche dating applications. These apps are operated by Match Group’s subsidiary, Affinity Apps, LLC. The portfolio includes platforms like Chispa (Latino), BLK (Black), and Upward (Christian). A violent crime facilitated through the Chispa app prompted this analysis.¹ It investigates whether these demographically-targeted platforms contribute to the exclusion of non-denominational white individuals from the dating pool.

    The core finding is that these niche applications are not a primary driver of exclusion against the majority demographic. Instead, they are a market response to pre-existing exclusionary dynamics on mainstream dating platforms. These dynamics and racial hierarchies are well-documented. They systematically privilege white users and disadvantage certain minority groups.² These apps function as digital enclaves. They provide necessary and affirming spaces for communities that face discrimination elsewhere.³

    However, the report also finds that the architecture of these platforms creates powerful feedback loops. This architecture relies on user-controlled and algorithmic filtering. These loops risk amplifying human biases and reinforcing social segregation.⁴ This business model is predicated on sorting users by protected characteristics like race and religion. This places Match Group in a precarious legal position. This is particularly true as the debate over whether dating apps constitute “places of public accommodation” under anti-discrimination law evolves.⁵

    The report provides key recommendations for both Match Group and policymakers. It advises Match Group to enhance user safety, increase algorithmic transparency, and conduct an ethical review of its filtering policies. It urges policymakers to resolve the legal ambiguity surrounding digital public accommodations. They should also develop frameworks for algorithmic accountability. This would hold platform companies responsible for the discriminatory outcomes of their technology.

    The report concludes that the central challenge is not a phantom threat of exclusion. It is about balancing the human need for affinity with the broader societal goal of integration.

    (more…)
  • The Sentinel Initiative: A Non-Invasive Technological Moonshot to Secure America’s Health Against Airborne Threats

    The Sentinel Initiative: A Non-Invasive Technological Moonshot to Secure America’s Health Against Airborne Threats

    This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional.

    David’s Note: This article was substantially revised on October 10, 2025 to incorporate new research and provide a more comprehensive analysis.

    Executive Summary

    The resurgence of measles in the United States signals a critical failure in our national public health strategy. We face a highly contagious airborne virus and an environment of deep public distrust. Because of this, traditional methods that rely on universal compliance are no longer sufficient.

    This report proposes the Sentinel Initiative. It is a national “moonshot” project to develop and deploy a nationwide, non-invasive early warning system for airborne pathogens.

    The proposed solution is a two-pronged technological strategy. It focuses on situational awareness, not surveillance.

    • The first pillar is an Atmospheric Surveillance Grid. This network of advanced biosensors in critical public infrastructure (e.g., transit hubs, schools) will detect airborne threats in real time.
    • The second is the development of Personal Early Warning Systems. These wearable devices would function as personal “Geiger counters” for viruses.

    Crucially, this initiative is founded on the principle of empowerment through information. It is fundamentally non-invasive: it detects pathogens in the air, not people. It does not track individuals, collect personal data, or mandate behavior. By providing objective, real-time alerts, it empowers individuals and public health officials to make informed decisions. This complements—not replaces—vaccination efforts.

    The Sentinel Initiative represents a strategic investment in national resilience. It offers a new layer of defense that protects public health, ensures economic stability, and enhances individual liberty in the face of 21st-century biological threats.

    (more…)