Youtube pays them per (ad) view, and also recommends the video to more people based on how many people click on it. So giving people another way to watch it will decrease their revenue and audience.
I depends on the orbit. The low Earth ones would usually be de-orbited and fall back to Earth. The geosychronous ones are usually just moved to a parking orbit out of the way to make room for more. If it's in a high but not very crowded orbit, they might just stop using it.
Rejecting bad data is part of what we should do to get people healthy. This isn't a controlled scientific study, it's just a news article about a government supplied statistic with a lot of unsubstantiated claims as to why.
The anti-satellite devices could be deployed in the same manner as the Starlink satellites. And they wouldn't need communications equipment, so they could be lighter and cheaper to launch. And you really wouldn't need to take them all out, just enough to make communication unreliable.
Starlink launches reduce costs by launching a bunch of satellites with similar orbits on the same vehicle, replacing one or a few satellites is going to cost a lot more per satellite. So just disrupting the network is a lot cheaper than fixing it.
Thought the cheapest is still probably paying an existing employee to break some stuff.
Taking out one or even a few dozen satellites isn't going to make communication unreliable. They can redistribute themselves to fill holes. You'd need to take out thousands, requiring hundreds of launches at least. And neither Russia nor China has reusable rockets, so the costs would be much higher than SpaceX's costs. The interceptors would take a long time to spread out to reach their targets if they were launched in groups like Starlink is, so it wouldn't be a surprise attack and SpaceX would have time to prepare. They would need to start launching on-orbit spares for each orbital shell, but there are only a few shells, not hundreds.
And in a few years when Starship is launching Starlink, the economics will be tilted even more wildly in SpaceX's favor.
There are satellites on a polar orbit, which will cover connections at the poles, but those satellites still cover a lot of non-polar ground.
If polar orbiting satellites are still working we'd expect to see intermittent or degraded connectivity away from the poles rather than complete outage?
I saw some people report that their dishes are pointing in unusual directions so it would explain that, and that my service is fine since I only use the polar orbiting ones ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not really anything in there regarding the sundial. I'm guessing that was put in there metaphorically for clickbait reasons.
Knowing quite a bit about sundials I was genuinely curious about how that would work, as a typical (horizontal) sundial doesn't have enough information to make a calendar. It's a time of day device, rather than a time of year device. You could teach the model about the Equation of Time or the Sun's declination, but it wouldn't need the sundial at that point. There are sundials like a spider sundial, or nodus sundial, that encode date information too. But there's overlap/ambiguity between the two solstices as the sun goes from highest to lowest, then back to its highest declination. Leap years also add some challenges too. There are various ways to deal with those, but I think you can see why I was curious how producing a calendar from a sundial would work (without giving it some other information that makes the sundial unecessary).
I'm sorry for the misleading title about a sundial, it was a metaphor, and based on the feedback here, if I had to do it again I would pick a different one. :-)
My only worry with these MCP "sensors" is that they add-up to the token cost — and more importantly to the context window cost. It would be great to have the models regularly poll as new data and factor that into their inferences. But I think the models (at least with current attention) will always have a trade-off between how much they are provided and what they can focus on. I am afraid that if I provide Claude numerous senses, that it will lower its attention to our conversation.
But your exciting comment (and again I apologize for disappointing you!) makes me think about creating an MCP server that provides like the position of the sun in the sky for the current location, or maybe some vectorized representation of a specific sundial.
I think the digitized information that we experience is more native to models (i.e., require fewer processing steps to extract insights from), but it's possible that providing them this kind of input would result in unexpected insights. They may notice patterns, i.e., more grumpy when the sun is in this phase, etc.
If it helps, I have several methods of computing the Sun's position at varying degrees of accuracy/complexity, and some sundial code at https://www.celestialprogramming.com/
There are a handful of Earth centered, geocentric standard reference frames. The most used today is the Geocentric Celestial Reference System (GCRS). It should be obvious that if you want to compute where to point a telescope, a transformation of coordinates will involve a step through such a coordinate system. GPS is it's own system, but there are transformations to and from the GCRS and GPS frames. Which one makes sense depends a lot on your application.
I agree that GCRS and other Earth-centered inertial systems are fundamental for astronomy, tracking, and spaceflight.
And yes, you can transform between GPS coordinates and GCRS (or ECI/ECEF), depending on what you’re trying to do. The key distinction I’m making is about contextual meaning and application. GPS (WGS-84) coordinates are geodetic.
Once you're transforming positions millions of kilometers away (eg. L2, the Moon, or Mars) into lat/lon/alt, you're applying a system optimized for geodesy to a domain where the altitude is arbitrary, and "longitude" rotates with Earth.
I actually unsubscribed from Jeff's channel after he published that video. Anyone claiming the lack of a used RPi market means we have to ignore the used market for everything else is just an idiot. I'm going to compare the two no matter how much it bothers the fanboys.
I guess I must be. Where did he "point out the difference between new and used"? All I see is "But newsflash: used is different than new", then the explicit declaration 'you can't say "Tiny PCs are cheaper than Raspberry Pis" based on used pricing versus new.'.
What is wrong with someone expressing their opinions? Nobody forcing you to watch or force shoveing the change down your throat lol. You can use any device you want. To each their own. But he does have a good point. You can get all in one n series under the price what you would pay for a rasp5.
Have to say my experience differs from what most here have had. Mostly I just saw no improvement over using Google.
It still returned lots of results that were paywalled, lots of results with more ads than content, results that didn't contain words I put in quotes. Apparently there's options to filter out certain sites, but it's pretty pointless if there are so many that the task is impossible to do manually.
I've been using Duck Duck Go for a while. Can't say it's better, I even have the occasional search where ddg doesn't return results and revert to Google which does.
