Remember this the next time someone takes out the "it's so much easier to start a business in the US compared to Europe" nonsense. Yeah, there will be exceptions (cough Germany), but they're not the norm.
Similarly wrong, some people are under the impression that limited liability companies don't exist in Europe, and if you fail with your business, you personally become liable and unemployable and bankrupt.
For SMEs: banks, etc., just require personal guarantees so it doesn't matter that your company is limited, most financial risks pierce that veil through to being guaranteed, eg against your home.
It's pretty similar in France (from experience), and from what I've heard, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden. In some other EU countries you can't do it online, but the process itself is pretty easy and you can hire intermediaries online to do it for you (e.g. Bulgaria).
That's part of the culture. They figured out long ago you don't need to be the best, you just have to say and believe it. Marketing baby!
I kind of admire the confidence and positivity it gives them. It has its benefits. But being on the receiving end of the ego and boisterousness kinda sucks
Yeah I think this is being understated- reducing the workload or friction from editing existing footage could really help lower the barrier to making quality amateur stuff.
To correct you, the revealing of a past bug happens almost all the time when a company does fix the bug- that’s what lets researchers publish their findings and show the work they do publicly, and usually gives the company some positive PR for showing their willingness and responsiveness to fix issues. See the CVE program.
There’s literally no way the nation of India is more diverse than the United States- we have the biggest spread of racial, and religious diversity on the planet, by far.
With all due respect, please do some research on India before asserting something like this.
We're taking about a country with ~4x the population of the US where no single language has the majority of native speakers (the closest is Hindi at 26% [0]). 12 different languages are spoken natively by >1% of the population. India has diversity that someone born in the US can't even begin to comprehend.
I think it's hard for Westerners to understand because we view diversity through such a skin color and organized religion lens. 'Everyone' in India is dark-skinned and most are Hindu, so that means they're not diverse, right?
The trouble is that that's a very Western perspective on both ethnicity and on religion, one that doesn't carry over at all.
Actually there's a very easy empirical way to test this claim: look at the amount of subsampling pollsters do. In the US samples are typically weighted after the raw data is collected, by:
gender
age
white college, white non-college, Black, Latino/Hispanic, Asian
party registration
For 1000 samples you get the standard MoE of 3ish percent.
In India you start by dividing up the electorate into hundreds of strata, sample independently from each stratum, then piece it together. This results in Indian polling sample sizes being over 100k for the same 3% MoE.
This is pretty objective evidence of India's diversity.
(I am curious though if 2024 is going to cause pollsters to re-examine polling basics in the US. There are several major warning signs this year that polling is broken, even if it produces the right result in the end.)
The OP is making a statement about how humans think and why this is at odds with Cyc. I don't think it is wrong to ask about a source on this. Otherwise I can claim anything. This has nothing to do with Reddit.
> Humans do think with first order predicate calculus. We juggle a bunch of statements/rules the way Cyc does, and don't have a very fast, efficient and powerful conceptual approach to the world with a massive amount of recursive conceptual inference.
I am the source (working on conceptual computing since the late 90s), and have built a conceptual computing platform based on it (In common lisp of course): https://graphmetrix.com/trinpod-server
I agree with the sentiment but LEO constellations like Starlink can and have been disrupted, via sub-orbital jamming. Not to mention that in actual large conflict surface to LEO missiles will simply destroy large amounts of satellite constellations.
Starlink is supposedly harder to jam than typical satellite comms due to its use of phased array communication. IIRC you need to either be flying overhead or putting out a ton more power in a ground based jammer to be effective.
And as the other user mentioned, no country at the moment has the kind of stockpile of ASAT weapons needed to wipe the constellation (plus, due to orbital dynamics, there's a limit to how quickly they can take out satellites).
Between trying to wipe the constellation and jamming it, it'd be far more cost effective to jam even accounting for the higher power requirements/lower jamming range.
There would also be other interesting options like capturing and using enough terminals to force the entire cell to be disabled. That has been one of the challenges SpaceX has had to deal with near the frontlines in Ukraine.
Starlink satellites are vulnerable to repeated uplink transmitting their preamble code (which is public and the same across any user terminal). The satellites are so tuned to that code you can jam them through their receive sidelobes.. taking out all beams on the satellite.
A single omnidirectional transmitter on the ground can transmit this one preamble code in all directions and it jams all satellites in view. All Starlink satellites use the same uplink code and they can't change it because it's how new terminals enter the network.
No government currently exists that has nearly enough rockets to impact Starlink. There is a big difference between doing individual tests and taking down a constellation of 1000s.
You don't need to hit every satellite. You only need to create a lot of debris, and that'll do it for you. Alternatively the radiation from a nuclear blast could take out a big chunk of the network, which is presumably why Russia is working on orbiting nuclear weapons.
Actually its not that easy even if you did create some debris. Orbit is much bigger then people think. And these sats are much smaller then people think. Without propulsion lots of that stuff quickly drops below the level of the sats. Sats can also raise their orbit in response and fly corrections.
Even modest investment in better tracking could massively improve crash avoidance. It would take far more then a handful of sats to truly impact the functioning of the network. And even more to complete take it out.
Russia is working on everything if you believe their marketing. I seriously question if any work on 'orbital nuclear weapons' is anything other then marketing. And its questionable how effective that would actually be.
This isn't as easy as people think. A country like Russia might have some readiness of nuclear weapons. And maybe a small readiness of anti-sat weapons, but not anywhere close to enough to attack a network like Starlink. Preparing for something like that simply wasn't a thing anybody considered necessary until 2020 and Russia certainly hasn't invested huge amounts of money in that since then and given their recent success with rocket development, I not sure how effective it would have been even if they had.
For the base subscription types, your account needs to be "activated" with the dish associated, and the address on your account has to match the rough location of the Starlink. This gives you a giant chicken-and-egg problem where you need the Internet to set the account location and perform account activation, but you don't have the Internet because you have a Starlink that's not set up yet.
It's odd that Starlink don't offer a "walled garden" experience allowing you to perform activation using just the Starlink itself, like almost all DOCSIS providers send down to unprovisioned modems. I can't tell if it's an intentional protection/KYC kind of thing or just an unimplemented feature.
You can access the starlink.com site from none registered and unsubscribed units. But you need to use the Starlink provided DHCP/DNS servers to do it. Most people use other DNS settings on devices so the walled garden part might not work depending on user device config.
Strange, everything I've heard about the setup says that they do provide a captive portal for doing the initial setup stuff that needs a network connection.
This must be new as of ~9 months ago; it definitely didn’t used to work on retail dishes (directly purchased dishes came pre activated anyway). Thanks for the correction!
