The PS2 was a state of the art machine with similar hardware of a SGI workstation. Those computers started at 20k. While the PS5 has similar hardware as a low end PC.
If the PS5 had a Nvidia A100 the comparasion would make sense and people would be buying them to create clusters, like they did with the PS2 and 3.
My understanding of this is that the company wants to use L band, which is the designation for the range of frequencies in the radio spectrum from 1 to 2 gigahertz (GHz)
Doesn't 5G use higher frequency than that?
Is the company, a satellite company, trying to use their satellites to provide 5G or something? So if the interference starts at the satellites, it could affect other parts of the world?
>“We have presented to the FCC a proposal to utilize our terrestrial midband spectrum as a greenfield opportunity that is aligned with the commission’s stated goals of providing the foundation of the 5G future,” explained Doug Smith, Ligado president and CEO. “By deploying 40 megahertz of smart capacity on midband spectrum, we can create a model of at least a partial 5G network — a next-generation, hybrid satellite-terrestrial network — that will enable 5G use cases and mobile applications that require ultra-reliable, highly secure and pervasive connectivity.”
5G is a very broad term, which is supposed to offer 10x performance in all metrics over 4G.
This seems to be the same issue when they were called Light Squared. The L-band was to be used for terrestrial base stations with very high power transmitters. The issue is that, even though several MHz away, from the GPS carrier, the transmissions will compress the LNA on GPS receivers with poor or little filtering, desensitizing the GPS receiver.
Most civilian stuff now has decent filtering prior to the LNA so it can co-exist with all the other wireless crap crammed in your phone.
Makes sense. The software needs to access that code for the spreadsheet to work, so if it was encrypted for example, then the spreadsheet would be unusable unless you know the password
"const int * foo"
means that
foo is a pointer to an int that is constant.
Which could also be
"int const * foo"
foo is a pointer to a constant int.
But since the const qualifier for pointers can't be reordered like this, I think the point is that it's a better practice to have the const come after, so that it ALWAYS come after in your codebase regardless of the context?
Thanks for the explanation. I meant it mostly facetiously, but my more serious point is that there are some parts of some languages (and APIs and tools and architectures) where the answer you get from experienced practitioners is "think harder". It's not that I can't grok it, it's that it takes more effort than it should given how much the concept comes up, and the more I wrestle with my tools, the less I potentially get done.
C++ rvalue references are a great example. Whenever I see them I have to go back and relearn the concept because accounting for the language feature sometimes feels more complicated to get right than the unsafe pointer chucking it replaced.
