I have a project where I need 3 wooden blocks, each perfect squares, to fit width wise in a 10” wide gap. I don’t want any space between these blocks sides of the gap they fit in. It’s an important project to me and I’m willing to pay a substantial sum of money.
But from what I am reading it sounds like you’re not able to do the job, the blocks need to be 3 1/3” wide each. It’s a no-go if I see someone try to cut them to 3 5/16”
What kind of system doesn’t let you cut such a fundamental length into thirds. Crazy.
I bet you that if I cut the blocks to 84.7 mm they would do just fine. If they don't, you take a file to one of them.
And you have to do it like this with wood, anyway - because of imprecise saws, and moisture changes.
Yeah my point was every measurement system has some value you can’t easily divide into thirds. How you measure depends on your tolerances. I have no qualms using either system, but metric is a much better system in my opinion.
What kind of junk statistics are these? HBR ought to be more discerning in what it publishes.
"How successful teams collaborate"... wait, I meant "the average number of users who update the same directories in Dropbox from institutions that tend to have influential research.
Sound insights. Make sure you're collaborating with no more than 2.3 people or else you'll have to move your research projects over to Yale.
Agreed, these sound like completely arbitrary measures.
I agree that senior researchers probably bring valuable experience and insight to research projects, but I don’t think you can validly arrive at that conclusion from the number of times they open a doc in Dropbox.
Yes this was curious. I wonder if these insights (2.3 v 3 collaborators over 180 vs 130 days with the top person contributing x%) was really effective or just a coincidence.
Yeah I don't know anybody personally who feels like a winner because they have clean drinking water. It's universal where I live. In places where it's not, you might feel like a winner when the neighboring village doesn't have it, and sucks to be them.
Sure, put my reputation behind something I have never tried. That makes sense.
It's actually dangerous and unethical TO put my name behind this untested product. It's not open source, and I'm being asked to put my seal of trust and approval on their project. That's a hard no.
It will not affect it in any way. They have released their plans for Starlink and there will be a "blackout" zone over China, so China doesn't shoot down their satellites. In 2007, China shot down FY-1C as a test of a kinetic kill vehicle (leaving tons of high speed space debris). Unless they receive approval from China to broadcast, they won't over China.
China won't shoot down commercial satellites, they'll just either jam the signal, or block ownership of the ground terminals. Shooting down satellites is very expensive, and would cause an incredible hue and cry internationally. It's one thing to shoot down one of your own defunct satellites, quite another thing to shoot down someone else's.
China might or might not shoot down the satellites, but the FCC would absolutely not have authorized the satellite network had SpaceX been so blatantly antagonistic towards China as to provide service there.
I doubt it, since a single Falcon Heavy launch would carry dozens of Starlink satellites but the existing anti-satellite technology can only hit one at a time. Keep in mind they have said the final constellation will be 12,000 satellites!
I'm not sure that it is cheaper, but I am sure there is a cheaper way to shoot something down than to keep it up. Idon't know if the tech and economics are correct, but the physics says it should be.
Moving something to the same altitude as Leo requires much less energy than moving something to Leo. Rockets don't fire straight up because the need their momentum to be at an angle. In addition, the payload of a communication satellite is more expensive than the payload required to throw it either disable the satellite or put it into a declining orbit.
Maybe Elon's rockets are just so cheap he can make it up in margin, but we are really talking about we aren't talking about marginal amount of difficulty difference, but an entire order of magnitude.
Yeah I completely agree it could be done cheaper because physics, my comment was about the current economics.
I'm not sure how efficient China's military industrial complex is, but I wouldn't trust the US's military to be able to build a weapon system that could destroy SpaceX satellite's more efficiently than SpaceX can launch them, haha.
Are you sure? If China knocks out one of ours, we’ll knock out at least one of theirs. We’ll also likely implement a suite of sanctions. Shooting down a satellite is an act of war.
>If China knocks out one of ours, we’ll knock out at least one of theirs.
No, we won’t. We’ll impose several decades of meaningless tariffs and embargoes with tons of loopholes so it looks like we’re doing something until everyone forgets what everyone was mad about in the first place.
The linked source says nothing about a "blackout zone" over China. More likely SpaceX won't sell ground receivers in mainland China and/or the PRC will simply ban Starlink receivers.
> I’m sure lots of North Americans wouldn’t want Chinese satellites overhead for concern of privacy.
Umm, there are of course Chinese satellites overhead and they have excellent imagery of all of our military bases. As we do for theirs (and every other country!). Orbits aren't very friendly to avoiding airspace.
National sovereignty over airspace does not extend into orbit. Otherwise nearly every earth science satellite in polar orbit would be in violation of international law.
no nation-state wants to start the game of shooting down another's satellite, either military or commercial, because everything up there is so vulnerable. it would open china to retaliatory strikes taking down their own polar orbit LEO, inclined LEO (35-45 degree) molnia, MEO and GEO satellites. satellites are fragile things and can be killed with one 200g chunk of tungsten at a closing velocity of 18,000 km/h.
Why is a Chinese sattelite less private than a sheriffs helicopter, private imaging plane running grids or an American satellite? Or my neighbors drone?
If China shoots down a SpaceX satellite, that is an act of war against the United States. China wouldn’t risk it. This is a great opportunity to break the great firewall and finally give the Chinese people access to unfiltered information.
Your comment implies they could successfully destroy said satellite. It might be a better distraction to tell NK there's one overhead, "leak" it's orbit, position, etc. and watch the fireworks month over month.
I know NK has made some major advancements in their missile capabilities but shooting down a satellite is pretty advanced stuff... any indications that they're capable of doing what you claim they would do?
> If China shoots down a SpaceX satellite, that is an act of war against the United States.
These are not government satellites and china owns the airwaves over their nation. I highly doubt the US government would retaliate whatsoever against China if they shot down a satellite that illegally interacted with their airspace.
> China wouldn’t risk it. This is a great opportunity to break the great firewall and finally give the Chinese people access to unfiltered information.
Take this with a grain of salt since this is mostly based on what I have heard hearsay, but they can jam the signals and/or monitor who transmits back and go after the citizens using said signal (and china is not a country where you want to poke the government). I doubt this will have any effect on the great firewall.
It means what it says. They simplify how a company can take an order and get the money. It’s a product for businesses.
And dynamic subscriptions means they have a way to change elements of a subscription (term length, renewal period). Dynamic means it’s something that changes.
You do realize that Tesla is a publicly traded company, and what you are saying (that they would misrepresent production numbers) would be securities fraud. They publicly stated their goals:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/08/02/tesla-st...)
They did not reach their goals. No need for paranoia.
Where did I say that they misrepresented their production numbers, or committed securities fraud?
In any case it's not paranoia. No matter what the law is, a press release is a first-party source. It is inherently biased toward the company. By no means should it be compared to an independent source, such as a report from an auditor or independent regulators.
You said that the information regarding either production goals or production numbers from Tesla's website was "inherently biased toward the company and not the best source". Meaning the published reservations, projections or production numbers would have been misrepresented in some way to benefit the company.
If they did so, that would be securities fraud, by definition. What about their projections, which were publicly stated and published in the past, or their actual production, which was publicly stated in the article (both of which are subject to SEC regulation review and legal recourse) are inherently biased toward the company?
this is definitely comedy