Will excess radiation leak through to Earth during re-ionization?
Edit: It also somewhat changes the scatter/delay characteristics of GNSS, which may or may not cause a somewhat significant error of the GNSS fix (it probably should not, but it can).
https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/wall-street-tries-shortwave-ra...
That's where the high-frequency traders should put their fibers ;)
Radio clocks are low frequency.
I’m guessing that when radio first came out frequencies were lower, though I don’t have any facts there.
“Shortwave radio” is another one that’s confusing term these days for the same reason.
Their mere existence makes a mockery of the idea of the stock market as a considered reflection of value of companies and explicitly makes it into a gambling den for dead-eyed people competing to have the fastest card counting systems under their suits. If a company is valuable now, it'll be valuable in 5 minutes.
> If a company is valuable now, it'll be valuable in 5 minutes.
That’s not necessarily true.
I think we are going to have very different views as to what the terms "value" and "everyone" mean
because HFT's provide no value at all to the everyday person on mainstreet just looking get by and maybe put 10% of their wages into the stock market for retirement.
if by everyone you mean "the top 1%" and by value you mean "make lots of money at the expense of mainstreet investors" then sure.
If you participate in the stock market at all, you indirectly benefit from HFTs lowering the bid/ask spread and therefore getting a better price. Now matter how insignificant, but the benefit is there.
Of course if we're dealing in millions, not thousands, then the benefit is more pronounced, but a couple of cents here or there still make a difference.
At the very worst HFT firms are a net neutral.
> "make lots of money at the expense of mainstreet investors"
Can you elaborate on this further? I don't see how HFTs make money at the expense of mainstreet investors. HFTs make money on the expense of inefficiencies, therefore making the markets more efficient.
If someone writes some software, or grows some food, or balances some accounts, or paints a wall, they are all being endlessly more productive than someone who buys on a low and sells on a high and pockets the difference all within 100ms.
Investment means support and confidence in a venture or resource. I think a lot of the financial industry's problems arise from the switch from "investment in business x because I like what they're doing and am confident they'll succeed" to the mantra of "investment in business x because I don't actually care about the company but the stock history tells me I can make a quick buck". Market stability is a thing of the past, no wonder we're constantly on the edge of a recession.
There's a benefit to liquidity to everyone, but I don't really see a liquidity benefit faster than a few _minutes_, much less faster than a few _ms_: end individual traders don't even get to trade that fast anyway, they're just artificially disadvantaged against the institutions.
Doesn't sound too local to me.
California's area is about 500 thousand km^2, and the Earth's is about 500 million, which means the side facing the Sun is about 250 million, so we're talking about 0.2% of the area facing the sun.
Suppose the hole takes six hours to heal (the article makes it sound like it takes much less), and suppose there's a launch every month (since launches have in the past carried 600 satellites at once, that seems plausible, no?), and suppose the hole lets in twice as much of whatever radiation we would like the ionosphere to keep out. Then that's an increase of 0.2 * (1/4) * (1/30) %, which is less than 0.002% -- that is, an increase by a factor of less than 1.00002.
Not negligible, but if the satellites provide a substantial public good, then it seems worth the cost. I feel like due to StarLink's use in Russia-Ukraine war alone, it more than qualifies.
Doesn't sound small at all.
I guess so, they will have to deal with increased fame and awareness of the size of their state.
People in Oregon on the other hand will continue to be snubbed.
But on the other hand, you typically don't launch rockets there.
Earth's radius: 6,371 km Ionosphere: 60-300km
... If we use the inner edge of the ionosphere we get about 2% more surface area whereas the outer edge gives us 9.6%. Probably the right number to use is somewhere in between.
Couple nits: - frequency estimate should be more aggressive, should be looking for an upper bound on all numbers to quantify max potential impact. I would crank that up to once a day or more.
- a hole allowing twice as much sounds like a comolete guess. Could it be 100x, 10,000x? or perhaps less than 10%? Other comments make the ozone layer sound more important. The hole punching effects on that layer are unknown (to me and the article does not mention it). In effect, this could be a light show, or it could be a routine perforation of each layer of the atmosphere (more data needed)
- that extra radiation is not spread out across the area of the earth. Instead how many people and animals are present under that hole. Everyone underneath the hole presumably would get the full blast. Thus, it is simple, those people get twice the radiation, whatever that factor is, it is not averaged across the whole planet because it is a local effect. Thus, the area sizes only matter for determining how many people and animals receive extra exposure.
- starlink donated their services to Ukraine. That one act of donation does not make it a public good. Starlink is a for profit service, not a public good (some services can be quite good, but that is different from "a public good")
I think the right way to approach this is to consider the unshielded radiation flux over the hole and the time that the hole takes to close. This would give a good back of envelope upper bound of the increase in cancer risk. There’s probably other effects, but all I care about is harm to individuals.
That undoubtedly deserves its own article, which will unavoidably be confused with this one and be considered old news.
Hydrazine powered rockets have a much bigger effect (all those nitrogen oxides) and are still not a very big deal.