AQuantized

He explicitly says this in the article. I think the majority of commenters only read the title.

This isn't just Starlink. Of course, hopefully Starlink's satellites will adhere more closely to the agreed threshold in the future, but that isn't set in stone, and once this becomes a profitable industry it seems unlikely corners won't be cut and lawmakers lobbied like in any other sector.

Of course, even meeting the agreed threshold currently still renders them visible in telescopes, and that applies to amateurs as well.

Strongly disagree with this. If Earth based infrastructure was better there wouldn't be as much need for satellite based services at this scale. Depriving people of the opportunity to look at the natural sky, without it being besmirched by human objects, is a terrible downside.

It's bad enough that many people in light polluted cities can barely see major stars, never mind Andromeda or subtler constellations.

It seems that junior developers are considered to be of relatively little value in most UK based jobs. The disparity seems to even out a bit as you gain experience, especially if willing to freelance, but it's not uncommon to see junior positions being treated like minimum wage jobs.

Is there simply more opportunity in the US or is this a matter of how inexperienced people are viewed? Perhaps there is more holdover from traditional professions where experience was paramount.

The term "I am here to find out how I can help you and your business to succeed." rings so untrue to me. I'd have to resist the temptation to roll my eyes.

Not to be pedantic, but isn't that true of almost any place if you go back far enough? There's a reason those with 'British' ancestry are called Anglo-Saxons; The Angles (French) and Saxons (Germans) that conquered and occupied the land of the Celts eventually become the de facto inhabitants. Of course the Celts themselves didn't evolve there, but also dominated pre-Celtic peoples.

Your teeth can remineralize given the right conditions and some time. Obviously the aesthetic won't change much, but if you clean your teeth thoroughly 30 mins after a meal, reduce sugar intake, chew sugar free gum for saliva and helping with ph levels etc. it should help.

More like "I got screwed and I'd rather other people get screwed than get screwed further." Obviously not selfless, but I don't think the housing market is their fault.

What sort of exercises do you do to help with this? I've been finding it very hard to work on shoulder strength, especially the scapula, without just impinging it more

This has been my experience with some ongoing/recent neurological symptoms. Ahidrosis, brain fog, reduced sensation, the list goes on. No doctor has outright said it was wholly a mental issue, but they're basically only willing to prescribe antidepressants or benzos. Sadly for most obscure problems you have to seek out help yourself.

I have a similar view, although probably much more influenced by Nagarjuna and the Mulamadhyamakakarika. I noticed most of the western philosophers who I thought got closest to the truth - Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein on language, Hume on the self, Parfit - all seemed to have either been influenced by or have a lot of crossover with more eastern thought, which I hadn't taken as seriously as it deserved.

Normally I can get friends to agree with most of the propositions, even that 'they' don't ultimately exist in the conventional western sense, but I don't think they buy into it emotionally, which is probably where it counts.

Tesla has a P/E ratio of 1100

To me this undermines any humour the comment may had to begin with.

It would be a mistake to take some % increase as general approval from a demographic. If the demographic already had very little support prior, all it shows is that wasn't as bad as expected. In this case, Trump's policy having fewer discriminatory outcomes than expected doesn't mean they aren't racist. That's not to offer additional commentary on if him or his policy is racist, but that increase in support doesn't contradict the possibility.

I'm of the opinion that while it's a necessary part of learning to repeat exercises to advance your skillset, school is much too focused on this element of learning, and in doing so to an unnecessarily rote extent (I suspect because it's the easiest way to try to get it done).

The problem is that this mishandling gives people a bad taste for associated activities, especially STEM subjects, and it's rare for people to subject themselves to what seems like an incredibly boring process when they're not being forced to. As such, most of the competency they may have been forced to gain is lost, along with potential passion.

Even repeating exercises can be fun when you understand the motivation behind it. For example, if you have a real passion for understanding Newtonian physics, the parts of calculus that might be 'rote' when unmotivated and part of a purely rote process can become some of the most enjoyable.

This seems like an good way to get people to contrive as many experiences as possible for this relatively arbitrary metric. To me it seems totally irrelevant, but it seems like American universities are more of a packaged 'experience' than for specialized training specifically.

The frequency has much less to do with it than the absolute amount, at least for fat soluble vitamins like vitamin D. Taking 2000IU on 3 separate days isn't much different from taking 6000IU at 1 day.

I assumed the average kid, at least on the upper range of that designation, would have been able to type faster than the previous generation. I understand the youngest generation is now much more using touch screens, but I didn't think that there would have been a steady decline from say 20 years ago.

It seems very unlikely this was Vitamin D related. 1400iu daily is a relatively low amount. Further, Vitamin D is fat soluble, so the amount you take on a given day will have little effect on your overall Vitamin D status, as it builds up in fat over time. If you were really at the point where you had hypervitaminosis D it would have taken a long time to reduce to normal levels.

There's a big difference between requiring a minimum wage for anyone and specifically requiring a higher wage for existing H1-Bs. In particular, the fact that H1-Bs will have to emigrate if it isn't increased.

It's not live and let live, it's live within the lines or be penalized. This isn't immediately terrible if you actually like living within those lines, but that's a big if. And what about when you or the lines change and they no longer align so well?

There's a big difference between politeness and total conformity to established (by the powerful) norms. Disagreeing (politely) with government policy on a public forum could easily prevent you from obtaining certain positions or status in the future if this is an accurate trend.

Not to mention that the freedom to go outside of convention without arbitrarily large punishment is worth preserving in of itself.

The main attraction coding had to me as a kid was the fact that it was untainted by the association of incredible boredom a lot of related subjects like maths had, due to them being terribly presented in school.

I'd rather it stay as far away from any official syllabus as possible, there's enough to focus on as regards reforming the existing broken system.

I believe the actual foobar challenge site is still running.

I'm glad you wrote this comment since I think this happens to almost everyone in the current system to some degree. It's sad that even those who see the beauty in mathematics are basically forced to rote learn algorithms to recite them later. It's no wonder that maths, school, and boredom are synonymous for a lot of people.

These are things we currently know to be very likely to occur in the future, not as yet unknown knowledge.

Who are they held to rigorous standards by? There would need to be a another pure body to hold them to task, and so on indefinitely.

If billionaires were controlling the purse strings, it seems unlikely they would be as willing to report negatively on them or their businesses either.

I'm unconvinced there is any way to deliver reasonably unbiased 'truth' journalistically

Their large incomes are made possible by infrastructure. The analogy doesn't make much sense to me since even the most prolific billionaire didn't build much of this infrastructure.

The idea that inheritance tax is a 'death tax' seems like an inaccurate pejorative. The recipient of wealth is the one being taxed, there is no extant individual whose death is being taxed. In almost all large transfers of wealth we have some amount of taxation. If inheritance tax is the exception, it encourage dynasties to hoard wealth to confer the associate power and status on their families.

This wealth would be more efficiently allocated by the innovators of new generations. It is true that the economy isn't a zero sum game, but we can't pretend that so much new pie is created each generation that dynasties hogging the majority doesn't preclude new, more innovative money, from establishing the positions they might otherwise we allowed to, for the benefit of all participants in the economy. The velocity of money matters, and allowing dynasties to guard their wealth indefinitely is bad for everyone.

This also pretends that capital confers no significant power. The reality is that the inheritors of the ultra rich will also inherit their ability to influence society. While not ideal that the ultra rich themselves have this ability to the extent that they do, to be able confer it on an almost arbitrary set of individuals is additionally hazardous, as they have not set themselves apart from other individuals on any meritorious basis.

This seems like a strange argument since someone who is say, running a large conglomerate, benefits much more from society's infrastructure and organization than a layperson. It then seems reasonable for their obligation to be proportionally greater.