shaklee3

95 ms·

541.
by shaklee3 6y ago
It will also vary greatly once starlink is loaded. The variation you're seeing is purely due to slant range. Those numbers will increase once the satellites are oversubscribed.
542.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Same with veggie grill in southern california
543.
by shaklee3 6y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/Free_Space/status/135660340017197...
544.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That was not a misunderstanding at all. sure, anyone can take a short position. But for the number of outstanding shortage there are, it has to be institutional investors and above. And sure, anyone can close out at a higher position, but t
545.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Who could possibly be on the 130% short interest side besides big investment firms?
546.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Read this: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/6/26/how-brokerages-make-mone...
547.
by shaklee3 6y ago
https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/13547774376541798...
548.
by shaklee3 6y ago
They are not profitable. They have funding rounds from VCs, and in the future FCC money for RDOF. VC money does not make you profitable.
549.
by shaklee3 6y ago
http://cannae.com/space-freighter/#:~:text=Geosynchronous%20... . It's a 6x difference in cost per kg.
550.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I'm not sure what world you're living in, but the failure rate so far has been much higher than what Musk has said. Is it bad? They said 1%, it's 5-6%. Should we count the early satellites? Why not? The newer ones haven'
551.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... and remove all launches where SpaceX was the customer (a net loss unless the payload they launch has payoff), and specifically look at t
552.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Sure, StarLink may be profitable, especially if they continue to get RDOF funding from the government. I'm skeptical it would be profitable otherwise given the cost of the terminal. I don't believe their launch business will be pr
553.
by shaklee3 6y ago
You asserted they had been profitable since 2008, and this article was almost a decade later (and forward-looking). They are not profitable (enough) with launches.
554.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Everyone else had to play by the same rules until SpaceX doesn't. You say it's fair, but certainly if you were in that industry as a competitor it appears as favoritism. They also lie to push things through, like rate of decay, sp
555.
by shaklee3 6y ago
The point being that people are discussing very high microwave frequencies Here. There is still a ton of spectrum available around 10-25GHz. You don't need 40+ to get that.
556.
by shaklee3 6y ago
No, the point is you aren't allowed to do that. The initial filing for their satellites in the frequencies that they were requesting were for a certain altitudes. Without a brand new filing (not an amendment). They didn't do that.
557.
by shaklee3 6y ago
They are charging more than it costs to launch, but remember they employee thousands of extremely expensive engineers all year, and unless there are new businesses, that business isn't sustainable: https://www.wsj.com/a
558.
by shaklee3 6y ago
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-s...
559.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Yes, you need autogen.sh.
560.
by shaklee3 6y ago
They aren't. Not enough to stay in business. See the Bloomberg article from a while back. It's VC and FCC money at the moment.
561.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Shannon limit says nothing about frequency. It's about bandwidth. You can have just as much sodium available at lower frequencies than higher, and in fact, it's usually preferable.
562.
by shaklee3 6y ago
SpaceX absolutely does not follow fcc guidelines. There have been numerous occasions, including changing all their satellites to 550km altitude without getting proper approval where they do it and ask for forgiveness later.
563.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Not true. The antenna itself has a very low scan to keep costs down.
564.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Just an fyi, the muscle on the outside of the hip cannot be selected. It chooses the quads instead.
565.
by shaklee3 6y ago
> are you buying a phone with a bunch of extra capabilities or a microphone hooked to a data center around the world Yes.
566.
by shaklee3 6y ago
The reason I asked is I did a performance trade-off with a v100 and dual epyc rome with 64 cores, and the v100 won handily for my tasks. That obviously won't always be the case, but in terms of threads you're now comparing 256 to
567.
by shaklee3 6y ago
What do you mean by a lot more threads? Are you comparing an epyc?
568.
by shaklee3 6y ago
GPUs do exist with 64+GB of rao, virtually. A dgx2 has distributed memory where you can see the entire 16x32GB of address space backed by nvlink. And that technology is now 3 years old, and it's even higher now.
569.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I agree. I tried wsl2, and while it's nice, it has issues wsl1 didn't have. For instance, networking almost never worked until I applied a common workaround of resetting the ip stack. Wsl1 always worked fine for that. It's ju
570.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I can't begin to imagine how you feel, but stick to it and you'll get some responses. It's not an easy time to find a job, so it's likely nothing to do with you.

More ›