What I didn’t see discussed was the possibility of the reverse causation. People that have more diseases spend less time outside and therefore have lower levels of vitamin D.
Would explain why vitamin D supplements don’t seem to work in the studies mentioned in the article.
I'd also appreciate a rundown between these two or others in the same vein. I'm shopping around for a solution that's more digitally "present" than Teams for our company.
> but it doesn't make sense to allow multiple devices per number anyway
Why not? This is a useful behavior that is currently emulated by forwarding calls to laptops and tablets with the same account when the devices are on the same Wi-Fi. You could get rid of the Wi-Fi requirement if those devices all simply had an eSIM with the same number.
Number assignment is handled at the network level. I have the exact functionality you speak of (single number to multiple devices) on my company's good old physical SIMs.
Phones & SIMs don't even know nor care about their own number. The SIM has a field for that but in fact it's often left empty (iOS devices discover their own number by texting a known Apple number and getting the response via the Internet, they'll then populate this field out of courtesy but it's not necessary for functionality).
When a call comes in, the carrier decides which SIM it should be routed to. When a SIM makes an outbound call, the carrier decides which number to set as caller ID.
The functionality you speak of has nothing to do with SIM vs eSIM, it's about carriers having to actually innovate and do some engineering. Their current oligopoly means there's no commercial pressure for them to do so, and there's no reason why they would suddenly do this with the switch to eSIMs.
> iOS devices discover their own number by texting a known Apple number and getting the response via the Internet, they'll then populate this field out of courtesy but it's not necessary for functionality
TIL! Is that why in some countries and some SIM cards my iPhone can automatically report its own phone number (when I look at my own profile under 'Contacts') and in some countries it doesn't do that?
Carriers who assign numbers to SIMs in advance could set that field directly. Others, either because they don't assign a number at the time of the SIM manufacture/personalization or just because they can't be bothered as it's not functionally necessary will leave it blank - in that case from my experience iPhones will populate the field with the number they get back from the iMessage & FaceTime provisioning step but again that's not actually necessary for functionality. The field is also user-editable in Settings -> Phone if you wish.
As designed oceanic latencies will be lower than direct fibre, only microwave would be faster.
As currently deployed, starlink latency isn’t much to write home about as you only get a few hindered km to the ground station and then you’re on fibre.
From what I understand Starlink satellites do not communicate between each other yet, maybe that's outdated info. I know there will be inter-sat comm eventually. But they are 500km in altitude and the atmosphere is 100km so they only have about 400km of vacuum from obit to Earth stations. So it's a 1,000km round trip and then through ground stations, fibre cabling.
> From what I understand Starlink satellites do not communicate between each other yet, maybe that's outdated info.
It’s always been wrong. By design the Starlink satellites communicated with each other. Too cost prohibitive and infeasible in other ways to have a ground station covering every satellite.
While the long term plan was for Starlink satellites to communicate with each other, only the last four batches of v1.5 satellites have the actual hardware to do so, and the vast majority of Starlink satellites in orbit right now are only able to talk with ground stations and do not have the inter-satellite laser links.
You phrased it like it's no longer the long-term plan, but your next sentence indicates it is being progressed to. Older starlink sats without this laser link will eventually fall and burn up and be replaced.
Yes but I think the plan is to have any satellite that is over a ground station to be the relay for others. Send up to a sat then sat to sat via laser and then down to the ground.
I'm curious how far each satellite is from the other, do they need line-of-sight. And how much it adds to latency since signals received and sent have to go through networking equipment within each satellite.
Fiber gets closer to the speed of light, even when accounting for retransmission delays, than just 50%. The index of refraction for glass is commonly quoted as 1.5. That makes it 33%. Also, Starlink isn’t vacuum speeds either (unless you are talking about the inter satellite laser links and not the downlink to CPE, which even they I’m not sure operate at full “speed of light in a vacuum”).
The refractive index of air is very close to that of vacuum (which is 1), so most Starlink transmissions between nodes (ground-satellite, and satellite-satellite) will travel at near light speed.
The refractive index is only one part of the story, light does not follow a straight path through fiber it bounces around. I'd assume this to be about the newer inter-sattelite links as comparing fiber to fiber plus some seems obvious.
> light does not follow a straight path through fiber it bounces around.
this is only relevant for multimode fiber, right? in singlemode fiber the light must propagate parallel with the fiber. even in multimode fiber, some light is parallel, so it doesn’t necessarily limit latency — it creates dispersion.
Singlemode is designed to minimized modal dispersion but it still occurs, especially over the longer distances including from stresses in the core rather than traditional bouncing. First photon isn't as important, it's the signal peak that matters as the receiver will try to decode from that. Typically this latency is hidden by needing repeaters every ~60km anyways due to both dispersion and loss. I'm not sure how far apart Starlink inter-satellite can repeat and if they can "skip" satellites as long as there is a clear direct path to another farther along the path, I haven't been in contact with their engineering folks since I changed jobs last year and am no longer a corporate customer.
That's not at all true for all dating apps and their users. I used apps nearly exclusively geared towards and users who were looking for standard dates and relationships with long term horizons. The model for these apps is to get new or returning users under subscription. Apps and/or users targeting the short term are easily avoided.
Hydrogen will not be a threat to any electric personal vehicle simply because it’s 3x less efficient (electrolyze water to split it) and thus 3x more expensive to run.
Really just a meme at this point. The risk here is that hydrogen cars end up being cheaper to run than electric cars. A real possibility due to the production of hydrogen from curtailed renewables, higher battery costs, hydrogen being much more efficient than believed, as well as cheaper distribution costs since hydrogen can be piped in natural gas pipelines.
> hydrogen being much more efficient than believed
God/Allah/Nature obviously don't understand disruption, growth mindset and can-do-spirit. facepalm
There are hard physical limitations that no amount of human ingenuity can do anything about. 237kJ/mole is the theoretical minimum of energy required for water electrolysis. energy->electrolysis->energy round-trip efficiency won't exceed 45%, even if everything, from the energy source to the car wheel spinning, is perfectly frictionless and operating at peak theoretical efficiency. No, you cannot use existing gas pipelines for transporting hydrogen.
For passenger cars, EVs today are already better than what physics allow hydrogen cars to ever be.
It will likely be a transition from blended hydrogen before reaching 100% hydrogen later. Just because it won't happen all at once doesn't mean it hasn't already started.
I am not against hydrogen, but seems to me as if nobody in the space is noticing the disruption what electrical batteries already are. If battery trends continue by 2030 the value of refitting infrastructure to hydrogen easily becomes questionable [note], when there's a way to both transport and store energy more efficiently and at the same price if not cheaper. There are no signs of battery improvements to stop anytime soon or price to stop dropping.
[note] for pure hydrogen eventually everything except the pipelines will have to be replaced
I think those people are simply living in the past. It is hydrogen disrupting batteries, not the other away around. In fact, I see a flattening of the pace of battery improvements, meaning the speed of this disruption event should be moving faster than expected. By 2030 the battery "revolution" might have already collapsed and left for obsolescence.
It's important to remember that hydrogen fuel cells are batteries too. There is no reason for the metal lithium to have magic properties over other battery technologies.
Nope. Both NiMH and lead acid batteries are less efficient in this regard. And supercaps have lower energy density, although they are improving quickly too.
NiMH is around 90% efficient too. Lead-acid around 85%. Also, li-ion don't do well under high discharge rates and can drop to <70%. It's not a perfect cell technology by any means.
You also wouldn't want native mac containers. The idea is to run everywhere. Bundling linux in is an improvement for portability when the production for these containers will be linux.
