Um Ackshually, NextNav’s proposal doesn’t involve satellites at all, at least directly. As I understand it, they would use the 900 MHz band to triangulate between cell towers with the technology. (As a convenient side effect, once the 900 MHz band is reallocated cell phone companies could use it too, which I’m sure NextNav can make money from.)

Having a source of good position information that doesnt rely solely on satellites is important. However, the proposal hinges on NextNav’s assessment that the band is “underutilized”, though, which all sorts of people are objecting to. Still, this is the era of Trump, and anything can happen with the proper bribe.

More technical into here: https://spectrum.ieee.org/gps-alternatives-nextnav-interference

1977…

Roughly 80 years

If I didn’t misremember, we’re about halfway through waiting.

A bit more than halfway, although sometimes I am shocked by how long ago 1977 was. Wasn’t it just, like, 30 years ago or so?

It can’t possibly be 49 years ago, can it?

I think what they mean is that if the thing starts shutting stuff down on its own, the process to get those things started again is tedious. While if the humans tell it to shut things down, it is all more orderly.

All those benefits mattered a lot more before everyone had a phone in their pocket. A power outage that takes out cell towers is also likely to take out the Telco central office.

Yes, I have. But when I noted I was old, I should have added I am also lazy.

The author misses a few key points about the American model:

First, in exchange for the local territorial monopoly, the providers are supposed to be heavily regulated by the local (or State) government, with controls in place to prevent abuse of the monopoly and promote the interests of its residents. Of course, we all know how business interests influence government to make business- friendly regulations. Governments have the ability to enforce more user-friendly practices, if they choose to do so.

But the more important point is that in the US, we hand out different monopolies based on the connection type. For instance, where I live we have one company that owns the twisted-pair POTS landlines, a different company that owns the coaxial cable TV service, and another company that owns the direct fiber to the home. Three companies, three connections to each home, all three (theoretically) capable of delivering the same services, since there is no longer any real differentiation between voice, video, and data service: it’s all just bits.

We just got our FTTH provider only recently. Before that, our choices were only the cable company or the telco’s astonishingly show DSL. So I subscribed to the Cable company, and their pricing model tried to force you into a bundle for the other services. Their speeds were also quite slow for broadband, until the Fiber company started digging. Then I got all sorts of emails saying “we’re increasing your speed – for free!” And sure enough, I was getting better bandwidth. But all that did was piss me off. These losers could have given me that better service all along, but didn’t bother until they were forced to.

So I’m on the fiber now. But I know how it works, this service will be awesome at first, but once this company finishes building out they won’t sign on any new capacity and it will gradually get shittier over time. It’s the American Way!

(And I still pay the local telco way too much money for a POTS landline. What can I say, I’m an old.)

Word to your mother

I like the Origami club, fun in creases every night

If you mess up your bosses’ hair, there’ll be hell toupee

Take off, ya hoser

Um Ackshually, there are many places where even “undocumented” people can be considered “registered” in this sense. “Undocumented” simply means lacking the authorization to be (and work) in the country, and is really just a minor paperwork violation unless an actual crime is committed in rhe process.

So, many localities will try and integrate these people into the community, and provide them the same local services everyone else gets, by simply not asking them to show their passport first. So, they might be able to get their name on utility bills, and use that as proof of residency to get a drivers’ license, in spite of their lack of status. (This notion that undocumented people still deserve human dignity really irks Conservatives, even though they all had ancestors who held the same status here at some point.)

This is really at the heart of what a “sanctuary city” policy is all about. It’s a recognition that a local government has a responsibility to all people living in it, regardless of their immigration status. And that local officials really don’t have the tools to be able to determine that anyway, so a local official won’t care about someone’s immigration status unless they are on the wrong side if the law. (Which also exposes the lie that these cities are less safe. If anything, sanctuary policies make it easier to kick out the miscreants, because no one is spending time chasing down undocumented people who are not causing trouble, leaving more time to find the bad eggs)

I’m surprised Elon didn’t convince them to take the payments in Dogecoin…

Can they both lose, please?

Shouldn’t a rebadged Tesla be an Edison?

The post mentions World ID as an example of a third-party service that used biometrics as a basis to prove humanness, and says “the internet needs verification solutions like this, where your account information, usage data, and identity never mix.”

Yup, knew it. This is all just an excuse to get Sam Altman to scan your eyeballs

I didn’t have any problem on my Android phone

Normally, I am all for Techdirt’s takes. But I think this one is off the mark a bit, because I legitimately think that infinite scroll and auto play are insidious, and actually harmful enough to be treated as a dangerous design decision.

The whole point of Section 230 is that communications companies can’t be held responsible for harmful things that people transmit on their networks, because it’s the people transmitting those harmful things that are actually at fault. And that would be reasonable in the initial stages of the Internet, when people posted on bulletin boards (or even early social media) and the harmful content had a much smaller reach. People had to “opt in”, essentially, to be exposed to this content, and if they stumble on something they find objectionable they can easily change their focus

But the purpose of the infinite scroll and auto play is to get people hooked on content. The algorithms exist to maximize engagement, regardless of the value of that engagement. I think the comparison to cigarettes is particularly apt. They are looking to hook people into actively harmful behaviors, for profit. And the algorithms don’t really differentiate between good engagement and harmful engagement. Anything that attracts the users attention is fair game.

The author’s points regarding how these rulings can be abused are correct, but that doesn’t negate how fundamentally harmful these addictive practices are. It will be up to lawmakers to make sure that the laws are drafted in such a way that they can be applied equitably… (So maybe we’re screwed after all…)

16, and that’s just the things I’ve said this week

That joke is a gas.