Because many of them just want to use their phone as a tool, not tinker with it.
Same way many professional airplane mechanics fly commercial rather than building their own plane. Just because your job is in tech doesn’t mean you have to be ultra-haxxor with every single device in your life.
iMessage renders other iMessage users as blue bubbles, SMS/RCS as green bubbles.
People who can’t understand that many people actually prefer iOS use this green/blue thing to explain the otherwise incomprehensible (to them) phenomenon of high iOS market share. “Nobody really likes iOS, they just get bullied at school if they don’t use it”.
It’s just “wake up sheeple” dressed up in fake morality.
It wouldn't be an issue if they didn't pick the worst green on earth. "Which green would you like for the carrier text messages Mr. Jobs?" ... "#00FF00 will be fine."
Which makes tons of sense because iPhone users are higher CLV than Android users. If Google had to choose between major software defects in Android or iOS, they would focus quality on iOS every time.
The president of the US struggles to stay awake in his brief detours from the golf course. It’s a perfect metaphor for the country. All seriousness has left the building.
And wouldn’t the solar panels have less cross section than the satellite bodies, so even an apparent collision might just be a very near miss? (Honest question, not rhetorical, could be I’m wrong)
It’s a conservative definition in the field. It’s generally defined as the hard body radius: take the smallest sphere centered at the center of mass that would entirely enclose the object, then use the maximum cross section of that sphere to define the potential “area” of the colliding object.
Maybe put more simply, it’s the worst case area size / orientation you could be looking at. So yes. Solar arrays have a narrow cross section from the side but looking at them head-on (which is the angle used for Pc calculations) they’ll be very large.
Generally people really don't want collisions due to cascading effects, so they take the worst-case probability of collision found with bounding assumptions. Additionally, while often all these vehicles have active attitude (orientation) control, sometimes they go into safe mode and are spinning (often spin stabilized to point at the sun), so it will clear the entire potential radius while rotating.
Also how do you define the probabilistic average area for a space object that you don't know how it's control system works or what it's been commanded to do / point at. Yes we can make some pretty good assumptions for things like Starlink, but even those do take safemodes occasionally.
So It's an engineering judgement call on how to model it. It's hard to get a probabilistic average for attitude that you can confidently test and say is "right", it's a lot easier and conservative to take the worst-case upper-bound. That's at least not-wrong.
Worth adding that the actual collision avoidance manouevres Starlink (and other satellites with propulsion) makes are based on more conservative assumptions
The papers assumptions lead to the conclusion that with no manouevres, we'd see a catastrophic crash between two or more satellites in LEO within 2.8 days. To be on the safe side, Starlink did over 144000 in the first six months of the year (and based on historical doubling rate, will probably be doing 1000 per day by now)...
Yeah the solar array on Starlink is held perpendicular to the velocity vector, so the cross section relative to the colliding body will invariably be smaller than the worst case.
And none of this is serious money to the Saudis and MAGA billionaires. If controlling this media ekes out a couple of percent in the midterms, it’s money well spent. A few tens of billions against consolidating power and bigger grifts? High ROI investment.
Same way many professional airplane mechanics fly commercial rather than building their own plane. Just because your job is in tech doesn’t mean you have to be ultra-haxxor with every single device in your life.
reply