You might want to take magnesium with Vitamin D, because taking vitamin D depletes magnesium. Not sure if it's strictly necessary, but if you're already low on magnesium it might be an issue. I once got tinnitus (which lasted a few months) when supplementing Vitamin D, the only explanation I've figured is that my magnesium was very low, which can cause tinnitus. Might be something else too, who knows.
Meta uses dark patterns to inflate Threads DAU. If you install Threads, it starts sending notifications for suggested posts every day. It also sends notifications on Instagram, and when you click it, it opens a random post on Threads. I don't follow anyone on Threads.
Flat earth, anti-vax, alt-right -- a significant influencer in these things and others were early trolls ... being trolls.
The fun of keeping a straight face while you say ridiculous things isn't so fun when you see everyone in the presidential administration doing it. People who didn't get the original joke took the bait and ran with it.
Starlink uses beamforming with directional antenna arrays, so it should be rather difficult to jam compared to omnidirectional antennas. It's basically a dish pointed at the satellite, so the jammer should be in between to work.
Antenna arrays aren't perfect so it still picks up some energy omnidirectionally, but it should be possible to shield it with some metal plates in a way that only sky is visible.
> basically a dish pointed at the satellite, so the jammer should be in between to work.
Which isn't hard to do if you have the budget of a government. Directional antennae, GPS and a helicopter/Cessna flying patterns over a metro. Beams from the terminal are constantly scanning the sky chasing the constellations.
A higher hit rate option would be a fleet of low altitude drones taking high-res pictures of the ground, and running a fine-tuned classifier to identify Starlink Dishies which require a clear line of sight to the sky.
People who think Starlink is unblockable, or somehow anonymous IRL are unimaginative. Iran is well-versed enough with electronic warfare that it tricked a RQ-170 Sentinel land on it's territory - how hardened are Starlink terminals against responding to a spoofed signal and exposing their locations?
Doesn't Starlink use some sort wideband signal which is hard to jam? Combined with some sort of frequency hopping and a moving constellation should mean blocking a user or satellite signal should be pretty hard, like many times the cost of building and servicing a user terminal for use against protesters.
> Doesn't Starlink use some sort wideband signal which is hard to jam?
It probably is hard to jam, but you don't need to jam it if you can pinpoint terminal locations and send in on-the-ground enforcers to confiscate the equipment and make arrests. TV detector vans were introduced in 1952[1], the principles for finding sources of RF emissions isn't cutting edge technology.
You realize Iran is pretty big with lots of people and Iran can't run around with detector van across all those regions and people. Specially when they potentially lose control over certain areas. And those vans can be disabled pretty easily as well, specially in a proto-war zone.
That said, this would only be true if there were enough people with terminals.
TV emissions don't use beam forming. This is all a cat and mouse game, but Starlink being a distributed system should mean it is harder to completely block use of.
See my other comment upthread on how beamforming doesn't make terminals/emissions invisible, just harder to acquire, but well within reach of a determined adversary. Newer Starlink terminals have a 1.5° beam, and older ones are
3.4° wide . At 10,000 feet altitude, the tighter beam is 245 feet across. Starlink satellite orbits are public and predictable, and Iran has drones to spare.
This is just 1 passive RF-based approach, and there are others (e.g. drone-mounted FLIR surveys done at 3 am)
Like I said, this is a cat and mouse game, if you had terminals to spare or even just fake battery operated transmitting antennas, you could waste a lot of drone time. There are also masking techniques and it's not like the drones can't be tracked or misguided. It would take orders of magnitude more effort to stop Starlink than to keep using it minimally. Iran is a big country, it just depends on how determined and prepared the protestors are to evade censorship. Which by itself is hopefully just a start to other actions.
My starlink works fine under a ceramic tinted window that blocks 95% of UV and visible light, so you'd need a pretty fancy SAR camera for your fleet of drones.
I think, to beamform in the right direction you have to be able to locate yourself precisely, have an up-to-date almanach of the satellites, and a precise enough datation source. Jamming GNSS is a source of problems for 2 of those issues.
Also, the antennas on starlink dishes are still pretty small, likely to pick up some hard-to-remove sidelobes and the tech to cancel them properly might be export-controlled. You still need to be within electromagnetic visibility to jam them, though.
To add to my point, with multiple antennas it's also possible to spatially separate signals. Not sure if Starlink is doing that, but I think it should be possible to escape GPS jammers by using two antennas with some distance between them. Two antennas can pick up the direction of the signals and with some math they can be separated, at least in theory.
I've found out that running outside just for 10 minutes with quite high intensity is really effective for anxiety / depression with instant effect. Also, specifically lactic acid producing exercises, such as doing free squats quickly works too. It might have something to do with how the brain uses lactic acid for some functions, but this is just my guess.
We once built pyramids, massive castles, temples and churches which took hundreds of years to build. We don't build those things any more. Same happened to music and art. There's this eternal sloppification of everything, although at the same time things get on average better and cheaper for more people to enjoy. Quantity beats quality, i.e. capitalism optimizes for scalability.
The end game is quite sad, which will be some kind of neural device which just directly manipulates brain signals for happiness, and everything physical will be just gray goo. It's more scalable to make you think the world is beautiful, than to actually make it beautiful. We are almost there already, because we experience the world through a screen, which shows us happy things, while we care less and less about the real world around us.
It's extremely disrespectful to call the people from minority and diminishing cultures racist or white supremacist for protecting their own culture. Birth rate / demographic / cultural shifts are real problems. Elon has never talked about "white people" or their superiority. These issues have nothing to do with skin color. Same issues are faced by many asian countries as well.
>> Elon has never talked about "white people" or their superiority
I would encourage you to try to avoid making such easily falsifiable claims, and put at least some token effort into your arguments. I was able to find the below with less than five minutes of searching.
He has also repeatedly advanced a version of replacement rhetoric (e.g. claiming Democrats import immigrants to change power via the census), which is essentially a repackaging of the Great Replacement idea, i.e. a racist conspiracy centered on replacing white populations with those from other races and ethnicities. You can, for example, read the transcript of his interview with Don Lemon.
So yes, Elon does in fact frequently talk about white people. Even when not explicitly mentioning them, he means them. For example when he says people should have more babies, he specifically means white people: https://newrepublic.com/article/181098/elon-musks-weird-obse...
>> Same issues are faced by many asian countries as well.
I find your comparison of this issue to issues faced by various Asian countries to be pretty odd, as it does not stand up to critical scrutiny. Asian countries' demographic crises are about internal low fertility and rapid aging, not about being "replaced" by outsiders. Indeed, the arithmetic makes the comparison impossible: Japan, China, South Korea all have extremely tiny foreign populations. Therefore, pointing to Japan/Korea/China's low birth rates to sanitize "replacement" talk is a bad-faith pivot.
I don't see how you conclude that Elon is so focussed on white people. From the articles you posted, it seems more about culture rather than skin color.
The only times he seems to talk about "white" people is when these people are being prejudged for their skin color.
Demographic change can be caused by just a low birth rate, which is more of an economic issue, but it can also be combined with immigration, which may result in changing culture, i.e. "replacement". This issue is currently mostly faced by people who are white Europeans, but these people also represent many different local cultures. Not to mention that Japan and South Korea have also been increasing their immigration, although it has been quite low so far.
All kinds of people have equal right to defend their own culture. It doesn't mean that they're supremacist or racist, even if they think that their culture is better than some other culture. It's only supremacist if it aims to destroy, repress or subject other people, by advocating discrimination and violence.
Thus, "make more white babies" is not supremacist or racist. As isn't calling out violence against white people in South Africa.
reply