Source information (without animation/links):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_satellite_navi...
Previously submitted by another HN'er (in 2016):
Readit Newsj1vms commented on Comparison of several satellite navigation system orbits upload.wikimedia.org/wiki... · Posted by u/j1vms
j1vms commented on U.S. Fed accepts $756B in daily reverse repo operation reuters.com/article/usa-f... · Posted by u/dgellow
This is what happens when a central authority is controlling the economy. Everyone should know that free markets can allocate resources better than any central planner, but still somehow those economists think that we need central bank policies to control the whole thing. Central planning might be appeling idea especially for those who benefit from it, and provides unlimited avenues for complex economic theories, but it just doesn't work in the long run.
> economists think that we need central bank policies to control the whole thing (...) but it just doesn't work in the long run.
Roughly speaking, a central authority might work in certain scenarios, for a short time, to prevent situations where market participants might otherwise panic.
In the long run, the problem is the same authority does not have to all "local", decision-making information available to the individual market participants, and that might prevent the economy from reaching an optimal configuration.
j1vms commented on The rise of remote work may reshape college towns chronicle.com/article/the... · Posted by u/remt
I can't speak to Boston, but in the couple college towns I've lived in, it really depends on where you go... there were certainly plenty of places where so-called townies frequented way more than the students, even in towns were the seasonal student population dwarfs the local one.
And before anybody jumps on you, I fully agree with the sentiment, college students in party mode can be extremely annoying to deal with if you aren't in the same mindset.
6th Street in Austin is a really good example of this phenomenon.
Ian Faith: The Boston gig has been cancelled...
David St. Hubbins: What?
Ian: Yeah. I wouldn't worry about it though, it's not a big college town.
- This Is Spinal Tap
Gravity is not a force. The surface of the Earth is moving up to the object in free-fall at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. The force pushing the surface, and the pressurized atmospheric shell, upward is a result of the processes occurring within the Earth (likely, in particular, those within the the core).
Here's [0] a bit more thorough explanation of this concept for those who are interested.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU&t=504 (Veritasium on Youtube: Why Gravity is NOT a Force @ 8:24)
Gravity is not a force. The surface of the Earth is moving up to the object in free-fall at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. The force pushing the surface, and the pressurized atmospheric shell, upward is a result of the processes occurring within the Earth (likely, in particular, those within the the core).
While there might or might not be questionable or illegal things that Bill Gates did, by himself or as the MS corporation at that time, the over-fixation of the article on how he is talking to the attorney in the deposition seems misguided and amateurish.
Boies: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of 1996?
Gates: I don’t know what you mean “concerned.”
Boies: What is it about the word “concerned” that you don’t understand?
Gates: I’m not sure what you mean by it.
Boies: Is—
Gates: Is there a document where I use that term?
Boies: Is the term “concerned” a term that you’re familiar with in the English language?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: Does it have a meaning that you’re familiar with?
Gates: Yes.
If you are on the other side of this, it is your job to prevent this use of language and make sure that they don't manage to implicate yourself in any way, by nonchalant use of words. Being vigilant about your use of specific words in specific contents, and about querying what exactly they are trying to say by each question seems like a good default approach to the problem of not giving your opponent attorney more ammunition than they should fairly have. I imagine Mr. Gates was used to mistreatment by lawyers and simply speaks their language at that point.
> "The lack of experience played right into the government’s hand. Instead of portraying a leader in control of his domain and confident in his case and his company’s legal and ethical righteousness, the courtroom videos showed a side of Gates that had never been on public display before. He was petulant, petty, flustered, and dour. He was ineffectual. He was, in a word, beaten."
The article may come off a little bit too harsh on Gates, but it is essentially right in that the US Gov strategy may have been to score a PR win on Gates and Microsoft. In that way, Gates came across as more on the defence than he perhaps needed to be in the situation. The deposition ended up being a low point from the public's perspective, though any damage has mostly been undone in the 2+ decades since.
Of course, keeping in mind that Cook-era Apple is operating on a more massive scale (product shipped, wider distribution, more product lines).