so if someone is within range of a strong enough 12GHz signal to disrupt a stellite signal are there really any advantages of using satellite?

Yes, the advantage is competition.

And here's part 2 - Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0

Government has no business telling anyone how to produce energy. Therefore there shouldn't be any subsidies for any specific type of clean energy production.

However, government has every business telling everyone to not pollute the environment. So instead of subsidies there should be extra heavy taxes on anything that pollutes the environment - proportional to the pollution.

Make sure the measurements accurately reflect what you care about. What is code quality for you? Do you care about customers not encountering bugs? (All bugs? Just critical?) Do you care about development speed not being reduced gradually? Do you care about estimates matching actual time spent, so you can plan ahead? If you don't actually care about how many lines of code are committed to the git repository, then obviously don't measure it!

And if you can't measure something for each team member individually, make the whole team equally accountable for the end result. They will figure it out themselves and tell you who's bringing the team down. Not just that, once they know what you really want, they'll also be able to suggest how to measure it better, or tell you what you can do to let them achieve greater results. (E.g., faster PC, bigger monitor, fewer distractions, no scope changes, better test environment, specific training, etc.)

4. Replace minimum wage with Universal Base Income, both ensuring quality of life for local workers and leveling the playing field regardless of laws of other countries.

It probably is the encryption. I've had a lot of performance problems with my HTC One M6 - the whole would just freeze for seemingly no reason every now and then, and it would even crash on MTP file transfer regularly. In fact, it was getting worse and worse every day. All of it was fixed by resetting back to the unencrypted storage. Encryption comes with a huge price.

Wait, what? Voluntarily paid the fines? Many people don't consider paying fines something you do "voluntarily".

Or, instead, there could be negative exceptions only. Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging development of Solar Cells, it should be in the business of discouraging use of, for example, coal and oil, basically imposing additional taxes on everything that threatens our environment in some way. Let the private sector figure out the best solution, government should just be saying what is a no-go. And that way the worst case scenario is that environment-threatening companies find loopholes to pay the same tax as everyone else.

Or you could do it in a century and people will still use Imperial measurements for TWO more centuries.

Or Uber could simply become that insurance company.

No one said it's easy for Tesla, but they have clearly demonstrated that they can make it easy for you - in fact easier than filling a tank of gas! I don't have any insight into their strategic plans, but I can imagine they would want to first install the easier (for them) alternative before rolling out nation-wide something as complicated as battery swap. I can imagine such solution has huge fixed costs that will not be covered until they become considerably more popular. They have not pushed away from the concept, however - it's still there on their web site: http://www.teslamotors.com/bat...

What's the difference when you can replace a battery even faster? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You keep repeating the same thing, but you don't provide any explanation. I don't think you know what inflation does, but, unlike you, I'm actually going to explain why I think so.

Considering all other factors equal (we both know they aren't, but the argument is about inflation, nothing else), consider two scenarios:
1) have $10k now, don't spend them, don't invest them, in 10 years you still have the same $10k
2) have $10k now, buy something worth $10k now, in 10 years you still have this thing that cost $10k originally, but because of inflation (=increase in prices) it now costs $11k.

In scenario 1 you have less value than in scenario 2. Like I said, this disregards all other economic factors that affect value, but the idea is to show how inflation influences it.

Those numbers don't have the meaning you give them.
When one person is producing enough food to feed all 100 people, yet he only eats for one, does it mean that the other 99 people are fed and don't need to work? No. Until he actually shares the food he produces, the 99 people still need to work to get their own food.
So how do they get food?
1) They ask and receive it for free, because the producer is generous. If producer is OK with that, there's no problem to solve. This is the "kid" example you started with.
2) They make something that the producer needs, and trade with producer. This is where we are now pretty much. Basic economy, no new problem to solve.
3) The producer doesn't want anything they are willing to give, so they make their own food. The producer is now overproducing and is forced to decrease his prices, or to reallocate his efforts to something else (could be something completely new that was not done before - like actual space exploration). Again, basic economy, no problem to solve.

So where's the problem again? It's not related to "labor participation rate", but rather in the ability of everyone to take their life in their hands (see point 3). This ability can be severely damaged if a small portion of population is hogging up all the limited resources (such as land or intellectual property) necessary to do so. And the result is that option 3 is no longer available, forcing people to take option 2 no matter the price. Instead of solving this problem you're just implying that option 1 should be forced somehow.

But this is internet. You don't need interpersonal skills on the internet.