It's not automation that's making us "less capable". It's the incessant expectation that we - (software) engineers - be senior, mono-maniacal, obsessive-compulsive, experts in whatever the bloody fad du jour is. That's because darn management and HR dolts have no clue how to assess an engineer, yet expect to make the decision.

Therefore yes: we're "less capable" because we can't keep up with their fads... go fuck yourself. Seriously.

These will not be high latency. If you have 700 satellites more-or-less evenly distributed around the globe (say from 60S to 60N latitude) and you want a minimum of 45 degree elevation to the nearest satellite, they can be lower than 400 miles altitude, or 600 miles away. Assuming that the system will bounce signals from the satellites to a distributed network of fiber connected ground stations, latency should only be 10ms more than a pure cable transmissions.

Previous satellite internet to geosynchronous satellites are nothing like this.

I agree with other commenters that this is pretty unlikely, but SpaceX and Tesla were quite unlikely to succeed as well.

... was all but dead anyway. Replaced by the (OMG! it costs how much?) 4K fad.

``... in their style and draw from what you submit to them. You HAVE the RIGHT to see what it is that they are submitted to their client on your behalf. Ask for it.''

I understood that recruiters would sometimes do this -- usually replacing your address information with that of the recruiting firm, largely to protect themselves from companies that would do something underhanded like contact the candidate directly after telling the recruiter that they were taking a pass on the candidate -- but I found out that that's not the only reason. Back when I was working with VMS (early '90s), I went into an interview for a job as a VMS system manager only to get bombarded with programming questions. And, while I've done a fair amount of programming over the years, these questions were completely off the wall so I asked the interviewer if I could see the copy of my resume he was referring to. The recruiter had inserted wording that made it seem as though I had years of experience as a COBOL programmer -- which I most definitely was not. I apologized and ended the interview. The phone call I made to the recruiter after the interview was no fun. For the recruiter. I never worked with him or anyone else at that firm again.

``LinkedIn allows you to directly apply to companies, without having to go through recruiters.''

I think most, if not all, jobs that you apply to via LinkedIn still take you to the company's ATS, no?

One cool feature that I recall seeing on LinkedIn were job postings that were exclusive to LinkedIn and which, allegedly, got preferential attention by the company recruiters. I have seen that for some years, though.

I've gotten the same sort of calls: poor English, jobs that were barely applicable (in most cases I suspect my resume was flagged based on only one or two keywords), and then almost demanding that I authorize them to submit me to their client. Nearly always these calls come with my never having seen an email containing the job description (which would have been extremely helpful given their thick accent) so I can't tell whether this is something I'd even consider. Most of the time, when I ask for them to send me a copy of the job description (getting them to actually do this is like pulling teeth), quite often it never arrives. If the description does arrive, I'm usually flabbergasted to find that it's either an entry level position (with a corresponding hourly rate) or their client appears to be looking for an entire IT department in a single person (sysadmin, DBA, network admin, Java developer, and more). When we talk again about the position and I explain that it's not a good fit -- based on a mismatch of skill set, rate, location, whatever -- they won't take "no" for an answer and, nearly always, follow up with 'authorization to submit' email. Even after, I've pointed out "Hey... the job description says that such-n-such a technology is mandatory and I don't have experience with that" they'll come back with "Oh... that's not a problem." Really?

You used to see this (and probably still do today; I haven't looked in years) in the employment section of, say, IEEE journals. Extremely detailed job descriptions for research associate positions, post-docs, etc. that we all laughed at knowing that this was one of those job adverts that was done to satisfy a legal requirement and that the job description was nothing more than a slightly watered down abstract of the thesis or dissertation written by the person they already knew they wanted to hire.

``I have a resume with very diverse experience and my skill set is that of a generalist which means recruiters have NO idea what to do with me. In years past I've been blown off by more recruiters than I care to think about.''

I have a similar background: developer, sysadmin, storage admin, backups, capacity planning, performance management, disaster recovery planning, management, project management, with great troubleshooting/diagnostics skills and I get calls from "recruiters" who home in like a laser beam on one single keyword in my resume thinking that I'll be interested in a low salary job working as a technician. On a 3-4 month contract. Third shift. In Mudhole, Idaho. Oy! Fortunately, I do have a few recruiters that I've worked with who understand someone with a varied background. Now if only more hiring managers would stop to consider what someone with a background that isn't completely monochromatic could be doing for their team, the three of us might be come up with a win-win-win outcome.

The other situation I ran into was taking a call from a recruiter about a job where it seems their clients are only interested in finding someone with 5-7 years experience in the advertised skill set but only looking to make a parallel move. As one person described it:

``... employers want candidates who have been doing the exact job for years already, and who are willing to take a pay cut to do it some more.''

Pass. And shame on the recruiters that feed that sick hiring strategy.

``In 2000, not that long before he left office, President Clinton got rid of selective availability and freed the world from ever depending on paper maps or confusing directions from relatives again.''

And one more skill disappears from the public's toolkit. (Along with being able to make change and others.)

I remember when the Iowa Basics tests taken in grade school used to include a section on map reading. Nowadays, it seems most people don't even know how to open a map let alone read one.

``When you have potential employers that would reject you in preference for other based on even just a list of the fiction recently read it's better to not let them get anything via that channel, and to do their jobs properly.''

Well, this guy looks like he's got the technical skills but since I can't find anything about his personal life online and make a recommendation based on his past behavior, likes, dislikes, etc.: REJECTED!

British commandos' desert kit is pink. A dull greyish carnation color. It melds into the sand better at a distance.

And you didn't have them warn your 2007 self to sell all your stock and real estate?

You're an idiot!