The Starlink Dish isn't moving. It's an active array and it's completely possible for that to either "point" in two directions simultaneously or to time switch so that it measures first one satellite then moves to the other.

a) The fact that Starlink controls the software on the terminals and is allowed to send the location from the terminal to their system.

b) The fact that Starlink clearly states that they know, and need to know, your exact terminal location in order to allow handovers to happen correctly.

Teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Some phrases for you to look up to start to dig yourself out of the hole of your ignorance.

"timing advance"
"round trip time"
"propagation delay"
"triangulation"

You might study how Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's flight path has been investigated to get some popular and simplified explanations that will help you with imagining how this could be done.

In the meantime in this house we follow the laws of science and the experiment is in. 8m location accuracy has been demonstrated with Starlink so you are just fundamentally wrong. Once the experimental evidence contradicts your theories, that's the point at which you start trying to learn.

Just wrong. The spacex satellites themselves provide location independent of GPS and 8 m accuracy has been demonstrated even without SpaceX cooperation. SpaceX themselves could probably achieve 1m accuracy if they wanted to, but in any case 50m accuracy would be enough for target location.

Because you are a Russian disruption agent and the idea of an independent judiciary and trial by jury who would never convict someone because the president wanted them to is completely alien to you. There's plenty wrong all over American politics and nobody should deny it, but going after the innocent is one of the best ways of stopping people going after the guilty.

SpaceX knows exactly where each terminal is because they have to for radio timing to work correctly with the moving satellites. Russia has to test those terminals somewhere. SpaceX could be giving that location to Ukraine. SpaceX could be permanently destroying any terminal that turns up near there and hasn't been cleared by Ukraine. SpaceX could be reporting the incoming locations of missiles and could be cutting service as soon as they realize that there's a surprise terminal moving rapidly towards a Ukrainian city.

Due to their lack of accuracy which makes them ineffective against hardened military targets, most of the Russian missiles are used in strict terror campaigns against civilian buildings: Power stations providing neighborhood heating, residential tower blocks with hundreds of families living in them, independent churches, nurseries often at times of maximum use and of course hospitals.

Getting on top of this and ensuring that Ukraine is a key supported customer that feels it gets what it needs could have allowed a real feel good story showing a company that took abuse and murder seriously. In fact it's pretty clear that some working at Starlink tried to do that at times and the management made it more difficult. Elon Musk is literally a baby killer.

Were you able to before? Obviously, "like everyone else" you'll be keeping it encrypted at rest with keys that are kept in an HSM. For the important "pet feeding habit data" you will have made an exception and actually bought your own HSMs, kept in your multiple highly geographically separated underground bunkers with limited on site compute and simply feed limited summary results back to the cloud. For less important "nuclear weapons test results" data you find some compromise where you can track which and for the "current location of warheads data" you might just decide that you take the risk because, you're just going to have to accept the risk of that data leaking anyway for other reasons, and cost of processing is a priority. That's why right data classification and appropriate handling is important.

Every computer you use you trust Intel, Infineon, Samsung and tens or hundreds of others manufacturers not to embed hostile radio devices or software on chips that phone home. That includes some companies that actually have added weird management systems against their users wishes. Apple (IIRC) have pubilcly had the situation where they threw away a bunch of mother boards that arrived for their cloud. I'm sure all of the others have too. What don't they spot?

Adding one more cloud provider doesn't really make things much worse that it was to begin with.

Generally a few things

1) eminent domain for countryside land
2) tunnels into cities.
3) once the network is in existence cities that don't have it lose out and will make a big effort to find land for

The distances in America are much bigger, so ideally you'd move to a faster rail standard, either simply double European width or maglev. Of Underground tunnels, though, are a really big thing because the main benefit of trains is that you can run them right to the center of the city so that people living there can leave their offices 20 minutes before the train, walk or take a taxi, get to the station 10 minutes before departure and still safely get their train.

At the other end it's even faster because you don't need the 10 minutes of leeway.

You have clearly never been to a proper Scottish bog. You step on what seems like an innocent clump of moss and disappear almost instantly without trace and your digested, but likely quite well preserved by the low oxygen conditions, body is only recovered thousands of years later. There are some like that in Wales and the North of England too. https://science.slashdot.org/s...

Those constitutional limits only protect things which have an "expectation of privacy" which it's very likely these records don't count as having due to various dubious supreme court rulings in the US. These are normal business records sold on the open market. Why should the IRS, trying to find criminals, be given less access than advertising companies?

Let's be clear about this, what they are doing is fully constitutionally permitted (as adjudicated by the US supreme court) use of business records which have no constitutional expectation of privacy under the US constitution.

Specifically, the data brokers were build with the aim of allowing advertising companies to buy this data so that they could profit from it. That allows all sorts of dodgy practices like dynamic pricing which allows companies to take advantage when they get into a monopoly or cartel situation in constrained markets and extort higher prices from consumers.

The right thing is to say that consumers own this data and that nobody has access to it without permission, as Europe does with the GDPR. What is being proposed here is a specific exception to allow the super-rich to continue to evade the taxation which pays to protect their business interests whilst the rest end up having to pay more and get less.

Then why didn't you make that accusation in the first place and why does Norwegian Wikipedia not have any level of accusations against them.

If that's true and you took an actual interest in their methods then I congratulate you. Please recognize, though, that you wouldn't be able to do that if there wasn't a single identifiable scheme behind trademark protection (any blockchain etc. restrictions are largely beside the point). I'm not sure if I understand or agree with your proposals for improvement but if you take complaints to your elected representatives and ask them to get involved that will at least show that someone cares about the scheme and wants it improved, which I do believe you to likely be right in demanding.

That's a bit of a non-sequiter. I'm not Norwegian and don't claim to be. I'm from the UK. We, like everyone else get affected by Norwegian energy policy so my commenting is completely reasonable. I'm happy to believe there are problems and I appreciate if you work on them, but working on the wrong problems won't get things fixed.

Trust me. If all the Incel's get truly philosophical, none of us are going to be "ok".

According to the Google translation

The certificate is recognized by the authorities in public procurement, and as of July 1, 2014, over 5,000 businesses in Norway are certified Environmental Lighthouse.

So, the certificate gives you permission to sell to one of the richest governments in the world. That sounds pretty solidly valuable. They even say

The businesses must document and meet both statutory requirements and requirements imposed by the Environmental Lighthouse certification scheme. The requirements include the environmental aspects of energy, waste, transport, purchasing and the working environment. The business must implement measures to create a more environmentally friendly operation and a good working environment.

So it sounds like the government actually has good reasons to want the certificates.

The point was that that was going to go away as a route for unsigned apps to be replaced with a requirement for signatures even when using ADB or other alternative installation methods. Google is backing off that change for now. This should mean that things like Obtainium keep working in future.