Central banks do a lot of useful things, but they don't give currency a value (they can, however manipulate the value others give it by printing it, destroying it, changing interest rates, changing the amount of reserve banks need and the multiple they can lend, etc). What gives a currency value is supply and demand- the fact other people want that currency. Which is also what sets international exchange rates.

There's also the fact you need it to pay taxes, which sets a base amount of demand. But beyond that it's all supply and demand when deciding how much value it has against other currencies or physical objects.

WHich is different from crypto how? You print it from doing large amounts of useless work on a computer that provides no value and is immediately thrown out. Or the new proof of stake algorithms, in which you print it by having previously printed it. I'll take cash, thanks.

I have seen satellite dishes at the base of isolated cell towers, though I have no idea what they were being used for.

One big drawback for satellite networking is the delay it adds to the transmissions, to travel up to the satellite and get sent back down to a ground station. This delay probably wouldn't be tolerated by a cell phone user, especially if they were talking to another cell phone which would double the delay a second time.

There's also a bandwidth issue at the satellite, if you want to do that with hundreds of thousands of towers there's just no way to have that amount of bandwidth even from a cluster of satellites. The bandwidth problem isn't one of data rate, its one of needing to be able to communicate with the ground on so many different channels because of all the towers, and having satellites at many different geostationary locations. (that's what Musk is trying to do with launching this absurd number of starlink satellites)

High data rate meshing requires directional antennas pointed at other nodes, unlike the more broad-beamed bay antennas the towers use for cellular access. Adding several dishes and a bunch of expensive hardware to each tower would dramatically increase tower cost and maintenance.

It's much cheaper to just run a network drop off a nearby pole or trench a line to the nearest fiber vault. Even the towers out along the open highways tend to get fiber trenched to them rather than dishes networking them together over the air.

Here in the USA anyway, cellular service has been considered "critical infrastructure" for quite some time now, mostly due to the decline of landlines. 9-1-1 having high availability has been legally required for a long time, and those requirements shifted to the cellular network as people ditched their land-lines for cell phones at home. So all the towers have short-term (15+ minute) UPS's and a gas generator that auto starts, with requirements to run periodic tests.

The other part of it though is the towers nowadays require internet access to function. We had a massive storm system move through the area a few years ago with close to tornado-speed "straight-line winds" that took out a huge amount of above-ground internet infrastructure, rendering cell towers functionally disabled despite giving out full bars. There were a few lines still up but everyone's home internet was either down or spotty, and it was hard to get a cell call to connect. Was llke that for 2-3 weeks, really annoying.

So, power's not the only thing that needs to be protected to keep cellular service working.

Agreed. Also, nice to see another 3-digit UID user still on here!

[reaches for walker to stand up]

Why would you do that? If you're using it for non-strings, you'd never have used strncpy, you'd have used memcpy. Which is the same thing without the null termination rules of strncpy. You'd never use the str versions unless actually working on strings.

Here is a version that used floppy drives, hard drives, and flatbed scanners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I would say "Mein Leben!", but in this case, it should be "Sein Leben!"

oh I guess I really hadn't thought about heating needs. The batteries generate heat when being charged or discharged so I was just assuming they never really would need external heating.

I live in Iowa, and I've heard some pretty brutal accounts of bad EV performance when it gets really cold here. All rechargeable batteries perform poorly in the cold though, I remember NiCD batteries being absolutely terrible in the cold.

incorporate advanced refrigerant-based and liquid cooling circuits

That's nothing new, AFAIK, all EVs already do this.

75kW is a lot of heat. Think about the heat from a 100w light bulb (99% of which is heat) Now stack 750 of them and feel the sun!

Also, this car isn't flying down the freeway, forcing massive amounts of air through the radiator to cool it. This one's parked, and only has the forced airflow of the radiator's fan to keep it from melting into goo.

But that 75kW is talking about the charger, which may be able to handle more than one vehicle, or larger vehicles like EV trucks and busses, so the number is likely a lot smaller for the average EV car. But still, lotta heat!

Usually rapid chargers produce quite a bit of heat in the battery, how are they managing this?

I assume the EV stays turned on and runs a cooling loop and blasts hot air out a radiator somewhere, but even that has to have its limits?

"It was hard to figure out how do you balance getting ready to go, not go, all that stuff,"

That must be pretty stressful... "hey you MIGHT be going to space in a few months, but maybe not! Plan accordingly!"

Those are some pretty radically different options there, going to space and staying on earth really aren't two separate scenarios that are easy to come up with a flexible plan that can cover both.

I recall Neil saying he wasn't able to get life insurance when he was flying the experimental planes, and so NASA had to cover him. I wonder how that works with astronauts? I can just imagine making that phone call to your insurance company.... heeeey say I'm going to be flying around the moon next month so... "thank you for letting us know, we've suspended your insurance coverage for the next two months". Gee thanks.

That phrase gets tossed around from time to time and this is why. The only reason we don't have warrantless searches and other intensely invasive government surveillance right now is it's specifically banned in the US Constitution. But of course the founding fathers knew nothing of cell phones, so this one is fair game.

Unfortunately for us, the Constitution, which the founding fathers envisioned as a "living document", one that was periodically updated to address new developments, only very rarely gets updated anymore. And all this modern tech that WOULD be in the constitution (like personal electronic devices, online privacy, etc) if they'd have known about it when it was written isn't, so it all just gets trampled on.

The concept of the Constitution as a "living document" is basically dead, and that's unfortunate for all of us. What we really need right now is a "Technology Bill of Rights". That would breathe some life into this important document, and bring us closer to what the founding fathers envisioned a free people to be protected by.