Make that absolutely certain.

I'm fairly certain that you are incorrect. There's no difference between retiming signals going to multiple antennas and retiming signals coming from multiple antennas except in terms of the hardware used to do it.

Sure there is. Phased arrays let you effectively point an antenna in a specific direction so that the vast majority of the signal comes from or goes towards that direction, and all other directions are weak by comparison. Use multiple antennas. "Point" one antenna towards the interference source. Invert the phase. "Point" other antennas towards the desired sources. Sum a portion of the inverted signal with that, calculating the correct amplitude based on the expected off-axis rejection of the other antennas.

Now it is certainly possible that the jamming signal could be so strong that you exceed the ability of the analog hardware to invert and sum the signal, but realistically, probably not with a directional antenna on top of an airplane unless the jamming is coming from above you, in which case they can just shoot you down instead.

At the very least, that sort of approach would make jamming considerably harder, more expensive, and require considerably more power.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Exponential growth of the economy cannot continue forever. Anything less than exponential will trend in the long term toward a zero percent asymptote.

From the featured article:

The airline said it will also reduce passengers’ carbon footprint by eliminating unnecessary paper, saving more than 300 tonnes in paper waste each year.

Conspicuous by its absence from the article is how much carbon footprint it will add for those passengers who have to buy a compatible phone for the first time just to board a flight.

I mention "a compatible phone" because Ryanair's website implies that the Ryanair app is exclusive to Apple's App Store and Google Play. Not all phones in use are a sufficiently recent iPhone or a sufficiently recent Android-powered phone with Google Play. Some are land lines or "wireless home phone" adapters that don't do anything but voice. Some are flip phones with only voice, text, and maybe picture messaging. Some are smartphones that run an operating system other than Android or iOS. And some run an Android Open Source Project (AOSP) distribution without Google Play.

It's Trump Era, chopping parts speech good! Verbs obsolete, no more woke-talk! Transitive verbs specially gotta go, turns our kids be fruits!

2 wrongs don't make 1 right.

(In Orangie's case, it's 472 wrongs.)

...DOGE gets ahold of it: they'll shut features down first and then try to restore them if embarrassing* problems show up. It's kind of like programming via genetic algorithm.

* They ignore or deflect non-embarrassing problems.

Just to add to that theme is this essay I wrote: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
        "Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
        Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
        Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
        These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ...
        Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ...
        There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ....
        Maybe ironic humor is our last, best hope against the war machines? As was quoted by Joel Goodman of the Humor Project here: "There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension. So we must do what we can with the third. (John F. Kennedy)"
        The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
      We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working").
      There are lots of alternatives I helped organize here for helping transcend an economy based around militarism and artificial scarcity: [ https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-... ]
      Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. The people serving the USA in uniform are some of the most idealistic, brave, and altruistic people around; they just unfortunately are often misled for reasons of profit and power that Major General Butler outlined very clearly in "War is a Racket" decades ago. We need to build a better world where our trusting young people (and the people who give them orders) have more options for helping build a world that works for everyone than "war play". We need to build a better world where some of our most hopeful and trusting citizens are not coming home with PTSD as shattered people (or worse, coming home in body bags) because they were asked to kill and die for an unrecognized irony of using the tools of abundance to create artificial scarcity."

"This whole story stinks of lies, greed, arrogance and stupidity."

See also for example Gregory Bateson's writings: https://aeon.co/essays/gregory...
"A summary of the conclusions he reached at the end of his career might run like this: both society and the environment are profoundly sick, skewed and ravaged by the Western obsession with control and power, a mindset made all the more destructive by advances in technology. However, any attempt to put things right with more intervention and more technology can only be another manifestation of the same wrongheadedness."

Inspired by him and others (including another professor, Jim Beniger on "The Control Revolution"), I wrote something similar on the problem of too much concentrated control in an undergrad paper in Steve Slaby's class on the "Technological Imperative of the Arms Race" (given the same concept applies there to nuclear weapons and so on).
https://keywiki.org/index.php?...
"A member of Princeton's School of Engineering and Applied Science faculty for almost 40 years before retiring in 1991, Slaby was committed to teaching his students to consider the political and social implications of technology. "

My sig is also an indirect reflection of that theme of needing to transcend how we think about things related to control, wealth concentration, and artificial scarcity (including to avoid double binds like Bateson wrote about): "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

I've been around long enough to know the political pendulum swings back and forth. Your time in the troglodyte sun won't last.

I've heard of management via spreadsheets, but this is "management via regex".

Sorry. I edited that paragraph too many times and screwed it up pretty badly. Fixed above.

The GP was almost correct, but got the word wrong. To be fair, though, in common parlance, the term triangulation is frequently used.

But you're right that the correct term is trilateration. Trilateration uses the distance from three (or more) fixed points to compute the position of something. Triangulation uses a combination of angles and distances to compute the position using only two fixed points.

For a triangulation example, if you look at the skyline of NYC and you compute the exact angle to the Empire State Building and the Chrysler building and you know the exact angles to both of them, you can accurately compute your location to one of two possible points even without knowing the distance to either of them by using trig, because you know how far apart the two buildings are.

With satellites, of course, the fact that GPS satellites are moving makes this problematic, and making any knowledge of the distance between the satellites even more problematic. And of course, GPS receivers tend not to be stationary, which makes measuring the angles way harder.

I have this vague memory that in an early design for GPS or one of the competing systems, they were going to have a small number of geostationary satellites, which could place you at one of two spots in the world even if the LEO birds all failed (as long as you're below about 81 degrees of latitude, which is to say not on Antarctica or in the Arctic Ocean, give or take), but I can't find any information about it, so maybe I'm imagining things.

But if you hypothetically did that, you could use triangulation more plausibly because of the fixed location of the satellites. Any vehicle crossing the equator would, of course, have a very bad time without a secondary frame of reference, such as a compass heading.

As an added advantage, you could make the antennas for a geostationary GPS alternative be highly directional (based on your last known location, the current time, and your compass heading, which can be supplemented with gyros for additional accuracy). That should make them much harder to jam.

"Luke, I am your pencil sharpener!"