• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 3rd, 2023

help-circle


  • I agree with most of what you said but you’re very much misunderstanding the point of resistance insurgencies if you think their aim is to “win” in the conventional sense, i.e. conquer and hold territory. Despite the propaganda, death and destruction, Hamas are fighting the IDF to a strategic standstill. Israel’s stated aim is the complete destruction of Hamas and they are nowhere near achieving it, which alone will be win enough in Hamas’ eyes and will strengthen them no doubt. One purported goal for Hamas was to inflict a situation so awful that there is no way the world could just return to normal after it, which I would argue will have happened by the time the dust blows over. They also aimed to stop Arab-Israeli diplomatic normalisation, which has been set back at least 20 years or so. Of the two belligerents, I would argue Hamas has actually been more successful in its aims.







  • saze@feddit.uktoSpaceflightMemes@sh.itjust.worksFalcon 9 Go Brrr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Great question! It sent me into a Google frenzy and here is what I found.

    Q3 to me means three month period from 1st July to 30th September. During this time, there were 20 Starlink ‘V2 mini’ and 2 ‘V1.5’ launches. Each ‘V2 mini’ mission contained 21-23 satellites, which I averaged to 22, and ~50 in each ‘V1.5’ mission. Further, each ‘V1.5’ satellite weighs in at 306kg and each ‘V2 mini’ weighs in at 800kg.

    Phew! With all that out of the way, putting all that together ((20×800×22)+(2×306×50)), we arrive at a figure of 382,600kg. Uncannily, this is almost exactly the same as the figure reported in the graphic, and of course there were a lot more Falcon 9 launches in the intervening period, leading me to believe the reported tonnage figure excludes Starlink satellites. See edit below.

    This is all napkin maths done in the middle of the night, please feel free to (gently!) correct me if needed.

    Inevitable correction: Q3 (as defined above) saw only one non-Starlink related Falcon 9 launch (source), therefore ~99.6% of reported tonnage was Starlink related!








  • Apologies for the late reply, still getting a hang of this!

    By multiple devices issues I meant the following. Sometimes for example, I am on a Teams call on my phone but want to use my laptop to view screensharing stuff and join the call there too (without hanging up the phone). Teams will insist that my audio switch over to the laptop too and I have to manually disable the audio on the laptop and re-enable it on the phone. It shocks me that such a mature offering from a massive corporation still cannot figure out that I may want a screenshare/audio split onto two devices and ask me at least. Another smaller nag, if I want audio only on the phone, it will constantly bug me to tell me the incoming video is switched off. I kind of understand this however, I get that they want to let the average user know why there is no incoming video, but surely there ought to be a “leave me alone” setting for this.



  • It has indeed improved a lot over the last 2 years or so and is now actually quite a mature product, as much as I hate to admit that about an MS product. My biggest gripes with it are its refusal to acknowledge you may be using multiple devices (to this day) and MS’s insistence that a person only do one thing at one time (can’t edit calendar items while checking a chat, for example). Their Linux app is a joke and I’m better off running it from Chrome. The phone app makes the WiFi interface crash constantly and I have to run it off 4G; it is the only app I have this issue with.

    Which brings me to another gripe. Teams documentation insists that screen sharing on Linux is not supported, and sure enough you cannot see the option for it while on a call with someone. However if you are in a meeting (with however many people), the option magically appears and works absolutely perfectly.