Sorry, I meant theoretically as in “at some distant point in the future where we’ve figured out how to make it work.” I probably read too much science fiction.

Unfortunately it’s a hard limit due to the speed of light. Theoretically you could use quantum entanglement to get around it, but then of course you wouldn’t need the satellites anymore.

Sure, and I’ll even broaden that. I’m pretty sure everything that has ever been used as a medium of exchange has been used in a scam somewhere, and the easier it is to use that medium of exchange, the more scams have been perpetrated using it.

Janet Yellen is not in charge of the United States money supply. You’re thinking of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is comprised of the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and four of the eleven regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents on a yearly rotating basis.

And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up a criticism of our collective net worth on a discussion around whether Bitcoin is used in scams, unless you’re trying to push the narrative that traditional fiat currency is somehow worth less than an unbacked security. Which is both irrelevant to the conversation, and a pretty good indication that you don’t really understand how currency works.

On the off chance that you’re actually asking, there have been studies that have shown the regret rate for transitioning is less than 1%.

Here’s an article about a recent study which tracked people up to 23 years post-transition, showing median regret as 0 out of 100.

Now, you might be thinking to yourself “but that’s just one study, with around 200 participants, and the results were so uniform it caused issues with the statistics. Maybe it’s wrong.” Well, here is a meta-analysis of 27 additional studies, with almost 8,000 participants, which also shows regret rates are <1%.

Hope that helps.

Oh absolutely. I work in information security, and I definitely have a good amount of “but that’s not how it works!” when I watch it.

But hey, it’s entertaining, and it’s not like other shows get it much better.

This is basically the plot of Leverage, and part of why it’s such a good show.

Can’t speak for the person you’re replying to, but I’m a security engineer and stuff still makes its way to me that you would think would get filtered out by others (and isn’t my job to fix). It just takes the right person thinking “this is obviously a problem with $system, let’s just send it straight over to them so they can fix it quickly!” And then we get the fun job of proving it’s not us and has no relation to us.

We got a ticket today for packet loss between two systems, neither of which have any of our tools on them…

While you’re not wrong about there being other constellations in the works, Starlink is the first to actually launch more than a (relative) few. Over 50% of satellites in orbit, total, belong to Starlink.

So while there are other projects planned or under construction, Starlink is the most visible by far, and that’s a lot of why we hear about it the most.

Also yeah, it’s owned by Elon Musk, so that alone guarantees it’ll stay in the news.

That’s great! Like I said, it’s dependent on your employment contract. But for people who aren’t as certain, separate work and personal devices as much as possible just to protect yourself.

Depending on where you work, your employer may be able to take that personal device you’re using for work in the event of a lawsuit against the company (where they need to retain anything that may be relevant to discovery), or in the event of a security incident (where they may need it for forensics).

I work in information security, and I practice strict isolation for that exact reason. Two laptops, two phones, because if anything ever happens they can and will take devices for analysis or evidence. If you are using an issued device, they’ll assign you a new one; if it’s a personal device you’ll get it back when they’re done with it, which could take years.

Edited to add this is dependent on your employment contract, but it’s better to be safe than sorry. Cover your camera and use your work computer.

That’s also part of why a lot of large telescope mirrors get made in Tucson, at the University of Arizona!

It’s more “if people quit trying to break the system to enrich themselves, and the politicians actually agreed to empower the agencies which are supposed to oversee and regulate large companies and financial institutions, and we actually listened to the data instead of the soundbites that sound good as long as you don’t think about them much, we’d be much better off.”

Economists are not in charge of anything, politicians and rich people are. And they aren’t incentivized to run things like an economist, because then they would make less money.

Just because the people with an incentive to blow up the economy to make money end up blowing up the economy to make more money every few years doesn’t mean economics is at fault for that. It’s like saying climate science isn’t real because earlier projections of global warming were more optimistic, when the real reason is the science was suppressed and downplayed by the people making boatloads of money off fossil fuels.

We have a fairly solid understanding of an ideal economy. If the economy was run according to current theory, we’d avoid a lot of issues (and find new ones we would address, of course).

However, the economy is run according to political whims, so most of the economic theory gets thrown out the window. It’s pretty easy to run into major issues when nothing stays consistent for more than a couple years, and the interests of those in charge do not include a stable and sustainable economy.