(which will probably make self-heating unnecessary... or are there temperature requirements?)
No, they don't. They just run hot. There are a ton of little ASICs behind the flat plane running the various antenna bits required for the beam forming (directing the beam without physically moving the dish, once it finds a spot it mostly stays put), and they all put out some good heat. Plus, the high frequency RF involved isn't the most efficient in terms of antennas.
Yes, they're warm. No, it's not a dedicated heater mode.
Mine idles around 85W, 100-105W when transmitting heavily. Basically all that heat goes into the flat surface of the dish, which is enough to melt off snow. But it's not a dedicated heating functionality, and I've not seen a teardown that demonstrates a dedicated heating device.
Though I imagine a cat attenuates the link a good bit and encourages heating.
Starlink could be a way out of this market, but alas is not yet (well, they're actually price competitive, if you exclude the cost of Dishy and the power consumption).
By baseline I mean nobody home, lights and appliances off but internet, WiFi, IoT stuff etc all running.
However my fridge is less than 50W.. I don't have a huge one like they do in the states (we call those "American refridgerators" here and they're a luxury). It's on about one third of the time (half the time in summer) so it adds about 25W of baseline load.
I actually find it a bit too much. I'd be happier if I could bring it down to 100W. But it's hard to do so. All those little wall warts add up and I just love my home automation. I have 5 1gbit switches alone (8-ports), 3 WiFi APs and then of course all the smart gizmos.
In the US, an idling desktop computer, an energy efficient refrigerator, and a fan for household air circulation would be enough to exceed that.
I just download usage details from my electric company for a bill from the middle of summer when my usage is lowest, which provides usage broken down by 15-minute intervals, and the lowest 15-minute interval I had was using electricity at a rate of 4.8 kWh/day.
(The highest was a rate of 193 kWh/day. Probably had a 15-minute interval where the water heater was on, at the same time as the electric clothes dryer, while I was cooking something using the electric oven/stove, and microwaving something, while the well pump was running, and the iMac was doing something CPU intensive, while the fridge happened to be running).
Still, 2.4kWh is very low. I think it, in the western world, even is hard to achieve for a single person household that doesn’t use any electricity for heating or cooking, has a gas-powered refrigerator and no, or a gas-powered, clothes drier.
0: https://redd.it/s0rih3 and https://redd.it/rmtxjq (direct link to main image: https://l.judge.sh/ZCg5 )
On mine, the Cat5 female port always ends up being a home for small spider families.
Should we rename timeouts to "cats"?
"I tried pinging your website, but I had a cat"
I think it mostly comes down to two things:
1. The satellite dish doesn't warm up that much. It basically just heats itself to be hot enough to melt the ice, and that's more or less it. It still feels fairly cool to the touch on a winter day. 90% of the time, I'd imagine your router will be hotter than the dish itself.
2. The dish also makes a very faint whirring noise as it tracks satellites across the sky. You can only really notice it when you get within 5 feet of it, but I'm pretty sure my cats hate it. Sometimes they'll huddle at the base of the dish if it's a particularly cold day, but most of the time the motor sounds are enough to drive them away.
Knowing how much companies like Starlink like useless novelty features, maybe a "cat deterrence" button in the app would be in order. Make the dish spin around a few times until the cats get scared. I dunno, food for thought.
I think with cats sitting on it it would heat up more due to the insulation provided :)
If you are accused of being cruel and they uphold that complaint then bye bye connection. What if some crazy Twitter mob accuses you of animal cruelty for throwing your cats out in the snow?
The implication is there that they monitor all your traffic to be able to enforce these rules. If one were to encrypt ones traffic to evade SpaceX’s surveillance, is that too a violation of the AUP?
It's been a while since, but stories like this make me smile if I was still having a going thing with these neighbors.
(Read some of the follow up comments)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29943374.
See, I can't fathom the opposite. Cats belong outdoors. I will never have an indoor cat. Vote me down as much as you like, THAT is unnatural (I will also not have exoctic cats that could only live indoors).
The greatest danger to songbirds is human changes to the environment, not cats, by several orders of magnitude. Animals having predators is not exactly unnatural, to put it carefully.
Although I do wish we could create cats, by selection or some day by gene editing, that leave birds alone completely.
We aren't going to stop creating buildings with windows. Outside of that, the largest killer of birds is by cats, by a long shot. Which is literally 100% preventable. And no, humans are NOT an order of magnitude more than cats, not even close.
> First, it should be stated that the single most significant threat to bird populations is habitat destruction, in all of its forms and with all of its causes. The various causes of mortality outlined below kill individual birds directly, and can certainly have an adverse effect on population size, but can actually have a beneficial effect in some cases. Studies of hunting have documented that in certain cases killing small numbers of birds can improve the health and survival of the remaining birds. As long as the habitat is intact, the population has the potential to replace the lost birds.
Cats are one reason, but certainly not the dominating one. Neither would cats matter at all without the other reasons because there would be plenty of birds.
In this discussion I'll take the downvotes with pride, this is getting ridiculous.
Edit: Also, I can understand your sentiment for not wanting to have an indoor cat. It seems 'unnatural' to me too. I want to them to have as much freedom and joy as possible, but... I've also had outdoor cats that just get run over, so. I don't know what the right way is.
Edit: Just realized I'm mentioning a small island, like you said, hehe.
You're totally right though.
uh... but if those predators are bred by humans, it's unnatural
And since when is one species doing something that benefits another unnatural? That exists among animals too.
(Yes, I know wildcats exist, but their ranges and populations are limited)
but it's about:
* properly keeping your pet from harm / harming others *
> And since when is one species doing something that benefits another unnatural?
well I guess humans interfering nature is "natural" after all... I mean, we're "part of nature"
A lot of cats are just strays, too.
Outdoor cats are a bit more complex but its also cruel to lock up an animal all day in a home. They need stimulation and exercise.
The real fix is to ban pet ownership. No one likes to talk about that because so many of us need pets for emotional stability and companionship, but pretty much all pet ownership is unethical. Birds getting killed really is the tip of the iceberg, as in, its the most visible part of this problem, but so much more lies below it, supporting it and creating this situation.
I love animals and don't eat them, nor do I keep them as pets. I fully believe this is the right way to go in life. People attacking this type of pet owner vs that type of pet owner are missing the forest for the trees here, and I suspect getting a nice ego boost over being the "better" animal jailer. Logically, emotionally, and ethically, pet ownership simply cannot be made humane, good for pets, or good for wildlife. The only fix is to get rid of pet culture entirely.
Would it? Killing a pest? We kill rats in cities, cockroaches, termites, gophers, moles, voles...
> The real fix is to ban pet ownership.
I'm sorry but you're out of your god damn mind. To choose not to own one, sure. But to outlaw a practice that in part defines humanity? Because you don't like it?
Pet ownership can 100% be done humanely, good for animals and good for wildlife. I know because I've done it in my own life.
Convince me, because nothing you've written above has made a case. Tell me how my cats receiving daily meds for their health issues, receiving better medical care than I get, having their choice of multiple varieties of foods and treats, having perches at all heights, having a fucking three-tier custom catio is somehow abusing them and unethical.
I expressed my opinion. I fully accept I cannot ever change an adult mind, especially in a venue like this and over such a complicated subject and one that the status quo prefers not discuss (animal rights, animal welfare, meat industry, dairy industry, pet trade, pet mental illness, pet inbreeding, pet breeding in general, and general animal suffering by humans) because so much of near every society is built on killing, eating, exploiting, and imprisoning animals for our pleasure. Its not the most pressing issue, but when I see dog owners fighting over cat owner over dead birds or whatever, I do like to point out that there's a major forest for the trees problem here.
And yes its futile on some level. A bit like being against cigarettes 60 years ago, or being again racism during segregation, or being against slavery at the founding of this country, etc. Collectively, we're not here yet for this, but I hope someday we are. I see so much hopeful things in regards to animal welfare in gen-z and younger millenials that I really do think change is on the horizon, maybe in 20-30 years we'll see pet ownership like we'll see the meat industry, or the crocodile purse industry, etc.
I remember PETA being mocked for decades for pointing out how "all american" and "family friendly" and "humane" places like Oceanworld/Seaworld/whatever with their captive whales were, but Joe Beer Drinker "hates bleeding heart liberals" Netflix Watcher saw Blackfish almost 10 years ago and more importantly, so did his children, and the narrative slowly changed over the years as those children became college students, and workers, and leaders, and took the voice from the older generation and said "no, this is inhumane." Its not futile to point this out. Its not rude to say that people like you are on the wrong side of history. Its okay to get downvoted the same way HN 1955 would downvote me for saying cigarettes were unhealthy and cause diseases and kill people. We're not there yet, especially in a conservative leaning forum like this one.
In other words, hello from the future, we won't look kindly on the status quo you fought so hard to preserve.
For anyone interested.
It's not really that compelling. It's a funny scenario.
Because my cat wants to go outside and roam arround. It's what he prefers. My other cat prefers staying inside and doesn't like going outside very much. Sure cats kill things, bring you "presents", or bring things they've caught inside but that's just part of the experience of having a cat.
Cats are hunters for sure, but not all decimate things.
They kill mice, squirrels, rabbits, ground stuff, etc... _way_ faster and more frequently.
> We estimate that cats in the contiguous United
States annually kill between 1.4 and 3.7 billion birds
(median ¼ 2.4 billion) (Fig. 1a), with ~69% of this mortality
caused by un-owned cats. The predation estimate for un-owned
cats was higher primarily due to predation rates by this group
averaging three times greater than rates for owned cats.
The range of estimate is staggering, and that it's un-owned cats are the primary issue.
But it's not _only_ the numbers I take issue with, it's the conclusion people take with it and how they communicate it. "Cats are killing BILLIONS of birds! Keep your cat in, or don't even own one."
After all, cats are hunting carnivores.
I care about ecology at large, but at home I care about my cats more.
Honestly, if you like money this is something you can do.
You can do this and avoid ripping off other people by setting an equally balanced liquidity pool with 100% of the tokens created, and letting them play greater fool theory with each other. At this point its just the entertainment sector. Nobody can sell below the initial price of the token due to how liquidity pool systems work, and this means you are have no way to make them your exit liquidity.
You can still make money by programming in a trading tax that is also auto-liquidated to any token you like, such as a stablecoin.
This is extremely common, things like this are launched probably once every minute. No advertising necessary since people and bots just watch the blockchains for liquidity pools being deployed. They want to be first, so trade and ask questions later. Its up to you to consider the community, but you can build in a lot of confidence by burning your liquidity pool access and doing some other obvious things so people don't have to care about what your intentions are.
If they sold it would re-add it back to side B and subtrack from side A.
Since nobody has more tokens outside of the ballast system, there is no way for it to go below the initial balance. which isn't much consolation for anybody that buys second or third or later, but does provide confidence to all of them that nobody has an advantage or interest in dumping it below its initial ratio, which is functionally the price.
this has been a big boon for the crypto space over the last 18 months, a very phenomenal concept, as all assets can be permissionlessly traded if anyone takes the initiative to set them up. instead of begging a shady exchange to list a project under shady conditions, thats pretty much over now.
When you buy with your dollar, you increase the number of dollars in the pool, and decrease the number of tokens in the pool. So the ratio cannot be 1.00 it must be 1.01 or something above 1.00.
When you want US currency today you sell it back and restore the ratio closer to 1.
It is not possible for anyone to restore further below the initial balance because the maximum tokens in existence could only be used to get the dollars other people put in, but not the issuer’s capital.
As an aside, does this concept exist outside the crypto space? It seemed like you may have implied it was a standard object in finance.
Have not seen them outside of the crypto space, it would be ideal if they did, they are great for enabling liquidity of fungible assets without needing to court a market maker or exchange
I can also do it for other ppl, email in bio
When you drive down the highway, do you consider every passing car a "near-miss"? That is the only way that your statement seems at all plausibly correct.
Iassume that there will be in the next decade a Kessler syndrome event that knocks out a huge swath of LEO, including the Starlink orbit zone. The debris may deorbit on it's own, but it may take five years.
That hasn’t stopped their competitors from trying to smear them: https://m.slashdot.org/story/384516