The "uses others solutions" bit is for satellite alone when it comes to Tusass. They own and run all other types of telecom service in Greenland whether fiber, cellular, microwave, or marine radio.
Of course. People are never genuine in their interest or preference of things. It's always about status, wealth, and their standing among their peers. /s
>If a network theoretically prioritized phone calls
This already exists and is an example of a good use of priority. Cellular networks offer Voice over LTE and this is inherently prioritized over all other network traffic. This is done specifically for E911 but also implements special settings so calls can continue to go through even when coverage is very poor (and where VoIP apps would start to fail).
This is correct. Slicing can offer significant performance gains in certain situations. For example, lower latency when certain users need it while not overburdening the network by having to give that to every user.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths we will go to overcomplicate transportation just so everyone has to continue to buy and maintain their own vehicle.
Is it so that everyone has to buy their own vehicle or so that everyone has control over the space they travel in, who else is in that space and the travel schedule?
I think this is a literal example of a solution searching for a problem. I charge my car at home. Not everyone gets to do that, but solving that issue is a better use of resources. On a road trip the 20 minutes of fast charging is welcomed. I would stop even if I was charging while driving.
Having 16A of charging hanging off light poles and meters on a street in front of an apartment is a better use of resources than wiring the road. Having adequate DC charging is a better use of resources than moving the goal post to “which length of road can I charge on?”
TFA mentions that charging during travel would allow trucks to carry fewer batteries, would would reduce weight and increase range, efficiency, and cargo capacity.
You cannot achieve that by charging your semi at home.
Obviously you didn’t read the article because its talking about freight and trucks, which is how the majority of US shipping economy is run. So many low effort comments on this site recently.
Maybe consider that a car is just an expensive thing to own? Why should costs stop at cost-of-ownership when cars affect the lives of more than just their owners?
Did you read the comment you replied to? There are already a bunch of taxes in place on it, and this is adding another tax. They aren't saying there should be no taxes at all. As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars.
I hate cars in the city, and I think the argument that cars are a negative externality and that for car owners to pay the true cost requires some taxation, but let's be honest about what we're arguing for.
Gas tax doesn't even begin to cover the externalities of burning that gas. Vehicle taxes go entirely towards the administrative costs of vehicles (i.e. DMV) and also don't cover externalities. Sure the road is already built but it was funded by all tax payers, not all of which drive cars. And roads require maintenance, also tax payer funded. Society at large subsidizes cars and drivers, giving them huge chunks of land while making most cities inhospitable to pedestrians, causing almost as many deaths as guns in the US. A giant, heavy, extremely dangerous machine is just about the worst way to transport people. Maybe we should stop subsidizing it entirely and taxing it to lower use like we did with cigarettes?
> As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars.
Exactly. In fact, if you try to find a single example of passenger rail that is financially sustainable you will likely fail. The only reason passenger rail exists is because it is massively subsidised. It is inherently flawed as a mode of transport.
Yes this exactly. If I'm not allowed to talk about the health effects of car infrastructure (because apparently that's "feelings") then let's just talk about money.
Cars are horrendously over-subsidized and are FAR more expensive to maintain infrastructure for in exchange for moving way fewer people. Trains might not cover their costs with fare but they move a hell of a lot more people while simultaneously being underinvested in, in the US.
That's not true. Mavenir offers an RCS platform that T-Mobile has been using up until recently. A renewed interest in RCS due to Apple supporting it might end up with their platform being more sellable.
You're proving my point. T-Mobile had to switch to Jibe.
I work at a carrier that deployed a solution provided by WIT. Then around 2019-2020 Google decided they weren't interested in an open and interconnected RCS backend anymore.
It just isn't at all. It's still on-air in the US and much of Europe not to mention huge countries like India (where it is still heavily used) and China plus many African countries.
There are only so many partners for cellular basebands in Android phones realistically. Qualcomm, MediaTek, and Samsung make up the vast majority of that market. Google already cooperates with them for other work I'm sure. No reason they wouldn't want to implement this.
> Not everything scales well. Sometimes you just have to spend to fix.
I don't get how we can be pushed to decriminalize drugs and then be asked for tremendous resources to treat the drug abuse we enabled? Those asks cannot coexist: if drug abuse is costing society billions or trillions of dollars in resources to fix, why do we allow it in the first place?
> The money is more important than people being rehabilitated?
I don't understand why we have to pay for other people's mistakes. Eventually, they have to take responsibility for their own choices, especially if we have allowed that choice (if you think drug crime is victimless so shouldn't be punished is true).
> I don't get how we can be pushed to decriminalize drugs and then be asked for tremendous resources to treat the drug abuse we enabled?
> I don't understand why we have to pay for other people's mistakes.
It looks like you don't understand which part you don't actually get. While Portugal's program was being funded properly, the increase in drug usage was no different from nearby countries that did not change their drug laws. Teen marijuana usage was 1/3 what it was in the US at the time. But what about the cost? Well, it seems to have saved a boatload of money on enforcement.
“The most important direct effect was a reduction in the use of criminal justice resources targeted at vulnerable drug users,” says Alex Stevens, professor of criminal justice at the U.K.’s University of Kent, who co-authored the study. “Before, a large number of people were being arrested and punished for drug use alone. They saved themselves a lot of money and stopped inflicting so much harm on people through the criminal justice system. There were other trends since drugs were decriminalized in 2001, but they are less easy to attribute directly to decriminalization.”
The hippies over at Forbes seem to think that ending canabis prohibition will help the US recover economically from the pandemic like ending alcohol prohibition helped end the great depression.
But what about the collateral damage of all this rampant treating-instead-of-imprisoning-people-for-drug-use? Well, The International Journal of Drug Policy said:
"Taking into consideration health and non-health related costs, we find that that the social cost of drugs decreased by 12% in the five years following the NSFAD's approval and by a rather significant 18% in the eleven-year period following its approval. Whilst the reduction of legal system costs (possibly associated with the decriminalization of drug consumption) is clearly one of the main explanatory factors, it is not the only one. In particular, the rather significant reduction of health-related costs has also played an important role."
Surely the stalwart right-wing CATO institute will set the record straight on the fallout from such an irresponsible policy:
"While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained or measurably improved within Portugal since 2001. In certain key demographic segments, drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the decriminalization framework, even as usage across the EU continues to increase, including in those states that continue to take the hardest line in criminalizing drug possession and usage."
> Teen marijuana usage was 1/3 what it was in the US at the time.
Marijuana isn't illegal in the US anymore (at least where I live). Fentanyl, which is basically laced into all hard drugs these days, I guess you could argue that they are going to be dead in one or two years anyways? I guess that's tough love for you.
Hey, marijuana should be legal...and here in Washington state at least it is. The biggest problem with marijuana, due to dumb federal rules, is that the (non-marijuana) drug addicts are more likely to do armed robberies of dispensaries because they are cash only businesses.
But let's not bait and switch here: "marijuana has been shown to be manageable, so let's allow people to do all the fentanyl they want" is not very logical. A lot of teens are just dying on their first experience with fent (or something they got that had fent in it that they didn't know about!). These aren't the same things at all.
You're picking at a razor thin slice of the premise while entirely ignoring the context. It doesn't matter which drug does what. In the time period that they were properly funding treatment as a replacement for the immense expenditure on drug law enforcement for users— so not within the post decade— drug use and all of the social ills that come with it were reduced, in some cases dramatically, compared to the rest of Europe, and the rest of Europe was doing great compared to the US. The US criminalization of drug use is a fantastically expensive moral crusade that imparts misery upon people with addiction for absolutely no benefit. Portugal maintained stiff penalties for people in the black market drug business, as they should have, but simply treated the users instead of jailing them. If you have some kind of actual data showing that fentanyl, carfentanil, et al users are affected by policy differently than all other criminals or even motivated by punishment dramatically more than all other addicts, then bring it.
