I have about 6 devices with this problem, and I consider it unforgivable.
Not only did you not include USBC charging, you went out of your way to trick me and lie and pretend you did. I would have preferred just using micro usb at that point.
Powkiddy committed fraud and said the RGB30 can charge from USB-C, but they lied, it can only charge from USB A to C cables. Using it is a massive pain because I have to get adapters I shouldn't need. I'll never buy anything from them ever again.
I feel like the USB committee might be somewhat to blame. When most people think USB-C they're just thinking the cable. Why can't it just do regular slow charging with C to C cable?
It can, it just needs the two resistors, which is the cheapest possible thing the standards committee could have asked manufacturers to do.
USB-C gets complicated at the high end, but for basic functionality I think the standards committee did a very good job at making the cheapest way to do it the correct way, e.g. a USB-C to 3.5mm audio adaptor can be entirely passive, it just needs the right resistor in it.
>e.g. a USB-C to 3.5mm audio adaptor can be entirely passive, it just needs the right resistor in it.
How does that work? is each USB-C host port, or downstream USB-C hub port required to contain a stereo DAC? Does the standard impose performance requirements like dynamic range, noise, minimum sample rate,...? Does it also mandate the jack can be used for mic / line-in? Does it similarily stipulate inclusion of an ADC in each port?
>This is because the cable is 2 sided so it can't assume polarity
Not really. The USB-C connection pinout is symmetric about a 180 degree rotation, at least as far as power connections go. It's entirely possible (and common, e.g. when using passive converters) to just put power out of it constantly. The main reason for the signaling resistors is to avoid having power presented on the pins when it's not connected, which is more about avoiding corrosion or wear due to small sparks on connection.
The satellites do beam forming to target the dishes. For this, the dishes communicate their location, calculated from the satellite signals in essentially the same manner as GPS, to the satellites.
The user terminals use both; there’s a switch to enable the user terminal to ignore GPS if it’s inaccurate (for example in conflict areas where it is often spoofed or denied).
They definitely appear to use beamforming internally. It appears that the satellite uses knowledge of receiver location (or at least receiver density) to select beamforming codebooks.
It's less likely they use this in their mobile coverage, but for their own terminals this is absolutely a thing.
They definitely do beamforming, but it's for tracking the stationary service cells as they pass overhead. You can see them represented in the illustrations in that paper.
The SVs (space segment/satellites) in LEO (low-earth orbit) are going to be moving across the sky quite quickly relative to each GT (ground terminal). This is going to be inducing a pretty significant Doppler shift on the signals. Most of the linked paper is focusing on doing ground-based positioning, using the Starlink constellation as a GNSS-type source and talks specifically about how the Doppler shift at the ground is significant enough that not only does the carrier frequency need to track the Doppler shift but also that the baseband signal will be compressed/dilated.
For the SV, though, the same effect is going to happen. The GT is going to be transmitting back to the SV and the SV's going to need to do Doppler compensation in order to successfully decode the OFDM (orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing) signals from the GT. Throughout a pass, each GT is going to have a different Doppler signature based on its position on the ground relative to the SV. The SVs also need to know their positions in orbit with a high degree of accuracy, especially if they've turned on the SV-to-SV laser-based communication (not sure on that). By taking the SV's known trajectory and the per-GT Doppler measurements and making a couple of assumptions (e.g. GTs are stationary), I'm 99% sure you could solve a maximum-likelihood position for each of the GTs. I think you could do it with a single SV but if you have multiple SVs collaborating on it I suspect you could get a quite accurate solution very quickly.
Edit: one other thought I had while writing that up. If they designed the constellation to work this way, I also think it would be possible for the GTs to pre-compensate for the Doppler shift before transmitting, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone actually doing that. The tradeoff there is GT transmit complexity vs SV receive complexity. I would love if someone pointed out an example of a system that actually does this, but I've only ever worked with systems that just use something like a PLL/Costas loop to track the Doppler shift without needing to estimate it directly. If they did do pre-correction it would definitely make it harder for the SVs to estimate the GT positions. It would make the GTs significantly more complex though and I would seriously doubt that Starlink would go through that effort to make the GTs more expensive and eliminate the ability to identify where they are on the ground.
I don't think pre-compensation would help here. There's multiple SVs in range at any given time so it's just correlating a shifting frequency signal instead of a fixed signal. Provided sufficient difference in the skew between SVs that should be quite trivial.
Anyway thanks. That definitely answers my question. If anything I'd expect GT location data to be more accurate than the terrestrial cell network, at least if the operator bothers to derive it.
Yeah I guess I was making the assumption that a GT was only talking to a single SV at a time. With multiple SVs involved the pre-compensation idea wouldn't help.
Yes, remember Elon Musk was able to cut off Ukrainain military at the exact movement they crossed into Crimea in Ukraine because he knew exactly where the drones were.
Ben Franklin's coin flip landed the wrong way - nowadays electronics circuits are calculated and drawn assuming movement of positive charges, when in reality it's the negatively charged electrons that flow.
Nothing wrong with saying that an absence of electron is moving. Both electrons and electron holes are just excitations in a quantum field anyway... ;-)
AFAIK, Electron holes refer to the P-type charge carrier in a semiconductor lattice where the absence of electrons behave similar to electrons in an N-type semiconductor. Benjamin Franklin was not concerned with solid state physics rather he's referring to the charge carrier in a conductor being positive when we later discover that its negative (electrons). When current flows through a conductor its just electrons (not holes) moving from negative to positive.
Consider that not even a hard-line Christian puritan would agree with you in-principle. If publishers were forbidden from selling literature depicting incest, rape or genocide then the Old Testament would be removed from shelves. Clearly society has a tolerance for some of it.
Unconvincing argument considering what was widely known about certain prominent politicians and their adjuncts long before they became as prominent as they are today.
There's no evidence these people were corrupted by games on Steam. Somehow they managed to become who they are by other means.
>Implying that you like the idea of fucking your own children. You have just exposed yourself.
You imply that people that play shooter games like the dea of killing people, and people that play GTA like the ideas of being criminals and killing cops and innocents,
do this people also exposed themselves?
Do you also imply same things for movie watchers and book readers ? And metal listeners are Satanists right ?
If we let the Christian extremists ban something without any proof then they will move to the next thing and soon enough they will ban your favorite video game because it gives you the option to be bisexual. (I read about such extremists moving from Texas to Ruzzia since Texas is not Christian enough, it did not end well)
I would have been happy with no seconds in the tray, but showing the seconds if you click on the clock - technology that existed a decade ago in Windows 10, but is obviously technologically impossible for hundreds of PhD holding software engineers at the richest company in the world to figure out in 2025.
All the smart engineers must have left to do AI stuff. The new windows 11 "power savings" settings menu has this gamification angle. It tells you that you've enabled "5 of 7 power saving settings" or whatever, in a way that implies the goal is to get all 7. It triggers my OCD every time I see the screen and it implies that quest is unfinished.
Performative environmentalism, standard operating procedure for every big company. Shift the blame onto the consumer, make them feel guilty because they set their screen timeout to to more than 5 minutes. Gamification is a great tool for making people feel pressured and guilty but with plausible deniability for the company.
Meanwhile, build database centers at incredible scale to run AI and force it into those same consumers in every way possible, but never tell them how much power that wastes.
> Meanwhile, build database centers at incredible scale to run AI and force it into those same consumers in every way possible, but never tell them how much power that wastes.
Why would they? Those expenditures and investments are already priced in, and that blood is coming from that stone one way or the other or it won't, damn the expense.
Shame, on the other hand, is a renewable resource!
Coin mining and AI database centers consumer huge amounts of power. I’m not really exited about either. Both enterprises seems like scams to centralize wealth and power to a few actors.
I think the removal was originally about memory usage in Win 95 due to fitting the new OS into lower RAM systems. Then it was about battery usage. More recently the epidemic of feature and information removal from interfaces is primarily driven by the obsession of UX designers to dumb down everything to the lowest common denominator.
By controlling how usage analytics are instrumented UX designers can weaponize the data to support removing almost any feature or information they don't personally find essential. Of course, this entirely misses the fact that power users drive word-of-mouth and adoption >10x more than lowest common denominator users and also have significantly higher lifetime value because they are engaged and loyal (until you finally remove too much advanced utility). I'm all for simplicity - what I don't understand is the insistence on removing features or capabilities entirely instead of just putting them as an option in advanced settings. Different users have different preferences and good UX design can maintain surface simplicity without trashing depth, flexibility and personalization.
>”PhD holding software engineers at the richest company in the world to figure out in 2025.”
Let’s be honest, implementing this would be up to a bunch of offshore contractors because corporate can’t bring itself to pay software engineers to implement this feature thoughtfully and comprehensively.
Then wait until you learn of useful features that existed in Windows 7 and were removed... I'm especially baffled at the worsening of the file copy dialog.
Social media refers to the mode as well as the medium of interaction, but central to the idea of social media interactions are that they are mediated by a third party. Usenet is a protocol, and is decentralized. I think a better analogue for social media in the Usenet context would be something closer to BBSes, though I don't see why using certain newsgroups which have specific socializing focus couldn't be considered engaging with/using social media conceptually, but this would not capture the word social media as it is used, which implies social media properties, and social media nearly implies websites, as that is where the social aspects come from: not just being able to post, but to comment and react, but perhaps most importantly to my mind, social media must be able to be shared, and that usually means URLs, but not always. Conceptually, I think Usenet fits into certain social media shaped holes, but at the same time, it doesn't fit into others. Timelines and feeds are another aspect that I haven't touched on, but Usenet lets you do whatever your client lets you, but for that same reason it doesn't fit quite right in the concept space, for the same reason you wouldn't call IRC social media.
They definitely do this in bars. I've had friends that got recruited thru modelling agencies. It's not a huge stretch to think of them doing it in other types of retail too.
I used to run a small club promotion gig in London with some friends.
Clubs would give us £10 per girl we brought in, but much more importantly (to us) give us a table bang in the VIP section and a few free bottles. We would aim to bring 10-20 girls with us.
The girls would go and mingle with other tables in the VIP area who were often men who'd paid through the nose for a VIP table (£1,000 a bottle for alcohol that generally cost less than £50 wholesale, and this was in the early 2000s), because generally they knew they were rich guys and they had free alcohol on their tables.
At several set points, the club would send our table bottles of alcohol with fireworks and make a big deal out of it, and all the girls would migrate back to our table for the drinks and high-fives, which would encourage the men with the actual money to then order their own bottles in the hope of luring the girls back.
The girls were (frequently American) university students who got a free night out hosted by people they trusted, in a venue with bouncers they came to know well, we got the immense social proof of being the people at the center of the VIP section surrounded by girls which helped our own love lives no end, the club spent a few hundred bucks on us but filled their VIP area with pretty girls, and finally the bankers who'd paid a huge amount for their VIP table got pretty young American university students to talk to.
I'm sure this is still a popular model, and we were very far from the only people doing it.
Bars usually have a whole funnel around getting more women in. Whether it's free drinks, quiz nights hosted by cute girls, the bouncer thing where they filter out some people.
We once had a guest lecturer who broke down the ROI of making the ladies bathrooms beautiful (but not the men's). Presumably it leads to more alcohol consumption, which is where the margins are. I think restaurants in the UK make almost no money on the food itself.
This is true of restaurants everywhere. The reason they always ask you what you want to drink and if you want dessert is because those things have margins that can turn their night from red to black as a business. The food in most places is a draw so you’ll drink and then buy cake.
Not the case in Muslim countries and I guess developing countries, lol. Developing countries have very low labor costs.
In some places, the drink is the loss leader. A group of people head out to a place and pay the minimum - a $0.50 cup of tea. One of them will buy a basket of snacks for the group. Someone in that group might order the food. A plate of noodles or naan is nearly free in terms of ingredient costs.
Sometimes it's the atmosphere. I'm not sure if other countries have this, but there might be a major game on TV - football, wrestling, etc. Not everyone can afford to watch it at home, so everyone goes to a cheap restaurant. Sometimes the people who do have it at home just go to hear the cheers.
I met a girl I knew while she was doing one of those jobs and it was a very boring, normal, local kind of pub. I guess the goal is to increase profits so it's seen as marketing/an investment.
reply