The original point was "why would I learn a new thing, when I already know something which works". The response "some people don't have something they already know" is valid.
You're really bringing up a separate point which is "should we be reinventing the wheel?", I think that's a fair point, but it's not a response to the original commentator.
The batteries are powered by solar panels. In either case the same arguments apply - space is notoriously low power.
Phones can't use directional antennas, otherwise you'd have to point them at radio towers. Using phased array antennas in which directionality is software controlled, there's a trade off between size of antenna and how much you can focus the beam - it wouldn't work in a phone (and would be too expensive anyway).
Space is notoriously expensive... until it isn’t. Launch costs have reduced by an order of magnitude and may reduce by another as full reuse becomes feasible. All of a sudden, you’re using near-commodity solar cells with a higher capacity factor (and more consistency) than on the ground. Power is thus not so expensive any more.
Industry rules of thumb are only good if the industry is stagnant.
While the cost of putting more solar panels and batteries in space is one limiting factor, the ability to reject heat in a near vacuum is another issue to consider. This is another thing which usually limits the practical power budget of things in space.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That SpaceX's launch business struggles to find enough customers, or that SpaceX's satellite business struggles to get enough launches to orbit?
Ironically both are sort of true... and I'm not sure how either of them respond to the post you replied to.
SpaceX has been struggling to get enough external customers recently, the launch market has been in a bit of a slump and external customers haven't yet substantially responded to the lowering launch costs.
SpaceX's Starlink constellation needs a huge number of launches, to the point where it seems at best barely feasible in both cost and launch volume to launch it on current rockets. They hope to fix this with their in-development starship rocket which should be able to launch an order of magnitude more satellites at a time (400 vs 60), at an order of magnitude less cost as a result of full re-usability and easier construction of the rocket.
Space isn't javascript. It takes years and many millions of dollars to build a sophisticated satellite, and SpaceX's market dominance didn't happen until last year. Most those who may want the take advantage of the lowered launch costs aren't yet in a position to do so
...which is why they're creating their own megaconstellation: to produce their own demand.
This has always been a conundrum for space launch: demand is, in the short term, very inelastic and the market is small, so if you reduce prices through reuse, you might actually reduce your own revenue if you're not careful. The way around it is to create your own demand.
Anyway, this new firm is an example of a new source of demand. This will provide additional launch volume.
Ok, but there is a lot of power to be saved. If you can prevent the beam from going in the "opposite" general direction, you can already save 50%. I'm not convinced there is nothing to be gained by using a small array.
Its just physically not feasible. For an antenna array with 2 dimensional beamforming you need an array of NxN antennas, which all have the dimension of a fraction of a wavelength, so we are talking about a not insignificant size. Additionally, to limit mutual coupling via substrate and stray radiation, you need certain distances. Third, you need to be careful to prevent grating lobes (side emissions of unwanted radiation).
And even then, you will need individually controlled phase shifters for each array element, adding cost, complexity and mostly negating energy savings.
Edit: All of that in addition to the problem that you need to know the location of the base station and have you array antenna roughly oriented towards it.
In addition to all the above, phones move a lot during a call. You'd need very good sensors to keep track of the phone's orientation in space. If you're only shooting for 50%, the sensors in phones are probably good enough, but what happens when the user puts their head between the phone and the base station? The phone could say "please rotate your body to reconnect call" but that would be a lousy user experience.
There are neat tricks to keep phased array antennas in alignment. One for example is to just send the signal back in the same direction you're receiving from. (ie. Same phase delays in every antenna element)
Then however much the phone is tumbling, you'll always be exactly sending the data in the right direction.
Turns out the problem is moot anyway - unless you have a huge antenna to get a really narrow beam, sub-degree positional errors won't make any impact.
In the UK I've heard it said you can make a subject access request (SAR) for any information a company holds on you. This would include interview notes for example.
I assume something similar applies in the rest of europe due to GDPR?
I think adding feedback for marking cells as dependant on each other might be a good idea.
I'd also love code completion in notebooks.
I think the cleaning and code reuse problems can easily be mitigated by putting functions into libraries and using auto reload.
My normal workflow is hack something in a notebook until it runs, then refactor and put in a library I import with auto reload. I work on production ML and I use this for both software development and research.
