It's not like this is a new problem. Turing had a definition most of a century ago, he wasn't the first and certainly wasn't the last. I don't think we need new terms necessarily, and I doubt we're all going to agree on a definition tomorrow.
They make little ~rubber caps to cover the charging port when you're not using it. That, and make sure it's dry when you charge it to rule out galvanic nonsense.
Once you start getting shooty up in space, I think you fairly quickly get into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome cascades of collisions and debris anyway, so it probably wouldn't matter.
> in fact there is already no common international agreement about where a nation's boundary extends to in the z-axis. The observed limit is "however high that country can detect and shoot something down"
That's the thing though, if you use that definition then 99.9+% of them are fair game, because _only_ ones around equator at a specific height are at a fixed point. Otherwise they migrate a lot and what country they're over would depend on what second you look.
Coders like to code. It's in our nature. Even those who will get no benefit from it still _very_ often code their own version of things for various reasons, often bad reasons.
I think there's some setting to restrict the number of them, or maybe turn them off. Doesn't happen for me ~ever and it's not my $$ (work) so I haven't really looked at it much.
Not every possible thing has real situations where it's better. There are legitimately terrible solutions to problems, that are dominated by better ones in every situation.
It could only ever increase by the surface area of the satellite lens things. It'll be a rounding error compared to the surface area of Earth (or compared to the effect of greenhouse gasses over the time period you're setting up these things).
That would be fairly nonsense. There's _very_ few orbits that can stick over a particular place, and it's only places on the equator. We'd be giving up 99+% of useful orbits.
Is the output, that others can use, the research and findings, or is there a tool or something that came out of this that I can plug in to one of the common harnesses?
I guess that brief note in the twit is that it'll be part of that harness you're opening up in the future?
It could still be the UI for this, if they wanted to, and they just implement the guts behind it with that in mind. It's not everything, but the UI is still something you can ~skip.
Is that true? I don't know of really any medicine that has side effects 25 years down the line. Would we even know? We don't test new meds that long before release.
Isn't it more because meds are cheaper to test on animals and liability is much lower?