241–250 of 300 posts
While there is something human and nurturing about getting a hug or shaking someone’s hand, very high quality shared virtual spaces will open up many business and social opportunities. Endless possibilities...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What conspiracies are moving people to do that? And how do you burn down a steel tower?
similar to QAnon, there are a lot of offshoots of different ideas that all stem from people not understanding 5G and thinking that it's unsafe, despite a lack of scientific evidence to support that. Pre-covid it was that 5G was making everyone physically ill. Post-covid it's that the radiation is mutating the virus to make it more deadly or spread it more quickly. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/conspiracy-th…
The post covid comment is clearly disinformation. It was used and promoted by the media in my country as a strawman argument for anyone who had concerns about 5g.
Its important to promote the most creditable voice rather than the least. When the least creditable argument is promoted you know the promoters don't want to deal with the argument at first principal, you believe X this crazy person also believes X there for you are Y.
Its a common framing technique used by the media, you will start to notice it everywhere on both sides of the media echo chamber.
I'm nobody in the domain of wireless physical protocols, so I wouldn't know, of course. But does it actually even make sense to mix up peer-to-peer and peer-to-tower communications within one protocol? Why would you even want that? To be able to do all this stuff on the same frequencies? Having (more-or-less) same chip for everything, regardless of if it needs close-range and/or global network communications not only disgusts me "politically" (privacy issues, totally absent transparency, you know all that stuff), but also means more complicated, more expensive tech where you could do with cheaper one. And doing everything there is to do wirelessly on the same frequencies means these frequencies busy as fuck. Wouldn't you actually want the opposite for the protocol you hope to become the ubiquitous high-throughput cellular network protocol? It seems like it would make more sense to send 2 identical messages (or even to use 2 chips, if need be) on different frequencies if you actually need both for some reason.
5G doesnt seem like its enabling anything fundamentally new. The talk of any ”killer app” based on having more throughput or on these optimizations always feels like demand generation and slightly inauthentic. Are there any technologies enabled by these techniques that are not possible today?
Be careful with expectations of "possible" vs. "practical". 5G for IoT devices is a big deal in remote field and some industrial settings where wi-fi is not an option. Two examples for you: I worked on a pilot project with a state government group that wanted remote monitoring of water levels in wetlands and ponds spread across a few hundred square miles of mostly-rural area. wi-fi obviously wasn't an option and gett…
A solar powered system out in the open should, theoretically solve the power issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is supposed to be debunked? The main claim seems to be: > RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. Which... is true-ish? That's a bit like saying water is harmful to the environment and humans. For sure it is, if it's rushing at you with incredible velocity and mass (power). Electromagnetic radiation could certainly harm a human - with enough power. Drinking a glass of water or sendin…
Oddly, the same anti-5G people seem to have no interest in protesting against government inaction related to the unshielded nuclear reactor that causes millions of cases of cancer every year through ionising radiation. Also the same people that are the type to complain vocally about the harmful effects of 5G seem to be the type to complain just as vocally about the fine they get when they're caught texting while driv…
But the goal of 5G is to be literally everywhere, as close to you as it will be to me. So naturally there are more people who could theoretically be concerned about that. And you hear about 5G often enough. So if there is even slightest possible reason to be concerned about that, I would automatically know it concerns me as well.
So I see nothing surprising about that.
Someone debunk this for me please: http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ Edit: I'm legitimately looking for good sources on this. Not trolling.
An easy way to debunk it is to point out that the RF power spectrum of a typical 5G device is basically the same as a 4G or 3G device. The battery sizes are the same! It's not like suddenly every mobile phone is hooked up to a Tesla battery and got water cooling so that it can put out kilowatts. The difference between 3G, 4G, and 5G is largely the protocol , not the radio power! The reason we can have 5G now, and not…
> the protocol
Physical protocol, so it doesn't really debunk much. Different wavelengths, different modes of sending/receiving. I seriously have no idea if there is or isn't any reason to be concerned about that, and it wouldn't surprise me very much if it eventually turns out that this isn't all just crazy people mumbling. After all, there's no conclusive data and there's much more initiative to support 5G than to fight it, so if there is somebody talking sensibly about some real dangers, I expect that I wouldn't hear about them for way too long, since they would be lost in the noise.
So, really, I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss any "dangers of the 5G" activists, even if they aren't saying anything very conclusive right now. I seriously don't know if there can be anything to be worried about, but I am pretty sure that anybody who could possibly conduct any studies on that, will allow only studies with "good" results. I kinda have some trust issues, when it comes to dealing with large corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AR glasses for example, could totally upend all of this and require 5G low latency 5G "low latency": I'm not impressed with "1-2 ms" first hop latency; 0.1 ms should be achievable by now, surely. AR over networks: Maybe. But I think having more compute out on the edge nodes is going to deliver more for us in the long term than faster comms. Every extra millisecond in the rendering pipeline decreases the usability o…
Even if you had no issues in rendering latency, you're overlooking the data aspect. Any open-world AR, is going to be continuously downloading and discovering new geometry, models, textures, mobile programs, as you walk around. Let's say you walk up to a restaurant. As you look at it, you see a virtual waitress outside. The you can see the menu floating there, interact with virtual food models, interact with a fully…
Maybe I'm just getting old, but this all sounds tedious and cumbersome compared to just having a menu stuck to the front window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that sounds like a huge limitation, no? The number of people living in places that sparsely populated must be very limited, how does it make economical sense to launch that huge number of satellites?
Google says there's two million satellite internet users. At $50/mo, if SpaceX can grab all of them, which seems well possible, that's 1.2 billion income a year, even assuming that the improved service doesn't result in anybody else switching from bad rural internet to Starlink. A fifth of the US population lives outside of big cities. That's not a big fraction, but it's a small fraction of a very big number. Being a…
I doubt it. There are a surprising number of satellite internet customers in completely illogical places, like in the middle of major US cities. A lot of this probably has to do with the abysmal state of broadband options in the US -- many customers are served by a single wired broadband provider; when they lose faith in that provider (or are denied service), satellite may be their next best option.
As I’ve learned more and more about 5G (which is a nebulous term, really, but what I mean specifically is the planned upcoming releases of LTE 16 and 17, as well as the features of LTE 14 and 15 that users have yet to take advantage of) I’ve become convinced that it’s going to transform how so much of the world is designed. 5G technologies allow for more devices to send more data using less power. This is achieved us…
If it's not going to make things faster and cheaper, I'm not eagerly awaiting its arrival like many would have us believe. Isn't that the point of technology?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of rural areas have backbone just fine. It's the last mile that's the issue. You can find gigabit business internet basically anywhere.
Woah, that's an enormous sweeping generalization. I have a friend whose parents live in rural Kansas who to this day can't get more than dialup or satellite, even though they've called up every single semi-local ISP (way more than once) and said they'd be willing to pay for installation. At this point, they have more than $20K saved for the chance that some company says maybe . It's simply way more complicated than y…