GreyEyedGhost

If you want to be effective, you need to drift south as much as you drift north to get adequate coverage - still a circular orbit, just tilted off the equator. This causes a real problem, because northern Europe is far enough north that you have to pretty much cover the whole world, anyway. Also, the more you move from the equator, the more bands of satellites you will need to have coverage at all times. The other part in the Starlink system is the requirement for some number of base stations to connect to the internet backbones. Further iterations are reducing this need, but it will never be 0.

What this means is, it would be cheaper for Brazil or the Middle East to have local satellite internet than it is for Europe, China, or Australia. In fact, if Europe had a low-orbit satellite internet offering, it would be more cost effective to sell it worldwide because they would be close to that just covering their own needs. Which is also the position Starlink has chosen to be in.

Chickens are surprisingly effective as far as meat animals go.

Yeah, I don't see us all moving into cities, although many people already have. I also don't think we need to have one giant city - those numbers were given to show how little actual living space people need, keeping in mind that Paris doesn't seem to be viewed as somewhere undesirable to live, and still has room for beauty and not just urban utilitarianism.

On the flip side, many people who move to the city do so for work. I hope we see less of that, where things can be more decentralized so people who like a less urban environment can still effectively contribute to society and the economy without having to stifle their personal living preferences. I'd also like to see less cost-efficient but more space-efficient growing conditions for agriculture so more land can be returned to a natural state while still supporting the populations we have. Both vertical farming and vertical living can contribute to that. And I absolutely realize that livestock tend to be both less cost- and space-efficient, especially if it's humane.

Again, this is not weird in upper echelon financial strategies. And a quick search with the terms "musk Twitter Tesla collateral" got me a link to this article. You only have to read the first sentence for corroboration. And if you don't trust an article posted by NASDAQ for information about stocks, I dont think I can do more to help you.

Yeah, I mean, what's the worst that could happen? looks around

There are good indications that a significant part of the overvaluation was due to Musk hype, so clearly people hating on Musk will have an outsized impact compared to the public faces of other corporations. I'd still say that's a good reason for the stock to drop. Now, add on massive recalls to the truck designed in Minecraft, and lackluster sales for a variety of reasons (including Musk hate). It's not a good time to own Tesla.

I don't really think Pierre has anything in particular to hide. I just think he gives priority to his job as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada rather than his job as leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. And while putting party over country might be good for the party, I can't respect it no matter who it is.

I'll go out there and say I would be happier if they expedited this process. Yes, he has120 days to disclose this information. No, I don't think he's breaking any rules. And no, I have no idea just how complicated the process is, and getting it all wrapped up in 120 days may already be very difficult. But more transparency isn't a bad thing.

Also, I don't see what they're trying to say with the stock options. This is very common in the higher echelon of business and what are the other options? If they require him to divest as soon as they mature, he now has knowledge of when divestment occurs and can game the system in his favor. The only way that doesn't happen is if it's left to the manager of the blind trust, so Carney only knows when they can divest, not when they will.

If people were to stand shoulder to shoulder, the entire population of the world could fit into half of Prince Edward Island. If the world's population was in a single city with the density of Paris, it would be the size of Iraq. To put that in perspective, Paris is the 35th most dense city in the world. If you matched the density of the densest city in the world, it would be about the size of Uruguay.

Of course, each person needs much more land to survive, and more still if they're to live the lifestyle we in the developed world enjoy.

I question your reading comprehension. The dental coverage costs very nearly as much as it pays for. If I remember correctly, I have to use over 90% of what it pays out to break even. This means if I only use 90% of my 'coverage' I actually lose money. My feelings of gratitude for my privilege are immeasurable, much like that of a serf whose master only beats him once a week instead of twice. In fact, the gratitude for access to this 'coverage' is so great that I don't know of a single employee who has opted for it. Now, tell me, when is the last time you heard of a Canadian employee turning down dental benefits? I hadn't even conceived of such a thing until I came across this.

My company has a package with dental coverage. The difference between that package and the one without is approximately the cost of the dental coverage, so I'd actually lose money if we didn't use all of it. Does this mean I'm not eligible?