Don't be so disingenuous. The phrase is famous and it obviously is obviously not intent on trying to quell violence. I know to be contrarian and radically 'rational' is popular among tech types but it doesn't mean you have to bury your head in the sand when what is being said is so clear.
The one in Atlanta is next to Atlantic Station which is a large business and residential development with rapid bus transit. It is also near Georgia Tech and Midtown though to get to Midtown you have to cross the highway which is not bike/ped friendly.
The new standard supports more concurrent users by using the available spectrum more efficiently. There are new modulation and timing "modes" that enable better coverage at cell edges and in dense urban environments. There is better support for multi-antenna systems which means better coverage and more efficient spectrum usage. End-to-end latency has been dramtically reduced and the next 5G NR iteration (rel 17) will add a super low-latency mode. There is now a mode for IoT that enbales low-power communication. Most of these changes aren't going to give you 1Gbps downlink speeds but they represent huge improvements over even LTE-A.
Your first 3 points are all based on a complete misconception of what 5G NR is. You are talking about mmWave which is an accessory component of the 5G NR standard. Low and mid-band 5G use ~ the same bands (or n71 which is the old TV band in the case of T-mobile) as LTE. Some Network Providers have been doing mmWave first because it is easier to deploy but their networks will also be mid and low band when they finish build-out.
Maybe don't make blanket statements about a standard you clearly aren't familiar with.
No, it isn't. The literature department is a fundamental component of the university. Providing land and infrastructure for students to store their property in the middle of campus is not - especially when campus is accessible through a variety of modes of transit. Sure, if the university is in a cornfield in Iowa then parking costs are less of an issue given the low cost of land but the majority of campuses I have been to are limited in land. The university has to make a choice between using that land to educate people or for letting people store their cars.
A spot in a multistory parking desk costs upwards of $30,000 per spot. Even if you oversell permits by 2x and assume a 50-year lifespan with no maintenance, that is still $300/yr per parking permit. Why should students who want the exclusive right to leave their property on campus be subsidized by students who take more space/environmentally efficients modes of getting to campus?
That is a good point that you don't need a radio but I work extensively with GNU Radio and I would do all of those experiments using MATLAB / Octave. GNU Radio is very much the wrong tool for that job.
That is an incomplete summary. Their conclusion is that despite this larger than normal selection bias, the minimum wage appears to have no impact on unemployment. The paper's abstract, discussion, and summary all mention this as part of the central thesis - why leave it out?
It isn't though. Thats how we talk about installed power capacity. The capacity factor is important but seperate. Nobody says we installed a 2.5 MW* wind turbine accounting for capacity factor. They say we installed a 10 MW wind turbine. It is assumed, especially given this publications audience, that the power factor is a seprate point. The person I replied to said that the sentance was so wrong it was "cringy" which is not true.
What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense. It seems like it's you that doesn't understand the difference between power (watts) vs. energy (watt-hours / joules) yet are confident enough to call a journalist out even though they are correct.
Which newer plants? I'm still paying for the cost over-runs at Vogtle here in Georgia which is a 'modern' plant. Granted, Westinghouse went bankrupt but Wind/Solar builds don't have the same risks concentrated in a single manufacturer.
Sure, we have some research reactors which use (the now meme'd by armchair scientists) thorium reactors but we need power today, not in 2035. Why pour billions into unproven technology when we have proven technology that gets cheaper every year. Additionally, Lazard just put out their LCOE report for 2019 and for the first time new-build unsubsidzed wind can be cheaper than the marginal costs of a fully paid-off nuclear plant.
Not to mention the capital costs of building a nuclear plant far excede renewable new-builds. Why spend 20 billion and deal with the costs/risk associated with 50-year financing when you could spend a few tens of millions and throw up a few smaller renewable builds where they're needed and start seeing returns on invetment in 2-3 years rather than 15.
I mean my sources are the actual 5G Standards, the test equipment I've used, and my knowledge of cellular systems stemming from experience and and formal education so yeah, I think it's a fair assumption that my knowledge is more than "some things I heard". My job does not depend on the success or failure of 5G, I don't know where you got that from.
Not my area of expertise. The main study I'm aware of showing some harmful affects uses an unrealistic amount of power and curiously only showed effects for male mice. I'm hesitant to dismiss it, because effects from heating caused by non-ionizing radiation are well documented but that amount of power is just not present in cellular systems whether that's LTE or 5G NR.
In short - some but not really. 5G NR allows for extremely efficient resource block allocation and can handle ~10x more concurrent users than 4G. The latency should not degrade as long as the carriers don't do weird things with traffic allocation - the standard allows for ~4ms worst case latency.
You have heard wrong - it's amusing that you're so confident in its failure despite having the wrong information.
There are two phases in the 5G NR standard. The first phase relies on some elements of the LTE control plane to coordinate data services. These data services use new numerologies for their OFDM modulation, vastly more flexible resource block, allocation, improved error control coding, lower maximum latency, better channel allocation, and standardized MIMO support - all of which will improve reliability and throughput, especially in crowded channel conditions.
Phase 2 formally introduces millimeter wave signaling - this is what does primarily propagates through line of sight (LOS) channels. Clever beam forming and beamsteering can alleviate this to an extent but these cells are intended for dense urban environments or interiors of large buildings. These will supplement the lower frequency bands when available but 5G NR devices will still use the lowband when mmWave is unavailable. Phase 2 also switches over to an entirely 5G NR backed control plane (Standalone, or 5G NR SA) which has its own reliability and throughput improvements though these will all happen in the lowband since mmWave isn't suited for these tasks.
The thing is, nuclear power straight up isn't profitable to build now. 15 years ago, sure, but according to Lazard's most recent analysis, nuclear power is beaten by alternative sources with storage. The cost of financing projects on such large timescales is huge, not to mention the risk of fiascos like the one going on in South Carolina and to some extent Georgia. We should keep the plants we have running, but use the available funding for new renewables. If we really want to go to the nuclear power route, the government should just do what France and China did by nationalizing new nuclear plant construction. The prviate sector is past the point that it makes sense to choose new Nuclear plants over gas baseload or renewables.
Privacy concerns aside, I can't wait to read the "Facial Recognition let me on the wrong flight when I got in the wrong line by accident" articles that are going to come out of this. Unless these systems have some fantastic (1e-6) P_{false alarm} rate or better, people are going to be mistaken for other people and let on the wrong flight sooner or later.
Did you see the chart of browser usage correlated with this incident? The only precipitous drop in any browser usage occurred when they launched this banner. It was already on a downward trend, but an immediate drop like that is pretty hard to explain away as anything else.
Huh that's weird. It's been my experience that I see far,far more comments from people like you who are upset over "manufactured outrage" than people who are actually outraged. It's odd how much people feel the need to signal that they don't get Outraged™ like everyone else.