Anyone who’s worked inside the sortation centers has also seen sorters crash and rip packages to shreds.

Obviously that’s not “normal” damage to packages, because those things certainly aren’t getting delivered, but it’s not like these things get handled gently by the automation. Packages slide into collection belts where they land hard on top of other packages, they zip down chutes to be loaded into semis, etc.

There’s a reason they want breakables properly packed, and it’s not because the last-mile delivery guy is going to shoot a three with your box.

They might be getting mixed up with the “close door” button, which is something always included because it makes people feel better but when you order the elevator you can choose whether it actually does anything or not

This is highly region-dependent.

In the US the door close button is required to work in "fire service" mode, so that's why the button is always there.

Outside of fire service the button most likely will work, just that it can't override the minimum open door delay mandated by the ADA, so it feels like it doesn't work. You may be able to trick the logic into disregarding the timer by pressing door open and door close immediately.

In Europe, there is no "fire service" mode that I know of, so the button isn't always there. But if it is, it basically always works and doesn't have a minimum delay.

> it can't override the minimum open door delay mandated by the ADA

I've definitely seen this not be the case, though it is probably in elevators older than the ADA. I lived in a building where selecting a floor or using the "Close Door" button immediately began closing the door. Some hotels as well.

Pot, kettle

The vacuum is the problem. It might be cold but has terrible heat transfer properties. The area of radiators it would take to dissipate a data center dwarfs absolutely anything we’ve ever sent to orbit

Subjectivity is implied. You’re shadowboxing against a claim that the person you replied to never made. Communication is more than the simple dictionary definitions of the words being written.

And as has been pointed out, you are yourself asserting your opinion about subjective communications as fact (i.e. that you should always make it denotatively clear to readers when you’re going your opinion and when you’re globally asserting something)

I will give you credit, you have an art for writing absolutely infuriating comments. How is it that you manage to so perfectly encapsulate the exact thing you baselessly accuse one of doing?

> You’re shadowboxing against a claim that the person you replied to never made.

You start with this, and then immediately lead into:

> Communication is more than the simple dictionary definitions of the words being written.

> that you should always make it denotatively clear to readers when you’re going your opinion and when you’re globally asserting something)

Neither of which are claims I made. At no point did I engage in the dictionary-definition pedantry that plagues this site. I was specifically highlighting how the sentiments they expressed in their message come together as a whole. An accusation that one "forgot to take basic principles into account" cannot possibly be construed in any way other than insulting. That phrase denies the possibility that the OP considered readability but consciously chose to make a trade-off in alignment with their own values, asserts the author's view as a matter of principle, and denigrates the person who "forgot" to consider it.

> you are yourself asserting your opinion about subjective communications as fact

Insofar as words have any meaning whatsoever, I am observing a fact about how they chose to communicate. If you really want to play the stupid game the people of this forum love where you play at the margins of language endlessly redefining everything into meaninglessness to score points in an argument, you can count me out.

There’s also the fact that nearly 1/4 US states require no emissions or safety checks whatsoever [1]. So everything is valid by default and realistically the only thing stopping you from driving a literal rust bucket, with tailpipe dragging, poor combustion, or modified emissions filtering (like modifying your truck so you can roll coal down Main Street) is it a cop feels like pulling you over for it

[1]: https://goodcar.com/car-ownership/vehicle-inspections-by-sta...

My understanding was that each satellite broadcasts a coarse ephemeris for the whole network, and that that “almanac” isn’t accurate for very long (on the order of weeks). Without uploads to the satellites, those almanacs will go stale.

I don’t think the almanacs are necessary for the system to work, in theory. But I believe they’re commonly used by receivers to narrow down the range of possibilities when trying to find a PRN match for a signal they’re getting.

(I’ve dealt with GPS and similar navigation signals for work but am not an expert, this is just the impression I’ve gotten over a few years)

This is a great plot for a B movie or a trashy military action book. “The bad guys are jamming GPS uplink and we only have two weeks until the almanacs are out of date and the whole system breaks down. Millions of innocent Americans will drive into rivers by accident.”

The way NASA did it for decades was conference calls. Nowadays it's Teams meetings.

The outputs of the meetings are decisions that are later encoded in very many very long documents. It's just faster to hash out engineering details when the relevant engineers are able to talk to each other in real time and relevant decision makers are present to be able to unofficially bless or reject what the engineers come up with (formal acceptance of these decisions is of course a paperwork thing).

So, in this domain anyway, it's not a literal phone call. But it's what we see as the modern equivalent.

Perhaps. Sometimes the scale is "one" - the amount of engineering that goes into bespoke space missions is very large, and very little of that work is re-used for anything other than direct follow up missions