I disagree. The simplicity here is a cool and rare feature.
This tool is amazing, and its coolness comes from the fact it's really simple. If you add "auto-adjusting" features that rewrite the code for you while writing, you're on the road to lose the simplicity and KISS aspect.
Please don't add new features, it's like gold as it is, @tone_row. The beauty and magic resides in the minimalism.
Do you find the questions about sky and sattelite space are often addressed by people's representatives?
I don't think I heard it addressed even once on public media during major elections.
You'll probably say: "then change your representatives or do some lobying or choose representatives who care about this".
This is a little more complicated than this: people are busy with hundreds of other things when they vote, and the fact these questions are never addressed in public debates should not give an 'implicit consent' about "Ok, tech companies, you can do whatever you want with our sky. Dozens of thousands of new satelites? Ok, no problem, please do!"
> Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye
This is not guaranteed at all. I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky.
Do we currently see satellites in a dark summer night?
Yes. So for Starlink it will be the same, except with 10 of them one behind another.
I'd be happy to read more sources confirming or infirming this.
Yes, and this is a good reason for not adding 100 times more satellites/balloons/whatever again.
NB: currently we don't have "trains" of satellites, i.e. ten white dots one behind the other in the sky. The mega constellation projects would create this.
Sorry to be this guy, but I am quite happy this will not happen.
The sky - our sky - is not a playground for tech companies.
Imposing a mesh-grid of thousands of balloons in the sky is an incredible intrusion for people around the world who have not asked for anything.
It's the same for mega constellations of satellites (Starlink).
Would you be willing to have a company come and put unsolicited electronic equipment in your backyard? Probably not. It's the same for our sky - I don't want that Facebook or Google impose thousands of electronic devices in our sky. Or maybe ask "the owner" before you start, i.e. the citizens of the world.
What's more beautiful than watching stars in the sky in a July/August warm night?
Do you really want to lose this landscape forever and have 100 times more satellites than we already have? and have series of white dots one behind the other?
OK, companies and states have done it the past, but it's not a valid argument to justify the acceleration with a factor 10 or 100 of this process with thousands of Starlink satellites for example.
I am always surprised when (be it greenwashing or not) companies call themselves "search engine" when in fact ... they actually aren't a search "engine".
They don't have any indexing/searching technology, they just re-use another search technology in white-label.
We can criticize Google for many things, but at least those guys really built a technology, from scratch.
TL;DR: Calling Ecosia a search engine is like calling yourself a "restaurant" when all you're actually doing is reheating factory-prepared meals.
This tool is amazing, and its coolness comes from the fact it's really simple. If you add "auto-adjusting" features that rewrite the code for you while writing, you're on the road to lose the simplicity and KISS aspect.
Please don't add new features, it's like gold as it is, @tone_row. The beauty and magic resides in the minimalism.