Why do you consider the ideal point for this question absolute 0 zero reentries rather than the minimal number of reentries that don’t cause damage to the atmosphere?
If it turns out the junk truly disintegrates without any significant affect to the atmosphere then GP is saying that it’s not actually a problem and not actually “junk”. Space junk usually refers to stuff junking up things in the same way a rusted out sedan ruins a yard.
If the sedan disappeared it wouldn’t really be considered junk. If the sedan disappeared but left behind a puddle of poison the label would still apply.
Well it’s definitely junk or waste or garbage from the moment you are unable to use it or reclaim it. It so happens in the case of starlink satellites that we don’t have to burn that trash, it burns itself. If you want to say space junk is just the stuff stuck up there that’s fine, but there’s a short period of time where Starlink satellites are both in space and are junk.
Have a look at MWM (Motif Window Manager). Colour icons (gasp) and windows that actually maximise. Packaged in Debian so I suppose around in Arch repositories somewhere.
1. The cultural factor is rising expectations for children and their parents, costing both time and money;
2. The political/social factor is nanny states and academic institutions that the public expects to not only teach but raise their kids;
3. Technology. Especially the Internet, mobile devices, social media, and short form content. Technology distracts and isolates both kids and parents.
An example of the three factors at work is the all-too-common local news trope of ”Nosy neighbor calls CPS because the family next door lets their kids walk to school. Whole family traumatized as a result.”
As a straight male that does well with dating and relationships I am quietly fascinated by this aspect of gay culture and relationships. It changes so many dynamics.
Thankful for the group of guys at our neighborhood bar where we play gays vs straights pool and rib about this stuff. Lol, just wanted to share that anecdote tbh
I don’t see how this isn’t a massive net negative to you personally other than avoiding occasional odd conversation. You can have genuine conversations both personally and professionally with all sorts of people even if you don’t “dress like shit”. The expat versus immigrant thing is interesting but I assume most can see through that. Sorry to sound critical not really my intention but this is a very interesting approach. It makes the most sense if you’re already set in a great gig or already made your money, no?
Programming used to be attractive career exactly because you'd get a good job based on skills alone. There was no "you need to wear a suit to impress the client" bullshit: just show up, do a good day of honest work, go home with a fat paycheck. When you look at things from this perspective, signaling low-status also signals "I'm here because I can program", while signaling high-status also signals "I'm here to play office politics". So effectively, signaling low-status is a hidden signal that only other high-status people will recognize, while signaling high-status is a bluff that low-status people do.
It seems a little complicated but the idea itself is nothing new. When you go to a ghetto you'll see golden chains, expensive cars and other shiny shit. Go to a upper-middle-class neighborhood and you'll see things that look ordinary but are expensive on closer inspection.
Of course things have changed since then, but that's the gist.
reply