GRex2595

Exactly this. I don't know why they tried to suggest that a passphrase wouldn't work against this type of attack. If you have a simple sentence like "I am the last air bender.", you probably won't ever get somebody to successfully crack that. Meanwhile Sj4cksabc!, which I just randomly made up, would probably take a few hours or maybe days.

There's lots of weird tricks phones can do nowadays. WiFi calling is pretty common, especially if you're using WhatsApp or other chatting platforms that do that. 5G is directional, so while older towers had a relatively short range because they had to transmit in every direction, 5G towers can transmit in specific directions and use less energy to send signals further.

Well, Petter is based out of Europe and flies intercontinental flights in a 747, so I don't think it's just an American thing. I think his point was more that if the entire plane is blasting off radio frequencies, we don't actually know enough about the scenario to safely say that it won't affect any instruments, so the FAA (and maybe other countries' flight regulators) requires the cellular antennas to be off for the duration of the flight (which in America is technically defined as doors closed to doors open, but nobody listens). We can pretty safely say a few people breaking the rules doesn't hurt, but if all 300 passengers break the rules, we don't know what affect it may have on the instruments. The type of plane doesn't matter because none of them were certified for all passengers using cellular frequencies. Although it seems like WiFi frequencies are getting signoff because you can use WiFi on most American passenger airlines now.

Hmm, I figured you could fly IFR with a traditional altimeter, but I guess just because you CAN fly the plane without it doesn't mean that it's not considered required equipment. Good point. However, my understanding is that even before FCC sold the part of the spectrum being used for 5G, it was well known that that bit of spectrum could be used, so in my opinion the FAA should have required new certification to account for the possibility of the band being used in the future. In any case, there were some serious screwups between the two agencies that allowed it to get to this point.

I think both screwed up. The FCC for not listening to the FAA's advice to delay until testing and follow up to make sure the testing is being done with expediency and the FAA for not properly certifying equipment necessary for the safe continuation of flight. I'm sure it's not required equipment, but it's so ubiquitous and basically required for normal completion of a vast majority of poor weather flights that it should have been treated as required equipment.

Okay, fair enough. I will keep in mind in the future.

That's kind of the point of shutting down the deployment. If we delay 5G deployment for no reason, AT&T and Verizon lose some money and people really close to airports don't get 5G as soon. If we don't delay 5G and there is an issue, there's potential for an aircraft to operate on invalid data from the altimeter which could result in an accident and loss of life. The other two alternatives don't really need mentioning. Of the two options, I would greatly prefer not to experience loss of life for an upgrade in cellular technology. My issue with TechLinked is not that they're criticizing the FAA or even that they're making jokes about it. It's that they're reporting misleading facts like "other countries do it" while the FAA, airline CEOs, and the head of transportation security are saying that the risk in America is too great and the rollout needs to be delayed for testing because America is not doing it like other countries. If they honestly reported the difference between the US and other countries, they can make whatever bad jokes they want, but as they are, they're basically propagating the cellular companies' propaganda.

I mean, fair that the FAA didn't do their job, and I don't think that we should be congratulating the FAA for deciding in the nick of time that 5G is a safety risk and needs to be delayed. It doesn't help that they can't pay enough to keep enough employees on payroll to meet demand, so they have to outsource to the companies that are building the tech they're certifying. However, I also don't think it's fair to report that, "other countries have 5G" with jokes about how it'll mess up flaps or something without the responsible addition that 5G in other countries is on a band that doesn't risk interfering with the altimeters. If we ignore the organizations involved in this whole mess, the issue is still that TechLinked is irresponsibly reporting why the 5G rollout is being delayed. A reasonable viewer without the full context would likely watch the video and believe that the FAA is overreacting, meanwhile 5G is a very real safety risk that the FAA isn't certain of and could very well kill people. And TechLinked is making jokes about it.

Fair enough that the video isn't really news per se, and I would have preferred that he shared the actual articles that back up the facts that he's sharing, but most of the video isn't opinion. The video covers facts related to the specific issues for why the 5G interference is an issue, and the only parts of the video that are really opinion is on whether or not the FAA was right to make their decision because planes impact lives in ways that radio signals generally don't. While we can agree that those statements are opinions, there is no opinion in how these devices work and how 5G can interact with them to produce safety issues. The TechLinked channel seems to have no issue publishing the opinion that 5G is safe enough to operate in the vicinity of airports where these radio altimeters are used and making fun of the FAA for trying to prevent the safety issues. I don't understand why the description of how those devices work and why the FAA made the decision to request the delay is too much of an opinion to start sharing it. At this point TechLinked is spreading misinformation with reckless abandon, and for what reason? I can't imagine that they're being paid to report that 5G isn't a safety issue.

Summary Professional Boeing 747 pilot explains why the FAA is asking for a delay to rollout of the high frequency band of 5G. Radio altimeters that are heavily used in the auto-land systems in commercial aircraft have masking that interferes with the 5G band. These altimeters use that frequency to measure the distance between the plane and the ground by measuring the time between sending and receiving the signal. The auto-land systems use this information to determine when to flare and bring thrust to idle. If the craft gets an incorrect reading, it could flare or bring the thrust to idle in a situation where it would not be safe to do so, and there was even a Turkish Airlines crash in 2009 because a bad radio altimeter reading caused the autopilot to put the thrust into idle. It's not a problem in Europe because the gap between the bands is 3 times larger than in the US, and companies flying into the US are even swapping out planes for ones that have been tested to not experience interference rather than fly aircraft that haven't been tested and approved, yet. Quotes Some quoted timestamps include extra information necessary for understanding the whole quote. I don't want to type up the whole 15 seconds of quote to get to the critical part of the quote. My thoughts TechLinked has covered a lot of 5G stories with a narrative that's pretty heavily skewed towards the companies that want to roll out 5G while making jokes about safety issues. Whether or not there exists a real safety issue, I think that the other side of the issue should be covered as well because it's not as simple as "5G exists in Europe and that hasn't been an issue." There are technological differences between the rollout of 5G in Europe and 5G in the US that make interference essentially a non-issue in Europe, but not so much of a non-issue in America. The FAA and everybody involved in the safe operation of aircraft operate under very low risk tolerances, so an undefined risk associated with 5G is too much risk. I don't really think it's fair to treat the FAA like they're being overly sensitive when there are lives at stake. Let's also not ignore the fact that the FAA was trying to solve this issue before the FCC started auctioning off frequencies, but the FCC went ahead with the auction anyway. Sources

It's hard to find an angle that perfectly captures the BS that is my setup, but here we go. Westward facing window 4 computers and a Raspberry Pi. From left to right, work laptop, plex server (old gaming PC), new gaming PC, wife's PC, pi-hole. My wife's PC isn't even under her desk because there's no room. 3 routers (2 are WiFi APs now), 2 switches, and a modem. My work setup has a dedicated mouse, keyboard, microphone, and webcam using my gaming PC's secondary monitor (I switch inputs to game). 2 barely visible power strips AND 2 UPCs because of all the (unmanaged) cables My older gaming consoles connect to an AV/component switch that connects to a set of splitters directly into the TV and an AV/component-HDMI converter, which connects to an HDMI switch which connects to my 4k capture card over a 14' cable then back over another 14' cable to the TV. Whatever ends up on my desk kinda just stays there until I clean up (including the tax documents you, thankfully, can't read in the pic. And, yes, I chose not to move my flight yoke to type this whole comment with my keyboard directly under my monitor.

I am reporting the comments. I'm even reporting the accounts. There are like 4 of them. They are leaving replies on nearly every comment.

A little off topic, but you got a bot in your comment section on this video that is spamming ridiculously hard. I know you can't really keep up with all the bots, but could you ban the one that's on almost all of your top comments?

"In 2015, Ronald Hanson's research group was the first to generate long-lived quantum entanglement over a long distance (1.3 kilometres),..." I get that this wasn't exactly an impressive distance and that currently it would be impossible to even communicate further than next door (assuming that quantum entanglement allows for communication, as some on here suggest otherwise). I don't even expect this to go very far for years, but the fact that we can do it at all is really cool to me. With further developments, we could see some very interesting stuff in the quantum space.

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-scientists-demand-entanglement-link.html "By exploiting the power of quantum entanglement, it is theoretically possible to build a quantum internet invulnerable to eavesdropping." With quantum entanglement, we would be able to transfer data faster than light (instantaneously) over extreme distances (theoretically any distance) in a way where it only exists in two places simultaneously (not transfered through a medium between two places). This new development would allow us to create a network on demand using quantum entanglement (a quantum network). A quantum network could, theoretically, transfer data any distance instantly in a way that cannot be eavesdropped on. Now if only we could get fiber to every internet user... **Edit** Forgot the quote because I didn't correctly read the forum rules about a quote from the article