If you account for the satellite being further away because it would be above the point the distance works out okay - except that geostationary satellites go around the equator and that is a thousand miles away from that.
This is something that really annoyed me at a company I worked at for a while. And it was far worse - it wasn't a case of not being rewarded, people who planned properly and got the job done were punished for their efforts. If a project got behind they would take people from a project that was on track or better to put them on to it. I pleaded for a super green status for the best projects on the basis that the team would finish sooner and then the entire team could work on something else nnd get it done well too. They could take people from the next tier but that would be an incentive to do well. Not a hope.
I'm pretty certain the QC development will continue even if at a slightly slower rate. And maybe AI can help with manufacturing more reliable and cheap versions :-) What I think has not be investigated so much is what can be done with a not so reliable quantum computer? At the start of computers Colossus was not ultra reliable but that didn't matter as it just cycled around trying different possibilitied on codes so failing on the task every so often wouldn't have made much difference.
I have two modes depending on the task, a two dimensional one as in seeing the elephant which is in colour - though nowhere near as good as a picture! - and a three dimensional one in which I can imagine it in three dimensions but not in colour it sort of is inside my body rather than in my mind's eye and the bits have a feeling which can be vague if not well known. I can imagine moving mechanisms quite well.
I used Spyce for a while years ago
https://spyce.sourceforge.net/
it stopped being maintained and I abandoned it but it had a number of ideas which I think work well. It changed the Python so semicolons and square brackets were used instead of indentation, one could also use straight Python. It generated HTML but I'm sure could be adapted easily.
The principle of subsidiarity was supposed to counter making laws affecting individuals like this would, this sort of stuff should be up to individual countries. The bureaucrats are trying to expand out of their remit.
That is so awful, Britain is trying on this sort of thing too saying it is to protect children. However they don't try and support citizen organiztions that do a good job there, and have been involved in actions showing it is much lower priority than control. Has anyone ever done a study even of how much benefit it would have in countering paedophiles even ignoring any loss from the general control freakery and general loss of freedom? I think it would be quite ineffective compared to the citizen organizations countering paedophilia. It's just trying to emulate China in conttrolling the population.
How many people do you think they should employ at the job? Ten years ago China was already employing two million people to monitor the internet. Google and others employ tens of thousands of people round the world to monitor pictures or videos that their AIs flag, and it is a nasty job with a lot of burnout. Scale makes the job easier if anything.
