- "Here I am.
    - My ID (maybe encrypted-and-changing to hamper bad-guy tracking, etc.) is XXX.
    - If anybody wants to establish a connection to me, here's whether I'm taking calls and the parameters for how and when to try.
    - (Maybe) here's a tiny bit of stuff (like a sensor reading, or my transmitted signal strength so you can get a rough estimate of the distance to me) that I send occasionally, so you don't need to connect to me to get it."
- (Maybe) and here's a few stable repeating bytes so you can switch your antenna pattern around and figure out very accurately which direction I am from you and/or I can switch my antenna pattern around for part of them and if you know me well you can figure out which direction you are from me.

Here's a feature request: Can we please have a version of bluetooth that works reliably

By that, I mean that every time I drive my car somehwre, the phone always connects, always displays the name associated with incoming calls... that sort of thing.

Some of that is bad application design or bugs.

But some is unavoidable: Bluetooth uses the bands where anybody can do just about anything within certain power limits, rather than bands where you need a license that reserves your piece of spectrum to just your service (VERY expensive: cellphone companies pay BILLIONS for reserved bandwidth). It has to compete with lots of other stuff. (WiFi, baby monitors, security cameras, wireless microphones, leakage from microwave ovens, etc, as well as what gets invented NEXT year and after...)

It does pretty damn well. But just as talking to each other tends to stop working in a loud crowd or at a concert, it will never be perfect.

It powers up only when it's time [for radio business] or if the computer is needed to do some management on the rest of the system (e.g: read sensors and add the readings to a running average).

I think that feature is going to ruin the use of BT devices TBH.

"just listen to this 30s ad before using your BT headphones"

I was going to suggest modding your post "funny", but realized that many readers unfamiliar with the protocols would think that this has something to do with injecting commercial advertisements into blootooth connections.

(Speaking only about the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocol subset of the standard, which is the part I'm familiar with:)

"Advertising" in the bluetooth specification refers to the devices periodically waking up and shouting something that amounts to:
  - "Here I am.
  - My ID (maybe encrypted-and-changing to hamper bad-guy tracking, etc.) is XXX.
  - If anybody wants to establish a connection to me, here's whether I'm taking calls and the parameters for how and when to try.
  - (Maybe) here's a tiny bit of stuff (like a sensor reading, or my transmitted signal strength so you can get a rough estimate of the distance to me) that I send occasionally, so you don't need to connect to me to get it."

BLE is "low energy" because the "tags" are shut down most of the time, with the computer and radio powered down except for a tiny wake-up clock built around a quartz watch crystal. It powers up only when it's time to send or receive the next packet in a connection, for a short while if it's trying to connect or listen for nearby devices, and periodically (for a TINY time) to announce ("advertise") it's presence and give neighbors a chance to see it and ask for a connection. This lets a small lithium coin cell last for years instead of days.

OMGosh, Just fund the blue states. Tell customers in red states, they asked for it. Red state congress members will approve right away, am I wrong?

Only if you lower the taxes charged the red states, so they're not paying for a blue-state-only giveaway.

Heck, I'm sure some the red staters would be happy to eat subsidized food paid for only by blue states. (Others, of course, would refuse to accept it on moral grounds. Yes, I know such people.)

6) Living in a place with no kitchen and no appliances allowed. so you can only eat out or buy ready-to-eat foods.

Not only did my mother-in-law- lose her $30 subsidy, they TACKED ON an extra $10 a month after the ACP ended.

Probably to cover all the extra work closing accounts and the loss of revenue from those who don't cancel their subscriptions when the subsidy expires but don't pay the bills, either.

(Or just "all the traffic will bear". What the heck: As long as they have to make changes to all those accounts, why not just raise the rates to wherever they think the new profit-max points would be?)

I'm tempted to say: Embrace, oops, extinguish. Who needs extend? B-b

The unintentional decimation of these heavy, scavenging birds allowed deadly bacteria and infections to proliferate, leading to the deaths of about half a million people over five years

Nature...uh....finds a way....

A particularly deadly effect was the resulting rabies epidemic. The decline in vultures (the typical "first responders" to unattended wild animal corpses and predator leftovers) led to a population surge in other scavengers such as jackals and wild dogs. Unlike the vultures, mammals are rabies vectors, and both their increased population and their ability to be infected by contact with a rabies-infected corpse kicked the number of virus cases into a steep exponential growth.

More batteries and solar panels then?

Or just put the sulfur back in ship fuels - until we can find a cheaper and/or cleaner way to modify ship exhaust to increase and brighten cloud cover over the oceans...

As it did before the recent international regulation change that removed most of it - and (according to climate scientists noted for being on the "warmist" side of the debate) more than accounted for the increase in ocean water heating in the years since then.

(In other words, we (or whatever) were actually COOLING the oceans a little bit before this antipollution measure CREATED exactly the sort of manmade ocean surface water heating and increase in storm-generating humidity and atmospheric energy that the warmists had been warning us about for years, while trying to figure out why the storms were DEcreasing...)

Oh, yes:

  - The "hockey stick graph" has been discredited even among the warmists. Seems it included data that took tree ring width to be a measure of temperature, when it's also (massively) increased by higher carbon dioxide levels even without any temperature increase or other environmental change. So it's useless as evidence for how much, how, or whether, a carbon dioxide increase affected temperature.

Clearly, you've never been to Los Angeles Let me know how you like it.

Been there. Also silicon valley. First in '73 (when the latter smelled like a fireplace three seasons out of four) and I turned down a job invitation from Signetics because of, mostly , that. (Didn't move to Silicon Valley until ;'86 or so.)

Let me know when you experience "Valley Fever".

Did that, too. (Bleh!) But the several-year allergy honeymoon (before picking up reactions to the local pollens was sweet.

Let me know how you feel about pollution in general

Icky-poo nasty bad stuff.

and our contribution to global climate change in particular after a week or two of technicolor sunsets (and breathing the air that creates them).

I've probably been breathing the portion of that that/s down here near the surface for much longer than you've been alive, and watched some of the "makes the sunsets red" stuff from volcanoes 2/3 of a continent away make my windsheeld wipers scratch my windshield.

But what do I think about "our contribution":
  - Who knows, now that the issues have been politically polarized and the reseach is suspect. Maybe we bake, maybe we freeze, maybe it stays/gets even more comfy. Wait and see.
  - The freakout over "warming" seems mostly from looking at it on far too short a time scale, seeing just the geologically "recent" stuff as we come out of a glaciation.
  - In the short term one likely-seeming scenario (see Scientific American a few years back) is that, starting at the dawn of agriculture, human fossil-fuel use essentially regulated the planet's temperature, holding off a Milankovitch cycle drop into the next glaciation for several thousand years. Then industry made it rise a bit short term, but (ignoring other tech) that, AND the regulation, should go away in about 400 +- 200 years as the exploitable fossil fuels run out, after which we crash back onto the steepening slope we've been avoiding and roll on into the next glaciation (unless we do something else about it).l
  - At large scale: Since the carboniferous we've been alternating combs of glacial/interglacial periods with deep ice ages, and we've been LOOSING atmospheric carbon dioxide with every deep ice age cycle. Last time we ALMOST got down to where chlorophyl stops working. (One form of it already has.) At the previous rate, absent human intervention or something, the NEXT cycle would get below it, pretty much all the plants die, and life gets to start over with other photosynthetic systems (maybe the purple one) or ocean-vent bacteria.
  - Fortunately we've been freeing some fossil carbon back into the atmosphere. But I don't think we're far enough along yet to get us through the next deep ice age if tech goes away.
  - So I'm more worried about something like a bronze-age collapse taking out tech until the next glaciation, then it not rising again at the next few interglacials, followed by bye-bye multicellular life, than I am about us all getting cooked by a humid heat wave.

Until then, please be quiet.

You wish. You first. B-)

Your houses must have been poorly designed. Airconditioning is a comfort not a necessity in virtually every climate. But we've lost the lessons of the past. Even 500 years ago arabs knew how to build houses to funnel cold air in and hot air out. For much of the 19th and 20th century we in the west even knew how to face windows and position houses in the prevailing wind direction.

Another trick forgotten was high ceilings (especially combined with adjustable vent windows over doors, which in turn were a bit taller to start the ventiing above even a tall person's head). This took advantage of natural air stratification, creating a hot air / cool air boundary above the occupants' heads, with the air heated by sunlight-through-windows or heat-leaks through walls rising, wiile cooler, from-near-the-ground makeup air of the house/surrounds or basement providing the cooling for the lower air mass.

During and after the COVID shutdown it was noticed in the global temperature tracking-and-modeling community that some industrial and transportation "air pollution" had a COOLING effect. Further (like volcanic pollution) it clears out (like volcanic pollution) or builds up in a time scale of a couple years, rather than the decades-to-centuries time scale of greenhouse gasses. Some significant components of this effect are fine dusts from industrial activity, high-altitude exhaust from commercial aviation (dust and contrails), and, massively, sulfur emissions from shipping (increasing and brightening over-ocean clouds).

In particular, as of a few months ago it was estimated that the reduction of shipping sulfur emission, due to the recently rolling-out global limits on sulfur in ship fuel (previously cheap but high sulfur), plus the reduction in shipping due to the COVID supply-chain disruptions, MORE that accounted for ALL the sea-level water temperature increase since the limits started going into effect. (That may not be current now, as shipping picks up post-COVID lockdown but using still lower sulfur fuel as the limits become more effective).

Deliberately adding sulfur to ship fuel to increase the global cooling part of the balance (as had been proposed even before this) has it's own problems. But perhaps modifying ships' cooling water and exhaust systems to introduce sea-water spray (which dries to cloud-seeding particles) into the hot exhaust and vent it to the air could produce the same effect without adding any more or different "pollution" than increased wave-action (as from storms) would.

Meanwhile, regardless of how much the added CO2 from previous industrial fossil fuel consumption may have contributed to heating the planet, it looks like slamming on the brakes may end up with a century or two of GREATER heating, and that a cut-CO2 solution would have involve tapering off the emissions without depressing manufacturing and transportation, over a period of decades.

Which, just incidentally, is exactly what the rollout of renewable energy, now driven more by economics and recent technology improvements than government promotion, has been doing (or had been before the draconian interference with the US fossil fuel industry.)

IMHO Nuclear time comes when we get practical power plants based on fusion, Oppenheimer-Phillips (O-P) stripping, or mirror O-P stripping.