Ahh, thank you! That makes sense. I did not know that the USSD code transmission relied on specific frequency bands. I looked at frequencycheck.com, and what I see is that in my country mobile networks and carriers use 2 GSM bands, 2 UMTS bands, and 4 LTE bands.
So... A USSD code would have to be transmitted one of the GSM bands? And the mobile router does not support these bands natively. Very little I can do if this is the case, I suppose.
Yes! Thanks ! I do understand how elections work, but I was more asking about what the current climate was like in the US. I am curious about whether people are talking about Trump / Biden positively or negatively, especially relative to the last election. I can look at polls and online comments but I can't see what it is like around there as I am across the world.
I just had a look at the Gallup Approval polls and the election polls and it looks to me like a Trump re-election is a real possibility. When he beat Hilary Clinton I was dumb-founded as I did not expect that in my wildest dreams.
Is it looking likely that Trump is going to be president again?
It rings a bell but I am not familiar with the details, I will look into it but I can't address it right away. I am well aware that the US is an imperialist nation that has committed and continues to commit horrible acts all over the world. But the point is that this is not the official narrative of the US government. They may give some concessions about what occurred in the past, but the official narrative about what is happening now is always that they and their friends are the good guys.
I am not from the US and the question is about conspiracy theories in other countries. If the question means whether Americans are more prone to believe US-conspiracy theories, then yes, simply because they are much more likely to be aware of them. Many people in other countries don't consume as much media in English and might have no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. So they probably have no opinion on whether there was foul play on his dead. But I think that if you talk to someone in Mexico and tell them the story of Epstein, most will agree that there was foul play involved. I am telling you this from my personal experience, at least within my circle but I think it expands more generally. We have a general distrust of the government and law enforcement, and so a story in which foul play is involved to silence someone else resonates. It happens all the time! Journalists are being killed all the time around here to silence them, and very often they are being critical of people in power.... Is it really that unwarranted to be suspicious?
Fascist as in the US actively supporting and financing terrorism in countries it wants control over, historically.
Isn't this a conspiracy theory? I think that the official position of the US is that they are not financing terrorists, and many of their military actions have been performed to defend citizens from their ruler's human rights violations. Isn't the Cuban embargo officially there to protect the Cubans against human rights violations? I think that arguing otherwise makes one a conspiracy theorist.
I am not saying this to argue, I am trying to explain what I understand with conspiracy theory - someone who is skeptical about the official narrative, and believes that those in power will not always be transparent and honest to the public.
And I think that being suspicious has been co-opted by the right wing, yes.
I am aware of the "drain the swamp" rhetoric, that there was a QAnon, anti-vax, and other more fringe theories. But I think that this is a sub-set of conspiracy theorizing that is amplified by the media. Many conspiracy theorists are investigative journalists and critics of governments. And many conspiracy theories have ended up being true. I don't think that critical thought and skepticism is an exercise that only right-wingers should participate in.
What do you mean? Can you describe what you mean with 'fascist rulership'? Then maybe I can try.
For example... people in Mexico many people suspect that politicians have associations with drug dealers, and many believe believe that particular bureaucratic systems (such as handing out public infrastructure projects) are exploited to distribute funds in ways that benefit those in power and their friends, these people I would classify as "conspiracy theorists", and in many cases they have been correct. You think that these people will always side with fascist rulership?
I think that the distrust of governments and generally those in power is a world-wide phenomenon. But I personally don't think that it is unwarranted. Corruption, abuses of power, and conspiracies are widespread.
โIn November I had received two letters from Teachersโ Pensions asking me euphemistically if I was dead,โ
I am curious about how one euphemistically asks someone if they are dead. Any guess?
EDIT: Ah! After sending this answer I saw jorge's answer!! So this answer is redundant, but at least you can see that two people arrived at virtually the same conclusion ๐
We need to define a threshold of energy that we consider "ionizing radiation", and we also need to a more precise definition of "starlight".
I will arbitrarily select the ionizing radiation threshold to be at 10 eV (124 nm). As for "starlight", let's just say that we want to push the 750 nm red light all the way until the point where it becomes ionizing. One thing to consider is that in this situation you will also push infra-red light from the stars towards the visible, so if a star emits a lot infrared this IR light will become "starlight". So the answer can be muddled up by all of these definitions as well as the emission properties of the star.
To keep it simple... Let's shift 750 nm red light to 124 nm ionizing radiation. You can rearrange the Doppler expression from this website to solve for the "v" to get the velocity needed to transform 750 nm to 124 nm. The solution I get is -284,035,329 m/s, with the "-" sign indicating movement of the receiver towards the source.
You can double-check by inputting 750 nm as the wavelength from the light emitted by the source, -284,035,329 m/s as the velocity, and the speed of light as "c":
Then, if you agree with the assumptions, definitions, and the analysis, the receiver needs to move at about 94.68% the speed of light to shift the redder starlight into the ionizing radiation range.
Parallelepiped
I see... I understand. Thank you!
It is a bit unfortunate because my mobile carrier only allows me to top-up via USSD or via a phone call, not via SMS. So I won't be able to top up without removing the sim card and placing it into a phone. It is a minor inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless ๐