I think colleges have purposefully positioned themselves as they are today as a business strategy, specifically ivy leagues or top tiers.
They know nearly all information is online now and taught even more effectively in many cases. And once inferior colleges and professors can also harness this and compete on near even footing on the knowledge front. That was not the case just 15 years ago.
So they now lean into an area that they think the internet and those who harness it cannot compete. They lace every discipline with philosophy and sell it as an ivy league education. But really they're just bamboozling people with an inferior education and destructive cognitive habits.
They are selling the name, and the connections (you will become friends with the child of a billionaire / high status individual, possibly a student who is a high status individual themselves already).
These will be immensely valuable forever as long as they keep the club largely exclusive. Everything else is just noise.
I suppose. I have old friends who are pretty up there. One of them (a very best friend and childhood friend) in a family that’s very wealthy. Think Waltons.
Never once did I lever this relationship or any others I have. I think the network thing is overrated. Wealthy and connected people mostly want to be left alone and very rarely do favors for people not independently at their level.
Also I’m trying to think how many close friends I kept from college or even in contact with. I think maybe 5 and none of them were well off or connected.
But yes, that is part of what is sold as well. Or at least the idea of it. There’s no question about that.
Awesome. My wireless bill is too high and competition never hurt. I would think satellites are way cheaper than setting up ground based towers and therefore will offer cheaper service.
Satellite-based internet and cell services aren't competing in the same space as your regular cell carrier. They aren't going to make your phone plan cheaper.
train : plane :: land line : cell phone :: terrestrial : satellite
The transition won't be instant and there will still be a place for terrestrial cell service for a long time, but the future favors flexibility and ubiquity.
The big challenge/opportunity will come when a non-US player arrives, like Thuraya after Iridium and the NSA can't slurp down all telephony.
Time doesn't really have anything to do with it. You are fighting the basic laws of physics. For example 4G/5G home internet has been around for many years. Has it made your Comcast bill any cheaper?
You think satellites are cheaper than ground towers?
Even if they were cheaper, a satellite is limited to 7Mbits/s. A 5G tower can handle 10Gbits/s. And you don't even have to price a cell tower by the kilogram.
> Note, this only supports ~7Mb per beam and the beams are very big, so while this is a great solution for locations with no cellular connectivity, it is not meaningfully competitive with existing terrestrial cellular networks.
And to think he often overstates things.
A modern cell tower can handle a lot of throughput overall because it can slice a cell site into a lot of small sectors and handle a lot of clients in it. A single satellite covers many, many square miles even with a very, very narrow beam. Plus you're just dealing with vastly different SNR, power levels, speed differentials, etc.
Ah yes I see that. Will be curious if it stays as just a dead zone service. Interesting the wireless providers would sign on for this which could ultimately challenge them in the future.
The bandwidth is so slow for this direct-to-cell service that it won't replace mobile providers. The bandwidth for a whole cell is 20Mbps, except that is shared with the thousands of people in the cell. I have been thinking of it as 2G phone service. You get text, voice, and little bit of data.
It probably isn't physically possible to do phone with Starlink high speed service. The dedicated antenna would be better than existing 4G/5G but small size would be a problem. Also, the Starlink antennas depend on having good view of the size.
Finally, the market is tiny of people wandering in the wilderness who want high-speed data. Starlink competes with itself since its service can be used for remote camps; there are rumors of a smaller antenna. Starlink even makes it easier to setup wilderness cell towers and microcells at house.
There's a limitation to how much data can be carried by a certain radio wavelength. Adding more satellites within a given coverage area doesn't help, because they will just interfere with each other. Using antennas with narrower beams or beamforming and also launching more satellites could help, but there are limits, since you start to compromise on the ability for clients to connect.
I don't remember the exact figures, but the limit might be somewhere around 1 gb/s per 50 square miles or something. Contrast this with fiber fed cell towers. The fiber can carry unimaginable amounts of data, and data capacity keeps going up as endpoints are upgraded without laying new fiber. The tower's transmissions only cover a small area which can be a disadvantage but also has the advantage that it does not interfere with other nearby towers. Towers can be upgraded as well. For example, a tower might start with an omnidirectional antenna to cover the entire area. As more people start using it, it can transition to using a large number of sector antennas in a circle, each only covering a few degrees.
So, looking at it from the perspective of subscriber per square mile, satellites have a hard limit, and it's quite low, while terrestrial wireless has almost no limit.
This means that there is a certain subscriber density where satellite makes more sense, and a certain subscriber density where terrestrial makes more sense. The subscriber density where satellite makes more sense is probably far lower than you might expect.
Where is this info from? Hard for me to fathom this. Surely digging up ground to lay wires with lots of labor and materials is more expensive...at least I would think.
Per unit bandwidth, satellites are very expensive boxes of electronics, and need to be replaced more often. And we already have very extensive wire networks.
Satellites are cheaper per square mile, but they can only provide a sliver of service when they're covering such a large range.
If satellites were competitive anywhere with moderate density, a simple extra-big tower would be even more competitive. But we need more than that to split up users into smaller groups.
Really? How is it hard to fathom that building something on Earth is far more simple than sending a satellite up into space. Running wires isn't as expensive as a rocket generally. Also rural towers can use line of sight antennas to get backhaul from other towers that are connected to the wires.
A simple google search for cost to launch a satellite comes back with "between $10 and $400 million dollars". And cost to build a cell tower being "around $250,000."
If it costs $100k to run a mile of fiber, which would be very high, then you could run about 95 miles to a new tower before you even get to the low end of satellite costs.
Each satellite costs about half a million (on the low end) to manufacture and launch. They are projected to last about 5 years each. A 5g macrocell (The big ones on huge masts) cost about $150k and lasts about 20 years. The microcells cost about $10k including installation and work great in high density areas. So they last about 4x as long as a StarLink satellite reducing operating expenses even further.
This means, for the cost of a single satellite, you can run about 13 macrocells. In addition, the infrastructure for those cells can last much longer and maintenance is much cheaper.
The only place that satellites makes sense is in remote areas where people aren't clustered as closely. Satellite is great at covering vast swaths of land with fewer subscriptions. So an area that would require 13 or more macrocells or an absurd amount of fiber optics to service a couple hundred people is perfect for StarLink.
The equation will change a lot if or when Falcon Heavy starts operating though. Then we will be able to blot out the stars with relatively inexpensive satellites. But I foresee StarLink using ground cells in denser areas anyways to reduce space traffic since you can't just cluster the satellites over a specific area. Probably they will just rent out the nodes to existing providers to expand cell coverage.
> A 5g macrocell (The big ones on huge masts) cost about $150k and lasts about 20 years
So the days of my carrier forcing me to buy a new phone every few years are over? Sweet. About time they knocked it off with this constant infrastructure churn.
(FYI Falcon Heavy is operational, I think you mean Starship.)
Typically, they just replace the cells on the mast. I think $150k is for the fiber, pole, power, etc... The actual wireless gear is cheaper and can be replaced for upgrades. Although I'm pretty sure that 6g or whatever is just going to be 5g with a minor tweak so you have to buy a new phone. 5g is an excellent protocol and will easily last another 20 years.
Testosterone, higher metabolism speeds up aging, protein intake/mtor pathway. Men are probably more likely to get debilitating injuries from the type of hands-on work they do. Just a few ideas (other than whats in the article) that could be wrong.
These are future speed metrics, not current speed thresholds. And the performance metrics have been a constant shifting goalpost. You can read FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's letter on this matter here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf This is most likely political.
I read that letter, and was unconvinced that it's anything more than the FCC not wanting to gamble with nearly 1/16th of the total RDOF grant money (for that round) and would rather give it to a company that can be reasonably expected to hit the obligatory throughput.
You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along party lines right down the middle). And theres no other company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this spot.
For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants you to believe. They can barely service what they have and the cost/benefit of laying 30 miles of wire to reach someone in the woods is never going to make sense.
It's a letter from one FCC commissioner, of which there are currently 5. He dissents from the decision the commission as a whole came to. There are a lot of companies on the ground that could benefit from that ~$900 million so a single company replacing Starlink is not necessary. The main concern is if the FCC give Starlink money to reach 100/20 and they don't do it (because there are legitimate technical issues to solve before it's possible for Starlink to supply over half a million people with 100/20), it's wasted money. The FCC didn't think it was doable on that time scale.
Doing some math, currently each satellite launch sends up 22 satellites at around 2.8 Gbps per satellite. For each launch, Starlink adds ~61.6 Gbps of capacity. If we cut that up into 100/20 slices, each launch supports 616 customers at 100/20. To support 650,000 subscribers at 100/20, it would take about 1055 perfect launches.
I don't think the FCC was wrong when they said Starlink could not reach 650,000 people at 100/20 by 2025. There aren't enough days to launch one rocket a day to even try to catch up.
Did you miss the other dissent which would mean 40% of the commission disagreed with the decision?
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON
>I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent. I write separately to further highlight some of the meretricious logic that underlies the Bureau’s, and now Commission’s, rescinding of SpaceX’s RDOF award.
...
>I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the courts have given it
Well if you want to really dig into the numbers here and get down to the gnat's ass of uselessness, Simington was confirmed with a 49-46 vote which means that less than 50% of the Senate agreed with him being on the Commission and hence he shouldn't even serve because he couldn't garner a majority of Senate approval. So, while 40% of the Commission disagreed with the decision, we should recognize that 20% of that 40% comes from someone undemocratically serving on the Commission and hence should be ignored. Meaning that, in actuality, only 25% of the democratically appointed Commission (1 out of 4) disagreed with the decision, not 40%.
All of that to say: this whole point you're making about "40% disagreed" or "20% disagreed" because the decision wasn't unanimous is really fucking dumb. The decision by the Commission is the decision, it doesn't matter how many dissents there are.
There are 5 FCC commissioners (as @I_Am_Nous's comment points out). @I_Am_Nous references one dissent. @hnburnsy links to another. That's 2 dissents. 2 out of 5 dissenting is 40%.
ok, so that still cuts down the amount of launches by 4x which takes them from 1055 launches to 260 launches. Over 2 years that would require doubling Starlink's launch cadence which is a lot, but does seem plausible.
So to make the 2025 deadline they would have had to perfectly launch more rockets than they ever have before...sounds like the FCC made the correct choice.
They need to do 180 a year to put enough satellites up to even try to hit the 2025 deadline. That's not even counting any satellites which may fail between now and then and need replaced. This is a major reason why the FCC didn't think they could have met the 2025 obligation to reach ~650,000 subscribers with 100/20 and rejected their application.
That will be sweet when they can get it done and reliably launch Starship! Starlink isn't bad, it just wasn't capable of meeting the RDOF deadline according to the information available at the time.
The calculation above assumes all satellites are available to provide bandwidth to the customers. That means essentially the 260 satellites need to be above the US (let's ignore that the visible horizon is different across the US). Now starlink are LEO, so 260 essentially we need to divide the 260 by the fraction the globe area the US is.
The 260 is a significant underestimate. It's likely 4-10x more
Sure but the assumption made already say, that SpaceX uses _all_ capacity for this program (and nothing else) and it doesn't require any double hops (I would think you need to at least add a factor of two for the up/down thing). And that you can see all satellites all the time. So it was a _very_ conservative assumption. And it would still require ~all launch capacity of 2024 and 2025. SpaceX calculations is extremely optimistic to the point of being delusional.
At least without Starship, which I _personally_ think that they will manage to iron out their problems of the course of next year. But even then _this_ timeline they won't be able to keep
I'd rather the federal government just roll out fiber and not put Starlink and Elon in a position of power. That fiber will always be in the ground and available. Elon has shown himself to be unworthy of any position where trust and good judgement is required. If it costs more, that is a premium worth paying. Fool me once.
The success of SpaceX is placing Musk in a position to decide where America's allies have access to the internet and choosing what region of the world can be cut off just through meeting politicians he likes.
That doesn’t negate the fact that he wields power against others when it meets his needs. He’s effective, I don’t dispute that, but still needs a metaphorical cage built around him to protect others.
Indeed, satellite or long haul fixed wireless will be the only option for some locations. I have been to rural Montana and Wyoming, but not Alaska.
Customers will have to pay for their own StarLink where the FCC won’t. Perhaps we should not be subsidizing folks where it costs $1M to deliver terrestrial connectivity to you. Cheaper to pay them to move.
This is in comparison to launching satellites into space. I think most people would agree it's probably more along the lines of "trivial" when compared to that.
Neither are trivial, the two just scale very differently.
I do see the benefit in resilience of building out fiber even to moderately unprofitable (from a unit economics point of view) regions, just like we also build roads to communities that will never "pay the investment back" in taxes. But there are cases where it just can't be justified.
But it's also not a simple either-or: There are other technologies than fiber and satellite; there can be more than one high-throughput LEO provider; we can have a few GEO satellites for redundancy (although with significantly worse latency) etc.
Outside of truly rural areas the question with fiber is how long is the payback period, not "will it be profitable". Especially if deployment is integrated with routine highway re-pavement projects (roads need torn up and redone roughly every 30 years, after all), the majority of the cost becomes the fiber bundles themselves - perfect for even a smaller county or city government to handle with a modest bond issue.
> the question with fiber is how long is the payback period, not "will it be profitable".
The "payback period" might well be infinite (with non-zero interest rates), in which case we're talking about a subsidy, not an investment. (Which might still be a good idea! It won't "pay for itself", though.)
Instead of a simple comment about historical grants, you perhaps could educate yourself on current state grants and efforts. Trying and failing previously doesn't mean trying something different shouldn't be done, you know? Should we just give up because of previous mistakes? No, absolutely not. That is failure.
You're replying to an accurate comment about how government funding works. I am educated on this, I have worked off of government grant money often, it's 100% who you know, not what you do.
Also involved in government procurement, also provide guidance to several Congressional reps gratis as a technologist subject matter expert. Change is possible, to believe otherwise is to give up. If you want to give up, head to the bar and make way for people who give a shit. I give a shit, so I am admittedly biased.
The simplest and best way to ensure change is to fund a competitor who has a different approach. Not wanting to mindlessly throw money at the same people forever isn't giving up.
You're being incredibly optimistic. Show me a non-greedy person in Congress, with the exception of Thomas Massie, and I'll believe you that change is possible.
Hope is in short supply, but not at empty yet. Make sure to vote every election. 1.8M voters over the age of 55 die every year in the US, and 4M voters age into voting at 18. Demographics are inevitable. As I tell the young folks, Hold Fast.
(disclaimer: I have maxed out my FEC political contributions to every rep enumerated due to my belief in their character; if someone's character changes or evidence surfaces they are not a good person, my support changes accordingly)
Oh, I see. I agree that these are people who deeply embody the Democratic ethos, and Bernie is one of the poorer members of the Senate. I seriously dislike Fetterman's "working class" act, though.
However, considering that they hate me, I will pass.
We may disagree politically, but I still want the best for you (although the debate lies in what that looks like). Take care, and I enjoyed the conversation regardless.
I understand and appreciate that perspective. I usually want the government to leave me alone, but if they won't, I want the most principled people duking it out. It sounds like we both value principles in office, maybe not to the exclusion of ideology, but it's a major factor.
I did as well, good to have some old-style HN conversation.
Verizon was able to lay fiber all over rural New York in a pretty short amount of time due to a New York law for similar rural funding. Places that couldn't even get cable have fiber now. Just laying fiber is an alternative to satellite.
Do want to point out buildout requirements that are actually enforced in NY would be strongly compelling. Spectrum was heavily fined and had their license suspended on cable for failing to meet these commitments a few years back. Other states just dole out the money without punishing the companies that cash out dividends and use it for mergers.
Yes, it's fiber. Yes, to the home. Currently, 93Mbps down, 83 Mbps up (but I have the cheap service). And the service is a crap-ton better than that of Spectrum in NC.
Anecdotally, my dad lives in a rural area with no cable/DSL broadband available.
Cellular broadband only got him 10-15 Mbps. He was excited when Starlink was available. I think he was pretty early on the preorder list. Once he finally got access to Starlink (Feb 2022) the speeds were close to the advertised ~100 Mbps.
Now the price has increased and on average he's back to getting like 15-20 Mbps down.
Luckily, the EMC that services the area received some rural broadband grant money to roll out FTTH and that build out has been pretty quick. They have already run fiber down his road and said that service should be available in a couple of months. The EMC is offering 2 Gbps down / 1-2 Gbps up (!!!) for $100/mo.
So this money is actually being spent effectively when it goes to the right place. Starlink made a bunch of promises that they couldn't fulfill and the money is being redirected, as it should be.
I feel like in 90% of Starlinks use cases it is only the best option because they are the most motivated to succeed. Running traditional wired service is the more practical and permanent solution but the telecoms have made far to much money by taking money then not delivering.
>Running traditional wired service is the more practical and permanent solution
It's permanent but it depends on what the word practical means. Often the cost of setting up infrastructure for such low density population means the infrastructure will never pay for itself, or that the same money spent elsewhere would service many more customers, so its not necessarily practical.
Not necessarily. This round of grants is closed. There is no guarantee that this money will be rolled into the next round. In fact, that seems quite unlikely to me.
>Phase 1: Will provide up to $16.4 billion
>Phase 2: Will provide at least $4.4 billion
When it says "at least $4.4 billion" that leaves the door open for phase 1 fund rollover. We'll see eventually. Maybe Starlink can get some money in phase 2.
This letter is junk, to put it lightly. I lived in a rural area with copper lines that were destined to stay that way because of classist inaction by the FCC - one that rewarded cities with new, expanded internet lines repeatedly and required vast parts of rural America to be torn up for backbones that they weren't allowed to tap, or could only be tapped with inexpensive copper lines mandated through telephony requirements. To put it less lightly, 100/20 is still a joke and a clear discrepancy between what's offered in most US cities and suburbs. The Biden Administration is trying to fix that history with the FCCs mandate; I don't care about whether Elon's satellite business is worth it in the end. I do care whether rural people get stable, dependable, fast internet that doesn't become irrelevant the moment it's laid.
Just FYI, in case it makes a difference to your assessment of credibility, but this is the same commissioner who opposes net neutrality, wants to rework the CDA to deal with the way "the far left has worked to weaponize social media platforms", hopes to have TikTok banned in the interest of national security, and appeared on Fox News to talk about how "the far-left has hopped from hoax to hoax to hoax to explain how it lost to President Trump at the ballot box".
When you say it is most likely political, it certainly is, because Carr and Simington (who was rammed through the Senate at the last moment by the Trump administration) are pretty much the definition of partisan. People who were paying attention to the development of this situation back in 2020/21 saw it coming.
The headline is perfectly clear and is not using language in a new way. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues recalls for safety related issues. The way the manufacture resolves the issues can differ.
Sure, you're technically correct, but when the average person reads "recall" they typically assume something very different. Doubly so since this isn't even a bug fix, just a new requirement to add additional safety checks above and beyond the ones already there.
There's no reason the headline couldn't have read something like "Tesla Issues Software Update at Request of NHTSA", which would be less likely to confuse the average reader, but also less attention-grabbing.
The average person can learn what the term means when they get the notification in the mail from Tesla (which will state that there is a recall and it will be handled by an OTA update). Or they could read the article and not rely on the headline to get their full understanding of the issue. If the average user panics from the headline... good. This is a safety issue and they should be made aware of it.
The average person understands “recall” to mean “something about my car may be unsafe, I should read it”. If you’ve owned a car, you’ve gotten plenty of these and many of them are minor - for example, when I lived in San Diego I did not race to the dealership when Subaru put out a recall telling you to have the underbody inspected for defects which could cause elevated corrosion with frequent exposure to road salt because I knew my vehicle didn’t fall into that category. The recall mechanism meant I got it taken care of a year later when I had other work being done.
The only people claiming to be confused here appear to be Tesla fans who are reacting emotionally to their favorite company getting negative attention. I see no sign that any of them were concerned about a standard industry term before today.
In the old days, recalls meant the car had to go back to the dealer for a fix. Then "recall" got a legal meaning, and as we moved to cars that could be updated at home, the term stuck because it is now enshrined in official regulation. It is just anachronistic terminology now like "hang up the phone."
If the average user on HN needs an explanation that a word in a title actually has a completely different effective meaning, I'd say that it is unlikely to be a clear title.
Several of these were fixed with OTA updates. Tesla doesn't seem to be confused on the meaning of the word. This very site has had these exact OTA recall submissions for years.
I would say on HN you're far more likely to get some "whell ahcktuwally" comments in the most counterproductive way, particularly because there are so many Tesla and Musk fans that immediately become defensive vs any negative news or criticism of each and engage in semantic quibbling to deflect.
Recall is the correct word to use for this sort of NTSC action. Most people understand what it means and don't care about OTA vs plugging in an ODB port.
> Most people […] don't care about OTA vs plugging in an ODB port.
Yes, they do.
For the former, you just let the car autoupdate and that’s it. For the latter, you gotta drive to a dealership/service center and leave your car there so that the service center employees can resolve it via “plugging in an ODB port.”
One requires much more work and effort than the other on the part of the driver. For one, I think most people would care about having to potentially take a day off work + figure out their transportation while the recall issue is being resolved at the service center.
In this case, the goal is using the industry standard term to refer to a specific action defined under U.S. law. It’s called a recall because that’s the term used by the legislation delegated to the NHTSA by the Congress:
The only confusion I see on this point is from people who based on their history appear to be Tesla fans and presumably are letting their loyalties to the company trigger a defensive reaction.
I actually dont think this article/headline is that egregious. But in general anything having to do with Musk/Tesla is going to be put in a negative light. And I think we all know why. Election season, twitter ownership, etc etc.
Elon is a cringey based edgelord, accelerated the decline of their favorite platform (Twitter), re-platforms and signal boosts people/grifters with dangerous ideas, and all of that outweighs, in their estimation, whatever good will he earned with Tesla/SpaceX in the prior decade.
Oh, he’s also a generationally wealthy South African.
They’re on one side of the culture war, he’s (newly?) on the other.
They want him stripped of influence. Or maybe they’re just really big fans of Kia and Volkswagen, dunno.
In known history, I think there has been perhaps one prosecutor charged with a crime over this. How about that for a statistic?
From my experience it is literally impossible to report a crime made by a prosecutor.
Hiding evidence might not even be a crime in many jurisdictions. In the USA it would be a constitutional violation, but that rarely makes it a crime because violating the constitution rarely becomes criminal unless violence is involved.
Any new product is going to start out as expensive and this likely isnt a market realized price. This is the first of its kind. It probably still wont be cheap but its not going to be this absurdly priced in the future considering even the insurance companies likely wont pay for this.
Pretty big news. I believe this is the first gene editing therapy approved by the FDA and theres a large backlog thats been in the works for many years. Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic.
> Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic.
Me too, because it's fun to consider DNA as some code we can edit to get outcomes we want!
However, some people are ethically opposed to that - but piggybacking on the preference people have for having children should be able to move the Overton window!
It really is inspiring. Yeah I take the opposite side, ethically speaking. I think its cruel to not allow people to fix their bodies in the ways they want and in many cases need. Im in the max body-editing camp. Also this should resolve race issues once and for all which is fun to think about.
> Also this should resolve race issues once and for all which is fun to think about.
I doubt it. One of the root causes of “race” issues is humans using prior probabilities. Unless that changes, then the priors will simply move on from being skin tone based. I would suggest they already have for some portions of the population.
Body autonomy may be a fundamental right requiring legal recognition. It curiously cuts across many protracted debates: abortion, vaccine requirements, transgender rights and now gene editing. (I suppose abortion and germ-line edits are a special case.)
Maybe not on an individual basis, but that doesn't eliminate the huge impact both past and current societies experience based on this type of disruption. The American South is still trying to reach some sort of parity with the rest of the country on almost every metric, and the huge population centers built around these jobs will experience a similar collapse.
They know nearly all information is online now and taught even more effectively in many cases. And once inferior colleges and professors can also harness this and compete on near even footing on the knowledge front. That was not the case just 15 years ago.
So they now lean into an area that they think the internet and those who harness it cannot compete. They lace every discipline with philosophy and sell it as an ivy league education. But really they're just bamboozling people with an inferior education and destructive cognitive habits.