Posted by thread_id 1 day ago
1. Not today. November 2025. They don't make it clear.
1.1. One would expect that to be put in the title, when the article is written almost a year after that.
1.2. No, the article doesn't state that in the first paragraph. Posting in it full seem to be the only way to fend off lazy comments:
In November 2025, Earth was buffeted by several massive eruptions of solar material that slammed into the magnetosphere.
2. It is unclear what is the source of the claim.
UPD: Commenter below found the source, but TFA doesn't make a good job of presenting that as a source of the 33 feet glitch claim, but rather posts another citation from it.
They should've just quote this and be done with it:
During the storm main phase, an east–west elongated band of intense auroral brightness expanded equatorward, producing a horizontally extended strip of strong density gradients that favored the development of small-scale irregularities. These small-scale irregularities triggered pronounced amplitude scintillations (S4 > 0.5) and caused significant positioning errors exceeding 10 m—large enough to disrupt GNSS-dependent applications across CONUS for hours, particularly precision agriculture and autonomous transportation industries. [1]
4. The author has articles all over the topics. Everything is sensationalized.
5. Every presented link seem to have this awful Cloudflare js challenge.
Bad article overall.
P.S. Response to the false claim below - no, there's nothing about GPS in "the first 3 words of the article".
[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026GL12...
He's talking about your first (incorrect) claim. The article begins "In November 2025"
7th paragraph of the article states the source, and contains a link to research paper where they go into great detail.
My brother in christ it's the first 3 words of the article.
I've run outside every morning for decades and used Garmin with GPS since 2015, I've never had so much trouble
Garmins finally supports dual-band (L1+L5) and BeiDou on newest models but it's still not enough to compensate, I have to use a Stryd footpod to guarantee accurate distances/speed
btw BeiDou GPS blows away US GPS for number of sats and precision but despite Russia's GPS being legal in US, technically BeiDou is not
* https://warontherocks.com/a-signal-point-of-failure-integrat...
* https://payloadspace.com/gps-faces-growing-competition-from-...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeiDou#GPS_vs._BeiDou_Capabili...
https://warontherocks.com/a-signal-point-of-failure-integrat...
but of course this administration is never going allow China-anything like low cost electric cars even if it means saving people a fortune in gas
so hopefully in 2029 it can be looked at again
or maybe Dems will also get the Senate too and can be petitioned if they run out of corruption investigations before 2029
it is critical to explain to everyone who isn't technical that GPS is "read only" and no data is being sent to China via BeiDou (just like it's not sent to Russia's Glonass) because that apparently is some kind of weird misunderstanding
on that same note if they somehow made Starlink into a lower resolution GPS backup I'd even trust that too despite personally being anti-Musk everything
The weird part to me is that Glonass was not approved either, yet it's as openly as allowed as Galileo that went through a tedious FCC approval process that was invented later. Grandfathered or not, we're clearly not in a worse place using Russian tech for the last 15 years.
Both BeiDou and GPS are supposed to be limited to 10m precision for civilians.
But, going down a rabbit hole, I found that BeiDou is way more accurate than 10m--3.6m and 2.6m outside and inside the Asia-Pacific region, respectively [1]. And that's with the most simple algorithm. It goes down to ~2.5m using dual-frequencies to account for atmospheric error.
Maybe in 1998, but Selective Availability was turned off in 2000, and here in the modern era: https://rtklibexplorer.wordpress.com/2024/04/28/dual-frequen...
I am not sure how to interpret your link, though. It doesn't measure accuracy on it's own, and doesn't include a number for precision between the two units.
The L1 signal had selective availability in the 90s, and it no longer does. SA had the real-world accuracy around 30m in practice; the "up to" 100m rarely happened. Without SA, plain L1 with good skyview (low DOP) gets you around 10m, or down under 5m if WAAS is having a good day.
Availability of multiple civilian bands, and cost-effective dual-band receivers, allows an ionosphere-free (no need for WAAS) solution in the 1-2m range, with a single receiver.
Ubiquity of internet connections makes it trivial to apply RTK correction data without having to set up your own base station, and/or, availability of affordable medium-range data radios makes it easy to set up your own base station. In either case, it's easier to run RTK than ever before, and dual-band RTK gets you down into the low centimeters, limited mostly by how accurately your base station was surveyed-in.
And none of that touches the military signals.
Has a fascinating history.
https://odimpact.org/case-united-states-opening-gps-data-for...
GPS has always had the P(Y) code, which is an encrypted signal, at a higher chip rate than the C/A code that has been broadcast on L1 forever. The P(Y) code has its own interesting history of (semi-)codeless processing. If the US military is lucky, the history books will close on that by 2030: https://www.gps.gov/codelesssemi-codeless-gps-access-commitm... . (Currently, 21 GPS satellites broadcast L5.)
https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-agency-probes-risks-fo...