. . . compliance.¹

Of course, if you report this to the Neighborhood Association, they will fire you, accuse you of being a pawn of Big Broadcasting, and hire someone else to give them the answer they want.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . present.²

The disagreement between the current value and that in Griffiths is due to the fact that magnetic north pole (which is actually a south magnetic pole, of course) has been drifting approximately northwest at about 40 km per year for the last few years (a blistering pace on a geological time scale); it has always wandered around like this, and has reversed direction more than once! Sailors (and students in Power Squadron courses) must learn how to correct their compass readings for this gradual drift.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . expect³

When using complex notation $m_0 e^{i \omega t}$ to describe precession, we must understand $\ddot{m}^2$ to mean $\vert\ddot{m}\vert^2$ - i.e. the $e^{i\omega t}$ term is multiplied by its complex conjugate, $e^{-i\omega t}$ to give unity for the time dependence. This expresses the conclusion of Problem 11.12: the dipole moment never gets larger or smaller, it just changes direction, and the radiation pattern follows it. If you stood on top of it and rotated with it (as we certainly do on the Earth) you would see a fixed intensity profile and the fact that it radiates at all would be confusing if you failed to notice that you were in a rotating reference frame.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . possess.⁴

The magnetism of neutron stars is a very interesting topic. If you assume (unrealistically) a pointlike central magnetic dipole, the field at 1 km from the centre of this "typical" star is more like 10¹¹ T, and others may have much higher fields. Thus some may reach fields $\sim 10^{12}$ T at which there is speculation that the Cabbibo angle (one of the key quantities in the so-called "Standard Model" of elementary particle physics) might vanish! [See A. Salam and J. Strathdee, Nature252, 569 (1974).]
On Earth we don't usually encounter such large magnetic fields, unless you count the effective field $B_{\rm eff} \sim 5\times10^{10}$ T of a magnetic nucleus like ⁹³Nb at a negative muon bound to it in an orbit that is mostly inside the nucleus; this might explain the anomalously large nuclear capture rate of the $\mu^-$ on that nucleus. [See P.J.S. Watson, Phys. Lett.58B, 431 (1975).]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.