Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#241

Post by dragonwriter »

Retric wrote: post #216
dragonwriter wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. The series of four accidents including those two in a short period in the US 7th Fleet was considered a sign of very significant problems. It is not at all typical of large, capable navies.

I agree that these incidents where a sign of significant issues. My point what they said little about the US Nacy’s overall capacity for warfare. Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.

> My point what they said little about the US Navy’s overall capacity for warfare.

The reason for the fairly significant consequences, the global stand down, etc., is because, as many experts wrote at the time, they said a lot about the US Navy’s capacity for warfare.

> Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.

Sure, because war results in change in priorites in which the same skill and capacity will produce a much higher accident rate than peacetime.

But a high peacetime accident rate, even if lower than the accident rat that would be acceptable in wartime, demonstrates an institutional incapacity to operate as directed successfully, which is a severe warfighting liability.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#242

Post by dkdk8283 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #211
dkdk8283 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.

The government seems to pay $100 for $1 of work. I work in defense.

You want defense contractors well paid. It’s a industry rife for corruption and bribery. I want my defense workers well paid so they won’t even think about trying to profit by selling information.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#243

Post by barbacoa »

asdff wrote: post #109
barbacoa wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What percent of workers do work that can be done remotely? Not a huge number, but that's all you need to support a small town economy. It's like the plight of the rust belt -- you had small communities that relied on manufacturing job to support the local retail and services jobs. When those manufacturing jobs evaporated due to outsourcing those small towns imploded.

What percent of remote workers do their shopping at the local mom and pop vs. online? I would expect this is a much higher rate than non remote workers who are commuting past that mom and pop store every day, where it would be convenient to stop in and grab something on their way to work or home. Remote workers in a rural town have little reason to leave their house and go to town, which in a rural town might itself…

Rural town is an oxymoron.

There is a big distinction between rural and towns. Even towns of 1-5k people are surprisingly dense since most were built out before urban sprawl became a trend.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#244

Post by bumby »

nickik wrote: post #239
bumby wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re taking the phrasing too literally. It is meant to confer the money should be spent on programs that directly contribute to more people’s lives than just those who work on the specific program. Your same argument can be used for the defense contractors as well and people will still line up to argue it’s not the best use of tax dollars

This program is about giving internet to under-served communities so their children can do remote schoolwork and things like that. What exactly is your problem with that?

I, personally, don’t have an issue with it. The context was that I am trying to give a good faith steelman argument for those who don’t think it’s the best use of money when other, perhaps more pressing, problems exist here “on earth” (quotations being used because I think the original intent of the phrase was too literally interpreted).

To extend that argument, is it better to give underserved internet access or spend the money on something that potentially saves someone’s life, like mosquito netting? I think even though HN is very in love with high tech problems, many would argue we could serve humanity better by prioritizing those lower tech problems that tend to solve more fundamental needs

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#245

Post by madamelic »

grecy wrote: post #212
mtalantikite wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verizon signed a contract with NYC in 2008 to pull fiber to New Yorkers by 2014 and I still can't get fiber here in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. At this point I've really given up hope that I'll ever get fiber into the home on a reasonable time scale.

In such a litigious society it's amazing Verizon can't be held to account for this, and at the very least be forced to pay back the money.

It isn't though.

Money = power. The US is a barely veiled oligarchy.

As long as you have enough money to pay off politicians to make it completely ok, you can do whatever you like. After you pocket a bunch of money or whatever other shenigans you want, you dump a percentage of the money into the politcian's re-election campaign.

You don't even have to get politicians to make it legal, you could do other things like getting friendly with judges and passing them thinly veiled bribes as 'gifts'.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#246

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #241
Retric wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that these incidents where a sign of significant issues. My point what they said little about the US Nacy’s overall capacity for warfare. Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.

> My point what they said little about the US Navy’s overall capacity for warfare. The reason for the fairly significant consequences, the global stand down, etc., is because, as many experts wrote at the time, they said a lot about the US Navy’s capacity for warfare. > Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war. Sure, because war results in change in p…

> But a high peacetime accident rate, even if lower than the accident rat that would be acceptable in wartime, demonstrates an institutional incapacity to operate as directed successfully, which is a severe warfighting liability.

Or simply a vastly different set of priorities. Navy ships are generally supposed to operate as a unit as their threatened by a host of over the horizon missiles, supersonic aircraft etc. In a very real way crashing into unknown ships isn't something that’s considered as a meaningful risk.

The root cause of these safety issues is however deeper. Militaries are constantly cycling both technology and people through positions. The specific implementation of training and UI where at fault for these crashes which is directly addressable. However, the institutional approach of using new people and technology has huge upsides in war. You need to be able to quickly replace losses in warfare so you need to rely on training not experience, and you need to test that this training is effective. Similarly, you can’t rely on proven technology and it’s proven training because new threats are constantly arriving.

That's directly going to cause accidents and while minimizing them is important, the long term tradeoff is considered worth it.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#247

Post by mountainboy »

stetrain wrote: post #176
nikolay wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I may want to go to a refuge without any electronics.

If you find a spot on Earth with no radio waves let us know. AM goes pretty far, even amateur radio can travel across continents in the right atmospheric conditions. GPS Satellite TV Every other civilian and military Comsat since we started launching things. Starlink isn’t the problem if you are worried about being “irradiated”, the nuclear fusion reactor at the center of our solar system is likely of greater concern…

I beg to differ.

Please read "The Invisible Rainbow: A history of electricity and life", and then get back to us with your thoughts.

You might find that your newly informed self differs from your present self.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#248

Post by mountainboy »

stetrain wrote: post #232
nikolay wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPS and Satellite TV are different, plus, your way of thinking is flawed - just because there are precedents, it doesn't mean we should continue to add on top of them! In addition to light pollution, radio pollution is worse than ever. After Starlink setting a brew type of precedent, more will try doing the same.

How are they different? They beam radio signals to every corner of the planet. What new precedent is Starlink setting?

Starlink is operating at mmwave frequencies directly in the ionosphere, which is electrically connected to the ground. A small current passes through each of us, and that current is now being polluted with unnatural oscillations which can affect living tissues, especially the mitochondria. As a result insects are dying, birds are falling out the sky, etc. This is a serious environmental and health problem.

Read the book, "The invisible Rainbow: A history of electricity and life".

Also check: https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#249

Post by slim »

rurp wrote: post #137
dkdk8283 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.

I can't think of a single scenario where having more tanks or fighter jets would be decisive in a full scale conflict between nuclear powers. Suppose the US and China get into a direct conflict. How does the US having a 10x advantage in the number of traditional arms vs only, say, 2x stop China from threatening to obliterate humanity with nukes the minute their leadership is facing an existential crisis?

it's for waging proxy wars. for example US could deploy it's army in Nigeria to protect freedom and democracy

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#250

Post by slim »

Jach wrote: post #195
staunch wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine what we could do if it was possible to identify and fund a thousand Elon Musks with hundreds of millions each? He's eliminating gas vehicles, improving solar adoption, fixing rural internet, improving space science, making life interplanetary, etc. It may be that Elon Musk types are extremely rare but I doubt they're as nearly as rare as most people think and we only need a thousand out of billions. The thing…

Well, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiel_Fellowship but there aren't many of them and the funding is a few orders of magnitude less. Perhaps somewhat made up for in social network/connections. I've wanted to read about what happened if anyone ever decided to apply Asimov's filter at earlier ages. His filter was simply having interest in particular science fiction. https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/1963-asim…

that's to identify and fund a thousand Peter Thiels. I'm not sure we want that
Post reply on HN