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

SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 496 posts

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#421

Post by bottlepalm »

itsoktocry wrote: post #389
bottlepalm wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a beta so you shouldn't trust it. I'm just saying, I've driven thousands of miles and 95% of the time no issues. The other 5% I almost always know where it will have issues and manually take over before it even gets into a bad situation. A lot of these bad situations I think are easy fixes that will be resolved with future updates. I agree the object recognition is a bit jumpy, but it hasn't really affected the…

> I've driven thousands of miles and 95% of the time no issues. The other 5% I almost always know where it will have issues and manually take over before it even gets into a bad situation. This is not Full Self Driving, or remotely close to it. Having to take over for any tricky situation is antithetical to FSD's purpose. Besides the fact that "thousands of miles" is a microscopic scale of driving. That's a vacation…

Really? I'd say it's 95% there if the car is fully self driving 95% of the time.

Taking over for tricky situations alerts Tesla to those situations and allows them to rank and fix the issue.

1,000's of miles might be nothing, but then multiply it by the tens of thousands of drivers using it everyday and yes Tesla basically is aware of all the tricky situations and is working to resolve them.

I really don't understand people like you who criticize companies trying to push things forward. At least they're trying, why be so unsupportive?

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#422

Post by xyst »

xcskier56 wrote: post #78

While I see the great potential in this technology, the collateral damage is the loss of places where one can truly disconnect. I just got back from 4 days camping at a remote mountain lake with zero phone coverage, and it’s one of the most incredible ways to fully recharge and step away from the day to day treadmill of the modern world. When we loose the possibility to completely disconnect, I at least, will feel a…

“True wilderness” has not existed for a long time. Even your “remote mountain lake” area is not “true wilderness”. You probably drove or flew to the area to camp. Human influence is everywhere. Our footprint has changed the various landscapes whether for better or worse.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#423

Post by speedgoose »

KaiserPro wrote: post #364
thepasswordis wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My current Tesla started doing FSD almost a year ago.

My 2009 kia rio has FSD too, and like the tesla, it won't stop for children in FSD mode (note the FSD mode here is basically a brick on the accelerator)

If you think about the recent test conducted by a Tesla AI competitor, it wasn’t FSD mode. See https://electrek.co/2022/08/10/tesla-self-driving-smear-camp...

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#424

Post by bpodgursky »

lrvick wrote: post #378
Cogito wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sort of? I believe they have some sort of similar solution in place for free messaging on in-flight wifi. Having a look at how they've done that might give a better idea for what this will look like than speculation. Still, it's a hard problem. They want to prioritise connectivity on an extremely low bit-rate channel that covers an extremely large geographic region. Messaging apps needs to be a part of that c…

I think it is quite simple. Just apply net neutrality rules to this like any other internet connection. If they can afford to support whitelisted messengers at a very limited data rate of 1k/s then they can afford to simply give people 1k/s of neutral internet access to use to communicate whatever data they feel is high value enough to fit over those constraints using any protocol they wish. We already have internet…

In practice though they want to offer bursty throughput. For example, if you want to allow sending photos in messages, but not videos, you don't want to send a photo at 1k/s. It's not a trivial problem.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#425

Post by bpodgursky »

e-clinton wrote: post #170
ALittleLight wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you damage your own credibility more than Musk's by saying things like this. He's delivered on electric cars and reusable rockets. It's fair to say promises more than he delivers, but he delivers an awful lot.

I agree that he delivers a lot, but the comment is still fair seems he constantly over-promises and under delivers.

Underdelivery is par for literally every human institution on earth.

The federal government underdelivers. Corporations by default underdeliver. Grad students underdeliver. Football teams underdeliver.

Every single institution on earth more ambitious than lawncare services makes lofty ambitious goals and then achieve maybe 20% of them. Musk is the same, but the difference is that his 20% are orders of magnitude more ambitious than anyone else, so 20% delivery is still world-changing.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#426

Post by bpodgursky »

carabiner wrote: post #318
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s probably so low they won’t be able to launch anything to replace the live sats once they hit end of life

Iridium is already subsidized by the US govt, isn't it? The original company failed as a profitable venture.

Yeah but the US gov is VERY interested in Starlink now after seeing how effective it has been in Ukraine (and how quick to deploy). Pretty likely they're going to shift to the winning horse.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#429

Post by epgui »

bagels wrote: post #332
dailykoder wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk already admitted that he was very wrong about FSD and that it's not that easy. Sure his talk was dumb and a lot of people fell for it, but that's just how marketing works.

That's how fraud works, not marketing.

It’s not fraud when you’re just over-optimistic, you believe what you’re saying, and you end up being wrong.

It might suck, but it’s not fraud.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#430

Post by deelowe »

NavinF wrote: post #350
hoseja wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that an actual concern? Honestly sounds kinda nonsensical to me but I don't know enough about antenna size in orbit regulation.

It is indeed nonsensical, but it was covered by every news outlet a couple of years ago. Astronomy issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Mega-constella... Orbital debris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Potential_tri... Nobody bothered to look at the details.

I read the links, but I'm not seeing where the concerns are nonsensical.
Post reply on HN