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

IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

reneweuropegroup.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 500 posts

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#201

Post by sofixa »

peterfirefly wrote: post #175
sschueller wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying no capitalism, I am saying regulation is good. Such as in no child labor[1] and enforced safety standards[2], which yes, slows down innovation but safe lives. Sadly most regulations are made in blood. No regulations are fine and dandy unless you are one of the first 346 to die from Boeing's MAX disaster until the "market corrects itself". Even the EU has been complaining how expensive it is to run rai…

Paper routes and other forms of light work are good for children. The bad kinds of child labour disappear as poverty disappears. No need for any hard regulation there. I actually looked at the reported workplace safety violations and the reported workplace accidents for Tesla a couple of years ago to see whether the reporting was biased against Tesla or not -- turns out it was. It still is.

> The bad kinds of child labour disappear as poverty disappears. No need for any hard regulation there.

I'm sorry but that is extremely cold hearted, mostly useless and bordering on the sociopathic. As an excuse for child labour. Just "fix" everything, have enough money and no children will need to work in risky conditions? You should go and tell the DRC government that, as well as the families whose children are dying/poisoning themselves for their whole lives, they would be overjoyed.

It is not a solution in any way a form, it's a desired state. Hard regulations banning these kind of undesirable practices will be an immediate (ish, with time for enforcement) fix and literally save lives.

Is your view similarly useless and sociopathic with regards to all regulations? Building codes are only a chore and increase housing prices, once everybody is rich all housing will be of good quality (until an earthquake or hurricane or poor living conditions strike and kill, but who cares, right?).

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#202

Post by hef19898 »

TMWNN wrote: post #199
hef19898 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question was, lest say, discussed between the EU and the US for litteraly decades regarding Airbus subsidies and Boeing subsidies. The former came directly the latter came through government contracts. Government contracts are one of the easiest ways to subsidize a company, and SpaceX got plenty of those.

I am well aware that EU claimed for decades that Boeing's military contracts were some sort of hidden subsidy for its civilian business. That does not make said claims accurate, or why McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed would not have sought to benefit from such subsidies, as opposed to selling itself to Boeing and exiting the airliner business, respectively. SpaceX gets plenty of government contracts because it has prov…

Whether or not government contracts can be considered subsidies was the question of the related WTO dispute. And it was never ruled that they are not. Since the WTO is the highest authority in those questions, everything else is just an opinion.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#203

Post by sofixa »

peterfirefly wrote: post #147
lispm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But there were times when German companies actually were world leaders in the big things as well We have the world leader in civil aerospace in France/Germany, Many high-speed trains in the world are coming from France or Germany. There are many large high-tech sectors. It's nice that Estonia is successful, but it's not where the next big chip manufacturing sites will be build. Intel and TSMC are in talks to move t…

I love trains -- but planes are usually a better solution than high-speed trains. They will be an even better solution when we have small electric jets, especially for inter-European flights. Do you think the first practical electric jet will come from a subsidized EU development plan -- or from a VP funded US company?

> love trains -- but planes are usually a better solution than high-speed trains.

Not for short to medium distances they're not. Everything under 3-4 hours of train is faster, more comfortable and with much less hassle than flying (going to an airport, security checks, uncomfortable seating, interruptions for take off and landing, long queueing).

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#204

Post by nbevans »

Vespasian wrote: post #189
nbevans wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operational? Yes. Reliable? No. It has had numerous outages in the last 4 years. How do you explain several non-EU states being members of the Galileo programme - namely Switzerland and Norway? Hell, even China invested into it in 2003. And yet, the UK which invested almost a quarter of its funding is booted out on the basis of an unrelated political issue? It doesn't make sense. The British even offered to continue…

Switzerland and Norway negotiated special treaties to join Galileo. The UK were in because of their EU membership. No one could have taken that from them besides they themselves. And once you are out you get treated like any 3rd party state. If you want a special deal you better bring some time and be prepared to start fresh. The desire "to get Brexit done" in a very tight timeframe, pushed by populist politicians, d…

The UK was trying to negotiate a special agreement/treaty regarding Galileo. But the EU did not want to even consider it. Indeed even today the UK has not really given up on trying to be friends with the EU and continues to remain open to rejoining Galileo and Horizon programmes. Bizarrely, the latter of which, the EU seemingly had a moment of weakness during the negotiations by agreeing that the UK could remain members of Horizon - but then later had a change of heart and decided to break the agreement (international law?) in choosing to cut the UK out to this very day.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#205

Post by wcoenen »

frankreyes wrote: post #138
wcoenen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a large enough war, space infrastructure would actually be very vulnerable. Imagine a cloud of a few tons of shrapnel, spread around in an orbit that intersects all the 550km orbits of the Starlink constellation. This shrapnel cloud could be deployed with a single launch.

It's not that simple. Because enemy nation states also have their own satellites. They will just be damaging their own infrastructure, specially Russia with their huge land to cover they need their satellites.

I think these things would happen as a result of a process of escalations, not as a result of rational decisions.

Perhaps one side temporarily blinds a spy satellite with a laser[1], to prevent it from observing something sensitive. Then the other side reacts by blinding another satellite in the same way, but oops, the laser was a bit too powerful and it does permanent damage to the sensors. Then a single satellite is outright destroyed in retaliation. Etcetera.

[1] https://theconversation.com/russians-reportedly-building-a-s...

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#206

Post by karmakaze »

ginko wrote: post #111
emilburzo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does European airbus thrive, while us aircraft industry declined? The documentary "Downfall: The Case Against Boeing"[1] goes into this topic, and I believe the wiki page[2] summary captures it nicely: > "There were many decades when Boeing did extraordinary things by focusing on excellence and safety and ingenuity. Those three virtues were seen as the key to profit. It could work, and beautifully. And then the…

I've heard one theory that the merger with McDonnell Douglas swept the bean-counters from there into executive positions ruining the engineering focus at Boeing.

That's what I read and understood to be the cause. Prior to that Boeing had an engineering culture all the way up.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#207

Post by karmakaze »

So it seems that each group of nations needs/wants physical networks because it's not enough to use encrypted communication on others'. How many is enough, 3, 4, more?

Is this solvable with a single network? e.g. Is there a way of anonymizing users of a network preventing discrimination, analogous to cryptocurrency?

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#208

Post by zamadatix »

karmakaze wrote: post #207

So it seems that each group of nations needs/wants physical networks because it's not enough to use encrypted communication on others'. How many is enough, 3, 4, more? Is this solvable with a single network? e.g. Is there a way of anonymizing users of a network preventing discrimination, analogous to cryptocurrency?

I'm not sure encryption really solves the root issue that is autonomy.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#209

Post by lokar »

alright_scowl wrote: post #160
Deukhoofd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's honestly got to the point where I barely open comments related to EU projects any more. While most of the time there's somewhat nuanced discussions in comments, once the EU gets mentioned for some reason most of the comments basically boil down to "EU bad, US better", and "Big government bad", completely ignoring the actual contents of what the post it about.

The odd part is that these bad takes seem to typically come from people that don't even live the EU, and don't understand how it works. They just don't like that it exists.

[flagged]

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#210

Post by justeleblanc »

nbevans wrote: post #129
Vespasian wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Galileo has been operational for a few years. Even customer mobile devices Support and use it. Further more the British had a referendum and decided to leave on their own. Quite hard to call that force out. In fact it's impossible to expell a member state.

Operational? Yes. Reliable? No. It has had numerous outages in the last 4 years. How do you explain several non-EU states being members of the Galileo programme - namely Switzerland and Norway? Hell, even China invested into it in 2003. And yet, the UK which invested almost a quarter of its funding is booted out on the basis of an unrelated political issue? It doesn't make sense. The British even offered to continue…

> No. It has had numerous outages in the last 4 years.

That's just plain false. There was one major outage in 2019. Since then, nothing of note.

Post reply on HN